August 16, 2003

I could not get worked up about it. I would use an analogy. There is a giant fight going on in a house, the parents are mad at each other and the kids are mad at the parents, everybody is yelling at each other, ripping things off the walls, throwing things at each other an generally demolishing the house. In the meantime, some kid comes down the street and puts graffiti the fence. Nobody is really going to care about the graffiti when the family is tearing itself and the house apart.

The church is tearing itself apart, so who gives a rat’s ^&%$ if some guy that writes for the New York Times takes a pot shot. The damage done by Kristof just is not that significant compared to the self-inflicted wounds of things like homosexual ordination, blessing of gay unions and the like. What is troubling about Kristof’s article is that he discusses his grandfather who was a Presbyterian ELDER and how that grandfather never believed in the virgin birth. After all is not an Elder supposed to be "not a new convert" (I Timothy 3:6) and "able to teach" (I Timothy 3:2)? One would understand if a "new convert" did not quite have all the doctrines straight, but one would expect that a teacher would have to share those doctrines in order to teach them. I am far more inclined to condemn that Nominating Committee that selected and the congregation that voted Kristof’s grandfather onto Session than I am Kristof.

Now here is a discovery for me – a genuine thing about believe I did not know, which is unusual given how much I have read over the years. The Jewish scholar went on to proclaim that the "name in vain" commandment was the only one that God could not forgive. That, I thought, was one of those place where Judaism and Christianity part company, but after a little research this morning I find I am wrong. Read Exodus 20:7 for yourself – here is a complete quote, "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain." Note the clause at the end. I cannot remember a single sermon I have ever heard on the Ten Commandments where I have heard that clause mentioned, let alone explained or otherwise considered.

"But," you protest, " did not Jesus on the cross change all that?" I am not so sure. Consider this passage (Heb 6:4-6), "For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and {then} have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame." Does not "partaking of the Holy Spirit and then falling away" sound very much like "using the name of the Lord wrongly?"

Let me break this down a little bit. Using the Lord’s name wrongly is something we can all understand pretty easily. Generally it means doing evil under God’s name. Jim Jones would be a great example, as would Catholic Priests that use their position to seduce young boys. Pastors that use their positions to seduce women in the congregation, or to reap great worldly reward (read get rich) are probably also in that category, although when it comes to the money thing, intent matters more than actual amounts. Now, if I go to all the trouble to study and become ordained, written papers, taken oaths, can I not be said to have "tasted of the heavenly gift," or "tasted the good word of God?" If so would not any of the actions I describe above be considered to have "fallen away?"

I think these passage, one Old Testament and one New Testament are talking about the same thing, and it is something that I have harped on over and over in this space. When the church does wrong, when leaders of the church do wrong, it is something more, different than the sins committed by us all, it is, in fact misrepresenting who God is, and that, as we have seen is unforgivable.

I will confess to how very hard it can be to know when the line is crossed between ordinary and forgivable sin, and transgressions that rise to the levels just discussed. One thing is certain, this only involves wrong that is committed under the guise of holy authority, that is to pastors, elders and churches, for only such people and institutions can be forthrightly judged to have "partaken of the Holy Spirit." The things start to get fuzzy.

As I said last week, there are some things that are unclear, divorce for example. There are some things; however, that can only be defined as openly defiant of the wishes of God. The elevation or ordination of homosexuals would clearly be in that category. Can it be that the Episcopalians have crossed the line and are now unforgivable? I am truly grateful that in the end only God can make that judgement. The fact that the judgement belongs to God, does not; however, mean that I cannot or should not fear that judgement.

Woe be to us. We worry about graffiti writers when we should be worried about the house demolishing family fight. We defiantly decide that we know better than God and then expect Him to just say "oops" and accept us into His eternal Kingdom. I do not pretend to know how God will judge each of us when the day comes, but I do know that it will be far more harshly than most of us expect.

"And to man He said, 'Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding."