Dear Ken,
Thank you for your thoughtful letter sent to Senators. Here are some but by no means all of my possible responses.
First, the Ministers Council is not engaging the Jerusalem Council process to lead to a vote, we are forced to a vote by a bylaws amendment proposed by the PSW Ministers Council. The process will help prepare us for the vote AND to speak in any other way the Senate might choose. Since there has been no denominational process of dialogue and discernment on differences over homosexuality and underlying divisions, we have chosen to engage such a process. The limited time frame forced by a vote in August is truly not sufficient to do more than begin conversation on divisions that demand a far more substantive process than time now allows
Second, you did suggest a Jerusalem Council but once the suggestion was relayed to the Senate it was recognized as providential and took on a life of its own. Even beyond the Senate as it has taken shape and been implemented God is at work through it in ways no one could have imagined. At this point you have no idea what actually occurs at a Jerusalem Council, as indicated by your descriptions that sound like distorted impressions conveyed to you by others. I suggest that you take the time to attend one, perhaps the one scheduled for LA.
The process is not at all about “getting the heart right” and “unity” but in both putting forth our differences and asking whether we can go on together and if God might show us a way forward together that we cannot imagine. Perhaps the answer will be no or perhaps yes.
In the ABC we have repressed the subject because of threats of some and fears of others. Perhaps that is neurosis on both sides. It is past time to talk together.
It is clear from what occurs in these gatherings that the issue is indeed not limited to homosexuality but is about the Bible, some say biblical authority, but I would say biblical interpretation. It is also clear from many comments at these events that the divide is about differences between those who focus on individual piety and those who focus on social justice. The divide is great but many persons at the gatherings have expressed openness to hear and understand what others believe and why.
One side believes that traditional biblical interpretations are the only possible way to read the Bible. They claim that anyone who views its meaning differently than they do has rejected biblical authority in favor of their pet beliefs or Baptist principles.
Others say that Jesus promised to send the Spirit to bring further truth than could previously be borne, and just as consciousness was raised by the Spirit over time on such issues as slavery and the role of women in the world and the Church, so too consciousness is now raised on homosexuality so that the Spirit presses us back to reread the Bible with previous filters removed.
I hear no one on either side discounting biblical authority.
It seems to me that the Ministers Council cannot be simultaneously both irrelevant and engaged in a strategic, bellwether project. Furthermore, while the Ministers Council is an organization of members it also has always represented all ministers through the Code of Ethics, advocacy, provision of resources and events, representation on the General Board, General Executive Council, and many other denominational bodies, and now through Together in Ministry that funds groups and conferences for all. The General Board and General Board Executive Committee often seek our input and labor on clergy issues, as does the General Executive Council, which has requested last November and this April reports on our process.
There is much more that could be said. I thank you for taking the time to write and look forward to seeing you again at Senate.
Blessings,
Kate Havey
Executive Director
Ministers Council
February 21, 2005
Kate:
For the record, I considered my letter to be a personal letter sent to all senators and I am hoping for personal responses and intend to reply to each. Your offer to put it on the web site and publish responses takes it beyond my expectations. Feel free to share it with whomever you feel appropriate.
Let me respond to your letter. I am pleased that you joined the fray by sending it to all. That gets your thinking on the table as well.
I am glad that the Ministers Council had the courage to take the lead in addressing this issue. I feel it was our proposed amendment that forced the issue and a deadline serves to focus on it without malingering. My feeling good that a process was initiated has been mitigated by what I consider its weakness in accomplishing what is hoped for in the time available. My statements were based on the written report of the meeting in Upstate New York on December 1, 2004. My "two minute" reference was based on the time reported that each had to share his thinking. I have been invited to attend the L.A. meeting April 14 and will gladly do so. I waited until after the Las Vegas meeting to mail the letter. After seeing the proposed agenda for August, I sense that everyone still is afraid of "threats and fears" and that even there the issue could be tiptoed around with no real satisfaction from either side. I hoped that my letter would be a way to open a deeper and thus more satisfying dialog than can happen with an open mike where one can only make a brief statement.
My statement about the Ministers Council being perceived as irrelevant by many in our region is because it has not dealt with issues such as the present one. It has seemed to be a "go along" organization. What is happening now is what is making it relevant. What I said about its place in the American Baptist hierarchy reflects the opinion of some who have served on the General Board. In basketball the point guard is small but directs the flow of play for the big men. Maybe the Ministers Council should have that image.
Let me touch two points that you raise. First, you say that we all accept biblical authority but the issue is interpretation. That was exactly true at the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council. The issue to be resolved was which interpretation is the Spirit-led correct one. Many sincerely could not picture Gentiles included in the covenant with Israel without circumcision and they certainly had biblical precedent to back them up. James opted for another biblical conclusion based on other scriptures that represented a progress in revelation, and a decision was made. Since we agree on biblical authority, let's get to the interpretations and decide which is the true projection of apostolic Christianity for our day.
I see a parallel with our Supreme Court and the authority of the Constitution. Their decision must be grounded in an interpretation of that authoritative document. They hear arguments and then argue among themselves, and may not even get to the "right" conclusion, but they do decide. Further, they focus on one case and decide on that and let the ripple effects happen. The Ministers Council cannot solve all of the secondary problems their decision raises but that shouldn't keep them from making a decision on the narrow issue at hand. Second, about individual piety and social justice. Can I substitute "spiritual formation" for individual piety which sounds pejorative? This represents the polarization left over from the past century. Neither is the primary Christian message. Both flow from a commitment to Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. The gospel created the church and not vice versa. Without the church there is no one to stand for social justice in the name of Christ. Without a self that is surrendered to Christ there is no one to grow in Christ who will eventually stand for social justice. The unbelievable growth of Christianity in Africa and in other third world places is not based on the message of social justice. (See "Whose Religion Is Christianity? The Gospel Beyond The West" by Lamin Sanneh of Yale Divinity School.)
"Social justice" has become a code term for liberal Christianity.
That's what politics does. The 8th Century B.C. prophets that proclaimed justice did so within the Torah covenant. Their prophetic message was that the ritual and even sacrificial part of the Torah was not enough. Had the whole "Torah been lived out, justice would have flowed down like waters.
When you abstract "justice" from Amos or Isaiah and put in into an American political context you have changed apples to oranges. Then like an unstable element, it changes to "civil rights" and you are now on a secular foundation and not a biblical authority one. This needs to worked on.
I hope this get us on down the road.
In Christ,
Ken Savage
Senator from PSW
February 28, 2005
Dear Ken,
Thank you for resolving the communication dilemma caused by having an incorrect email address for me. I am pleased that you agreed to open the Senate conversation you initiated just over a week ago by your letter to the Senators, for all to observe through the website; that the most recent correspondence of a week ago has now reached me; and that the spirit of the communication you have generated exemplifies the Spirit of Christ. For too long we have witnessed a practice of intracontinental ballistic letters apparently designed to tear down rather then to build up. Since we are called to edify the Church we had best be about that work.
Here are my concerns with the strategy you appear to expect from the Ministers Council. Your language about the perceived failings of the strategy you have observed includes words such as “malingering,” “weakness,” “tiptoe around,” and “not deal with issues.” In fact the strategy that has been embraced involves intentional focus on our mission to strengthen ministerial leaders even as discernment and dialogue have been allowed the space to proceed.
The Ministers Council has a history of “dealing with the issue” of homosexuality (see MC History on Homosexuality website link under Jerusalem Council) and through the Senate made a decision in 1996 not to waste all our resources on belaboring this matter. Despite the convictions of some, from the various perspectives resident in the body we agreed by consensus that we have not yet discerned the mind of Christ. That perspective is undergirded by a straw poll at the February 24 Jerusalem Council in Michigan that narrowly refused to support the proposed PSW amendment to the Ministers Council Bylaws. What we have by the grace of God consistently managed to do even in the most intense exchanges at Senate 2003 is resist embracing an un-Christlike spirit in our manner of dealing with one another. From my observations of current events in many denominations that is a major accomplishment, indeed a miracle.
You state, “In basketball the point guard is small but directs the flow of play for the big men. Maybe the Ministers Council should have that image.” In fact I believe that the Ministers Council does have that image of directing the flow of play for ministerial leaders. We have directed the flow of play through Together in Ministry, which in 2004 involved 1,210 ministerial leaders in covenant groups; through the Strong in the Lord conference in 2004 and soon through the Wait on the Lord conference on spiritual formation in 2006; through an enhanced website with burgeoning resources and communications potential; through representation and advocacy on all major denominational governance bodies; and so on.
Your final section of the letter settles on authority and interpretation of Scripture. Thank you for agreeing that biblical authority is embraced by persons of all persuasions on the matter of how the Bible addresses homosexuality. In fact many persons on the conservative side of the spectrum have requested information to understand how persons persuaded of the progressive interpretation deal with Scripture. I direct you and them to the 1996 video biblical interpretation on homosexuality by Manfred Brauch and Bill Herzog, which may be ordered through www.ministerscouncil.com under the Resources link, and also to a Word document prepared by Steve Jones under the website Jerusalem Council Suggested Readings link. As you know the Ministers Council is seeking to be even-handed as resource and facilitator of discernment and dialogue, and to that end I have requested from a member of the American Baptist Evangelicals Board permission to post a document that he is circulating on biblical interpretation as it relates to homosexuality, and implications for actions planned for the General Board and the Biennial in Denver this June. Every member of the ministerial leadership will benefit from understanding how our colleagues across the spectrum view and seek to address the conflict among us.
Now I have a question for you. Do you agree that faith without works is dead, that Jesus Christ calls us both to practices of spiritual formation and to works of justice? I look forward to your response.
Blessings,
Kate Harvey
Executive Director
Ministers Council
March 5, 2005
Kate,
Let me expand my thinking on your question at the end of your Feb. 28 e mail. "Do you agree that faith without works is dead, that Jesus Christ calls us both to practices of spiritual formation and to works of justice?" My response is, "Yes, of course I agree, but let me put it in categories of my thinking and see what you think."
I believe in discipleship evangelism, that Jesus calls us to discipleship from the beginning, and this leads us to the experience of spiritual formation comparable to Jesus' "training of the twelve." In Matt. 10, he sent the disciples out on a limited mission with a limited message as training for their later mission to the world. Our discipleship training challenges our inherent narcissism (ego and ethnocentricity) and leads us to reach out to all in their various needs with the message in word and deed of the reign of Christ--his Kingdom. We do not create the Kingdom, but we recognize it ("unless one is born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God") and embrace it as the pearl of great value. This contrast with other kingdoms helps us see them as having overlapping goals with Christ's Kingdom, but there is a power struggle as to who is in charge. Other kingdoms use other methods, and an example is the kingdom of politics. If not surrendered to Christ, politics takes on a life of its own and becomes a "principality and power" that is in many ways opposed to Christ.
Jacques Ellul in, Living Faith: Belief And Doubt In A Perilous World, has a chapter entitled, "Politics: The Realm of the Demonic," in which he says that the object of politics is power which can be used for good or evil, but its method is to polarize, stereotype, distort and finally to control. I remember hearing Martin Marty speaking in a civil rights context defend the political necessity of pinning all the evil you can on an opposition individual as a means of incarnating the issues. We do that regularly, but is that the process of the Kingdom?
In our two party democracy politics works by being adversarial. But when "justice" gets transferred to a political base, then Christians are put on an adversarial relationship that expresses the polarization of politics. Liberal Christians have an affinity to liberal politics and vice versa. That's healthy as long as we can view each other through the lens of our common relationship to Christ. Then we can discuss what political decisions best reflect his will. I suggest that what turned us in a political direction was one of our own, Walter Rauschenbausch, whose thrust came to be known as the "social gospel" which in many minds was expressed by social action. This became the "works" that demonstrated a live faith. It was a short step from seeing justification as being not primarily by faith in Christ but by political affiliation and action. Now the "religious left" is complaining that the "religious right" are now into politics. How many challenging sermons did I hear at one time that we have a responsibility as Christians to be political? Who went there first? I believe that much of the un Christlike spirit we experience has been brought over from politics on both sides. Christ's reign can be found in varying degrees in our own individual hearts, in the church and in the varying structures of society. That's true of evil, also.
On another level, James says that faith without works is dead. He doesn't say "works of justice," although it can be extended to that. Who decides what works of justice is may be another story. James is wisdom literature which stresses common sense, like the Proverbs. His statement about the evidence of faith is like several in 1 John that speak of practical evidences of the Christian life (2:5b,6; 2:9; 2:29; 3:6!; 3:10; 3:19,20; 3:24; 5:2), and I say "amen" to these as well. In two passages where Paul stresses that we are justified by faith through the grace of God, he immediately emphasizes the natural results will be "good works." (Eph. 2:8-10; Titus 3:4-8) In Romans Paul's primary contrast is justification by faith and not by the "works of the Torah."
justification is the declaration that one's self or actions is O. K. Was I justified in mailing the original letter to all the Senators? If you tell me that I was justified, then I accept that by faith. If you think not, then any amount of my "works" in following up with letters like this will not justify me in your sight.
I know this is more than you asked for, but I believe it is the kind of work that needs to be done if we are to examine our assumptions and understand each other. I want to respond to some other issues you raise in your letter, but enough for now. Please critique my thinking. I welcome it.
Now a question for you. The Ministers Council's role is to be even handed. That is the judge's role so that each side can present its case. It is the jury's job to weigh the evidence and make a decision. Was it the leaders decision to act as judge with the whole council being the jury, or is the Ministers Council acting as judge for the whole denomination? If so, who is acting as the jury and what is the venue where evidence will be weighed and a decision reached? Or is the intention to have a perpetual hung jury?
In Christ,
Ken
Senator from PSW
March 14, 2005
Kate:
In your February 28 letter you and others refer to the filters that are between us and the Scriptures. I would use "filters" of those unconscious assumptions that keep us from seeing reality clearly and "lenses" for those that we choose to clarify reality. We all have both. We all have a basic view of reality just as we read the top lines of the eye chart. The bottom lines get fuzzy, and our consciousness is raised to the need of some viewpoint to clarify. We make a choice and some things are clear, but others are distorted. The trick is to recognize our lens of choice and see what clears up.
As Robert Bellah pointed out in Habits of the Heart, most Americans view reality through the lens of exaggerated individualism, and we don't even know it. Liberal Christians to some extent view the Scripture through the lens of Schleiermacher who in his response to the Enlightenment focused on religious experience. That was a safe port from the storms of rationalism and higher Biblical criticism. Is the Bible a deposit of truth that shapes our experience or of religious experiences that shape our view of truth? To reflect Barth, is God Subject or Object? Did the disciples meet the risen Christ, or did they have a subjective experience? William James could give a wonderful analysis of conversion in his Varieties of Religions Experience without having to decide about truth claims. I suspect that some of the responses I have received that speak of higher progressive meaning to what the Scriptures seem to teach reflects this difference.
I have consciously chosen to view reality through the lens of Scriptural understanding. Of course, that is being deepened and broadened, but until I am shown otherwise I believe I have a clearer view of reality. For example, we are all sinners from the beginning--self centered by the very nature of things--and not just corrupted by culture and civilization. (I would love to claim that Noble Savage described by Rousseau as my ancestor.) I disagree that "there is no such thing as a bad boy." I am saddened but not disillusioned by pedophile priests or by Jimmy Swaggart's prostitution encounter.
Let's revisit whether we are using Old Testament or New Testament lenses. As I said earlier, "justice" from the prophets is in an Old Testament context. The sin offerings were for unintentional sins. (Leviticus 4,5) Intentional sins had to be paid for, as in "an eye for an eye," before justice could be served. That is why Jesus' message about forgiveness was so radical. In fact, he made the ability to forgive as the evidence of discipleship. This would be possible because in his atoning death justice would be served and the ransom paid.
Waiting for justice pulls us back to the past. Forgiveness allows us to settle the past and get on to the future. Which lens reflects Jesus' teaching? This has corporate implications as well as individual. The Israelis and Palestinians will never balance the scales of justice since an exact eye for an eye will never happen. Could it be ironic if hanging on to social justice would have a part in keeping Martin Luther King's dream from being fulfilled? How would Christ's teaching of forgiveness apply?
There is a parallel in the field of psychology. In First Things, (Mar. 2005), Paul Vitz writes on "Psychology in Recovery." He compares what he calls "negative psychology" which focuses on traumatic experiences that shape us as having run its course. He believes the future is in "positive psychology" that works on understanding the healthy, fulfilled person and that virtues and character strengths lead to that. Negative psychology has led persons to believe they are determined by the past and has led to a widespread victim mentality having been shaped by past traumas, abuse, and neglect caused by other people. He cites the fact that an International Forgiveness Institute has been established at the University of Wisconsin and the A.P.A has published a book on forgiveness in psychotherapy by Enright and Fitzgibbon.
Which lens is closer to Jesus' teaching?
In Christ,
Ken Savage
Senator from PSW