Help Doulos Resources!

You may be aware that, in addition to my service as Pastor of Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church, I also work with a ministry called Doulos Resources. This ministry focuses on developing resources that support and equip the church and her leaders.

Doulos Resources has reached a major threshold, ministry-wise, in terms of where we are as an organization. To break through that threshold and get to the "next level" then we are doing a small fundraising campaign. (To learn more about this campaign, and what the funds will support, visit the Doulos Resources Support page.)

If you are willing, would you consider making a contribution to this campaign? Any amount-- even just a few dollars-- is valued and appreciated.

Here's an easy way to see how close we are to our goal, and to easily make a donation:

(If you can't see the dandy support widget, click here to see it.)

Abbey's latest trip to Chicago

If you've been following my family for more than a year or so, you'll know that my daughter Abbey (one of the twins) went to Chicago, IL about a year ago for surgery. She had a cleft palate repair performed by the Shriner's Hospital in Chicago, and their care for her has been outstanding.

When she went for a follow-up visit in September, they found that one of the tubes they had put in her ears had fallen out. This is typical, because as her body grows they will naturally pop out. But for now, she still needs them IN, so they told us they would do it at a later scheduled date.

We initially hoped that we might be able to have it done locally; this would save all of the trouble of getting to Chicago again, and would be one less thing we were depending on the Shriner's Hospital to do. But the cost of the procedure locally was prohibitively expensive.

So yesterday, Marcie and Abbey left for another trip to Chicago. She is having the (very brief) procedure today, and they will return tomorrow.

Please pray for little Abbey as she faces anesthesia again, and for a safe and trouble-free trip for both she and Marcie.

Here's Abbey on the plane to Chicago:

We're only as Presbyterian as we want to be: part 1

Part one: the FRUIT of the problem

Anyone who pays much attention to the PCA at a level broader than the local church is aware that there is usually some topic afoot that is a matter of discussion and debate. I've heard and read troubling comments recently with regard to decisions that bodies of the PCA are facing, and actions they are taking (both in my local presbytery and at the General Assembly level).

Let me say on the outset that my comments here have nothing to do with my position on any of the issues. What I observe here holds true on either side of any issue, and is true of me as much as it is true of you. I'm not trying to pick a fight over a certain topic, or pick a fight at all. Rather, I want to reflect on a realization I've been challenged by, and perhaps use my own (admittedly limited) self-awareness to nudge you in a direction of being similarly self-aware.

In a recent debate about the restructuring of a presbytery-wide ministry, one Ruling Elder stood and testified for several minutes about the participation his Session and congregation had in bringing that ministry into his local area. He mentioned his own role, and how he had zealously recruited support and financial contributions for the local branch (including donations from his own pocket). Then he concluded: he was so opposed to the idea of restructuring that if presbytery moved in that direction, he would not rest until his Session joined him in abandoning all support for the local branch of this ministry!

Several things were evident in his testimony. Clearly, this was a man who was invested in the ministry in question. He was equally clear in his commitment to the current structural system. And it was also plain that no reaction was "off the table" for him should things go against his wishes.

The last point is what troubles me. In essence, what he was saying was, "if this body-- a court of the church, to which I have made vows and commitments-- votes in a manner other than what I rise to speak for, I will no longer participate in the work of this body in this particular area."

This approach to church life, the "take my ball and go home" method of diplomacy, is nothing new. Indeed, as my friend Greg Thompson once commented, protestantism itself is based on "the premise of having one foot out the door." But when it is so common an encounter-- when every issue that has a significant amount of disagreement inherent to it is looked upon as a reason to divide-- it is deeply troubling.

What is more, it seems to be increasingly common for the dissenters to openly and casually dismiss the work of the courts of the church. In the past month I witnessed a discussion on a blog, consisting of eight or ten dominant voices and as many quieter supporters, wherein they considered the action of a PCA presbytery (of which none of them is a member). A complaint had been filed in that presbytery against the teachings of a member Teaching Elder, and the presbytery responded by receiving the complaint, acknowledging it, and appointing a committee to investigate the accusations. The committee performed its work over the ensuing six months, then made a thorough report to the presbytery. Upon receiving the report, the matter was further discussed by presbytery and acted upon by an almost-unanimous vote.

The contributors to the blog disagreed with the decision of the presbytery. Their conclusion? Obviously the presbytery was wrong! In fact, they went on to suggest, if not openly claim, that the investigative committee must have been a "stacked" body, and that the members of that presbytery were ignorant of the real issues at hand. They even went so far as to insinuate that most of the members of that presbytery must have been taken in and "snowed" by a deceptive element within them.

Now, these men may be right about all of it: the presbytery may have erred in its decision, and the reasons for its error may be nefarious. The courts of the church do err, and it is incumbent upon the members of the church to watch out for this. My point, though, is that these men have set themselves above one of the appointed courts of the church in the decision. They know better than an entire presbytery!

I've seen, heard, and read similar things at even higher levels. Some years ago, the PCA voted to allow "good-faith" subscription to the Westminster Standards in the ordination of Ruling and Teaching Elders. This means that there is allowance for "exceptions" to the Standards that are more than just differences of wording; for example: how strict must a Christian's observance of the fourth commandment be? Some Teaching Elders hold to a looser observance than the Westminster Standards clearly prescribes. The General Assembly's vote to allow such exceptions means that any Teaching Elder who holds the exception in my example should be able to be received in any presbytery of the PCA.

But this is not the case. There are presbyteries in which such an exception will prevent them from ordination; in fact, some presbyteries will not accept the credentials of a Teaching Elder who is ordained in another PCA presbytery for such an exception! It would appear that the only "good-faith subscription" allowed in these presbyteries is one holding to the decisions of the General Assembly.

Why is this a problem? Because it is a violation of the vows of ordination. When a Teaching Elder is ordained in the PCA, he is asked to take the following vow:

3. Do you approve of the form of government and discipline of the Presbyterian Church in America, in conformity with the general principles of Biblical polity? (BCO 21-5)

When a presbytery as a body refuses to accept "good faith subscription" in the examination of ordinands, its members are failing to act in accordance with vow #3. When a Ruling or Teaching Elder grumbles against the actions of an appointed body (rather than taking proper action of appeal), they are sinning in the breaking of their ordination vows.

Now, they will argue that another vow compels them to do so:

6. Do you promise to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the truths of the Gospel and the purity and peace and unity of the Church, whatever persecution or opposition may arise unto you on that account? (BCO 21-5)

They look to vow #6 and argue they are standing for the truths of the Gospel and the purity of the church. To this I would respond with several points.

First, not every debate is a matter of threat to the truth of the Gospel or the purity of the church. Some people act as if every vote to amend our Book of Church Order is a threat to the purity of the church, and every exception to the Westminster Confession is selling out the Gospel. But both of these documents warn strongly and sternly against elevating them to anything close to such a canonical level.

Second, within the same vow is the same urgency regarding the peace and unity of the church as regarding its purity. Thus, we must be as zealous in our attendance to peace and unity as we are about purity, and just as vigilant.

Third, I'm certain that it's possible to adhere to all vows at the same time (inasmuch as it's possible for any of us to keep any of them!). So those presbyteries that disagree with "good faith subscription" ought to follow proper presbyterian order (outlined thoroughly in the BCO) in accordance with #3, if they have a conscience about #6. Likewise, those Elders who doubt the actions of a court of the church have proper procedures for appealing them.

In practice, however, it is clear that we are only as presbyterian as we want to be. In part two, I'll talk about the root of the problem.

What is in a man

"Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. He did not need man’s testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man."
John 2:23-25

I'm struck by the fact that Jesus' life and ministry, healing and teaching, suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension on my behalf (and on behalf of all of His sheep) was done in absolute knowledge of our sin and brokenness.

For John to record so early in his gospel that "he knew what was in a man" (v.25) is foundational-- yet how much do I belittle the saving work of Christ by acting as if what is in ME is not such a big deal? Or conversely, how often do I puff up in false humility with claims that, in spite of Christ's work, I am somehow still unacceptable to the Father because of the weight of my sin?

Christ did not underestimate the magnitude or cost of my sin; He knowingly, lovingly accepted the full punishment for it. And it took the full measure of his life, death, resurrection, ascension, and ongoing intercession on my behalf to account for it. But as we see throughout the gospel of John, the cost was not too high for Christ, nor did He pay it begrudgingly or reluctantly.

Stuart Townend's wonderful lyric comes to mind: "how deep the Father's love for us, how vast beyond all measure that He should give His only Son to make a wretch His treasure."

How refreshing and soothing is the deep, deep love of Jesus.

Book Review: Tithing by Douglas Leblanc

I recently read through Douglas Leblanc's book, Tithing: test me in this from Thomas Nelson's Ancient Practices series. Overall, I liked the book, and found it to be an easy, engaging read.

Leblanc, a journalist, filled the book with interviews he conducted with people representing a wide swath of the Judeo-Christian faith traditions (and it's important that I emphasize traditions, plural, there because Leblanc's list of interviewees includes a Rabbi as well as representatives from nearly every point on the spectrum of Christianity, not merely or even mainly the evangelical "camp"). All of the interviewees speak favorably on the topic of tithing, sometimes offering reflections on the words of Scripture, in other times presenting testimony of their own experience.

The interviews are well-presented, offering a brief introduction to the interviewee and his/her background, as well as comments about goings-on surrounding and even during the interview. They felt more like magazine articles with a common theme than chapters in a book-- indeed, any given chapter could easily have been in Christianity Today or perhaps even the New York Times, if the Times would willingly carry a piece so openly acknowledging the validity of a biblical teaching.

Somewhat because of this journalistic approach to the topic and the various perspectives on it, the book struggles to offer any didactic value. If you're seeking biblical insight into why a Christian might consider tithing, or for that matter any further Scriptural discussion on giving, you'll be disappointed in this book. What little teaching on tithing it does present is indirect and more a matter of inference than exposition.

This fact leads me to question whether I have been asking more of this series, Thomas Nelson's Ancient Practices titles, than I ought. My first introduction to the series was with Scot McKnight's excellent Fasting, and while offered just enough first and third-person accounts to enrich his explanations, there was also a satisfying amount of instruction from Scripture and from other historical sources (like the Church Fathers). The second title I read in the series, Joan Chittister's The Liturgical Year, was a great disappointment-- both because of a theologically-liberal approach to anything and everything related to the Bible, Christianity, and the Church, and because of the fact that the book was very little more than just a recounting of experiences and personal testimonies.

I have been assuming that Chittister's exchange of substance for sentiment was surely anomalous-- atypical of a series devoted the Ancient Practices, which are so firmly grounded in Scripture. Having read a third title, however, I wonder if I've mistaken the aim of the series; maybe McKnight's title is the anomaly. If that is so, it's a shame, and the series should be re-titled the Ancient Experiences.

This is ultimately what leads to my doubt in the real value of this title. All of the interviews are well-written, the stories are interesting, and the subjects remarkable in their experiences. But much of what we are told is only marginally related to the subject of tithing. It seems the thesis of the book is, "look at all of these people that God has blessed wonderfully, often in spite of great financial trial-- and look! They all tithe."

We live in a time when experiences count a great deal, and theology divorced from "story" is questionable in its authenticity. The danger is in making it more about the story than the theology; in this case, I wonder if Leblanc didn't lose his way.

[FULL DISCLOSURE: I received a copy of Tithing: test me in this by Douglas Leblanc for free, in exchange for my commitment to review the book.]

How divided are we?

At last summer's General Assembly, amendments to the PCA's Book of Church Order were passed through the first round of approval (by a required ⅔-majority vote), which means that those amendments are before the individual presbyteries for vote of approval in order to continue to pass. (They must be approved similarly by ⅔ of all presbyteries, and with a ⅔-majority vote, in order to come before the Assembly again in 2011 for another vote of that court.)

As the individual presbyteries have voted, the tallies and results have been reported by various sources, and one thing stands out as a surprising aspect: the number of presbyteries that are fairly absolute in their decisions.

Here's what I mean: it seems like about a third of the presbyteries in the PCA are divided somewhat evenly about the issues at hand. It may be that the body is almost exactly split-- in which case there is not a sufficient majority to pass the amendments. Or it may be that the minority view (on whichever side it falls, for or against) is still a relatively substantial number. But approximately one third of our presbyteries have some adequate representation of each side.

But the remainder of the presbyteries show decided uniformity. In these cases, there may be only two or three votes that differ from the majority, regardless of whether the majority is for or against the amendments.

The issue of these amendments is not the point; there are strong and loud voices that declaim them as ill-advised, unconstitutional, or even the first step toward liberalism, but there is hardly uniform agreement across the PCA that any of these are accurate assessments. Indeed, when the votes are tallied (both at the assembly and presbytery levels) it is clear that the majority and the minority are not far from one another, percentage-wise.

And yet, somehow, half or more of our presbyteries don't demonstrate this diversity at all. How can it be that so few members of presbytery disagree with the majority on an issue like this, in so many cases?

By way of analogy (somewhat weak), imagine this: how surprised would you be to find that, in the next Presidential election, not only did a candidate carry a state strongly, but that out of 4 million voters in a particular state, only 3% did NOT vote for that candidate? Now imagine this: what if the results were similar in 34 of the 50 states? Now imagine that, in spite of that, the results were still "too close to call" to declare a simple majority?

I think if that were to happen, we might note two things: first, that we are a very divided nation. Without a doubt, such a split vote is indicative of severe lack of agreement on political issues.

But second, we should also note how surprising it is that the states (in the case of my analogy) are so uniform in their opinions. In fact, if it were as stark as I suggest above, we might wonder whether, in any given state, people who "aren't like us" are welcome. And we might conclude that the answer may well be, "no."

I think we might rightly wonder the same thing about the PCA. How can it be that so many presbyteries are so uniform in their voting trends, and yet every indication is that the denomination is generally split over whether these amendments are good or bad?

The only reason I can think of is that elders who don't think "like us" are simply not welcomed into presbyteries. And that's troubling to me, because frankly I know my own sin enough to know that I don't want a presbytery full of guys who think like me. I need those who differ, because the differences are what keep us in check and accountable to one another. In fact, I would argue that this is the real beauty of the presbyterian form of church government: unity amongst diversity. (Remember, there is a big difference between unity and uniformity.)

Which begs the question: are we losing something vital in the PCA by allowing this kind of uniformity to pervade?

Punctuality

Another priceless cartoon from Dave Walker and the Cartoon Blog:

Who are you praying for?

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?"
Matthew 5:43-47 (NIV)

Three times in the past two weeks, I have heard church leaders either request or utter prayers for the safety of Christians in Egypt. This is a prayer I understand: some congregations support missionaries who are serving in Egypt; some have family or friends who live in Egypt. The political unrest (and now violence) has left Egypt as an unstable and, in many ways, unsafe place to be.

What strikes me about the prayers I've heard, though, is that it is for Christians. What about the people there who are not believers? Why don't they merit our prayers?

When news of the shooting in Tucson, AZ, broke last month, my instinctive response was, "what a sad situation." But when I learned that it had happened just a few blocks from a PCA church-- and, in fact, that it was the church that a seminary classmate serves, and his daughters were in the bank adjacent to the lot where the shootings occurred-- suddenly I was motivated to pay attention and be more regular in prayer.

Why wasn't I motivated to pray before I knew this? Why does it take the proximity of someone we know to make us care about a tragedy or disaster?

I'm convicted by the passage above, from Matthew. I think when we pray for only the Christians in Egypt-- and not for those who have no eternal security-- then we are not doing anything the pagans and tax collectors would do. I think when we only care about tragic events-- and by "care" I mean something much more than morbid curiosity and tongue-clucking-- then we fail to love our enemies and pray for our persecutors.

I'm praying that the heavenly Father, who has called me His son, would cause me to be a "son of the Father" as Jesus speaks of in Matthew 5.

Bits and Tidbits, January 2011

Yes, please!: Space Invaders: why you should never, ever use two spaces after a period. This is probably the most unknown rule of typing and computer use around.
Privacy: How to Avoid Online Tracking. (Hint: You Can't.) I've been saying this for a few years now; the idea of privacy online is a myth.
Wow: How to Handle Your Daughter's First Date. I'm not sure quite what to make of this piece-- the advice is a bit thin, but that's not surprising. Maybe the biggest revelation is that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommends that you insist on meeting your daughter's date!
So True: Why having a toddler is like being at a frat party. Very funny list; I didn't go to many frat parties, but I remember many parties in high school that had the same feel to them. I hadn't put 2 and 2 together on this one. (HT: Lydia)
Horrifying: Doctor Is Charged in Killing of Newborns. So many questions of ethical consistency are raised by this piece...

Snow Days

We had a snow day on Friday, so the kids stayed home from school-- the third snow day in two weeks. Thursday evening, about 2 inches of accumulation fell, and it basically closed down our town.

One of my midwestern friends (who is attending school in the south) pondered recently on Facebook, "why does a light snow close down the city?" Let me offer a few reasons.

First, it's due to a lack of equipment and supplies. Most parts of the southeastern U.S. simply don't get enough snow to make the purchase and maintenance of trucks, plows, and de-icing supplies economically responsible. It costs tens of thousands of dollars (hundreds of thousands, in larger cities) annually to buy snow plows, "salt" trucks, and de-icing chemicals. When they would only be in-use once or twice a year, tops, this is poor stewardship of tax dollars.

In the midwest and other regions, these expenses are justified and necessary-- but my hometown of Columbia, SC has gotten more snow in the past year than I can remember throughout the 27 years that I lived there. Most years, we saw NO snow. It's far more economically responsible just to close schools and businesses once or twice every couple of years than it is to treat the roads.

Second, it's true that southerners don't know how to drive in snow. Without much frequency, how could they be expected to? (It's also true that most city folk don't know how to drive in mud, but I seldom hear that thrown out as a derogatory comment!)

But I'll let you in on a secret: most midwesterners don't know how to drive in snow, either; the few times that I saw St. Louis receive a "surprise" snow (i.e., there wasn't time to adequately treat the roads before the snow arrived), the roads were filled with accidents and abandoned cars that slid out of the lanes and got stuck. The fact is, NO ONE can drive safely on untreated roads without special equipment. Those who live in climates that regularly require them to drive on snowy roads own snow tires and 4-wheel or all-wheel drive vehicles.

Finally, what's the fun in not calling off work and school? When it only snows in great quantities every now and then, even the adults want to enjoy it. When we had a snow day last week, all 6 of us got out and enjoyed the snow. A friend of mine in Oxford, MS posted a bunch of photos of his family playing with their friends and neighbors; there weren't many "proper" snow toys (sleds, discs, etc.) but they made do with tupperware, garbage can lids, and even a mattress!

Snow is part of life in some parts of the country, and an annoyance at times. But it is a novelty in the south, and most of the time a pleasant diversion.