One of the first acts of the 219th General Assembly will be the election of a new Moderator.

To help our readers weigh this important choice, Presbyterian Voices for Justice has invited each of the people standing for this high office to respond briefly to four questions that reflect our concerns – and, we believe, the concerns of the wider church.

The four questions were:

Question 1: On the Middle East Study Committee report:

It appears that the Middle East Study Committee report, “Breaking Down the Walls,” may be one of the more controversial matters coming to the Assembly. Various Jewish organizations have already attacked it – and the Presbyterian Church – as “anti-Semitic” on the basis of the report’s criticisms of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the denial of Palestinians’ human rights, and so on. What is your own view of the very complex problems of Israel/Palestine? What might you do as Moderator to help the Assembly understand and respond to the committee’s report and recommendations?

Question 2: On the role of LGBT people in the PC(USA):

Once again, this Assembly will be pondering the role of lesbian/gay/bisexual/ transgender people in the PC(USA) – both in their eligibility for ordained office, and in the possibility of the Church’s sanctioning and blessing their marriages. Some overtures would provide complete equality in the matters of either ordination or marriage, while others would rule out any further GA consideration of these questions for some years. What do you see as the two or three key Biblical/theological principles that could best guide us in considering these proposals?

Question 3: On dealing with polarization in church and society:

These days it seems that the differences and tensions within the Presbyterian Church (USA) pale in comparison to the the growing polarization in US politics.

Many church leaders have recently joined in a call for increasing the “civility” of our political discourse. Other than asking our political leaders to play nicely together, what might our church – both nationally and locally – do to improve the climate of our political life and the tone of our debates?

Question 4: On U.S. immigration policy:

Everyone seems to agree that U.S. immigration policy needs to be reformed, but nobody seems to agree on what the changes should be. As people of faith who affirm Jesus’ call to welcome the stranger, how should we be dealing with the continuing influx of immigrants into many of our communities – both locally and in our efforts to influence new national policies?

The responses from the candidates are below, appearing in alphabetical order.

They are:

Click here for reports from Presbyterian News Service about each of these candidates, and the two others who have not yet had time to get their responses to use.

Two notes about these responses from candidates:

• Some of the expected candidates for Moderator were not able to get their responses to us in time for our press deadline.  However, we will post their responses here as soon as we receive them.

Doug King, WebWeaver

We invite your comments in response to any of these responses from the candidates.
 Just send a note,
and we'll share it here.

The Rev. James A. Belle

NOTE: These responses from the Rev. James Belle have been received on June 28 and are being posted on June 28.  We regret the apparent misunderstandings which caused this delay.

Question 1: On the Middle East Study Committee report:

From Hebrew, we know that “Shalom” (peace) has “hesed” (justice) as an integral part of its meaning. Restorative justice thus means that “there can be no peace without justice.” Within the celebration of the Seder meal during Passover, there comes a time when everyone is instructed to dip their finger in the wine and let the wine drip onto their Seder plate as the ten plagues are named in the order that they occurred in securing freedom from Egyptian captivity. The theology is that it is contrary to the will of God for anyone to celebrate the suffering of others that occurs even for your own liberation.

Our reformed Judeo-Christian heritage is a collaborative, on-going relationship much as generations to a family. It is with this confidence and familial sense of community that I would ask our Church to consider and communicate our concerns to our Jewish brothers and sisters; in love and with grace. Reinhold Niebuhr also put it this way: “There are historic situations in which refusal to defend the inheritance of a civilization, however imperfect, against tyranny and aggression may result in consequences even worse than war.”
 

Question 2: On the role of LGBT people in the PC(USA):

Genesis 1:27 states: “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” Any discussion of the worth of humanity must begin with this understanding of being made in the “image of God” (imagio Dei).

 In the Second Chapter of Genesis, God introduces the male and female gender in a more specified version of creation, using the Hebrew names for each:

 [23] Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, [“ishsah”] for out of Man [“ish”] this one was taken.

This text is central in the discussion whether the argument for same-gender relationships is pro or con. The Westminster Confession defines marriage in a way that must also be a part of the discussion:

1. Christian marriage is an institution ordained of God, blessed by our Lord Jesus Christ, established and sanctified for the happiness and welfare of mankind, into which spiritual and physical union one man and one woman enter, cherishing a mutual esteem and love, bearing with each other's infirmities and weaknesses, comforting each other in trouble, providing in honesty and industry for each other and for their household, praying for each other, and living together the length of their days as heirs of the grace of life.

In Chapter 12 of Paul’s letter to the Romans, we find a text that reminds us how to relate to one another and consider the different gifts God has given us:

[4] For as in one body we have many members, and not all the members have the same function, [5] so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually we are members one of another.

Question 4: On U.S. immigration policy:

When considering immigration from Mexico to the U.S., we should remember that many states initially belonged to Mexico: such as Texas, California, and New Mexico. The native indigenous people did not have a concept of “ownership” of land, bodies of water or air. These aspects of God’s creation were “spirits” which were respected and received as God’s grace for people to share. As one who has worn the uniform of those who are to defend the “land of the free and home of the brave” I want to know that our witness of “defense of our borders” also upholds our proclaimed ideals of “freedom and justice for all.” Our attitudes about terrorism, security, justice and fairness is exactly what I was taught those who wore the uniform were supposed to defend. There needs to be a balance in what is done to curtail the influx that deals with the root cause of employment in both countries (specifically USA and Mexico), partnership between the two governments, and consequences for employers who seek illegal workers for cheap labor.

Question 1: On the Middle East Study Committee report:

The issues surrounding Israel /Palestine are incredibly complex, deeply rooted in history, and subject to subtleties that demand years of knowledge and experience before they can be truly understood.

As a church, we need to commend the Middle East Study Committee for taking on what some might call a Sisyphean task and producing a comprehensive report in less than a year’s time. As a church, we should also be mindful, however, that this General Assembly is being asked, in less than a week’s time, to make decisions on the report’s recommendations.

I believe the wisest decision this Assembly can make is to commend the report to the church for further study, and to especially urge congregations, as they study the report, to engage in conversations regarding these issues with Jewish and Muslim neighbors.

Question 2: On the role of LGBT people in the PC(USA):

I sense that there are some within the PC (USA) who want the ongoing debate over the role of lesbian/gay/bisexual/ transgender people in our denomination to just go away. The reality, though, is that the time for deciding when this issue gets resolved is in God’s hands, not ours. Until then we must continue the conversation, even if we feel that there are no new voices to be heard. Those in favor of the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in our life together – and I include myself in that group – believe that we fail to satisfy the Gospel imperative of inclusiveness as we continue to exclude gays and lesbians from leadership in our church. But there are also many within our church who believe that homosexual behavior is a sin that violates Scripture’s mandates. I respect their beliefs, and I want to continue in conversation with them about this basic issue. “Come, now, let us reason together” seems an appropriate principle to guide us as we continue this conversation.

Question 3: On dealing with polarization in church and society:

I hope that the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) can improve the climate of our political debate by modeling how difficult and contentious issues can be debated and decided while still being respectful of each other’s opinions and views.

Doing that at the Assembly will not be easy. Within the church, just as within the country, debate turns shrill, partisan, and mean-spirited when people feel that the ground is shifting underneath their feet – and they’re not quite sure why the ground is shifting. The more we as a denomination can engage in conversation, can build relationships together despite our differences on key issues, the more we can help each other understand and accept that, although changes might be happening all around us, the ties that bind us are strong and will survive.

Question 4: On U.S. immigration policy:

The church must, in a way that is both prophetic yet at the same time non-anxious (and I realize that is a difficult combination), follow through on the Biblical mandate to welcome the stranger while at the same time recognizing and understanding the real fears and emotions engendered by the current lack of a realistic and comprehensive immigration policy. Immigration reform is sorely needed, and the leaders of our denomination have made clear, in their May 3 letter to members of Congress, that the PC(USA) supports immigration reform.

Such action at the national level is needed and appropriate. But we as a church can make the most impact where we ALWAYS make the most impact – through the mission and ministry of our congregations, supported and resourced by our presbyteries. Congregations know who, right outside their doors, are being affected by this crisis, and congregations need to provide the support that those folks need.

Question 1: On the Middle East Study Committee report:

As a Christian, I feel indebted to my Jewish sisters and brothers for my faith. The covenant between God and the Hebrew people became the foundation for the church, and they remain spiritual “elders” to the Christian community. For this reason, the persecution of the Jews at the hands of intolerant Christians over the past two thousand years of church history grieves me deeply.

I also affirm Israel’s right to exist as a state. Israel has a right to defend itself from those who seek its harm, and as Christians, we must also condemn any acts of terrorism and aggression against Israel and its inhabitants. But affirming Israel’s right to exist as a state does not mean that we ignore obvious acts of injustice and bias against the Palestinian people. They also have a right to exist, and a right to statehood.

In recent years the Jewish/Palestinian conflict has grown only worse, partly fueled by an unholy alliance between Fundamentalist Zionism and Christian Premillennial Dispensationalism, which views the existence of the modern state of Israel as a step toward the consummation of God’s Kingdom. My concern is that this dangerous connection between Fundamentalist Zionism and Christian Dispensationalism threatens to silence even reasonable and moderate perspectives on the Jewish/Palestinian conflict.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) has long supported Israel’s right to exist in peace and security. We should not be intimidated by any particular lobby or interest group into a silent complicity in injustice. We value the longstanding friendship between Presbyterians and the Jewish people in North America, but a true friendship speaks the truth in love, and calls out the best in each other’s nature.

Question 2: On the role of LGBT people in the PC(USA):

My reflections on the life of Jesus lead me to reject both complete equality in the matters of either ordination or marriage, and ruling out any further GA consideration of these questions for years to come. Both of these approaches are simplistic, leaving little room for struggle, tension, and discernment. True discernment requires that we rely utterly on the Holy Spirit in any given situation. We must ask what the letter of the law calls us to, while remaining open to the Spirit of the law in each particular circumstance. The two biblical texts that have helped clarify this for me are the story of the adulterous woman in John 8:1-11, and the picking of the grain on the Sabbath by Jesus’ disciples in Matthew 12:1-8.

As a lifelong evangelical, my reading of Scripture does not lead me to believe that homosexuality conforms to God’s intention for human relating, but I do notice in John 8:1-11 that Jesus blesses the adulteress at the very moment when all the “righteous” abandoned her, while calling her behavior sin. Jesus was truly good news to this woman, but we evangelicals need to repent deeply for judging our LGBT sisters and brothers, rather than extending the grace of God and the love of Christian community.

My approach is clarified further through Matthew 12:1-8, where Jesus allows his disciples to eat grain on the Sabbath because they were hungry, not because he was instituting a new law about the Sabbath. He upholds the law, even as he allows his disciples to transgress, because for Jesus the law exists to serve people, not the other way around. So just as Jesus made an exception for his disciples while upholding the traditional teaching on the Sabbath, an ordaining body should be able to make an exception for a faithful LGBT person while upholding the normativity of our constitutional standard.

My primary concern, then, is to not use LGBT people to bolster an ideological agenda, whether on the Left or Right, but to relate to each person deeply, prayerfully discerning what is called for in each particular situation. This allows us to move beyond the tyranny of absolutism – total denial or total acceptance – to respecting the true calling of a church council: to discern together the will of God.

Question 3: On dealing with polarization in church and society:

Mainline Protestantism is collapsing in North America. This has led to increasing polarization within our denomination.

What answer do the “Conservative/ Evangelicals” and the “Liberal/ Progressives” have to the needs of the American church in the 21st century? Too often we simply hurl vitriolic accusations that the other is unfaithful to the gospel.

Before we try to fix the political climate, we need to face our own failures as a church, so that we model for the world not perfection, but an honesty and nondefensiveness that the world will find refreshing. We need to confess that we have become an inflexible and onerous system, an ecclesial bureaucracy that is often faceless, oppressive, and utterly unimaginative. We suffer from a pervasive fear of change, making the emergence of new life almost impossible. We struggle with an insidious racism that makes us unable to embody the sovereignty of God and the priesthood of all believers in our local congregations.

Jesus said that he is the Way, the Truth and the Life. I find the Reformed tradition to have an overwhelming emphasis on Truth. Liberal/Progressives believe that the truth lies in God’s grace, a grace so boundless as to include gay ordination.

Conservative/Evangelicals believe that the truth lies in the Bible and its seemingly plain teaching that homosexual practice is beyond scriptural bounds. Both these camps have been willing to use any means necessary to advance their own agenda while crushing the opposition.

But the Way mattered for Jesus. He would not take any shortcuts to the cross, or use any violence along the way. Jesus did not do whatever it took to gain power, even power to do great good for the world. Only equal faithfulness to the Way and the Truth leads to the fullness of Life. Let the politicians use deceit and violence to achieve their ends. Our Master will be Jesus.

Question 4: On U.S. immigration policy:

I would first address the underlying mentality that has shaped our approach to immigration policy as a nation. The antiimmigrant sentiment in this country reflects our profound amnesia concerning our history. We need to remember that, with the exception of Native Americans, we are all immigrants.

In the congregation I serve, the Church of All Nations, we address this issue through reflecting together on the theological, historical and sociological factors that shape who we are – especially regarding race in America. If we don’t confront, rehearse, and confess our history as a nation, we end up with a wrong mentality that leads to abusive policy.

There is a powerful myth at work in America – the myth of the white man as the good guy, the righteous sheriff, the cowboy protecting the pioneers from the “naked savages,” the homesteader who pulls himself up by his bootstraps – never mind that he did this on land stripped from someone else and labor stolen from someone else. The need in America to maintain a myth of the white man as the hero prevents white people from speaking honestly about the past, and therefore taking responsibility for the present.

I speak as a Korean American, recognizing that Korean people are also culpable in this great American tragedy. Like all immigrants before us, we have used the same strategy to “get ahead” and join the melting pot of whiteness. How do we talk about immigration without first acknowledging the deep racism that frames the entire issue, along with the distorted myths about white innocence, goodness, and chosenness?

To deal with the continuing influx of immigrants into many of our communities, we need to be transformed by the “renewing of our minds” through the corporate confession and repentance that will one day lead to reconciliation.

Question 1: On the Middle East Study Committee report:

While traveling in the land they both claim, I was welcomed into the homes of both Palestinians and Jews. I broke bread with them and felt with them their sorrows and frustrations. I pondered with them their commonality, differences and history.

Historically, the PC(USA) has been a strong ally to Jews in America. Our principles of tolerance and forbearance and our willingness to be engaged have given American Jews a regular friend in Presbyterians.

The PC(USA) has also been deeply involved for generations with Palestinians in joint educational and mission work, leaving them with the expectation and hope that we will help them in their time of need and struggle.

Our denomination has long been a supporter of a two-state solution. That solution will become possible when both parties recognize the need for parity in their positions, in rights, in ownership and in self-governance.

As Moderator I would seek God’s guidance for a strong pastoral presence with American Jews attending – meeting with them, seeking a partnership for peace, remaining allies, but allies with compassion for all.

Question 2: On the role of LGBT people in the PC(USA):

We have tried – and failed – to find middle ground between “thou shalt not …” and the love and inclusivity of Jesus’ ministry. The Apostle Paul’s laundry list of offenders in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 includes a message of hope for those who made the list, but now stand purified, sanctified and justified though the intervention of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 10, Peter, an orthodox Jew, is commanded to recognize that, if God says it’s OK, it’s OK, — as he tells how Cornelius, a centurion, and other non-Jews received the Holy Spirit:

“ … As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?”

So, are we there yet? No! But, as my son used to ask from the back seat, “Are we lost yet?” I believe not. We are, like Peter, slow to consider a new paradigm not a part of the old Law. A key vote in the 218th General Assembly was 54% to 46%— far from consensus. Perhaps when we can speak with a strong majority on matters of human sexuality, we can move on with our mission. In the same vote our advisory delegates, the next generation, voted 67%-33%. God may not change our hearts today – but we can trust God to have a plan.

Question 3: On dealing with polarization in church and society:

When dangerous rhetoric and shrill monologue dominate both the secular marketplace of ideas and national and world politics, we, as a denomination, cannot allow ourselves to be caught up in the dissonance of contentious discourse. Until we get past the unfortunate practice of choosing up sides and embarking on search and destroy missions against differing points of view, we cannot hear the wisdom God has surely placed there. We must treat our friends, and opponents, as honorable human beings with the same capacity for love, and for error, that we have. We must first proclaim the Word of Jesus Christ in our lives, then in our denomination, and finally as agents of peace in the world.

Many of us wear crosses. I challenge all of us who wear this symbol of sacrificial love to remember that we must also live that radical kind of love Jesus lived, taught, and died for. Let us put aside our differences and intolerance and practice peace. Then let us go out together and teach peace to a troubled world.

Question 4: On U.S. immigration policy:

We are fearful today and we live in fearful times. An aggressive and competitive media numbs us with sensationalistic excesses and bombards us with more information than we can properly process. We often respond with fear and rage – rage about deficits, health care, failing public schools, loss of jobs, and the extravagance of greed. And in an uncertain time we have found a lightning rod in illegal immigration.

Is it fair? No. But it is historically predictable and, to a degree, understandable.

Question 1: On the Middle East Study Committee report:

As the tensions between Israel and Palestine are long-standing, I do not anticipate a quick resolution. As Moderator, one positive action I can take is to help facilitate the ongoing dialogue within the church about the complex issues surrounding this situation. With much of our national attention on the extended war on terror, few have examined closely the effects the ongoing conflict has taken on the lives of both Palestinians and Israelis, and most especially upon the dwindling number of Christians who have been caught in the crossfire. More education about the historic and modern issues surrounding Israel/Palestine, and the question of Jerusalem, is sorely needed.

I would also caution the church about making broad statements of condemnation to the parties involved without being fully cognizant of our own history. Our own nation has grown as an outcome of war and occupation of territories, and we must be careful not to establish a double standard toward other nations.

As Presbyterians, in all situations of conflict, we must be in constant and earnest prayer for all parties involved, and for the working of the Holy Spirit to bring peace and reconciliation.

Question 2: On the role of LGBT people in the PC(USA):

The verses quoted by those in favor and opposed to the ordination of homosexuals in the church are well known. Beyond this stalemate there are two additional passages that I believe should shape our reflections. The first is the concept of the “one body of Christ,” manifested in 1 Corinthians 12. No person can proclaim the Lordship of Jesus Christ without the action of the Holy Spirit. The greater question is, therefore, how we allow, or prevent, the Spirit’s work in an individual’s life to be realized. We should reframe our current question to that of what gifts a person brings to the ministry of the church and how we can engage those gifts in the mission of the church.

Secondly, and ultimately, it comes down to Jesus’ final words to his disciples: “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another... By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13: 34-35).

Question 3: On dealing with polarization in church and society:

Be it the regulatory functions that have overtaken our Book of Order, debates about ordination or virtually any other issue of contention, our denomination reflects a basic lack of trust in one another. We do not trust the integrity of one another’s faith. We do not trust fellow sisters and brothers within congregations and presbyteries to make faithful decisions based upon our understanding of scripture, our confessional heritage, or the commands of Christ. We no longer trust that we all have the best interest of the Church at heart.

There is no policy statement or official action of the Assembly that can restore civility. Trust is earned and respect is given. I hope the Assembly can envision, and members will respond to opportunities for more direct dialogue around our issues of disagreement. We are tired of talking ‘at’ people. We have to be able to talk ‘with’ one another.

Question 4: On U.S. immigration policy:

Without question, the Biblical mandate to care for the stranger compels us to treat immigrants with compassion and basic human rights. We also must acknowledge that much of the present chaos and confusion, particularly along the southern border of our country, is the result of inconsistent enforcement of national law.

The starting point for our reflections upon the needs of immigrants and the question of illegal aliens is looking in our own mirror. We must ask ourselves why these people are coming to our country. Part of the answer is political – they are fleeing the persecution of their homelands and seeking the liberty and freedom that the United States offers. This compels us to address the question of how we can foster human rights and freedoms in other lands.

Another major part of the answer – our own desire for cheap produce and products. We demand inexpensive food in our grocery stores, and those prices are kept low due the use of illegal or migrant workers.

If you like what you find here,
we hope you'll help us keep Voices for Justice going ... and growing!

Please consider making a special contribution -- large or small -- to help us continue and improve this service.

Click here to send a gift online, using your credit card, through PayPal.

Or send your check, made out to "Presbyterian Voices for Justice" and marked "web site," to our PVJ Treasurer:

PVJ's Facebook page

Mitch Trigger, PVJ's Secretary/Communicator, has created a Facebook page where Witherspoon members and others can gather to exchange news and views. Mitch and a few others have posted bits of news, both personal and organizational. But there’s room for more!

Voices of Sophia blog

Heather Reichgott, who has created this new blog for Voices of Sophia, introduces it:

John Harris’ Summit to Shore blogspot

John Shuck’s Shuck and Jive

Got more blogs to recommend?