Sometimes We Get Along, Sometimes Not

It doesn't take long in the #PCUSA to see what a diverse group we are. Much of the time, we manage to get along; some of the time, we don't.

Diversity pushes and pulls us, and sometimes pushes or pulls us beyond where we're comfortable ... and sometimes challenges us to rethink, to reconsider, review those things we deem "essentials."

We love to quote authorities, and, of course, THE Authority, Scripture, but even that seems to fail us finally, leaving us without resolve, and all those pesky Bible verses that refuse to fit into our otherwise neat and tidy systems.

If we take sin seriously (as Presbyterians, we have too!), then we're stuck with a curious kind of humility toward one another, and toward those views that either challenge us or strike us as even heretical.

We'd all like to claim that "our system, our version of things, our take on God and the Gospel, are bigger, brighter and better" than all the other competing versions.

But history refuses us such a claim.

All we can do, and humbly do, is put forth our view of things, and try to apply the best tools of scholarship and science, engaging in steady prayer and the practices of humility (often saying, "I don't know" or "I'm not sure"), bringing to bear upon our ideas the best of Christian scholarship, the vast and often contradictory traditions of the church, including hymnody, social justice practices over the centuries and the day-to-day learning from one another - in other words, all that God provides us in and through the church and the larger world.

In reality, we're mostly on target, and sometimes not.

Who can contain the whole counsel of God in any system of thought?

Who dares to say they comprehend the will and character and purpose of God throughout the ages?

If any of us muster the "telling Bible verse," someone else offers another verse.

So we serve one another best of all when we raise critical questions for one another, and provide ample room and time for one another to express his or her views.

If we come to the #PCUSA or to a particular congregation to have all of our a priori notions confirmed, we may well find a congregation that suits us perfectly, but not likely the entire denomination ... which is why some are so eager for schism - as if the balkanization of the church could lead to greater purity of thought. It never does, and never will. To seek purity at the expense of fellowship is to sacrifice the very purity so eagerly sought.

Anyway, much of the discussion here is thoughtful and kind ... God be praised.

Perhaps we might take Jesus at his word in John: "I am the way, the truth and the life" ... not Calvin or Knox or Kuyper, not the Book of Confessions or the Book of Order, neither Aquinas nor Barth, certainly not Jerry Falwell (God rest his soul) or James Dobson, nor Rob Bell or Max Lucado. But from all of them, we learn about Jesus, yet Jesus does us the favor of "walking through our midst," lest we crown him(John 6.15) or try to kill him (Luke 4.29).

Our systems are all approximations ... and we humbly bow down before the LORD of all ... honoring the Holy Spirit in each and every believer who utters the name of Jesus in faith, hope and love, fragmented as every heart is, with but a fragmentary grasp of Jesus, whose grasp upon us is sure and certain, unto the end of the age, and then some.

Notes for March 23 Seekers Class, First Congregational Church of Los Angeles

Preparing for the Passion - Lent and the Apostle Paul

Seekers Class, March 23, 20014 - Rev. Ryan Steitz, facilitator

Notes prepared by Rev. Tom Eggebeen.

First Congregational Church of Los Angeles

Climbed to the roof of my home to adjust the TV antenna …

Fixed my 8-track tape deck …

Recorded a TV show on my VCR …

Bought a new 33 ⅓ record album featuring Bing Crosby …

Took my car in to repair the floorboard dimmer switch …

Transitions …

Share transitions we’ve made …

Paul’s transition: began on the Damascus Road … it took time to work it out, and he’s still working it out in his correspondence … and we are, too (but that’s for later).

Paul … 

From specific location (the land promised to Abraham) to the world … the larger promise of God to Abraham … from a physical center in Jerusalem, the Temple, to a spiritual center en Christo … in Christ … (this is what the Book of Hebrews is all about) … remember: Greek Christos means Messiah, Anointed One.

From practices to ideas …

From circumcision, dietary laws, social restrictions and Temple

To …

Great theological ideas of Judaism: monotheism, election, eschatology.

Reworking Jewish beliefs about God around Messiah and Spirit … 

From survival to mission … from inward to outward bound ...

Crossing all kinds of boundaries … building bridges ...

Daring in his thought and work … 

Willing to endure hardship (2 Corinthians 11.22ff) ...

Keep in mind … whenever we read Paul, read something from the Gospels, too … when we’re well-anchored in the Gospels, then we can read Paul with success, without getting trapped in an all-too-common cul-de-sac, taking our eyes off of Jesus and trying to figure out what Paul meant - mostly leading to dogmatism and bitter debates. Churches divide and families splinter, not on what Jesus said, but what they think Paul said.

We read Paul best when we read Paul in the light of Jesus and Gospels … 

Know the Gospels through and through … when we have a sense of Jesus and his world … and why Rome and the Jerusalem establishment decided to forgo their differences and collude with one another to arrest Jesus, try him and publicly execute him … then we make our move to Paul … and why Paul was willing to throw his life into the ring, to proclaim that Jesus is, indeed, the Messiah who proclaims the original promise of God, to make all things new, to reconcile the world to God and the peoples to one another … and how Paul’s proclamation changed the world as its spread throughout the Mediterranean world, and challenged the powers-that-be - both religious and political - ultimately costing Paul his life.

With that, to keep in mind: the biggest questions we can frame? The bigger the question, the more fun we have with Jesus and Paul … and I mean fun, as in delight, discovery, joy and wonderment. 

The Gospel is, after all, Good News … as Paul says in Romans 5.1 - We have peace with God!

Herein is God’s purpose - that humankind might have peace with God, and flowing from this divine-human reconciliation, peace with one another. For this Jesus came to be one with us, as like us, and to proclaim the love and will of God … and of this, crucial pieces: the Beatitudes and Jesus and the Temple … grasp these two pieces of Jesus, and we have a good hold on him, and how all of this came to be worked out for Paul.

Let’s read some of Paul’s correspondence … Romans 4.1-5 (6-12), 13-17

Romans 5.1-11; 12-19 (20-21) … key question: What does “faith” mean here?

The Earth is 6000 Years Old!

The earth is 6000 years old!

That’s what I’m told by learned men of much faith and the women who love them, but the women are pretty busy having babies, so they mostly just nod their heads, in a distracted, impatient, helpless, sort of way, and then rush off to do more diapers and wipe runny noses, praising the LORD as they dash down the hallway, fixing their hair on the way and planning the next dinner when the preacher comes over for a visit, a strategy meeting, to coordinate the culture wars and fight all the bad people who refuse to believe the truth. I mean to tell you, it’s all out war. If we’re not careful, pretty soon there won’t be any Christmas left and heathens will be in the White House, if not there already.

Anyway, getting back to the age of the earth ...

Maybe the earth is 8000 years old, some learned men of much faith have said - so, what’s a few more thousand years in this whole business when what really counts is that the whole of it, all of it, every bit of it, from top to bottom, is stage decoration for you and me, the crown of creation, the image of God, the sum and substance of it all, sinners, most surely, but for the chosen of God, no problem. Of this sin business, no big deal, because God sent his only Son to take care of it, to wrap it up on the cross, and tuck it way in the tomb, and then rose up on Easter just to dust himself off and get on with the task of ascending to heaven to prepare the way for us, because this world isn’t our home; we don’t really belong here. We came from the heavenly celestials, and we’re here for awhile to make this earth behave and produce a mighty crop for us, and then when we die, we’re wafted off to heaven to be with Jesus. What a grand idea. You’d think we’d all be eager to get there, but if we can afford it, we buy long-term health care. Go figure. Oh well ...

Now about those sinners ...

Not everyone will make it, of course, and that’s okay … we pray for them and do some good for them, but mostly, to hell with them. That’s just the way it is. How good it is. All glory to God.

But getting back to the age of the earth ...

The whole thing is a set up to showcase us, the image of God, as the Bible says so, and the learned men of great faith and the women who love them. Just us, the crown of creation, as I said a moment ago.

Now there are learned men who say something different, and their women offer a different image as well, but for now, all that we need to know is that they’re liars, servants of Satan, men and women of evil intention; as best as I can figure it, they’ve been deceived by studying the rocks and fossils and the stars above and the deeps of the seas. 

Why, any fool can look at this stuff and see the mighty hand of God setting it all up for us, and God was in hurry to see us, to admire us, the crown of creation, so God didn’t waste any time putting it together.

Millions of years?

Bosh.

No way … didn’t take that long, because God was in a hurry to see us, and from the 6^th day of creation, or if you’re reading Genesis 2, the first day before most everything else, we’ve been here, having things pretty much our way, and if any thing gets in our way, we move it; if it’s a buffalo, we kill it. If it’s one of them sinners, not chosen by God, we go to war and bomb the hell of them, or at least try. But hell is tenacious - kinda makes me angry when I think about - it seems that all the bombs in the world never quite finish hell off. What a pity, though its fun and patriotic and deeply spiritual to give it a try. I suppose one of these days we may just build a bomb big enough to bomb the hell out of the world. Oh, what day of rejoicing that will be.

Anyway, here we are - 6000 years old, or maybe 8000, but no more or no less, as learned men of great faith tell us, and the women who love them.

Perhaps the reader has already discerned the inspiration behind this brief essay about the age of the earth: Mark Twain's yummy little "The Damned Human Race," part 1, "Was the World Made for Man?" 

Is America Weak Internationally?

Is America "weak" internationally?

A friend thinks so.

But I beg to differ.

It goes something like this: America is surely one of the greatest powers in the world today - economically, politically, culturally and militarily. 

That said, it must also be noted: We're not the only power. 

China, the EU, Russia, India and a host of other nations and alliances have their own power and constantly seek their place in the sun as America does. 

While American military moves around the world demonstrate a great deal of power, it's not absolute. No nation posses absolute power, and to suggest that limits on American power is an expression of weakness misconstrues reality. 

Not sure what my friend would want, but I suspect it might be an unrestrained hand militarily … constantly punishing those who would harm us, or threaten us or stand in our way when it comes to national interests.

No nation has ever achieved absolute world dominance, and woe to those who have tried - history makes it clear that such dominance cannot long survive. 

So, while America is incredibly strong and can impress its will upon much of the world, ours is not an absolute strength, and when challenged, we can only, and it's a good thing, enter into negotiations. To some, I know, this appears weak. But in reality, it's the only reality we can ever know. In one way or the other, we have to get along with our neighbors, even those neighbors whom we might love to eliminate.

Ten Thousand Graves - Normandy

Ten Thousand Graves - Normandy

Ten thousand graves ... 

Tended with care ... lush grass precisely trimmed.

Crosses mostly ... and Stars of David ...

Young men and women cut down in the prime of life.

They were brave and they were afraid ...

Their pictures reveal that haunted look ...

Of soldiers too tired to be afraid, 

And too frightened to find sleep.

Seasick and wet, 

They hit the beach …

Under the cover of …

Steel and smoke.

Death and tears abound …

Ahead, my friends, ahead.

There’s no going back now.

No stopping for any of us.

A continent enslaved awaits the charge.

Nations, yes, and then some, to be unshackled …

And the years pass us by quickly …

Memories roll beyond the reach of words …

Silent tears still shed …

By those who made it home.

Slowly, now, they join their comrades,

As we all do … with the passage of time.

Hand-in-hand; arm-in-arm … a band of brothers …

A chorus of sisters …

Smoke and steel … 

And a victory in hand.

And may those 

Ten thousand graves remain ever well-tended!

© Tom Eggebeen, 2010

Frequently Asked Questions About Correcting the Heidelberg Catechism in the Book of Confessions

1. Why is the Heidelberg Catechism so important to More Light Presbyterians?

The Heidelberg Catechism is important to More Light Presbyterians because the inaccurate 1967 translation of the answer to Question 87 is the only reference to homosexuality in the whole Book of Confessions. Restoring the Heidelberg Catechism is important to the entire PCUSA because, as Presbyterians, we pride ourselves on our history, and placing a faithful English translation of the original German into our Book of Confessions is the best way to honor our tradition and the wisdom of our forbears.

2. What are the other four flaws in the Heidelberg Catechism and how can they be fixed?

First, in Question 19, the literal translation reads “ceremonies of the law” rather than “rites of the Old Covenant,” which inserts a theology of old and new covenants that was not present in the original passage.

Second, Question 33 asks, “Why is he called God’s only begotten son, since we also are God’s children?” The translation of the answer currently contained in our Book of Confessions reads, “Because Christ alone is God’s own eternal Son, whereas we are accepted for his sake as children of God by grace.” A literal translation of the German would describe Jesus as God’s “eternal, natural Son” and all believers as “adopted” instead of merely “accepted.” The inaccuracy in this translation loses the important theological and Biblical richness in the original German.

Third, Question 55 asks, “What do you understand by the ‘communion of saints’?” Our Book of Confessions currently translates the first part of the answer this way: “First, that believers one and all, as partakers of the Lord Christ, and all his treasures and gifts, shall share in one fellowship.” The tense of the verb “share” makes a very real theological difference here. The present translation is “shall share,” which places it in the future. The original German is in the present tense, “share,” which means that all believers are in fellowship with one another now.

Fourth, in Question 74, the distinction is being made between the sign of God’s covenant in circumcision and baptism. The writers of the Heidelberg Catechism placed circumcision in the Old “Testament” and baptism in the New “Testament,” while the 1962 translators used “Covenant,” not “Testament.” For scholars, this is the most debatable section under scrutiny. Some go one way, others another on this translation.

3. How can we respond to the argument that the writers of the Heidelberg Catechism left out “homosexual perversion” because the catechism was for children and it’s mention would have been inappropriate for them?

The Preface of The Book of Confessions instructs us that “each confessional statement should be respected in its historical particularity; none should be altered to conform to current theological, ethical, or linguistic norms.” Therefore, we must not change the Heidelberg Catechism based on our current beliefs about childhood. As Jack Rogers testified at the 2008 General Assembly in San Jose, the sixteenth-century concept of “childhood” was very different from ours. Projecting

our modern interpretation of what is “appropriate for children” onto the writers of the Heidelberg Catechism disrespects the choices the actual writers made.

4. How can we respond to the argument that the Bible and the tradition of the church now and always has been that homosexuality is a perversion and therefore it is fine to include it in the Heidelberg Catechism?

The Book of Confessions was created to preserve the wisdom of our ancestors. To be true to that purpose, we must respect the decisions the actual writers of the Heidelberg Catechism made. Who are we to second-guess the wisdom and intentions of those German divines, the architects of the Heidelberg Catechism?

5. How can we respond to the argument that the General Assembly and confirming presbyteries in 1967 chose this translation of the Heidelberg Catechism and we need to honor their choice by retaining this translation?

Each generation of Christian believers has the opportunity to express and preserve their faith in confessional statements. When the United Presbyterian Church voted to include the Heidelberg Catechism in the Book of Confessions, the purpose was to preserve the wisdom and faithfulness of the people of Heidelberg in 1563 for future generations to learn from, not to express their faith in 1967. The Confession of 1967 is the statement of faith of that generation, and it is helpful to recall that it does bring up sexual relations in section 9.47 without mentioning homosexuality.

6. How can we respond to the argument that removing “homosexual perversion” from the Book of Confessions will start us down a slippery slope into sexual chaos?

The greatest threat facing the Presbyterian Church USA, indeed Christianity, is that we turn away the faithful from Christ’s love. The inaccurate version of the Heidelberg Catechism has done just that by placing false witness against GLBT people into our Book of Confessions.

7. What is the full process for changing the Book of Confessions?

The process began with the overtures to the 2008 General Assembly asking for the correction. Upon approval by the GA, the Moderator appointed a Special Committee, which is currently reviewing the situation and will recommend an action to the next General Assembly, in 2010. If that second Assembly approves the correction, their decision must be ratified by two-thirds of the presbyteries to go into effect.

8. Where do things stand now in this ongoing process to correct the Heidelberg Catechism in the Book of Confessions?

As of September 2009, the Special Committee appointed by the Moderator in 2008 has met and agreed that action to correct the Heidelberg Catechism is necessary. But rather than simply fix the five specific sections that contain inaccuracies, this committee is inclined to replace the entire 1962 translation with the English translation that is currently in use by our sister Reformed Churches. This may require an additional cycle of General Assembly approvals since it was not the solution presented to the committee by the 2008 GA.

9. Why is it so important to begin now to educate ourselves and others about why we must correct the flaws in the Heidelberg Catechism in the Book of Confessions?

Correcting the Book of Confessions requires a two-thirds vote in the presbyteries. Despite the sound theological and ethical reasons to make this correction, the restoration of the answer to Question 87 rouses strong feelings within the church. Therefore, in preparation for the presbytery vote, we cannot repeat too many times in our presbyteries how many good reasons there are to restore the original meaning of the Heidelberg Catechism.

For more information, Contact MLP Field Organizer Michael Adee, (505) 820-7082, Michael@mlp.org

“Frequently Asked Questions About Correcting the Heidelberg Catechism in the Book of Confessions” is a publication of More Light Presbyterians.

Permission to copy and distribute is granted.

Recent Reading - Aristocracy, Empire, War, England

When my son entered the Peace Corps in 2010 and went to Africa - Swaziland - for 2.5 years, I read Africa: A Biography of the Continent by John Reader (1997). Reader's work begins "in the beginning" - what is Africa as a continent, and its weather, and human origins. It's a "big" book, as I say, ranging far and wide over this remarkable landmass and its diverse peoples, much of it with a tragic history.

Reader's book introduced me to the colonial world in Africa, beginning with the Portuguese in the 15th Century, and from there, we know the rest of the story, so to speak, with the Dutch, British, French and Germans quickly laying claim to huge territories.

It was then that I began to think: to understand today's world, one has to begin with Africa and the European nations that fought for its resources, and the most important colonial need: cheap labor.

What with my son in Swaziland (NE part of South Africa), I read Into the Silence: the Great War, Mallory, and the Conquest of Everest by Wade Davis. While Davis' book focuses on the English (and it was English, not British) to scale the mountain, Davis begins in South Africa and the Boer War, and then moves to Europe for WW1 - the men, and it was men, who were involved in the effort to climb Everest, were all veterans of the War in the Trenches, more horrible than I previously had understood - this experience, along with the English character shaped in boys' schools, sports, militarism, and Empire, made these men unbelievably tough, self-confident and often arrogant.

I then found in a used book store The Reason Why by Cecil Woodham-Smith (1953), an exploration of 19th English Aristocracy - their sense of place and power, ordained by God, and their right to rule the world - and their role in the Crimean War (1853-56) - mostly a series of bungled efforts led by men who loved to play military games at home, with commands purchased rather than won. From this war, Tennyson's Charge of the Light Brigade, his poem celebrating and questioning a tragedy of misunderstood commands and a willingness to send men and horses into the jaws of death for Britain's glory.

For me, the Crimean War is essential background to Russian's current interests in Syria (Russia, the defender of the Orthodox Church), World War 1 and the break up of the Ottoman Empire after WW1.

Then, Savage Peace: Hope and Fear in America, 1919 by Ann Hagedorn, one of the most profound and disturbing books I've ever read - America was a mess in 1919 - the fear of Red Agitators, unions (Communist inspired thought America's powerful people) and foreigners "determined to undermine America's democracy," the rise of Edgar J. Hoover, and racism (lynchings and burnings) - fueled in strange ways by President Wilson and his idealism in international relations and his conventional views at home. I learned about the Michigan Regiment left in Russia to "fight Communism" after the Great War ended and the troops were recalled. There were left there for nearly a year - often referred to as the "Polar Bear Expedition.

I have recently purchased:

The Destruction of Lord Raglan: A Tragedy of the Crimean War (1962) by Christopher Hibbert.

Empire by Mandate by Campbell L. Upthegrove (1954), exploring Great Britain and the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations which created the Middle East as we know it today.

Heaven's Command: An Imperial Progress (1992) by James Morris, vol. 1 - the Victorian Years, years of Empire. I am presently reading chapter 16: "Ain't the Pentateuch Queer?" - the role of religion, and specifically, Christianity, in Empire thinking and behavior - a very disturbing read.

I've come to believe:

1. To understand today's world, we have to understand the Colonial Experience in Africa.
2. To understand the pretentions of America's self-anointed "aristocracy," we have to undertand the English Aristocracy.
3. To understand WW1, we begin with Crimean, and then to WW2 - it was the Great Powers struggling for hegemony that racked the world with war and bathed it in blood, directed by men, often of limited education, but filthy rich and imbued with strong views of themselves, their position and privilege, handsome faces and strong bodies - and their love of horses and military hoohah.