Not "when" but "how" to leave a church

In Acts 15:36-41 Paul and Barnabas have a “sharp disagreement” (vs. 39) and separate. (If you missed last weekend’s message, you can listen to it here.) Doctrinal heresy, mission strategy, or ethical behavior may be reasons to separate from a church or denomination. However, “how” Christians go about moving from one fellowship to another may be just as important as knowing "when" it is okay. 

First, disaffiliating from one Christian fellowship to join another needs rigorous self-examination. It’s easier to point out something lacking in our church or denomination than it is to face what is lacking in ourselves. As I said this weekend, let us first “take our motives, our doctrinal convictions, our moral precepts, our heartaches, disappointments, and disagreements to the cross and earnestly ask Jesus, what of this is really about me?” 

Second, leaving a church fellowship must be done in reverent humility. No matter the failings or shortcomings of a particular fellowship, there is no room in the Christian’s vocabulary for church or denominational name-calling. We will keep in mind that the church (even in its broken and imperfect expressions) is the bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:25-27). 

Lastly, let’s make communal conversation part of our discerning process. For the most part, we assume that leaving a particular church is ultimately a personal decision. The contemporary view is that individual identity trumps communal belonging in the body of Christ. And so for instance, when we receive a job promotion in another city, or plan for retirement near the grandchildren, we assume our Christian fellowship has no say in the matter. Rather than discerning in community whether or not God is sending us to a new place, we simply assume we will leave our current church and find another one. We wouldn’t think of sacrificing career advancement for the sake of Christian fellowship. The New Testament, however, presents a picture of the church where joy-filled communal belonging trumps individual rights. The world may see the church differently if they witnessed more of us sacrificing personal comfort and career advancement for the sake of belonging to Christian community.

Divine Vulnerability

The combined Sunday school class our church this summer is What to talk about when you talk about God. A couple of weekends ago someone asked how we begin to explain the origins of sin, evil, and pain in the world. Strange as it may seem, I think the answer lies in the vulnerable quality of God's love.

In her book Daring Greatly Sociologist Brene Brown defines vulnerability as "uncertainty, risk, and emotional exposure." Brown says vulnerability is akin to genuine love. Love that is sincere, not coercive or manipulative, is uncertain. It's risky because genuine love is exposed to the real possibility of not being loved in return. It is "Loving someone who may, or may not, love us back… who may stay in our lives or may leave us on a moment's notice, who may be loyal to the day we die or betray us tomorrow." (Daring Greatly, page 33).

This is the kind of love with which God loves us.  John writes in his epistle, "We love because [God] first loved us." (1 John 4:19) In his Gospel, John describes the emotional vulnerability of God's love toward us in Christ: "He came to that which was his own but his own did not receive him." (John 1:11) In love, God willingly exposed himself to this rejection.

God could've created a kind of world that was compelled to obedience. God could've created a world free from chaos and disorder - a world where humans were obliged to robotic compliance. Instead God chose the messiness of genuine love. In infinite sovereignty God created a world of risk and freedom where one can choose (or not) to love the One who first loved us.

Letter to Clear Lake Presbyterian Church

Dear CLPC:

At this weekend’s annual congregational meeting the question was raised about CLPC’s response to the recently ratified amendment to the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. Book of Order. The Book of Order defines the freedoms and responsibilities of ministry for all PCUSA congregations. Effective July 2015, marriage will be defined in the Book of Order as "a unique commitment between two people, traditionally a man and a woman...." Pastors in the PCUSA have always had the exclusive right to decide whether or not to marry a couple. Similarly, church sessions have always had the right to permit or deny the use of the church building for a wedding. This Book of Order amendment expands the freedom for pastors and sessions to include same-gender couples if they so choose.

Some have asked what this change means for CLPC’s relationship to the denomination. They want to know if we will follow other churches in our Presbytery who have initiated the “discernment” process for leaving the PCUSA. Still others want to know what this change means for me personally and for the leadership of CLPC.

Here are brief answers to those questions. There has been no conversation at session about leaving the denomination. Our affiliation with the Presbytery of New Covenant and the PCUSA does not hinder the exercise of ministry according to our theological convictions. When it comes to same gender-marriage, I continue to be guided by the conviction that God’s design for human sexual relationships is between a man and a woman in a lifelong covenant of marriage. I also believe that sin is pervasive and impacts all our lives – including sexuality, regardless of orientation. And, I also believe that God’s redemption in Christ can come in surprising and sometimes unsettling ways and that I should be slow to presume what that can look like (see Matthew 20:15).

The church at Corinth in the first century was deeply divided over the issue of meat sacrificed to idols. Church members drew up sides and presented theological arguments on both sides of the issue. For some, eating idol-sacrificed-meat was an abomination to the Lord. It was food placed in service of pagan deities and eating it was a clear-cut sin. For others, beef was beef. They argued that Christ’s work on the cross freed them to eat whatever they wanted. I think it’s interesting that from Paul’s letter to this most deeply divided congregation comes the greatest chapter on love of all time (1 Corinthians 13).

In the middle of a debate that has torn apart churches and alienated many from the Gospel, my prayer is that CLPC will go the way of 1 Corinthians 13. That doesn’t mean excusing sin or ignoring the Bible. It does mean living humbly from the level ground of the cross and always pointing ourselves and others toward Jesus. In a world of increasing polarity may we be found going the way of the cross.

Yours in Christ,

Steve

Four Questions

Last week it became official that the language describing marriage in my denomination's (The Presbyterian Church U.S.A.) constitution will change. The new definition that takes effect this summer says marriage is "a unique commitment between two people, traditionally a man and a woman..."

In my denomination pastors have always had the exclusive right to decide whether or not to marry a couple. Similarly, our church governing boards (Sessions) have always had the right to permit or deny the use of the church building for a wedding. The change to our constitution expands the freedom of conscience for pastors and sessions to include same-gender couples.

However, this change is not so innocuous. That's because the new language about marriage in Part Two of our constitution (the Book of Order) stands in contradiction to the language about marriage in Part One of our constitution (The Book of Confessions). We Presbyterians claim that our Book of Confessions has more authority than our Book of Order. We say that our Book of Order (how we order our corporate lives as the church) is based on the teachings of the Book of Confessions. But in this case we have reversed the two. With this most recent vote, we seem to have said that our practice, when it comes to marriage (Book of Order), is more important than our belief about marriage (Book of Confessions).

What's done is done. The majority of our Presbyteries voted for the change. Marriage in the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. now may include same-gender couples. I have no desire to try to reverse this change. And, I genuinely appreciate that the new constitutional language includes a statement explicitly preserving the freedom of conscience for pastors and session not to conduct same-gender weddings.

However, I am curious to see how, or if, our denomination will close the gap that exists now between our Confessions and our Book of Order. Is there a solution that does not simply ignore the Confession's teachings about marriage but one that re-frames what we believe to match the new practice?

During floor debate at our Presbytery meeting (recognizing that our vote would not change the fate of the amendment) I posed these questions:

1. How will the LGBT community help address what ails the institution of marriage which continues to hover at a 50% failure rate? 
2. What does Christ's healing and redemptive power look like in the arena of sexual brokenness? 
3. What does sexual fidelity and covenant faithfulness look like in this new era?
4. Having voted on what marriage is NOT limited to, what then shall we say marriage IS? (The definition in the revised book of order is inadequate. It's a beautiful description of meaningful relationships, but the definition isn't really unique to a marriage.)

Much of the rhetoric in our denomination's same-gender marriage debate seems borrowed from the civil rights movement. The issue is dubbed one of equality and inclusion. Somewhere along the way, in a debate about gay marriage, we stopped talking about... marriage. Instead of exegeting Scripture's teaching on marriage, we talked about how Jesus accepts and loves everyone. I want to know what redemptive or prophetic word the PCUSA has for the world about marriage? Surely we have something more to say about marriage than that everyone is welcome.

NEWS FLASH!!

CLPC has hired a new Director of Student Ministry. Kim Angle will begin her ministry with us in early March. Ms. Angle is a 2012 graduate of North Park University with a degree in Youth Ministry. She previously served CLPC as a summer intern in 2011 and was the 15-month intern with us from May 2012 to August 2013. Since leaving CLPC, Kim has been serving as Associate Director of Youth Ministry at Lafayette-Orinda Presbyterian Church (outside of San Francisco). Kim is famous for her quick smile, contagious sense of humor and deep faith in Christ. If you know Kim, you love her. If you don't know her, you will love her! We are very blessed to have Kim permanently joining our staff team. You'll hear more about Kim as her March start date draws nearer.

But you may be wondering, what about Daniel Wheeler? Please read on!

Three months ago the Session asked Daniel Wheeler along with Jimmy McGregor to give full-time leadership for the "R&D" (short for "research and development") initiative. When Kim begins her ministry at CLPC in March, Daniel can start transitioning to his new "R&D" role. Jimmy will also transition to "R&D" from his current role as Coordinator of Men's Ministry. Session has planned for Daniel's salary during the two-year "R&D" initiative. Jimmy will work with "R&D" as unpaid staff, as he did with his role in Men's Ministry.

These changes are part of Session's bigger vision to embark on a two-year experiment we're calling "R&D." The session is aware that our world is changing in a way that will require CLPC to make adjustments in the future. This two-year experiment, using a portion of our staff and membership resources, will help us to explore new paradigms of being a disciple-multiplying congregation in the Clear Lake Community.

Our current plan is that "R&D" begin with the formation of a small core team alongside Jimmy and Daniel. After some weeks of prayer, study and research, that core team will extend an open invitation to a larger number (fifty people or so) in the congregation. This larger group will form 3-5 missional communities under the leadership of the core team. The missional communities will form a collective identity as a missional village for the purposes of accountability and resources. What we're experimenting with is the idea of being church without heavy reliance on facility or programs while focusing on reproducible discipling relationships with neighbors of all kinds.

Please keep Kim, Daniel and Jimmy in your prayers during this season of transition. The "R&D" initiative is an exciting vision from Session with dynamic implications requiring our fervent prayer and ongoing conversation. I am excited about how these next two years will impact our collective call to follow Jesus Christ.