What Kind of game is Jesus playing at, telling us to be perfect as God is perfect. That’s impossible we say. No one is perfect. And what about; “Turn the other cheek!” “Give some one your cloak and your shirt! “Go the extra mile.” “Love your enemies!” Are we supposed to just lay down like a beaten dog when someone attacks us? “Pray for our enemies?” Why? They would never pray for us! Come on get real! That’s not the way to survive in the real world. It’s an eye for an eye. Hit me and I hit you back. Persecute or bully me and I will get even if it takes the rest of my life. Then Jesus goes on to cap off these impossible behaviors saying, “Oh yes, and besides all that, be flawless. Perfect, holy!” RIIIGGGHTTT!

It is no wonder we Christians have developed really elaborate techniques for avoiding these commands, impossible and offensive as they are. WE have turned them into spiritual ideals, directed at our souls, not at the outward behavior we exhibit to the world; behavior that makes us hoard stuff, bomb our enemies, and settle for being what one writer calls “spiritual slackers.” Jesus commands are too hard. They demand something we cannot deliver. This text from the Sermon on the Mount shows us Jesus at his “ornery” best, calling us to account for our very lives. But we turn away and attempt to turn them in spiritual mush, suitable for a Hallmark card. As Steven Colbert of the Colbert Report said yesterday:

“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are , or we have to acknowledge he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.” Steven Colbert, The Colbert Report Feb. 19, 2011(http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2hTF9O/www.bordom.net/view/50032/Colbert_quote)

Where did Jesus get this idea? The answer lies in the Jewish past. From the earliest days of the Israelite people there was and understanding that God called the people to a different way of life from that that existed in the world around them. Leviticus, a book we seldom read or even preach, outlines for the chosen people of God an ethical way of living. It sets down what has come to be called the Holiness code of Israel. It lays out the laws and rules of how they were to live. It was a hard lifestyle to live. Even then the people attempted to turn these commands into spiritual practices that would gain them access to the love and grace of God. Take some time and read Leviticus. It will either scare you or make you laugh at some to the absurdity. But it is there for a reason. It is there to provide the framework for how people were to live out the covenant relationship that God had set with the people from the time of Abraham all the way through Moses. Not only “does Leviticus outline our internal spiritual integrity but also our outward behavior in daily life, in the home and in the field, in our words to God and in our words to others; in the neighborhood and in the courtroom; in how the condition of our hearts affects the conduct of our relationships on a day to day basis, it calls us to live it out. At the heart of the Israel’s faith was Love the Lord your God, with your heart, your soul, your mind; and to love your neighbor as your self. In every one of the first three gospels this phrase is spoken. It is, as Jesus said the summation of the whole law. “Go and do likewise.”
How we love God is evident in every action we take. And in taking these actions we bring the holiness of God to bear upon the world and the people around us. “You shall be holy for I the Lord your God am holy!” And Jesus matches that same phrase, Saying “Be perfect as your heavenly father (God) is perfect.” Our behavior toward others witnesses, for good or ill, to the very character and nature of the God we worship and serve. This connection is so vital that in both Leviticus and Matthew, the verses outlining our behavior ends with the same phrase “For I am the Lord your God. I am holy” You too will be holy.
Think for a minute of the old cartoons where an angel appears on the shoulder of a character caught in an ethical dilemma. Suddenly a red suited devil lands on the other shoulder. The good conscience encourages right behavior while the bad conscience encourages self-indulgence that causes harm. With every action we make, God speaks to us and says to us “Remember, I am the Lord your God, and I have made you holy. Whenever we open our mouth, open our door, extend our hand in gestures kind or rude, our neighbors catch glimpses of the Lord our God, the Holy One.
The problem is that we have made holiness something unattainable. When talk about being holy, it makes us uncomfortable. It is fine for God to be Holy, but we have a pretty good sense that most of us are not holy- or holy enough. The reality is that we are never holy enough. In fact, our discomfort on the matter has become a commonly understood expression of disdain, “holier than thou.”
Most of us think of holiness or perfection as reserved for a few exceptional people of faith, like Mother Teresa, or the Pope, or The Dalai Lama. Holy people live far removed from us and do with their lives things we cannot, or more likely will not, do with ours. It is our way of letting ourselves off the holiness hook.
To live and believe that way is not Biblical. These texts calls us to remember that we are all on the hook for being holy. God says to Moses, “Speak to all the congregation of Israel and say to them ‘You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.” Everyone is called to be holy. “Being holy is what anyone created in God’s image is called to be, or better put, to do.”
In these texts, holiness is not characterized by and ethereal state of being, but being in relationship with people and with God every day. You are holy when, harvesting grain, you choose to leave some of the grain you drop or more uncut near the edges, for those who are hungry. Holiness is not always about making grand sacrifices to God or speaking pious prayers. Holiness is not stealing what belongs to somebody else or telling a lie, even if it is harmless. Holiness is being a good employer, paying someone on time for work done. Holiness is confronting those that persecute and bully and calling them to account for their behavior; To turn the other cheek, to pray for them, to show them a different way, the way of Love.
Holiness or perfection is not reserved for God alone or for the hermit in How can I be holy, I’m just me, I’m not a saint, I’m a sinner who falls and fails. The answer lies in how we see holiness. Holiness is when we hold out our hand in forgiveness. Holiness is when we offer food, water, clothing, and shelter to those who have none. Holiness happens when we treat one another as child of God, no matter their race, religion, creed, color, gender or orientation. Holiness is rooted in who we were created to be. We are called to be holy in our life together in the neighborhood, recognizing we are not perfect, but our perfection comes when we place our trust in the one who gave his life for us all. Jesus Christ.

However, before I respond directly to that letter, I thought it appropriate to apply some basic principles of exegesis to the churchwide invitation issued on February 2, 2011. Having no time to put together a full exegetical exposition, a shorter, more pithy reading will have to suffice.

My response will consist of a short word study, a consideration of honor and shame, an evaluation of the letter’s sacred texture, and finally, by means of an RSVP to the invitation, a careful consideration of one of the claims of the letter.

My allegiances have been and continue to be quite transparent: to live out my call to be Minister of Word and Sacrament within the Presbyterian Church (USA), teaching, preaching and doing ministry among and within the world that God so loves.

WORD STUDY

Since the letter is written in the maternal language of the majority of US-based Presbyterians, very little translation is needed. However, there are language matters worth noting.

Congregations: As is evident from the Wordle word cloud attached to this blog (click on it to see a bigger version of it), the central concern of the letter appears to be “congregations.” This is a structural, rather than a theological letter. God is mentioned three times; Christ twice (not including its inclusion in Christology); the Spirit of God, once; and Jesus is never named. By contrast, congregations are mentioned fully nine times in a letter of just over 1300 words.

Other often repeated words are PC(USA), new, and Fellowship, and, (less frequently), Reformed.

The word study hints at a focus on matters congregational, even above matters reformed and without reference to connection or connectionality. As the Wordle illustrates, the authors center their discussion on congregationalism, a structure akin to our Baptist and UCC kinfolk.

HONOR AND SHAME

As in the ancient world, so in today’s world honor and shame have tremendous impact on the way in which people order their lives. However, marks of honor and shame differ somewhat between these cultures.

For these signatories, honor is marked by the numbers of those who are gathering around this proposal and their commitment. The nature of the commitment seems to be to one another, to the proposal, or both. In addition, honor is marked by drastic intervention on the PC(USA) by the signatories.

They demonstrate their honor by envisioning a new future for like-minded congregations; changing course and radically transforming traditional denominations. Their future honor is to be marked by a clear, concise theological core based on classic biblical, Reformed/Evangelical traditions, and a pledge to live according to those beliefs, regardless of cultural pressures to conform ; nurturing leadership; the larger mission of the people of God around the world; healthy, missional congregations; and a pattern of fellowship.

They value a minimalist structure; session control of property; joint ventures within specialized ministries; and an atmosphere of support. They propose, as their honorable end, a fellowship; a new synod; and ultimately a new denomination or reconfiguration of PCUSA.

By contrast, the following appear to be marks of shame: unending controversy, dishonoring of one’s calling; leaving a poor legacy; steady decline; loss of financial strength in the governing bodies; rancorous, draining, internal disputes; the appearance of (but not the actuality) of schism; divisions around scripture, authority, Christology, the extent of salvation; creeping universalism; and separate worlds only held together by property and pension.

Honor in the ancient world is strikingly different from the honor of these signatories. In the ancient world, honor is marked by loyalty to one’s family. This is why Paul addresses his church gatherings as αδελφοι, sisters and brothers. It is only in the context of this religious kinship that Paul can admonish the Corinthians: “the eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I do not need you.’”

By contrast, these signatories mark honor by the proclamation of their right to schism given certain matters which they deem shameful, primarily numerical and financial decline and the propensity of Presbyterians to think, and thus to argue with one another.

US historians will recognize that the signatories’ description of honor parallels less the ancient world than the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the 150 year old articles of Confederation of the southern states of the US. These draw on modernist, European and Enlightenment ideals of individual sovereignty and the right of individuals to determine what it is they believe. In short, honor for these signatories is a profoundly American cultural phenomenon bearing little resemblance to biblical honor.

The signatories’ description of shame is divided into two categories: capitalist shame (decline of membership, finances, issues of property and pension) and shame based around broad theological divisions: biblical interpretation, authority, Christology and the extent of salvation.

The first of these categories of shame is deeply modernist. Since success is measured by size and wealth in capitalist North America, it stands to reason that shrinkage of both is seen as failure.
The second hearkens back to several historical periods of the church, but, for the purpose of this exegesis, the 19th century. Current debates around these issues continue to center around US modernist/pre-modernist, or exegetical/fundamentalist schisms. The leaning of these signatories is clearly on the latter historical side in each instance.

Honor and shame for these signatories, then, is defined primarily within the northern, US-based, European-American ideals of the 19th century and early 20th century. The letter, on its face, seems to be a call back (or forward) to modernist values of separation upon disagreement and radical individualism, and pre-modernist/fundamentalist elevations of all aspects of religion, regardless of changing cultural norms (e.g. slaves obey your masters).

SACRED TEXTURE
Sacred texture is an examination of the ways in which an author puts forward her ideas about the life of religion. It includes:

Deity: about which the authors are mostly silent. At the end of the letter, God is designated as the one who calls. Beyond that, all three persons of the Triune God are adjectival: God describing a kingdom and a people; Christ, describing family members at the beginning of the letter and a body; and the Holy Spirit; describing vitality. Notably, with one exception, the authors of this letter do not claim the Deity as the primary, sovereign actor.

Divine history: generally, the authors of this letter say nothing about divine history. This does not appear to be their concern, except as it comes to the nurture of church leaders. They offer no vision of a holy telos, no vision of what this coming kingdom might portend.

Human redemption is a point of contention, but the authors do not, in this letter, spell out their differences. (They may do so in the white paper, which I have not read). The letter does, three times, mention mission or its derivative “missional.” However the nature and telos of this mission remain undefined in this letter.

Human commitment The values to which these authors are committed are, in their own words, minimal structure, session control of property, joint ventures in mission and an atmosphere of support.

Religious community is marked by a fellowship of like-minded individuals rather than by the contention of Jesus’ first disciples or of the early church. These like-minded individuals pursue their mission not by taking the bare minimum, as Jesus commanded, but by taking their pensions and property with them. Human beings, further, are called to be committed to healthy, growing, missional congregations, the global missio Dei (although whether that includes the revelation of the Triune God to Christians of the global south in Accra and Belhar is not stated) and to undescribed “patterns of fellowship.”

Ethics in this community include eschewing current, PCUSA national and international structures of global missions, national ministries, education, women’s leadership, and youth ministry for individual structures which they will vet and approve. Their ethics also include nurturing leadership, although surely this is outside of the current structure of PCUSA seminaries.

Analysis of sacred texture: This letter is primarily an invitation to a new ecclesiology, an ecclesiology based on a gathering of like-minded individuals to do that which they understand to be the global missio Dei. Their theology, teleology and soteriology remain unstated. Therefore, it is unclear to what kind of theological like-mindedness the church is being summoned by this invitation.

What is clear is that their ecclesiology parallels exactly the cultural norms of 21st-century neo-imperialism, neo-colonialism and neo-liberal globalism which purports to bring the Western ideal to the rest of the world without first determining whether that ideal is in fact ideal for the rest of the world or asking what the rest of the world might consider to be ideal. In this matter, the authors are correct in asserting that their thirty-five years of fighting against various calls to ministry are beside the point.

HOW WE GOT TO THIS PLACE — AN RSVP

The brethren who wrote this letter to the church have, on February 7th, asked that we read their letter rather than to consider the signatories. This I have tried to do. Some will claim I have done so unfairly. This is entirely possible; I have never claimed to other than a subjective knowledge, baptized but still quite human.

Still there is one phrase from the letter with which I must take direct issue: “How we got to this place is less important than how we move forward.” (para 3.) Please consider my response to this phrase my RSVP to the churchwide invitation. For indeed, my brothers, how we got to this place may well be the crux of the matter.

We got to this place, as a denomination, by praying to the Triune God and thinking as two or three gathered together about the authority of scripture, Christology, and the extent of salvation.

We got to this place, as a denomination, by ordaining groups that, until fairly recent history, were considered ineligible for ordained ministry: groups of color, women, the divorced, and members of the church under the age of 21.

We got to this place, as a denomination by suffering the creation of fellowships (like the Layman) in opposition to the Confession of 1967 and silently enduring the refusal of churches to live into their financial obligations to the whole denomination.

We got to this place because, in 1978, we declared that seminaries of the Presbyterian Church (USA), should be safe places of non-discrimination for all people.

We got to this place by acting on our belief that the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper are not ours to control but are the property of the God whose grace abounds beyond our human understanding.

We got to this place by following the Christ who was belittled by the religious leaders of his day for his breaking of biblical commands (notably the fourth commandment and laws regarding eating abomination); and by following the Spirit that did not even require of Cornelius the mark of the covenant (circumcision) before it fell on him, bringing him into the church.

Most recently, we got to this place by affirming as a General Assembly the anti-racist, Reformed confession written in Belhar, South Africa that affirmed: God has entrusted the church with reconciliation, therefore,

“any teaching which attempts to legitimate such forced separation by appeal to the gospel, and is not prepared to venture on the road of obedience and reconciliation, but rather, out of prejudice, fear, selfishness and unbelief, denies in advance the reconciling power of the gospel, must be considered ideology and false doctrine.”

This year marks the sesquicentennial of the beginning of the US Civil War, a war which caused the great schism in the Presbyterian Church.

My brothers, I fear, sadly, that issues of property and like-mindedness, difference in biblical interpretation and authority and an unwillingness to be part of a larger body that fundamentally challenged their adherence to slaveocracy were exactly the reasons that the fellowships of congregations in the south created new seminaries, new synods and ultimately a new denomination.

Indeed, my brothers, my exegesis suggests that “how we got to this place,” and thus where we go from here, is precisely the point at issue.

My brothers, you invite the church into an adventure that is not at all new, but historically very familiar. It is an adventure marked by the European cultural norms of individual self-government, the right of property, a modernist take on liberty, a neo-colonialist model of mission, and a pre-modern understanding of biblical texts. This adventure has as its intent to grow the church in and for the twenty-first century, with neither consideration nor validation of how we got to this place.

I admit I am not thus tempted, and must respectfully decline.

Instead, with God’s help, I will remain in the Presbyterian Church, USA, and with my denomination I will follow the Christ whose followers dwindled from 5000 to zero over the course of three years, yet who calls us still to follow; who has been demonstrated a capable healer of the deathly ill and has revealed himself to be the resurrection and the life.

With God’s help, I will remain in this denomination, following the Spirit who fell on eunuch and centurion, and immigrant peoples in and from every language group of the Roman-conquered world, regardless of biblical adherence to seminal commands such as sabbath, kashrut and circumcision.

With God’s help, I will remain in this denomination and follow the God who promises that, at the time of the coming kingdom, lion and lamb will lie down together, who calls for justice to roll down like waters, and yet desires mercy and not a sacrifice.

With God’s help, I will remain in this denomination, living out my call with energy, intelligence, imagination and love, as I seek to do ministry with and among the contentious, shrinking, justice-seeking, mercy-doing, humbly-walking, peacemaking sisters and brothers of the Presbyterian Church (USA), who although we are dying yet, see, we live.

Even with God’s help, I will be imperfect in my discipleship. Yet will I follow, relying on Jesus, my high priest, to make intercession for me; asking the Spirit of God to give me speech; and confessing with this denomination, and with the church in every age–in life, in death and in life after death, we belong to God.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Rev. Margaret Aymer Oget, Ph. D.
Minister of Word and Sacrament

I am responding to the invitation offered in what has become known as the “Deathly Ill” letter issued by The Fellowship PC(USA). That the church is “deathly ill” is an issue not so black and white…. and this, in my opinion, is what seems to be the difficulty of our day… the desire to make everything black and white.

Is this unique to our era?
Hardly.
Black and White.
Male and Female.
Gentile and Jew.
Free and Slave.
All of these debates have challenged the church to her core.

“Numerical growth, financial stability, viability in our communities.” These are the first things you mention in your letter? As a pastor I know the reality and angst of these losses but I also know the cost involved when patiently waiting for… and speaking with courage for…justice.

The kind of justice Jesus taught and lived.

What does it mean to be Reformed?
Some of you who wrote this letter are old enough
to have taught me what it means to be Reformed.

I’m a child of the church.
I’ve continually listened through the years.
And unlike the majority of my generation I remained in the church.

I learned that being Reformed has everything to do with
God’s calling,
God’s loving.

The church,
and yes, some of you,
taught me to have the courage and the compassion
to live what we say we believe….
that Jesus taught us to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Along the journey of faith
we did what other churches refused to do
and continue to refuse.

We changed our Biblical and theological claims concerning African Americans
and had courage to renounce our racist past.

We changed our Biblical and theological claims concerning Women
and had the courage to renounce our sexist past.

And here we are again.

You want us to believe that waiting and speaking for justice
for GLBT brothers and sisters
is not the same,
that this time the Bible won’t budge,
won’t allow light for any other perspective
than the one you all hold.
(And yes, this is really what this angst is all about.
You all have made that very, very clear.)

And yet, scholarship has been offered
just as it was in the past
shedding grace enough
and light enough
to once again
move us into the direction of justice.

You say you want the very things
people who have been long silenced want,
and yet you continue to bolster walls
designed to segregate and silence.
(Where are the women who have signed your letter?
Even after clarification they do not appear. )

Like mindedness,
property,
and pension?

I’ll hold out for justice.
Others before me have.
It’s in our Reformed blood to do so.

Here is my RSVP,
I’ll not take you up on your invitation.
I’ll wait and speak for justice
knowing all the while
it comes at a cost.

“Glory to God in the highest, and peace on earth to those with whom God is pleased…” Luke 2: 14

Here we are. Here is the world, the day is finally here. Everything seems to be changing, yet nothing has changed at all. There are wars and rumors of wars; the poor we always have with us. What is to be done?
We can complain. We can contort our faces into frowns and whines. We can howl in the darkness or pull in our hopes and snuggle together against the cold world. We can string a line of colored lights on an artificial tree and try to make merry. What can anybody do?
Little wonder that our life is spent in lamentation rather than celebration. For many in our world it is Good Friday again. Crucifixion is always in the news- wars, refugees, sickness, political oppression, immorality, death. The gloom can be overwhelming.
This day, like all other days, there are crosses everywhere, and the news is just a little more encouraging than it was last year. So we gather in church to sing songs, confess our sins, and wring our hands in despair, and beg for mercy. The world gets worse and so do we.
Then what’s this? On the coldest of cold nights among the most enslaved of all oppressed peoples, in the most insignificant backwater town, it happens. A group of poor shepherds is startled by the flutter of angel wings. The valley rumbles with heavenly song, and the dark skies above explode in signs, wonders, and light. A young woman sings a song of victory and a stable warms with the cry of a new born child.
Gradually the news spreads. People grow restless, tyrants tremble, and Caesar’s legions are alerted. A star leads even foreigners to Bethlehem. Angels sing before the once silent poor and prophets shout in the wilderness the time has come. The child cries and the drama begins.
Once again we of little faith are wrenched from our despair. Once again we learn what we so easily forget; God with us. It has happened so often in our history, in our lives, suddenly God is there. Why must it always surprise us on Christmas Day? Let the whole world resound with the shout:
God is with us, doing for us what we cannot do for ourselves. Everything has changed. Nothing is fixed or final now. Wedging into our tidy, dull little world, the Anointed One takes charge and leads us to freedom. In your life and mind, in the whole, hurting, sad old world, God is with us. EMMANUEL!
Hear the raucous chorus this day. Let your feet move to a new beat. Let cynicism give way to Good News. Today nothing is appropriate except Joy. Come to Bethlehem and see; see the whole world turned upside down by the God who is pleased to be one of us, one with us, one for us.
Rejoice and be glad.

Song: Joy to the World

Prayer: God of Joy, quicken our hearts this day as we welcome the Christ Child once again. Amen.

Thought for the Day: What difference does it make in your life that God is born in our world this day?