The following statement was sent to me in case I could help to distribute it. I am posting it here in case any of my readers might be interested.
The Wages of War:
A Statement Adopted by the Seminary Council of
Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
October 21, 2002
Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, as a teaching arm of the Church, strives to “equip the saints for the work of ministry” (Ephesians 4:12) and to interpret the gospel in an ever-changing world. The mission we are given requires us to attend to the signs of the times, to read carefully cultural trends, and to be ready at all times to give an account of the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). As members of this Seminary community, we have prayerfully reflected on the national moral crisis with which we are now confronted. We have heard with concern the many calls from President Bush and the current U.S. administration for unilateral military action to preempt a perceived threat from the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. We have been troubled to find that the seemingly inexorable movement toward war has been slowed hardly at all by the few prominent voices urging our leaders to take more time for critical moral reflection. But we are not dispirited, and with confidence in God we offer this message of concern and hope.
The futility of war
We are concerned that the policies pursued by the Bush administration and endorsed by the recent votes in Congress suggest that terrorism won on September 11, 2001. Beyond killing nearly three thousand people and destroying treasured national landmarks the terrorists also redefined our normative rules of engagement. They changed the way we, as Americans, think about responding to evil in our world.
The magnitude of our loss on September 11 illumined our vulnerability to terrorism and quickened our resolve to eliminate perceived threats before they result in further loss. Our anxious concern for safety is understandable. Our plan to achieve safety through unilateral action and preemption reveals that the events of 9-11 were truly cataclysmic in scope. The violent upheaval of that day not only wreaked unprecedented devastation for us but also caused a fundamental shift in our estimate of an appropriate response.
The terrorists win when we lose hope in the efficacy of diplomacy, cooperation, and multilateral action. The Bush foreign policy is premised on the assumption that violence is the only meaningful, appropriate, and effective response to violence—and that an escalation of violence is the best way to demonstrate our might and resolve. But the biblical witness and our Christian faith suggest that we delude ourselves when we presume that military force will stifle the hatred that fuels attacks on America and the West. A violent response, as Martin Luther King, Jr. said, begets the very thing it seeks to destroy. That is why God calls us to a more excellent way. When Jesus says “No more” to the impulse of his disciples to attack their adversaries (Luke 22:51), he embodies for us an alternative path. Is it conceivable that such a path might yet influence the moral deliberations of our leaders?
In what ways are the actions toward Iraq weighed by the current U.S. administration distinguished from the actions radical Islamists have taken against America? While we believe that there are significant differences, we are concerned about the apparent similarities. Those antagonists without superior military power use low-tech measures to destroy a World Trade Center. Those antagonists with superior military power use high-tech measures to change regimes. That both have agreed to adjudicate the conflict through strike and counter-strike ensures that the conflict will both escalate and draw other parties into frenzied reaction or smolder for generations. The events of 9-11 have subjected us to a tyranny of perpetual violence and stifled our moral imagination.
The terrorists win when we come to share their idolatrous self-identification with the will of God. Their rationale for violence seems to have become our rationale for violence, namely, an impassioned contention that we alone embody righteousness and they embody evil.
The danger of idolatry
The Bush administration’s relentless pursuit of its goal of regime change through war has elicited charges of arrogance from most of our global neighbors. Arrogance, in theological terms, is pride; and pride is an expression of idolatry—the unwillingness to distinguish our own perceptions and desires from the vision and the will of God (Isaiah 2:8-17). When our leaders ignore the pleas of voices from the Muslim and Arab world not to invade Iraq, when virtually all our closest allies are cautioning us against a premature and wrong-headed military intervention against a sovereign nation, we must ask: Have we alone seen matters rightly? Do we alone possess the moral authority to be God’s sword against injustice? Representing God is a dangerous business and the sword that is claimed in God’s name cuts both ways (Isaiah 13-14, 34:1-7).
We are concerned that the blind determination of our leaders to pursue their policy goals may rob our neighbors—friend and foe—of their humanity. Pride and self-righteousness can easily seduce us into a way of seeing in which we conclude that both antagonists and inconvenient others are easily dismissible parties to the weighty deliberations of war. It matters little what they think who fail to see matters rightly. Be they friend or foe, if they do not see what we see then they do not see clearly. And if they do not see clearly then we acknowledge no compelling moral or legal obligation to consult with them or to act in concert with them. A lack of mutual and careful consideration in matters of joint concern is but the first step on the slippery slope of dehumanization. If we are for God, then those who oppose us or who fail to take our side are not for God. We need not hear their counsel. If they are part of an axis of evil then to hear them is to invite only a devil’s snare of allegation, recrimination, and prevarication. We dehumanize those persons to whom we deny a meaningful voice.
Idolatry has political consequences. We glorify our nation; our cause is an unquestioningly righteous one. We dehumanize our adversaries; their claim against us is a patently false one. Warfare, then, becomes a simply conceived matter. Yet we are blind to the true costs of war.
The costliness of war
A calculus of the costliness of war must account, minimally, for human, political, and moral costs.
i.Human cost
If the first casualty of war is a loss of innocence then the second casualty is a loss of life. The language of modern warfare obscures this cost. Our war language bespeaks surgical precision, localized anesthetics, and noninvasive procedures. We speak of “dual-use targets,” “smart bombs,” and “collateral damage,” but these terms belie the troubling truth of the matter: sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, soldiers and civilians, young and old are going to die. They will die because they went to work or to school or to shop on a fateful day. They will die because they lived near a bridge or a power station or a tall building that was deemed to be a crucial target. They will die because they boarded the wrong bus or plane. They will die needlessly because they are the enemy and our cause is a righteous one. They will die regrettably in a proximate and temporary measure to redress an intractable problem of contentious self-interest. They will die because we choose war. Ironically, we will die as well because the enemies we make today will not simply prostrate themselves before the altar of American might. They will take their revenge on us tomorrow. And so it goes.
ii.Political cost
When events began spinning out of control in the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy issued a stern warning that should caution us today as we discern our role and responsibilities toward Iraq: “the situation may get out of control with irreversible consequences.” Indeed, newly declassified documents reveal that we came terribly close to a nuclear war in the western hemisphere in October of that year when “ a U.S. Navy destroyer dropping depth charges almost accidentally hit the hull of a Soviet submarine carrying a nuclear warhead.” i Today, we sail in equally perilous waters atop highly contentious and combustible interests in the Middle East. As we drop our political depth charges on Iraq, let us be mindful that even an accidental miscue can precipitate a chain of events leading to outcomes no less severe in scope and intensity than those we narrowly avoided forty years ago.
The burning political question of the hour is not whether we will rally to the cause of defeating genocidal regimes around the world. The question before us is how we will respond to the political challenges imposed by our fundamental commitments to personal liberty and social justice. A corollary question that is beyond the scope of this appeal but that merits our careful consideration nonetheless is which genocidal challenges to liberty and justice appear on our political radar screen and command our immediate attention.
To pursue a course of independent action, in self-imposed isolation from the shared commitments of our allies and deaf to the impassioned critique of our enemies, is to court further political crisis in the region and solicit aggressive reaction from those adversaries who decry the United States as an international Goliath. An alternate choice, however, is available to us: a choice that builds upon the best of our democratic ideals. Democracy demands the participation of the many as a restraint against the tyranny of the powerful few. To pursue a course of mutual action response, in concert with our allies and responsible to the criticism of our adversaries, is to cull meaningful opportunity from a minefield of lesser political options.
A course of mutual action response is not merely a euphemism for a kinder and gentler form of cold warfare. It is a political blueprint for managing international crises that is drawn on the template of international diplomacy, law, and consensus. The wisdom of this response is borne out in the testimony of General Wesley Clark, U.S.A. (Ret.), Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (1997-2000): “through greater legal, judicial, and police coordination, we need to make the international environment more seamless for us than it is for the international terrorists we seek.” ii At the crossroads of either multilateral or unilateral response, we are concerned that the appeal of unilateral response, a mirage of political expediency and regional control, will lead only to greater peril.
iii.Moral cost
The moral cost of warfare is measured in half-truths and squandered opportunities. Reinhold Niebuhr was on to something when he wrote, “the selfishness of nations is proverbial.” iii We deceive ourselves if we expect that our actions in the world are motivated more by altruism than by self-interest; if we expect that our moral judgment is less partial and our moral vision is less myopic than the judgment and vision of other peoples with whom we share the world; if we expect that the moral justification for our political position on Iraq is free from the taint of hypocrisy; or if we expect that national interest has not already compromised our moral authority in the world. We are not less sinful as a people than the people against whom we would wage war. All people fall short of the glory of God.
We have an opportunity to choose a better way. It is a way less traveled. The well-traveled way squanders opportunities for a more stable international order. The way less traveled presents a genuine opportunity to build community.
If the terrorists succeeded at redefining the normative rules of engagement, leading us headlong into hopelessness, unilateral action, preemption, and an endless cycle of violence and retaliation, we are hopeful that we can realize new and vital forms of the justice and peace that God intends for humanity. We do not claim the sufficiency of this hope for securing global justice, only its necessity.
Where do we go from here?
One of the widely touted responses to the perceived threat from the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein proceeds from a Christian tradition of justifiable war theory. The idea that war can be justified has roots in early Christian thought, going back to the writings of Augustine, and has been reworked since then in the writings of Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and many other Christian authors. A current formulation of justifiable war theory, adopted by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), holds six principlesiv:
All other means to the morally just solution of conflict must be exhausted before resort to arms can be regarded as legitimate.
War can be just only if employed to defend a stable order or morally preferable cause against threats of destruction or the rise of injustice.
Such a war must be carried out with the right attitudes.
A just war must be explicitly declared by a legitimate authority.
A just war may be conducted only by military means that promise a reasonable attainment of the moral and political objectives being sought.
The just war theory has also entailed selective immunity for certain parts of the population, particularly for non-combatants.
If we, as a nation, accept that war against Iraq is a case of just war, then the Bush administration has more public work to do in making that case on principled grounds. It is not at all clear that the conditions for a just war against Iraq have been met.
We, as members of the Louisville Seminary community, question the premise that a vigorous and principled war can be an instrument of a lasting peace. If war is necessary, surely it must be a last resort and not a preemptive strike.
The biblical tradition tells us that humans are created for community, each a part of a larger whole (Genesis 1:27). Sin tempts us to imagine that we are not really bound up with others; that we are not simply a part of God’s creation but the favored part of God’s creation; that we alone are entrusted with the divine authority to change regimes at will. But the Bible also tells us that God does not abandon us to our sin, but calls us into a community of justice and righteousness. Christians believe that God commissions the church to tell this story of God’s call. As The Confession of 1967 of the Presbyterian Church (USA) puts it, “God’s reconciliation in Jesus Christ is the ground of the peace, justice, and freedom among nations which all powers of government are called to serve and defend. The church, in its own life, is called to practice the forgiveness of enemies and to commend to the nations as practical politics the search for cooperation and peace. This search requires that the nations pursue fresh and responsible relations across every line of conflict, even at risk to national security, to reduce areas of strife and to broaden international understanding.”v
Our hope, as a Seminary and as a teaching arm of the Church, is that America will hear the story the Church has to tell and that it will pursue a just peace and not a just war. Just peace is not a stopgap measure to restrain the flow of evil after events have spun out of control. It is a community building process grounded in mutuality, reciprocity, and the arduous work of cooperation to achieve social justice. The wisdom of just peace is in the centrality it accords to justice. Truly, there will not be peace without justice. International justice is not gained by unilateral military action to rid the world of evil. That idea did not work for the terrorists. It will not work for us. Instead, let us choose to build justice in concert with our neighbors, open to the criticism of the adversaries, with candor and confidence that God holds tomorrow.
Conclusion
Keep your eyes on the prize, America, and hold on to the freedom that God alone has provided to break our bondage to cycles of perpetual conflict that follow from interest against interest (Galatians 5:1). Of course we will not end conflict in the world, but we can choose to respond to global conflict and international threats in a manner that does not merely recapitulate age-old patterns of violent action and violent reaction. Let us not esteem warfare as the moral heirloom we bequeath to our children and grandchildren. Let not the deep psychological wounds to our national ego that we suffered in the aftermath of September 11th tempt us to cloak vengeance in the language of unilateral action. The wages of war are legion. The promise of peace is eternal. The choice is ours.
-----------------------------------
i:This statement was adopted by a unanimous vote of the Seminary Council on October 21, 2002. It was written by an ad hoc committee of Seminary faculty and students.
Robert Kennedy, quoted in “Soviet sub almost fired nuke in missile crisis,” by Anita Snow, Associated Press, in The Courier-Journal, Sunday, October 13, 2002, page A11.
--------
ii: General Wesley Clark, “An Army of One?” in The Washington Monthly, volume 34, number 9, September 2002, page 22.
--------
iii: Reinhold Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1932, page 84.
--------
iv: Ronald Stone and Dana Wilbanks, editors, The Peacemaking Struggle: Militarism and Resistance. New York: University Press of America, 1985, page 191. This volume contains essays prepared for the Advisory Council on Church and Society of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
--------
v: The Confession of 1967, 9.45, in Book of Confessions: Study Edition, Louisville, Kentucky: Geneva Press, 1996, page 328.
Can there be too much tolerance?
I was very discouraged when I read a report a few years back concerning response to an effort to improve the moral teachings of our children here in Georgia. A group of educators (was it the State Board of Education? it was certainly an official school or government group) listed moral qualities which they felt should be taught in schools. These included honesty, respect for the law, and many others for a total of about 50 values which sounded to me about as difficult to disagree with as Mom and apple pie. However, many parents called to complain about one listed value or another as something they didn't want taught to their precious darlings. The value that topped the list of complaints was tolerance.
All my life I have been taught that we should be tolerant. Growing up in the south, people were being denied access to public services because of the color of their skin and those in power refused to tolerate unacceptable behavior such as refusing to comply with those rules and laws. We lived in the shadow of the intolerance of Jews during the second world war and the horror inflicted for that reason. Tolerance of differences was extoled as the proper behavior for people who wanted to be allowed their own beliefs. If we refuse to tolerate others, what will happen when something we do is not tolerated?
This never meant that anything goes. We have rules for living together in society. Sometimes those rules need to be changed (as in Jim Crow) and this can be upsetting for some folks. If we can define appropriate rules of behavior ("your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose") then areas not covered by general rules should generally be tolerated. The rule that states that you have freedom to exercise your religious beliefs means that as long as that exercise doesn't impinge unfairly upon others, then you can do as you wish. People should be tolerant of any differences they have with their neighbors who believe differently, as long as they are being good citizens and neighbors.
On at least one of the pages of Josh McDowell's web site
He states that the definition of tolerance has changed from "recognize and respect (others' beliefs, practices, etc.) without necessarily agreeing or sympathizing" to "every individual's beliefs, values, lifestyles, and truth claims are equal." "In other words," he goes on to say, "all beliefs are equal. All values are equal. All lifestyles are equal. All truth is equal."
From this point he goes on to argue that we cannot be tolerant of other beliefs. We must define, acknowledge, and teach the Truth, which is of course the truth as he sees it. He believes we must teach children an "objective standard of truth" which they will be able to use as a foundation for living their lives and that we must not be tolerant of other beliefs and other truths.
To a certain extent, I applaud his position. I certainly agree that teaching children a sense of right and wrong is important. I certainly believe in teaching children about Jesus/God and what that means for our lives.
However, I cannot go along with his assertion that we should not exercise tolerance. The great reformers who led the Protestant Reformation were not tolerated by those who knew "The Truth" in their day, and I am grateful to them for standing up for their beliefs which has provided me with the opportunity to study, think, and believe as I see fit.
How would one be intolerant of a child's beliefs if they differed from one's own? Beat it out of them? Disown them? Force them to listen to lectures on proper belief and insist that they parrot correct answers to questions asked?
McDowell insists that "We must act justly and exercise loving kindness -- not tolerance." I guess I just have a different understanding of Micah than McDowell does. Doing justice does not mean insisting that others must agree with me. Loving others and showing kindness does not mean insisting that others must agree with me.
Perhaps in a church setting there are people who feel strongly that it is important that fellow church members agree with particular doctrines and truths which will allow all members to support and encourage each other to remember those truths and to put those beliefs into action in their lives. However, I find that my beliefs have changed over the course of my life. I have seen others grow and mature in their faith over time. If these changes result in deeper understandings that lead them to different conclusions than official church dogma, are they straying into heresy or are they blazing a trail into a new reformation?
A member of my congregation was sharing the story of his faith journey when he was moved to tears as he told of trying to find a congregation to join and was told in church after church that his questions were unwelcome, he must accept the answers that they had for him or he might as well leave. When he found that our congregation was willing to accept him as he worked to find answers to his questions he knew that he'd finally come home.
In a discussion about tolerance, absolute truth, and Josh McDowell, Gary Miller wrote "As for the reality of 'Absolutes' I would think that is a given - no one can think without a sure (absolute) referent." If that is so then I don't see what that absolute could be except our own experiences. Those experiences would include developing trusting relationships with parents, teachers, and others; learning about Jesus/God through studying the bible and books written about the bible and what it means; and personal experiences of relationship with Jesus through the Holy Spirit. However, such experiences are obviously intensly personal and individual to each one of us. If those experiences lead us to agree that the bible can be considered a trustworthy source of Truth then that gives us a common foundation upon which to build our relationship with God and each other.
Of course, as has been seen throughout the world and all of history, people tend to find something to disagree about eventually. Even if we agree about the bible being a trustworthy source of Truth, we can wind up disagreeing about which books should be included, which language or translation is better, and how the ambiguities of the text (unavoidable within the confines of human language) should be interpreted. It is being willing to agree to disagree about such things which is at the heart of toleration, in my opinion.
McDowell makes it clear that he does not want to tolerate ambiguities. He says that we must be firm in our convictions, escalating feelings beyond simple beliefs and on into convictions. He insists that we pursue Truth and accept nothing less (I'm sure he is ready to share that Truth with us in some of his 50+ books, on his broadcast shows, or in some of his other multimedia products). I wish him well in that pursuit. I continue to struggle with my own pursuit. I'm not at all convinced that he and I will come to the same conclusions about that Truth, but I am willing to tolerate his disagreement with me. I am not confident that he will be willing to tolerate my disagreement with him, and that scares and saddens me.
My wife, Mary Martha, a member of the staff of Columbia Theological Seminary (CTS), forwarded the following to me. It is a statement of concern about the push to war on Iraq which was circulated on the CTS campus and signed by many of the faculty and others there. It is my understanding that this can be distributed freely and so I am making it available here.
******UPDATE******
The earlier version was a pre-release which contained some typos. I have now updated it from a release received this morning about 11:00am, 10/14/2002.
******RE-UPDATE******
Well, I've been told that this is now the final version. I hope this is the final update.
A Public Testimony on War With Iraq
With Questions, Answers, and an Invitation to Dialogue and Action
To all who seek to discern God’s will in morally complex times. Peace and grace to you in the name of Jesus Christ.
With increasing anxiety, some of us at Columbia Theological Seminary have watched as the United States moves ever closer to renewing war against Iraq. All wars, no matter how justified they may seem to some, are matters of deepest concern and they warrant open and frank conversation and debate taken on with a deep sense of moral gravity.
Over the past several weeks, we the undersigned have engaged in just these types of debates—some formal, others occasional or informal. We have come to them with different perspectives, theological convictions, backgrounds, plans, and questions. Some among us favor the just war tradition; others believe in non-violent resistance. Some have either served or will serve in the military; others are opposed to military engagement on principle. Some come sure of their answers; others seek clarity and reserve judgment.
We share neither the mind nor the will of God. We realize that ours are not the only opinions that warrant hearing within the church or the academy, but as Christian scholars and students, we believe our opinions are worth hearing. We confess that we are morally implicated in this war both by our actions and our inaction, but as Christians we believe that our guilt ought not remove us from the conversation, for by that standard, all would be silenced. As members of a learning community, we believe we are called to speak. We do not believe that our questions and answers are perfect. However, we testify that we are called to be Christian stewards of the questions to which we have been led. And so we struggle both to ask the right questions and to seek thoughtful and faithful answers. Based on our shared theological convictions, these are our questions and our answers:
First, in a culture that seems to favor war, the church and its members must remind both themselves and the larger culture that the presumption of the Christian faith is always toward peace. Human beings were not created for war and, in the end, God will “make wars cease to the end of the earth.” (Psalm 46: 9). Those among us who see war as occasionally necessary nonetheless recognize that any act of war must be gravely and repeatedly justified against the more basic claim that, where possible, alternatives to war are morally preferable. We asked ourselves the question, “Have our national leaders adequately prioritized and pursued all the available alternatives to open war with Iraq?” We answered that we do not believe that our national leaders have adequately prioritized and pursued these alternatives.
Second, even in the most carefully conducted wars, far too many innocent persons suffer death and hardship. War makes victims. And while we recognize that there has been only one truly innocent victim in human history, we also believe that on the cross, that victim—Jesus Christ—acted on behalf of human beings who sin, suffer, and die—and in so doing, took upon himself our sin, suffering, and death. We asked ourselves, “Have our elected leaders explored or pursued adequately the implications of war against Iraq and the widespread suffering that will result not only from war but from the results of war?” We answered that we do not believe that such exploration has been adequate against the backdrop of horrible suffering.
Third, a policy of preemptive and unilateral action flouts current international laws, including those that have been agreed upon and promoted by the U.S. in the past. Respect for the law springs from our recognition that God’s sovereignty extends through law such that sin might be restrained, righteousness might be promoted, and community might flourish. We asked ourselves, “Has our nation fully undertaken multinational action with other nations to address enforceable inspections of Iraq’s alleged store of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons through enforcing present or new resolutions by the United Nations Security Council?” and “Have our elected leaders made a compelling case either for preemptive action or for unilateral or near-unilateral action against Iraq?” We concluded that this is not the case. Current willingness to disregard international law in favor of unilateral action confuses might with right and can inhibit the development of the very types of national and international communities through which justice might be more actively and profitably pursued. Nor do we believe that a compelling case for preemptive action or for unilateral or near-unilateral action against Iraq has been made.
Finally, pursuing the security of persons in the United States at the expense of basic human freedoms, including the right to life of those who have done nothing to provoke attack, is not only an unreasonable and unwise goal, but has the potential to stand in conflict with the good news of a gospel made manifest in Jesus Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Our security does not and cannot rest in our own efforts—even our best efforts—for all such efforts are doomed to failure. Instead, our security rests in the hands of a God strong enough to defeat death and loving enough to return to those who condemned him, offering salvation instead of condemnation. We asked ourselves, “Can we gain the type of security our national administration suggests it can deliver to us through war?” “And if so, ought we desire it?” We believe that the answers to both questions are No.
We welcome both additional and countervailing testimony. However, we also wish to be both clear and public about our current position: While we acknowledge that Iraq’s actions are cause for grave concern and need international response, we believe that war against Iraq is a dangerously misguided activity. It disregards morally preferable alternatives, ignores probable dangerous and destructive consequences and implications, and leads to the unnecessary death and suffering of those whom Christ so valued as to give his own life. We do not believe that Iraqi tragedy will be healed by the means our elected officials advocate and we do not support a project so out of step with both our country’s best aspirations and the gospel’s deepest call for our lives.
We pledge to treat this issue as an occasion for deep and passionate theological, moral, political, and pastoral inquiry. As individuals, we will continue to attend to current events in a careful and critical way. As citizens, we will continue to call and write our elected officials. As scholars, we will continue to educate ourselves in how the Christian tradition—and the Reformed tradition, in particular—understands war and peace. As pastors and lay leaders, we will continue to pray and to work with churches, families, and persons struggling with the implications of war for their lives. As Christian scholars and students, we will continue to make this work pertinent for and accessible to the church. And as Christians, we will continue to profess our faith in a just God who brings peace; a righteous God who reconciles; a holy God who shares unmerited love.
Sisters and brothers, we ask you to join us by carefully and prayerfully considering these issues, by studying the Scriptures and exploring the wealth of theological insights from our shared tradition, by opening your churches to be locations of debate and discovery, and by adding your own voices to this crucial national conversation. In a time of anger and despair, the church can and ought to be a place of peace and hope. May God make it so.
Sincerely,
Walter Brueggemann
Charles L. Campbell
Carlos F. Cardoza Orlandi
R. Leon Carroll
Erskine Clarke
Charles B. Cousar
Ronald Hecker Cram
Dent C. Davis
Richard S. Dietrich
Mark Douglas
Margit Ernst
Anna Carter Florence
David Forney
Shirley Guthrie
William Harkins
E. Elizabeth Johnson
Julie A. Johnson
C. Benton Kline, Jr.
Emmanuel Y. Lartey
Sharon L. Mook
Kathleen O'Connor
Marcia Y. Riggs
Stanley P. Saunders
Haruko Nawata Ward
Jim Watkins
Brian A. Wren
Christine Roy Yoder
Andy Acton
Ben Acton
Ann Clay Adams
Dedera Nesmith Baker
Jonathan Ball
Jean E. Beedoe
Cindy Benz
Shelaine Bird
Manikka L. Bowman
William Scott Calkins
Betsy Cameron
Dana Campbell
Bert K. Carmichael
Ernestine Cole
Michael Copeland
Shelia A. Council
Sue. W. Crannell
Jacquelyn Cumberlander
MaryAnn McKibben Dana
Robin S. Dietrich
Eric R. Dillenbeck
Michael Ducheneau
Karen R. Dukes
Shannon Edgerton
Kally Elliot
Sarah F. Erickson
Betsy Taylor Flory
Liz Barrington Forney
Clay Fouse
Alice Schaap Freeman
John Gicheru
Jane Gleim
Mark Gray
Larry M. Griffin
Phil Hagen
J. Kirkland Hall
Davis Hankins
Mary Alice Haynie
Stuart C. Higginbotham
Gillian M. Houghton
E. Cader Howard, Jr.
David Hyers
Andy James
Julie Jensen
James Joyner
Bettina Kilburn
Michael D. Kirby
Kendal Land
Jonathan P. Larson
Griselda Lartey
Shelli Latham
Kim LeVert
Sandra McDonald
Kari McFarland
Kate McGregor Mosley
Andy Meyers
Karen Miller
Joseph G. Moore
Marcia Moore
Linda C. Morningstar
Laurel Nelson
Dorothy Nevill
Mary E. Newberg
Shannon O'Leary
Elizabeth Parker
Pen Peery
Teri C. Peterson
Katie B. Preston
Clayton Rascoe
Tyesha Rice
Kathryn E. Richmond
Sue A. Riggle
Mary Martha Riviere
Pat Roper
Linda Sabo
Matt Schlageter
William H. Searight
Jeremy Kyle Segar
Rebekah Shaffer
Kenneth W. Sikes
Susan Smith
Elizabeth Soileau
Don Stephens
Amy D. Summers-Minette
Susan Takis
Laurie Taylor
Jannan Thomas
Clay Thomas
Casey Thompson
Chris Tuttle
Lindsey Wade
Rhonda Weary
Edward R. Wegele
Barry Welch
Wendy Yow
In the PCUSA Polity section of Presbynet there has been a lot of discussion about communion. The discusion was sparked by questions about who is allowed to serve communion. Specifically, can the session authorize baptized but unconfirmed members to serve communion during worship?
After much discussion about the meaning of membership, the different types of membership (active, inactive, baptized, affiliate) and the serious consideration which needs to be given to the exact wording in the Book of Order (BOO) concerning who can serve communion, the final concensus seems to be that it is within the rules to authorize baptized youth to serve communion, though not all agreed that this was a wise practice or policy.
I came away from the discussion wondering what the fuss was all about. There was much concern over the loss of understanding of the meaning and importance of communion. Maybe I've already lost some of that understanding because I'm not sure I see what the goal of being so careful with the rituals, elements, and details of serving communion accomplishes.
I am coming more and more to an understanding of God as being an essential, integrated part of each of us. As such, a goal of the church, it seems to me, should be to help each of us get in better contact with God and to keep God as a central focus of our lives. How does keeping regimented control over the sacred elements of communion help to accomplish this?
Speaking purely from memory, I remember the words of invitation to the table to include Jesus' words that "whenever we eat this bread and drink this cup we show forth God's presence until God comes again" or something like that. If we want to be remembering God constantly, and we remember God whenever we share a communion meal, then shouldn't we be encouraging our church members to make every meal a communion meal? Wouldn't this help people to remember the nearness and importance of God every day in everything we do, such as whenever we eat something? If we can see the presence of God in each meal we make, in each thing we do, then doesn't that help us to better keep our focus on who we are as Christians and what we should be doing as God's people?
What does it say about sharing communion within the church when we put strict limits on when it can be served, who can authorize it being served, and who can participate in serving it? Is this an attempt to bring God to the people in their lives or is this an attempt to keep God locked away unless the church leaders let God out and share God's presence with the other, less priviledged members of the congregation? In other words, getting back to the title I've given to this note, is the control of communion because of the sanctity of the service or is it because of a desire or percieved need to force scarcity of communion so that people will better appreciate it when it is available?
I have certainly experienced some moving and meaningful communion services. The intimate communions held during session retreats with other devoted church leaders have been very special. The tremendous experience of communion with hundreds of peacemakers or worship leaders at Montreat conferences is a different but also very meaningful experience.
But what about the service of celebration of the ressurection when a church member died and communion was served but our pastor forgot to get session approval (despite having an opportunity to do so)? Was the meaning and inspiration of that service false somehow because it was not properly authorized?
Does proper approval guarantee that participants will properly appreciate the meaning and importance of the service? I suspect that more than a few of those who have received communion over the centuries have been distracted by the concerns of the world so that their participation was merely a matter of routine instead of a heartfelt communion of shared worship. I would hazard a guess that even some of those who have led communion services are sometimes just going through the motions while thinking about activities to come later or some other concerns. But even so, this lack of dedicated involvement by some participants does not necessarily mean that other participants are not being uplifted by the worship which they are sharing. It really comes down to the individual's focus and beliefs about what they are doing in a particular worship service, doesn't it?
Would lack of eclesiastical approval make a powerful prayer of dedication given by a devout believer before a family dinner less meaningful? Couldn't the shared meal and time together provide an opportunity for genuine reflection on the importance of God in our lives together and to us individually? How would this be inappropriate if some of the words of institution were incorporated into a mealtime prayer? Would disciplinary action be taken against an elder, pastor, or even a church member who dared to say these special words before their family dinner together? Is God more present or less when devoted Christians pray together based on an approval or lack of same by a court of the church?
I recognize that worship and communion services present an opportunity for us as Christians to come together and help each other to better experience and understand God and what it means in our lives to have a relationship with God. However, I'm afraid that I have a hard time understanding how placing restrictions on when and how people can decide to worship God helps further the purposes of the church as the body of Christ in the world. What is being controlled here? Is God's presence with individuals being denied based on their not being officially sanctioned to share a communion meal, and if so by what authority? Are we as church leaders so audacious that we would claim to be able to control by vote in session whether God's presence will or will not be authorized in any given setting?
I don't know what I hope to accomplish by expressing these thoughts. I can hardly imagine that I would get any encouragement from any PC(USA) leaders for pursing these thoughts to any action or overtures. However, I am finding that my beliefs about God and my relationship with God seems to be less dependent upon my relationship with a formal church than I would have thought in the past. Certainly I have received a lot of inspiration and education from my participation in the PC(USA), but I am coming to see the denomination as more of a convenient gathering point for learning about and worshiping God rather than as the actual source of access to and interaction with God. My membership in the PC(USA) has afforded me many opportunities for personal and spiritual growth, but I think that if I was forced to a parting of the ways due to doctrinal differences then it would be more of an inconvenience than a personal disaster. Of course, I do not have a dramatic financial investment in the church as would an ordained pastor who depends on their participation in the church for their health insurance and retirement. On the other hand, since my wife is an employee of the church we are somewhat dependant upon the continued existence of the denomination for our financial security, but her position is not dependant upon my membership within a congregation of the denomination.
I would be interested in any thoughts any readers have about what I've written here. Please leave me an email message or a comment if you can help me to see where my understanding is lacking concerning the sanctity of communion.