Jeremiah 20:7-18 – Serving a Dangerous God

Jeremiah was a whiner. Plain and simple. Sure, he was one of the great prophets of Jerusalem, and he proclaimed God’s message faithfully during a difficult and dangerous time. But he complained and whined around all the time. Maybe you know some people like Jeremiah: they’re never satisfied and constantly complain about something or other. In fact, the Dutch have even turned his name into a verb; it mean “to complain.” When a child is fussy or whiny, the frustrated Dutch mother will exclaim, “Jeremiah je niet so!” Or, “Quit your jeremiahing!” I gave my mother plenty of practice with that line.

God should have known what he was getting into with Jeremiah. His whining started at the very beginning of his career, when God called him to be a prophet. Picture the scene: the very presence of the Almighty Lord of the universe enveloped Jeremiah and gave him these profound words of commissioning: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Wouldn’t that just blow you away if the Lord ever said something like that to you? Before Jeremiah had even been born, God had great plans for him: to be his messenger to the world. But how does Jeremiah respond? “Oh, God, you don’t want me to do that. I’m just a kid; I don’t know how to speak well.” So God has to go on for nine more verses to convince Jeremiah that he would fill him with the power and ability to do great things in his name. Instead of receiving his prophet’s commission with gratitude, Jeremiah argued. God had to convince him to take the job.

I wonder if God ever regretted it. Sure, Jeremiah did a great job of being a prophet. All of Jerusalem listened to him. Everyone from the king and the high priest down to the foot soldier in the army and the man in the street listened to him. But Jeremiah hated his job. He kept complaining to God about what he was doing. The Bible records at least five or six of his complaints. Well, when it’s in the Bible we give it a fancy name. They’re called “laments.” Doesn’t that sound so much nicer? Well, don’t let the label fool you. Jeremiah whined, complained, and bellyached his way through the chores that God had in store for him.

Now, maybe I’m not giving Jeremiah enough credit. To be fair, he had a remarkably difficult task in front of him. The nation of Judah had lost its spiritual moorings and had drifted away from faithful devotion to the Lord. Oh, they still went through the rituals at the temple in Jerusalem. But it had become an empty meaningless ritual. The gods and idols of the neighboring nations were so much more interesting, and so the people followed them as well. So at first, Jeremiah’s job was to tell everyone to get back to God, to give him the honor and worship he deserved. But it didn’t take long for it to be obvious that the message wasn’t sinking in. So Jeremiah got a different message. Now, because the people had abandoned God, Jeremiah had to go around telling everyone that God was going to wipe out their nation. The pagan empire of Babylon would conquer them, with God’s blessing. That was bad enough. But then, when the Babylonian army attacked and surrounded Jerusalem, Jeremiah went around telling everyone that they should surrender. If they would surrender to the Babylonians, God would spare their lives and help them rebuild. But if they didn’t, he would wipe them out.

Now, how do you think that message was received?! At the point of greatest crisis in the nation’s entire history, Jeremiah is telling everyone to give up. What do you think Winston Churchill would have done if the preachers of London told everyone that they should lay down their arms and surrender to the Nazis? How do you think Scarlett O’Hare would have reacted if Rhett told her to welcome General Sherman to Atlanta? How would we have responded seven years ago if someone told us to give up, convert to Islam, and hand control of our nation to Osama bin Laden? It’s ludicrous even to imagine doing such a thing, and it’s enough to make your blood boil to think that someone would suggest such a thing. But that’s exactly what Jeremiah did. He marched around the fortifications of Jerusalem, shouting out to the soldiers: “Give up! Put down your weapons! God wants you to let the enemy win.” He went up to the king and demanded that he sign a surrender with the Babylonian general. He stood on the steps of the temple, where everyone was going to ask for God’s deliverance from the enemy, and told them that God had abandoned them and wouldn’t pay any attention to them. To put it mildly, Jeremiah was not a popular fellow. He was arrested, beaten, and thrown into prison. People mocked him and spat on him when he walked down the street. His own family conspired to kill him. Most scholars think that Jeremiah was a relative of the king, partly because that’s the only thing that would have kept him from being executed for treason.

No, maybe Jeremiah had a right to complain. I suspect he had lots of second thoughts about agreeing to become God’s prophet and putting up with all the grief and frustration that it had caused. If we want to understand his prayer of Chapter 20, we need to keep in mind everything that he went through that led to it.

Translation is a funny thing. When we move from one language to another, we can tweak our word choices to make them more acceptable. The opening line of Jeremiah’s prayer is a classic example of translating the teeth out of a message. In the NIV, his prayer begins “O LORD, you deceived me, and I was deceived.” In the NRSV, Jeremiah complains that God “enticed” him. Other translations say that he overpowered or seduced him. No matter how shocked you may be to hear Jeremiah complain about being deceived, enticed, seduced, or overpowered by God, it’s nowhere near the shock you’d feel if you could read the original Hebrew. Let’s put it this way: the word that Jeremiah used here is the same word that we find in Exodus 22:16, when a man “seduces” a woman and makes her sleep with him. A better translation might be rape. Or, a four-letter word that begins with f. That’s what Jeremiah thinks about being a prophet. He has been violated by God in the most degrading way. In a way that we don’t want to talk about in polite company. So our accommodating Bible translators softened the blow by using nicer words.

But the fact remains. Jeremiah agreed to do what God wanted him to do, and now he was paying the price. He felt used by God. His life would have been so much easier if he could have just done what he wanted to. But instead, because of God, he was living in constant torment and ridicule. God had suckered him into a raw deal with all that sweet talk about being called and set apart from before he was born, about all the glorious things he would do in the name of the Lord.

But the worst of it for Jeremiah was that he couldn’t just quit. He was a prophet, whether he wanted to be one or not. The Lord’s message burned inside of him, trying to get out. Jeremiah couldn’t help but to proclaim it, to do exactly what God wanted him to do. He was in a no-win situation. If he acted like a prophet and proclaimed God’s message, even his closest friends would try to kill him. But if he didn’t, the agony of holding in the message was just too much. No wonder Jeremiah ended his prayer by wishing that he had never even been born.

But in the midst of his prayer, even though he was in such turmoil and distress, even though he was so outraged at what God had done to him, Jeremiah blessed the Lord. He praised God for his might and prayed that his enemies would be vanquished. Even though being faithful had cost Jeremiah so dearly, he committed himself once more to God. He didn’t do it with joy and happiness; he was miserable and wished that he could die. But Jeremiah’s faithfulness didn’t depend upon his emotions. His commitment to God had nothing to do with the “goodies” that would come along with it: riches, honor, joy, peace, eternal life, or whatever. Jeremiah the complainer is for us a shining example of faith: following where God leads, no matter how terrible the path will be.

There are those who try to attract people to faith in God with descriptions of how much better life will be for them if they believe. But Jeremiah’s story seems to fly in the face of these promises. Following God may at times be the toughest kind of life of all. But if we’re like Jeremiah, we do it anyway because we recognize that there’s something more important than having a good life. It’s not about us; it’s about God. Our task is to do whatever it takes to glorify him.

So what do we do if we come upon times when we feel like Jeremiah, when it seems like God has duped us, overpowered us, or even worse? How do respond when life just seems to come apart for us, when God seems to let us down, or even turn on us? At such times, Jeremiah continues to be an example for us. His prayer can be our prayer. Don’t worry about being rude to God, or using nasty language. This is God we’re talking about, after all. If he can create the world by saying a word, if he can redeem the human race on a cross, surely his shoulders are big enough to take anything we hand to him.

What Is Sin?

In 1964, as the US Supreme Court was deliberating an obscenity case, the question came up: what is the definition of pornography? Justice Potter Stewart answered by saying, "I know it when I see it.” That’s how we Christians often respond when it comes to sin: we recognize it when we see it. And, like the old comic movie star Groucho Marx said, “Whatever it is, I’m against it.”

But maybe we don’t always recognize sin, especially in ourselves. Most people have a remarkable ability to ignore the obvious or justify the inexcusable. So if we want to

seek God’s grace to remove sin from our lives and our society, it’s worth taking some time to think about exactly what it is.

Here are six different ways to answer the question “what is sin?” Some may sound familiar to you, and others may make you scratch your head and think. If they do, good! Sin is a dangerous enough thing that we need to be able to recognize it in its many forms, so that we can bring it to God.

1. SIN IS DISOBEDIENCE OF GOD: This tends to be our most familiar understanding of sin. Sin is like breaking the rules. If God tells us not to do something, and we do it anyway, then we’ve sinned.

2. SIN IS ANYTHING THAT HURTS YOURSELF, OTHERS, OR GOD: According to this definition, a sin is something that causes damage. It’s the “common sense” definition. If it hurts you, if it affects other people, or if it offends God, then it’s sin.

3. SIN IS ANYTHING THAT DESTROYS RELATIONSHIPS: Sin is more than what hurts other people; it also hurts the connections between people. According to this definition, sin isn’t just the stuff we do or don’t do. It is also our attitudes that affect how we relate with each other

4. SIN IS THE “TRAGIC DESTRUCTION OF ONESELF:” This fourth definition is a bit like the second: sin is when you destroy or hurt yourself. But this self-destruction means more than causing physical damage to yourself. Sin is whatever prevents you from being the complete person that God wants you to be.

5. SIN IS THE ABUSE AND WASTE OF GIFTS: When we fail to use the gifts and resources that God provides responsibly and faithfully, we sin.

6. SIN IS THE FALLEN HUMAN CONDITION: Sin is more than what we do or don’t do. It’s an unfortunate characteristic of being human.

It’s good to understand what sin is, so that we can recognize it in ourselves. It’s even better to know that we can be freed from it through the work of Jesus Christ.

General Assembly Reflections

I. THE SPIRIT OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY

During my time at GA, I sensed a spiritual struggle, or a number of different spiritual struggles. As with any struggle, different powers had the upper hand at various points during the week.

The Struggle Between Faith and Fear: Will we have faith that God is at work and do our best to cooperate with Him? Or will we allow our fears of the unknown (other people, the future) to dominate our actions and decisions?

The Struggle Between Humble Discernment and Strident Advocacy: As we prepared to make decisions as a group that had many differences, I was overwhelmed by the commitment of many commissioners and delegates to seek humbly and prayerfully to discern God’s challenge and guidance as we worked together. On the other hand, I was dismayed by the stridency with which some people sought to convince others to agree with their agenda. Even when I agreed with the position of some people, their forcefulness troubled me.

The Struggle Between “Justice” and “Truth:” Many of our decisions appeared to be a struggle between “justice,” as some people understand it, and “truth,” as others understand it. I found it unfortunate that these two qualities, which God intends to exist together, were sometimes held up as opposites to each other.

II. THE PEOPLE OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY

One of the highlights of GA was the opportunity to meet such a wide variety of people who are serving God so well in such a variety of settings. Some were old acquaintances that I hadn’t seen for a long time, and others were new to me. I was inspired and excited to learn about the many ways in which people serve God faithfully in our denomination.

III. WORSHIP AT GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Without a doubt, worship experiences were the highlight of GA and literally moved me to tears. Each of the seven worship services were excellent and offered a different style of music and liturgy. Six of the seven sermons were insightful and motivating.

IV. COMMITTEE WORK

The first part of the General Assembly’s work was done by 17 committees, which then reported and made recommendations to the whole assembly. I was assigned to the Committee to Review the Permanent Committees: the ultimate bureaucratic creation! Specifically, we reviewed three of the permanent committees and commissions which do the work of our denomination. Each committee had engaged in three-year self study, and reported their findings to us. Our task was to determine how well they had performed their assigned duties.

PCCE, or the Presbyteries’ Cooperative Committee on Examinations, is responsible for the ordination exams which candidates take as part of the process to become ministers. They did a self-study for the right reasons: to learn how they could do their job better. They had identified four weaknesses in their current process and are already working on ways to address them.

ACREC, or the Advocacy Committee for Racial Ethnic Concerns, is responsible for identifying and dealing with ethnic and cultural issues in our church and society. Apart from what one may think of their purpose (which wasn’t a topic for our committee’s consideration), I have to admit that I wasn’t impressed with the way they organize and conduct their business. They engaged in the process of self-study, but didn’t seem to have learned anything from it.

GAPJC, or the GA Permanent Judicial Commission, makes final rulings on cases that come to them on appeal from presbyteries and synods. We were impressed not only with their meticulous concern to follow proper protocol, but by the spiritual atmosphere in which they do so. It was obvious that they conduct their work in an attitude of worship and prayer, seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit, aware of their role in the Body of Christ. They are earnest servants of our church and seek above all to glorify Christ and to serve his people.

V. PLENARY SESSION

After the committees complete their work, we gathered together into a 100,000 square foot room to receive their reports and to act on their recommendations. As you may expect, this was a lengthy, tedious, and sometimes contentious time.

In addition to the difficulties you might expect when 1,000 commissioners and advisory delegates with different opinions try to deal with the work of seventeen committees, several additional factors prevented us from dealing with issues as well as I would have liked.

• First, ongoing technology issues interfered with the smooth flow of information. The network, which was designed to allow us to view business at hand on our laptops, was overwhelmed. The delays and frequent system crashes slowed us down and caused confusion at various points. How ironic, since we were meeting in the Silicon Valley!
• Second, our deliberative process was handled in such a way that discussion was frequently cut short, even on significant issues. My sense is that this came from a desire to move quickly through a heavy docket, and that many commissioners were willing to vote to end debate prematurely in order to do so. I would have preferred for some presentations and formalities to have been shortened or eliminated in order to allow for more people to speak before votes.

I was pleased with the assembly’s actions on most issues, including several that had the potential to be problematic. Two in particular that seemed to be particularly well handled.

1. An overture calling for “tolerance and peaceful relations between the Christian and Muslim communities” asked the assembly to “state that the PC(USA) affirms that Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship a common God.” Instead, our final action was to “state that though we hold differing understandings of how God has been revealed to humankind, the PC(USA) affirms that, as children of this loving God, we share the commandments of love for God and neighbor, the requirement to care for the poor.”
2. In response to a wide variety of overtures regarding Palestine and Israel, the assembly’s primary action on this subject was a call for “a projected ‘two-state’ solution, a shared Jerusalem, and the human rights of refugees and occupied peoples, and a call to resist extremism and push for reconciliation.”

Additionally, the assembly addressed the issue of civil litigation which has arisen between presbyteries and congregations seeking to leave the denomination. Something like 44 presbyteries are currently involved in lawsuits over this issue; nearly all of which were initiated not by the presbyteries but by the congregations seeking to leave. The assembly voted to provide funds to share the cost of these legal fees. It is projected that this will cost about $2 million, or about a one dollar per member increase in per capita. In order to reduce the potential per capita increase, the assembly will ask for donations to this fund.

Finally, there were two very significant actions by the General Assembly which troubled me deeply, and whose consequences threaten to overshadow the good which came from the assembly. Both of these actions related to the issue of ordination standards, particularly as they are applied to practicing homosexuals. I registered my dissent on both.

1. The assembly voted and has asked presbyteries to approve a change to the Book of Order which would replace G-6.0106b (the “fidelity and chastity” clause) with the vaguer and weaker statement: “Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.”
2. The assembly removed all previous authoritative interpretations “concerning ordained service of homosexual church members,” and put in place a new authoritative interpretation which reads, in part: “Section G-6.0108 requires examining bodies to give prayerful and careful consideration, on an individual, case-by-case basis, to any departure from an ordination standard in matters of belief or practice that a candidate may declare during examination. However, the examining body is not required to accept a departure from standards, and cannot excuse a candidate’s inability to perform the constitutional functions unique to his or her office (such as administration of the sacraments).”

The first action needs the ratification of a majority of presbyteries; my hope is that past history repeats itself and they don’t. The second, however, is already in place, although future assemblies could change it. The problem with the new authoritative interpretation runs deeper than the debate about gay ordination. (This is the particular issue which gets the attention. But what about a candidate who doesn’t accept the ordination of women? Or any of a variety of theological differences?) This new interpretation means that each session and presbytery is free to set its own standards for ordination, and that there are no longer any shared principles to unite ordination practices across our denomination. There is no guarantee that a minister’s ordination by one presbytery will be accepted in another presbytery. There is no assurance that an elder who is ordained in one church will be recognized as an elder if he or she moves to a different congregation. The process of “credentialing” ministers as they move from one call to another has become impossibly complex, now that there is no “glue” that holds us together.

I suggest that one rather complex and messy but potentially helpful remedy to this dilemma may be the formation of systems similar to “reciprocal agreements” made between colleges and universities regarding the transfer of course work. In higher education, for example, University A may accept particular credits earned at University B for students transferring from one to another. (These reciprocal agreements are particularly important for students who begin at a community college and plan to transfer to a four-year institution.) Perhaps the potential confusion which could come from the new AI would be mitigated by agreements between certain presbyteries and sessions to accept each other’s ordination standards

On Unity

How good and pleasant it is
when brothers live together in unity!
It is like precious oil poured on the head,
running down on the beard,
running down on Aaron's beard,
down upon the collar of his robes.
It is as if the dew of Hermon
were falling on Mount Zion.
For there the LORD bestows his blessing,
even life forevermore. (Psalm 133 , NIV)

Psalm 133 describes what life can be like when we delight in our relationships with each other. It’s a blessing I hope that we as a General Assembly and as a denomination can enjoy. If so, we’ve got some work to do. At this point, there seem to be three ways that we view some of our fellow PC(USA)-ers.

RESENTMENT: Some of us are like one of my colleagues, with whom I shared a conversation after a rather contentious presbytery meeting. Referring to another of our colleagues, he said that he wanted nothing to do with her. When I reminded him that God established a covenant relationship between us, he replied, “But I don’t want to be in a covenant with her!” Some of us may share that sentiment, even if we don’t express it so boldly.
TOLERANCE: Others of us may look to some groups in our denomination and consider them to be a presence to be tolerated or endured in our fellowship. We’re willing to put up with them, kind of like the way you put up with an annoying rattle in your car that would cost too much to fix.
ACCEPTANCE: Still others may consider ourselves to be enlightened enough to urge “acceptance” of people with different points of view or goals. We don’t understand what makes them tick, but apparently they’re God’s children, too. So we’ll make room for them.

Psalm 133 goes way beyond resentment, tolerance, and even acceptance. The psalmist describes the sense of blessing, nourishment, and richness of lives united by God’s action. It speaks of an enjoyment, and excitement, and a deep desire to be together. Our differences don’t matter nearly as much as the fact that, through the reconciling work of Christ, we belong together. Rather than resent, tolerate, or accept the covenant relationship we have with each other through God’s call, it’s time for us to celebrate it. Yes, even our unity with people who are very different from us, with whom we’d have no relationship at all if we had it our way. God, in his infinite, compassionate wisdom, has seen fit to bring us together. And he did it for a good reason. We haven’t even started to scratch the surface of the possibilities that come from our God-created relationships with each other. Hopefully the San Jose GA will be a place for us to start.

On Post-Modern Graduations

Lots of people complain these days about the negative influence of “postmodernism:” the concept that there is no objective truth, or even objective reality. Everyone forms their own understanding of the world, and there’s no universal standard to which we must conform our perspectives of the world. This common version of postmodernism, by the way, resembles but is very different from what I’ve examined in my philosophical and literary studies in my PhD program.

In the past month I’ve had the joy of being at two family graduation ceremonies: my stepdaughter’s university commencement and my stepson’s high school ceremony. In both ceremonies, I heard the same exhortation to the graduates that seems to be standard fare at all such ceremonies. It typically sounds something like this: “Hold on to what you know to be true and don’t let anyone tell you that you’re wrong.” Isn’t that, in a nutshell, the sort of postmodernist thinking that many people get so worked up about? I doubt this is what most commencement speakers have in mind, but the message seems to be “This institution has spent years helping you gain knowledge and understanding. Now you can forget all that; do and believe whatever seems good to you.”

I’m uncomfortable with applying the label “postmodern” to this mindset, because it doesn’t do justice to a nuanced philosophical approach. A better term is “moral autonomy.” Or as Burger King puts it, everyone wants to have it their way. We want to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, good and bad. And we resist anyone’s attempt to correct us or to tell us that maybe we’ve got it wrong. Commencement speakers don’t need to encourage this value, because it’s embedded deep within the human psyche. We’ve had it ever since Adam and Eve wanted to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil: they wanted to decide for themselves what’s right and wrong. And if you’ve ever been around toddlers for very long, you know that it’s not an urge that anyone has to teach you. We all resist efforts to correct or modify our personal agendas.

While there are certainly profound theological differences between Christians and Muslims, here’s at least one thing we agree on. “Islam” literally means “submission:” submitting oneself to God’s will. Scripture passages such as Mark 8:34-38 (“If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves…) and Philippians 2:3-11 (“Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus…”) direct us Christians toward a similar submission of our will to God’s will.

My prayer is that we will not heed the common advice of graduation ceremonies to stick to our convictions, no matter what anyone says to us. Instead, I hope that we will renounce the original sin of moral autonomy that we inherited from Adam and Eve. May we set aside our ideas of “right and wrong,” and submit our hearts and minds to the direction of the Holy Spirit. Even if we don’t like where the Lord leads us, may we follow.

On Cross-Cultural Mission at Home, Part Two

I’m grateful for the many positive comments I received from my previous message about cross-cultural mission at home. So with your indulgence, I’d like to provide a second installment.

Last night I led the pre-game team devotions for the Pittsburgh Passion, a women’s full contact football team. They ended up extending their unbeaten streak to twenty games by dismantling the team from Columbus, 54-6. This is Pittsburgh, after all. Sure, Detroit can take the Stanley Cup away from us, and the Pirates struggle to stay out of the basement of their division. But when it comes to football, we mean business. But who knows? Maybe the players were inspired by my prayer and message with them.

According to the team website, game parking is permitted in a church parking lot beside the stadium. However, my wife and I discovered that this information is out of date. In fact, we were informed of this fact rather sternly by a woman from the church who marched over to our car when we parked. Parking is only for people coming to their church service, we were told. So, with a brief apology, we left.

Now, to this (non-Presbyterian) church’s defense, they are located in a Pittsburgh neighborhood that’s renowned for its lively nightlife. So they’ve probably experienced more than their share of grief at the hands of out-of-control revelers. At the same time, however, I wonder about the effectiveness of their presence in the community, if their response to two strangers pulling into their parking lot, just in time for the Saturday evening service, is to tell them that they’re not welcome. Have they ever considered the opportunities they have for mission, based on the fortune of their location? In addition to the Passion women’s team, Pittsburgh public school football games are played in the same stadium, right next door to their church. Do they do anything to welcome the students and fans before or after the games? Have they thought about how to interact with the people who clog their streets and sidewalks every weekend on their way between the theaters, clubs, bars and restaurants, other than to make sure none of them use their parking lot? Based on what we saw last night, I don’t think so. I wonder how many of our Presbyterian congregations in similar situations do much better.

On Cross-Cultural Mission at Home

I just returned from my first motorcycle funeral. It’s the first time I ever conducted a funeral service in jeans, T-shirt, and boots! Well over a hundred of us gathered at the local VFW to remember and to celebrate the life of a man who was killed on Sunday when a van pulled out in front of the group he was riding with. After the service we rode out to the accident site for a committal service and to erect a memorial cross on the roadside, and then we went back to the VFW hall for a meal. It was obvious that everyone appreciated the fact that, as a biker myself, I could ride with them and share this experience with them. One or two of my church members were part of the event, but many of the people were relatives of members. You know: the people who show up on Christmas and Easter and feel really out of place in the church. Or that renegade daughter or brother that good church-going people worry about. The deceased, in fact, was the son of a World War II generation couple in my church that died several years ago; the only times I met him were at his parents’ funerals. Several strangers came up to me and asked what church I’m from. Hopefully we’ll have a few new guests at worship in the coming weeks. During the meal, someone (the boyfriend of the sister of one of my church’s elders) suggested that we hold a “blessing of the bikes” event in the spring. A few of us talked about it, and it could be an exciting way for our church to connect with a different group in our community. Perhaps one of the good things that can come out of this sad experience is an opportunity for my ministry and my congregation to become relevant to a new segment of our community.

This got me thinking about cross-cultural mission. Fortunately, most of us now realize that “mission” doesn’t have to mean traveling to far-off lands. But for many of us, “cross-cultural” still means “cross-ethnic.” That, of course, is one form of cross-cultural mission. I remember a conversation I had with the pastor of a Presbyterian church in Florida who never even thought of having a Creole Bible study to reach to the growing Haitian community in their neighborhood. But even within an ethnically homogenous community, there are many cultures. As I saw today, even members of the same family can be in different cultures. If we want to participate in Christ’s mission to the world, we need to find ways to break out of our typical patterns. There are a lot of people right at the fringes of our church life who don’t feel comfortable with the typical church culture but are open, and maybe even eager, to expressing and exploring faith. What are we going to do about it?

On Peace, Unity, and Purity (Or: Being PETER)

A few years ago my presbytery was embroiled in a particularly heated debate over issues related to the formation of what came to be known as the Confessing Church movement. At the time, “peace, unity, and purity” still referred primarily to an ordination vow and not to a theological task force. Some of my colleagues argued that unity is more critical than purity, while others argued the exact opposite point. Their positions looked a little bit like this: (1) “If we have to give a little on purity in order to be united, so be it,” and (2) “We need to establish clear boundaries that define who we are. If that means that we lose unity, so be it.” In other words, a lot of people thought that you can’t have both unity and purity. Pick which is more important go with that.

I disgreed with this zero-sum way of approaching the issue. And I continue to feel uncomfortable when this same dynamic plays out in other arenas. Neither fractured purity nor sham unity strike me as worthy goals for our church. In such situations, I am guided by the instruction I find in Ephesians 4 which points us in the right direction.

The chapter begins (verses 1-6) with a powerful but an almost monotonous description of our Christian unity. We are one in so many ways! Unity is obviously a vital component of our identity as the people of God. It is worth working and struggling for. At the same time, the chapter concludes (verses 17-32) with some of the strongest language in the New Testament that calls for believers to purity, both ethical and doctrinal. This chapter offers potential proof-texts for both unity advocates and purity promoters.

Instead of mining Ephesians 4 to find ammunition to support our preconceptions, we ought instead to attend carefully to how it draws together what we may be tempted to view as separate goals of unity and purity. For me, the admonition in verse 15 offers the key to the whole dilemma: “speaking the truth in love.” If we can figure out how to do that, we’ve solved the dilemma. Some of us are intent on speaking the truth (or our concept of the truth), but don’t put much effort into doing so in a loving way. Others of us are so concerned about being loving and respectful that we’ll accept everything that comes down the pike so that we don’t offend or exclude anyone. Neither of these approaches lives up to the challenge of “speaking the truth in love.”

If I’d ever form an advocacy group in our denomination, I’d have my eye on Ephesians 4:15 and call it “Presbyterians Expressing Truth and Encouraging Respect.” I don’t think I’ll ever do this, because of the rather vain acronym “PETER.” I’m convinced, however, that this is the goal which practically all of us aspire to. How can we respectfully express our understanding of the truth to one another in a way that encourages both unity and purity? This isn’t a trivial concern; it’s something we all vowed to do when we were ordained.

As a number of wise people have pointed out in the past, the choice between unity and purity is a false one. You can’t be united if you’re not pure, and you can’t be pure if you’re not united. Ephesians 4 concludes in verse 32 with a description of how being pure encourages unity: “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.”

On Being a Church

The book of Acts suggests three models for what a church should look like, particularly when it comes to disagreements.

Acts 2:42-47 offers an ideal vision of the church. Immediately after Pentecost, as the church was just beginning, its members shared remarkable unity and harmony. As verse 44 puts is, “all the believers were together and had everything in common” (NIV). The description of the church fairly drips with the joy of shared life in God’s community. This is what we strive and hope for, but we only catch occasional glimpses of it in a messy world filled with imperfect people. If we think that anything short of this is a failure, we’re setting a standard that will surely disappoint. The euphoria at the beginning of a romantic relationship won’t continue uninterrupted through the course of a marriage. The joy that someone feels when they become a Christian doesn’t last; the mountaintop experiences are punctuated by valleys of struggle and growth. Life as a church isn’t always easy and joyful. While this description of church life is our goal, we need a model that helps us with the tough work.

Acts 15:36-41 describes a situation of difficulty and conflict. Paul and Barnabas disagreed over the mission for the church (sound familiar?), so they parted company. Silas went with Paul, and Mark joined Barnabas. We may want to use this as a Biblical model for disagreement in the church: walk away from each other. If we disassociate from other Christians with whom we disagree, maybe we can return to the utopia of Acts 2. When we have a “sharp disagreement” with each other, as Paul and Barnabas did, perhaps an amicable separation is God’s call for us. I’m not so sure. Paul still had Silas, and Barnabas still had Mark. As the old saying goes, if you put two Presbyterians in a room, you’re going to end up with three opinions. Because of our sinful human condition, it’s only a matter of time until Paul bickers with Silas, and Barnabas falls out with Mark. Now we have four groups. Surely it’s not God’s intention for us to separate every time we disagree, until we each have our own private little church. There has to be a way for us to face our disagreements without destroying our covenant relationships with each other. If God brought us together as a church, we need to figure out how to stay together.

Acts 15:1-21 suggests a third model for what a church can look like. The early Christians disagreed over the role of Gentiles in the church: did they need to become Jews first, or did Christ’s grace extend to all nations? The leaders of the church gathered at what is now called “the Council of Jerusalem” to deliberate on this issue (the first General Assembly!). Representatives from both sides stated their case, and the apostles and elders prayerfully sought God’s guidance. Finally James, as the “moderator” of the Jerusalem church, spoke for the body by giving a final decision. Some people agreed with it, and others didn’t. The issue didn’t go away: just read Galatians to see how strong the disagreement continued to be! Nonetheless, the church had made a decision, and it was time to move on.

Here’s the bottom line: joyful harmony is our goal, but we need to figure out what to do when we don’t have it. Parting company with each other, even on good terms, leads to disintegration. Prayerful and respectful deliberation and decision-making helps us move forward, even if it doesn’t make everyone happy.

Peter's Background

Peter de Vries grew up in Boswell, a coal mining community in western Pennsylvania, and in Covenant Presbyterian Church, a congregation of about 60 members. He earned a bachelor’s degree in history at Penn State before attending Princeton Theological Seminary, where he received his M.Div. in 1988. Peter served as the pastor for a yoked parish of two rural congregations in Kiskiminetas Presbytery for five years before moving to his present call. Since 1993 he has been the pastor of Old Union Presbyterian Church in Mars, a 200 member congregation of Beaver-Butler Presbytery, located just beyond the northern suburbs of Pittsburgh.

Peter earned a Ph.D. student in religious studies at the University of Pittsburgh, focusing on interpretive theory, philosophy of language, and how these fields can be used in New Testament studies. His dissertation used the hermeneutic theory of Paul Ricoeur to advance an understanding of Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse of Mark 13. Peter has made presentations at regional, national, and international academic conferences.

Peter’s relationship with Presbyterian partners in Ghana began in 1989, and in 1997 he and his family traveled to Ghana for the first time. His continuing visits to Ghana focus primarily on leadership training. Peter has been the convener of the Ghana Mission Network since its inception in 2002 until 2009, and he led a recent partnership meeting for US and Ghanaian Presbyterians.

Peter has been involved in youth ministry locally and at the presbytery, synod, and national levels. He has served at presbytery and synod camps and conferences, and in evangelism at the presbytery and synod level. He is served as the moderator of Beaver-Butler Presbytery and was a candidate for General Assembly moderator in 2008. Peter has taught at Chautauqua Institution, served as a Bible Hour speaker at New Wilmington Missionary Conference, and spoke at an interfaith town hall meeting sponsored by Pittsburgh’s Muslim community.

Peter is the son of Dutch immigrants and is the youngest of four children. Peter has been married since 1994 to his best friend Becky, a counselor and school psychologist. He has three stepchildren: Shari, Devin, and Trevor. Peter enjoys bicycling, motorcycling, downhill and cross-country skiing, kayaking, hiking, playing guitar, and throwing boomerangs.

On Mission

God touches a broken and needy world primarily through his body, the church. Because of his love for us, God calls us to participate in his care for the world. We are a church only when we reach to our community, nation, and world. We are faithful disciples only when we engage in acts of compassion, justice, and proclamation in Christ’s name. As we act for God, we discover that our mission transforms not only the world, but us. My relationship with our partners in Ghana, the mission trips I have led to other parts of our nation, and the service and volunteering opportunities that I lead for our church youth group have enriched my life and the life of my congregation as much as I hope that I have enriched theirs.

On the Bible

As Reformed Christians, we rely primarily upon Scripture as we seek to serve and glorify God. Unfortunately, however, we often use the Bible as a tool to justify our preconceived agendas, instead of humbly listening for God’s guidance. At times we are so intent on declaring the authority of Scripture that we neglect prayerful reflection and study of it. We settle for platitudes and simplistic concepts instead of opening ourselves to the ways that God uses the Bible to transform us. My doctoral work comes from my desire to explore the Bible more deeply, and to develop a greater understanding of how God’s message comes to us through it. I am constantly amazed at the ways in which Scripture fails to match our expectations for it. I eagerly open myself to the challenges which God continues to provide through his written word.

On Conflict

The PC(USA) is not in a crisis. Christianity has experienced discord and conflict from its very inception. While the intensity of our disagreements and the things we disagree about may distress us, God calls us to persevere in our struggle together to discern his way forward. His call for each of us in such situations is:

• to express our understanding of God’s will to one another,
• to listen with an open heart and an attitude of respect,
• to assume that we are all acting with integrity and a desire to honor God,
• to realize that disagreements over issues, even those very dear to us, do not destroy our common bond through Christ, and
• to submit to our common understanding of God’s will for us, even when it differs from our individual convictions.

In the personal, pastoral, and academic aspects of my life, I have been amazed at how God reconciled seemingly intractable situations. The Holy Spirit is at work in our church and will guide us through our struggles as we open ourselves to him.