dwkcommentaries

Derek Chauvin Will Ask U.S. Supreme Court To Review His State Court Conviction for Murder and Manslaughter of George Floyd

The Minnesota Supreme Court on July 18, 2023, in a one-page order denied Derek Chauvin’s petition for review of the Minnesota Court of Appeals’ 50-page decision affirming his state court conviction, after a jury trial, for second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in the May 2020 death of George Floyd.[1]

Immediately afterwards Chauvin’s attorneys said that they will petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case on the ground that his right to a fair trial under the U.S. Constitution was violated. “This criminal trial generated the most amount of pretrial publicity in history. More concerning are the riots which occurred after George Floyd’s death [and] led the jurors to all express concerns for their safety in the event they acquitted Mr. Chauvin — safety concerns which were fully evidenced by surrounding the courthouse in barbed wire and National Guard troops during the trial and deploying the National Guard throughout Minneapolis prior to jury deliberations.”[2]

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, however, said that the state Supreme Court’s denial of review “means that the Court of Appeals was correct in finding that his trial was properly conducted and he was properly convicted under law. This development definitively holds Chauvin accountable and closes this chapter of the murder of George Floyd.”

In this blogger’s opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court will deny this petition on the grounds that the Minnesota Court of Appeals’ 50-page decision is well-reasoned and thorough. In addition, as previously argued in this blog, Chauvin’s guilty plea to related charges in federal court should be another ground for rejecting any Chauvin appeals, but this argument was not mentioned by the Court of Appeals.[3]

=====================================

[1] Walsh, Minnesota Supreme Court declines to hear Derek Chauvin’s petition for appeal, Star Tribune (July 19, 2023); Minnesota Court of Appeals Affirms Chauvin’s State Court Conviction for Killing of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (April 19, 2023)

[2] Karnowski, Ex-officer Derek Chauvin to ask US Supreme Court to review his conviction in murder of George Floyd, Assoc. Press (July 19, 2023); Daniels, Chauvin to ask Supreme Court to review conviction in George Floyd murder, The Hill (July 20, 2023).

[3] Derek Chauvin’s Appeal of State Conviction and Sentencing for Killing of George Floyd, dwkcomentaries.com (Jan, 23, 2023).

UN Counterterrorism Expert Reports That Conditions at U.S. Guantanamo Detention Facility Are Cruel and Inhuman

On June 14, 2023, the U.N. Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism submitted her 24-page, single-spaced report on her four-day visit to the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Summary of the Report[1]

According to the Special Rapporteur, there are “serious concerns about the continued detention of 30 men and the systematic arbitrariness that pervades their day-to-day, bringing severe insecurity, suffering, and anxiety to all, without exception.” Moreover, “Every detainees she met with lives with unrelenting, ongoing harms following from systematic practices of rendition, torture, and arbitrary detention. For many, the dividing line between past and present is exceptionally thin and past experience of torture lives in the present, without any obvious end in sight, including because they have received no independent, holistic, or adequate torture rehabilitation.”

“Despite the depth, severity, and evident nature of many detainees’ current physical and psychological harms, the detention infrastructure entails near-constant surveillance, forced call extractions, undue use of restraints, and other arbitrary, non-human rights compliant operating procedures stemming from inadequate training, structural healthcare deficiencies, inadequate access to family, including the failure to facilitate meaningful communication; and arbitrary detention characterized by sustained fair trial violations. The totality of these practices and omissions have cumulative, compounding effects on detainees’ dignity and fundamental rights, and a mounts to ongoing cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Closure of the facility remains a priority.”

Before this trip to Guantanamo, the Special Rapporteur had “met with repatriated and resettled detainees and their families as well as government personnel in other countries [and had] identified serious shortcomings in the provision of the essential means that former detainees need to live a dignified life, including legal identity, health care, education, housing, family reunification, and freedom of movement. She found that these shortcomings contravened U.S. international law obligations, engaged before, during, and after transfer, including as regards non-refoulment—obligations of a more specific and compelling form when the individual has been tortured in its custody, requiring guarantee of adequate torture rehabilitation. . . .[In short,] the U.S. Government does not have an adequate system to address the well-being of those transferred, or the failure of governments to respect their rights.”

Therefore, “the U.S. Government must ensure accountability for all international law violations, for victims of counter-terrorism and victims of terrorism. . . . The time is now to undo the legacies of exceptionalism, discrimination, and secularization perpetuated by Guantanamo’s continuing existence.”

U.S. Response to this Report[2]

The Biden Administration released a one-page document saying that the current detainees “live communally and prepare meals together; receive specialized medical and psychiatric care; are given full access to legal counsel; and communicate regularly with family members.”

The Administration also said that this report’s findings “are solely only her own” and the U.S. “disagrees in significant respects with [her] many factual and legal assertions” but that the U.S. will carefully review her recommendations.

Details on the Special Rapporteur[3]

Pursuant to appointment as Special Rapporteur by the U.N. Human Rights Council, Ms. Fionnuala Ni Aolain, took up her duties on August 1, 2017. She also concurrently is Regents Professor and Robina Professor of Law, Public Policy and Security at the University of Minnesota Law School and Professor of Law at the Queens University, Belfast, Northern Ireland.

==========================

[1] U.N. Human Rights Special Procedures, Technical Visit to the United States and Guantanamo Detention Facility by the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism (June 14, 2023); U.N. Human Rights Council, UN counterterrorism expert concludes visit to the United States and Guantanamo detention facility (June 22, 2023); U.N. Human Rights Council, Expert welcomes historic visit to United States and Guantanamo detention facility and affirms rights of victims of terrorism and victims of counter-terrorism (June 26, 2023); Rosenberg, Conditions at Guantanamo Are Cruel and Inhuman, U.N. Investigation Finds, N.Y. Times (June 26,2023); Pilkington, U.S. subjects Guantanamo Bay detainees to ‘cruel’ treatment, UN says after visit, Guardian (June 27, 2023); Lederer (AP), Guantanamo detainees tell first independent visitor about scars from torture and hopes to leave, StarTribune (July 6, 2023); Pilkington, US must urgently treat men tortured at Guantanamo, UN investigator says, Guardian (July 7, 2023).This blog contains many posts that comment on Guantanamo. (List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: CUBA [as of 5/4/20]. See also https://dwkcommentaries.com/?s=Guantanamo.

[2] Rosenberg op cit.; Lederer, op. cit.

[3] University of Minnesota Law School, Fionnuala Ni Aolain. This blogger co-taught an international human rights course at the University of Minnesota Law School with three professors, including Ms. Ni Aolain. (My Call Stories, dwkcommentaries.com (Mar. 4, 2019); Teaching the International Human Rights Course, dwkcommentaries.com (July 1, 2011).

U.S. Calls for Cuba to Release All July 11 Political Prisoners

On July 11, 2023, U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken called for Cuba to release its “more than 700 individuals who remain in Cuban jails, condemned to prison sentences ranging up to 25 years for exercising their freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly.”

This was a reiteration of the U.S. “call for the immediate release of unjustly detained political prisoners and urge the international community to join us in demanding the Cuban government release the hundreds of students, journalists, artists, young people, and others unjustly imprisoned.”

==============================

Blinken, Call to Release All 11J Political Prisoners in Cuba, State Dep’t (July 11, 2023).

Westminster Presbyterian Church: Rejection of Christian Nationalism

Westminster Presbyterian Church, located on Nicollet Mall in downtown Minneapolis and the eighth largest Presbyterian church in the U.S., is involved in many social justice ministries, including partnerships with churches in Cuba, Cameroon and Palestine, co-hosting an Afghan family in Minnesota and sponsoring the Westminster Town Hall Forum that presents prominent speakers on topics of social justice throughout the year.[1]

Scripture for the Day

The Scripture for the Sunday of this Fourth of July weekend was Matthew 22: 15-22 (New Revised Standard Version (updated edition)):

“Then the Pharisees went and plotted to entrap him in what he said. So they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, ‘Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one, for you do not regard people with partiality. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?’ But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, ‘Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin used for the tax.’ And they brought him a denarius. Then he said to them, ‘Whose head is this and whose title?’ They answered, ‘Caesar’s.’ Then he said to them, ‘Give therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.’ When they heard this, they were amazed, and they left him and went away.”

The Sermon: “The Emperor is Not God”[2]

Rev. Timothy Hart-Andersen, Westminster’s Senior Pastor, delivered the day’s sermon.

“Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s and to God the things that are God’s.”

This morning’s scripture lesson shows the risk of intertwining political and religious authority in the time of Jesus. As we prepare to celebrate Independence Day, the text may teach us something about our own current realities. American culture has increasingly blurred the distinction between what belongs to the realm of faith and what belongs to the governance of the state.

The religious leaders of his time were trying to entrap Jesus, testing his ultimate loyalty. Jesus had been preaching a gospel of impartiality and inclusivity, showing deference to no one. They were observing that. He was disrupting the hierarchies and prejudices of his time that decreed the elevation of some at the expense of others.

In a quiet, rolling rebellion against the way things were, Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners, encouraged children to come to him, welcomed and respected women, loved those considered unlovable, and generally ignored the social, economic, ethnic, national, and even religious ways the world stratified itself in that time.

Jesus was exhibiting what the love of God looks like. He was living out the prayer he taught: thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. He was giving the church its mission. He was turning the world upside down.

No wonder those in power were threatened. Jesus did not have a litmus test you had to pass to be deemed worthy. Those outside the circles of acceptability were simply invited in. That approach was compelling. People were listening. People were noticing. People were following.

The Pharisees thought they would put an end to his growing popularity. “Teacher,” they said with mocking, feigned admiration.

“We know that you are sincere and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one, for you do not regard people with partiality. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor or not?” (Matthew 22:16-17)

Jesus knows what they’re up to. “Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites?” he says. “Show me the coin used for the tax.” (Matthew 22:19)

He’s asking for a denarius, the silver Roman coin used at the time for payment of taxes to Rome. (You can buy one today on eBay for $555.) On one side of the ancient coin was an image of the Emperor Tiberius with the words, “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son o the Divine Augustus.”

Tiberius, the ruler in the time of Jesus, was the offspring of one considered a god. The coin symbolizes the divine right passed on through the royal lineage to each Roman Emperor. To pay the tax with that coin was, in effect, to worship Caesar.

“Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor or not?” the Pharisees ask Jesus. The response of Jesus is not only clever; it’s also instructive for us.

“Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s,” Jesus replies, showing them the image of Tiberius on the coin. “And to God the things that are God’s.”

With that, Jesus deflates the attack of the Pharisees. What more can they say without betraying their own religious insincerity? They’re in a convenient alliance with the occupying foreign regime that allows them to retain their religious authority in exchange for tamping down the claims of their tradition, which would challenge that occupying force.

Jesus and the Pharisees both know it is idolatrous to consider other gods. “Hear O Israel,” they recite in their prayers, “The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.” (Deuteronomy 6:4-5)

To suggest the Roman emperor is competing with the one God denies the monotheism of Hebrew tradition. It is blasphemy. On the other hand, to imply that paying taxes to Caesar is politically acceptable runs counter to the proud instincts of Hebrew nationalism. They were trying to implicate Jesus one way or the other.

The Pharisees opposed the Roman tax in principle, but they did not go so far as to resist paying it. They were working both sides, trying to adhere to their religious tradition and avoid arrest by the Romans – all while hoping to rid themselves of the troublesome preacher from Galilee.

Jesus calls them out for confusing their ultimate allegiance with daily political realities. No wonder they slink away. They had trapped themselves.

Some have found in this ancient account a biblical rationale for the separation of religion and state. But that’s not Matthew’s intent here. At this point in the gospel, he wants to highlight the growing efforts to frame Jesus and eliminate his expanding influence. The noose is drawing tighter. The betrayal is coming. Matthew has no interest in proposing an abstract political doctrine about religion and the state. That would come many centuries later in the writings of Thomas Jefferson.

How can we understand today the response of Jesus long ago to the challenge, the testing, of the Pharisees? We can take it at face value, as a clever way for him to wriggle out of their grasp: The coin has the Caesar’s face on it. It belongs to him. Give it back to him. Case closed.

But there’s more.

Jesus could have stopped with the emperor’s image on the coin, but instead he goes on to add the line about giving to God what belongs to God. The Pharisees hadn’t mentioned God, hadn’t asked about what belongs to God. But Jesus brings God into the picture because some religious authorities had begun to confuse living within a particular political system as a way to practice their faith – in the politics of that time.

The emperor’s image is on that coin. That’s a political fact. In contrast, however, comes this unstated counter theological claim of Jesus: God’s image is imprinted on every human being.

Jesus brings God into the picture to make a subtle but decisive point: the emperor is not god. He wants to differentiate between political authority – an earthly reality that comes in many guises – and the power of God, which is something else altogether. God’s sovereignty cannot be equated to worldly authority. It should not be attached to any particular political system. The reign of God is that of Creator over Creation. God is “the Potentate of Time,” to quote the old hymn, the Alpha and Omega of history, the beginning and the end.

In our time, when many are tending to conflate religious and political authority, Jesus reminds us: the emperor is not God.

As we celebrate the 4th of July this year, let us remember that this nation was created by people fleeing religious persecution. They were leaving political systems in Europe that claimed the divine right of royal rulers, where religion was established, and the church was one with the state. The emperor, the royal ruler, was divinely ordained. Those fleeing England and France and the Netherlands wanted to break from that old way and enjoy freedom in the practice of their religion, unencumbered by interference from national political institutions.

Let us also not forget the irony and hypocrisy that those fleeing persecution in one land instituted brutal systems of persecution in another. One person’s freedom and economic enrichment came at the expense of another’s loss of ancestral homelands, or another’s enslavement and generational impoverishment.

The high calling of “liberty and justice for all” was not fulfilled at the start of this nation, and it has yet to be attained in this imperfect union. There is work to be done in our great national experiment, and it is hubris of someone if they think they have it all figured out. We have a lot of listening to do, a lot of learning to do, in this church and in other places wanting to build a better nation.

Some of that work has to do with the place of religion in the landscape of America today.

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution begins like this: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. The founders of our nation wanted to ensure that no religion could ever be conflated with or commingled with the national political identity. The emperor is not god; god is not the emperor.

But today that view is eroding among some.

“Christian nationalism,” says Paul D. Miller, professor at Georgetown University, “Is the belief that the American nation is defined by Christianity, and the government should take active steps to keep it that way…Christian nationalists assert that America is and must remain a ‘Christian nation’ – not merely as an observation about American history, but as a prescriptive program for what America must continue to be in the future.”[3]

A survey done earlier this year by the Public Religion Research Institute concludes that 10% of Americans, or 33 million people, are adherents of Christian nationalism, and another 19% are sympathetic to its views. Of those 29% of Americans, two-thirds are white evangelical Christians. [4]

Another survey finds that more than half of Americans have never heard of Christian nationalism. It’s time to pay attention. [5]

The National Council of Churches is concerned enough that it recently issued a warning about Christian nationalism. “Theologically,” the Council says, “Christian nationalism elevates the nation, or a particular concept of the nation, to a role closely aligned with God.” Jesus would not be pleased: the emperor is not god. [6]

“In its more militant forms,” the statement continues, “Christian nationalism encourages its adherents to believe they are battling the forces of darkness on all fronts…This mindset of embattled righteousness is applied to the perceived enemies of the state…and true believers are directed to employ any and all means, even undemocratic and violent ones, in order to win political contests. In this quest for political power, Christian humility is lost, as is the message of God’s love for all humanity.”

As we celebrate the founding of America this week, we are summoned to advocate for our nation’s democracy – which is being challenged not from a foreign foe, but from our own neighbors who have distorted the gospel of Jesus and made it into a political movement that wants “to equate the reign of God with their vision of America.”

I know that sounds harsh, but this is happening in America today.

And we are also called – all of us – to support and tend to a care for the witness of the Christian Church in our time. As the National Council of Churches says, To assume that Christianity mandates a particular political agenda is to overstep constitutional bounds and to claim divine sanction for the priorities of a few.”

In spite of these concerns, which can frighten and perhaps overwhelm us, we do have much for which to be grateful in our nation and to acclaim this Fourth of July. We have freedom of religion. We can practice what we believe by worshipping together and joining those of other faith traditions and people of goodwill to work for a better, more just America.

We can follow the Jesus we meet in the gospels by standing with the immigrant and with those pushed aside by the cruelties of our time. Compelled by our faith, we can do our part by listening, and learning, and growing in our understanding of how we might serve God by bringing healing to individuals and communities, and to the earth itself.

This Independence Day we can celebrate that the nation has made progress on many fronts in the struggle to undo historic wrongs and create new opportunities. Yes, we have more work to do. Yes, more listening to do. Yes, we will have to pay closer attention to what our neighbors are saying. Because we have the chance in our time to ensure that every American, no matter their creed or circumstance, has rights equal to every other American.

That would be something truly to celebrate.

In the words of Langston Hughes, the great Black poet,

“O, let America be America again—

The land that never has been yet—

And yet must be—

the land where everyone is free” [7]

May it be so.

To God be the glory.

Amen.

Reactions

As a Westminster member, I thank Rev. Hart-Andersen for delivering this most timely sermon on the Fourth of July weekend to remind everyone that “Christian nationalism” is contrary to Jesus’ gospel and that all of us need to do more to make this the land of the free.

===============================

[1] The church’s website contains more information about the church and Rev. Timothy Hart-Andersen. In addition, this blog has published many posts about Westminster. (See List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: Religion.

[2] Sermon, The Emperor Is Not God, Westminster Presbyterian Church (July 2, 2023).

[3] Miller, What Is Christian Nationalism?, Christianity Today (Feb. 3, 2021).

[4] Shimon, Poll: A third of Americans are Christian nationalists and most are white evangelicals, Religion News.com (Feb. 8, 2023).

[5] Smith, Rotold & Tevington, 45% of Americans Say U.S. Should Be a ‘Christian Nation,’ Pew Research Center (Oct. 27, 2022).

[6] National Council of Churches, The Dangers of Christian Nationalism in the United States: A Policy Statement of the National Council of Churches (April 20, 2021).

[7] The cover of the bulletin for this service contained a longer extract of the Langston Hughes poem, which was written in 1935, and the complete text is available on the web. (Hughes, Let America Be America Again.) Mr. Hughes was an American poet, social activist, playwright and columnist form Joplin, Missouri as well as a leader of the Harlem Renaissance. (Langston Hughes, Wikipedia..)

Minneapolis Westminster Presbyterian Church: Presbyterian Principles: It is our duty to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other

On May 14, Rev. Dr. Timothy Hart-Andersen, Senior Pastor of Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church, preached the last of his three sermons on Presbyterian Principles.[1] This one focused on our duty to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other.

Scripture

Colossians 3:12-17

As God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience.

Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.

Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.

And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful.

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; teach and admonish one another in all wisdom; and with gratitude in your hearts sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to God.

And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

Sermon[2]

We come today to the final sermon in this series exploring the Historic Principles of Church Order from the constitution of the Presbyterian Church. These principles were adopted in the late 18th century to help the church maintain “order” in its life, but the principles do much more. They offer essential guidance to us as individuals seeking to follow Jesus in our time.

There are eight historic principles; we’ve focused on two so far: “God alone is Lord of the conscience – we carry God’s love in our minds and hearts as a compass in life.” “Truth is in order to goodness – facing the truth, even if it painful, leads to goodness.”

And finally, this principle:

“There are truths and forms with respect to which (people) of good characters and principles may differ. And in all these we think it the duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other. It is our duty to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other.”

Those 18th century Presbyterians had read their Bible. The notion of being kind to one another, even in the face of hostility, appears throughout the gospels. Jesus takes it to an extreme when he tells us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.

How do we live like that? The letter to the Colossians has some advice:

“Therefore, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lordhas forgiven you, so you also must forgive. (Colossians 3:12-23)

New life in Christ is like shedding old clothes and donning a new self. I have watched that happen many times over the years, as people come to fresh commitment to their faith, or come to faith for the first time. When we follow Jesus, we put on new clothes. We take on a new identity.

Last Thursday the elders of the church welcomed new members into the life of our congregation. We will receive them in worship next week. The 20 or so individuals are not coming to Westminster for social reasons, or because we’re a well-run non-profit. They are, rather, shedding an old way of life, each in their own way, and putting on a new identity. They want to discern with us what it means to follow Jesus in our complicated time. If they serve on a committee or sing in the choir that’s great; but let us be clear: church is about taking on, putting on, a new identity.

Among other things, our Presbyterian ancestors say, that new identity expects of us mutual forbearance.

This past week I found myself on an airplane flying back to Minneapolis, next to an older man wearing the hat and jacket of someone with whom I assumed I would disagree on any number of issues. He wanted to talk. Has that ever happened to you? My strategy was to open my laptop and go to work on this sermon. He tried to engage me multiple times; finally, I obliged. We were beginning our descent to Minneapolis and with his opening question to me I thought he and I might start a descent of our own.

“Is it true what they say about crime in Minneapolis?” he asked.

“I’m not sure what you’re hearing,” I replied, and then told him about the decline in crime in the city as reported in the news recently. He seemed skeptical.

Then – maybe, I confess, to see how he might respond – I said that things would be even better if there weren’t so many guns. He proceeded to tell me he owned an AR-15, and he didn’t want anyone taking it from him because he needed it for protection.

It was clear we were headed toward serious turbulence. I was determined not to give an inch on this topic about which I have strong feelings. We were in a small airplane. He had the window seat; I had the aisle. I had him cornered.

Then I remembered the historic principle in the sermon I was working on, sitting next to him. “There are truths and forms with respect to which (people) of good characters and principles may differ. And in all these we think it the duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other. ”

To forbear means to exercise restraint, show patience, demonstrate self-control. That is not where I was headed with my seatmate. I decided to try practicing what I was planning to preach.

I began by assuming he was “a person of good character.” It helped to think of him as someone’s grandfather – it takes one to know one, even if we did have opposing views. I set out to patiently listen to him, and then, to my relief, he sat quietly listening to me when it was my turn.

There we were, two grandfathers representing American polarity on that little plane. We went back and forth for some time, working hard to keep it polite and genuinely hear the other. Both of us were pleased to find one area about which we did agree: the need for more mental health support in our communities.

I left him in Minneapolis. He was headed to Salt Lake. When I told him I was a Presbyterian minister, he smiled and said he was a Lutheran. I doubt I changed his mind about guns, and I know he did not change mine, but our exchange had been surprisingly helpful. I had the sense that if we had more time, we might have found more common ground.

It is our duty to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other.

I first learned that historic Presbyterian principle back in the heat of the major church struggle over the full inclusion of LGBTQ persons in the life and ministry of our denomination. Not unlike other struggles to expand the rights of people, those of us advocating change received a lot of pushback. Some of it was ugly. It was even worse for those who embodied the pain of the church’s exclusion. Individuals were shunned, kicked out of churches, subject to cruelty and hate.

It was difficult in that time to “exercise mutual forbearance” toward those on the opposing side. We consciously and carefully referred to them not as the enemy but as “other Presbyterians,” to remind ourselves that we weren’t that far apart on every issue. There might be some common ground between us. We held firm that God’s love extended to all God’s people, and that God’s call to serve the church could come to any faithful person. We did that while trying to engage those who disagreed in a way that respected their full humanity, hoping they might reciprocate, and some did.

The church finally became supportive of its LGBTQ members. Several hundred congregations left the denomination, including some in our presbytery, but I think more would have left were it not for some on both sides of the struggle committed to exercising the historic principle of mutual forbearance toward each other.

“Above all,” Colossians urges us, “Clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.”

The Church, like the human community, has always struggled to hold in tension internal disagreement while staying together. The historic principle of mutual forbearance acknowledges that we do not all have to agree on everything. We never will. But when we write off someone with whom we disagree, or make them our enemy, we have little chance of ever finding common ground.

There are truths and forms with respect to which (people) of good characters and principles may differ. That principle is not only Presbyterian – it is foundational to any functioning democracy. In the church we call the power that binds us together the love of God; in civil society it’s a shared sense of national purpose. We seem to have lost that, or are in danger of losing it.

When mutual forbearance is thrown out, democracy is on a collision course with itself and headed for deep trouble. With the mutual animosity characteristic of our time, we run the risk of losing any shared commitments and fracturing that which ties us to one another.

It is the duty, those Presbyterians said back then, both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other. Forbearance – both as individuals and collectively. The Letter to the Colossians is not written to a private party; it is directed at a community.

The future belongs to people and communities that can learn to live with those with whom they disagree and may even consider an enemy.

Every year in Israel, Palestinians and Israelis hold an event called Joint Memorial Day. It began in 2005 to “try to break the chain of revenge and hatred.”

The first gathering 18 years ago had only 200 people. Three weeks ago, 15,000 Israelis and Palestinians showed up. They told stories of grief and loss on both sides – and listened to them. They publicly committed themselves to end the cycle of violence that only begets more violence. That is true in any society, including ours.

“It’s possible to use our pain in a different way,” an Arab father whose ten-year old daughter was killed by Israeli soldiers said at the event.

An Israeli man whose sister was killed by a suicide bomber said, “It is easy and natural to hate, be angry, want revenge. But I am convinced this is the best way to leverage my feelings and my loss for the good of my people and this country,”

That is the exercise of courageous mutual forbearance. If Israelis and Palestinians can do it, anyone can. Peace with justice will not come to the world until we break repeated patterns of hatred and revenge, violence and more violence between nations and neighbors.

To survive, our own democracy depends on finding a way to live together in a divided house with those we may be tempted to see as enemies. That is true for the Church, as well.

This may not be happy news for us, because it’s easy and, if we’re honest, strangely satisfying to spiral down into anger and dismissiveness toward others. I know this, because I struggle with this tension all the time. It surfaced on that airplane ride this past week.

Instead, the letter to the Colossians invites us to put on new life, to clothe ourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and trusting God’s love to bind us together.

The three historic principles we have explored all start and finish with God’s love. They offer guidance to us in this troubled world, as we follow Jesus: God alone is Lord of the conscience. Truth is in order to goodness. It is our duty to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other.

In the end, only the power of God’s love working in us and in others will lead to that new day, a day where justice breaks forth and peace flourishes on earth and the human community lives in harmony.

That day is the great gift God has already given in Jesus Christ, the one whom we seek to follow and serve.

Thanks be to God.

Amen.

Reactions

I wholeheartedly agree that we should act with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness and patience with everyone we meet and with whom we interact. This includes forgiveness of others for what we perceive as their errors.

We may still try to teach and admonish others. And we need to acknowledge that others may not agree with us. This is when mutual forbearance or restraint, patience and self-control come in.

I also must confess that I tend to interact with others who, I believe, agree with me on contentious issues of our political and social life and try to avoid issues that might provoke disagreement.

As a result, I think that many others and I need practice of interacting with others who hold different opinions on issues like gun control and certain political leaders.

Tim’s account of his spontaneous response to a fellow airplane passenger who raised the question of crime in Minneapolis seemed inadequate. Given the vague nature of the other man’s comment, a better response by Tim could have been something like the following: “I’m not sure what you have heard on this subject, but during the COVID crisis and afterwards, Minneapolis experienced a bad rash of car jackings and thefts, high speed, reckless auto traffic that killed and injured many people and many gun-caused injuries and deaths. But recently there have been reported declines in these horrible crimes. I should also mention that later this month two downtown Minneapolis churches—Westminster and Central Lutheran—are co-hosting a national Festival of Homiletics for clergy of various churches.”

================================

[1] Previous posts about this series of sermons: The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), dwkcommentaries.com (May 11, 2023); Minneapolis Westminster Presbyterian Church: Presbyterian Principles: God alone is Lord of the conscience, dwkcommentaries.com (May 12, 2023); Minneapolis Westminster Presbyterian Church: Presbyterian Principles: Truth is in order to goodness, dwkcommentaries.com (May 13, 2023).

[2] Rev. Dr. Timothy Hart-Andersen, Sermon: Presbyterian Principles: It is our duty to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other, Westminster Presbyterian Church (Minneapolis) (May 14, 2023); Bulletin, Westminster Presbyterian Church (May 14, 2023) (the Bulletin’s cover contained the full statement of this Principle).

Derek Chauvin Asks Minnesota Supreme Court To Review His Conviction for Killing of George Floyd

As previously reported, in April 2021, a jury in Hennepin County District Court returned a verdict that Derek Chauvin was guilty on all three counts (second degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter) of George Floyd in May 2020. In June 2021 that court imposed a sentence of 22.5 years imprisonment on Mr. Chauvin for these crimes.[1]

On April 17, 2023, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed that conviction.[2]

On May 17, 2023, Chauvin appealed that decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court, stating that the legal issues to be reviewed were the following:

“Whether the district court’s failure to either transfer venue, delay the trial or sequester the jury deprived Petitioner of state rights and constitutional due process to a fair trial because (i) the district court failed to presume juror prejudice due to pervasive adverse publicity and violence in the community or (ii) the district court abused its discretion.”
“Whether (i) police officers acting to effect lawful arrests can be convicted of second- degree felony murder when the predicate felony required only intent to contact, with no subjective intent to use what is later adjudicated as objectively unreasonable force or (ii) Minnesota should abrogate felony murder where the predicate felony is assault.”
“Whether the jury instruction on ‘reasonableness’ police use-of-force was material error.”
“Whether upward sentence departures are misapplied when defendant’s conduct was without subjective intent.”
Whether denying a Schwartz hearing after defendant presented prima facie evidence of juror misconduct deprives defendants of the constitutional right to trial by impartial jury.”[3]

The Minnesota Supreme Court could decline to review the Court of Appeals decision or decide to conduct such a review after the parties submit detailed briefs and present arguments at a hearing and thereafter submit the Supreme Court’s decision.

This blogger thinks that the Supreme Court probably will decline to grant review. In the meantime, Chauvin is serving concurrent state and federal convictions for Floyd’s killing in a federal prison.

=================================

[1] Derek Chauvin Trial: Week Seven (CONVICTION), dwkcommentaries.com (April 21, 2021); Derek Chauvin Trial: Chauvin Sentenced to 22.5 Years Imprisonment, dwkcommentaries.com (June 28, 2021).

[2] Minnesota Court of Appeals Affirms Chauvin’s State Court Conviction for Killing of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (April 19, 2023).

[3] Karnowski (AP), Chauvin appeals conviction in George Floyd’s murder to the Minnesota Supreme Court, StarTribune (May 17, 2023); Petition for Review, Chauvin v.State, Minn. Sup. Ct. # A21-1228 (May 17, 2023).

Derek Chauvin’s Ex-Wife Sentenced for Minnesota Tax Evasion

On May 12, 2023, Minnesota’s Washington County District Court sentenced Kellie Chauvin, the former wife of Derek Chauvin, based on her recent guilty plea to two counts of aiding and abetting Minnesota income tax evasion.[1]

The sentence was 20 days in jail, three years’ probation and payment of $37,868 in restitution to cover the unpaid taxes. Rather than being in jail, she can satisfy the time through “sentence to serve,” which often means being part of a supervised work crew or doing some other community work involving physical labor.

On March 17, 2023 Derek Chauvin, based upon his guilty plea, was sentenced by the same state court to a 13-month term that runs concurrent with his state murder sentence plus an order to pay $38,000 in restitution for failure to report state income taxes.

=================================

[1] Walsh, Derek Chauvin’s ex-wife receives 20-day sentence for tax evasion, StarTribune (May 16, 2023). . See also Derek Chauvin’s Ex-Wife Pleads Guilty to Income Tax Evasion, dwkcommentaries.com (Feb. 25, 2023); [Comment:] Derek Chauvin Pleads Guilty to Minnesota Tax Evasion Crimes, dwkcommentaries.com (Mar. 22, 2023).

Minneapolis Westminster Presbyterian Church: Presbyterian Principles: Truth is in order to goodness

On May 7, 2023, Rev. Dr. Timothy Hart-Andersen, Senior Pastor of Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church, delivered the second of three sermons on Presbyterian Principles.[1] This one focused on “truth is in order to goodness.”

Scripture

John 3: 16-24

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

“Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned, but those who do not believe are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.”

After this Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, and he spent some time there with them and baptized. John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim because water was abundant there, and people kept coming and were being baptized. (John, of course, had not yet been thrown into prison.)

Sermon[2]

We’re on the second Sunday of a three-part series exploring what are called The Historic Principles of Church Order. They were adopted by the Presbyterian Church more than two centuries ago. Our forebears set out to build Christian community on these basic tenets of faith. The principles served – and still serve – as the foundation of the values we hold dear and which we embrace as followers of Jesus.

We may be tempted to dismiss a set of ethics adopted in the late 18th century as anachronistic or irrelevant. But give them a chance and it becomes clear they still speak to us. Last week we looked at this historic principle: God alone is Lord of the conscience – meaning that in the mind and heart of a Christian, God’s love is the ultimate guide for how we live.

Today we look at another assertion upon which our Church stands: Truth is in order to goodness. When I first read this in our denomination’s constitution many years ago, I didn’t understand it. It refers to one thing that follows another. To say truth is in order to goodness means that goodness results from following the truth. Truth leads to goodness.

Could any old-time principle be more appropriate for our time today, when lies and illusions abound in our public life, and mendacity doesn’t even bother to masquerade? Could any principle be more apt for our time than this one? Truth is in order to goodness.

When Jesus was before Pilate, only hours before his crucifixion, the Roman governor was probing him, trying to learn who he was, and the motivation for what he did. Jesus finally tells him,

“For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” (John 18:37)

As followers of Jesus, we ought to be known as those who belong to the truth, who refuse to follow falsehood. If we belong to the truth, our lives bear witness to what is good and honest, right and just. Our actions and our integrity point others to the truth.

But how do we know what is true? “The great touchstone of truth,” according to those 18th century Presbyterians, is “Its tendency to promote holiness.”

By “holiness” they meant life that reflects the love and righteousness, the light and justice of God.

Our forebears went on to declare, “No opinion can be either more pernicious or more absurd than that which brings truth and falsehood upon a level.”

Truth is in order to goodness.

Jesus couldn’t agree more: “You will know them by their fruits,” he said. “Are grapes gathered from thorns or figs from thistles?” (Matthew 7:16)

A few years ago, we chuckled at the notion of truthiness in our political and cultural ethos. That was then, and this is now, and it is no longer a laughing matter. With new technology the world of “alternative facts” has scaled up beyond anything we could ever have imagined. To quote Dorothy, “Toto, I have a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore.”

In an interview this week, Dr. Jeffery Hinton, known as the “godfather” of artificial intelligence, was asked about the benefits and risks of AI. AI, he said, can be a force for astonishing good. “Would you rather see a family doctor that has seen a few thousand patients or a family doctor that has seen a few hundred million patients, including with the same rare disease you have?”

A benefit of AI.

But, as we have been hearing a lot these days, there’s a deep shadow side to AI. At a recent UN conference on the risks of technology, a participant said, “AI can bring with it a host of unintended consequences. One of the most pernicious could be AI’s ability to spread misinformation at a pace and scale not seen before.”

Pernicious is the very word Presbyterians used 235 years ago to describe bringing “truth and falsehood upon a level.” It carries the connotation of malevolence. The use of this technology – not the technology itself – can be detrimental to our life together, even sinister.

Dr. Hinton recently left Google to speak out about the threats in the use of the technology he spent decades developing. The first danger he cites is “the risk of producing a lot of fake news so no one knows what’s true anymore.”

This has gone way beyond a mere press conference where someone claims something we all know to be false, and it begins to spread by people repeating and believing it.

Jesus was acutely aware of the power of what is true. “You shall know the truth,” he said, “And the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32)

But in an age when unregulated and unrestrained technology can easily be used to spread that which is untrue and present it as gospel – and I use that word intentionally – we will soon lose our freedom.

If truth is in order to goodness, when much of the world is filtered through and controlled by AI can we even know what is true?

By ourselves we cannot stop the malicious use of technology, but we can be careful with it and check its veracity when in doubt. We can use technology to verify the accuracy of technology. We can discern what is true and decide what we will do about it – even if that truth is painful or difficult to face in our personal lives, in our families and our relationships, in our city and nation today, and in its history. The truth can be hard to hear, but you and I, we are bound to pursue it and act on it.

A statement by the national church 40 years ago, in 1983, says, “As Presbyterians we believe there is…no way to disconnect faith from practice. What we believe is reflected in our actions, both individually and corporately. Acceptance of untruths as truth is harmful…The truth of a particular idea is often revealed in the way it leads people to behave…Time is a test of truth.”

Truth is in order to goodness, sometimes over a long stretch of time.

The New York Times columnist Tom Friedman spoke this past week at an event here in town sponsored by World Savvy, a wonderful national education non-profit headquartered in Minneapolis. Friedman commented on the credo of the founder of Facebook Mark Zuckerman: move fast and break things.

Friedman countered: “In a speeding world, that which happens slowly is more important than ever.”

The three things such a world needs, he said, are self-motivation, the discipline to engage even when so much can be done for us, without our engagement; access, the capacity to get and use the technology; and, character.

Friedman focused on that last point, character. He named a number of “slow-moving” experiences that teach empathy and kindness and help create lasting, healthy community. At the top of his list was Sunday School – and he didn’t mean what happens only in churches; at this very moment, over at Temple Israel they are teaching in the synagogue what they call Sunday School.

People of faith instinctively know that slowing down helps us and our children see and listen and discern more carefully. Prayer slows us down. Music slows us down. Quiet slows us down. Every Wednesday evening people gather for mid-week worship in Westminster Hall that includes 5-6 minutes of silence together. It never seems long enough.

God rested on the seventh day in the Creation story and wonder at all that had been made. The Creator needed to stop and see the truth of all that beauty – and then pronounce it good. We are told to honor the Sabbath because human beings lose their way when they go fast all the time. Truth gets in when we slow down – and truth is in order to goodness.

We don’t often think of Jesus as having a focus on truth in his ministry. He healed, he taught, he loved those reviled or feared by others, he welcomed those excluded, he prayed, he listened, he gave his life for others. But what does all that have to do with truth?

It has everything to do with truth.

Jesus said, “I am the way the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6)

With his own life, Jesus points to the truth, truth with a capital T and the smaller, everyday truths at the core of our faith, that you and I try to live every day: that love is greater than fear and compassion stronger than hate, that dawn will follow even the longest night, that mercy leads to forgiveness and grace heals brokenness, that hope gives courage to seek justice against all odds. that we are not alone.

I John asks a simple question: “How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help? Little children, let us love not in word or speech but in deed and truth. And by this we will know that we are from the truth.” (I John 3:17-19a)

We who follow Jesus are from the truth. We belong to the truth. That means how we live is not some random accident, controlled by some force outside of us, but a direct result of holding fast to the truth that God is love.

“We are persuaded,” the Presbyterians said long ago,,“That there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise, it would be of no consequence either to discover truth or to embrace it.” (PCUSA Book of Order, F-1.0304: Historic Principles)

Truth is in order to goodness.

Thanks be to God.

Amen.

Reactions

These Presbyterian “principles served—and still serve—as the foundation of values we hold dear and which we embrace as followers of Jesus.” “God’s love is the ultimate guide for how we live.”

“To say ‘truth is in order to goodness’ means that goodness results from following the truth. Truth leads to goodness.” “The great touchstone of truth [is]the tendency to promote . . . life that reflects the love and righteousness, the light and justice of God.”

Dr. Jeffrey Hinton, an expert on Artificial Intelligence (AI), says AI “can be a force of astonishing good,” such as enabling an M.D. to see medical results of a disease in vastly more cases. On the other hand, AI risks “producing a lot of fake news so that no one knows what’s true anymore.”

Tom Friedman, the New York Times columnist, says the world needs (a) self-motivation or the discipline to engage with the world; (b) the ability to get and use the ever-changing technology; and (c) character, which is shaped by “slow moving” experiences that teach empathy and kindness and help create lasting, healthy community. A prime example of such “slow moving” experiences is Sunday School in churches and synagogues.

“With his own life, Jesus points to the truth with a capital T and the smaller, everyday truths at the core of our faith, that you and I try to live every day: that love id greater than fear and compassion stronger than hate, that dawn will follow even the longest night, that mercy leads to forgiveness and grace heals brokenness, that hope gives courage to seek justice against all odds, and that we are not alone.”

============================

[1] Previous posts about this series of sermons:

The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), dwkcommentaries.com (May 11, 2023); Minneapolis Westminster Presbyterian Church: Presbyterian Principles: God alone is Lord of the conscience, dwkcommentaries.com (May 12, 2023).

[2] Rev. Dr. Timothy Hart-Andersen, Sermon, Presbyterian Principles: Truth is in order to goodness (May 7, 2023); Bulletin, Westminster Presbyterian Church (Minneapolis) (May 7, 2023).

Minneapolis Westminster Presbyterian Church: Presbyterian Principles: God alone is Lord of the conscience

On Sunday, April 30, 2023, Rev. Dr. Timothy Hart-Andersen, Senior Pastor at Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church, delivered his first of three sermons on Presbyterian Principles. This one focused on ”God alone is Lord of the conscience.”[1]

Scripture

1 Corinthians 10:23-32

“All things are permitted,” but not all things are beneficial. “All things are permitted,” but not all things build up. Do not seek your own advantage but that of the other. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience, for “the earth and its fullness are the Lord’s.” If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, out of consideration for the one who informed you and for the sake of conscience— I mean the other’s conscience, not your own. For why should my freedom be subject to the judgment of someone else’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why should I be denounced because of that for which I give thanks?

So, whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God.

Sermon[2]

Corinth in the first century was a busy commercial hub, a cultural crossroads, a Roman city, part of the empire, teeming with travelers, immigrants, sailors, outcasts, merchants, soldiers, impoverished people, wealthy citizens, free and enslaved persons, Greek-speakers, Latin speakers, Jews, practitioners of a wide variety of religions.

Archaeologists have found there more than two dozen temples and shrines to a veritable smorgasbord of gods of the time. One early traveler reported that right next to the Roman Forum in Corinth was a “temple for all the gods.” (J. Paul Sampley, The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. X [Knoxville: Abingdon Press, 2002], p. 773-774)

Corinth, like our city and our nation today, was trying to live peacefully within the pluralism of the time – but there’s always potential for trouble when people of different religious traditions live together. Don’t we know that.

The fires in two mosques in south Minneapolis this past week – one of which was in the former Oliver Presbyterian Church building on Bloomington Avenue – are the latest examples of attacks on houses of worship in this city. During Passover Temple Israel was targeted by vandals who spray painted anti-Semitic slurs on the building. A third mosque was hit by vandalism two weeks ago.

We denounce these assaults and stand in solidarity with our Jewish and Muslim neighbors. An attack on one faith community is an attack on all faith communities.

We don’t know if that level of conflict was present in first-century Corinth, but from the Apostle Paul’s letters and other sources we do know the people in that ancient city struggled to live peacefully in a religiously plural society.

Paul walked into those challenges when he arrived in Corinth around the year 50 CE. He was newly converted from Judaism to the Way of Jesus and sensed a call to establish new churches among the Gentiles of the eastern Mediterranean. He was coming from Thessalonica and Philippi where he had already planted churches. Paul spent a couple years in Corinth and then left when things weren’t going well for him.

We’ve just listened to an excerpt from a letter Paul wrote to the church he had established in Corinth. Given their religiously diverse context, they were working hard to find their way. They were worried by some basic issues – especially, it turns out, about what to eat. Most of the meat in Corinthian markets had been sacrificed to idols, and the new Christians feared if they ate it, they would be violating rules of their faith and running afoul of the believing community.

They were struggling with temptation, after all, they wanted to eat, and with conscience – they thought it was forbidden. Paul assures the Corinthians. “Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience,” he says.

“If an unbeliever invites you to a meal, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. But if someone says to you, ‘This has been offered in sacrifice,’ then do not eat it, out of consideration for the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience—I mean the other’s conscience, not your own.” (I Corinthians 10:25, 27-29a)

Paul is trying to walk a fine line here, to find balance between sticking to one’s own religious beliefs and living in a world where many do not share the same convictions. He shows, frankly, a surprising degree of flexibility here. Good for Paul! At a point earlier in the letter in another passage about eating, he tells the Corinthians that if his eating meat were to cause a someone to stumble, he would become vegetarian. He was that serious about accommodating those of other traditions.

Paul listens well. He adapts his response to the situation with grace, rather than falling back on religious regulations. He’s trying to model his life after the life of Jesus, who showed no partiality.

“So, whether you eat or drink,” he says, “Or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God.”

Paul uses the Corinthian conundrum as more than a lesson in eating responsibly. For him it’s a metaphor for how to live peaceably with our neighbors. Where do we draw the line in our behavior toward others? How do we make moral decisions that affect more than only ourselves? How can I live with my own convictions and let others live with theirs – and stay in community with them?

Long ago Presbyterians recognized this very challenge, the challenge of respecting freedom of conscience in a complex, pluralistic world. In 1788 we adopted a set of defining principles of church order that became the foundational building blocks of life in the Presbyterian Church in this land. Westminster was established in Minneapolis only 70 years after their adoption. From the beginning through today, our congregation’s ministers and lay leaders have been guided by these tenets of life in the church – our ecclesiology: how we will be and do church. (In 1788 the Presbyterian Synod of New York and Philadelphia adopted these principles, now in the PCUSA Book of Order: F-3.01)

At issue for the Presbyterians, not unlike the Corinthians, was how to allow freedom for believers within the bounds of the faith of the Church. The principles – now nearly 235 years old – have stood the test of time. Today, especially in a period of deep division, distrust, animosity, suspicion of those outside our circles, and embrace of prevarication, principles such as these are important reminders that our faith gives rise to certain concrete values. Those values guide us in our life together, both in the church and in the world.

Over the next three Sundays we will explore three of what our denomination’s constitution calls “The Historic Principles of Church Order.” Today we look at the first: God alone is Lord of the conscience. (Book of Order, F-3.01)

Those words did not originate with American Presbyterians in the late 18th century. They were borrowed from the Westminster Confession, written by Scottish theologians, and adopted by Presbyterians from Scotland meeting in Westminster Abbey in 1640. Our church’s name honors that history.

This first foundational principle is embedded in a longer sentence:

“That God alone is Lord of the conscience and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of (people) which are in anything contrary to God’s Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship.”

Presbyterians have always sought to balance the binding of conscience by the Word of God with individual responsibility when it comes to faith:

“Therefore,” the church’s constitution declares, “We consider the rights of private judgment, in all matters that respect religion, as universal and unalienable.”

That’s a lot of fancy 17th century wording that means, simply: No one can tell another person what to believe. Each of us has the right – indeed, the responsibility – to decide for ourselves. Presbyterians recognize that at the heart of Christian faith is not a set of rules imposed from some authority beyond us. Frankly, it might a little easier to follow Jesus if what that means were spelled out in a list that we could simply check off, but that’s not how we do our Christianity.

Christian faith is not a set of rules imposed from some authority beyond us, but a relationship each of us has with God in Jesus Christ and with our neighbor. Relationships are living, dynamic realities; religion based on fixed rules depletes faith of its life. Dietrich Bonhoeffer said Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship. Faith is a living, breathing relationship, not a set of fixed declarations we must obey. Think of our own personal connections and our life in community – the healthiest ones are based on relationships, not rules.

Paul could have said that under no circumstances should food sacrificed to idols be considered off limits because avoiding such food would give credence to idol worship. But instead, the Apostle shows how a Christ-like ethic works: if the food in question is considered holy by a person of another religious tradition, don’t eat it out of respect for that person’s conscience, setting aside your own conscience.

Paul is reminding the Corinthians that the goal of Christian living is to honor God and neighbor. It’s as if he were saying, God alone is Lord of the conscience and hath left it free from the commandments of people which are in anything contrary to God’s Word.

All theology in our tradition begins and ends with the sovereignty of God, but the sovereignty of God has eroded over time. Today it has been supplanted by the sovereignty of self. The 16th century Westminster divines had no intention of displacing the Lordship of God with a freewheeling Christianity tethered to nothing other than the whims of one’s own heart or mind.

Much of what seeks to pass for Christianity today is little more than self-driven ambition seeking power or privilege or prosperity, or anger propelled by fear that sees the other as someone to condemn and exclude, with a cloak of religiosity draped over it.

The lofty right of private judgement in matters of faith has been perverted in our time. It has descended into a maelstrom of assertions bearing little resemblance to the Word of God found in scripture and proclaimed in the words of Jesus preached by the Church. One cannot genuinely hold to the love of God and at the same time violate the image of God in other human beings by cruelty or injustice or contempt or gunfire. One cannot claim to follow Jesus and ignore how he lived and what he taught and whom he healed.

The exercise of individual religious liberty takes place within certain responsibilities. The foundational principle here is that God alone is Lord of the conscience. The competing claim rampant in our time is that self alone is the lord of conscience.

If we affirm that God is sovereign over all of life, we cannot simultaneously put ourselves at the center and shove God aside and push neighbor away, no matter how different they are or how much we fear them or how thoroughly we reject their politics. Paul’s experience in Corinth taught him that God’s image is present in every person, and, therefore, every person is deserving of respect and dignity and the fullness of their own humanity, their God-given humanity.

The Apostle can sometimes come off as narrow-minded or exclusive – especially toward women – but in Corinth, in this letter we read today, he shows a full grasp of God’s radical intention in Jesus Christ: to make love the essence of our lives, so that what we do or say – everything we do or say – is always considered by its impact on others and on the Other.

“Our own good,” one author says, “Is inextricably tied up with the good of all others.” (J. Paul Sampley, The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. X [Knoxville: Abingdon Press, 2002], p. p22)

Ethics, morality, conscience – they’re all worked out in community, not in isolation.

Our world is desperate for a new way of life together. To proclaim that God alone is Lord of the conscience, as we do, is to declare that love alone is Lord of the conscience.

Love leads the way. It takes us to a theology of grace and hope. And that theology compels us to join people of other faith traditions and people of goodwill to work toward a culture of kindness and generosity, a politics of humility and compassion, a social order that is fair and just.

As those who follow Jesus, that is our work, and it begins anew every day.

Thanks be to God.

Amen.

Reactions

This sermon and its inspiration from 1 Corinthians deliver a very important message that was [and is] embraced by U.S. Presbyterians in the 18^th century and today. “We consider the rights of private judgment, in all matters that respect religion as universal and unalienable.” In short, “No one can tell another person what to believe. Each of us has the right—indeed, the responsibility—to decide for ourselves. . . . One cannot genuinely hold to the love of God and at the same time violate the image of God in other human beings by cruelty or injustice or contempt or gunfire. “

“God’s radical intention in Jesus Christ [is] to make love the essence of our lives, so that . . . everything we do or say –is always considered by its impact on others and on the Other. . . . [That] theology compels us to join people of other faith traditions and people of good will to work toward a culture of kindness and generosity, a politics of humility and compassion, a social order that is fair and just.”

“As those who follow Jesus, that is our work, and it begins anew every day.”

==========================

[1] A previous post discussed the source of these sermons: The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), dwkcommentaries.com (May 11, 2023).

[2] Rev. Dr. Timothy Hart-Andersen, Sermon: Presbyterian Principles: God is Lord of the conscience, Westminster Presbyterian Church (April 30, 2023); Westminster Presbyterian Church, Bulletin (April 30, 2023).

The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

I am a member and non-ruling elder of Westminster Presbyterian Church (Minneapolis), which is a member of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) denomination. The latter’s Constitution consists of the following two parts.

Part I: The Book of Confessions

This Book contains the following confessions:

The Nicene Creed (A.D. 381)
The Apostles’ Creed (A.D. 180)
The Scots Confession (1560)
The Heidelberg Catechism [Germany] (1562)
The Second Helvetic Confession [Switzerland/Germany] (1561)
The Westminster Confession of Faith [Scotland/England] (1647, 1649)
The Shorter Catechism [Scotland/England] (1649)
The Larger Catechism [Scotland/England] (1649)
The Theological Declaration of Barmen [Germany] (1934)
The Confession of 1967 [U.S.A.]
The Confession of Belhar [South Africa] (1980)
A Brief Confession of Faith—Presbyterian Church [U.S.A.](1983)

Some of these confessions are very short while others are very long. The only one I recall reading or studying is The Confession of Belhar, which was created in South Africa as a result of its struggles over apartheid and which was discussed in my blog post, The Confession of Belhar Is Adopted by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), dwkcommentaries.com (July 21, 2016).

Part II: The Book of Order 2019-2023.

The Book of Order consists of the following:

The Foundations of Presbyterian Polity (The Mission of the Church, The Church and Its Confessions and Principles of Order and Government)
The Form of Government,
Directory for Worship, and
Rules of Discipline.

I do not recall reading or studying any parts of The Book of Order, except for three of the Principles of Order and Government that were or will be discussed in the following sermons by Rev. Dr. Timothy Hart-Andersen, our Senior Pastor, and that will be examined in subsequent posts to this blog:

Presbyterian Principles: God alone is Lord of the Conscience (April 30, 2023);
Presbyterian Principles: Truth is in order to goodness (May 7, 2023); and
Presbyterian Principles: It is our duty to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other (May 14, 2023).