Dr. Jack Rogers

Lisa Larges: Answering God's Call

When the history of this epoch in the PC(U.S.A.) is finally written, I think just a few names will really stand out. One of those is Lisa Larges. Lisa has been a faithful Presbyterian, an exemplary candidate for ministry, and an extraordinary human being. For 23 years Lisa has shown extraordinary courage in answering God's call to ministry. And for 23 years, the PC(U.S.A.) has delayed, denied, and otherwise blocked her God-given call. Most of us would have given up long ago in the face of this injustice and prejudice. But Lisa has persevered. Her faithfulness is an inspiration to us all.

I rejoiced this past November when a majority of San Francisco Presbytery decided that her declared departure from G-6.0106b in the Book of Order did not violate the essential tenets of the Reformed faith. And I'm deeply angered by the delay of her ordination by yet another judicial stay.

I encourage everyone to read Lisa's "Statement of Departure from G-6.0106b And Affirmation of Essentials of Faith and Polity." It is one of the best summaries we have of why G-6.0106b distorts our theological tradition and must be changed or removed. Here is an excerpt:

The text of G-6.0106b continues by singling out one particular derived standard from the historic confessional standards, namely, "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." By my conscience, faith and theology I cannot and will not accept the terms of this standard. It deliberately and intentionally denies the dignity and lived experience of same gender loving people.  In so doing it raises one category of persons, heterosexual persons, above all others and thereby makes an idol of heterosexuality. Its formulation is based on a certain interpretation of Scripture to the exclusion of other interpretations, which are as sound, and held by faithful Christians within our church. (*) It imposes a false and impossible choice upon same gender loving persons by not recognizing faithful covenanted relationships between two persons of the same gender. It puts the church and its officers in an untenable position by failing to acknowledge the expanded definition of legal marriage as a "contract between two persons," as held at this writing, in the jurisdictions of six U.S. states. By elevating this standard above any others it has caused our church to be mired in inappropriate and scandalous inquiries into the sexual acts of persons seeking Ordained office. It removes sex from the context of intimacy and covenantal relationship and denies the fullness and richness of committed loving relationships between persons of the same gender. It denies the full humanity of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons by focusing solely and exclusively on one part of their lives. It distracts the church from seeking a deeper understanding of sexual ethics, so that sexual misconduct by officers of this church continues at an alarming rate. It puts upon the door of the church an "Unwelcome" sign for all gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons and their families. It props up and provides religious cover for acts of violence committed against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons. It has caused schism within our church by driving out gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons who can not fellowship within a church which regards them categorically as inferior. It is a scandal to the Gospel and destroys the peace, unity and purity of the church. In my own life, while I affirm the moral values of fidelity and chastity, I will not and cannot claim chastity in singleness unless and until fidelity between two persons of the same gender within a covenantal relationship is recognized. I will not submit in any way to a reduction of who I am as a Lesbian to language about "practice," nor will I participate in perpetrating such a false and demeaning dichotomy upon any other member of this church. (*) "The interpretation of Scripture, we confess, does not belong to any private or public person, nor yet to any Kirk for pre-eminence or precedence, personal or local, which it has above others, but pertains to the Spirit of God by whom the Scriptures were written. When controversy arises about the right understanding of any passage or sentence of Scripture, or for the reformation of any abuse within the Kirk of God, we ought not so much to ask what men have said or done before us, as what the Holy Spirit uniformly speaks within the body of the Scriptures and what Christ Jesus himself did and commanded. …We dare not receive or admit any interpretation which is contrary to any principle point of our faith, or to any other plain text of the Scripture, or to the rule of love." Book of Confessions 3.18

In July at the General Assembly, the PC(U.S.A.) will once again have the opportunity to affirm equal rights in ordination and marriage for people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. The PC(U.S.A.) aspires to become, "The church reformed, always, reforming, according to the Word of God and the call of the Spirit." It is high time for us to live up to those words by granting Lisa's call to ministry.

Response to the Draft Report of the "Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage"

As many of you know, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly in 2008 created a "Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage." This Committee has now issued a preliminary report and requested commentary and feedback from the wider church. The draft report can be downloaded (here). Based on the feedback from the denomination, the Committee is expected to issue a revised report and a series of recommendations to be considered at the 2010 General Assembly in June. This is my response to the draft report as submitted to the committee:

To: The Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage
Re:  A Response to the Draft Report
Date:  November 14, 2009
From:  Jack Rogers, Moderator of the 213th General Assembly

I have participated in 35 General Assemblies and served on three special committees of the assembly.  I understand the dynamics within a committee and the desire for unity.  However, staying together as a committee is not, in itself, a sufficient goal.  Rather, it is a means to the end of proposing a resolution to a dispute.

Unfortunately, the draft report, in its current form, has significant inaccuracies, omits relevant biblical and scientific information, and displays a general bias toward the status quo.  Let me note several instances.

On page 5 the draft report states "Jesus seems to indicate a preference for celibacy in his comment about eunuchs in Matt. 19:10-12."  In fact, Jesus identifies three different types of eunuchs in the passage.  In the biblical world, a eunuch was anyone who did not participate in reproduction.  But the term eunuch did not always imply celibacy.  The first of Jesus’ categories, "eunuchs who have been so from birth," is the closest biblical term we have for someone who today we refer to as homosexual. 

In ancient Israel, eunuchs, anyone who did not reproduce, were cursed and cut off from full participation in worship.  But Isaiah 56: 4-5 presents God as saying:  "For thus says the Lord:  To the eunuchs who …hold fast my covenant, …I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off."  In Matthew 19:10-12 Jesus is affirming Isaiah's prophecy and showing that Jesus acknowledges and accepts people who are sexual minorities. To ignore Jesus' insight and God’s good news is to cut off a vital element of the discussion. 

There is a vast literature available on eunuchs.  The proceedings of an international conference in Stockholm in 2003 on same-gender partnerships and same-gender marriages indicate that there are 48 different eunuchs in the Bible. See for example, Ragnhild Schanke, "Rituals and Same-Sex Unions."

The report of the draft committee also treats other biblical passages in a superficial manner.  On page 10, the report incorrectly states that Genesis 1 and 2, Matthew 19, Romans 1, and I Corinthians 6 "challenge our acceptance of persons in same-gender relationships."  Nowhere in the report is there any acknowledgment of the significant body of contemporary scholarship that understands these texts in their ancient context and shows that they have no relevance to 21st century Christian people of same-gender orientation. 

Scientific evidence is similarly glossed over or dismissed in the apparent attempt not to upset those who oppose LGBT equality.  On page 28, the draft report states: "we acknowledge that there is no consensus within either the scientific community or the Christian community about the roots of homosexual orientation."  That statement is false regarding the scientific data. The overwhelming preponderance of scientific research has shown that sexual orientation is not chosen, and that attempts to change it are ineffective and unnecessary.  Every major organization of health professionals in the United States has come to that conclusion. 

The Reformed tradition, embodied in our confessions, rejected the medieval demand for clerical celibacy. Instead, the Reformed tradition emphasized marriage as the best alternative to sexual sin, and encouraged mutual love and support of the couple.  Our present experience of people who are LGBT in the Presbyterian Church has shown that same-gender couples are just as able as opposite-gender couples to fulfill these goals.

The call for "mutual forbearance" rings hollow.  There can be no genuine mutuality until all Presbyterians are allowed to obey their own consciences informed by the best biblical and scientific understanding.

In addition to correcting these errors, the final report needs to be in harmony with the recent actions of our closest theological allies — the Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America — which have both affirmed full LGBT equality in their denominations. 

The full text of the recent resolution of the Episcopal Church affirming ordination of people in same-gender relationships can be viewed (here). 
 
The full text approved by the 76th Episcopal General Convention calling on the church to develop liturgical resources to bless same-gender marriages can be found (here). 

The full text of "Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust" A Social Statement of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, adopted August 19, 2009, can be downloaded (here).

And the ELCA implementing resolutions can be downloaded (here).

In closing, I understand the desire for unanimity on the committee, I really do.  Unfortunately, the draft report achieves unanimity by ignoring the latest biblical research and most scientific evidence. What is more, the draft report risks causing a serious rift with our allies in the Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America which have both affirmed full LGBT equality in their denominations. 

For more on the biblical case for LGBT equality please see Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church (Revised and Expanded Edition).

Why LGBT Equality Leads to a More Missional Church

The 218th General Assembly in San Jose did a remarkable and wonderful thing. The commissioners discerned a way for theological conservatives and theological progressives to co-exist.  Moreover, they found a way for all of us to move forward together in mission as one church.  Now you probably didn’t hear that in the news reports from the Assembly which focused on who won and who lost and what’s next. However, I think we will look back on this assembly as the start of a new era in the denomination. 

The two big themes to come out of the Assembly were the emphasis on creating a missional church and the passage of several overtures to grant equal rights to our church members who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT).  

Those who see themselves as theological conservatives want us to be a “missional church.” Indeed it is clear from the Assembly that this goal is widely shared across the denomination.  But what exactly does it mean to be a missional church?  Well for one thing it means to be evangelical – to share the gospel of Jesus with others.  “Missional” also means that the church should be woven into the very fabric of the community.

The most recent General Assembly made several important moves towards becoming a more missional church. The Assembly took steps towards adopting a new Form of Government with the goal of becoming more missional at every level of the denomination. The national leadership in Louisville has embraced a missional approach through hiring several leading evangelicals who are dedicated to creating a missional church. Indeed, the General Assembly Council has renamed itself the General Assembly Mission Council and has committed to working with congregationally-based local leadership to find new ways to work together in missions. Creating a more missional church is exactly what we should be doing. It reflects our deepest values and brings us together in a common focus. I believe it will be invigorating for the denomination and life-giving for our communities and the world. 

Yet, what was extraordinary about this assembly is that collectively the majority of commissioners seemed to recognize, on some level, that in order to create a missional church we have to grant equal rights to our members who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.  The two issues are interconnected.  Think about it – if the goal is for the church to be woven into the very fabric of society – we can’t have preconceived notions about our neighbors.  We have to go out with open hearts to preach and practice the message that we are to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves. Affirming the equality of all God’s people is a prerequisite for reaching out in Christian service to all God’s people. So the GA approved overtures to grant equal rights to people who are LGBT and also approved steps to create a more missional church. In so doing, I believe the Assembly found a new way forward.  

Now this conversation moves to the Presbyteries to either affirm or reject the practical compromise crafted by the Assembly. If a majority of Presbyteries vote yes to approve the revised language of G-6.0106b, I believe we will finally be able to move forward together again as one family in mission. I would encourage everyone in the denomination to read the text of the Boston overture (item number [05-09] from the Church Orders and Ministry Committee) which was approved by the Assembly. Consistent with the Reformed tradition, the revised text affirms the essentials of our faith:

“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…”

I believe this revised text regarding ordination puts the focus exactly where it should be – on Jesus, the Scriptures, and the Confessions – the essential values at the center of our theological tradition. 

Look, I understand that there are going to be some who are resistant to change. That will be true of any change. But after 30 years of discussion, study, and prayer, I believe this GA has come up with a workable compromise that incorporates the best of the conservative and progressive approaches to theology.  I think it offers the best hope in a generation for this church to finally move forward together in mission. I sincerely hope that a majority of Presbyteries will vote yes and embrace the opportunity to move forward together once again. 

Jack Rogers
Moderator, the 213th General Assembly

General Assembly Votes to Restore the Heidelberg Catechism to its Authentic Text!

I am pleased to announce that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) voted today to restore the Heidelberg Catechism to its original text (thereby correcting several unauthorized insertions and theologically unwarranted changes which were made in 1963)!  The vote was 60% to 39%.  This starts a process which will also require review by a committee, concurrence by the next General Assembly, and approval by the Presbyteries.  I think today's vote by the General Assembly is a wonderful step which will restore integrity and authenticity to this foundational text in our Book of Confessions. 

Letter from 32 Seminary Faculty Asking for A Better Translation of the Heidelberg Catechism

As reported earlier, "Thirty-two history and theology faculty members from the 10 Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) seminaries have signed a petition calling for a better translation of the 1563 Heidelberg Catechism."  Below is the text of that letter. 

You can also click (here) for a PDF version. Click (here) for a free Adobe Reader. 

Restoring the Heidelberg Catechism for the Church

We write as faculty members of Presbyterian seminaries who teach theology and church history to express our support for overtures asking the General Assembly to provide for a better translation of the Heidelberg Catechism.

According to the PC(USA) Book of Order, “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” (G-6.0106b).

As theologians and church historians we feel a particular responsibility to make sure that the translations of our confessional documents accurately represent the Reformed heritage that office holders pledge to uphold. We see this responsibility as in keeping with the mandate given to the Peace, Unity, and Purity taskforce: “to deepen our understanding of our Christian and catholic identity and clarify key themes of the Reformed theological and constitutional heritage” (PUP Report, lines 269-70). Though we have different perspectives on several of the issues that divide Presbyterians today, we are united in the desire to clarify the teachings of our confessional standards.

We are grateful to all who have come before us, preparing translations of historic texts for the edification of Christians and the upbuilding of the church. Yet because of key errors in translation, the version of the Heidelberg Catechism currently in the Book of Confessions presents at several points obstacles to contemporary readers who want to gain a clear understanding of the historic Reformed theological witness. Specifically, it distorts Reformed accounts of God’s covenant (4.019, 4.074) and of redemption and eschatology (4.055) and obscures the Reformed teaching of our adoption in Christ (4.033). Moreover, it misleads the reader by suggesting that this historic text took a clear stand on issues of sexual orientation and practice that are lively issues before us in the church today—when in fact these were not subjects of discussion in the sixteenth-century church (4.087).

Professor Edward Dowey, as chair of the Special Committee that oversaw the production of the Book of Confessions, has acknowledged that he and the committee as a whole failed to notice these errors, and are in this respect “guilty of negligence.”

Now is the time to set things right. An accurate translation of our confessional standards is critical for a church that requires its office holders be guided by them. Moreover, accurate translations of the Heidelberg Catechism are not in short supply. Several alternative translations are readily available, including contemporary translations that reliably render the original text in lively, contemporary English.

We therefore ask the church and its representatives to make use of the best tools available to us—the best and most faithful translations—to assist our students, and the church at large, as we seek seriously and honestly to engage the Reformed witness of the past for the sake of the church today.

Dr. Mark Achtemeier
Associate Professor of Theology and Ethics
Dubuque Theological Seminary

Ellen L. Babinsky
Professor of Church History
Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary

John R. Bowlin
Rimmer and Ruth de Vries Associate
Professor of Reformed Theology and Public Life
Princeton Theological Seminary

The Rev. Dr. Cynthia M. Campbell
President
McCormick Theological Seminary

Katie G. Cannon
Annie Scales Rogers Professor of Christian Ethics
Union Theological Seminary and Presbyterian School of Christian Education

Anna Case-Winters
Professor of Theology
McCormick Theological Seminary

Milton J Coalter
Library Director and William B. and Mildred L. Nivison Professor
Union Theological Seminary and Presbyterian School of Christian Education

James C. Deming
Associate Professor of Church History
Princeton Theological Seminary

Dawn DeVries
John Newton Thomas Professor of Systematic Theology
Union Theological Seminary and Presbyterian School of Christian Education

Christopher Elwood
Professor of Historical Theology
Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary

William Greenway
Associate Professor of Philosophical Theology
Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary

Johnny B. Hill
Assistant Professor of Theology
Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary

George Hunsinger
Hazel Thompson McCord Professor of
Systematic Theology
Princeton Theological Seminary

David H. Jensen
Associate Professor of Constructive Theology
Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary

Michael Jinkins
Academic Dean and Professor of Pastoral Theology
Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary

David W. Johnson
Director of Supervised Practice of Ministry and Certificate in Spiritual Formation Programs
Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary

Kathryn L. Johnson
Paul Tudor Jones Professor of Church History
Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary

William Stacy Johnson
Arthur M. Adams Associate Professor of Theology
Princeton Theological Seminary

The Rev. Gregory Love, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Systematic Theology
San Francisco Theological Seminary
The Graduate Theological Union

Elsie McKee
Archibald Alexander Professor of Reformation Studies and the History of Worship
Princeton Theological Seminary

Kathleen E. McVey
J. Ross Stevenson Professor of Church History
Princeton Theological Seminary

Daniel L. Migliore
Charles Hodge Professor of Systematic Theology
Princeton Theological Seminary

Martha L. Moore-Keish
Assistant Professor of Theology
Columbia Theological Seminary

Christopher Ocker
Professor of Church History
San Francisco Theological Seminary

Amy Plantinga Pauw
Professor of Doctrinal Theology
Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary

Charles Raynal
Director of Advanced Studies
Associate Professor of Theology
Columbia Theological Seminary

Cynthia L Rigby
W.C. Brown Professor of Theology
Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary

Kenneth Sawyer
Associate Professor of Church History
McCormick Theological Seminary

George W. Stroup
J.B. Green Professor of Theology
Columbia Theological Seminary

Haruko Nawata Ward, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Church History
Columbia Theological Seminary

Rebecca H. Weaver
John Q. Dickinson Professor of Church History
Union Theological Seminary and
Presbyterian School of Christian Education

John E. Wilson, Ph.D.
Professor of Church History
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

A Quick Guide to Essential Tenets

For a Microsoft Word version of this article please click (here).

A ruling of the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly released on February 11, 2008 stated that “it is not permissible for a presbytery or a session to define ‘essentials of Reformed faith and polity’ outside of the examination of any candidate for office. Such a determination must be made only in the context of a specific examination of an individual candidate.” (Leslie Scanlon, “Top court prohibits scrupling fidelity-chastity standard,” The Presbyterian Outlook March 10, 2008, 6.) 

There are good reasons, rooted in our history for that view. However, the GAPJC then violated its own ruling by creating one functional “essential tenet” that must be adhered to prior to “a specific examination of an individual candidate.”  The ruling stated that “the fidelity and chastity standard [G-6.0106b] may only be changed by a constitutional amendment. Until that occurs, individual candidates, officers, examining and governing bodies must adhere to it.”

I believe this ruling is unwise and contrary to two centuries of  American Presbyterian history. 

An essential, or confessional standard, is a core belief that already has the assent of the overwhelming majority of the community.  Essentials are not things that we are fighting over, but things over which we no longer fight.  For example, beginning in 1729 there were conflicts over the nature of predestination.  Then, finally, in 1903 in the North and 1943 in the South declaratory statements were added to the Westminster Confession that created a balanced view of God’s love and judgment.  We no longer are in conflict over predestination.

Essentials are those doctrines that can be embraced by people of different schools of interpretation.  They cannot be the property of only one school of thought.  The essentials are the great themes of the Christian, Protestant, and Reformed traditions that bind us together, not the differing interpretations which sometimes have kept us apart.

I believe a helpful metaphor that reflects our Presbyterian understanding of essential tenets is to think of a series of concentric circles.  According to our Confessions, Jesus Christ is the center of our faith as the one in whom we meet the triune God. That is the heart of Christianity and unites Christians in faith around the world.  For Protestants, the next layer of our core values are a belief in Scripture and justification by grace through faith. The third layer in the circle is made up of the characteristically Reformed concepts of sovereignty, election, covenant, stewardship, sin, and obedience.  (Book of Order, Chapter II, “The Church and Its Confessions,” especially G-2.0500.)  There are many further rings as we attempt to understand the whole counsel of God.  We are most sure that we are dealing with essentials as we move toward the center of the circle. 

Our ordination vows use the concept of “essential tenets” intentionally to keep our attention fixed on the center of the circle (Jesus Christ is the center of our faith as the one in whom we meet the triune God) rather than on matters on the periphery.  (BO, G-14.0207c.) This approach to theology, crafted through two centuries of theological debate, allows Presbyterians to be united around a core set of values while permitting individuals, sessions, and presbyteries the right to exercise their own freedom of conscience on emerging theological issues. 

G-6.0106b represents the view of one faction in the church on a matter that cannot be considered central to our faith. It is rather an inference that some have drawn from their understanding of a particular theological tradition. For the GAPJC to make G-6.0106b into an essential tenet upends the carefully crafted polity which has guided our church for two centuries. The GAPJC decision took something from the periphery of our faith that is still subject to intense theological debate and moved it into the center of the circle where it does not belong. 

The day will come when we are no longer fighting over the implications of the sexual orientation of some of our members.  The day will come when we finally adhere to our own constitution that declares: “An active member is entitled to all the rights and privileges of the church, including the right…to vote and hold office.” (BO, G-5.0202.) At that point we will have allowed our differing views of human sexuality to take their rightful place on the periphery, but not at the center of those beliefs that we hold to be essential.

FYI

Just a quick note to let you know that www.ga2008.com, which appears to be an official site of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), is actually run by Presbyterians for Renewal (a conservative advocacy group).