Tom's Thoughts

Slipping Down the Slope

2010-08-28T18:25:00.000-05:00

The Rev. Jane Spahr was tried this last week on the charge of performing marriages between persons of the same sex. She had been tried earlier and found not guilty through an orwellian torture of language and logic. Her presbytery judicial commission said she couldn't be guilty of "marrying" same sex couples, since such a thing didn't legally exist (at that time). Therefore, they reasoned, whatever she did wasn't a "marriage."
Complaints were filed with a higher judicatory, and said judicatory demanded another trial take place. This time, Spahr was found guilty. Had the denomination come to its senses? No. All you have to do is read the judges' remarks in the text of their decision:

The Permanent Judicial Commission, in sustaining the first three charges, recognizes that while the Rev. Dr. Jane Spahr has indeed performed these marriages, which were and continue to be legal marriages, she did so acting with faithful compassion in accord with W7.3004. These marriages were legal in the State of California, being civil contracts (W4.9001), and are different from same sex ceremonies. The testimonies of those at court clearly demonstrated this difference.

We commend Dr. Spahr and give thanks for her prophetic ministry that for 35 years has extended support to “people who seek the dignity, freedom and respect that they have been denied” (W7.4002c), and has sought to redress “wrongs against individuals, groups, and peoples in the church, in this nation, and in the world” (W7.4002h).

In addition, we call upon the church to reexamine our own fear and ignorance that continues to reject the inclusiveness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.(G3.0401c) We say this believing that we have in our own Book of Order conflicting and even contradictory rules and regulations that are against the Gospel. In this particular case, in W4.9001 we have inclusive and broad descriptive language about marriage, “Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the wellbeing of the entire human family.” This sentence is followed immediately by “Marriage is a civil contract between a woman and a man.” The language of the second statement draws on our cultural understanding today of marriage that is rooted in equality. But it is not faithful to the Biblical witness in which marriage was a case of property transfer because women were property. Nor does it specifically address same gender marriage.

This follows a General Assembly that has recommended removing the one paragraph in their Book of Order that insists on Biblical sexual behavior. The Bible warns against this kind of false teaching:

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. (2 Peter 2:1-2)

Yet, not everyone believes that Scripture is authoritative in the PCUSA. None other than the current vice moderator of the General Assembly, the Rev. Landon Whitsitt, has declared "Sola Scriptura is dead."

"...the most important questions of our day is 'Where is the authority?' 'Sola Scriptura' is dead most places, and dying rapidly in others. So where do we lodge the authority of our faith? That's the real battle we see fought in the church."

This specifically means that an elected leader of the denomination (2nd highest) believes that Scripture is just another book in the denomination's library. What is the point of having a whole book of Confessions if the Source of those confession is declared dead? Why do PCUSA officers still vow to believe and teach the "essential tenets" of the Reformed faith, when no such tenets exist.

The argument over sexuality is not the central point of the church. It is symptomatic, though, of a church that has demonstrably lost its way. I wonder still why those who truly believe in Scripture maintain membership and support in an organization fundamentally opposed to the fundamentals?

There is no perfect church. There are no perfect denominations. To those in the PCUSA who slyly say this to those of us who have left, we can at least answer that there are many denominations, such as the EPC, who choose to follow Scripture first, and trends last.
Keep praying, keep the faith.
Tom

Attention on 61st Street

2010-08-15T00:37:00.000-05:00

So much has been said about Kirk Crossing that some feel Kirk of the Hills has gone onto the back burner in terms of interest. Not so.

Since Kirk Crossing starts next Sunday, the calendar demands a lot of communication over the past few months. During this time we have not been ignoring Kirk of the Hills. We’ve been planning changes—not dramatic, but steps toward renewing our ministry.

A new emphasis on reaching out to our neighborhood.

We don’t want to wait until our congregation’s average age is late middle-aged or older. We need to continue to reach out to younger people. Demographic studies show that our neighborhoods, particularly north of 61^st Street, are getting younger. Even as we’ve gone door-to-door in Jenks for the establishment of Kirk Crossing, we will do the same here.

We’ve found that one of the most dramatic demographic changes is that of single moms. That is the fastest growing segment in the radius around 61^st Street. While we’ve always had single moms, we’ve never established programs strictly for them. We will need to do this soon, and we’ll need hundreds of volunteers to help.

Enhancing traditional worship.

Kirk of the Hills started with traditional worship, and it is still the most-attended style of worship here. While we have never been “high church” in terms of our worship, we still wish to have an atmosphere of the awesome presence of God as we worship Him. A few changes in the order of worship will be coming. Nothing will be drastic or unfamiliar, but the changes will be for the purpose of reminding us of God’s presence.

Maintaining contemporary worship.

We are not moving contemporary worship to Kirk Crossing. Although that will be the single style of worship there, we will continue to have traditional and contemporary worship at Kirk of the Hills. For quite some time, contemporary worship will be exactly the same at both places, since it will be at evening worship at Kirk Crossing and morning worship at Kirk of the Hills.

Upgrading facilities.

Changes are needed in some of our Sunday school rooms. We need to find a better area than the conference room for fellowship between and after worship services. We need brighter projection so that the items on the screen in the sanctuary can be read without lowering the lights or the shades. The organ needs critical maintenance.

Since we have a complete facility there is no need to build new ones, but upgrading what we have is an ongoing concern.

Celebration.

We celebrate our 50^th anniversary in 2011. We’re going to use the Biblical theme, “Jubilee,” as our guideline for the celebration. We will honor and celebrate our past in the context of looking ahead. Jubilee, in the Bible, was a “Sabbath’s Sabbath,” where all the people of God reminded themselves that the land was God’s not theirs. Kirk of the Hills is God’s, not ours, and we are diligently trying to minister, maintain, and move ahead with that in mind.

Keep the faith, keep praying.

Tom

The Crossing is Coming

2010-08-10T23:27:00.000-05:00

As I write, the first service for Kirk Crossing is just 11 ½ days away. Kirk volunteers will set up more than 100 chairs, sound equipment, video equipment, and whatever is needed for children who come. It’s an exciting time.

The last time “we” did this was in 1961. A group of 30-somethings came together at Carnegie Elementary School with a vision of what Kirk of the Hills might become. A few of those very people will be at Jenks West Middle School to repeat that act of faith, this time along with younger people two and three generations after them.

I am so thankful to the more than 200 Kirk members who have stepped forward as volunteers to make this a reality. Not all of those 200 will make Kirk Crossing their permanent home. In fact, our greatest hope is that we will start with a majority of people completely new to us.

I am also thankful to the Kirk staff, most of whom are doing double-duty, making sure that our programs and ministries are of equally high quality at both locations. The staff has always gone the second-mile in service to the Kirk. That’s one of the reasons that we have the resources and drive to take this step. Another big reason, of course, is all of you.

Kirk Crossing will be a second campus of the Kirk. We will be one church with two locations. Other than that difference, we will be one church, with the same sermon Scriptures at both locations, shared equipment, shared offering, shared programs, and shared mission.

I know that this process is somewhat confusing. Some fear that we will let the “home” location slide while we pay most of our attention to the new one. Nothing could be further from the truth. We cannot do a good job in Jenks without an equally good job being done at 61^st Street. (In my next blog I’ll talk about some of the specific things we’ll be focusing on at Kirk of the Hills).

Some are worried that Wayne and I will shift our attention away to Kirk Crossing. The fact is, we will both be continuing the same preaching schedule at Kirk of the Hills. With five preachers on staff we have the depth to cover both places without either one feeling second-class.

Wayne and I have our anxious moments, but they are simply about entering the unknown. Once we are underway, the excitement of the work should redound to the benefit of everyone, regardless of location. Keep the elders, pastors, staff, and volunteers in your prayers as we take this great step forward.

Keep the faith, keep praying,

Tom

The Kirk Crossing property at I-75 and 114th, as seen Monday afternoon.

New Beginnings

2010-07-27T11:32:00.000-05:00

I’m back. I think.

I stopped blogging in the midst of Kirk of the Hills litigation for her property on the request of our attorneys. They said that, if I continued blogging, everything I wrote would end up projected on big screens in court, with yellow highlighting to point out pertinent passages.

Ever the compliant client, I agreed. I think, in retrospect, that they were right. I wish I hadn’t stopped, though. Information is vital to a church and, when my blog stopped, a lot of what people in my church needed to hear got blocked. More on that in a later blog.

What has happened since then? We lost in court, actually never getting to present our case as we believe it should have been. Our judge decided that it was a church/state separation issue and, his words, we were remanded to the “graces of the church court system.” Sadly, he didn’t know that grace left the PCUSA some time ago. Perhaps there’s no room for her and “Sophia” in the same place ; ).

So, we paid our $1.75 million on demand. The Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery put the money in the bank and we moved on. We really have moved on—our new, second church campus, 10 miles west of our current repurchased facility, begins worship on August 22!

We are now in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church via the New Wineskins Presbytery (a non-geographical “holding” presbytery). We LOVE the people in the EPC. For the first couple of meetings (at the geographical presbytery) there was that lump in the stomach that we always felt going to PCUSA meetings—a lump based on the realistic fear that good ministry ideas would be blocked or that the presbytery would look for ways to make life better through litigation. We couldn’t have been more wrong.

When we walked into our first meeting (late) the presbytery stopped everything to welcome us in; they gathered physically around us to pray for us.

Since we at the Kirk do some things differently (ie Wayne and I are co-pastors, which isn’t in the EPC constitution; we also employ two pastors from non-reformed denominations) we worried about approval. We shouldn’t have bothered. The attitude of the presbytery was that they trusted the local church. If a matter of contention is not something involving the EPC’s published essentials, it is ALWAYS treated with grace. What a change; what a blessing!

Keep the faith; keep praying,

Tom

The Unknown

2008-11-10T13:02:00.002-06:00

The unknown is the ultimate fuel for anxiety. I remember experiencing deep anxiety in 1982, when we were preparing to move back to the States from Scotland. We had been given an offer to stay with the church I was serving in Edinburgh. The Church of Scotland had offered me a pastorate in a small church on an island near the arctic circle (really!) I had made appointments to interview for positions back here in the USA. There were a lot of conflicting desires and no little anxiety.

One thing we knew: we were supposed to go back to the USA. Yet, it was more complicated that that. We are native Californians, and we still owned a house there. Audrey, who was 11 at the time, let us know in very certain terms that we were moving back to our old house and neighborhood. I knew that we wouldn’t be able to move back to our old church, so it wasn’t a given that we’d be able to stay at our old house, even if we moved back to California. More anxiety.

Then there was this guy—Ed Hurley—whom we had met in Scotland. He moved back to the USA and had written that there was an associate pastor position open in his church. The problem was that the church was in Tulsa. I had clearly marked on my UPCUSA dossier that I would serve a church anywhere but in Oklahoma or Texas (bigoted Californian that I was). I actually felt sorry for him when he moved back because he was going to Oklahoma!

As a “favor” to Ed, I agreed that we’d interview at Kirk of the Hills in Tulsa. Travel logistics made it the first stop home and my first interview. We fell in love with the Kirk people. We discovered that Oklahoma is greener than California by magnitudes. We liked everything we saw. We knew at that moment that we were called to come to the Kirk. Audrey was quiet. More anxiety.

It wasn’t until we took off from Tulsa airport that Audrey spoke. She simply said, “I could live in Tulsa.”

That was the beginning of a love for a church family that has never dimmed (okay, it’s flickered at rough spots in the mid 1980s, but still held). Chrissie found professional fulfillment as a teacher at ORU, where she is now a full professor. Audrey met her husband-to-be in the youth program at the Kirk. She got a wonderful education at Jenks, ORU, then graduate work at OU medical school and finally her medical degree from OSU. Our granddaughter, Emily, was born at Hillcrest and was baptized by me here at the Kirk.

All of our anxiety was replaced by repeated, resplendent blessings. I shudder to think of what would have happened otherwise.

We’re all experiencing anxiety over the unknown regarding our place of worship. We have highly-skilled, great people working on both negotiations and appeals. God is still sovereign and guiding us, whether or not we feel it at the moment. We are in good hands.

Great blessings are around the corner. God is good and will provide all that we need in order to minister to each other, to minister to our community, and to live out Jesus’ mission all over the world. I certainly hope that our ministry, whatever it grows into, will include the facilities here on 61st street. How that will happen is in the Lord’s hands.

Blessed are all who fear the LORD, who walk in his ways.
You will eat the fruit of your labor; blessings and prosperity will be yours.
Psalms 128:1, 2

Whatever the future holds regarding property and litigation, we stand at a new beginning because we have chosen to walk in His ways. I remember how excited I was in June of 1982 as I first stood here at the Kirk. We all will soon feel the same thrill as God reveals His perfect will for our congregation. Until then, let’s let Him soothe our anxieties.

Keep praying, keep the faith,
Tom

I'm Back

2008-10-31T10:49:00.002-05:00

I’m back on line—for good, I hope. There have been a couple of frustrated efforts in the last few months to resurrect the blog, efforts that were defeated by my lack of energy combined with extraordinary stress at this time in the life of the Kirk.

Two surgeries and many months later, my healing has progressed now to where I have normal energy; the stress continues. In fact, that’s part of why I’m writing again.

One of the greatest stresses is not knowing what is going on. I know that this is true for Kirk members, and this blog should help. I also believe that the members of EOP have largely been kept in the dark as to what exactly is happening and why. “Kirk Updates” from the EOP office are necessarily one-sided (as is this blog), but they also are filled with so much spin that they should be blurry to the normal eye.

So much is happening at the Kirk that it is almost impossible to keep up with it in normal channels. These things include:

Ongoing legal issues with Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery (EOP) and the Presbyterian Church, USA (PCUSA)
A judgment on September 9 that EOP used to make an ultimatum against us
A change of the judgment on October 6 to some kind of order that is not a judgment
A pending decision from the Judge about the proper wording of the September 9 and October 6 rulings.
A razor-thin congregational vote to settle by paying EOP $1,7500,000.
The train-wreck of our settlement when the PCUSA added a new demand after our congregation and EOP approved a specific list of terms.
EOP had told us that the PCUSA would abide by any agreement reached between KOH and EOP

Add to these things the normal life of a healthy church and you begin to realize just how complicated life can get (they never taught us these things in seminary).

We are excited about the formation of Joppa. a new church.
Old ministries thrive and new ones are gearing up as we speak.
We continue to worship five times each Sunday
A congregation united to begin with (even though we can disagree on some votes), but never more united, due to the scrapping of the settlement by EOP or PCSUA.

One housekeeping item:

When I previously blogged, almost any comment was allowed, so long as it used decent language. Even so, comments morphed into attacks and/or debates between a couple of commentators. That won’t happen here. My staff will carefully vet all comments, allowing only reasonable and helpful ones on. You’ll be able to judge for yourselves if we are even handed in this.

Keep the faith. Keep praying,
Tom

Tom's Preparing for Surgery

2007-11-29T18:05:00.000-06:00

Tom is now in California preparing for his surgery which is scheduled for Monday, December 3, 2007 at 7:30AM pacific standard time. If you would like to keep up with his progress during surgery and recovery a website has been set up on CaringBridge.org at the link below. His site is listed under "pastortom", his wife Chrissie will be updating the information.

You can also leave messages for Tom and Chrissie on the guestbook on the site.

http://www.caringbridge.org/

Thank you for your prayers,

The Staff of Kirk of the Hills

We're Back

2007-10-30T12:22:00.001-05:00

I’ve been away from the blog for a long time. Truth is, I was wearied with the subsequent dialogue between blog commentators on each post. What I intended to be informational (with an edge to it) developed into extended battles between those outside my blog. I’ll try something different.
I’ll start again, this time with stricter controls on comments. I had previously blocked anything that used inappropriate language or attacked people other than me. From this point on, I’ll be far more discriminating. What I’m most concerned about is extended debates. Enough is enough.
What’s changed since I last wrote?
· I have a new cat, Max (best cat in the universe, google “bombay cats”).
· The Kirk is still in the legal process, almost in the same place as last reported. We have a short hearing with the judge late in November, asking him to require the denomination to respond to our discovery requests, as we have already with theirs.
· The Kirk has had the best year in its history by every way in which we measure.
· My granddaughter, Emily, is a LOT taller than last year and she’s become an ace volleyball player on her mid-high team.
· The Kirk and pastors are now full members of the EPC. We feel a new sense of freedom and a wonderful sense of welcome.
· My daughter, Audrey, finished her internship and is now a resident at OSU Medical Center, Emergency Medicine.
· Dan Bair finished his D.Min., so four of us five pastors have doctorates. (I wonder who’s left??)
· The Kirk has renewed our mission relationship with our sister church in Zelenograd. Three Kirk pastors met with Pastor Pavel, Zelenograd church members, and even an official from the Presidium of Moscow regarding work we can do together.
· I’ve lost a lot of weight.
This last item brings up a big event for me. My weight loss, in part, is due to a problem with my esophagus and stomach. I had a fairly common surgery in 2000, designed to control severe reflux. The surgery was successful but, in the last couple of years, I’ve had to deal with the effects of scar tissue and a constriction of my esophagus. It’s been hard to eat and, at times, very painful.
The reconstructive surgery for this condition is not a common one, so I’m going to have it done by the Head of Surgery at USC Medical School (Los Angeles), a surgeon renowned for this kind of repair. The surgery is scheduled for December 3rd. I’ll be in the hospital for a week to ten days and then in recovery for a few weeks. I’ll be out of my regular schedule until early 2008.
I’ll blog on until then and hope to continue it through the recovery. I treasure your prayers.
Tom

The Trivialization of Memory

2007-05-28T13:25:00.000-05:00

It seemed, at the time, a pleasant—even innocuous—idea: take all the national holidays you can, consolidate them if you must, and place them on Mondays. In this orderly way there would be no interruption of the middle of the workweek. Factories wouldn’t have to pay time-and-a-half or more to close down mid work-stream. Offices and schools wouldn’t have to deal with a mid-week hiccup interrupting the flow or the curriculum. Oh, and—by the way—this would give everyone a long weekend that could be dedicated to the holiday.

The only problem is that the holiday and the memory are lost in recreation. Case at hand is Memorial day—the day I’m writing this. While the local and national news feeds featured appropriate remembrance, the greater focus was on the long weekend. Gas is more expensive, so people won’t travel as far. The lakes are suddenly up, creating floating hazards for boaters. It might rain and ruin the weekend.

Yesterday we remembered in church those who gave their lives for our country. There was a somber moment as we read together the official Memorial Day statement from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Since I preach three of the five Sunday morning services we have at the Kirk, I had time to consider my own thinking. The somber moment in worship changed into an at-the-door series of greetings, “Happy Memorial Day.” While I don’t want people to be inordinately sad, the “Happy” seemed out of place. This day of remembrance was for those who paid the ultimate price for our freedom, but most of us—myself included—were already focused on the barbeque and the time off the next day. At the end of subsequent services, I reminded people that we would have a happy day tomorrow because people gave their lives to provide our pleasant security.

Today (Memorial Day) I watched the President’s address from Arlington Cemetery. I found it on Fox News. Perhaps CNN had it live, as well. The broadcast networks kept to their regular Monday schedule so that no one missed The Price is Right.

Is Memorial Day truly a memory for those who gave their lives for us, or is it just time off? Does Labor Day truly remain a celebration of labor? Are the memories of particularly important presidents trivialized because of a joint holiday that focuses almost entirely on recreation?

Recreation is so important to us—the free weekend being the sacred time of secular society—that nothing is likely to change. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a future long weekend “celebrating” a rescheduled Christmas, or even a change to “Easter Monday.”

We might get some extra time off, but what we lose is priceless.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

Will the Evangelicals Please Stand?

2007-04-30T20:51:00.000-05:00

I find it frustrating when progressives insist that they are “evangelical.” I have had such people complain that people like me have robbed them of the word. "After all," they say, "we are all evangelical." But progressives use the term in an overly literal, limited sense. When evangelicals such as I use the term, we not only mean we have "good news," we mean some very specific things:

Salvation through Jesus alone is our primary message: the Good News begins with Him.
The Bible is the only accurate, reliable revelation of God to humanity.
We are called to the Great Commission: tell the world about Jesus.

There are all kinds of news items but only some are good. According to Scripture, there is only one perfect good and that is the revelation of God in Jesus. The Good News that came from him, through the apostles, and to us is very specific: the Good News is only through the person of Jesus Christ.

Progressives have altered this term by pointing most often to the prophets of pre-Christian times. Their premise is that orthopraxis (right action) trumps orthodoxy (right belief). There is no question that Jesus used the words of the prophets when He made his pronouncement at the synagogue in Nazareth, but He had a new end in mind.

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” (Luke 4:18, 19)

Jesus was announcing a Good News that begins and endures in Him alone. Progressives, on the other hand, tend to be loathe to share that Jesus Himself is the Good News, preaching that good actions are the Good News. The rulers of the faith in Nazareth tried to execute Jesus because of His statement. They weren’t opposed to good deeds—they were opposed to His claim to be the source of the Good News.

This is the progressives’ most egregious departure from orthodox Christian faith: they have, I believe, substituted right-thinking and good deeds for the power that comes from a life personally transformed by Jesus. Having found a religious replacement for the “evangelical” Jesus, they are freed to reinterpret the Scriptural moral code and, even, reject the uniqueness of salvation in Jesus Christ.

"We don't know God; we experience God....as progressives we are always progressing, never letting it [our theology] get tied down in a simple orthodox answer....Our theology must be based on more than our own [Christian] scriptures…. We are too parochial, I think."

So—back to my frustration over the assertion that we’re all “evangelicals.” If the Good News is not first about the person of Jesus the “evangelism” is no more than a theology of works. Jesus calls us first to faith in Him, and in Him alone.

As an aside, I’ve challenged some progressives who claim to be “evangelical” to do something for me: put that description (i.e. “I am an evangelical Christian; this is an evangelical church) in their bulletins, their church publications, and on their business cards. So far there haven’t been any takers.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

Who Is Lord Revisited

2007-04-24T12:20:00.000-05:00

The philosophies of progressive feminism have had a strong impact on mainline denominations.

The Rev. Susan Anderson-Smith, associate rector at St. Philips in the Hills Episcopal Church in Tucson, Arizona, has restricted the use of the work “Lord” in her church.

"'Lord' has become a loaded word conveying hierarchical power over things, which in what we have recorded in our sacred texts, is not who Jesus understood himself to be."

The word “lord” has always conveyed hierarchical power. It has only become “loaded” because of the feminist denigration of all things implying hierarchy. While I would never want to go back to the days when women were pressured by society to fit one role—that of homemaker—I am loathe to reinvent God to fit our cultural sensitivities.

The Bible is clear that God is Lord; it is clear that Jesus is, too. The Early Church consistently called Jesus “Lord” in the same way they did God the Father. If you believe the Bible is not the Word of God, but just a cultural artifact, you can make all the changes you want, I guess.

Jesus’ own words when answering Pilate tell the whole story for me:

"Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate. “Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied.” (Mark 15)

Although Jesus stated that His kingdom was not of this world, He did not deny His status.
The Early Church fervently emphasized Jesus' Lordship, as in Revelation 19.

On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

A church that de-emphasizes the Lordship of Jesus is elevating humanity and cultural agendas over cosmic Truth.. Go online to mainline websites and you’ll see that they are more than willing to take stands on all kinds of issues. But don’t look for any mainline denomination to take a stand against such changes as those in Tucson because these changes match the direction in which the denomination wants to go.

You may think that this hasn't reached your church yet. I hope it has not, but there are key phrases that identify its arrival. If, instead of the "Kingdom of God" you hear "the Realm of God," it has arrived in your home church. If you hear the attributes of God regularly alternated between male and female terms, it has arrived in your home church. If the church leaders are so afraid to traditional, Scriptural language that they drop gender pronouns and replace them with newspeak terms like "Godself," it has arrived in your home church.

Expect that there will be further changes in mainline churches from feminist camps. More than half of the students in the mainline seminaries are women, and few of them are conservative, orthodox Christians.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

Our High Holy Day

2007-04-10T15:50:00.000-05:00

Easter is the High Holy Day of Christianity. The Biblical record clearly shows that Christian faith began not with Jesus’ birth or through his teaching. Christian faith began with his resurrection.

The disciples were not prepared to believe in the resurrection, even though Jesus had predicted it. When he died, they went into sorrowful and fearful hiding. When he rose there was hope, yet not a sense of faithful confidence. It was when the disciples met the risen Jesus that faith sprang into eternal existence.

I sorrow for those who proclaim Christ but doubt or disbelieve the resurrection. Theirs is a “faith” of philosophy served by a hermeneutic of skepticism, philosophical syllogisms, and clever turns on words. They often separate Jesus from Christ, taking one to be historical, the other metaphorical. They are, sadly, like those to whom Paul preached in Athens:

When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered…(Acts 17:32a)

While modern-day Athenians in the Church do not all overtly sneer, their rejection of the clear reality of the Resurrection must certainly be an affront to God. Thankfully, on that day in Athens, not all mocked the resurrection:

…others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” …(Acts 17:32b)

This particular Easter was a reminder to us at the Kirk of the power of Christ through difficult times. While we’ve struggled with denominations, we’ve not struggled with who is Lord. Once again, in worship, we met the risen Jesus. Three thousand strong came to worship at the Kirk last Sunday, the highest attendance we’ve ever had on one Sunday. It reminds me that human arguments may seem powerful, but it is faith that has true strength.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

PS My son-in-law remarked on the Kirk's vibrant Easter saying, “Not bad for a church 'in schism' and 'internal division.'"

Who is Lord?

2007-04-03T22:17:00.000-05:00

I frequently wonder how the GLBT agenda has gotten such a hold on mainline denominations. Recent scientific studies reveal that the “GL” portion of this group represents, at most, only 1.4% of the population. I would guess that the proportion is somewhat smaller in the church population, if only because traditional religion has proclaimed such lifestyles as wrong.

There is no way of proving this, but my best guess is that the GLBT forces in the church are more about obtaining official moral approbation than practicing deeply committed faith. It is quite a coup for GLBT forces to have convinced the progressive leadership of such denominations to turn traditional religious teaching on its head in the span of one generation.

Gay organizations have been very successful in redirecting the culture regarding their lifestyle. Using the progressive definition of "tolerance" they have effectively silenced disagreement by labeling any opposition as bigoted. Mainline churches once were good stewards of Biblical morality. Now, in the name of tolerance, the tables have turned with mainline denominations serving as important support in favor of sinful lifestyles.

One example of this cynical agenda was revealed in the comment of San Francisco Theological Seminary (PCUSA) student Doug Hagler. Hagler is opposed to the carefully thought out, Scriptural arguments that professor Robert Gagnon (Pittsburgh Theological Seminary) has made for traditional teaching.

"[N]o matter how good [theologian Dr. Robert Gagnon's] arguments are, the conclusions he comes to are patently bigoted, so I reject them regardless of what apparent veracity they may have. Frankly, if Jesus Christ pried open the skies and leaned down into my living room right now and said 'Doug, it is a sin to be homosexual,' I'd say 'Okay Jesus, that makes things simple—I'm not Christian anymore. Now go away.'"

Hagler puts Scripture third in terms of authority, right after reason and experience. The problem here--notwithstanding its departure from Reformed belief--is that human reason and experience are utterly subjective. If God is not objectively revealed then God becomes an imaginary construct with a strange resemblance to the thinking of the one making up the construct.

The truth doesn't matter, if you feel that a particular sin is right, then it is fine to lead a Christian denomination to destruction. PCUSA seminaries are preparing people whose ordination has been made possible through the passage of the PUP recommendations last June. Your own presbytery may not endorse or ordain them, but if just one presbytery does, such a view has been officially welcomed into the denomination.

Such an ordination will be a de facto denial of the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The sovereignty of sinful human beings is worshiped above all else. It is no wonder that the PCUSA and its sister mainline denominations are so unhealthy and so confused.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

Mea Culpa--a Correction is Due

2007-04-02T11:20:00.000-05:00

Stephen Bates, a religion editor for the Guardian, wrote to my blog pointing out two errors, one of which was egregious on my part.

The first error has to do with the name of the newspaper. I referred to it as the Manchester Guardian. That name was changed decades ago to simply, the Guardian. Somehow, the old name for the paper stuck in my mind. I’ve been known to become personally irritated when my name is spelled “grey” instead of “gray.” My apologies to the newspaper for that error is due.

The second error was inexcusable on my part. I correctly described the paper as a bastion of liberal thought but I said that they uncritically supported Stalin in the 1930s. The opposite is true. My mistake was to repeat something I’d read elsewhere without doing my own homework.

Malcolm Muggeridge was the (then) Manchester Guardian’s reporter in Russia. He saw first hand the show trials Stalin put on and the forced starvation of Soviet people, particularly in the Ukraine. While other reporters and newspapers decided not to report the truth, he stood out, as did his paper, reporting with integrity exactly what was going on.

I also want to repeat that the problem I had with the posting on the Guardian blog was not with Mr. Bates, but was strictly with those who responded to him. I was not accusing him or his paper of hypocrisy. I am careful not to post comments on my blog that are ad hominem, racist, or crude. I feel that the published comments in the Guardian failed such a test. If the Guardian doesn’t have such a filter, they need one.

My apologies again to Mr. Bates and the Guardian.
Tom Gray

Progressive Bigotry

2007-03-29T12:13:00.000-05:00

The fracas between the The Episcopal Church (TEC) in the USA and the worldwide Anglican communion has revealed a racist rift. The TEC—a denomination dominated by progressivists—was recently warned by the Anglican bodies that they had just a short time left to commit to Biblical teachings on sexuality or be cut off from the larger body. The collective bishops of TEC almost immediately rejected the demand.

There's a problem for western progressives in the Anglican communion: their mission efforts of the 18th and 19th centuries were successful! While the progressivists dominate the western churches, the bishops in the 3rd World outnumber them, creating a liberal crisis whenever a global vote occurs.

The more civil among them criticize the 3rd World Anglicans’ conservative stance as “naïve” or attribute it to their assertion that they “haven’t grown.” I personally have run into this kind of accusation from some PCUSA pastors, trying to explain my conservative commitment away as some kind of ignorance. Such depictions are arrogant and demeaning but, for the most part, they are at least civil.

English morality is much closer to the Americans than the Africans. The problem is the church needs Africa to grow.

The less decent among them, including Retired Bishop John Shelby Spong, a darling of the left, have openly called some 3rd World bishops ignorant and stupid. People such as Spong have left the true Gospel to preach a gospel of their understanding of love. Unlike the love of God for us through Jesus Christ, their liberal love is limited to those who agree with them, or at least keep quiet about disagreeing.

The same thing can be said about the progressive public at large. A recent blog from the religious editor for the Manchester Guardian, Stephen Bates, has drawn a significant flow of bile from his readers. The Guardian is the British bastion of journalistic liberalism. In the 1930s it was the champion of Stalin in the USSR and the Fabian socialists in Britain. In more recent times it has been a voice decrying the place of Christian thought in the public square.

Listen to what some of their readers have said:

The whole history of the Christian Church has been one of controversy and schism, from the days of the Apostles on. Unfortunately this society of cantankerous polytheists keeps on going and causes strife over almost any change in society that does not fit their rigid codes.

American conservatives and the tree swingers probably have a lot in common but as always, an idea pushed through by hungover religious chimps and a half-cut gorilla will always lead to trouble from the Americans.

No doubt the Africans are being 'financed' (probably by extreme rightwingers) to be so hateful.

This is all so utterly utterly irrelevant. Who cares about a bunch of washed up has beens whose moral code is based on the hallucinatory ramblings of some pre-modern nomads. This pathetic line of hate the sin and not the sinner is so tiresome. 2000 years of sexual neurosis and blatant discrimination because of this guilt obsessed cult.

We can't keep on persecuting our ape cousins to the brink of extinction!

The above quotes are from readers of the blog, not the author, but they represent what I read regularly in the liberal blogs and editorials that I follow, and it bothers me that the author and/or the newspaper post such answers. There is a lot of hatred from the people who profess nothing but tolerance.

The sentiments of the people I’ve quoted could be a kind of victory dance on the purported grave of British Christianity. It is certainly true that active Christian faith in Europe has dropped into the single-low-digits percentage of the population. The dancers may think that they’ve won the day.

On the other hand, their hysteria may simply be fear of what is happening in the 3rd World. Biblical Christianity is on the rise in Africa and Asia. It is so strong that it is sending missionaries out to the darkest heart of Europe.

For far too long we’ve assumed that Christianity is a Western phenomenon. What is closer to the truth is that a distorted, institutionalized form of Christianity has dominated the West, most often in collusion with the State. In countries like ours, where there is separation of Church and State, the church is still strong. In countries where Christian faith is persecuted—including much of the 3rd World—it is growing in almost incredible numbers.

I am appalled by the hypocrisy in the progressivist movement. I'm not afraid for the faith, though.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

The Kirk in the News

2007-03-14T22:00:00.000-05:00

The Presbyterian News Service ran an article about the Kirk today. The short article was straightforward and, for the most part, accurate. I want to clarify some points and address one misrepresentation that demands a response.

The article says,

The schism declaration came in response to a report from an administrative commission that was appointed by the presbytery in September 2006, shortly after the congregation voted to follow the lead of its session and pastors and bolt the PC(USA) for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC).

The EOP has declared us to be in schism, which is the PCUSA equivalent of bell-and-candle with a papal rebuke mixed in. If their definition simply meant that we had split from the PCUSA, it would be accurate. The administrative commission report, though, is using “schism” to mean that the Kirk is internally divided. This is just not so.

Does that mean that there were no people who disagreed with what we did? No. There was a handful of Kirk members who either joined other churches or simply started attending elsewhere. The rest have chosen to remain with us, choosing the direction of the Kirk over that of the denomination.

The unity of the Kirk has never been greater. Since I’ve been at the Kirk for over 25 years, I have a historical perspective from which to speak. Morale is high primarily because we have moved on. The property issue must still be determined in court, but the denominational issue is concluded. Rumors of internal division have apparently been seeded by members of the EOP, possibly because they cannot envision unity through such a change.

Another inaccuracy regards a significant detail:

The session, acting as the corporation board, then hired Gray and Hardy as pastors and filed suit in civil court to gain ownership of the church’s property.

It was not the session that acted as the corporation board and rehired Wayne and me. It was the corporation board itself—the trustees. The Kirk has always had a separate Board of Trustees. The corporation is a separate legal entity, not to be confused with the congregation.

Finally, there is a misrepresentation:

Doug Dodd, moderator of the commission said that “over six months of efforts to achieve reconciliation and determine the nature of division” had failed.

Let me itemize their “six months of effort.”

A couple of public meetings, sparsely attended.
So-called “Kirk of the Hills, Presbyterian Church worship services,” held at another church and also sparsely attended (by presbytery members, not Kirk members).
A letter to the Kirk board, inviting them to a meeting that, since we are no longer PCUSA, was irrelevant.
The publication of a rather angry, ad hominem report.

The real point of this empty process is clearly stated in the article.

The presbytery, again on the recommendation of its administrative commission, authorized its trustees to protect the presbytery’s property rights over Kirk of the Hills. The PC(USA) Constitution states that church property is not owned by a particular congregation but is held in trust for the denomination.

Their effort dealt little with reconciliation--just read the report. The EOP cares about only one thing: the property. This was evident when a presbytery official, long before the Kirk seriously addressed the idea of leaving the PCUSA, told others "the Kirk may want to leave, but they'll never get their property." It was evident the next March when, in secret, the EOP went to the courthouse to file an affidavit against our property. It is evident in the AC report. The AC's "six months of effort" was unwanted and unneeded by the true Kirk that still meets on 61st Street in Tulsa. A church that is united in ministry and purpose has no need for reconciliation.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

Sound the Alarm

2007-03-12T17:29:00.000-05:00

The fact that we’ve left the PCUSA doesn’t mean that we don’t have concerns for friends we’ve left behind. One of the principal concerns before them is what has been called “local option.” The liberals in the denomination say that, after the last GA, “nothing changed.” Others, like me, have said that everything has changed, and there are presbyteries that will exercise that local option to ordain practicing GLBTs. Everyone seems OK with this as long as it’s not their own presbytery. That may become a moot point.

If a PCUSA task force has its way, local option will be subtly enshrined in the Book of Order. The Form of Government (FOG) task force was empowered by the GA to rewrite the Book of Order, making it simpler to use. Instead, it appears that the task force is dedicated to making the BOO local option-friendly.

Terry Schlossberg has written an excellent summary of what has transpired so far in this committee. While many, including me, thought that the work of the task force would be to maintain the first four foundational chapters and rework the rest, it is obvious that they want to rewrite everything. On top of that, the meat of the document will move from constitutional status to that of a manual of operations or handbook.

Some have reacted to this with horror, recognizing that it will pave the way for individual presbyteries to rewrite their own standards of ordination. Schlossberg’s article cites one pastor saying that the new document “looks like, smells like local option.” The co-moderator of the task force replied, laughing, “Of course it does…What do you think we are doing here?”

Individual presbyteries will be empowered to define standards of inclusiveness, including sexual preference, if they so choose. Presbyteries could choose to eliminate examination of candidates on the floor, restricting such examination to tightly-closed committees. Each presbytery would essentially become autonomous, pounding the last nail into the already snug coffin lid of what used to be a connectional church.

The entire PCUSA, if such a document prevails, would be sacrificing its unique tradition in the name of the new gospel of inclusiveness. Such a goal is attractive to some on the task force. “The representative bodies of the church shall give full expression of the rich diversity of the church’s membership and shall guarantee full participation and access to representation in decision making and employment…[developing] procedures for promoting and reviewing that body’s implementation of the church’s commitment to inclusiveness and representation,” states the current draft document.

Will anything remain the same? Apparently so. The clause on denominational ownership of property will stay (probably strengthened so that it will stand up in court), medical and pension participation will be mandatory, and the frustrating limitation of terms for elders will remain. Oh yes, per capita will cease to be voluntary. Good luck.

Keep praying—keep the faith.
Tom

PS I’ll be coming back at you with some additional information on the EOP’s administrative report soon.

Tom the Intimidator

2007-03-08T15:53:00.000-06:00

One of the many problems with the EOP’s Administrative Commission report is how it deals with supposed intimidation by the pastors and officers of the Kirk. The underlying thesis is that, if we had not been so intimidating, the Kirk wouldn’t have disaffiliated. This simply is not true. I can imagine that members who disagreed with our action felt outnumbered, but neither I nor any one else intimidated anyone. The fact that they spoke out at both the congregational meeting where we changed our bylaws, and at the disaffiliation vote clearly shows that every person was free to have a voice and express opinions. Everyone was respectful and polite to each other.

The few people who opposed disaffiliation, a few of whom left for other churches, are good people now missed by us. We respect their decisions and, in my conversations with some of them, they respect ours, although they still disagree.

The AC report gives an “example” of how I supposedly intimidate people:

“At a required clergy self-care worship of June 2, 2006, Rev. Gray told several people present of a situation he had confronted early in his call as pastor in which the resolution he reached was speaking to one of the elders of the Kirk after the meeting and saying essentially, ‘Tell me where you want me to send you letter of transfer.’ When the elder indicated things weren’t that bad, Rev. Gray reported repeated, ‘No, I’m serious. Tell me where you want me to send your letter of transfer, because we’re not leaving tonight until I’ve written that letter for you.’ While this incident reportedly happened many years ago, Rev. Gray’s recent reporting of it was done in such a way that expressed no regret at this occurrence. This appeared to the AC to be Rev. Gray’s expression of his present approval of such tactics when approached by members of his congregation who expressed concern about him or the church.”

I hardly know where to start:

This quasi-legal report bases its conclusions on hearsay.
This quasi-legal report doesn’t have the facts behind the story.
This quasi-legal report jumps to erroneous conclusions thereby.

Some Kirk members did approach me with concerns over our decision. They received respectful treatment, and most of them remain as active members of the Kirk. The representation of me in the AC’s report is certainly not how I behave, nor was their representation accurate about what I actually did and said.

Let me tell you the story as it actually happened. It was in 1987 (not 2006 some might think with a casual reading of the report) and the Kirk was in crisis thanks to a couple of very serious problems. Tulsa’s economic crisis at the time meant that hundreds of our members had lost their jobs or were in danger of losing their jobs. On top of that, the Kirk was still reeling from the shock of the pastor previous to me leaving the Kirk over a serious moral failure.

In the midst of these crises, one elder began to be quite divisive in the Kirk. This person was (prepare for a big irony here) trying to talk people into having the Kirk leave the PCUSA. Additionally, he was advocating issues that, while possibly in line with the Kirk’s ethos, were presented in a divisive manner, setting member against member and members against the session.

The incident cited in the AC was not after a meeting, as they say. This elder walked into my office on a weekday and said, “This church isn’t big enough for the two of us—one of us has to go.” Obviously, he meant that I should be the one to go.

I’m surprised to this day by my own response, but am equally sure that it was the right one. I asked him what church he would rather be in. He didn’t, as the AC report asserts, say that things weren’t that bad. What he did say was that he was going to make sure that I would be the one to go. That’s when I reiterated my statement. He suddenly seemed deflated, and then gave me the name of another large church in Tulsa. That’s when I wrote the letter of transfer.

I agree that this situation was not typical. I’ve never experienced something like this before or since. I did not come out of that encounter feeling good. I was shaky, upset, and even fearful for my future. Thanks be to God, it was the right decision for me, the Kirk, and that elder.

There are further inaccuracies that I’ll deal with in future blogs.

Keep praying—keep the faith.
Tom

"The Intimidator"--I'll be back.

The Report is Online

2007-03-07T11:08:00.000-06:00

The report of the Administrative Commission of Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery is now on the Kirk Website. All you need to do is go there, click on the picture with the words "Important Legal Documents" and the report will be the blue text at the top of the list. Just click that and begin reading, or click here and do the same.

I have been informed that the EOP has established a sub-committee to edit parts of the report to soften some of its more strident language. The gist of the report remains.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

The Official Administrative Commission Report on the Kirk

2007-03-06T22:31:00.000-06:00

Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery (EOP) met today, March 6, 2007, and received the report of the Administrative Commission (AC) established to investigate the Kirk. Most of the information therein is old news.

There are supposedly factual assertions—assertions that are arguable, at best. One is that 92 Kirk members have affiliated with or are attending other Presbyterian churches in Tulsa. We wouldn’t be able to affirm exact numbers since the Tulsa Presbyterian churches (unlike our sister Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, et al churches) haven’t let the Kirk know that any of our members have transferred. We always have a few transfers within Tulsa each month—both into and out of the Kirk.

We know that a few families have joined First Presbyterian because our members have seen them on the TV replay of Sunday services. Only three families have informed us that they have so moved. One woman informed me that she was changing her membership to John Knox church (we didn’t receive notice from them, either). There are also people who settled in other Presbyterian churches in Tulsa years ago without changing their membership. At least one such person came to the congregational meeting when we voted on disaffiliation and was one of the most vocal in opposition to it. He actually made a scene at the registration table because we had officially removed him from our rolls for inactivity several years ago and, thereby, should not have attended the meeting. He went in over our protest and was one of those counted in the votes.

Another complaint in the AC’s report is the so-called discrepancy between claimed membership numbers and actual numbers. The paper makes a big deal of the fact that I have claimed 2,700 members when the number reported to the GA in 2005 was 2,665. I was rounding numbers, and this 2,700 was almost a year after the 2005 report. As their paper says elsewhere, the Kirk has never shown a year with a decline in membership. When the EOP lawyers demanded our membership rolls, they received between 2,300 and 2,400 names. This is because we removed the out-of-town members as well as inactive members. However, the PCUSA includes these non-active names in their “official” numbers, and the EOP has used this number to assert that these people are opposed to the Kirk’s disaffiliation.

All of the above boils down to the AC’s assertion that there is a “true church” loyal to the PCUSA that should receive the Kirk property. How they will do this as members of other churches, or even if they want the property, is not addressed.

The actual wording of the document is this:

“Evidence of member disagreement with the decisions made by leadership of the Kirk:
At least 92 Kirk members have joined or are attending other churches.
At least 18 Kirk members have either requested additional information about remaining with the PC(USA) or have indicated that they intend to stay with the Kirk despite their disagreement with the decision to leave the PC(USA).
Between 327 and 500 Kirk members have been inexplicably removed from the member lists presented to the AC.
We thus conclude that there is ample evidence that a significant number of persons wished to remain in the PC(USA) or for the Kirk to remain in the PC(USA) despite concerted efforts at the Kirk to alienate dissenting voices, block direct communication with representatives of the EOP, and intimidate those who disagreed. Therefore, the Kirk of the Hills Presbyterian Church is determined to be in schism. We further believe the number of members who the Book of Order would describe as the ‘true membership’ of the Kirk (See, G-8.0601) would be impossible to accurately determine without the cooperation of the Kirk leadership, but ranges from at least 110 to several hundred.” (page 7)

Later, the report states,

“The Kirk is in schism and thus, according to Chapter VIII (G-8.0100, et. seq.) of the Book of Order, its property, real and personal, is to be used for the use and benefit of the PC(USA) and shall be held, used, applied, transferred, or sold by the Presbytery….We therefore declare the Kirk to be in schism, submit this report to the Stated Clerk of the EOP for report to the EOP at its next meeting, and direct the EOP trustees to take all necessary next steps in accordance with the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA).” (pages 8 and 9)

A lot of the paper is anecdotal reportage of how anonymous people in the Kirk are supposedly feeling about the disaffiliation. I have no interest in identifying individuals; but a serious problem with the AC’s report is that it’s easy to claim member dissatisfaction without having to back it up with facts:

“Reports have been received by the AC of Kirk members who have been strongly discouraged from talking to anyone in the EOP and of Kirk members who suspect there is a larger percentage of members who would like to remain in the PC(USA) but are fearful of speaking up because there has been too much intimidation and outright shunning of those who have spoken up against the move toward ‘disaffiliation’ or who have left the church.” (page 4)

Of course the Kirk has never intimidated its members or shunned anyone. I believe that people at the Kirk will find the above description of intimidation and alienation to be utterly false. I’ll address that tomorrow, and thanks to the EOP and this report, I’ll have much to discuss for a long time to come.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

Things to Come?

2007-03-06T10:30:00.000-06:00

With a new law regulating how Britons are to support homosexual lifestyles, it was only a matter of time before this enforced tolerance would become legalized intolerance against any who disagree.

LONDON, March 5, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - After this April's implementation of the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SOR's), British religious schools may no longer be allowed to teach school children that the Christian viewpoint on sexual morality is "objectively true," a government report says.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, made up of members from Parliament and the House of Lords, has issued a report on the implementation of the Regulations recommending that religious schools be required to modify their religious instruction to comply with the government-approved doctrine of "non-discrimination".

Although religious schools will be allowed to remain open and may continue to give instruction in various religious beliefs, instruction must be modified "so that homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching, as part of the religious education or other curriculum, that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong."

The report says the Regulations will not "prevent pupils from being taught as part of their religious education the fact that certain religions view homosexuality as sinful," but they may not teach "a particular religion's doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true".

Published February 26, the report says, "We do not consider that the right to freedom of conscience and religion requires the school curriculum to be exempted from the scope of the sexual orientation regulations."
(emphasis added)

Just think of how much has changed in just 30 years of relentless campaigning on the part of GLBT forces in the western world. In the name of “non-discrimination” has come legalized discrimination redefined as "tolerance." Don't think that the same thing isn't happening in your neighborhood.

Universities regularly require entering students to take "orientation" courses where Biblical values are routinely dismissed, if not ridiculed. Elementary schools throughout the US are including early sex education designed to undo the teaching of traditional morality. Mainline denominations like the Episcopal Church and the PCUSA are marching in lock-step with the revisionists' agenda.

Progressivists know that faith standards must be removed in order for the world they envision to arise. They know that they must somehow counter what children are taught in the home and, especially, in church or synagogue. As in Britain, the most obvious target is the school. There you have a trapped audience made up of fresh minds upon which all kinds of truth--or falsehood--may be written.

I have long believed that we need to teach our children not only the Christian worldview, but the worldview of others, so that they will not be surprised or twisted by unbiblical ways of thinking and living. This will be increasingly difficult to do as our culture is increasingly influenced by small groups with big agendas. It will also be harder to stand out from the crowd. But any alternative is too dangerous for our children and, ultimately, our culture.

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry. (2 Timothy 4:1-5)

This passages commands us to hold fast to what we believe and teach. Written in a time not too different from ours, it reminds us of just how important the Truth of faith is. It is more important now than ever.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

The Kirk's Legal Documents

2007-02-23T10:40:00.000-06:00

Now that the legal process is fully underway, our trustees decided that it would be appropriate to post links to them for your reading. I’ve given a short abstract of each document, along with a link to take you to that document. In order to go to the document, just click on the blue title in italics.

Motion for Summary Judgment with Exhibits
This was filed on January 22 of this year. Essentially, it asks the judge to make his decision based upon the information that has been presented.

Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery’s response
EOP responded to our request by asking for more information from us (the “discovery process”). Note that this list of 94 separate requests is entitled “Eastern Oklahahoma Presbytery’s First Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents” (emphasis added).

Petition to the court
This document is our original suit to have the affidavit removed from the Kirk’s property. This went to court because the Presbytery, upon our request, refused to remove it, therefore placing impediments to the clear ownership of our property.

PCUSA's Response and counterclaim
The PCUSA’s response to our initial petition lays out their claim that they own the Kirk land, buildings, and everything in the buildings (excluding, one hopes, the pastoral staff).

It is our hope that linking these will serve several purposes:

We have nothing to hide in this process and believe that as much as possible should be shared.
The Kirk’s membership should be allowed to read these documents for themselves.
There may be other churches who can benefit from some of our experience in this process.

Note that laws regarding property are judged differently in each state, so what is presented here is focused on Oklahoma laws.

Good reading!

Tom

The Good Ship PCUSA

2007-02-21T23:51:00.000-06:00

Jim Miller, pastor of First Presbyterian Church, Tulsa, recently commented on the Kirk in his sermon (Sermon, 2/18/07, available on the their website, at 18:15 into the sermon). His comment took the form of an analogy. It was presented in an affable manner, and I appreciate his affirmation of friendship with us. What follows is taken verbatim from the sermon:

“They left the presbytery because they believed that the Presbyterian Church is the Titanic. And if you’re on the Titanic, the best thing that you can do is get off the Titanic….”
“I believe that if you use the analogy of a ship [and] there is a fire in the engine room, in the boiler, and if you have a crisis in the engine room you don’t need to have people getting off the ship, you need to have people getting in the boiler room and beginning to put things right.”

Trying to Make Things Right
“Beginning to put things right?” Where were Jim and others in Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery during the fight against the Re-imagining scandal? When the Kirk session withheld denominational funds, Jim came and talked with our session, downplaying the problem and assuring us that it was just a group of “academics” acting up, as if it were nothing important.
Where were Jim and the others seven years ago when hundreds of evangelical pastors and elders met in Denver to strategize ways of moving the PCUSA back onto a Biblical course? Where were Jim and others at other open meetings concerned evangelical pastors have held every year after 1991?

I have a serious problem with Jim’s subtle assertion that the Kirk has shirked its responsibility to work on correcting the problems in the PCUSA (fight the “fire in the boiler room”). I, Wayne, and a significant number of our elders attended many General Assemblies and were participants and officers in various renewal groups. We’ve met with denominational officials over the years, written letters and articles, caucused with sessions and pastors of like mind, and generally have invested a tremendous amount of time and treasure in trying to turn the ship back on course.

I’ve spent at least two weeks of every year since 1991 devoted to addressing the PCUSA’s wayward course. I’ve made hundreds of phone calls in that service. I hesitate to compute the tens of thousands of miles I’ve traveled throughout the U.S. working with others in an effort to redirect the denomination. I’ve taken stands that have made me unpopular at home, and I’ve had to hear the general presbyter complain about people like me who are “at the extreme” for wanting the denomination to remain true to its traditional beliefs.

Jim has now awakened to the problem. I am aware that he attended the Global Mission conference this last year, but the problem in the PCUSA goes way back and has had people like us agonizing about what we saw and foresaw for many, many years. I remain unconvinced that an emphasis on “being missional” at this late date—and in a denomination that has increasingly ignored mission—will turn the ship around.

The Analogy of the Titanic
The analogy is just wrong. We don’t think that the PCUSA is in imminent danger of sinking, nor did we leave in fear of that. We also do not believe that the problem is a “fire in the boiler room.” The problem is at the ship’s bridge.

The ship of PCUSA is heading in the wrong direction even though it has a clear map of where it is supposed to go, found in Scripture and in the denomination’s confessions. Sometime between 1950 and today, in the denominations from whence the PCUSA was formed, there was a very slow and subtle mutiny. Those opposed to the direction of Scripture gained control of the rudder.

Many of us thought that the problem might be that the correct course change orders were somehow muddled and could be clarified. That’s what we worked on so hard and for so long. We came to find (at the GA in June, 2006) that the wrong orders are being given from the top. Not only that, but every location in the ship—sessions and presbyteries—are now given permission to issue orders completely contrary to the course directions indicated on the map.

If I had paid fare to travel, say, from New York to London, and found that the ship had, without permission or announcement, changed its course for Antarctica, I’d have good reason to get onto another ship—one going in the right direction. This is what the Kirk did when we disaffiliated. The fact that other churches (passengers) are willing to hope that the ship goes back to its rightful course is their business. We found that the officers on the bridge were deaf to our concerns, so we came to the conclusion that the rudder is now lashed in the wrong direction.

Good, sincere pastors like Jim who seem to have just awakened to taking the problems seriously are complaining that I and the Kirk are abandoning them. I wish him and others the best in continuing the fight if they so choose. But please don’t tell us that we have left the denomination (or them) in the lurch. For almost two decades we were at the forefront of dedicated, hard work trying to reform the PCUSA and, as far as the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery is concerned, we were alone.

Abandoning Ship
Jim’s sermon comments parallel what he wrote the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery upon our disaffiliation. In that letter, he used an expanded metaphor, saying that we had “abandoned ship, taking the lifeboats.”

We certainly have left on our lifeboat, seeking a ship that is going to the destination Scripture indicates. For the duration of our struggle the EOP showed no desire to address our concerns or even show real concern for us. The PCUSA and the EOP now seem bent upon insisting that our lifeboat be returned to them empty, unconcerned that the Kirk congregation would be left adrift. Should that turn out to become truth, we are ready to tread water or swim for the nearest passing ship—but only if that ship is following the Scriptural map.

Finally!
Jim ended his paragraph about us in his sermon with the comment, “If you find a perfect church, don’t join it.” By this, I believe he meant (in our case) the perfect denomination. We agree that no such thing exists. But we do know that there are Reformed denominations, unlike the PCUSA, whose leaders and followers are struggling to keep the ship on the Lord’s course.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

Conspiracy Theories

2007-02-12T09:42:00.000-06:00

A person who regularly posts comments on this blog has made a couple of accusations against me that I think are typical of how progressives view orthodox Christians. He read things in my blog that are not even there.

But what really scares me is the kind of stuff I read on blogs like this: the threat of conservative extremists in lockstep to "take back" the country "for Jesus".

Conservative Christians are out to “take the country back for Jesus.” This is a common conspiracy theory some progressives make against people of orthodox faith. What orthodox Christians believe is that Biblical teaching is healthy for all people, and we long to let people hear the Good News. Orthodox Christians cannot seem to express an opinion about morality or the nation without being accused of being reconstructionist.

Reconstructionists are a tiny fringe-group of Christians who propose turning the USA into a Christian theocracy. This is something I find to be unbiblical (read Romans 13) and frightening. I believe in the separation of Church and State. As I told this commenter, I frequently have to remind my liberal friends that the separation of Church and State doesn’t mean that I cannot express opinions. I should be able to express my opinions without being classified with a fringe group.

The US print and airwave media are particularly guilty as they propagate and promote suspicion of orthodox Christians (fundamentalists, in their terms). While liberal Christians have organized politically for decades, when evangelicals do the same, it becomes an issue of separation of Church and State.

The next conspiratorial accusation has an element of truth in it. I hadn’t realized that I was part of such a conspiracy as I participated in the New Wineskins (NWAC).

I should also point out that Tom is a leading member of a group that has been criticized for attempting manipulation through secrecy (the NWAC).

“Are you now, or were you ever a member of the NWAC?” is the kind of McCarthy-esque question I can hear progressives in the PCUSA asking. My answer to both questions, proudly, is “yes.”

NWAC wasn’t and isn’t a conspiracy. We weren’t meeting to take over the denomination. Originally, we wanted to influence the denomination through its existing structure. Eventually, we just wanted to leave in peace without persecution or penalty. I cannot remember us manipulating anyone, since we never pressed churches, pastors, or elders to join with us.

We’ve published all of our papers (the results of our “conspiratorial” conversations) in a timely fashion. We’ve invited denominational people and the press to our planning meetings.

Other meetings were public. Denominational officials—including the PCUSA legal officers—were at the convocation held at the Kirk last summer. We spoke openly about what we wished for and advocated. We spoke so openly that my former general presbyter informed me that he had at least seven justifications to have me removed from the pastorate.

I am, though, aware of some behind-the-doors meetings amongst PCUSA leaders. One such meeting resulted in secret legal filings against our property. Another such meeting produced the PCUSA take-no-prisoners legal game plan. That “secret” is still being kept. Ask your denominational officials if they’ve read the paper. The current moderator of the General Assembly told the Montreat church that she hadn’t. The phrase “plausible deniability” comes to mind when I hear such responses.

Oh—there is one secret the NWAC has kept throughout. That is the list of churches belonging to us. Why is this secret? Because, at the time of our planning, presbyteries like Kiskiminetas were making plans to thwart churches from even talking about the possibility of leaving. Pastors of such churches were—and are—particularly vulnerable if they simply say what’s on their minds.

Conspiracy theories are always grist for the gossip mill. NWAC is no conspiracy—it is an up-front movement to help orthodox Presbyterian pastors and congregations find an alternative to a future in the theological wasteland and mean spirit of the PCUSA.
Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

Worship or Blasphemy?

2007-02-08T21:56:00.000-06:00

When read the first paragraph of the following I thought it was a joke. I’d made a mental note to contact the webmaster of the site I found it on when I figured I could Google the Episcopal Urban Caucus and see if this was for real. It is.

The Sunday after General Convention I returned to my home parish for Gay Pride Sunday and participated in a Disco Mass for which gays and lesbians turned out in force. The opening hymn was a beautiful jazz rendition of “Over the Rainbow.” Musical offerings came from gay men in sequined tank tops and from the Director of Music who was ushered into the service singing a disco number complete with Go-Go girls. The queen of St. Mark’s appeared in full drag to deliver the homily and the closing hymn was, Sister Sledge’s “We Are Family.” As I stood singing among straight men and women, young parents with their children, gays and lesbians, teenagers in hip hop clothing, Asians, whites, African Americans and Spanish speaking people I realized I was part of the realm of God and I was glad to be there - in a place where God’s creation of a new thing was being lived out.
God’s new creation envisions a time of joy, prosperity, health and peace - a new social order whose goal is transformation. As members of the EUC let us not rest until every member of our family is fully accepted at every level of our Church.
--Nell Braxton Gibson, Coordinator of the Episcopal Urban Caucus, describing a "disco Mass" at her home congregation in New York City.

Gibson was writing in response to last summer’s Assembly of the Episcopal Church where, much to her horror and anger, the bishops voted to tell the worldwide Anglican Communion that they might consider moderating their stand on gay ordination, gay bishops, and same-sex marriages (something yet to happen). The way she put it was, “I am still appalled at the General Convention’s decision to support B033, a resolution that calls on the Church to sacrifice the humanity of a group of people for the sake of institutional unity.”

Can’t she see the disconnect that the average Christian might find when she says that the ECUSA “sacrificed the humanity” of a group of people who worship in the manner above? I’ve heard of the Virgin Mary referred to as the Queen of Heaven. I consider Jesus to be the King of Kings. What on earth is the Queen of St. Mark’s? Why is Jesus not even mentioned? While God loves all his creatures, He is very specific about what true worship is:

See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.
But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. (Deuteronomy 30:15-18)

Worship the LORD in the splendor of his holiness; tremble before him, all the earth. (Psalm 96:9)

Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:23, 24)

Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’’” (Matthew 4:10)

Christian worship is designed to be God-centered. Note that the closing hymn was about the people in the church, not God; the opening hymn was the “anthem” of Judy Garland, much beloved of gay groups. This was not true worship, but a sad, sick parody of it.

What she described in this “Disco Mass” is the worship of self. Worse than that, it is the glorification of what Scripture teaches to be a perversion of the very Image of God. When I mentally picture what the worship must have been like, the names of Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind.

When people put an aspect of their lives—their sexuality, their social standing, economic status, intellect, or any other thing—above the revelation of God through Scripture, they are committing idolatry. To do this and call it Christian worship is blasphemy.

The “new social order whose goal is transformation” that Gibson proposes is completely at odds with God’s plan. We are not called to transform society to match our confusion and weaknesses. We are called to transform ourselves, the church, and the world in conformity to Jesus Christ.

Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live... (Romans 8:12, 13)
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. (Romans 12:2)

If this is the direction of mainline denominations—even if it is limited to a few churches as blatant as this one—then such denominations are not in the business of transformation. They’re simply glorifying the brokenness of humanity. No wonder so many mainline churches are empty.

Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our “God is a consuming fire.” (Hebrews 12:28, 29)

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

The Truth Shall Set You Free—But You’ll Have a Hard Time Finding It

2007-02-06T11:28:00.000-06:00

It is increasingly difficult to determine the truth of what we hear, even on major news suppliers. Two examples came up this last week, both of which seem to be twisting facts to promote a progressivist agenda.

The first came out of the New York Times about marriage. We know that progressives have moved beyond the stifling limitations of one man-one woman marriage and the nuclear family to all kinds of innovative permutations. Their media supporters march in step with the Times.

The Times article is entitled, 51% of Women are Living Without Spouse. The Times’ own abstract of the article says,

“Analysis of census data shows that 51 percent of American women were living without spouse in 2005, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000; married couples became minority of American households for first time, trend that could reshape social and workplace policies; factors range from women marrying later or living unmarried with partners to those living longer as widows or delaying remarriage after divorce because they prefer their new freedom.”

Their agenda is clear in the passage I highlighted for you above. The problem is, their stats are deceptive. How would you define marriageable age? 21 to 40? As a pastor I can tell you that the average age of couples marrying has gone up from, say 23 to 27, but the number of marriages I do has not declined.

The Times’ statistics include women aged 16 years to death! For them, marriageable age starts at 16! I was married young at 18. I know of very few 16-year-olds that are not considering marriage because of the reasons the Times gives. Most marry between their 20s and 40s—very few before or after those ages.

Who else would you put in the category of married women? I’d add in widows because they were married and did not choose to lose a spouse. I’d include women whose husbands are off at war, even though they are home alone. Not the New York Times. According to them, these women have “chosen” not to live with a spouse.

Progressives are fighting to redefine marriage in non-specific terms. Some of them are vehemently opposed to the traditional family. Some want to redefine marriage to include gays, bi-sexuals (inherent polygamists) and almost any other novel concatenation.

The other issue twisting in the news is about personal savings. The Associated Press reports the following:

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans once again spent everything they made and then some last year, pushing the personal savings rate to the lowest level since the Great Depression.
The Commerce Department reported Thursday that the savings rate for all of 2006 was a negative 1 percent, meaning that not only did people spend all the money they earned, but they also dipped into savings or increased borrowing to finance purchases. The 2006 figure was lower than a negative 0.4 percent in 2005, and was the poorest showing since a negative 1.5 percent savings rate in 1933 during the Depression."

I blithely accepted this until I found out that the statistics did not include 401k plans (403b, in pastors’ cases), or any other form of investment. With savings account interest rates so low, most people are not keeping their nest eggs with banks. Do you have any investment other than a bank savings account? No matter how much you have in it, this news bite lumps you in with those who are “spen[ding] everything they made and then some last year.”

There’s also a huge difference between today and the Great Depression. Then, the falling stock market destroyed banks. The average saver had little or no access to forms of investment other than bank savings accounts. Today, the entire investment spectrum is open to almost anyone who desires to put a few dollars away for retirement.

It is perhaps a more subtle progressive agenda here. Many on the left believe that any financial program not run by the government is, because it has no federal guarantee, not secure. I think that some of them will not rest unless the feds control all the money.

So, read carefully. Google news items to get greater detail than the reporters are supplying. Whatever you do, don’t go into a panic over what you read in the paper or see on TV.
Keep praying—keep the faith
Tom

Are PCUSA Churches Leaving This Week?

2007-02-05T15:12:00.000-06:00

The New Wineskins Association of Churches is meeting for a winter convocation in Orlando, Florida. At this meeting, it is said, there will be a group of PCUSA churches “gracefully disaffiliating” from the denomination. Numbers as high as 130 congregations have been rumored.

The PCUSA leadership has sent a letter, predictably, with a plea for unity—a plea that essentially disregards the problems causing the disaffiliations.

One thing we’ve heard constantly is that “nothing has changed.”

"Among the reasons of those wishing to leave are perceptions of particular actions of the 217th General Assembly last summer. These perceptions include concerns that our ordination standards have changed and that the PCUSA no longer believes in the Trinity. Neither of these is true."

It is true that the words in the constitution were not changed, but the application of them has officially become relative. If presbyteries may ordain openly practicing GLBTs without discipline, then MUCH has changed regarding ordination. The words remain, but the standards have been changed.

The denomination says that it still believes in the Trinity. That may be so. It is, however, up for broad interpretation. The PCUSA is becoming increasingly modalist, defining functions of the Trinity (i.e. creator, sustainer) rather than living with the mystery of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three and one. Much of the impetus for such redefinition has come from progressive feminist circles unhappy with the Father and Son part.

So, churches like the Kirk have left a denomination which has demonstrated that it would rather include anything but strictly orthodox Reformed belief. The PCUSA stated clerk and executive director have given several reasons why it would be better for those churches to stay in the denomination.

"It is our deep conviction that we are better together than we are apart:
"We are better followers of Jesus when we stick together, mutually encouraging one another in the work of discipleship. "We are better together and more effective in confronting the enormous problems in the world – dire situations like Darfur, HIV/AIDS in Africa, and ongoing human tragedies in the wake of Hurricane Katrina."

Just how effective is the PCUSA in confronting the “enormous problems in the world”? If what they mean by confronting is making statements and having endless meetings, they fail to see that such effort does nothing to effect change. Even the amounts of money and resources applied by the PCUSA to human tragedies like Hurricane Katrina pale in comparison to much smaller denominations, like the Mennonites.

"We are better together because the Presbyterian Church (USA) as one expression of the whole body of Christ needs all of its parts in order to function well (1 Cor. 12)."

It is true that the whole body needs all its healthy parts. The problem with the PCUSA’s assertion is that, once again, it deems itself to be the whole body. The Church Universal is the body; the PCUSA is just a small part, like an inflamed appendix or ingrown toenail. Oops—those parts need to be removed, don’t they?

Lest you think that I am being unbiblical, listen to what the Word has to say about parts of the body that have become diseased and useless (i.e. those that ignore sin).

If your hand or your foot causes you to sin cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.
Matthew 18:8, 9

Let me remind progressives that this is not Paul speaking (the progressively-dismissed writer of 1 Corinthians 12) but Jesus himself. I also would remind progressives in the PCUSA leadership that Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 12 was most certainly not that we are better off in big numbers. Rather, we are to recognize that the smaller parts (if not inflamed, etc.) are just as important as the bigger ones.

"We are better together because our resources of time, talents and treasure have a larger and farther reach."

There are many larger bodies with which Christians of any ilk may associate with better effectiveness than the PCUSA. The old mainline denominations are administratively top-heavy, theologically lightweight, and missionally challenged. There are mission associations today doing far better work than all the mainline denominations combined. World Vision is one that comes immediately to mind. Even better, World Vision is committed to Biblical, orthodox Christian faith!

One must take a cold, hard look at the reality that belies the PCUSA’s statement. Do the people in the pews really believe that the money the denomination receives is being used better than members would? If that were so, would not giving to the denomination be up instead of dramatically in decline?

"We are better together because our discernment and deliberations on tough topics need our many perspectives to reach the most faithful decisions."

So the PCUSA makes more faithful decisions because people remain in, regardless? Let’s think again of recent stands taken by that august collection of denominationalists:

Abortion on demand is supported (with the exception of partial-birth procedures)
Authors of fully discredited papers (particularly the horrendous sexuality report voted down in 1991) are still pulled out regularly by the denomination as “experts” in Christian views of sexuality.
Presbyteries can deem themselves of greater authority than the Bible when considering the behavior of those asking to be ordained.
Last year’s “deliberation on tough topics” out of the “many perspectives” came up with the Trinitarian re-description of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as “Rainbow, Ark and Dove,” (crazy, but at least not modalist), “Speaker, Word and Breath,” and “Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-Giving Womb.” Even national editorials realized the nonsense in this, suggesting that we might as well describe the Trinity as “Rock, Paper, and Scissors."

The same Apostle Paul who wrote the words of 1 Corinthians 12, also penned the words found in 2 Corinthians 6:17. In the context of that verse, Paul argues against continuing with so-called believers who put up with sin in their midst:

“Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.”
2 Corinthians 6:17

In all this time of change for me and the Kirk congregation, we’ve never gone out to encourage any other congregation to leave the PCUSA. But, if people have come to us, we’ve been honest about what we believe is best.

It will be interesting to see developments from Orlando this week.
Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

Looking Ahead to a New Year

2007-01-02T10:24:00.000-06:00

I believe that 2007 will prove to be a banner year for Kirk of the Hills. We came out of 2006 in great health:

Mission giving in 2006 exceeded $1,000,000 for the first time.
The number of Kirk people participating in mission and service is way up.
Even though we had unplanned substantial legal expenses, we may come close to being in the black for 2006.
Pledges are significantly up for 2007.
The congregation’s response to the New Wineskins Convocation demonstrated that we can effectively host national events.
We have had incredibly encouraging support from local (non-presbyterian) congregations during our disaffiliation. The Tulsa church community, apart from some mainliners, are solidly behind us.
There has never been a greater sense of unity in the Kirk congregation (at least in the 25 years I've been here).

What about 2007? What can we expect of the new year?

We will increase the number of mission trip opportunities for Kirk members.
We will greatly expand our mission work in Tulsa.
We will be close to starting one new church in the Tulsa region.
Worship attendance and membership will increase.
We will know where we stand on the 61st Street property.
We will be admitted into the Evangelical Presbyterian Church denomination.
A significant number of PCUSA churches will either disaffiliate or ask for dismissal. The New Wineskins’ task force anticipates that more than 100 will leave. We’ll see.

What else?

Don't expect the PCUSA or EOP to be kinder or gentler to us or churches like us.
Typical church problems will not go away: we'll still need to remind folks to give, to minister to difficult (and lovely) people, and we will still need to solve problems as they present themselves.
The new denomination (EPC) will not be perfect for us, but it will be Biblically faithful.
On any give Sunday I'll get two notes--one saying that the hymns are too fast, the other saying that they're too slow.
My sermons won't get any shorter; Wayne's won't get any longer (he won't get any taller, either--even though I'm getting shorter).

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

Christmas Thoughts

2006-12-23T11:23:00.000-06:00

Four of us Kirk pastors went to see The Nativity Story last week. Although there are a couple of cliché jolts (the light from the star at the end; the adjustment of history to have the wise men arrive just after the shepherds) it is a wonderful presentation of what the wondrous event might have been like.

Most of us, perhaps, have wondered how Mary told her family that she was pregnant and what their reaction was. The same goes for Joseph. What was it like to see and hear an angel? What was the journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem like?

Apart from such questions artistically answered, the main strength of the film is the sense of real history that it gives. All of the trappings of Christmas sometimes bury the reality of Jesus beneath cultural and personal traditions. This movie is a good way to be reminded of the reality of His birth.

It is vitally important that we emphasize the historic truth of Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection. There alone is the basis for our faith that brings to us through Jesus hope, healing, abundant and eternal life. The Christmas Story is not a myth but the greatest moment of world history.

Richard Dawkins, a popular science writer and critic of all things Christian, especially in his new book The God Delusion, decries all of what we believe as an incredible fairy tale. A BBC editorial takes him to task:

Fairy tales are make-believe, swirled in the mists of obscurity. “Once upon a time, in a far-away land, in an age long ago…” Christianity is rooted in history: in Bethlehem of Judea, during the reign of King Herod. We know the location down to a mile or so, and the time to within a year or two. As Dorothy Sayers said, Jesus Christ is the only god with a date in history. This is no fantasy, but verifiable fact.

...CS Lewis commented... about fairy tales. “I’ve been reading romances, visionary literature, legends, myths all my life,” he continued. “I know what they are like. Not one of them is like this. Of this text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage--pretty close up to the facts--or else some unknown writer in the second century suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern novelistic realistic narrative,” Lewis concluded. The account of Jesus’ birth is as far from a fairy tale as could be.

The whole point of the Christmas story is that God entered into humanity. This was not just a visitation. It was joining humanity to experience all that we do, yet without sin. It was a plan destined for pain, suffering, death, and resurrection for Jesus, providing hope, healing, salvation, and eternal life for all who believe in Him.

Our culture has settled for a mythical Jesus, brought out once a year, dusted off, displayed, and then relegated back to storage until the next Christmas. We, the church, cannot afford to join this in any way. The reality of Jesus in our lives and in history needs to be repeated aloud frequently so that those still in darkness might find His light. I'm truly thankful for a movie (of all things) that helps so much in this mission.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

George Washington’s Church Leaves Its Denomination

2006-12-15T11:03:00.000-06:00

After the American Revolution, the Anglican churches in the USA were without a denomination. Since their theological system required oversight by bishops, this meant that they couldn’t call pastors until they could resolve the rift. Such churches were run for years by the educated laity.

For Falls Church in Virginia there were more than ample resources. George Washington was a vestryman (like an elder), and the great hymnodist, George Mason was in the church. Later, Francis Scott Key often led services.

Eventually this, and other churches, became part of a denomination, now called The Episcopalian Church. But a lot has changed. Like almost all mainline denominations, the Episcopalians have abandoned the clear inheritance of scripture for the bowl of gruel that culture offers instead.

Orthodox congregations in the Episcopalian Church have struggled for years with the leftward lurch in their denomination. The elevation of an openly gay priest to bishop--in direct opposition to the instructions of the global Anglican denomination--was the final straw for many. Such folk have been seeking ways in which they can continue their tradition, remaining faithful to Scripture. For some, this meant leaving the denomination.

Shortly after the Falls Church congregation voted to disaffiliate from the Episcopalian Church, its rector (pastor), the Rev. John Yates, clearly restated what was behind their action:

"Our leaders have so devalued the Holy Scripture that they can no longer affirm essentials of the faith nor reject sinful behavior. They believe we must stay together no matter what."

For more than a year, Yates and other orthodox clergy have met with Virginia Bishop Peter J. Lee to develop a "Protocol for Departing Congregations" which would allow them to leave with their property intact if a super majority of 70% voted to exit and if each church agreed to a fee for the property, worth $17 million for Falls Church and $10 million for Truro.

However, Lee sent a chilling letter two weeks ago threatening to sue individual vestry members if they voted to leave. He cited church canons "15 times without referring to Scripture once," Yates informed his church.

Why? Lee told Yates, "We have a new Presiding Bishop who is like a new sheriff in town." Both churches note they have deeds which antedate the diocese but are asking their churches for authority to contest legally if necessary, as well as approval to leave.

As one parishoner told Yates, "I'd rather worship in a cornfield than submit to heresy."

column by Michael J. McManus
http://www.ethicsandreligion.com/current.htm Column #1320

This sad event reaffirms what the Kirk did last August. The biggest difference is that we disaffiliated early on in reaction to the presbytery’s filing of an affidavit against our property and the revelation of the PCUSAs legal game-plan. These showed that the “process” was not to be trusted.

So it was for the two largest Episcopalian congregations in Virginia—Truro and Falls Church. They entered into a long-term process with their bishop only to have the rug pulled out from under them at the last minute. With this betrayal, the congregations had no choice but to step outside the system and, thereby, their denomination.

Just like us, their title and deeds to the property pre-date the denominations' legal claims to the property. Like us, they will have to enter into a lengthy and expensive legal process to retain what they and their predecessors built. Keep them in your prayers.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

The EOP Has Written

2006-12-13T13:26:00.000-06:00

If you are a Kirk member, you should have received the latest missive from the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery administrative commission. The letter contains an invitation and a card.

The invitation is confusing, since it implies that there are separate meetings for those in favor of staying in the PCUSA and those who are not, yet the time and place for both are the same.

The card is essentially the vote that EOP wanted us to hold for them instead of our disaffiliation. The card asks whether you want to "continue to worship with Pastors Gray and Hardy," want more information on the PCUSA, desire a pastoral call (apparently not from Gray or Hardy) or have moved your membership.

As I've repeatedly said, you are welcome to do whatever you want. Please do not think, though, that you need to go to the meeting or return the card in order to support me, Wayne, or the Kirk. We have moved on. I honestly believe that attending the meeting or sending the card--regardless of what is said--will be used by the denomination as ammunition against us. For me, this whole process has a Kafka-esque quality of logic. We are no longer part of any denomination but the PCUSA insists that we must be and is calling meetings as if we (and you) are.

It feels a lot like my recent experience with some telemarketers. I filed, as did many of you, the notification that I did not want to have more calls soliciting sales. But some telemarketers have ignored this and others insist that they have the right to continue to call me, even though I've repeatedly asked them to take me off of their list.

I'd like to think that this will be the end of the facade of the PCUSA's connection to us, but I doubt it. I'll keep you posted.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

Episcopalian Fractures Widen

2006-12-04T21:52:00.000-06:00

The signs are all there. On the left, the American Episcopalian Church, which alienated itself from the global Anglican fellowship by its election of an openly gay bishop, are voices saying that they may have to go on alone, isolated from the rest of the Anglican world. While there are Europeans who would welcome the addition of gay bishops, the vast majority of Anglicans, now concentrated in the so-called Third World, are appalled by the prospect. That means not many will follow in the footsteps of the American Church, and certainly not the official Anglican church, centered in Canterbury, England.

On the right are American traditionalist Episcopalians just as appalled by the actions of their national church. Some individual churches have already withdrawn, as we at the Kirk did from the PCUSA. There is even an entire diocese (the equivalent of one of the PCUSA’s presbyteries) that is withdrawing.

In such a situation it would be sensible to agree to disagree and moving on separately. We've learned not to expect common sense or common grace from a liberal denomination. Like the PCUSA, the officialdom of the Episcopalian Church is dominated by the “tolerant” left wing. The Episcopalian liberal leadership is similarly bent on keeping property and punishing those who would leave.

The great irony here is found in the language used by the liberals as they criticize those leaving. They argue that they are preserving the faith!

The newly installed Presiding Bishop of the Episcopalian Church, Katherine Schiori, has sent the following to the Bishop of San Joaquin Diocese in Southern California, upon their progress toward separation from their denomination:

I have seen reports of your letter to parishes in the Diocese of San Joaquin, which apparently urges delegates to your upcoming Diocesan Convention to take action to leave the Episcopal Church. I would ask you to confirm the accuracy of those reports. If true, you must be aware that such action would likely be seen as a violation of your ordination vows to “uphold the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them.” I must strongly urge you to consider the consequences of such action, not only for yourself but especially for all of the Episcopalians under your pastoral charge and care.

I certainly understand that you personally disagree with decisions by General Conventions over the past 30 and more years. You have, however, taken vows three times over that period to uphold the “doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church.” If you now feel that you can no longer do so, the more honorable course would be to renounce your orders in this Church and seek a home elsewhere. Your public assertion that your duty is to violate those vows puts many, many people at hazard of profound spiritual violence. I urge you, as a pastor, to consider that hazard with the utmost gravity.

This comes from a denomination that has aggressively ordained openly gay priests (and a bishop), has championed same-sex marriage, and has wandered far from its original faith. For its leaders to criticize a conservative Bishop saying that he is no longer upholding the “doctrine, discipline, and worship, of the Episcopal Church” would be laughable, were it not so sad.

The Episcopalian leaders are also just as free as the PCUSA leadership with threatening language. Bishop Lee in Northern Virginia diocese is particularly bellicose:

I believe your successors in the future will regret that decision and its destructive consequences to the whole church,” the bishop wrote of congregations threatening to leave the diocese. Any congregation attempting to leave without a negotiated settlement with the diocese “will have repercussions and possible civil liability for individual vestry members."

My heart resonates with the statement of the vestry (board) of Truro Church.

The Episcopal Church thus has walked beyond any worldly hope of or expectation for returning to its original foundations. In addition, the toil of resisting and enduring its decline has taken a heavy toll on Truro, particularly in the three years between the General Conventions. The feedback that has flowed in from the congregation during our discernment period, in dozens of small groups, in written submissions, in congregational meetings, and in countless private conversations, has confirmed our sense of this toll and indeed shown it to be heavier than we had thought. We therefore have been constrained to conclude that, if Truro Church is to continue as a vital congregation, and if it is to preserve its witness to God’s Word and its fellowship for the Gospel throughout the Anglican Communion, we cannot persist any longer in The Episcopal Church. We must sever our ties, so that we might remain with those who do not hesitate to contend for the faith but rather delight in doing so.

This is where we at the Kirk found ourselves this last summer. We need to keep Truro Church and the San Joaquin Diocese in our prayers. Like the Episcopalians, we face opposition from denominational leaders content in their own unorthodoxy, but horrified at the unorthodox nature of our departure. Like these Episcopalians, we face the loss of the property that we have built, paid for, maintained, and lived in. I hope that doesn’t happen, but if it does, it is actually a small price to pay in order to delight in contending for the faith.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

Religious War II

2006-12-02T23:32:00.001-06:00

Yesterday, I began an answer to a reader who has real problems with how I interpret Scripture and, in particular, how this might relate to Islam.

As I go a little further into the subject of Islam I need to remind everyone that I am NOT an expert on this religion. What I say comes out of simple logic, using statement from a translated Koran. I believe that most Muslims insist that a translated reading of the Koran is insufficient. Since I work from original languages in the Bible I have some understanding of the difficulties of translation. However, good translators of the Bible overcome such difficulties with few exceptions. I think that the same thing must be true of published translations of the Koran.

Let me state up front that I believe in respecting other people in their beliefs. This does not mean that I give up my own beliefs in any way. Nor does it mean that people of other faiths, or my own, should be free of reasonable observations, criticism, and questions.

“As to the matter of the Muslim Qur'an sounding like the Old Testament, it is true that both books portray divine commands to kill or control those outside their respective faiths. You speak of the New Testament as 'mitigating' these commands in the Old Testament, and the Qur'an as having no such mitigating revelation.”

The Old Testament with the New Testament is a very different Bible than the Old Testament alone. It is so different that "progressivists" have moved toward what they once mocked—the ‘red-letter’ editions of the Bible. These are the Bibles that have the words of Jesus in red type. The progressivists who now only believe the red letters do so because they reject anything that smacks of the Old Testament legal system. The one thing that they are right about in this is that Jesus’ words transform contrast greatly from the early covenants. Christians believe this is because Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s Covenant (promise). This means that Jesus is the direction toward which all else—even of Scripture—is pointing.

“The Muslims I have known look at the Qur'an in similar ways. They know God is not bloodthirsty. They know they are called to peace with all people. You do them a great injustice to paint them all with one stroke.”

Islamic faith has no corollary to the words of Jesus. While it contains much that is admirable, there are passages like the following ones that are not countered by authoritative words of peace.

[8.17] So you did not slay them, but it was Allah Who slew them, and you did not smite when you smote (the enemy), but it was Allah Who smote, and that He might confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; surely Allah is Hearing, Knowing.

[60.1] O you who believe! do not take My enemy and your enemy for friends: would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you of the truth, driving out the Apostle and yourselves because you believe in Allah, your Lord? If you go forth struggling hard in My path and seeking My pleasure, would you manifest love to them? And I know what you conceal and what you manifest; and whoever of you does this, he indeed has gone astray from the straight path.

[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

Note particularly how [60.1] contrasts with Jesus’ teaching that we are to love our enemy. There is a tremendous difference between our religions. While Christianity has been guilty of using Scripture to justify violence, it has been through a misuse of the Bible. You cannot, for instance, blindly act on an Old Testament command to the Israelites without first seeing if it is compatible with what Jesus teaches.

"How convenient that you sidestep Christ's comment that not one letter of the law (Torah, the Old Testament) would be changed until all had come to completion."

When Jesus spoke of the nothing passing from the law until his completing, he was referring to the completion of his mission on earth, which happened through the Passion and, ultimately, in the resurrection. In Luke 16, Jesus says
“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached…”

“I believe that we must turn to the Holy Spirit to help us understand clear conflicts within scripture. Some of the ways in which the Presbyterian and Reformed traditions have relied upon the inspiration of the Spirit are through historical and textual criticism, aided by archeology and anthropology. We also pray, confer with tradition, and dialogue/debate among ourselves as we study scripture. We use the brains God gave us and seek the Spirit's help to guide us so that we may discern God's truth within the complexities of the Bible.”

The Bible is not as complex as some would say. Most “complexities” can be solved by seeking the counsel of the whole of Scripture. So-called contradictions harmonize easily. If, though, one want to atomize Scripture and demand that each statement be evaluated alone, it seems to be highly contradictory. The same thing would be true of the writing of any person in history.

I believe that the Holy Spirit does guide our understanding in terms of affirming faith and convicting us. What I don’t believe is that the Holy Spirit might give us some novel interpretation. One of the problems with the PCUSA, I believe, is that it has used the weak wording of C67 to justify a demotion of Scripture from the Revelation of God into a book that has to be re-evaluated by every generation that arises.

It all comes down to how we read, interpret, and believe our Holy Books. The real test of this is in the witness of the believer. I feel at times as if the debate in mainline churches and here on this blog is between those who take the Bible at face value and those who don't. I believe that there's a world of difference in what such beliefs produce.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

Religious War

2006-12-01T13:47:00.000-06:00

What is wrong with the following headlines?

"Artist Immerses Cross in Urine. Christians Riot Worldwide, Death Toll Mounting."

"Artist “Paints” Virgin Mary Using Feces. Art Museums Ransacked and Burned by Christians."

"Islamic Cleric Insults Jesus. Crowds of Christians Attack not only Mosques, but Worshipers Exiting Mosques."

"Crèche Scene Removed from Civic Center. Conservative Christians Threaten Lives of City Council."

Although the headlines seem familiar, they’re reversed. When Islam is denigrated in any way, violence is actual or threatened. Christianity is attacked with impunity, and no violence results.

Yet we still hear from liberals and progressives that Christianity is a “violent religion.” The specter of the Crusades (900+ years ago) is most often raised. Abortion clinic bombings are cited. Foreign wars are also raised as examples.

Some even try to characterize the current war in Iraq as a “Christianity vs. Islam” conflict. The initial casualties, including thousands of deaths, of the Iraq war were appalling, as is the case in all warfare. Now, though, the fact is that there is much more internecine violence between Muslims of different sects than there is Americans killing Iraqis. This has never been a religious war on our part.

One recent commenter to this site seems to believe that I, and people like me, somehow approve of violence done by Christians. I had mentioned to this writer that I wasn’t aware of any religious warfare today involving Christians. In addition to raising the Crusades, he says the following:

“The German Christians (representing many denominations) who supported Hitler's National Socialist agenda in the 1930s and 40s to exterminate Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and others. The majority of the world recognizes this as attempted genocide.”

The subservience of the nationalist German Church to Hitler is a terrible stain in the history of Christianity. But the genocide of WWII was not done in the name of religion or in the name of Christ. Hitler was a pseudo-pagan whose faith was best expressed in Wagnerian Opera, not Christian hymns.

Orthodox Christians held out against Hitler and everything he did. The Barmen Declaration, written in the mid-1930s, demonstrated that traditional Christianity resisted, sometimes even to death. The nationalist Church, coming out of the liberal tradition, wrote hymns to Hitler and included the Nazi salute as a church ritual. When one doesn’t have a clear faith, one can be vulnerable to any alteration.

This writer goes on to mention what he considers to be modern religious war, part of which was perpetrated in Jesus' name.

“Serbian and Bosnian Serb forces (Orthodox Christians) who perpetrated the ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks (Muslims) and Bosnian Croats (Roman Catholics) in Bosnia in the early 1990s. International courts are still debating the question of genocide.”

Chrissie and I have traveled frequently throughout Croatia and have been in Bosnia. We have friends there who lived through the vicious warfare of the 90s and we’ve personally witnessed the damage to villages and, particularly, churches. I have in my home a piece of rubble that used to be part of an altar in a destroyed Croatian church.

The warfare there was between Croats and Bosnians, largely seen respectively as Catholics and Muslims. The source of their ancient anger, though, is not their religion. It is surviving nationalist hatred dating back to the middle ages. I am not aware that any Christians or Muslims justified that war by their faith.

“White supremacists who intimidate, abuse, and/or murder people of other races and religions in an effort to keep Christianity and the human race ‘pure.’”

There are white supremacists who, sadly, cover themselves in a mantle of so-called Christianity. These people, though, are more related to the 1934-45 German nationalist Church than Christianity. They do act in the name of Jesus (something the German church didn’t), which is reprehensible.

As bad as their thinking is, I’m not sure that they’ve done much violence. They bear watching, but they are such a tiny minority that they really represent no one but themselves.

“…Muslims cannot be held accountable as a group for the actions of extremists and terrorists who call themselves Muslims.”

I wouldn’t blame a Muslim neighbor for actions done by terrorists, but I would hold her or him accountable if they refused to decry such violence. I do blame Muslim leaders who call themselves moderate, yet do not speak out against Islamic terrorism. I'd also like to ask this writer, "Why do you hold Christians accountable for all the accusations you make, yet feel we cannot do the same with Islam?"

I'll say it for myself. I am opposed to any and all violence done in the name of Jesus. If Christians blow up an abortion clinic, they are wrong. If they kill an abortionist, they must face the full effect of the law. (I have actually written newspapers saying these things.) If they deny someone their legal rights in the name of Jesus, they are wrong. If they persecute someone because he or she is not Christian, they are wrong. If our nation says that it must invade another because Jesus calls for it, I'll join the picket lines in opposition.

But there really is religious warfare going on right now. If you found yourself in a city center, surrounded by thousands of people shouting “Jesus is Lord,” would you fear for your life? What if it were thousands of people shouting “Allah u akbar”? There is religious war today, but it is not being perpetrated by those who follow Jesus.

Tomorrow I’ll write further on this subject.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom,

Finding the "True" Church

2006-11-30T11:24:00.000-06:00

Today’s Layman Online (pause for boos and hisses from “true church” Presbyterians) had an editorial that clearly defined what is now happening in the EOP Administrative Commission process. The Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery has received our list of members and addresses and is preparing a letter that will invite your response. The response that they want is from people opposed to the decision we made to leave the PCUSA--anyone, anywhere, for whatever reason.

It doesn’t matter if such “members” have moved to another part of the country or if they have joined another church. It doesn’t matter if such folk intend to attend, give, or support the Kirk in any other way. The presbytery will be satisfied just to have a body count.

In a North Carolina case, the body was 3,000 miles away. It belonged to a Presbyterian who moved from the East Coast but had not taken his name off the local church’s membership list. Nonetheless, a presbytery contacted the exile and asked him to state his opposition to the congregation’s decision to leave the PCUSA. He did. Number him now among the “true church.”

The Layman accurately describes this process as a “scavenger hunt.” The article points out that the tiny minority of the Kirk membership opposed to our disaffiliation (3%) is sufficient for them to lay claim to the property, thereby casting out the 97% who are the ONLY people who comprise Kirk of the Hills today.

As the Layman editorial says, “Frankly, it’s laughable about how the denomination’s leaders define the “true church” in today’s turmoil. The disgruntled and the absent are high on the list.”

The article details what happens if a “true church” is found and, in our case, if the court agrees with the Presbytery.

That tiny group of people gets the church property.
Two or three people are enough to constitute a “true” church.
If there are enough people, they struggle to minimally operate the property, keeping the “true” church alive only as long as they are.
If there are not enough people to pay the bills, the presbytery sells the property, keeping the cash.

This is the worst kind of stewardship. It would be a pyrrhic victory for the denomination, like an operation where the surgery was “successful” yet the patient died.

As bad as it would be if the Kirk lost the legal battle, it would not be the end of the world for us. The Layman article cites the case of a Presbyterian church in Findlay, Ohio, which asked for dismissal in 2002.

… the presbytery fired the pastor, conducted a night-time raid to change the locks, cleared out the pastor’s office and took over the property. Ever since, a small number of “true church” members – some recruited by the presbytery from other venues – has held services. They average about 41 a Sunday, compared to 350 to 400 before the “schismatics were turned over to Caesar,” as the denomination’s once-secret legal strategy phrases it.

Meanwhile, there remains a “true church” in Findlay. It consists of those who voted to leave the denomination and reorganize as Gateway Evangelical Presbyterian Church. After having to meet in a kennel the first Sunday after the presbytery raid, they have nearly completed a $3.5-million building. And membership is booming where the gospel is rightly preached, the sacraments rightly administered and discipline is used to hold members and leaders accountable to Christ.

While this denominational process is a farce, the power of Jesus Christ is anything but. I do worry about the property issue for us since I want the property best used to the glory of Jesus Christ. We’ll continue to be the church, doing the ministry we’ve done for 45 years. If we end up having to move, we’ll do the ministry from there.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

The EOP Rides Again

2006-11-29T00:13:00.000-06:00

I just received information from Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery regarding the Kirk. It is a letter from the General Presbyter, basically summarizing what has happened up to this point. I have no disagreement with most of the letter, but there are a couple of things I’d like to comment on.

“It should be mentioned that the Presbytery is paying for all of its legal expenses. There is no PCUSA money available to help. The expenses are being paid out of our unrestricted reserves, which have been strong in the past but are not unlimited. The presbytery’s mission budget will also be affected next year, but we do not know yet by how much.”

This is a tough financial situation for EOP and the Kirk. It could come to an end immediately if the presbytery decided to recognize that the property legally and morally belongs to us. It could also come to an end if we simply walked away from the property, which we will not do. It could end if the EOP would agree to negotiate. I’m a bit surprised that the PCUSA is not helping out. They have reserve funds set aside for just this purpose.

The PCUSA is stretching out the process. We received news today that the denomination has filed for an extension to the case, which should be approved by the judge. Perhaps they are just biding time for the presbytery’s Administrative Commission to finish its work, whatever that is. A clue of its purpose is found in the letter:

“The Presbytery, on September 5, appointed an Administrative Commission to look into the nature and depth of division within the Kirk and between the Kirk and the Presbytery, to seek reconciliation where it is possible, to offer pastoral care, and to investigate the validity of reported irregularities. The Commission, as part of its pastoral concern for all members of the Kirk, has been holding Sunday evening worship services at Southminster Presbyterian Church, led by a number of our pastors and attended by both members of the Kirk and members of other congregations in our Presbytery. The Commission is preparing a letter to all members of the Kirk, which will be mailed once membership records are received. After that, the Commission will hold a series of meetings in which they will listen to the concerns and questions of all involved.”

Let me respond to key points in the above paragraph.

“…to look into the nature and depth of division within the Kirk…”
I am not aware of division at all. I realize that this may be hard for the EOP to believe, but it is true. We just completed a marathon phone survey of the congregation. We did find that some people had moved their membership because they disagreed with our disaffiliation. The number is consistent with what we had at the congregational meeting: about 30-40 people. This is a very small number for a large church. That doesn’t make these people unimportant, but it does demonstrate that the Kirk is not a divided church.

“…investigate the validity of reported irregularities.”
All the EOP needs to do is read my blog (I think they may have already done so). In the blogs I give detailed accounts of what we did, and when we did it. While our move is decidedly controversial, we have not hidden or covered up what we’ve done.

“...the commission[‘s]…pastoral concern…”
The time for pastoral concern is long past. During the years the EOP was aware of our struggle with the PCUSA there was never a word of concern or support spoken. The few conversations about our concerns were, I felt, tinged with tension and disapproval. The same General Presbyter who wrote the letter once commented to me that "he wished that the extremists in the church were not dominating the conversation." That statement included me as an "extremist." There are many opportunities where a presbytery can act pastorally. Those didn't happen. We never even had the required tri-annual visits from the Committee on Ministry, as required by the PCUSA constitution.

“…the Commission…has been holding Sunday evening worship services.”
This was, for a short time, a source of confusion for some of our members. The way in which the presbytery worded notice of the services seemed, to some, to indicate it was a worship service of the Kirk, not the Commission. Since we are actively planning to start a new church, some thought this was what the announcement was about.

The confusion has been clarified, although the EOP claims to “own” the name of our church. I have a member who has been attending some of the services just to observe. According to him, services in November were attracting about 15 people, none of whom were Kirk members.

“The Commission is preparing a letter to all members of the Kirk...”
The EOP has already written our congregation, with very limited results. One more letter will not change anything. As in the past, when the EOP has contacted Kirk members, I’ve said that people are free to respond or not respond, as they wished. If the congregation were divided, the presbytery would have a sizeable response. It hasn’t happened and won’t this time, either. These contacts have, though, increased the congregation's level of irritability toward the EOP.

“After that, the Commission will hold a series of meetings in which they will listen to the concerns and questions of all involved”
I think that they may end up talking to themselves. Those who deeply disagreed with our disaffiliation have already moved to other churches, most notably First Presbyterian Church, Tulsa. We didn't know, at first, how many moved there because First Presbyterian failed to notify us that they had received our former members.

Our telephone marathon revealed that other members moved out of Tulsa without telling us. A few joined other local churches in the last year—not because of disaffiliation, but for other reasons. In each phone call we asked people directly how they felt about us leaving the PCUSA and the responses were highly encouraging to us.

The EOP is desperately trying to identify a "true church" from within the Kirk congregation. I cannot say that they'll find no one sympathetic to their cause, but I'd be surprised if there were any significant response.

There is one more thing in the letter that I feel compelled to comment on.

"This is a difficult matter and one which is best worked out among brothers and sisters in Christ rather than on a public stage."

At one level I agree with that statement. If we had had any confidence that the EOP and PCUSA would deal with us fairly, we'd have worked quietly with them. But the filing of the affidavit, combined with the release of the hardball legal gameplan (which the EOP is following) destroyed any confidence we might have had. Conversations I've had with churches throughout the country who have tried to work with presbyteries have almost universally found that the denomination doesn't just want to keep dirty laundry out of the public eye--they've gagged pastors and sessions so that the process outlined by the Louisville "game plan," worked out in the dark, would not be examined by the light of Truth. The Bible speaks to this:

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.” (John 3:19-21)

The reason for writing this blog is to keep the light shining, especially on the processes employed by the PCUSA against dissenting churches. I wish the denomination and the presbytery no evil, but I will not cooperate in something that could be evil.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

Furthering PCUSA Mission

2006-11-28T09:08:00.000-06:00

Church property is a hot issue in the PCUSA. Few know that as well as we do at the Kirk. The denomination (from its national legal gameplan) insists that presbyteries must retain property—or get a significant settlement—to further the mission of the PCUSA.

Is that why the Pines Presbytery allowed one of its churches to sell its building to an Islamic society to become a mosque? An article in today’s Layman Online details the merger of two churches and the sale of one of the church’s property.

It wasn’t as if there were no other qualified buyers. There was one organization that wanted the church in order to reach out to the homeless and poor through a Christian outreach center. The other wanted to create a Christian worship and evangelism center.

The pastors involved argue that this sale will improve dialogue with Moslems—it will be a great learning experience. The only problem is that none of it will be Christian teaching that is learned. The pastors aren’t even thinking about evangelizing the Muslims, believing that they are each “children of Abraham” and worship the same God we do. They’re ready to learn Arabic so that they can learn the Koran.

It simply isn’t mission. The real reason for this sale was money. The Islamic Society offered more cash than the Christians. To me, this is a metaphor of the property issue at hand for PCUSA churches, like ours, that leave the denomination. It’s not really about mission, it’s about money.

I’m not opposed to Islamic Societies building mosques. It’s the context that bothers me—they didn’t need Christian church property to meet in.* Having traveled extensively in the Middle East, I’m painfully aware of the thousands of ancient churches converted to mosques and it pains me to think of the same thing happening here. Islam is not interested in cooperating with Christian ministry; they are bent on overcoming other religions and placing them into dhimmitude (official second-class status). Most of the churches they now occupy in the Middle East and Turkey weren't purchased, either. They were taken at the point of a sword.

As more and more Presbyterian churches die and the property empties out (or as the denomination confiscates property from vital, dissenting congregations), the more this kind of issue will arise. What the PCUSA and all mainline denominations need is Christian evangelism to fill the buildings, not extra cash to support a dying denomination.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

* A related incident occurred in Tulsa not long after 9/11 when the University of Tulsa (ostensibly a Presbyterian institution) built a brand new mosque on its property.
CORRECTION: One of my elders pointed out that the University of Tulsa simply provided the land. They did not provide the funds for building the mosque.

Photo by Gary Miller from the November 2006 issue (Vol. 39, No. 5) of The Layman. Reprinted with the permission of the Presbyterian Lay Committee.

Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation

2006-11-23T11:32:00.000-06:00

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have show kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d d[a]y of October, A.D. 1789.

(signed) G. Washington

Houses Divided

2006-11-22T13:36:00.000-06:00

I have written before that my experience in the PCUSA taught me that the two religions there were orthodox and progressive Christianity. Certainly, there are variations and degrees of both, but it is clear: there are, in mainline denominations two different “churches.” One believes in the Bible at face value and seeks to maintain what the Church has taught through the ages. The other believes that culture, sociology, and science have as much or more to teach us than Scripture. One progressive responder to this blog defined this kind of “faith” saying, “What do first century marriage and sexuality in what is present day Turkey have to do with American 21st Century marriage and sexuality? Answer: virtually nothing.”

I just read an article, “Irreconcilable Differences” by Jack Estes that clearly demonstrates the fact that mainline denominations actually are made up of two different faiths from the Episcopalian perspective.

Who is Jesus? What is the gospel? How does holy scripture have authority? What is sin? Morality? Is God independent from the universe, or interdependent with it? These questions penetrate the idyllic surface of statements to which all claim to adhere. Beneath the surface we are faced with answers from two separate and distinct theological systems. These systems may be cohesive in and of themselves, but are radically different from one another.

Once the surface is broken, like a scuba diver we begin to see clearly what lies beneath. Two distinct visions of what it means to be an Anglican, perhaps even what it means to be a Christian, have emerged, and there is a great divide between them. This divide will not be breached by simply talking it over in the common language of the surface. Such conversation is merely representative. It does not convey the meanings that reside in the depth. The only way this division can be overcome would be if one or the other abandons their theological presuppositions.

Will this happen? Will liberal Episcopalians abandon their commitment to promoting gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender inclusiveness, a peace and justice gospel, and the acceptance of all faiths as equivalent paths to God? Will conservative Anglicans abandon their commitment to morality based on an objective scriptural standard, Jesus as the exclusive means of salvation, and a gospel that proclaims the need to convert others to Christianity?
Simply answered, No!
(emphasis added)

Not only is there a huge difference between progressive and orthodox Christianity, but some in the progressive camp revert to claims of orthodoxy when dealing with orthodox dissidents. They do this without apparently recognizing the irony, or even having the decency to blush.

An egregious example of this comes from the new Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church to one of her orthodox bishops. She is concerned that his diocese is considering leaving the denomination and she argues the point—get this!—by implying that he is undermining traditional faith.

I have seen reports of your letter to parishes in the Diocese of San Joaquin, which apparently urges delegates to your upcoming Diocesan Convention to take action to leave the Episcopal Church. I would ask you to confirm the accuracy of those reports. If true, you must be aware that such action would likely be seen as a violation of your ordination vows to “uphold the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them.” I must strongly urge you to consider the consequences of such action, not only for yourself but especially for all of the Episcopalians under your pastoral charge and care.

I certainly understand that you personally disagree with decisions by General Conventions over the past 30 and more years. You have, however, taken vows three times over that period to uphold the “doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church.” If you now feel that you can no longer do so, the more honorable course would be to renounce your orders in this Church and seek a home elsewhere. Your public assertion that your duty is to violate those vows puts many, many people at hazard of profound spiritual violence. I urge you, as a pastor, to consider that hazard with the utmost gravity.

As you contemplate this action I would also remind you of the trust which you and I both hold for those who have come before and those who will come after us. None of us has received the property held by the Church today to use as we will. We have received it as stewards, for those who enjoy it today and those who will be blessed by the ministry its use will permit in the future. Our forebears did not build churches or give memorials with the intent that they be removed from the Episcopal Church. Nor did our forebears give liberally to fund endowments with the intent that they be consumed by litigation.
(emphasis added)

The Presiding Bishop, representative of the core of those who are re-writing faith into something more comfortable to them, is accusing this traditional bishop of "violat[ing]...the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them"! She has the audacity to say that he is the one putting "many, many people at hazard of profound spiritual violence" even as she and her ilk have undermined and/or dismissed the saving core of the Gospel!

I believe that the mainline denominations—Congregational (UCC), Presbyterian (PCUSA), Methodist, and Episcopalian—are headed to ultimate division. I also believe that there will be a further disintegration of the progressive remainder as, without clear belief or evangelism, they will simply die out. This seems sad but, in a time when people are mostly disinterested in denominationalism, it may simply be progress toward the inevitable.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

"Examining" Candidates III

2006-11-19T20:48:00.000-06:00

Often, when we are complementing someone’s honesty, we say, “you can take him at his word.” I know of one organization you shouldn’t trust in that way. The Covenant Network has entered into George Orwell’s domain of “newspeak” (a word that is often referred to today as “doublespeak”).

In 1984, Orwell coined a word for his invented future, “blackwhite,” defined as the ability to accept whatever “truth” the party puts out, no matter how absurd it may be. Orwell described it as “...loyal willingness to say black is white when party discipline demands this. It also means the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know black is white, and forget that one has ever believed the contrary.”

Such is the content of part of the Covenant Network’s “Guidelines for Examination of Church Officers” paper (GECO). The paper recommends novel definitions to aid judicatories and candidates overcome constitutional obstacles for GLBT ordination.. Most of us remember President Clinton giving a lawyerly answer to a question saying, “That depends upon what ‘is’ is.” Several points in this paper remind me of such a response.

GECO approaches words in a way that coaches a dishonest cover for people wanting to get by a presbytery committee’s questions on sexual morality. They introduce the “newspeak” concept with, “Here we talk about some of the key terms in G-6.0106b—‘chastity,’ ‘singleness,’ ‘refusing to repent,’ and ‘practice the confessions call sin.’ As we’ll discover, there is room in all of these terms for some kind of same-sex relationship.” (p 42)

The meaning of these terms would seem to be obvious. But that’s before one employs a lawyerly angle. Most people will describe a “chaste” relationship as one without sex. Repentance means meaningfully admitting a wrong with the intention of never repeating it. But such definitions would give actual meaning to the paragraph, requiring real adherence.

Chastity is redefined in three categories: supposed usage in the Middle Ages, the concept of “justice-love,” and the idea that chastity is a spiritual, not a physical, concept.

Thus they instruct readers that clergy in the Middle Ages emphasized “chaste marriage” to their congregation, meaning sexual faithfulness to one’s spouse.
In terms of “justice-love,” chastity means that sexual acts involve “true mutuality and intimacy.” Interestingly, they go on to say that chastity, in this context, means that “’recreational sex’ is generally prohibited in this view, but monogamy is not necessarily required.”
Regarding a “spiritual” view of chastity, they say, “…some Church authorities have taught that ‘chastity’ is essentially a spiritual concept, depending on a person’s right beliefs.” “…’chastity’ depended less on whom one held with one’s body than on what one held in one’s heart.” (all above quotes from p 43)

They also have recommendations for presbyteries who want to ordain those who redefine chastity.

“Section G-a6.0106b of the Book of Order, and the 217th General Assembly’s Authoritative Interpretation of it, make clear that sessions and presbyteries must determine what ‘chastity’ means, and must apply that standard in light of the life and witness of each particular candidate.” (p 43)

Lest the above be inadequate for the purposes at hand, the paper goes even further:

“Many believe that Christian sexual ethics do not depend on the gender of the partners, but on the parties’ faithfulness to each other. In that case, even if we believed that ‘chastity’ meant ‘celibacy,’ G-6.0106b might well leave room for monogamous, same-sex relationships.” (p 44)

This answers a question for me regarding what really changed with the PUP report. It means, to those most concerned, that candidates, presbyteries, and sessions are free to bend language to fit any form they desire. When words mean nothing, they also can mean everything. There is no limit to what can be authorized in a church that permits such a fluid understanding of truth.

Finally, one of the most appalling sections of the paper regards repentance. Repentance is a key element of Christian faith. Jesus’ first words called people to repentance. Listen to what it now means:

“Our Confessions emphasize that repentance is a state of inward conviction that what one has done is wrong—what the Westminster Standards call one’s ‘true sense of is sin.’” (p 45) So, if you believe what you are doing is right, it must be right, regardless of what Scripture clearly teaches!

“Many faithful GLBT Presbyterians believe that their sexual orientation is a good and natural part of God’s creation that can be responsibly acted on. They are not alone in that: Half of the Bible faculty in our seminaries believe the same thing.” (p 45) I would point out that those same professors probably do not believe that Scripture is the Revealed Word of God.

So goes the thinking of those who would infiltrate the PCUSA with false representation of themselves based upon clever redefinitions. If this is allowed to continue, as it seems that PUP intends, there is no healthy future for the PCUSA. Those within the denomination need to rise up in their churches and presbyteries and demand the simple truth.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

"Examining" Candidates II

2006-11-17T22:40:00.001-06:00

The Covenant Network’s “Guidelines for Examination of Church Officers” paper (GECO) employs certain assumptions regarding the meaning of the PCUSA constitution. Regardless of the fact that the Network came into being to fight the clear meaning of the PCUSA constitution on ordination of practicing, unrepentant GLBTs, it claims now to have historic information undermining such meaning.

The paper claims that, although the GA Permanent Judicial Committee ruled that the 1978 Authoritative Interpretation of the PCUSA constitution is binding, the “General Assembly [that wrote the interpretation] believed it was delivering non-binding ‘guidance.’” (p 49) I happened to be one of the thousands of observers at that General Assembly and clearly remember everyone’s reaction—the guidance was meant to be binding. Assertions otherwise don’t change history.

The GECO paper focuses more closely on the paragraph in the PCUSA constitution that prohibits the ordination of practicing, unrepentant GLBTs. As a reminder, the text of the controversial paragraph in the PCUSA context is as follows:

G-6.0106b. Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.

The GECO paper goes on to say that the “wording of G-6.0106b is clear evidence that the whole church was not prepared to adopt the more categorical and exclusionary language of the ‘pre-B’ statements.” (p 49) Their point, I think, is that G-6.0106b fails to use the words “homosexual” or “GLBT,” so it is not particularly relevant regarding such candidates. Once again, this is an assertion without substance. In fact, the clarity of the “more categorical and exclusionary language” undermines their above statements about the 1978 Authoritative Interpretation. It is from this interpretation that, since 1978, the PCUSA has firmly stated that GLBT ordination is unconstitutional.

The whole controversy over the G-6.0106b paragraph—and the fact that pro-GLBT forces have consistently fought to have it removed—is proof of the clarity of its meaning: those in a sexual relationship outside of heterosexual marriage shall not be ordained.

In the next blog I’ll consider the use (or misuse) of specific words that the GECO paper employs.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

"Examining" Candidates I

2006-11-16T22:36:00.000-06:00

The Covenant Network is an organization of like-minded Presbyterians (PCUSA) who support the ordination of gays, lesbians, bi-sexual, and transgendered people (GLBT), and same-sex marriage. Among such support groups they are comparatively low-key, measuring their words and carefully planning actions. As such, they may turn out to be the most effective allies that GLBTs have in the PCUSA.

For this reason alone it is important for orthodox members of the PCUSA to examine a recent document published by the Covenant Network, entitled “Guidelines for Examination of Church Officers.” I believe it is intended both for churches that wish to ordain GLBTs, and for such candidates, as well. The document is clear, well written, and revealing.

Portions of this document demonstrate the struggle for the soul of the PCUSA. The document advises readers to use the theological confusion in the PCUSA and also to use language in careful, crafted ways in order to work around pertinent constitutional issues.

The paper points out what is the central theological problem in the PCUSA—a lack of identified essentials, even though every officer must swear to adhere to those essentials.

We don’t have any very clear tests for determining when something is “essential” or not. Perhaps the best test for whether something is “essential” is what the Adopting Act of 1729 first reflected: that our disagreement relate to something so fundamental that we are “incapable of communion” with each other. Given our faith in the saving power of Jesus Christ, and his prayer that his followers “all may be one” (John 17:21), we should reach such a conclusion only with the greatest reluctance and care.

There are simple ways of determining what is essential. Most people accept certain words as imperative (note that the Covenant Network document places the term, essentials, in quotes). The document effectively instructs readers to ignore essentials, even though the constitutional standard is that statements using words like “are to,” “shall,” or “should” must be obeyed.

The most debated part of the PCUSA constitution in this regard is the passage regarding the standards for officers in chapter 6.

Book of Order § G-6.0106
a. To those called to exercise special functions in the church – deacons, elders, and ministers of the Word and Sacrament – God gives suitable gifts for their various duties. In addition to possessing the necessary gifts and abilities, natural and acquired, those who undertake particular ministries should be persons of strong faith, dedicated discipleship, and love of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Their manner of life should be a demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and in the world. They must have the approval of God’s people and the concurring judgment of a governing body of the church.

b. Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament. (emphasis added)

To most readers it couldn’t be clearer: the requirements of paragraph “a” mandate conformity to paragraph “b.” The latter paragraph clearly defines marriage, reminding all of us that God designed sexual activity to occur exclusively in a covenental, heterosexual marriage. Any other “arrangement” violates constitutional requirements, and persons so engaged must not be ordained.

In the next couple of blogs I’ll examine how the document goes on to radically alter common-sense definitions of key words in order to allow practicing, unrepentant GLBTs to seem to conform to the above paragraphs. In order for such a radical redefinition to be “acceptable” requires not only the elimination of essentials, but the assertion that there are no theological standards by which to establish essentials.

The Covenant Network accurately describes the current theological vagueness of the PCUSA, using it to the advantage of those who challenge G-6.0106b.

In 1967, we adopted a Book of Confessions, which supplemented the Westminster Standards with seven other creeds from different times and places. Those statements differ from one another in various respects. That action reinforced that candidates need not – indeed, cannot – subscribe to a single formulation of belief when they are being examined. (emphasis added)

Why would anyone want an organization to drop its essentials, or even be satisfied that there are none? The only reason I can think of is that such people want anything to be possible—they want no restrictions.

What is more ominous in that the arguments of this document apply not only in presbyteries friendly to GLBT issues, but seeks to influence sessions and presbyteries across the board. The point is to bring these arguments to bear throughout the denomination. Add to this the fact that the PCUSA Stated Clerk has warned that presbyteries and sessions trying to establish any standards will be in violation of the constitution. This document is designed, I believe, to argue that no presbytery or session can hold standards that might exclude an active, unrepentant GLBT from ordination.

Stay in tune.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

A Sign of Things to Come?

2006-11-15T13:14:00.000-06:00

You could almost hear the sigh of relief from the Presbytery PJC in Pittsburgh. The Rev. Janet Edwards had defied the constitution of the PCUSA by performing what she called a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple. The PCUSA has ruled that pastors may preside at "unions" but must not perform any service that could be perceived as, or called, marriage.

Edward's case was the first one to come to the denomination post-PUP. A question in the minds of most observers was whether or not the PJC would rule on the theological issues behind the case, or just rule on procedure. They opted for the latter.

It took them about 90 minutes to decide that the whole case hinged on the fact that it was filed 4 days too late for them to consider. It must have been a great relief to have the burden of actual decision lifted from their shoulders. According to local new sources,

The panel said the decision does not constitute a vindication of the Rev. Edwards or any kind of decision on the issue at hand. Rather, it was based on the defense contention that the charges were filed four days past the deadline. Charges had to be filed within a year of the date when the investigating committee began meeting on the case, which was in September 2005.
The Rev. Edwards had announced that she welcomed the trial, and had issued formal invitations to the trial and a "worship celebration and lunch" she is holding at the Pittsburgh Golf Club in Schenley Park after the trial's conclusion.

Is this a sign of things to come? What happened here was a decision that was not a decision. Those supporting the Rev. Edwards can rejoice in her acquittal. Those who oppose her form of Presbyterianism can declare that they have to wait for the next case to see what the direction the post-PUP denomination will take. I think the direction has already been posted.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

“Nothing’s Changed”

2006-11-13T15:35:00.000-06:00

Months ago the mantra “nothing’s changed” came from denominational leaders hoping to mitigate reaction to the final passage of the TTFPUP report. It was not said immediately following the vote, but sometime between the vote and going home, key denominational leaders designed this spin which has been uncritically repeated by denominational officials and those who support the PUP report.

Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick sent a letter to his counterpart in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church urging them not to receive us until the lawsuit was settled and we had gone through “the process.” As a part of that letter he added,

“As you are undoubtedly aware, our recent 217th General Assembly adopted an Authoritative Interpretation (AI) of our Constitution that clarified our historic ordination standards and the processes by which they are applied and by whom. Sadly, a number of advocacy groups have characterized this statement as somehow creating a fundamental change in our standards. My office has been working hard to assure the Church that such characterizations are inaccurate.”

Up until the moment of the vote, everyone involved understood that the AI was an escape clause for candidates who did not want to be limited by the PCUSA constitution’s G-6.0106b, which clearly states that no candidate can be approved for ordination if he or she is unrepentantly practicing what the Bible and Confessions call sin. The AI now allows presbyteries and sessions to consider that such a sins may not be “essential” to our corporate faith and, therefore, the candidate may be approved of.

Jack Haberer, a member of the Task Force and now editor of the Presbyterian Outlook writes,

Yet another cause of confusion comes from the various ways people answer the simple question, “Does the TTF report change anything?” We TTF members have argued that we were not inventing any thing new. At most, we suggested, it was simply dusting off and bringing back into practice a step in the ordination process that had gone out of fashion. However, many readers of the TTF report have argued that the report was cutting a loophole that individuals and ordaining bodies could exploit.
Jack Haberer, Presbyterian Outlook, November 13, 2006

Haberer at least admits that the Authoritative Interpretation did something different. He hangs his hat, though, on the peg of history. At the very birth of our denomination in the USA, pastors were allowed to declare scruples (disagreements) with the Westminster Confession.

Such scruples were allowed on many issues where Christians had disagreed. A good example of such would be the way in which the Sabbath is kept. For some Presbyterian Christians it was an all-out ban on work or entertainment on the Sabbath (some extended this to the night before, or even the day after). Others simply saw Sabbath as a time of rest, without detailed descriptions of what could or couldn’t be done.

Would those Presbyterians back in 1729 have allowed for scruples which opposed clear Scriptures which had been universally accepted up until that time? Would they see that offending the following could be scrupled?

For an elder must be a man whose life cannot be spoken against. He must be faithful to his wife. (1 Timothy 3:2)
Let there be no sexual immorality, impurity, or greed among you. Such sins have no place among God’s people. (Ephesians 5:3)
“Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin. (Leviticus 18:22

If you still think that nothing’s changed, consider the actions of one of the members of the Task Force, Scott D. Anderson.

John Knox Presbytery's Committee on Preparation for Ministry has unanimously recommended that the presbytery enroll Scott D. Anderson, the only openly homosexual member of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity, as an inquirer on track for ordination as a minister of Word and Sacrament.
Anderson believes the 2006 General Assembly's approval of the PUP report and authoritative interpretation on ordaining practicing homosexuals opens the door for consideration of his request to be re-ordained in the Presbyterian Church (USA).

In 1999, Anderson spoke at the denomination's "unity in diversity" conference in Atlanta, describing his coming out as "a self-affirming gay Christian" as the theological equivalent of "justification" and his "same-sex bonding" as the equivalent of "sanctification." The Layman Online

There you have it in full. One of the members of the task force who wrote the PUP clearly understands that it “opens the door” for someone unrepentantly practicing what the Bible and Confessions call sin. How anyone can argue “nothing’s changed” after this confounds me.

The TTFPUP had a purpose, to propose change to the PCUSA in terms of whom it will ordain. In one way the standards have not changed, since they’ve not been removed from the Constitution. But what good do they serve in the Constitution if they can be creatively ignored?

Another writer to the Presbyterian Outlook (who approves of the AI) has, unintentionally I believe, prophesied what will come of the PCUSA because of this.

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has lost members annually since my ordination in 1983, and the reasons for this dieback have been laid at various doors. Repeated attempts to restructure, to move together in any particular direction, and to control one another have left the decline undisturbed. The formula offered by the task force and endorsed by General Assembly involves no new structures, but it does open the door to chaos, i.e. congregations and presbyteries having some leeway in ordination processes. This chaos is very good, in my opinion….Margaret Wheatley speaks to our situation:

Chaos’ role in the emergence of new order is so well known that it seems strange that Western culture has denied its part so vehemently. In the dream of dominion over nature, we believed we could eliminate chaos from life. We believed there were straight lines to the top. If we set a goal or claimed a vision, we would get there, never looking back, never forced to descend into confusion or despair. These beliefs led us far from life, far from the processes by which newness is created. And it is only now, as modern life grows ever more turbulent and control slips away, that we are willing again to contemplate chaos (see Hayles 1990). Whether we explore its dynamics through new science or ancient myths, the lesson is important. The destruction created by chaos is necessary for the creation of anything new.

I am about to do a new thing, God says to the PC(USA). Now it springs forth, do you perceive it? Isaiah 43:19, NRSV. Opting for a measure of chaos in ordination practices allows the strange attractor of God’s Spirit to bring new patterns to our corporate life together. I believe that this chaos will prove ultimately far more life giving than we have experienced for quite some time, denominationally speaking.
“Loving Chaos,” Sam Massey, Pres Outlook

Chaos is what will ensue. When you believe nothing, you’ll believe everything. This is why mainline denominations are rife with incredible heresies like neo-paganism, universalism, and goddess-worship. The Bible never describes chaos as good. It is the conversion of chaos into creation that was good. For those who argue that the chaos the PUP has sent the PCUSA into is good, I would remind them that it is God alone who worked creation out of chaos. Unless the PCUSA returns to the Lord and to the Word, their chaos will be only frightening and destructive.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

Election Results

2006-11-09T12:10:00.000-06:00

The nice thing about a democratic republic is that, after every election, about half or more of the people are happy, for a time. The prognosticators portend great changes and a new era of politics in America. Maybe, maybe not.

This week’s election is reminiscent of the mid-90s surge for the Republicans. After decades of Democratic dominance there would be, it was said, a sea-change for our country. Instead we got just the tides we’ve always had—some a little higher or lower than the past, but only tides nonetheless.

The new Democratic congress will certainly push forward issues ignored during the Republican ascendancy. Committee chairs will shift from Republican to Democrat so that different faces will be on center-screen when we watch CNN or Fox. I don’t think, though, that there will be as much change as people think.

This isn’t cynicism on my part, but an observation of what might be the greatest strength of our political system. While the country does change under different political leadership, the change is minute in comparison with other countries. Regardless of political affiliation, we are more united politically than other countries I've observed.

Chrissie, Audrey, and I lived in Scotland for a year and witnessed a different system, especially in local government. Nationally, the difference between the Tories and Labor in Great Britain was tremendous. The ascendancy of one party or another literally changed the face of labor and corporation ownership, with companies nationalized or privatized, based upon the party in power.

In local government, where you literally see the results take place around you, the change is greater. Edinburgh voted in a city government of one of the leftist parties around at that time. One result of that vote was the reworking of public transportation routes and times on Sundays, making it harder for people to get to church.

The difference in the USA is that the two parties are much more evenly matched in power and philosophy than is the case in other countries. The greatest change that is likely to come about in this term change—a truly great one—is the way in which the Iraq war is prosecuted. It will be interesting to see just how much difference there will be on this one, huge issue.

Christians witness includes being good citizens. This means being informed, faithful voters. It also means that we should be contributing our voice and resources to the body politic. What it doesn’t mean is that we put our trust in the political system. Those who do will always end up disappointed. The kingdom of God will not come about through a political process. It is, instead, made up of hearts changed by Jesus. In Him is our only hope.

There is a corollary between what I’ve written above and the condition of mainline Christian denominations. In the latter there has been a huge gulf of difference in belief between the orthodox and progressive side. Progressives took power in the churches decades ago and have exercised that power sometimes in responsibility, but more often in a ham-fisted and arrogant way. Progressives tend to see the kingdom of God in political change while orthodox believers emphasize spiritual transformation.

The divisions in mainline denomination, in which we at the Kirk have participated, are the logical result of a power-based system insensitive toward dissent. While our national government still hears and responds to two sides (hence the 90s Republican ascension and this week’s Democratic one), the churches do not. This is why there is schism.

I’m in the process of changing my denominational affiliation because of this. It hasn’t been about win/lose so much as about finding a place where I can openly practice my faith and, yes, even be a dissenting voice, without fear of reprisal.

I’m thinking about doing the same kind of change with my political affiliation. My Whig candidates haven’t won an election in ages.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

Too Late for Change?

2006-11-06T10:15:00.000-06:00

The Community Church of Ventura sent a declaration to its presbytery (Santa Barbara) regarding the faith and direction of the PCUSA. Within that declaration are these words:

“It is time, in the name of integrity and honesty, for those who have denied and rejected the essential tenets of the Reformed faith to graciously separate from the body and leave the church to those who have remained faithful to its standards, doctrine and tradition.”

I would like this declaration to be effective. My guess is that the Presbytery of Santa Barbara will receive it favorably and pass it on as an overture to the next General Assembly in 2008. There it will die. Those who have rejected Reformed standards will not leave. Their definition of the ancient standard of “reformed and reforming” is to change the church in accordance with “scientific” and cultural standards.

Churches like ours have felt impelled to leave because those changing the standards have made it clear that they will not. They are in the PCUSA to change it to their standards. In fact, they have already done so.

One of our local PCUSA pastors has written to members of the presbytery,

“The Kirk believes that the PCUSA is headed for the shoals, and has opted to man the lifeboats and jump ship. Other congregations have done (or are considering), the same. we must take their concersn very seriously. But as an evangelical pastor within the PCUSA, I'm convinced that there's still reason to be 'in the engine room' and hard at work. We need all hands on deck.”

This implies that we, at the first sign of problems, left the denomination. Fact is, we’ve been fighting for the Reformed standards of the traditional PCUSA for decades. I have served on boards of renewal organizations, attended national and regional meetings many times each year, written to magazines, blogs, and spoken out at various gatherings around the country. I spent at least one month each year fighting the fight in the contexts available to me. The passing of the PUP report was the last straw for us, indicating that the fight had been lost.

This pastor, who does see the problem and agrees that it is a problem, has just now decided to join the fray, apparently critical of us for not staying and fighting with him. I remember, years ago, inviting him to join me with a group of pastors who, among other things, was addressing the very problems that plague the PCUSA today. This pastor declined, saying that he had to budget his time, already committed to a theological discussion group.

I know that I sound frustrated--and I am. The time for generalist discussion groups, as opposed to active opposition to the problems affecting mainline denominations today, is long past. Many of us have literally given a cumulative year or more of our lives to taking a stand against the theological erosion that typifies so many denominations today. To continue the metaphor, the ground beneath the foundation is sinking. We feel it is time to move back to firmer ground.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

Pastors and Friendship

2006-11-04T14:48:00.000-06:00

A person responding to my blog said the following (note to this sender—we don’t publish anonymous blogs. All you have to do is sign your name and we will publish):

Tom, at some point, please say more about this: “There are often real and supposed friendships built up between a senior pastor and staff.” I think it would be helpful to me and many others who work or volunteer within their church.

It is very hard to establish and maintain healthy friendships within a staff. This is because a friendship will have to deal with the line between pastor (boss) and staff (employee). The pastor certainly will have to critique the performance of the employee, which could get confused in friendship.

On the other hand, the staff member is in no position to call the boss to account, if necessary. In a friendship, the employee might even be recruited into an us-vs-them relationship, which can divide the rest of the staff and even the congregation.

Friendships between staff can be seen as favoritism. I have seen this happen—even independent of friendship—when the boss has to spend more time with a couple of staff people over the others for supervision or project reasons.

Staffs that confuse respect and collegiality with friendship can breed the kind of thinking that sees the staff primarily as support for each other, rather than the church. Certainly, staff must support each other, but our basic call is to serve the church.

Since Wayne and I have become co-pastors we have initiated more of a collegial style of planning, developing, and ministering amongst the whole staff. We work together in preparing worship, sermon series, small groups, publications, and so much more. I truly believe that all voices are heard and respected. This works because we have a staff where there is mutual respect and the desire to put Jesus’ ministry through the Kirk before anything else.

Supposed friendships occur when one or the other party has an agenda in the friendship. The friendship is a means to an end and isn’t real. This is what I experienced with my boss who was caught in multiple affairs. The circumstances of discovery dictated that I be the one to confront him. Almost immediately he imposed upon our “friendship” to cut him breaks in the process or to alter the story. It was incredibly hard for me to hold fast to what was right. At one point my boss told Kirk members that I was the one involved in affairs. There are probably people who left the church then who still think that's the truth. The feelings I had had for him were true, but not his for me. I’m sure that this is the reason I had such trouble getting over the anger and grief that his betrayal produced.

Yet there are real friendships among pastors and staff. Wayne Hardy and I have worked together for 17 years. For almost all of those years it seemed more of a partnership than boss/employee. But it really couldn’t be that until we became co-pastors. With equal authority, there is the potential for a real friendship. There are, of course, conflicts within a church, or difficult decisions where we might be at odds. The purpose in friendship, though, is to be true to each other even in difficult situations.

I also sincerely love my staff like they were my family. There have been staff members in the past where, for various reasons, this feeling never developed. In all such cases I remember, the staff member in question just wasn't a good fit for the Kirk. There are also newer members of staff, or people I rarely work with side-by-side, where the desire to feel “family” is there, and will come with time.

Everything I’ve written above—and more—is true of friendships between pastors and church members. That relationship can be a minefield for pastors and friends alike. My experience is that most pastors do not develop close friendships with members for these reasons. Having said that, I have been at the Kirk for almost 25 years. That length of time has imprinted a deeper love of people in the Kirk on my heart.

Wayne and I have both said that the hardest thing for us to do in the Kirk is bury friends. As the congregation ages, this becomes more frequent. And in a large congregation there are even fairly frequent deaths of younger people we deeply love.

I am privileged to serve the Kirk. I have never been in a more supportive congregation. I know that some reading past blogs believe that I have somehow hoodwinked the congregation to think like me. The truth is that this is an exceptionally unified congregation. That doesn’t mean that we have no differences; members are quick and confident to speak out. But we try to put Jesus first, and that’s the healthiest thing any congregation can do.

On a totally different subject, there is an excellent article by Ben Witherington on the developing Ted Haggard story. I’m not sure that I agree with the section on male menopause as a cause of scandals but I find that whatever Witherington writes is worth reading. You’ll find it here.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

More on the Scandal

2006-11-03T17:12:00.000-06:00

The ensuing news regarding the Rev. Ted Haggard indicates that there is more to the accusations than I had thought. At the same time, the actual sins involved are not yet clear. The person making the accusations flunked a lie-detector test, and the Rev. Haggard’s story seems to be changing.

At the very least, Ted Haggard has reacted correctly by removing himself from office and pulpit, and entering into a covenant agreement to be accountable to a group of leaders. If any of what has been said is true, I stand by my previous statement, that he should find some other form of work than the pastorate. I am aware of pastors successfully restored to pulpits following moral failure, but the success rate is rare.

I’d like to explain further some of the flags that I have cautioned people about concerning men whose sexual morality is deeply in sin.

Financial:

Frequently such pastors have a record of asking wealthy people in their congregations for private donations to “special” projects, meaning the pastor’s own bank account.
There are also instances of abuses of discretionary accounts, such as giving expensive gifts to favored staff and members.
The worst and rarest cases involve direct theft, embezzlement, and kick-backs from companies bidding for services.
All the above may intensify as the guilty party faces legal expenses and lowered income.

Sexual:

Rarely is a sexual fall a one-time thing. As time progresses, other stories come out. If the pastor is having an affair with someone in the congregation (NOT an accusation against the Rev. Haggard), be ready to hear of other affairs.
The recidivism rate is high should the guilty pastor go to another church.

The Congregation:

Some of the people responding to my blog have correctly pointed out that the congregation is often the forgotten victim in such tragedies.
Right or wrong, there is often a father/child relationship between pastor and congregation. Affairs within a congregation have an impact similar to acts of incest.
People who were married by the pastor may wonder if their marriages are valid (they are).
Some men, already lacking in moral fiber and commitment, may use the pastor’s act as an excuse to do similar things.
Some people become so disillusioned with the hypocrisy that they leave the church altogether—forever.
Guilty pastors who are truly disturbed (sociopathic) attack staff members and church leaders who question them.
Often old friends are cultivated to help manipulate church leaders to be favorable to the guilty pastor. There can be a lot of pressure put on remaining leaders, ranging from constant harassment to lawsuits.
The interim pastor may be accused of all kinds of things by the guilty one in an effort to diffuse the issue and confuse people to the point they don’t know what to believe.
The guilty party is likely to demand forgiveness, even if repentance seems superficial. Their goal is to return to the status quo ante.
Staff members are deeply hurt and may become deeply disillusioned. There are often real and supposed friendships built up between a senior pastor and staff. The pastor's sin is a betrayal to them.
Living through such a time is akin to living through grief after the death of a loved one. There are stages of anger, denial, confusion, acceptance, and more—not necessarily in a predictable order. It takes time to heal. In what I personally experienced it took almost two years.

As I write this, I’m surprised at how calm I feel. When I experienced a similar situation from my former boss I was all over the map emotionally. I even, sad to say, felt hate toward him. The only reason I can write dispassionately today is that the Rev. Haggard did nothing to me personally, but that's not the case with his congregation and to the National Association of Evangelicals.

I will pray daily for New Life Church and especially its staff. I will pray daily for the Rev. Haggard. He seems to have taken appropriate steps to lead back to moral and spiritual health. I will pray daily for the NAE, which is a very important organization.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

Allegations in Colorado

2006-11-03T10:58:00.000-06:00

Yesterday’s news about the accusation against the National Assoociation of Evangelicals president Ted Haggard has spawned a flurry of newsprint. Here is one of Time magazines’s 25 most influential evangelicals in the USA caught in a sexual scandal, so says one radio station in Colorado. All the news that has followed comes from this one source.

Mike Jones, 49, of Denver, made his allegations on the Peter Boyles show on KHOW 630 AM, saying he was compelled to come forward because he believes Haggard, an opponent of same-sex unions, is being hypocritical.

"After sitting back and contemplating this issue, the biggest reason is being a gay man all my life, I have experience with my friends, some great sadness of people that were in a relationship through the years," and were not able to enjoy the same rights and privileges as a married man and woman, Jones told Boyles on air.

"I felt it was my responsibility to my fellow brothers and sisters, that I had to take a stand, and I cannot sit back anymore and hear (what) to me is an anti-gay message." (Rocky Mountain News, November 2, 2006)

Any person in the public eye can be accused in such a fashion. When this happens there is little the accused can do to overcome the doubt such reports cast. The accuser, Mike Jones, is a male prostitute who says that he recognized Haggard from seeing him on TV and says that he knew Haggard by another name. All that Haggard can do is say that this isn't true, while those who wish to see him twist in the wind celebrate.

I have never met the Rev. Haggard but, at this stage, I doubt the veracity of the accusation against him. There are several reasons for my doubt.

The first is the nature of the accusation. It is vague and unsupported by any real evidence.

Second is the context of the accusation. It comes just days before an important vote in Colorado regarding gay rights issues.

Third is the response of the Rev. Haggard and his church. Haggard immediately submitted to the system that his congregation has set up for such an accusation and the church is pressing forward with an investigation.

I have, sadly, had experience regarding pastors and moral failure. The pastor immediately before me at the Kirk (my boss at the time) was caught in such a thing. I have, since then, done significant study of the issue and have even served as a consultant to congregations whose leaders have fallen morally. I have learned the following in such situations:

If a pastor has fallen morally there will be evidence of more than one incident. A number of credible people come forward almost immediately.

Such a guilty pastor immediately issues denials usually couched in blaming other people or claiming the incident to be a misconstrual of his "ministry."

There is often corollary evidence of financial misdeeds.

The guilty pastor has previously displayed narcissistic, even sociopathic behavior.

No matter what the truth is, groups of people will side with the pastor or against him, even after overwhelming evidence convicting or clearing him.

I chose to write about this because I have received several gleeful emails from people who have formerly posted comments on this blog. I guess they think that, as goes one evangelical, so go all. There is nothing to rejoice about here. Haggard's church, regardless of the basis of the charge, is damaged and devastated. The National Association of Evangelicals has similar damage. The Church universal is hurt.

If Ted Haggard is guilty of the accusation he needs to be removed from his pastorate and surrounded by clear-minded, Godly people who will hold him accountable as he is restored to faith. My personal opinion is that, if he is guilty, he should find future employment outside the pastorate.

However, I don’t believe that there is enough evidence at this point to indicate that he is guilty. The nature of the accusation is singular, vague, unsupported, and politically expedient. I wish I could say that Haggard, if proven innocent, could just move on with his life. That, sadly, could never happen. He’ll be hounded and haunted by this from now on.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

Comment Publishing Standards

2006-11-02T10:28:00.000-06:00

Just a reminder to all that we will not publish, or will remove, comments that are ad hominem, use vulgar language or, in our opinion, are either redundant or surly (or both). I will also remove posts that are just trying to get under my skin. Serious and dignified disagreement is welcome.

Those of you who continue to send in anonymous comments can get published if you use one of the several options given to you before you post. You can sign your post, or mark one of the two options that identify you.

I appreciate the fact that you all take the time to respond. While I may not like what you say, I want to be able to post it. I will try, though, to raise the bar on decency. Thanks.

Tom

The Difference is Evident

2006-10-31T20:31:00.000-06:00

I know that those remaining in the PCUSA are probably tired of me making comparisons between the EOP and the EPC presbyteries. I do so not to frustrate anyone, but because there really is a difference.

Let me contrast my experiences being received in the various presbyteries of which I have been a part:

I was ordained into the UPCUSA through the Presbytery of San Gabriel in California. My examination—both before the candidates’ committee and on the floor of presbytery—was thorough. I was asked questions on theological subjects, polity, and the Bible. The examinations may have been more thorough because so many seminary professors were in the presbytery, including Jack Rogers (Fuller), Paul Jewett (Fuller), and Burton Mack (Claremont).

We moved to Scotland where I had to go through a complete ordination examination again. I was told that they weren’t simply accepting American ordination certificates because of problems they had recently had. It turned out that those problems were a result of their confusion over the difference between Methodist candidates ordained to the deaconate rather than the pastorate.

Anyway, I had to stand (sit?) oral exams on theology, polity, Bible, and church history. I was also required to translate significant passages of Scripture from the Hebrew and Greek, something I might have trouble doing today!

When I came to Oklahoma in 1982 I was twice interviewed. There were two consistent sets of questions: “Did I support the ordination of women?” I confidently answered “yes,” but was suspect because I was a Fuller grad (this was said by the committee up-front). The other question was about prayer. At my first meeting with the committee one pastor asked me if I really believed that God answered prayer. I answered “yes,” as I still would.

They were not satisfied with my answers, so I had to return from California to Tulsa for a second examination. Again I was asked if I would support the ordination of women. Between the first and second meeting there had been the crash of an airliner in Louisiana, and the same pastor asked me “do you think that the people in that plane’s prayers weren’t answered?” This, to me, demonstrated a naive understanding of prayer and a complete misunderstanding of Reformed theology.

Before the presbytery I gave my testimony and (wouldn’t you know it) was asked by someone on the floor if I supported women’s ordination. My answer must have been satisfactory, because I was admitted without a negative vote.

Today, Wayne and I were examined over the phone by two teaching elders (pastors) of the EPC presbytery. This was a preliminary examination, since both the Kirk and the EPC are at the inquiry stage. The examiners asked us to describe the Kirk. They then wanted to know our basis for the interpretation of Scripture, as well as our acceptance of the theological essentials of the EPC and the Westminster Confession. This presbytery has not ordained women to the office of teaching elder although women are ordained as deacons and elders, according to individual churches beliefs. The fact that we would prefer that the presbytery ordain women as pastors was not received with hostility or incredulity, but grace.

Following the time together, the lead examiner emailed Wayne and me, thanking us for our time and interest, and even suggested further reading for us better to understand them.

I don’t know what the future holds. We may be admitted into the EPC. We or they may decide that we will do something different. But what we have experienced so far indicates a commitment to Scripture, Reformed faith, and Truth that I have not experienced in a long, long time.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

Now That's a Presbytery Meeting!

2006-10-28T08:46:00.000-05:00

I am sitting, as I write this, in the presbytery meeting of the Presbytery of the Midwest, Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Once again, Wayne and I are impressed with the openness of the people in the presbytery. We are doubly impressed with their knowledge and use of Scripture. We rejoiced in their heart-felt prayers.

This morning we've been observing the examination of candidates for ministry. Unlike our previous experiences, this denomination does a rigorous examination on the floor of presbytery. Candidates must answer specific questions from and about Scripture. One candidate was asked to give a detailed outline (verbally, without notes) of the Gospel of Matthew (someone else asked him to outline the book of Revelation). Another candidate was asked to respond with theological depth on points from the Westminster confession. Each candidate was asked questions of doctrine and where they, if they did, disagreed with any point. As long as disagreement was not on one of the essentials, that disagreement was met with grace.

I was particularly impressed by the fact that the candidates answered all questions of doctrine with supporting Scriptures (from memory). Each one of them had not only done their homework, but had taken to heart Reformed teaching and, most importantly, the Bible.

Last night we heard the candidates preach in a wonderful worship service. The music was contemporary, thoughful, and Christ-centered. Even though I prefer traditional worship, I felt completely at ease and enjoyed the presence of God therein. We also appreciated the genuine fellowship and acceptance of us at this meeting.

We also heard some of the hurt that congregations like ours have encountered. Two churches besides us were there to observe as part of our process of seeking admission to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. The other two churches were/are in the system, having asked for dismissal, as opposed to our action of disaffiliation. They both had horror stories of how their churches were treated in this process. Both of their presbyteries had, verbally and in writing, clamed to desire an amicable process, but it didn't turn out that way.

In one church's case, shortly after they'd asked for dismissal the presbytery formed an administrative commission and informed the congregation that they were officially "in schism." The net result of this was the presbytery taking control of the church.

The other congregation told a different story. What was unique to their story was that the presbytery slowed down the process so much that members who opposed staying in the PCUSA left for non-denominational churches in frustration. One of their elders told me that they were in negotiation for 20 months, thee weeks, and fourteen hours. They met witht the presbytery negotiation team every three weeks. Early on they felt that they had a fair offer and took it back to the congregation for approval. This turned out to be a pattern because, each time when they returned, the presbytrery added a condition to the deal that was unacceptable. As the process strung out, members, particularly the younger ones, simply left.

Having heard these sad stories, though, there was a balance from the joy they felt at joining with a denomination that is not only more gracious, but also firmly centered and set upon the Word of God.

Wayne and I will be examined for potential membership on October 31. There will be further meetings with our session and pastors in the next couple of months. The earliest we could be admitted would be in January. It is more likely that we will be admitted in April. Both the EPC and the Kirk continue the process of mutual examination until then.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

The Decision!

2006-10-26T16:44:00.000-05:00

Judge Sellers announced today his judgment regarding the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery's two demands in our case.

On the first demand, that the secular court suspend the case and refer it back to the EOP for judgment, the judge ruled in our favor. The case will not be suspended and handed back to the PCUSA. This was the most important part of the case for us, and we, thank God, prevailed. This ruling means that the case could go forward under neutral law principles, where our arguments and precedents are strongest.

On the second demand, that the Kirk be forced to hand over membership records, the judge ruled that we must give the EOP a printed mailing list for our congregation as well as a copy of up-to-date names, addresses, and phone numbers. While we preferred not to give away membership information, it is not something that should adversely affect us. So far as we can tell from their last mailing, the EOP already has an up-to-date list that some member gave them, so this ruling grants them nothing new.

Expect to get another letter from the presbytery in the near future.

Thank you so much for your continued prayers and support-they mean everything to us. As soon as I find out the details I'll let you know what is next. We still have the quiet title suit, where we hope the courts will require the presbytery to clear our title.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

Our Day in Court

2006-10-25T16:41:00.000-05:00

I'm sorry not to have written sooner on this. I was with our staff at a retreat that began immediately following our time in court. Since the meeting was held in a location without internet connections, I was unable to significantly update the blog.

We began our afternoon meeting with our attorneys. After a time of prayer together we walked over to the courthouse and up to the district courtrooms on the seventh floor. As we waited for the judge to appear we were joined by a significant number of Kirk members. No one from the presbytery offices appeared with their attorneys.

The presbytery's attorney was first to make his presentation, since this appearance was about the EOP's petition to 1) have the entire process referred back to the PCUSA and 2) for the court to force the Kirk to hand over its membership records.

The arguments were nothing new. The EOP's attorney argued that the court could not interfere in what was a church matter. The EOP's attorney was very competent yet not eloquent. Certain "facts" were stretched to make a point. He insisted that the PCUSA is a hierarchical church, like the Episcopal or Roman Catholic church. He insisted that, since we "only"had a little over a thousand people at our congregational meeting, 60% of the Kirk was opposed to our move.

He also gave two examples of the presbytery graciously letting churches go with their property. The first was the Hevener church, which had dwindled down to nothing. When the congregation was dissolved, the church property was given to a Methodist congregation. The second was a similar case where the property--a burden to the presbytery--was disposed of after dissolving the congregation. Of course, none of these details were offered to the court. Nor was it mentioned that neither case remotely matched what the Kirk was doing or wanting.

Our attorney was magnificent (of course, it's hard for me to put prejudice aside). John O'Connor was joined by Kirk member Sean McKee and two of John's associates who had done much of the legal research. While the presbytery essentially presented only two cases--one from 1871 and another from 1972--our side presented a plethora of cases and evidence supporting our rights.

The judge asked questions that indicated that he was not just listening, but understood what was going on. For instance, when the EOP attorney said that 60% of the Kirk membership was opposed to what we had done, the judge asked us how many attended the Kirk of a typical Sunday. The judge understood the 1871 precedent that had led to the "deference rule" (secular courts stay out of church business) that secular courts had applied to church cases before 1979. Since that time, in accordance with another US Supreme Court ruling, allowing secular courts to rule in church property cases according to State laws.

My gut feeling is that we have a good case. Should we lose at this level, we will appeal as would, I assume the presbytery should they lose. But, whichever side prevails on Thursday afternoon will certainly be in stronger standing than the other.

The judge said that he would rule on Thursday afternoon. I and our attorneys continue to pray for God's will. We have the spiritual conviction that we should pursue all reasonable legal avenues to retain our property, but our decision wasn't made for the sake of property. Whatever God decides will prove to be best.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

Decision To Come Thursday

2006-10-24T08:57:00.000-05:00

Judge Sellers listened attentively while both sides presented their cases before the court. We were in court for an hour. Judge Sellers will take all of the evidence under advisement and give us his ruling at 4:30 p.m. Thursday, October 26th.

Why I Keep Writing

2006-10-21T12:37:00.000-05:00

I usually write most of my blogs myself. Occasionally, though, someone else writes something important enough to pass on verbatim. Cindy, from the Western North Carolina Presbytery wrote to this blog to give an update on what happened at their most recent meeting. It is the proposal to this presbytery that prompted my blog earlier, entitled A False Unity.

Yesterday, Friday, October 20, The Western North Carolina Presbytery voted by a large majority to pass the Guidelines for Congregations Considering A Request to Presbytery to be Dismissed.

Tensions ran high and the vote was taken twice because the first vote had been taken after lengthy discussions on amendments and amendments on amendments. When the actual vote for the final document came many weren't even sure what they had voted on. No actual discussion re: the document had been held. (Many commissioners complained they had only seen the document for the first time a few days earlier or that morning as it was a part of the addendum.)

A vote was taken to resubmit the document for another vote allowing for full discussion. The document passed by voice vote nearly intact.

A related item voted on earlier in the day (before I was in attendance) was a recommendation in the omnibus motion in the addendum stating that churches not following the guidelines for dismissal would find themselves facing an Administrative Commission.

Also voted on were guidelines for examination of pastoral candidates which follow wishes of the PUP committee. Only creeds to which they will need to agree with are the Nicene, The Apostles' Creed and A Brief Statement of Faith. Scruples will be provided for, kept "confidential" and all must "allow for the discerning work by the Holy Spirit."

Also, just in case a church wants to discuss in private their difficulties with the denomination or the WNC-Presbytery, clerks of sessions will now be required to meet annually to review each others' session records under the watchful eye of Presbytery staff.

And, no distribution of any materials at Presbytery without prior approval from Coordinating Council.

Fortunately, before and during the grueling four-hour marathon on basically two items, we were able to pray: "That we would be open to new truth..." and that we would "breathe in the spirit and breathe out the spirit." A little New Age never hurt anyone, I guess (sarcasm off).

Very difficult days ahead for some churches here and individuals who are members of churches satisfied with status quo.

Pastor Gray, keep speaking out. You give encouragement and information so badly needed in these days. We will be praying for The Kirk as well.
In His Merciful Hands,
Cindy

Cindy and others--we will keep praying for you and your congregations. This is a sad time in Christian history. We hope and pray that mainline denominations will return to a belief in Scripture as revealed and the Lord Jesus revealed therein.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

A Review

2006-10-20T21:23:00.000-05:00

With just a few days to our first court appearance regarding the Kirk’s property I’ve reviewed mentally the reasons for leaving the denomination and seeking to retain our property. The denomination makes three arguments for its ownership of the property.

It’s in the Book of Order—“we wrote a trust clause and that means we own the property.”
The money from the property is needed to continue the mission of the church (or the property is needed by the “true church” if they are large enough to support it).
Previous generations of Presbyterians gave sacrificially, not to a congregation, but to the denomination.

Let me, once again, consider these three things.

First, the trust clause.
The trust clause appears only late in the PCUSA’s history. The denomination had assumed it owned the property, but congregations were able to leave with it. This necessitated an insertion into the Book of Order that came about with the new, reunified denomination in 1983.

Local denominational officials are almost gleeful to point out that I was at the meeting where this was approved. Technically, they are right. However, the clause was buried in a completely new constitution which we had to vote into force as a unit. We had no right to amend, protest, or vote against any single part of the constitution. This constitution had been assembled by a committee and approved by a General Assembly where the (then) 80+ churches in Eastern Oklahoma had only 4 representatives (none of them from the Kirk).

Even with the trust clause, there is the reality of state law. The Supreme Court of the United States directed that property cases for churches be decided by neutral law principles. Prior to this, they used the “deference” principle, meaning that they stayed completely out of church business. After this, the court stated that they had no business in the beliefs of a church, but had business in property matters.

For Oklahoma in particular, this means, as I understand it, that we can revoke any trust that we did not make ourselves. It makes sense. What if your mortgage company inserted a clause, years after you initiated the mortgage, claiming rights that had not been explicit before?

Second, the mission of the church.
Without the Kirk, the presbytery will be short $43,000 per year, which is the total amount we have been giving for the last few years. Around half of that went to pay GA per capita, so the presbytery is out part, the GA part.

There are several arguments about the “mission” that we at the Kirk have considered. The most important is whether or not we morally can support the mission of the PCUSA. This is the reason why the amount has lingered at the level it has been for the last years. In previous years we gave much more. With the PCUSA drifting away from not our cherished views, but Scripture itself, we wrestled for years with any kind of financial support. This doesn’t go away with our disaffiliation. Can we, in good faith, pass on millions of dollars to a denomination we didn’t trust with more than $43,000 per year?

Third, the previous generations.
The rationale behind this is that the local church is larger than its current congregation. I fully agree with this. Even the Kirk, as young as it is, has benefited much from saints who are now in Glory. There are two questions here of those previous generations: 1) is it true that they thought they were giving to the PCUSA and not the Kirk? Is that how any of you feel about your donations today? 2) Would those generations past feel right about giving to the PCUSA today, given the changes that have occurred?

My answer to both is a confident “no.” While people are a part of a denomination, they truly give to and support the local expression of it. Even denominationally-oriented folk find the national denomination to be somewhat alien from the local church.

Next, would people born 100 years ago approve of what the PCUSA stands for today? Would they approve of its stand on sexual morality? Would they approve of its bent toward politics? I don’t think so. In fact, if the generations of 75 years ago or more were in charge, none of the problems we are facing would even be here.

I have one last consideration on the “generations” issue. The Kirk is young enough to have some of our charter members still active. I haven’t talked to all of them, but for those I’ve spoken to, there is total support for our stand. One of the things that has surprised me most in the last three years is how the greatest opposition to staying in the denomination came from people I had previously thought would demand to stay in it, no matter what.

I’ll let you know what happens in court on Monday. It could be anything from a decision (unlikely), to consideration, to postponement.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

The Silence is Deafening

2006-10-19T20:07:00.000-05:00

Occasionally a reader will ask why I continue to write about the PCUSA. After all, I’m no longer a part of that denomination. Some of my church members ask the same question and I’ve had some not-so-subtle “requests” for the same from denominational people (second hand).

The reason I continue to write is because there are so few who are speaking out about the denomination’s treatment of dissenting congregations and pastors. There could be many reasons for this, uppermost the fear of reprisal. As I’ve said before, I don’t have to fear that because I am no longer under the authority of the PCUSA. I am disappointed, though, in the lack of response by remaining pastors in the PCUSA.

I hear talk about renewed missions and a missional focus for the church. There is talk about simplifying governance with a more compact Book of Order. Such good things are overdue for the denomination, yet the current situation cries out for clarity and leadership and, dare I say it, reform. How can a denomination move in a positive direction when it is at war with its own members who feel so vulnerable?

Don’t any of you out there believe that what is happening is unfair, unpresbyterian, and unchristian? Do you think that it is right to selectively live to the utter letter of the law, suspending grace while, at the same time flouting other parts of the law?

I’m going to make a comparison that is odious, but pertinent. Most Americans have a shared opinion that moderate Muslims are not speaking out sufficiently against Muslim terrorists. But few speak. It seems obvious, even necessary, to us that they should speak out. Their silence on this one thing undoes anything else they might say.

While what is happening in the PCUSA falls far short of terrorism, it shows the same fundamentalist, monofocal dedication to a cause that does nothing but create fear and destruction.

All the PCUSA has to do—and this is well within its power, constitutionally, ethically, and morally—is say “stop” to the presbyteries and officials who are aggressively going after churches they think might disassociate or ask for dismissal. It can actually allow congregations to be dismissed—without a ransom payment for property they have sacrificially acquired, built, and maintained. It could even assure pastors and sessions that they could speak freely without fear of punishment.

One would think that, in a time when there is such theological division within mainline denominations, dissent and disaffiliation would be expected. Those responsible for it should approach others apologetically. Instead, it seems that those who have led the PCUSA toward a completely different theological foundation are hell-bent on punishing anyone who might disagree.

I know that many in my former presbytery believe that, if the Kirk had just entered into dialog with them, we would have reached a mutually satisfactory conclusion. I'd like to believe that, but the atmosphere set up by leaders in Louisville established and continues an attitude of reasonable suspicion. If every sign points to a potentially deadly encounter, it is wise to seek another route. Even the route we have taken is fraught with pain and danger--it just seems to be less so than the constitutionally-established route, given the present climate in the PCUSA.

Although I’m a “tall steeple” pastor, I am an unknown, except for what has been published through my blog and the Layman or the contacts that I have personally made in the PCUSA over the last decades. What I say is obviously supported or undermined (according to your point of view) by my own church’s disaffiliation. Others need to speak.

Leaders like Clifton Kirkpatrick, certain well-known pastors, or a group of such nationally-known leaders could make a tremendous difference. Even the gathering of tall-steeple pastors (to which I once belonged) would carry a lot of influential weight should they speak out unequivocally against the PCUSA’s attitude and actions toward dissenting congregations and pastors.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

A False Unity

2006-10-18T13:52:00.000-05:00

There are different kinds of unity. There is organic unity, which is based upon truth and mutual agreement. There is tyrannical unity—a pernicious, false kind—that holds an entity together by force. North Korea has that kind of unity today. There is also a coercive unity, where threats and political moves preserve the image of unity. Parts of the PCUSA seem to be enforcing this style of unity.

A current example is from the Presbytery of North Carolina. They are proposing restrictive processes designed to go far beyond the Book of Order in terms of limiting a congregation’s ability to be dismissed. The extraordinary limitations include

Requiring a 75% vote of presbytery commissioners.
Requiring at least half of the congregational members voting.
Limiting transfer to a particular denomination approved by the PCUSA Stated Clerk.
Altering the way in which congregational meetings are called and run.
Referring the results to a judicial commission on the request of any member.

None of the above are in the PCUSA constitution. Some of the details include a waiting period (until at least February, 2007) before a congregation can call a meeting, and presbytery representatives having the privilege of the floor at those meetings. Subsequent congregational meetings would have to be put off for 3 to 6 months. This limits a constitutional right for congregations to conduct their own meetings.

All the above doesn’t even address the issue of property. Once the dismissal is approved, then a new, similar process is proposed to make a decision regarding the congregation’s property. The Layman Online says,

“If the vote is yes, the presbytery would consider whether to dismiss the congregation with “all or some of its property.” A presbytery task force appointed by the chairs of the Coordinating Council, the Committee on Ministry and the general presbyter would make a recommendation about the property.”

My sense is that this proposal is designed to slow down the dismissal process to a glacial pace, giving the presbytery time (and “official” standing) to redirect the process as they see fit. In such a context a congregation would not just find it extremely difficult to discuss dismissal, but most congregations would rapidly dwindle under such manipulative force.

The truth is that “dismissal” doesn’t really exist in the PCUSA. The denomination will put a strangle-hold on the “true church,” however small, however unhealthy, while the rest of the members dismiss themselves as they go out the door for the last time.

Churches considering leaving the PCUSA are going to have to work fast, in light of the ever-tightening control the denomination is seeking to impose. The PCUSA completely controls every element in a deeply one-sided process.

The New Wineskins strategy team yesterday published their interim report for congregations considering leaving. They obviously sense the urgency and suggest the following:

“… immediately retain legal counsel to evaluate the property issues that are specific to your individual church and to protect your trustees, elders, pastors and other church officers from potential litigation.”
“… discuss with your attorney preparation for suit against governing bodies that attempt to implement the Louisville Papers … Your preparations should include petitions for temporary restraining orders that may be necessary in the event Presbytery attempts to take your church by force. While it is incomprehensible to us that a presbytery would employ such tactics, some have already done so. Ironically, during the same time the Stated Clerk of the PCUSA has called for a period of discernment.”
“… local church officers (elders and trustees) may well have a fiduciary duty to the congregation/corporation” to protect the church’s property. “You should also protect your church officers through the purchase of insurance and/or making indemnification as Louisville may well sue the individuals personally (e.g., the ‘Louisville papers’). Consult your counsel and your insurance agent for the ‘hows and whys.’“

An absolute essential that they recommend is that all leaders read what they call the “Louisville Papers,” (what I’ve called the PCUSA gameplan) to know what is going on behind the scenes. Link:

http://www.layman.org/layman/news/2006-news/pcusa-documents-on-property.htm

I am constantly surprised by the number of pastors and elders who have never read this, ignorant of what may be happening next in their neighborhood.

The NWAC strategy team is recommending preparation, but postponing action until the New Wineskins Convocation in February. It’s not a moment too soon to begin.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

Face-to-Face With the EPC

2006-10-17T11:22:00.000-05:00

The pastors and session of the Kirk had a meeting with three representatives of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) on Monday night. This meeting was the first big step in our process of moving to that denomination. The representatives were the Stated Clerk of the Midwest Presbytery, a pastor from St. Louis, and another pastor from Lawrence, Kansas, who also is the moderator-elect of the denomination.

The meeting was remarkable—compared to our experience of denominational meetings in the past—in that it was rich with Scripture and prayer. We discussed how the EPC has formulated its stands on Scriptural, rather than social, foundations. When one of us asked a question of an EPC representative, more often than not, the answer was given in the context of what Scripture teaches. At one point in the conversation I stopped everyone just to remark on this.

We also talked about the creedal basis of the EPC. Unlike our former denomination, which lists many creeds while identifying none as operative or central, the EPC holds to the one historical Presbyterian creed, the Westminster Confession. They actually expect their pastors and elders to believe their essential tenets! The EPC sincerely holds to the Westminster Confession and does so in a gracious and thoughtful manner.

The only negative part of the evening (and this was but a small part of it) was addressing concerns that our former presbytery had sent to the EPC regarding the Kirk. Wayne and I addressed this mostly at a dinner we had with the EPC representatives before the session meeting.

Our former presbytery wrote to the EPC presbytery, complaining of the way in which we left the PCUSA. Their concern was for the “calculated series of irregular actions” by which we left and that our witness is “severely weakened by the shadows of these highly irregular actions.” They go on to ask the EPC to wait for us to go through the PCUSA’s process before admitting us into membership.

The EPC rightly needs to consider all these things. Having explained the events driving us to our “highly irregular action” I believe that they understand what has happened. In fact, the origin of the EPC was in reaction to similar forces from the [U]PCUSA against their charter congregations.

I am thankful for the time we spent together and, as a result, feel even more strongly that this denomination will be a good fit for us. We continue our conversations, though. Wayne and I and, perhaps, some of our elders, will attend the Midwest presbytery meeting later this month.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

Prayer for Our Upcoming Court Date

2006-10-14T10:45:00.000-05:00

We have an upcoming court date that is critically important for the Kirk. The EOP filed two petitions with the court in response to our request that they remove the affidavit from our property. The first is a request for the court to send the whole case back to ecclesiastical court so that the PCUSA/EOP can make the decision regarding our property. I understand that their argument is that a secular court has no standing in church business. The second petition is for the court to force us to hand over our membership records to the EOP.

The date set is October 23rd--just a short time away. We are legally prepared, but we must be spiritually prepared. I ask for your prayers--for wisdom before the court, for clarity in our words, and, above all, for God's will to be done.

I ask for your prayers in three contexts:

first, in your regular daily prayers;
second, in continuous prayer next week (I will have a sign-up sheet for 24 hour prayer the day and night before our court date;
and third, to stay after church on October 22 for a few minutes following the 11am services so that we can gather in the sanctuary to pray together.

God has blessed us in so many ways. He will continue those blessings whatever happens on the 23rd. Praying together will not only help us deal with whatever happens on that date, but also place it in the context of His ongoing work through the Kirk.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

Getting a Handle on the Debate

2006-10-13T18:57:00.000-05:00

Yesterday's blog was in response to a flood of posts from readers. Actually, a lot of them were from just one reader. I feel like some of the responses have become repetitive and unnecessarily contentious. There is also a side-thread of conversations within conversations that probably are confusing to all except those writing the posts.

I'm not going to stop posting responses, but I'm going to become a lot more selective. I think that we've mostly exhausted the comments over why the Kirk disaffiliated, and the past actions and reactions of the EOP regarding us. I'm going to help us (me) move on a bit.

I'll still post anything that really seems pertinent, or that casts a new view on an old post or idea. I will still post responses that are opposed to what I say or believe, but I will be more selective on the tone of posts I publish. I'm a part of the problem, in that I truly love to debate an issue (sometimes to death) and my adrenalin flow may have exacerbated the problem I'm trying to solve.

I really appreciate all of you who have taken the time to read this blog and respond. You have made it come alive, and some of you have made great contributions to working through our issues.

Please keep reading, thinking, and (if you're civil and thoughtful) posting. God bless you all.
Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

Answering Accusations

2006-10-12T21:04:00.000-05:00

A lot of comments came in overnight, some dealing with recurring issues on this blog. I’ve asked some of them to re-read the posts I’ve made; at least one has, and still does not see what I think I’ve clearly written. I’ll try again.

Timing of our decisions
Two responders react to the same quote in the Synod newspaper.

Mark (not Smith) writes,

"On June 28, less than a week after GA adjourned, the Kirk amended their articles of incorporation to eliminate all previous references to denominational affiliation and accountability."
It appears from this report that The Kirk (the Session?) planned, well before The Layman article about GA's "secret" property strategy and before the New Wineskins Convocation, to pull out of the PCUSA.

More of the same from Arthur,

I can't believe I missed this.
Is this true!
"On June 28, less than a week after GA adjourned, the Kirk amended their articles of incorporation to eliminate all previous references to denominational affiliation and accountability."
I’ve been trying very hard (with varying degrees of success) to be sympathetic to your plight. I'm absolutely appalled by this!!!

I repeat, we were responding to the affidavit filed by our presbytery. It had been discovered in May. We believe that we—legally and morally—own the property of the Kirk. The fact that someone in an organization of which we were a part declared (after we’d been a part of that group for 22 years) that they now owned our property does not make it so.

Oklahoma law allows any trust—even, or especially, one created by another entity—to be revoked. This is what we did. It did not involve leaving the denomination. We did not recommend leaving the denomination at that time. The decision to change our bylaws and charter was made by our session in May, before the General Assembly. The congregational meeting was also scheduled then. Our decision to disaffiliate came after the GA in June, in response to its approval of the PUP report.

The affidavit
A couple of responders question whether the affidavit was secret.

First, no congregation was queried or contacted about the affidavit, so we were kept in the dark in that respect, regardless of whether or not it was announced at a later date.
Second, one of our members, himself a trustee of EOP at that time, confirmed the irregularities of this action. When he inquired into this motion and meeting he was told that he had missed the meeting, and that minutes were not taken, but the chair had taken “some notes.”

Scriptural (mis)interpretation
On another subject, Jodie said,

Chill Tom,
Are you saying that you do not ignore parts of scripture? Did you hand up your children for stoning or encourage other parents to do so when they answered back to you? (Deu 21:18-21) Do you really believe that Cretans are "always liars, evil beasts, and lazy gluttons"? (Titus 1:12-13.)

Here, as one other responder noted, Jodie fails to understand the nature of the old covenant, in the case of the Deuteronomy passage, and proper Greek exegesis, in the case of the Titus passage. The first is a law changed in Acts 15 (where the specific items retained from the old covenant are listed). The second is an indicative, illustrative statement which, correctly taken in context does not require us to believe that all Cretans are liars. Paul is ironically quoting someone else in this passage.

Many who support the radical changes in the PCUSA revert to this argument that, if we do not literally act on every statement in the Bible, we have no right to insist on literally enforcing any standard of Scripture. In the cases Jodie cites, there are historical, Reformed interpretations that I have given above. In the case of sexual morality we have the specific retention of the Law as exhibited in Acts 15, as well as specific restatements of prohibitions elsewhere in the New Testament.

Essentials versus non-essentials
One person accuses me of attacking people who disagree with me. I really don’t think that I’ve done that. On the other hand, if you believe that taking a stand is an attack, I can’t help how you interpret that.

Mark (still not Smith) wrote,

Second case in point: women and ordination. In the past two months I have read at least two responders to your blog who asked you to clarify your understanding of women and ordination. The most recent request went unanswered. You answered the first request with the standard EPC view that the ordination of women is a nonessential issue, so it's left to local option. Frankly, I was stunned. Why would The Kirk, who spent so many decades in a denomination (the PCUSA) that stipulated adherence to the biblical and confessional doctrine of women in ordained leadership suddenly say that it is nonessential? You rail against those "godless" "faithless" "unbiblical" "unChristian" PCUSA denominational leaders, and yet you readily abandon a fundamental biblical principle that values the leadership of women in favor of local option? Your claims of biblical fidelity don't add up.

I can make it clear: I believe in women’s ordination (which I’ve already written). I am fully in favor of women's leadership wherever they are gifted so to lead. My wife is a full professor in a university. My daughter is a physician. It is not essential that they be either, but for the fact that God has provided them with the gifts so to serve. I do not classify women’s ordination as an essential, as I would the infallibility of Scripture. Nor would I even classify ordination (as we practice it today for both men and women) as an essential. I’m sure I’ll get some response to that statement! I believe in music in worship, but don’t regard it as essential to Reformed faith. I believe that Sunday school is important, but it is not essential to Reformed faith. Is the pattern clear? Essentials are just that—without them, we are no longer Christian or Reformed. All else is non-essential.

Denominational “evil”
Finally, from the ever-active Mark (not Smith),

Tom, I understand that YOU believe most, if not all, PCUSA leaders are in league with the devil, and that all they want is the money and property of dissenters. As one of your responders said, the great majority of the PCUSA doesn't agree with you. If YOU believe that puts us in league with the devil, too, so be it. You're entitled to your beliefs.

Mark, I do not believe what you say I do. There are people in the PCUSA at all levels whom I not only respect, but admire. That doesn’t mean, though, that sinful agendas are not prevailing at this time in the PCUSA. Why is it that the PCUSA is abandoning its long-held respect for the essentials of Scripture? Why is it that the PCUSA system has only one outcome for congregations seeking dismissal? Where is there a sign of grace? There is clear evidence for my suspicion of some of our leaders. The clearest current instance is where the Louisville-leaked game plan plainly says that, if presbyteries are too generous toward departing congregations, the national denomination will step in, revoke the presbytery’s decision, and squeeze the turnip.

I have to resign myself to the fact that, whatever I say, people will believe otherwise. This is human nature. I await the responses.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

Restricting Comments

2006-10-10T14:01:00.000-05:00

It has been very interesting to read the comments posted on this blog. At the same time it has been, at times, a little too adversarial for my liking. When you post a comment, it first comes to me as an email. I look at it and post it so long as it doesn’t include offensive language or attack a person other than me. I’d estimate that I have had to throw out 1 of every 10 comments received for these two reasons.

Most of the time I can easily endure conflict directed at me personally. Sometimes it is harder, which is the case right now. My congregation knows that I have had to deal with chronic pain for most of my adult life. Usually it is just a background issue, but there are times, like now, when it is severe enough to sap a lot of my energy. With lowered coping skills at hand I’m more inclined to consider something others have been asking me to do.

Quite a few people have asked me to block anonymous comments, since most of the bile has been vented through those. After much consideration, I agree that their concerns have real merit. So, from this time on I’ll only post the comments of those who sign their names. In the very near future I will further limit access to those who register as members of this blog.

I don’t want to limit the dialogue, for I actually enjoy that. I’ll have to admit, though, that I could get by with a little less anger in some of the comments. I have publicly admitted to my own failings in that regard in a previous post, and I don’t want the value of the whole blog to be tainted by a few.

What I will not do is stop talking frankly about the issues we are encountering as a church, as denominations, and as Christians. It is not just the PCUSA that is in theological turmoil, but almost every mainline denomination—and the turmoil is over the same issues. There are Christians in the pews of these denominations who have no idea of what is happening in the greater church, and need to find out if there will be any chance for substantive change.

There is something happening in the Christian world today that may bring about huge change in the future, and I’m excited to be alive and active in the church at this time. I believe that the value and function of denominational structures is becoming largely irrelevant to younger Christians. I also believe that devotion to mainline denominations will be fading into obscurity within the next generation. What replaces them is what interests me right now.

We are witnessing unprecedented interaction between conservative and evangelical leaders of different denominations. What we have discovered is that we have far more in common with each other (because we hold to orthodox beliefs) than we have had within our own denominations.

This is ironic because the mainline denominations have worked hard over the last 60 years to build up ecumenical relationships between the different church bodies. It has been largely ineffective, consisting mostly of meetings and joint statements on world conditions. What is happening between conservative and evangelical pastors and church officers, though, is truly ecumenical. We are fellowshipping and worshiping together. We are looking at joint missions. We enjoy each other.

If there is any hope for denominations in the future it will be because the people in the pews rebuild them. The people at the “top” have demonstrated little ability to keep them alive.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

Joining the EPC

2006-10-10T00:20:00.000-05:00

I’ve noted some interest (genuine and skeptical) in our process with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC). As we told the congregation, we felt that the EPC is the best denominational match for our beliefs and desires. Since our disaffiliation, Wayne and I have been in regular contact with officials in the EPC.

The EPC is sending a small team of pastors to meet with our session next Monday, October 16. The purpose of that meeting will be to discuss our theological beliefs as well as how we view Presbyterian polity and the church. The team will also meet with Wayne and me, doing some preliminary examination prior to our formal examination to be admitted.

Wayne and I will be attending a meeting of the Midwest Presbytery of the EPC later this month. There we will be able to witness first-hand just how this denomination operates. A formal examination of both of us should follow this meeting between now and Christmas.

There may even be a question about Wayne and me entering the EPC as Reformed pastors. Since we disaffiliated from the PCUSA, our former denomination will not transfer us. In fact, the PCUSA and Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery do not even consider us to be ordained pastors at all. The EPC will have to decide how to receive us, possibly requiring a more strenuous examination.

The earliest that we could be admitted to the EPC, both as a church and as pastors, will be in January. It is possible that this will not take place until April. As in all denominations, there are processes in place through which we must go, decently and in order.

Jeff will have to go through an examination in slightly more depth than us, because he’s transferring in from a non-Reformed denomination. There will be no impediment to his becoming an EPC pastor, and I know that he will more than match their expectations of a pastor.

Dan and Sean both must be ordained before they are admitted into the denomination. This can be done by us as a congregation, since we currently are not a part of any denomination. Many denominations ordain pastors within a congregation and then accept them into the denomination.

We are preparing an ordination process for them similar to that which I and Wayne experienced. I was the chair of the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery's Committee on Preparation for Ministry for a number of years, so I have significant experience in this. We will also involve our Kirk officers, along with pastors from some other churches, in this process. After we ordain them, both Dan and Sean will have to sit an examination similar to Jeff’s in order to be admitted to the EPC.

I look forward to entering this process, and I feel that we will be very satisfied being a part of the EPC.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

New Information for the Kirk Congregation

2006-10-07T16:12:00.000-05:00

Dear friends,

The Administrative Commission of the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery started worship services last week, held at Southminster Presbyterian Church, for the "true church" of those from the Kirk who wish to remain in the PCUSA.

Several of you have reported that people in other PCUSA churches have indicated that I have prohibited people from attending such a service.

[Correction: one of those who told me this said that the words she used were: "They said that you had intimidated us and that's why we aren't attending special meetings of EOP or the worship service at Southminster."]

Nothing is further from the truth. As I have said a number of times before the congregation, we are concerned for those who have been hurt by our decision. They are welcome to remain in the Kirk. If, for any reason, they feel they must leave us, they are free to join any of the PCUSA churches in Tulsa or attend the services at Southminster.

At the same time, I feel the need to clarify what this ad is for. It is not a worship service of Kirk of the Hills. It is a worship service of the EOP, designed to provide for those who have left the Kirk and have not joined another congregation. It also, I believe, is designed to demonstrate to the community at large that there is a significant group of people in disagreement with our disaffiliation. Whether or not you go is simply, always up to you.

I wish every blessing of God upon you all,
Tom

Reflections

2006-10-03T14:02:00.000-05:00

Two things today have caused me to reflect. The first came from comments by Pastor Billy Joe Daugherty, of Victory Christian Center in Tulsa, one of the largest congregations in the USA. We have had local pastors come to pray with our staff each week, and Billy Joe graciously agreed to be there today.

I got to know Billy Joe and his wife, Sharon, on a trip we took together years ago. I admire his integrity, his love of Jesus, and his passion for the Gospel. All of that came together as he spoke to us this morning. He told us of two statements that had made a strong impression on him. One was from the recently elected president of the Southern Baptist Church. In response to a question about the Bible, he answered, “I’m an inerrantist, but I’m not mad about it.” He was talking about our tendency to hold to a view that may be correct, while out attitude is not. I have to confess that this has been me in recent months, from time to time.

The other remark was one that Billy Joe received early in his pastoral career. Asking a mentor if there was one piece of advice he could give for a successful ministry, the mentor, without pause, remarked, “If you don’t get bitter, you’ll have a successful ministry.”

A lot of Christian laypeople out there might find that to be a curious, even cynical remark, but it’s simply wise. Whenever you deal with people there is conflict. When you lead people, that conflict is often pointed at you, even if it is undeserved. That’s life. It becomes a problem when you point it back in a spirit of anger.

I’ve certainly been guilty of this. Readers of this blog may or may not believe me, but there really have been only a couple of times when I’ve been angry as I’ve responded—once was in response to a person’s post regarding a Kirk member (whom I mentioned by name). I am truly sorry for that. Another was in a letter I (very) rapidly posted to The Layman a few months ago. Most of the time I’m bemused, incredulous, or relatively calm as I write.

Over the years I’ve developed a slight thickening of skin that has helped overcome what once would have angered or even defeated me. It’s not 100% effective, but I do better as I get older. A lot of you have requested that I limit comments, because so many of them seem angry and vindictive. They’re just the tip of the iceberg. You haven’t read the ones I have not allowed to be posted. I’ve had to remind myself that the remarks reflect the writer more than me. But this is also true of what I write.

The hard part here is to speak the truth and not be arrogant, angry, or even seem to be so. I’m sure that my success in this is varied. This brings me to the second thing which I read today. A post to my blog said this,

Anonymous said...
I know of a church that left a denomination in very similar circumstances to yours. There was a lot of energy generated; some good, some bad; that was centered on the conflict. The dirty little secret about standing as a church against a so-called “apostate” denomination is that it gives your congregation a rallying cry and a certain unity. The downside is that as soon as the conflict subsides, all the old issues come up again. In the case of the church I am referencing, many, many members were unable to get past the original “us versus them” posture, even when it was no longer relevant to their situation, so they turned the negative energy inward. The congregation is now a shadow of its former self.

I say all this in order to issue a friendly warning. Tom, it may be time to turn your congregation’s energy in a different direction. A good start would be to steer this blog in a less negative and confrontational direction regarding the pcusa. You are not doing your folks any favors by keeping this fire lit. I feel at times that the only real identity your congregation has is its identity vis a vis the pcusa. This is unhealthy, unmanageable over the long term, and contrary to the spirit of Christ.

Each time this has been raised with you, you have said, in essence, that you will keep this alive until later, when the pcusa releases you or you are accepted by the epc. If I were in a decision-making body in the epc and saw the content of this blog, I would advise against receiving you. What denomination needs another unhealthily disputatious congregation?

If you attend the Kirk you know that our worship, conversations, and activities are not centered on the disaffiliation or on the legal process. We have clearly communicated issues to the congregation at special meetings, but I think that a new person coming to the Kirk might not even be aware of the process we are in, unless they read what I blog, or what I put into the church newsletter.

Still, I must speak to the congregation about what is going on. Rumors fly, and they multiply like a cancer without the truth to balance. Sometimes the truth is a hard thing to write and read about, because it is dealing with sinful acts and attitudes. I don’t want, though, to add to that.

I am quite aware of the danger of self-consuming anger in a process like the one we are in. My staff and officers can tell you that I have talked about avoiding this, and that it is one of the central focuses of my prayer life. Our congregation is turning toward the missions we already have and also toward the effort to establish new congregations from ours. I honestly believe that there are no “old issues” that will come back to us. We didn’t leave the PCUSA as a tactic to cover other problems; its actions have been the problem for a long time.

That brings me back to my blog. I still feel that it is very important to keep the true nature of what the PCUSA is doing toward dissident churches public. The Book of Order process is one that, at least as practiced today, prohibits the free exchange of opinions, favoring only the denomination over dissident congregations. PCUSA pastors cannot speak out without justifiable fear. I want people to know what is happening, not just to the Kirk, but what will happen to others.

Unfortunately, we live in a culture that reacts to criticism and critical judgment as if they are bigotry and intolerance. This thinking plays into the hands of those who twist systems to overcome the Children of Light. Everything we do should be in the light. This is why I write the blog, so that people can know not only what is happening, but what and how I think. Knowing this, they can make a judgment themselves as to the truth of what I say, and the possible impact of the issues I raise.

I’ll try to keep the tone more dispassionate. It’s hard, because I feel at times like it’s my family that is under attack. I am always open to honest criticism, and I realize that many of you who respond don’t really know me and cannot know the full picture of what the Kirk is going through. I’ll strive to be accurate, and I’ll continue to post comments, negative and positive, because I feel it helps the reader get a picture of what it’s really like out there in the mainline denominations.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

Lies, D***ed lies, and Statistics

2006-10-02T13:19:00.000-05:00

I was sorely tempted to go to the EOP/PCUSA-Kirk worship service at Southminster last night. I’m no longer a member of the presbytery, and I’m not a member of any congregation, so I guess I would have fit into the “friend of the Kirk” category, at least as I see it. The husband of one of our staff members, who has family ties to Southminster church, did go.

He said that the service was led by the Southminster pastor, with three other presbytery folk up front. He estimated that the remaining 16 people who attended were evenly split between Southminster members and Kirk people. What this means is that 8 or so people attended from the Kirk. We knew that we had 36 “nay” votes at our congregational meeting. I am also aware that four Kirk families have moved to First Presbyterian Church in Tulsa.

What is astounding to me is the presbytery’s insistence that there exists a great number of Kirk people who have been excluded from fellowship because of our recent disaffiliation from the PCUSA. I am sad about every person who no longer feels a part of the Kirk, but those numbers are incredibly small. Rarely does a church have such agreement on a controversial issue.

The presbytery (or at least some in the presbytery) evidently passed on to the Southminster congregation that more than half of our congregation was opposed to the disaffiliation. The rationale given was that, since we only had a little over 1,000 people at our congregational meeting, the almost 1,800 who weren’t there represented a sizeable contingent of those who opposed our action. Such an analysis comes under the category of lies, d***ed lies, and statistics.

Controversial issues bring lots of people out, especially those who are in opposition and this was no exception for the Kirk. While 1,000 people doesn’t sound so big in proportion to our entire congregation, it is actually a huge turnout. Most churches, ours included, have trouble attracting a quorum of members (10%) to attend typical meetings.

I looked up the statistics for Southminster Presbyterian Church on the PCUSA website. What I found was this:

Membership
Your congregation had 506 members compared to the average PC(USA) congregation's 212 members. Your church gained 6 members and lost 47 members.

Christian Education Enrollment
Your congregation's Christian Education Enrollment was 138. The average for all PC(USA) congregations was 124.

Total Contributions
Overall contributions to your congregation, which were $356,574, were larger than the 2005 average of $225,440 for all PC(USA) congregations.

My guess is that they would be ecstatic to have 200 people come out for any congregational meeting and consider such a turnout to be a huge affirmation for whatever issue involved. I’d also assume that they’ve not seen those kinds of numbers in worship lately, much less congregational meetings.

The Kirk’s numbers for the same year are as follows:

Membership
Your congregation had 2,665 members compared to the average PC(USA) congregation's 212 members. Your church gained 108 members and lost 54 members.

Christian Education Enrollment
Your congregation's Christian Education Enrollment was 1,605. The average for all PC(USA) congregations was 124.

Total Contributions
Overall contributions to your congregation, which were $3,152,380, were larger than the 2005 average of $225,440 for all PC(USA) congregations.

We are sad to see any of the 36 people leave. But we are still growing. We currently have a new member class with more than 40 people attending. We've got inquiries for another class to start. Our attendance at worship and Sunday school is growing. Giving is steady, at an increase over last year. Our annual retreat had twice the attendees we had last year. Mission trips are ongoing, with one group in Mongolia even as I write. We are healthy, we are growing, and we are united.

We are not united in opposition to the PCUSA--that issue is limited to pastors and elders except when the membership gets letters from representatives of the old denomination. A common attitude here is "that is past, let's get on with our future."

While we have legal issues with the EOP and PCUSA, the "past" still has bearing on us officers at the Kirk. This blog will continue to inform the Kirk membership of what is going on in that venue. It will also speak out on PCUSA issues on behalf of those who feel that they cannot speak out, for fear of retribution.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

The PCUSA-Kirk "Congregation"

2006-10-01T21:47:00.000-05:00

I finally had a chance to read the letter that Doug Dodd, representing the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery’s administrative commission on the Kirk, wrote to members.

Dear Member of Kirk of the Hills Presbyterian Church,

You are invited to a new series of Worship Services for members and friends of Kirk of the Hills Presbyterian Church here in Tulsa.

You have received this invitation because we understand you are or have been a member of Kirk of the Hills Presbyterian Church.

Our Administrative Commission has been charged by the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery with providing pastoral care and worship opportunities to any members of Kirk of the Hills Presbyterian Church who do not desire to leave their Church or the Presbyterian Church, USA.

Because the former leadership of the Kirk of the Hills Presbyterian Church and some members have expressed their intention to leave our denomination and affiliate with another, we are not currently able to meet in the church building on East 61st Street. For the month of October we will be meeting on Sunday evenings in the sanctuary of Southminster Presbyterian Church at 3500 South Peoria here in Tulsa.

Worship will begin at 5:00 p.m. each Sunday beginning October 1st. Pastors and members from Presbyterian Churches in the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery will conduct the worship services.

We Christians who have been raised in or drawn to the Presbyterian Church have some challenging days ahead, but we believe that with God's grace and the support and love of our Presbyterian brothers and sisters in Christ, our church will grow and continue to do God's work in our world.

We hope you will join us as Christian and as members of Kirk of the Hills Presbyterian Church. If you have questions about the special services, call or e-mail me.
Yours in Christ's Love,
S. Douglass Dodd

I don’t know how many PCUSA-Kirk members will attend the 5pm service for them at Southminster Presbyterian Church. It may be hard to determine accurately, since the letter invited “Kirk members and friends of the Kirk” to the service. My guess is that anyone from the presbytery will be deemed a “friend” of the Kirk, just so that numbers can be padded.

What is the EOP doing, or thinks it’s doing, regarding the Kirk? They have been blindly following process, ready to send missives to those who don’t want them, ask for lists they already possess, and to create a sub-Kirk that barely, or doesn’t, exist.

The EOP is certainly free to do whatever it wants, for its own sake. It would be a better thing if they founded a new church and expanded it from there. I think, though, that they’re just trying to score points they think that they will need in future legal developments. If they can identify a “true” church—of any size—they can argue that it needs the Kirk property.

One thing that the EOP says it is doing is setting up a congregation to occupy the Kirk’s facilities after they take the property.

What the EOP should do for PCUSA-Kirk members is encourage them to find a place in a congregation that already exists. Are they doing them any favors by encouraging them to be a “holding” congregation to receive the Kirk property? Not really.

Most experts agree that it takes at least 100 people to form a congregation successfully. If all Christians tithed, it would only take 10 families to support one pastor. Facilities, missions, and program costs would be above that. So, 100 people tithing (25 or more families) could pull it off—that is, if they are not overburdened with buildings and maintenance.

The Kirk facility is around 100,000 square feet. It is heated and air-conditioned in a number of zones, any one of which represents multiples of the cost of a large house. Maintenance requirements would be overwhelming to a small congregation. Attendance of 36 to 100 people in that facility is ludicrously out of proportion to need. The fact is, there has been no PCUSA congregation in the EOP that needs a space as large as we have—except us.

The EOP’s so-called claim on the Kirk’s property goes further than the buildings. It includes all the computers, printing equipment, vehicles, phone systems, furniture, bank accounts, and supplies. These are owned by us in the proportion to the ministry that we do. If the Kirk property’s use were to move from a weekly attendance of 1,400 down to 30, all this equipment would be wasted.

The PCUSA and the EOP state that the Kirk property must be best used to the mission of the church. My guess is that they want the Kirk property just to sell it. The denomination is cash-poor and in desperate financial need. They might sell the property to us, if they can get enough money to make it worthwhile to them. I don’t think that they are interested at all in those few people in our congregation who may want to continue together as a small congregation. I believe that those folk are just leverage, ultimately to be pressed to the limit for the PCUSA’s legal purposes—to get Kirk property in order to sell it.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

EOP Reaction, version 1.03c (beta)

2006-09-30T18:17:00.000-05:00

Chrissie and I were at the annual Kirk Retreat for Friday night and Saturday. It was a great gathering with more than twice the number of people who attended last year. On the drive home my phone rang--it was Wayne. "Have you heard about the letter?"

Wayne went on to describe a letter sent to all Kirk members indicating that those who wished to remain PCUSA would be worshiping at Southminster Church at 5pm Sunday afternoons until they could meet at the Kirk buildings (presumably when the presbytery thinks it will take control of the property).

This is the third try by the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery to draw out a so-called "true church" from the Kirk congregation. The first was a mild attempt to provide a "supply pastor" for the Kirk since I and Wayne had left the PCUSA. The second was a letter inviting members to a meeting that took place at First Presbyterian, Tulsa. This is, by my count, the third attempt.

This letter raises several issues in my mind. First, we left the denomination virtually unified as a congregation. However, the presbytery is actively seeking to split people away from our congregation. Clearly their action is schismatic.

The second issue is about the legal process that we are in. The presbytery has responded to our suit to remove the affidavit from our property with a demand that the court force us to hand over our membership lists, along with a printed set of labels. The presbytery obviously already has the list. They've used it twice, once with the invitation to the meeting downtown and now with this letter inviting Kirk members to attend another church.

The question is why are they asking for this from the court? It costs a lot to go to court, and it makes no sense to spend the money to do so in order to get they already have in their possession. I would think that members of the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery, knowing that money is in short supply there, might question such an expense.*

Third, the people who voted against the Kirk's disaffiliation are always welcome to attend church at the Kirk (some actually are). If what they want, though, is to be in the PCUSA, they can easily accomplish that by joining any of the PCUSA congregations in Tulsa. The handful of people wanting to remain with the PCUSA neither need the entire Kirk facility (designed for 2,000) nor could such a small number of people be able to pay the bills for maintaining the facility.

The EOP seems to be going blindly through a process--the check list, if you will--regardless of the illogic of doing so. If the gameplan says "get the church to hand over membership lists" they are doing so, even though they have them in hand.

So, the EOP will hold worship for the "Kirk" on Sunday afternoons at Southminster, deeming it the "true church." These Sunday afternoons are not meetings for discussion. They are an attempt to form a separate congregation from the Kirk. I would guess that they are hoping for numbers to indicate that there is a real division in the Kirk. I don't think that'll happen.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

* I know that the presbytery is responding to the Kirk's suit for a "quiet title" on our property. All the presbytery has to do to stop the expense is remove the affidavit that they secretly filed on our property. We asked them to do so, they refused, and we had to take legal recourse.

So What Should Mainline Denominations Do?

2006-09-28T21:06:00.000-05:00

What should mainline denominations do about the serious problems facing their future?

Membership numbers are plummeting (no one even mentions attendance numbers).

Reserve accounts are almost tapped out and current donations aren’t enough to make up the difference.

Leaders at almost every level of denominations are frustrated and fearful for their future.

Mutual trust is rare.

In The Layman (September 28, 2006) I just read some of the recommendations that came from a PCUSA gathering of General Assembly Council officers, as well as synod and presbytery execs. It began with some activities that, to me, speak more of spiritual vapidity than spiritual formation.

The General Assembly Council spent much of its time this week introducing presbytery and synod executives to “an appreciative inquiry,” “a new way for a new day,” meditative labyrinth walks and creating the “eschatological church.”

During three sessions, the middle governing body leaders compared their “faith journeys,” interviewed each other, and envisioned a future focused on the positive. They also retrieved stones immersed in water to take home with them as reminders of their baptism, and posted hand-scrawled newsprint lists on the walls.

But there were some good responses from the synod and presbytery people who attended.

One dealt with money

“Many presbyteries are trying to develop a vision for the future while dealing with disgruntled congregations that are withholding per capita or threatening to withdraw from the PCUSA. Offers of matching grants have little value for presbyteries that have nothing in reserve.”

Another dealt with the "headquarters" attitude:

“We need you not to promote a personal agenda or to act heavy-handed in a controlling or dictating way,” one executive said. “We need you to act with servant leadership. We need you to give away yourself and your position for the new life and health of the church, rather than trying to protect your own turf. If you are getting ready to take an action that you know will be controversial, we need you to consult us and get our feedback first, being willing to change your mind and not take the action at all if you hear from us that your action will cause a greater lack of trust … in our fragile denomination.”

Another person brought up a lack of focus:

“[O]ur diversity, once a source of creativity, seems now to have become an unmanageable cancer. We could use a unifying vision or mission to unite us, which seems to have come to our Biblical foreparents [sic] when they cried out in desperation and repentance. I understand that the Presbyterian Coalition … is struggling to find the future and that one option is to begin a dialogue with the PCUSA leadership towards a gracious separation. Will we have a creative, prayerful response or simply shut them down?”

Clark Cowden, an evangelical who is the Evangelist (executive) Presbyter in San Joaquin Presbytery in California, suggested that what needed fixing was the General Assembly.

“[It] provides more negative fodder during its biennial meeting than anything else. The General Assembly sets people up in opposing camps” and the rift continues long after the assembly's adjournment. “We can change that week, so that at the end of the week, we have positive news that goes out to a positive denomination.”

I have some suggestions to add for denominational leaders:

Clearly set out what you do and don't believe. This will irritate some, but it is absolutely necessary for an honest beginning toward unity. If you believe what the Bible says, then publicly and repeatedly affirm that. If you don't, then let that be known. This also applies to the classic doctrinal statements of the Faith. A church's unity is in what it believes and teaches--not in its history.

Remind each other that Biblical salvation is about souls, not social movements. The power to change the world comes first through changed hearts. If you need proof of this, read the Book of Acts, a biography of General William Booth, or a biography of William Wilberforce.

Ruthlessly eliminate unnecessary or burdensome governing bodies, and make the remaining ones smaller. A connectional system requires that pastors and elders really know each other, as well as each other's ministries.

Emphasize content over process. I once watched two labor teams at work in the Middle East. The first one was digging a trench, the second was immediately behind them filling the trench. People were kept busy, but nothing was accomplished. There is real content in fellowship and worship, which can be at the center of all denominational functions.

Keep business real. Unnecessary announcements, silly skits, interminable reports that people could read, and committees without real purpose kill any sense of ministry and purpose. Any business done should be vital business, like ordination examinations, transfer of pastors, or conflict resolution.

Set meeting times when people who have to work for a living can come. Younger people cannot attend weekday meetings during working hours. Too many weekday, day-time meetings automatically keep a vital portion of the church from attending.

Use ministry teams instead of committees. Committees tend to find something--anything--to fill their time. And, over time, they continue to justify their existence even if they have nothing to do. Ministry teams are organized around projects, events, and well-defined, ongoing ministry. If their job is done, they are done.

Make extensive use of networking tools between (or instead of) meetings. Email, conference calls, and video conferencing through the internet, can make true church business immediate and efficient. It can also connect congregations worldwide--not just in their particular geographic location. It can also save literally thousands of dollars in travel and related costs for face-to-face meetings.

Encourage individual congregations, or alliances between congregations, to start new congregations. The old models are dead and should be buried. National or regional control over new church development smacks (correctly, I think) of control rather than encouragement.

Learn from those who demonstrate spiritual life and growth. The ecumenical movement has devolved into lifeless meetings of liberally like-minded denominations. Pentecostal churches are the fastest growing in the world. While their theology should not be universally emulated, their faithfulness, sincerity, and spiritual focus have much to teach all of us. Individual congregations that are growing are often (usually?) resented. They also have much to offer.

Mainline denominations are at a critical crossroad. They can tinker their way into obscurity, or they can seek transformation. The prophet Jeremiah's words speak, I believe, to this very time:

“Jeremiah, say to the people, ‘This is what the LORD says: When people fall down, don’t they get up again? When they start down the wrong road and discover their mistake, don’t they turn back? Then why do these people keep going along their self-destructive path, refusing to turn back, even though I have warned them? I listen to their conversations, and what do I hear? Is anyone sorry for sin? Does anyone say, “What a terrible thing I have done”? No! All are running down the path of sin as swiftly as a horse rushing into battle! The stork knows the time of her migration, as do the turtledove, the swallow, and the crane. They all return at the proper time each year. But not my people! They do not know what the LORD requires of them. (Jeremiah 8:4-7)

This is a season for discernment. Unless we all find what the Lord requires of us, our ministry will be in vain.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

A Strange Kind of Hope

2006-09-27T12:48:00.000-05:00

It is accepted wisdom that people with certain kinds of problems must hit bottom before any real change can occur.

The PCUSA has been desperately in need of change for decades. Membership decline is alarming. Theological dysfunction has spawned a spate of special interest groups—on the left and on the right—who strive to move the denomination in their direction. Repeated crises drive congregations out in numbers that, at any one point in time, seem negligible but taken altogether should be alarming. After all, they represent thousands of members seeking another denominational fold. Re-imagining, Justice/Love, PUP and their ilk have inflicted a cumulative credibility crisis.

But there is hope for change. News items today (9/27/06) show cracks in the façade of normalcy. Some of the information is old news—falling income, inter-judicatory confusion, and the ubiquitous penchant for restructuring. In all of this is a new theme, though. The crisis seems to have hit a tipping point.

The first sign is in the middle judicatories.

“As middle governing bodies, it has now become perfectly clear to us that presbyteries and synods across the church are also facing significant instability and destabilization arising from a number of concerns. All of our missional, financial and institutional forms are seriously challenged. Yet, our present denominational structures provide no place where these concerns may be fundamentally addressed.” Presbyteries, synod ask GAC to hold consultation on their ‘viability and stability’

The second comes from the national office.

A five-year, $40 million campaign to raise funds for new churches and more overseas missionaries is in danger of having to shut down early because not enough operating funds are available, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s General Assembly Council Executive Committee was told today.
“We only have enough operating funds to last through February of 2007,” Mission Initiative: Joining Hearts and Hands (MIJHH) campaign director Jan Opdyke told the group today. “Pledges are being kept, but donors are choosing to designate their money rather than give it unrestricted, which is where our operating funds come from,” Opdyke said. PC(USA) - News Service - Mission Initiative campaign financially squeezed

The third sign is an old one but, considering the first two, with greater significance.

“But in some ways, this gathering in Louisville is sort of a hybrid meeting: the old structure still barely in place but the new one not quite born yet. The three division directors are scheduled to end their jobs Oct. 1, but are still presenting reports at this meeting and Valentine publicly thanked them for their dedication. One item was presented with the explanation: 'This is something that would have been reported to the SLT (staff leadership team) if we still had one.’” Viability of presbyteries and synods may be studied

The saddest part of this, for me, is that the perceived crisis is about money. It will probably be addressed only as such and that will be a serious mistake. It will be a mistake because the financial crisis comes from deeper problems. PCUSA theology is so pluralistic (not just diverse) that there is no spiritual center in the denomination. The PCUSA has turned a deaf ear to its constituent congregations—particularly those like the Kirk who were on the brink of leaving, then did. There are perhaps hundreds of other congregations at the point where the Kirk was a few months ago. Despite theological confusion and a lack of trust from the pews, the leaders of the PCUSA see all the above problems strictly as a financial crisis, as evidenced in the cited articles above.

I don’t recall any previous crisis of such severity in the PCUSA or its predecessor denominations. The denomination is on new and shaky ground, and any number of things could result from the current crisis.

The PCUSA could continue its belt-tightening for the next couple of years, just postponing inevitable bankruptcy.
There’s a high likelihood that the PCUSA will become even more aggressive regarding money. Departing churches will pay premium rates for their property. Churches that leave their property will see each “true church” dissolved and the property sold. This is dependent upon the PCUSA having enough money in reserve to litigate.
Per capita payment will become an absolute requirement at the congregational level, rather than a voluntary offering.
Special interest groups, like the newly-founded Presbyterian Global Fellowship, will be lobbied to provide financial support for missions dear to their hearts, freeing PCUSA funds for administrative costs.
Someone will suggest that the PCUSA unite with several other failing denominations. This will guarantee a steeper decline for all involved.
The denomination is most likely to appoint a 2-year task force which will debate just what should be done. That task force will ask for an extension after the first two years.
The Washington lobbying office will remain open and funded.

The one good thing about this PCUSA situation is that crisis gives opportunity for bold, positive change. The question is whether or not the PCUSA leadership is up to the task of really renewing itself. So far, they've not demonstrated enough credible action to give hope.

I do hope that the PCUSA is renewed--first spiritually, then financially and structurally. The fact that the Kirk left the PCUSA doesn't mean that we hope it gets worse. The best thing that can happen for the Kingdom is faithfulness on anyone's part.

Keep praying--keep the faith.
Tom

Legal Update

2006-09-26T21:06:00.000-05:00

This blog is directed mostly to the Kirk community. It’s an update on where we stand in the legal process.

The Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery (EOP) filed two requests with the court (these requests, by the way, exactly follow the PCUSA legal game plan that was leaked to The Layman). The first is to have the court direct us to turn over all membership records to the EOP. Their stated purpose in this is to continue in their “process” so that they can effect reconciliation with the PCUSA or determine the “true church” amongst all our members. There is no question that this “true church” consists only of those who wish to remain PCUSA.

We have offered to mail a letter that the EOP can write to express these wishes to you. The EOP wants to do it on their own. To me, this indicates that there is more behind their request than simple communication.

I personally have a problem with turning over these records. We give our directory to members but we do not generally distribute it. While the information in it, regarding addresses and telephone numbers, is not purely private, it is protected. If we gave our directory to any group outside the Kirk that then used it to contact all of you, you’d be justifiably angry with us.

If you do wish to contact the EOP you can do so easily. Their email address is eop@scglobal.net. Their telephone number is 918-533-1324.

The second filed request is for the court to suspend our suit for clear title. The purpose behind this, as I understand it, is to put the property issue back into the PCUSA system. The problem with this request is that there is one—and only one—result obtained by going through their system. We will either lose our property or have to pay a significant amount to retain it. In the PCUSA/EOP system, the denomination is prosecutor, judge, and jury. They also stand to benefit alone from the outcome. As far as I can figure this is a guaranteed defeat for the Kirk.

Our attorneys have filed the necessary responses with the court. There will be a hearing in late October to determine whether or not the membership records will go to the EOP. In the meantime we do what we do best—ministry. I’ll keep you informed.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

The Chicken or the Egg?

2006-09-26T20:32:00.000-05:00

Jodie is back on the blog and there is a kind of blog-volley between her, DrMom, and Larry. Jodie has a simple theology, “Jesus lives.” She cannot seem to understand why Christians would want to complicate belief more than that. I don’t think that she is alone. Many people want a simpler faith than what Christianity really teaches. Its teachings aren’t that complicated, but it requires more than an affirmation.

At first glance, her view seems powerful in its simplicity. It is true that Jesus lives. But what does that mean? For some people it will mean that Jesus lives as a memory. For others it is a metaphor. For orthodox believers, it is that Jesus is literally alive.

While a simple statement is attractive, it is inherently insufficient. Jesus didn’t leave us with the option of such a simple, stand-alone statement. His last words to his disciples before he ascended back into heaven are clear:

“Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you.”
(Matthew 28:19, 20, New Living Translation)

Simply saying “Jesus lives” doesn’t begin to fulfill this order.

We are to make disciples. This could happen with some people simply by saying “Jesus lives.” I think, though, that people might want to know a little more about this man. Why do we say “he lives?” What did he do to warrant our interest in him?

We are to baptize them. Here, Jesus states that we are to do so in a very special way—in the name of the Trinity. How are people to know what this means if we just say “he lives?”

We are to teach these disciples everything that Jesus has commanded us to do. This is why we need all of Scripture. The Old Testament establishes the nature of sacrifice, which will be fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus’ teachings on the Law start with the Old Testament before they expand in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus’ teachings are filled with encouragement, admonitions, and commands. Simply saying “Jesus lives” will not teach such things.

I hear from a lot of people who, for some reason, reject traditional Christian teachings for simplistic statements like, “Jesus lives,” or, more frequently, “all we need is love.” (sounds more like a song than a theology). In my opinion, such folk reduce faith to such things in order to avoid teachings of Jesus that are more challenging.

For example, most people hate the subject of hell. Yet Jesus, more than any one person in Scripture, speaks frequently about hell.

Matthew 5:29 "So if your eye—even if it is your good eye—causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your hand—even if it is your stronger hand—causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. "

Matthew 7:13 “You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose the easy way."

Matthew 10:28 “Don’t be afraid of those who want to kill you. They can only kill your body; they cannot touch your soul. Fear only God, who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

Jody seems very concerned that people such as I (or DrMom) are believing men’s interpretations rather than Jesus. All we know about Jesus, though, comes from Scriptures. Jody has said,

Anyway, Dr Mom, you’ve asked me how I give meaning to “Jesus lives”. I don’t. That is what it means to be “irreducible”. Jesus gives meaning to me. He gives meaning to my life, and to my existence. He gives meaning to meaning itself. The only meaning I get from life I get through him. The only meaning I get from scriptures I get through him. He is the source of all meaning, the beginning and the end. All that there is can be reduced to him, and without him nothing that there is would even be. (humm… seems like I read something like that somewhere).
Anyway, an irreducible statement is one you can use to say other things, but one that cannot be further explained or simplified. It stands alone. It just is. It is like the smallest brick you can find to build a house. A cornerstone. Oddly, it is one that many people overlook. (I think I read that someplace too)
In thinking about it, you have put your finger exactly on the real question of our debate.
“Do the Scriptures give meaning to Jesus, or does Jesus give meaning to the Scriptures?”
The answer to that question tells us who or what we worship as our god.

With Jodie's philosophy we could simplify all knowledge. In mathematics we could say "pi is." in geography we could say "Darfur is." Psychology could be summed up as "the ego lives." There is a lot more to these fields than these simple statements reveal. it is the same with faith.

Jodie’s argument is a classic tautology: which came first, the chicken or the egg? We live in a world with both chickens and eggs, so the question serves no real purpose. So it is in our faith: Scripture is the account of Jesus. Without it we have no knowledge of him. With it we can actually discern what it is that we need to say in order to make disciples, and what we need to teach them.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

Dhimmitude

2006-09-25T20:25:00.000-05:00

I recently researched the Islamic concept of dhimmitude. This is a part of Islamic law that defines the subservient position of people in Islamic countries who follow the other religions “of the Book,” that is, Jews and Christians (dhimmis). While Islamophiles hold this up as an example of religious freedom in Moslem countries, it is actually is an enforced servitude for those with the desire to hold onto their own faith.

An integral aspect of dhimmitude is jizya. Jizya is a tax that has to be paid by Christians and Jews in Moslem countries so that they can practice their faith “freely.” It has its origins in the Koran:

Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and his messenger have forbidden - such men as practice not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the book - until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled (humiliated). Surah al-Baqara 9:29

I couldn’t help but think of this as analagous to the situation that some orthodox congregations face within the PCUSA. The old denomination is “tolerant” of congregations that wish to hold to orthodox faith, so long as they submit to the greater “truths” of tolerance, diversity, and pluralism. They are kept in the fold as interesting antiquarians, useful for the money that they pass on into the denominational coffers.

The orthodox may believe what they want, just so long as the money keeps flowing and nothing is said or done that might upset the PCUSA system. Once you stand up for the truth and actually do something about it, the facade of toleration rapidly fades.

This is what congregations thinking of speaking out or leaving the PCUSA are about to face. The Islamiterian system is geared to guarantee compliance. If a congregation is out of step with the denomination or, God forbid, actually thinking about leaving, it faces the terminal jizya of forfeiture of church property, bank accounts, endowments, and any personal property kept within the building.

This is a grim reality that keeps most congregations within the “tolerant” fold. Dhimmitude requires reluctant compliance, regular payments and, above all, silence. If you want to know the rules of PCUSA dhiimitude, just read the legal game plan that Louisville has issued for executive and general presbyters. Responding to congregations seeking to withdraw

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

PS I mentioned the idea behind this blog in advance to a friend. He thought that the PCUSA might actually like the comparison, given their fondness for interfaith alliances. ;)

Orthodoxy and the Mainline Denominations

2006-09-22T23:56:00.000-05:00

I was preparing a blog responding to some people who have characterized our disaffiliation as an “attempt to find a perfect denomination.” We all know that such a denomination doesn’t exist. What we were doing is leaving a denomination that we believed had first left us, theologically. What we are looking to join is another denomination that has clear beliefs that are actually followed.

While I was writing, another comment came in that, in ultimate effect, made my case. John Shuck is a Presbyterian minister in Tennessee who is, even for Presbyterians, extremely liberal. Here’s what he wrote to me:

Dear Rev. Gray,
I am John Shuck. You referred to my blog in this post. I don’t know you and you don’t know me. Yet you say that I demonstrate “beliefs and teachings that are utterly against all the PCUSA says it believes.” No sir, I do not. They may be utterly against what you say the PCUSA says. Your very action to leave the denomination demonstrates that you and the PCUSA are in disagreement. My blog is a part of my teaching ministry to my congregation and to others. Teachers introduce students to a wide variety of ideas. I certainly do not need to defend myself to you. But then again, I would never dream of attacking another minister whom I don’t even know.
It appears that you are diverting attention away from yourself by pointing at me. You made your decisions. Live with them. Don’t bring me into it.
John Shuck
http://shuckandjive.blogspot.com/

I wasn’t attacking the Rev. Shuck, but using his public statements a evidence of what truly is happening in mainline denominations. He has every right to say what he believes, but he cannot escape scrutiny and comment. The Rev. Shuck has placed his beliefs, sermons, published papers, etc., in the public marketplace through his blog and webpage, even as I have done. In doing so, he’s put his teachings in a place where they will receive comment and criticism, even as mine have. In fact, his statements do demonstrate exactly what I believe is killing the PCUSA.

For the reader, here are some verbatim comments that you can verify from his blog (above) and his website (containing sermons and links to publications), which is linked from there.

The Mystery was called by different names in different languages in different places—The Great Spirit, Marduk, the Goddess, Brahman, The Holy One of Israel, God, Christ, Allah, The No-Thing, the Ground of Being. But the Mystery is elusive, not allowing a name to tame it, Allowing no human to claim it for a possession.

I can appreciate the Christian story as I appreciate a medieval work of art. I can revere it as the story of my ancestors. I can even find value in it at moments of loss for a departed loved one. But at best, it is a secondary story. For me, the story is not large enough to help me to come to terms with the challenge that human beings currently face.

No longer can the Bible alone be our sacred canon. No religion or tradition can claim to have or to be the canon. The universe is our canon of scripture. We are not creatures placed on Planet Earth from the outside and to the outside we shall return. We are of the same cosmic stuff as the stars, the sun, the planets, and the earth, and all species of Earth. All of it is sacred. It and we are all part of that creative mysterious power of the universe. Yet we are ignorant of this powerful story.

When faith communities begin demythologizing the Bible, some interesting things will happen. The Bible’s authority will shift away from the text and toward the individual interpreter or community of interpreters. No longer will the Bible be considered an authoritative source of truth that contains infallible propositions about God or the human condition. Rather, it will become a resource for wisdom. Since authority is earned by the truth it tells, the Bible will have whatever authority the individual or community gives to it.

The preacher can no longer assume that just because a text is in the Bible that it is from God or is even valuable.

Anything a preacher says must stand on its own terms. This ethic will free both the biblical text and the preacher. The text will be freed from the preacher’s misuse of it. The preacher will be freed from the constraints of needing to “preach from the Bible” or to have everything s/he says to be backed by scripture.

I believe that such views, once made public, are worthy of greater scrutiny. Is what he has written Christian? Is it in accordance with what the PCUSA says it believes? Is it wrong to ask these things?

The greatest question, for me today, is why such a different theology is in any way acceptable to the PCUSA. I do not challenge the Rev. Shuck’s right to state and publish his beliefs. I do not challenge his right to be a minister of a congregation (although I think his beliefs are closer to Unitarian/Universalism than Reformed theology). This isn’t about him, but the mainline denominations. Why are they so upset about things like per capita and property when the foundational beliefs they say they uphold are not?

The Rev. Shuck seeks, I think, to have his congregation focus on this world, and not the next. His religion is not rooted in the eternal, but the temporal. This is how he puts it:

The point is not to “believe” that the corpse of Jesus was resuscitated. The point is the power of the Spirit alive in us. The presence of Jesus with them is so powerful that he changed their lives. Without that hope, without that presence, life is hopeless. That is what Paul is talking about in I Corinthians 15. He saw Jesus in a vision. He didn’t see a resuscitated corpse. But his life changed.

The Rev. Shuck has, if his writings are representative, left orthodox Christian faith. My argument is that, while he is not a typical Presbyterian pastor, the direction in which he is leading seems to be the direction mainline denominations are taking. He may simply be more honest than others.

Where are the mainline denominations going? They are leading their people away from an orthodox faith in Jesus Incarnate, crucified, and bodily risen. I believe that they are trading the power of the cross and empty tomb for a simple social creed that, while earnest and good, is nowhere near the teachings of the core of the Gospel. Many are trading the inheritance of orthodox Christian faith for the potage of simply “doing good.” This is what I hear in what the Rev. Shuck is teaching:

I have not been one who goes head over heals [sic] for creeds.
Yet this parable has prompted me to declare some truths.
I will close with what I consider to be the message of Jesus.
This message is condensed in five simple statements.
I have decided to call these statements my five fundamentals.
1. Consider your life and your limited number of days.
2. Articulate a purpose for your life.
3. Accept that the rewards for following your purpose will be intrinsic.
4. Live your purpose.
5. Allow others the freedom to do the same.

Such is good advice for a part of life, but not for all of it. C. S. Lewis said, “If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this.”

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

Listen to What's Being Preached

2006-09-15T14:54:00.000-05:00

Every pastor wonders if people are listening to the sermons. Its obvious that some nod off while still others are distracted. But one hopes.

Sometimes that hope is dashed. One commentor on this blog, purporting to be a Kirk member, said the following:
"I think it's just a matter of how you decide to understand Jesus and how to understand the Bible...."
"I believe that the way Jesus, himself, lived -- the broad brush view rather than the hair-by-hair of the brush view) is the truest manifestation of what God wants us to follow...."
"I think I can see Jesus smiling on your efforts to seek the truth for yourself and your family -- and I have a strong suspicion that that's good enough."

Someone wasn't listening. We at the Kirk teach the Bible as the revealed Word of God. It is not superceded by how one wants to interpret Jesus. Jesus didn't share the "broad brush" view when he said that "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Matt. 5:18 )

The person also wrote that Jesus smiles on "efforts to seek the truth for yourself...." It isn't individual truth that we seek, but the Kingdom of Heaven. Continuing with Jesus' words (I sense, somehow, that this commentor might reject Paul), “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man." (John 5:24-27)

Our christian (small "c" intentional) culture has gotten bogged down by making exceptions the rule. It says our sexual behavior isn't an issue with God; our thought lives are not an issue with God. By extension, it seems, nothing is an issue with God and, insofar as our christian culture addresses it, the only thing that God will judge is our intention.

Yet this goes against all that Scripture teaches. Cain intended a good offering, yet it was unacceptable to God. I'm sure that there were well-intentioned Israelites who chose not to mark their doorposts and lintels with blood, and missed the Exodus. Felix had good intentions toward Paul's message, yet ignored it.

The central message of Scripture leads to and focuses exclusively on Jesus Christ, His sacrifice, salvation through Him, and eternal life through Him. Any other focus made central is heresy. When we make the focus ourselves--our ideas, our desires, our thoughts--it is also heresy. All of us are heretics in one way or another. It only becomes spiritually deadly when we deny that and cease our exploration of and obedience to the clear teachings of Scripture.

This is what is so discouraging to me as a preacher. I don't know how long this commentor sat in our pews (or if he or she did at all). But if they were there, I have to ask the question, "why?" I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I don't want to keep non-believers from attending--evangelism is our business! I don't expect people to be "cookie cutter" Christians. But I do expect a minimum of Christian belief from those who are members.

Our new member process is a six-week class, taught by lay leaders, that begins with an in-depth investigation of Christian faith, along with a challenge to follow Jesus Christ. Our standard of receiving members is their free-will affirmation that "Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior." Everyone who is a member at the Kirk should have affirmed this.

Why would a person who disagreed with this become a member? Why would they stay in a church that regularly preaches this? The answer probably can be found in our christian culture (small "c" again). Some people come to a church not to seek the Lord, not to seek Truth (capital "T"), not to seek or serve Jesus as He commands, but to experience something pleasing to them. A recent article from an Episcopalian member who believes little demonstrates this:

"We all love the incense, the stained-glass windows, the organ music, the vestments and all of that,' he said. 'There will always be people who love that. ... It's drama. It's aesthetics. It's the ritual. That's neat stuff. I don't want to give all that up, just because I don't believe in God and all that."
A Proud Skeptic in the Pew

If that's all you choose to believe, stay home. Sleep in. Do something more honest with your Sunday morning. If, though, you are truly seeking, you are always welcome, regardless of what you might currently believe. Come with an open mind. Listen carefully to the preacher. Match the preacher's words with Scripture. If they don't match, go somewhere else. If they do, those words just might make an eternal difference for you.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

Waiting for Support

2006-09-13T20:17:00.000-05:00

There are a lot of PCUSA leaders who are waiting until the GA permanent judicial commission gets a case, hoping to see if the PJC undoes the “local option” aspect of the PUP report. There is already a taste, I believe, of what is to come.

There was a decision by a synod PJC on one of the most clear-cut cases possible.
A Classical Presbyterian: Neither Hot Nor Cold: Synod of the Sun PJC refuses to correct Mission Presbytery: “In a 5-5 tie, the Synod of the Sun PJC has refused to correct Mission Presbytery for admitting an admitted practicing lesbian woman to candidacy for ordination to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament.
After repeated deadlocked votes by the PJC that could not break the tie, the complaint against the presbytery was not upheld.”

Additionally, the Redwoods Presbytery took an even more egregious violation of the PCUSA constitution—the same-sex marriages that Jane Spahr admittedly performed—and decided that there was “no violation.” This, of course, was before PUP was approved by the GA, but it tells the same story: there will be presbyteries and synods who heartily approve of local option. The GA might object but, unless their rules are supported and enforced, they will be meaningless.

The big question is how the PJC will choose to interpret the cases before them. Often, they ignore theology and focus only on process. In such a case, a lower judicatory can make a vile decision, but do it the “right” way, winning over any complaint against them. The current ethos of the PCUSA doesn’t look promising for those who wait.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

No Voice of Reason

2006-09-09T21:37:00.000-05:00

Here’s the scenario—your denomination is hemorrhaging members. There are churches leaving and others considering doing so. Some are suing for their property while others remain in the denomination only because they fear losing their property. There is tremendous confusion about what the denomination believes. Some are trying to respond by clarifying what is and isn’t acceptable for leaders. Others are trying to withhold giving in an attempt to persuade denominational leaders to listen, learn, and act appropriately.

If you were leading in such a situation, what would you do? It would be good to listen to the voices of those agonizing over their place in the denomination. You might want to step up to the plate and help clarify what you do and don’t believe. At the least, you’d assure congregations that you are striving to work things out in accordance with what you're hearing.

Don’t hold your breath if you’re in the PCUSA. Clifton Kirkpatrick, the highest staff officer of the denomination, has given his response to this real-life scenario in a letter to the stated clerks of presbyteries.

His response starts out giving some hope: “The assembly called [us], as we face difficult issues, to be engaged in ‘processes of intensive discernment through worship, community building, study, and collaborative work.’ The assembly also encouraged us prior to decision making to engaged in the spiritual disciplines of prayer, discernment of the will of God, and seeking to hear God’s voice through the voices of those in our community.” (emphasis added)

Then, though, Kirkpatrick gets to what his letter is really about and expresses concern (read, opposition) to the following:

“Actions by a presbytery that in essence set aside the assembly’s authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 and require subscription to all or specific constitutional standards.”
This means that conservative presbyteries, like San Diego, cannot set standard tenets for ordination. This is in spite of the fact that ordination vows require adherence to the “essential tenets” of Reformed theology (which are nationally undefined).

“Establishing answers that are required of candidates for installation and ordination, or determining in advance answers that will be unacceptable.”
This goes against logic. If churches and presbyteries examine candidates, it must be on the basis of the responses they expect. Whenever a company hires an employee, the interview process is designed to seek out qualifications, suitability, experience, and the like. Presbyteries should not expect particular compatible beliefs from candidates.

"Proposals to grant congregations – based on a super majority vote or other criteria – to leave the denomination with their property in the event of schism."
Let no presbytery grant grace to a departing congregation. Although Mark Tammen, the legal eagle of the PCUSA, blithely states that they “dismiss” four or five congregations every year, he fails to mention the financial consequences of this, given that “dismissed” congregations either pay for their property (again) or forfeit it.

“Actions to restrict presbyteries from fulfilling their G-9.0404d responsibilities to transmit their per capita assessments to synods and General Assembly.”
This is to keep congregations, and then presbyteries, from withholding money from the national offices. Even though the PCUSA's permanent judicial commission has judged per capita to be a “voluntary donation,” Kirkpatrick’s office still enforces it as a tax.

“Mandates that presbyteries seek to place on sessions for procedures or content for the examination of candidates to be elders or deacons beyond those specified in the Constitution or its authoritative interpretations.”
No presbytery should dare to establish standards for its churches.

“Yes these are difficult days for many of you. But it is in times like this that we most need to seek the spirit and mind of Christ and to be faithful to our Constitution, as we seek to build up the church in faithfulness to its Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.”

Does not Kirkpatrick sense that the people in the pews are speaking the spirit and mind of Christ that they have discerned? Is the Stated Clerk’s office the only source of Christian wisdom?

Rather than listening to “seek God’s voice through the voices of those in our community,” Kirkpatrick is trying to silence those very voices. While he attributes his admonitions to the authority of the constitution, he has choices. He can choose to proactively implement the whole constitution or just the parts he’s interested in. The Stated Clerk’s office has effectively ignored egregious moral violations of the constitution while sniffing out every possible challenge to the money that might flow into the national offices. Ironically, by ignoring the one, he has caused the other.

Another blogger, and even some who have written me, have compared the attitude of the Stated Clerk’s office to the establishment of Rehoboam’s reign after his father, Solomon, died.

Then King Rehoboam went to discuss the matter with the older men who had counseled his father, Solomon. “What is your advice?” he asked. “How should I answer these people?”
The older counselors replied, “If you are willing to serve the people today and give them a favorable answer, they will always be your loyal subjects.”
But Rehoboam rejected the advice of the elders and instead asked the opinion of the young men who had grown up with him and who were now his advisers. “What is your advice?” he asked them. “How should I answer these people who want me to lighten the burdens imposed by my father?”
The young men replied, “This is what you should tell those complainers: ‘My little finger is thicker than my father’s waist—if you think he was hard on you, just wait and see what I’ll be like! Yes, my father was harsh on you, but I’ll be even harsher! My father used whips on you, but I’ll use scorpions!’”
(1 Kings 12:6-10)

Rehoboam follows the young men's advice. The direct result of that choice was the division of Israel into two kingdoms. It never recovered and both kingdoms eventually were conquered.

Whither the PCUSA? This is a time when a witness of grace from the “top” could result in healing and hope. Instead, the march to division and destruction goes on.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

Hate Mail

2006-09-08T10:44:00.000-05:00

I've gotten some hate-mail throughout the process of disaffiliation. It has suddenly increased. All pastors get this kind of thing. I remember when I was pastoring at St. Cuthbert's Parish Church in Edinburgh, Scotland. One parishoner wrote an anonymous poison-pen letter that ended "you Americans should all go home." Interestingly, it was signed, "a friend."

Those opposed to the Kirk’s disaffiliation from the PCUSA attribute a great amount of power to me. Some see me as a mad, Rasputin-like (yes, someone actually used that term) demagogue.

I don’t usually read unsigned letters, but one was so good that it is in circulation around our staff. They particularly like the description of me with which it ends:

Somehow, you’ve been able to entice and mesmerize a group of well-intentioned parishioners to adopt your own personal agenda as their own….Get over yourself, Tom. Take a long, hard look at what you’ve done and what you’re doing. For your sake, I hope you are seeking the care of a mental health professional. Your behavior and the delusional influence you’ve captured over your constituents borders on massive paranoia and unparalleled egotism. You’ve lost control of your ego, and I hope you’ll get help before you lose yourself and your own well-being.

This anonymous writer may enjoy the fact that the staff thinks I should "get over myself," too.

According to various writers, I’ve

Single-handedly convinced the Kirk congregation that the PCUSA is in the wrong.

Told members they cannot attend EOP meetings.

Insisted on being “worshiped” as a “hero.”

My congregation will be thrilled to hear that they are such a mindless mob. I can think back on all the occasions where I’ve held sway. My favorite was the first time I tried to move the choir from the balcony to the front of the sanctuary. Then there was the second. I was so successful that there probably won’t be a third try.

Truth is, members at the Kirk are intelligent, independent, highly educated, opinionated, and vocal. They are also faithful, generous, prayerful, studious, and loyal. Their loyalty is to Jesus Christ before any denomination or pastor. They are the least likely congregation to blindly follow a leader of any I have known.

One thing that critics are ignoring is the possibility that those who are staying in the denomination are the ones being misled. I know of those who remain who do so knowledgably, still in the fight to renew the PCUSA. They have my deep respect. But how many other congregations have really examined the PCUSA and what it believes? How many are there just because they hear one side about the denomination, or nothing at all? What do you think would happen if all the facts were put forward and every congregation had the chance to vote?

The problem critics are having may be that this has been such a unified decision of our congregation. I was actually amazed at how substantial the vote was, even though I knew it would be a sizeable majority in favor of disaffiliation. I believe that the response shows that our move is a Godly one.

The fact that it is Godly does not make it simple. We wrestled with the alternatives. We’ve been told from the beginning that this may mean the property will revert to the EOP. We knew that some people would leave the Kirk, whichever decision we made (even, perhaps especially, if we did nothing). I have spent sleepless nights and expect more to come. I do not believe that our disaffiliation is a panacea; no denomination is perfect, and even independency of a church is fraught with problems.

This decision has not been easy at any point. I don’t expect the path ahead to be any easier. Critics abound, but the truth remains, and we must remain faithful to it.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery Deals With the Kirk

2006-09-05T14:13:00.000-05:00

Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery met on Tuesday morning, the sole purpose of that meeting to discuss the Kirk’s disaffiliation from the PCUSA.

Our disaffiliation does not follow the normal scheme of things. The presbytery is trying to do its best to re-establish that order.

Our stance is that we are an independent, congregational church while we are in the process of being admitted into the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Our disaffiliation disavows the authority of the PCUSA over us. The denomination’s departure from its own constitutional and scriptural standards created both a crisis for us (we cannot stay) and a mode of leaving (since the constitution was officially questioned, we did so, as well).

The following is a verbatim report of the presbytery’s plans for the Kirk:

Establish an Administrative Commission with power and authority to

Assume original jurisdiction over the Session, working with the current staff and leaders insofar as necessary for the day-to-day operations of the church.

Determine the current ordained leadership and corporate officers

Determine ownership of property and records

Determine the factions within the current membership and attempt reconciliation

If reconciliation is impossible, determine the true membership of the Kirk of the Hills Presbyterian Church [sic]

Provide pastoral care for those wishing to remain members of the PCUSA

Determine the strategy for mission in that community

Establish and maintain a regular and continuing relationship with the higher governing bodies of the Kirk.

The additional information in the report strongly suggests that I and Wayne have misled the Kirk regarding the denomination. There is also a long list of our actions that are determined to be irregular.

One of our members attended this meeting, providing the notes I am quoting from. He also noted at the bottom of the page, "All recommended actions passed unanimously.* No attempt was made to address the underlying problem which led to the Kirk’s actions.” (emphasis added)

His statement further underscores the position of the denomination toward dissenting churches. There is little or no concern for the causes of dissatisfaction, but there is tremendous concern about taking control and the possession of property.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

* we later found that one person voted against the EOP action.

Intolerance Goes Both Ways

2006-09-04T15:41:00.000-05:00

I’ve recently read three different articles that point to the same problem: the pro-gay movement in North America is becoming ever more aggressive and anti-family. The first incident is in Canada.

Craig Chandler, rhe owner of a pro-family website, which has Scriptural statements against homosexuality on it, has been repeatedly sued by pro-gay groups through the Alberta Human Rights Commission. He has already had to spend close to $100,000 of his own money for defense. He expects that it will cost him $250,000 more before the last two cases are settled. He describes the problem as a Kafka-esqe situation where his legal rights are in question:

"'The thing about a Human Rights Commission complaint is that it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, you still have to foot the bill. If I want to get our money back, I have to take them to civil court,' which, Chandler pointed out, will only incur further expense without the assurance of winning." 
"Chandler vociferously denies any accusations of hatred against homosexuals on the part of him or any of the websites. 'They're saying the websites are anti-gay,' he said to LifeSiteNews.com. 'We're not. We're not anti-gay. Hate's not a family value.'" 
"However, he adds that 'Sometimes the truth hurts...That's exactly our perspective on it. The gay and lesbian community, homosexual activists, they don't want anything but complete silence to any disagreement to their views on the issue.'"
VirtueOnline - News - Islam, Persecution & Culture Wars - ALBERTA: Homosexuals Seek to Shut Down Canadian Pro-Family Websites

The second issue involves a conservative Episcopalian bishop's (a rare breed these days) sermon in one of the more liberal congregations in his diocese. He preached from the lectionary, something required of priests in the Episcopal church, and the passage he chose from the several there was from Ephesians 5. As he read the passage, and then preached, he was continually hissed by members of the congregation.

The 21st verse says, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” It continues, “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.”

“Bishop Sauls told approximately 45 worshipers at St. Martha's. 'That is not a message that preaches well in 2006... But the bishop focused on the rest of the passage, which calls on husbands to love their wives unconditionally and selflessly 'just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.' The passage also contains the egalitarian commandment: 'Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.' This is'a radical idea,' Sauls said..The prolonged hissing didn't seem to faze Sauls.”

The article goes on to say that the church, in worship, celebrated a child's birthday and the anniversary of a gay couple.
Bible Belt Blogger: Bishop preaches unpopular text, gets hissed

The final incident comes out of the PCUSA. One of the independent organizations of pro-gay people in the PCUSA is called More Light. It has organized hundreds of churches to support the ordination of GLBTs along with same-sex marriage. They are following the Canadian model, trying to seek out and attempt to silence those who disagree with them. Most alarmingly, they are organizing people to make derogatory reports of any “anti-LGBT activity” in their church

“Following the principle that sunlight is the best disinfectant, if you're aware of this type of anti-LGBT activity taking place, or about to take place, within your presbytery or session, you'll help the entire More Light Movement if you can write a few paragraphs (short is fine, long is OK too) about what's happening locally and send it to us.... We'll edit your notes for clarity and publish a news item here on the MLP web site blog.”
MLP - Call for information: tell us about any anti-LGBT post General Assembly activity in your Presbytery or within your church

We should never be anti-gay people. Any kind of bigotry is wrong. But it is not homophobic to disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. It is not wrong to speak plainly one’s spiritual views, so long as those views are not forced on anyone. What’s happening in these examples, though, is the tip of the iceberg of a new kind of intolerance found, of all places, in church.

Keep praying--keep the faith
Tom

The Joys of Blogging

2006-09-04T11:15:00.000-05:00

While the Kirk’s controversy is in hiatus, and the feeling of crisis is suspended, I’ve had some time to reflect on this blog.

I started it as a communication tool for my congregation during the June General Assembly. It served very well in that capacity but I was surprised by the number of non-Kirk people who were reading it and making comments. I tried, at first, to answer every comment I could.

When the Kirk began to withdraw from the PCUSA the readership and comments grew. Now there were too many comments for me to respond to and, very interestingly, the commentators seemed pleased to be countering each other with their comments. It seemed to take on a life of its own.

For the most part, commentators were decent, making good points to my blogs and to each other. Then it began to degenerate. Points and counterpoints got personal. I managed all the comments rather loosely. The comments came to me by email first, where I could judge those that should be posted and those that should simply be thrown out.

Some of those posting said that I only put in comments that supported my side. Anyone briefly reading any one page of comments would see the falsehood in that. The only rules I used to eliminate a comment were 1) no profanity, 2) no personal attacks against anyone but me, and 3) it had to make some sort of sense. You wouldn’t believe how many posts did not pass muster for one, or even all, of the above reasons.

I got some criticism for allowing “anonymous” people to post. If you look carefully, some of the anonymous posters signed their names at the end of their posts. Others were satisfied to remain in the dark, some with good reason.

There were people who posted with malice. The content of the posts didn’t qualify for elimination but, I’ve I’d had a rule concerning intent, they’d never have seen the light of day.

It was inevitable that I, and people at the Kirk, would begin to speculate about the people posting. “Jodie” was a favorite among many. Her first post said that she had no agenda in her responses, but that soon changed. It was clear that she was much opposed to the Kirk’s theology and actions. Others joined her in highly disapproving posts, often encouraging each other, sometimes getting a rise out of Kirk members who posted responses.

Other posts sounded like they came from denominational officials. I think that some did. I got an email from a former member of Hollywood Presbyterian church who, somehow, had the ability to track where some of my posts were originating. I followed this up and found that a great number of posts came out of the Louisville offices, and one even came from the Presbyterian Benefits office in Philadelphia.

If you look at the world map below my profile sidebar, you can see where the posts generally come from. If you click on the map, a larger one will appear. You’ll notice that I still have friends in the UK who are keeping up on news from me. Brazil has a large dot because of Jason Gardner and his family, who are our missionaries there (he posted comments non-anonymously). There are hits from Tanzania (Kathy Colby and Valerie Vaughan, our missionaries there), and from Nairobi, where we have mission contacts. I have no idea who is accessing this blog from China, Australia, New Zealand, Crete, Istanbul, Sri Lanka, South Vietnam, Indonesia, Mexico, or Europe. Costa Rica lights up because of our many contacts there through Kirk missions.

I’ve enjoyed writing the blog, even though some of what I’ve written was done in the toughest and fatiguing days in my career. I know that the readership, which was holding at 2,500 a day, will fall off precipitously (I looked at my graph of “hits” and it looks a lot like a graph of the membership decline in the PCUSA). The blog will now go back to my original intent—reaching the membership of the Kirk with current and accurate information about the denomination and our church.

I’m working on a review of the “best of comments” that I’ll publish in the near future.

Keep praying—keep the faith.
Tom

The Future Looks Great!

2006-09-01T10:10:00.000-05:00

Now that we are freer to do the ministry to which we’ve been called, the greatest amount of our energy can be focused there.

I believe that we are called to build new churches. We were hampered in this in the earlier system, but now we are free to move ahead. I believe that we can have an impact in the fastest growing areas around Tulsa by planting satellite congregations in Owasso, Bixby, Broken Arrow, and West Tulsa. In effect we can build “Kirk North, South, East, and West.” Should we lose our property, we can add a fifth new location more central to Tulsa itself.

We are increasingly opening our doors to the community as a teaching church. Not only is this about the kinds of Bible studies we have for our congregation and community, but as a resource for helping other churches develop. The great success of the New Wineskins Convocation (successful because of your help) shows that we can put on large events for churches from around our part of the country. The Kirk’s experience should be a good springboard for leaders of mid-size churches that want to grow.

We continue to have impact through the media. I’ve been regularly on the radio in Tulsa for over 20 years. We will continue with this and, perhaps, be even more creative. We are doing increased in-house publishing of small group curricula and CDs of sermon series, as well as the WOW Bible study (Women of Worth). I believe that we will expand this in order to reach out into more homes in Tulsa.

Our children’s programs are in a renaissance period. If you haven’t visited upstairs lately, take the time to do so, soon. New methods of teaching the Bible are matched by astoundingly creative room renovations that should make kids excited to come each Sunday.

We continue in conversation and planning for ministries to people of all ages. We are looking into bringing people from places like Inverness Village and Montereaux to Bible studies and worship, ore even taking ministries there. Care ministries are expanding daily.

The best is yet to come. Your prayers, attendance, and financial support are vital as we move ahead.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

The PCUSA Hasn't Forgotten Us

2006-08-31T11:00:00.000-05:00

Now that the congregational meeting is behind us, what still lingers regarding our old denominational membership?

First is the property issue. This is being taken care of by other people, although I maintain an active interest in the subject. We are in contact with other congregations that are just behind us in this process and may be able to work together on some of the property issues. While I would never actively “recruit” other churches to leave, I desire to be of some service to those who make this difficult decision on their own.

Second is the denomination’s continuing action toward us. We are currently an independent, congregational church, but the PCUSA maintains an interest in attracting dissatisfied Kirk members away from us. They are still requesting that we give them an updated membership list so that they can “let members know how to transfer to other PCUSA churches if they desire.” This is an easy process, and we will let people know how to do this without the help of the presbytery. We would hope that Kirk members who disagree with our decision would choose to stay. We want them here. But we will not harass them, nor will we fail to respect their individual decisions.

Third is whatever future actions the presbytery may plan at a special meeting called for next Tuesday. The sole purpose of this meeting is to discuss Kirk of the Hills. I would guess that they will declare the 36 people who voted against our disaffiliation to be the “true church.” They will also have to declare an administrative commission to investigate further into this whole situation, perhaps officially “removing” our session as regards those 36 people. Since Wayne Hardy and I renounced jurisdiction, there are no actions they need to make regarding us. But they will certainly assign a pastor for the “true church.” They will just as certainly want to take aggressive action to take our property.

I expect that there will be significant anger toward Wayne and me and our session. There may be some sadness. We did not go through the “system,” and this will be deeply disturbing to many. Anything beyond this would be pure speculation on my part. It will be interesting, though, to see what is decided.

Keep praying—keep the faith,
Tom

THE Meeting

2006-08-30T21:28:00.000-05:00

People started coming in around 5pm. The meeting was scheduled for 6:30. We had set up registration tables alphabetically and the lines became longer so, that by 5:45, there was a tail-back through the narthex of the Kirk.

Those who came early enough got to sit in “their” pews. Others had to make do. We asked people to squeeze toward the center so that we could fit more people into the sanctuary and balcony. Don’t tell the fire marshal this, since our sanctuary is “rated” for 750 people, but we packed in over 1,000. Non-members went to our Fellowship Hall where they watched through a live video feed.

I thought last Sunday was electric; nothing compared with tonight. People were talking excitedly. Those who greeted Wayne and me on the way in usually did so not only with a smile, but a “thumbs-up.” There were repeated ovations, some standing, throughout the meeting.

The voting began at 6:40, ten minutes late because our registration lines were slower than anticipated. The votes were three: first, we asked the congregation to concur with the session’s vote to disaffiliate. Second, we voted on affiliating with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Third, the congregation voted to affirm Wayne’s and my ordination.

Discussion was better than civil. People asked clarifying questions about denominational changes in the PCUSA. There were serious questions about the EPC, what it believes, and differences between the old denomination and the new. There were no voices in opposition.

When it came to the ordination issue, people asked if they could vote for one or the other of us (no), and whether or not we two would be a good match for the Kirk standards for pastor (apparently, yes).

The votes went as follows:

To disaffiliate from the PCUSA
Yes 967
No 36
Abstain 8

To affiliate with the EPC
Yes 973
No 31
Abstain 13

The vote for affirming the ordination of Wayne and me was done by acclamation, with a standing ovation. In fact, that ovation was one of several this evening, the most sustained one following our vote to disaffiliate. Another came after it was remarked that we were moving ahead to do what the Lord required, whether or not we retained our property. We informed the congregation that we will not go quietly in this respect, but it was not the deciding issue for us.

What I feel after all this is a bit of exhaustion, a deepened sense of love for my congregation (and from it) and for our staff. I also am beginning to feel a tremendous sense of freedom.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

The Slow Decline

2006-08-30T14:29:00.000-05:00

As I wait for the big meeting of our congregation tonight, I've been sorting through some of the posts to this blog. From time to time I respond to them, but it is difficult. First, some of the posts are lengthy, contentious, and even confusing. Second, there are a lot of them and I still have a sermon to write for Sunday. I'll leave it to those of you who are already in dialogue.

One thing I notice, though, is that they reflect exactly what's being debated in the PCUSA today. There are two distinct sides on the biblical/sexuality issue, with a muddled middle that wishes out loud that people would be nicer to each other (actually, some in the middle seem offended that anyone should have a strong opinion).

I don't think that this will ever change. There may have been a time when the two "sides" in the PCUSA still truly reflected being in one house. That's certainly no longer the case. The PCUSA is a divided house, and the middle will have to decide which one gets the keys to the front door. If this continues to go on, people like me, and congregations like ours, will be exhausted by the process and drop out to go somewhere else where there is theological unity, so that all our energy can go into ministry.

Don't get me wrong--we didn't leave the PCUSA just for some relief. I truly believe that the PCUSA stepped squarely into one camp last June. I think it will take some time to get it, but many on the traditional side will see that the battle for the heart of the church has been lost.

One of our cats recently died (how's that for a smooth transition?). The point is, it took her weeks to die. We checked in with our vet, and he told us how to keep her comfortable until the end. Weeks before, we recognized the irreversible symptoms. I honestly thought she'd have been gone in hours, she was so frail, but she lived for three weeks.

She responded to our touch. She accepted water and liquid food through a dropper. She even rallied a couple of times, although each rallied condition was successively worse. Finally, one day last week, I went in to where we kept her cozy and warm, reached down, and petted her. She lifted her head a little bit, purred loudly, then deeply sighed and was gone.

Is this what is happening to mainline churches today? They are loved and cared for. People spoon feed them nourishment and go through the motions as if things really weren't so bad. But, without a miracle, the process is headed in only one way.

Try not to make too much of my analogy. I know it's full of holes, and I won't take the time to respond to those pointing them out. It just seems to me that the story fits, sort of.

Keep praying--keep the faith,
Tom

A Challenge to the Presbytery

2006-08-29T11:00:00.000-05:00

I’ve had a long night to think about the meeting some of our congregation had with presbytery. The message of the presbytery was that, if we’d simply sat down and talked with them, everything would have been all right. I take that to mean that they would not have followed the PCUSA legal game plan, nor would they have insisted that we buy our property back from them.

The presbytery representatives mentioned, according to attendees, that there had been seven different times when they felt they were justified in removing me from my pastorate, but held back. I’m thankful for that, but not particularly comforted that they were keeping count.

In terms of the Kirk’s fears, it would have gone far for them to say some things in response to what we (I) had clearly articulated as our fears. They could have said they would consider removing the affidavit. We asked for this, but they refused. It would have helped tremendously if they had told us they would not have followed the PCUSA legal game plan, especially when it seems that they have been, at every step so far. It would have been helpful for them to say that they weren’t really interested in our property, just our congregation. Sadly, none of these things happened.

There is still time for others. I won’t name them, but I’m aware of at least three other Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery congregations that are considering, or would like to leave the denomination for the same reasons we did. NOW is the time for the presbytery to put its money where its mouth has been.

Tell these congregations that, if they vote to leave, you will not remove their pastor(s) from office. Tell their pastors that they can speak freely without the threat of disciplinary action. Promise that you will not remove their sessions. Promise that you will not make them pay you for the property they’ve already paid for. You can do this, if you want. That seems to be what you told the Kirk people Monday night. Please, for the sake of these other churches, prove that we at the Kirk were in the wrong.

Keep praying—keep the faith
Tom