Monday, November 14, 2005

The Theological Task Force's Humongous Dilemma


Does anyone else remember the Chippendales-tryout skit with Patrick Swayze and Chris Farley on Saturday Night Live? In the classic comedy sketch, the suave hunk Patrick Swayze and the rotund slob Chris Farley are the final two auditioners left in a tryout for a job as a Chippendales dancer (masculine cheesecake, if you’re not familiar with Chippendales). Swayze has all the moves, the look, the build. Farley has sweaty rolls of fat and a clueless but chipper earnestness.

The running joke is that the producer just can’t decide which guy to go with. Wow! It’s SUCH a tough decision. With Swayze’s charm and Farley’s fearless physical humor, the skit is a hoot.

So why do I keep picturing that skit when I think of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church?

Well, the Task Force just CAN’T decide about the big ordination question. It is SUCH a tough decision. I mean, think about it:

On the one hand, in opposition to homosexual practice being okay for Christians, you have:
· The clear text of the Bible, whose plain disapproval of homosexual practice Christians have always understood.
· The uniform moral belief and practice of the Christian church as long as there has been a church.
· Confirmation by what our Confessions teach.
· An express provision in our Constitution that turned into explicit law what had always been practiced implicitly.
· A definitive guidance, authoritative interpretations, and advisory opinions that also point out the incompatibility of homosexual practice with God’s will, Christian discipleship, and church leadership.
· Decisions by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission that further reinforce the Constitutional standard.
· Progressively more lopsided victories in churchwide constitutional votes that upheld standards opposed to homosexual practice.
· The magisterial exegetical work of Robert Gagnon that makes a biblical case against homosexual practice that no other scholar has successfully disputed.
· The witness of faithful Christian churches around the world who beg Presbyterians not to trifle with the faith by embracing homosexual practice.
· The stories of former homosexual persons who have found release and transformation in Jesus Christ.

Wow! That’s pretty awesome!

But, wait. We’d better see what’s lined up on the other hand. After all, in favor of homosexual ordination, you have, uh– Well, you’ve got some … hmmm … Well, there’s, um, there’s some:
· Sad stories about people who feel oppressed because they can’t freely practice forbidden sex.
· Yeah, and you’ve got some pretty darn strong personal opinion, too!
· And you’ve got the way the sexual-liberation tide is sweeping through a degenerate Western society. You’ve definitely got that.
· And, to top that off, you’ve got some really imaginative, uh, “interpretation” of some spare parts of the Bible that their commentators haven’t tossed out altogether quite yet.

So, line them up: biblical faithfulness on the one hand, and worldly wish fulfillment on the other. With a massive dilemma like this, golly! How’s a Theological Task Force to decide?

Well, they couldn’t. Discernment was not their strong suit. And that’s why I think of Farley and Swayze when the Theological Task Force comes to mind.

And that’s why the Task Force report fails Presbyterians. It neither directs us toward peace, unity, and purity nor corrects our moral failure of will. At General Assembly next summer, the report must be replaced, amended, or simply defeated.

(For a clear-eyed, much more serious analysis of the subject, take a look at the essay by Thomas Warren, pastor of Deltona (FL) Presbyterian Church, in The Layman Online’s letters to the editor on November 14, 2005.)

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

12:35 PM, November 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, anonymous(what courage!),
Jim is simply stating what is biblical, reasonable based on what is biblical and what is the truth.

Affirming what is true is NOT angry or hurtful. It is necessary to stand for what the Bible calls us to believe and do!

I'm sorry that you cannot see that.

12:51 PM, November 15, 2005  
Blogger Jim said...

Two comments above this, I deleted a comment by an anonymous commenter. It added nothing to the discussion, merely expressing mock sadness that I, the blogger, was so full of anger. Had it been a signed comment from someone willing to own up to it, I would have retained it.

After the original comment was posted and while I was deleting it, a reader jumped to my defense in the comment immediately above. I am sorry that now you cannot see the original comment he was commenting on. But once a comment has been deleted in Blogspot, it's gone. Poof!

Please be sure you sign in so that your comments can be posted with a name attached. I have a thing about anonymity! This blogger program should now accept comments only from those who have signed on, so it will not allow anonymous comments anymore. I'm learning as I go with this apparatus!

Jim Berkley

2:22 PM, November 15, 2005  
Blogger Jim said...

Mr. Mainline Protestant: I see that you don't see fit to include your real name with your comment. What's with the anonymity?

I can't see how it is ever a splendid idea to "turn our backs on scriptural authority." That is exactly the genesis of heresy. What authority do you propose replacing scriptural authority with--the personal opinion or preferences of Mr. Mainline Protestant? Do you plan on acting as god for the time being?

Let me suggest this to you, Mr. bashful Mainline Protestant with the weakest of shallow arguments: Perhaps it would be worthwhile to actually INFORM your viewpoint with some reading. I would suggest an article by Rob Gagnon as a start: http://www.theologymatters.com/TMIssues/NovDec01.PDF

Go to page 6 of the PDF file, and Rob pretty well annihilates your argument about slavery and divorce before your eyes. This kind of elementary information has been around for at least four years now. It would be good for you not to act as if your baseless argument hadn't been previously destroyed.

You really ought to attach your name to your blog. Writing anonymously displays an appaling lack of guts. But, I suppose I'd be reticent to sign my name to such uninformed and faithless material, too.

Jim Berkley

10:57 AM, November 17, 2005  
Blogger Jim said...

Mr. Mainline:

Let me know who you are--name, church, town--and I would be happy to reply. Hide convenienly behind a nom de plume, and I don't care to bother with a reply. If you cannot attach your name to what you write, I don't see much integrity there. You can sign no name, or you can sign a phony name, and neither one allows your statements to be attributed to you; neither one attaches your words to your character.

Again I ask, why not be known? Why say things that you're not willing to be held personally accountable for?

You failed to notice that "Classical Presbyterian" has a profile (http://www.blogger.com/profile/9224302) that isn't elusive, like yours.

Jim Berkley

8:29 AM, November 18, 2005  
Blogger Jim said...

Mr. Fearful Mainliner,

Whatever your fears are, this is your last anonymous posting on this blog. Without a name, you don't get to play in this sandbox.

Jim Berkley

4:15 PM, November 18, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home