Federalism & Anti-Federalism

From the very beginning of our national government two philosophies have been in conflict. One the one side is federalism. Federalism advocates a strong central government for the whole Nation. Anti-federalism advocates a weak central government in favor of “states’ rights.” Are there certain issues which demand a single standard across all states, or is each state free to establish their own standards?

Imagine a situation where each of the fifty states establishes its own standards for automobile safety? An automobile purchased in Pennsylvania may be illegal to drive in Ohio or New Jersey. We live in a highly mobile society having different standards in each state would be unacceptable. Therefore, we have national standards for automobile safety.

Historically, there were “free states” and “slave states.” Some states prohibited individuals from owning slaves and some permitted the owning of slaves. Part, and only part, of what led to the Civil War/the War of Northern Aggression/the War Between the States was the issue of federalism versus anti-federalism. Shall slavery be prohibited nationally, or shall it be up to each state to make the decision?

Today we see this conflict between federalism and anti-federalism being played out on several fronts. Shall transgender people be required to use the restroom according to the gender on their birth certificate, or may a transgender people use the restroom of sexual identity? What happens when a transgender person lives in a state which permits the individual to make the choice of which restroom to use then is traveling across country into a state which does permit restroom choice?   Shall each state set its own standards for accommodating students with special needs, or should there be a basic national standard? What happens when a student moves from New York to Texas where the two states have widely divergent standards?

We have seen the conflict between federalism and anti-federalism play out in many church structures. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is a case in point. In 1983 the United Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Presbyterian Church in the United States merged to form the PC (U.S.A.) The UPCUSA tended toward a more federalist church government. One could move from one presbytery (regional governing body) to another and be confident that the rules and procedures were basically the same. The Book of Order (the operational portion of the church constitution) detailed common nomenclature in the structure and procedures. In the PCUS, which tended more toward an anti-federalist church government concerning the relationship of the presbyteries and the more inclusive governing bodies of the synods and the General Assembly. The Book of Church Order provided for more latitude from presbytery to presbytery in procedures and processes.

With the 1983 merger two styles were not fully integrated. The Book of Order, following the merger, more closely followed the federalist model. The across the Nation the federalist and anti-federalist divide in society was becoming wider and wider. This divide was evidenced in the rewrite of the Book of Order, which took effect in 2011. Many of the “regulative” portions of the Book of Order were eliminated, giving more freedom to the presbyteries to design their own structures. No longer could one depend on presbyteries being similar in nomenclature and procedures. Anti-federalism was winning over federalism.

As the General Assembly (the national governing body) made controversial decisions allowing ordination and marriage of gay and lesbian people, the resistance to the federalist model grew. Additionally, the property trust clause in the Book of Order, which maintains that if a congregations disaffiliates from the PC (USA) the property reverts to the presbytery as a trustee for the denomination. Congregations insist the property is theirs. The property issue usually ends up in the civil courts. Some courts rule in favor of the denomination and some in favor of the congregation. It all depends on whether the philosophy of the court tends toward federalism or anti-federalism.

In civil government and ecclesiastical government we are in a pitched battle e between federalism and anti-federalism. The momentum presently seems to be on the side of the anti-federalist. In fact, one adviser to the President is so anti-federalist that his stated goal in the destruction of central government regulations over all aspects of life. Either one side will win out or some compromise between the two poles will have to be developed. Ideologues will fight it out. Moderates will seek compromise.

SUPERFICIAL

http://www.encognitive.com/node/18436

One of my frustrations in watching local and national news on television is the lack of depth in reporting. Seldom does a segment last more than thirty seconds. Yes, we get the basic what, who, when and where (only four of the five Ws of reporting). The fifth W, WHY, is often omitted or superficially given. Even watching programs like Face the Nation do not seriously deal with “why” of actions. Why did the officials in Flint, Michigan take the actions which ruined the water supply? Why, if the national legislators repeal the Affordable Care Act, is there not a comprehensive replacement plan available for immediate consideration? We are told we should not guess at the motivations of others. Is it not the responsibility of those in authority to be transparent about their reasons, the why, for their actions? Without knowing the “why” trust in leadership devolves.

The level of reporting and public debate is, at best, superficial. A trusted definition of superficial includes the following denotations: a (1): of, relating to, or located near a surface (2): lying on, not penetrating below, or affecting only the surface; b presenting only an appearance without substance or significance. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superficial) As long as reporting on actions, either by the actors or news organizations, only the give the public the what, who, when and where information without the WHY, clarity and transparency are lacking. The public does not need fake news or fantasy explanations.

It is not only in local and national governments where actions are taken without a thorough explanation of WHY. It happens in the Church/church, also. When programs are changed, or eliminated without a sufficient explanation about the “why” we are only left with the option of guessing. Why was it necessary to change for what an offering is designated? Why are changes to the organizational structure being made? Why did the pastor really decide to accept a call to a new location?

From personal experience and observation, the “why” is either not given or glossed over due to a desire to avoid conflict. Conflict is often seen as something which is to be avoided, at all costs. Conflict can provide an opportunity for clarifying organizational values, which then provide a solid basis for positive greater unity and positive organizational outcomes.

It is the responsibility of those in leadership to propose a change and to give a coherent statement of WHY the change is proposed. When the public is given an opportunity to consider the change and the WHY, even if in disagreement with the change or the why, trust in the leadership can be built. Trust goes from superficial to having depth.

PEACE OR REVOLUTION?

In the USA, we have just come off a grueling presidential campaign. We have a president-elect who won the technical vote, but not the popular vote. The nation is deeply divided on the policies which might be instituted by the president-elect. Some ask, “How should the Church respond?” We first must acknowledge the Church is not monolithic in its assessment of the president-elect nor the policies which might be enacted.

There is a multitude of responses being voiced by both the committed and nominal members of the church. It is not as easy as saying this is what the evangelicals support and this is what the liberals resist. It is important to understand that those who self-identify as evangelicals and liberals both approach their support or resistance based on their theological approach to scripture. However, there are as many variations in each “camp” as there are people. Inconsistencies abound.

We know the early Christians lived in a hostile political environment. When the republic devolved into government by an emperor, considered to be a god, the conflict for Jews and Christians became more stressed. Jews and Christians held there is only one god, the god of Abraham, Issac and Jacob; the god revealed in Jesus the Christ. The policies and actions of the Empire often stood in sharp contrast with the theology and ethics of the Christian community. What advice do we find in the Gospel oriented Epistles in Scripture?

Three passages stand out: Romans 13:1-2 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which is from God. The authorities that exist have been appointed by God. Consequently, the one who resists authority is opposing what God has set in place, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.…  I Timothy 2:2 First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be offered on behalf of all men for kings and all those in authority, so that we may lead tranquil and quiet lives in all godliness and dignity.  I Peter 2:17 Treat everyone with high regard: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.

Were the writers really urging tacit support of the Empire, or did they insert such verses to be able to say to the Empire, “See you have nothing to fear from us. We pray for you and our followers are to submit to those in authority.” In I Timothy, the motivation for praying for governmental leaders and those in authority is clearly stated, so that we may lead tranquil and quiet lives in all godliness and dignity. Russell Rathbun states, “It seems like Paul is trying to convince the powers that he is on their side. He says he was appointed a herald (a court-appointed crier) and an apostle. … He wants the Empire to know that he and his Christians have no argument with them.”  (http://thq.wearesparkhouse.org/yearc/ordinary25epistle/)

Eric Barreto writes, “But also here, we encounter a significant preaching challenge, especially in recent days characterized by protest and demands for change in pursuit of justice. Is the “quiet and peaceable life” always the ideal avenue for Christian faith? Haven’t we heard so often the call from preachers for protesters to be patient, for the oppressed to wait for justice? Too easily, we might preach a call to a quiescence that denies injustice, a peace that belies an underlying violence. Lest we become enablers of continued oppression, we ought to bring a critical eye to this text.” (http://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?commentary_id=3035)

What then is the call to believers? Are we to pray for and submit to the governmental authorities so we may lead tranquil and quiet lives? Or, do we resist those policies which deny justice and the underlying violence that peace covers up?

I believe the answer is found in the Gospel of Matthew 25:31-46. The New King James Version titles this section The Son of Man Will Judge the Nations. (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=NKJV)  “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 4 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” When the government policies and leaders care for “the least of these,” it/they deserve the support of believers, if they do not resistance and pressing for change is the course believers must take.

RECIPROCITY

If one spends any time around live stage actors, one is likely to hear them talking about their interaction with the audience. They will talk about how the energy or response of the audience feeds them as actors. The same can be heard from musicians and comics.

If the ones on stage “phone in” their performance (lacking energy or authenticity) the audience will be flat, and likely to thin out at the intermission. Any performance which is monotonous, delivered as if the audience were a blank wall, will leave the audience wondering why they bothered to show up.

On the other hand, if the audience is tired, troubled, distracted, or disinterested there will be little, if any, response no matter how hard the performers are working. The performers call it a “dead house.” When this is the case it can drag down the performance.

It used to be the advice to preachers, “do not put any emphasis into the reading of the Scriptures, nor into the sermon. Let the naked words speak for themselves.” The congregation sat blankly, sang a hymn of two and went home. Ironically, during this model of worship, attendance was at its highest in the last seventy-five years. But that was before television and the proliferation of action films.

It is hard work being a preacher. In general, people no longer will sit still of a thirty-minute expository sermon, no matter how eloquently it is delivered. It seems the preference is for short, pithy, humorous sermons which leave the congregation feeling good. Above all, the preacher must not overtly offend anyone. It is hard work crafting a sermon which will speak very subtly to the social issues of the day. Maybe, preachers need to telegraph their punch before the sermon by saying, “Let those with ears to hear, hear.” (Mark 4:9, Revelation 2:7)

I was once doing a presentation, after a trip to Rwanda following the genocide. I compared the radio spokespeople who, over time, stirred up the divisions between the Hutu and Tutsi populations to Rush Limbaugh stirring up divisions in our own populations. One couple immediately got up and walked out. Later, the husband angrily told me I was out of line, and that such political comments were inappropriate in church.

I am convinced preachers must follow one of the ordination vows when preparing and delivering a sermon: Will you pray for and seek to serve the people with energy, intelligence, imagination, and love? (Book of Order W-4.4003 h) All four elements of this vow are critical to preaching, today. Energy is required if we are to move the congregation from where they are to where God is calling them. Intelligence is required if we are faithfully to interpret and proclaim the whole of Scripture. Imagination is required if we are to see beyond the thick veil of our context, and if we are to help the congregation to see beyond it also. Love is required because if we did not love God and the congregation we are called to serve there would be no reason to engage in the foolishness of preaching.

https://www.wayostccs.com/

Survival of the Fittest

https://www.facebook.com/AusTeaParty/

Per popular understandings, Darwin posited the theory of evolution in which was the proposition of the survival of the fittest. This would appear to be true in much of the animal world. The weak straggler in a herd is often prey for predators. Those which cannot keep up get left behind. This is illustrated by this joke, Two men were walking through the woods when a large bear walked out into the clearing no more than 50 feet in front of them. The first man dropped his backpack and dug out a pair of running shoes, then began to furiously attempt to lace them up as the bear slowly approached them. The second man looked at the first, confused, and said, "What are you doing? Running shoes aren't going to help, you can't outrun that bear." "I don't need to," said the first man, "I just need to outrun you." (Jokes2Go.Com)

I wander, even in the case of the two men in the joke above, if there were not another option. Must one be sacrificed so the other might survive? In the leading photo to this blog liberal philosophy/theology is pictured as weakening the strongest so the weaker members of the herd might keep up. That is so NOT THE CASE. My response to that photo on Facebook was, in true liberal style, the stronger would surround the weaker so all might safely make it to their destination. Yes, the stronger ones might have to travel a bit more slowly; might have to make sure the weaker ones get to water and food; might have to position themselves between potential threats the those less able.

One of my professors in seminary, Dr. Catherine Gunsalus Gonzalez, said, “One who truly takes Scripture seriously will be a social liberal.” How can a Christian read Matthew 25:31-46 and not care about the poor, disposed, and the weaker of our society? “…, Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’  “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.

Scripture says a lot about caring for the poor, weak and vulnerable, and nothing about making sure the rich, strong and lofty remain that way at all costs. However, in our current USA economy the rich get richer and the poor become poorer. The “law of the jungle,” survival of the fittest, seems at play. How do we adapt to provide the proper social safety nets so the hungry, thirsty, stranger (refugee), naked, sick or imprisoned are not left to predators?

Adaptability is the key. How do we adapt ourselves to the new economic realities so the weakest are not left behind? In the movie, Wall Street, it was proclaimed “greed is good!” How do we adapt from a greed based economy to one where the strongest surround and protect the vulnerable? If all are to survive, we must adapt. It was Darwin, himself, who promoted adaptability rather than survival of the fittest.

Hiatus

(www.entrepreneur.com/article/237687)

The first time I heard the word hiatus was when an actor used it on television to speak of an extended period she took between film projects. The word tickled my ears. I liked the sound of the word. I like the definition of the word. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines hiatus as, an interruption in time or continuity: break; especially: a period when something (as a program or activity) is suspended or interrupted. (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hiatus) A hiatus is a gap in activity.

History records when John Calvin returned to Geneva, after his exile to Strasbourg, he picked up reading Scripture and preaching at the point where he ended when sent away. It seems he interpreted his exile as a hiatus, an interruption to his early ministry and preaching. Sometimes a hiatus is freely chosen and at other times imposed by circumstances not of our choosing.

It has been several weeks since I last posted a blog. In large part, my hiatus was freely chosen. In part, I chose to take a hiatus from blogging because I knew it would be ease to be sucking into the heated rhetoric of the presidential election campaigns. There were sporadic lapses on Facebook and other social (anti-social) media. I am not proud of the times when I “flamed” another, or was guilty of passing on the untruths from “fake news” outlets.

Culturally, we still have a bifurcated view of the election result. Some are elated. Some are very fearful. Some want to overturn the Constitutionally prescribed process. Prior to the election some were proclaiming the system was rigged to reach a different outcome. I had/have my own very strong opinions about the two main candidates and the tenor of the campaigns. To keep pouring combustible words into the national discussion will not be helpful in seeking to heal the wounds suffered and wounds anticipated in the future.

The Prophet Jeremiah could have urged those in exile in Babylon to be active insurrectionists. He could have encouraged the exiles to use every opportunity to be subversive. Instead, Jeremiah encouraged the exiles saying, But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. (Jeremiah 29:7 NRSV)

The election has established a president-elect who will officially take office on January 20, 2017. As a people, we remain divided on the outcome of the election and the projected changes we might face under the incoming administration. Whether each of us supported the eventual one who will become the President, we can still pray for the welfare of the place where God has placed us, knowing our own welfare is inextricably tied to the welfare of the nation and the world.

I am not encouraging that we roll-over and blindly support every proposed change. There are legitimate means of voicing our desires for the nation and the world. There are legitimate means of seeking redress of policies and programs which do not advance the general well-being for all. It is our responsibility as citizens of this nation and as citizens of the world to seek the welfare of all people, especially the disposed, the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the refugee. … (S)eek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.

So, ends my hiatus.

I AM NOT BEING FED

I have never understood why some people leave a congregation declaring, “I’m not being fed.” What does that mean? Are things too challenging and the preaching and teaching over their heads? Are the preaching and teaching so simplistic that they do not challenge enough?

How does one understand being fed? What is the responsibility of the person for their own feeding? Is being fed a passive or active experience? One can be fed by a feeding tube. If a person is having ongoing and serious trouble swallowing and can't get enough food or liquids by mouth, a feeding tube may be put directly into the stomach through the abdominal skin. This procedure is called a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). (http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/feeding-tube-placement) A feeding tube is totally passive. The person, except for the processes in the digestive track, is not actively involved in the process of being fed.

For John Calvin, the first mark by which we may know the true church is Whenever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard” (Institutes, 4.1.9), this is where the true visible church is found. The preacher has the responsibility of presenting the Word in the most honest and faithful way possible. It is a task not to be taken lightly. On the other hand, hearing the preached Word is an awesome responsibility. As the preacher has to spend effort in preparing to preach, the congregation has a responsibility to spend effort in preparation to hear the proclaimed word.

Have the people prepared their hearts, minds and souls to hear the proclamation of the Word? I have seen, and experienced, the mad rush of Sunday mornings of trying to get the children up, dressed, fed, and out the door in time to gather for Sunday school and worship. By the time some folks get to church their morning has been a whirlwind of activity. There has been no time to read the Scriptures for the day, if they are known ahead of arriving, or to center oneself in prayer. When I was a pastor, I was glad to see the fellowship among folks before worship began. My preference was to have the prelude after the call to worship. This was an intentional time for them to quieten and to center themselves for worship.

Preaching and hearing the proclamation of the Word is a two-way communication loop. There is the broadcast (speaking) and there is the receiving (hearing). The preacher is responsible for the quality and content of the broadcast. It has to be in a form appropriate to the congregation. The Apostle faced that struggle. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for solid food. In fact, you are still not ready, 1^st Corinthians 3:2. Sometimes it is necessary to “bottle feed,” or “spoon feed” the congregation.

In order to properly receive the broadcast, the ears, heart and soul of the hears, like a radio, need to be tuned to the proper sending station. Do they arrive in a spirit of expectation of tuning into God? Do they expect the preacher to be the instrument through which God speaks? As the Apostle asks, How then can they call on the One they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the One of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone to preach? (Romans 10:14)

If one declares, “I am not being fed,” could it be they are refusing to eat?