Atheist Joins Presbyterian Church

[VickiVM]

Some questions I have:

Has this church baptized the man (I am unaware of any Christian church that accepts never-baptized members, and if so, this should not be and is not Christian)? If so, then the church is making a mockery of Baptism.

Has this church permitted the man to partake of Communion/Lord's Supper/Eucharist? If so, then the church is making a mockery of Communion/Lord's Supper/Eucharist.

The resolution (for the time being):

Pastor John Judson - my pastor whom I greatly admire and respect - is on the Committee of Ministry which in this case is much like a liason from the regional presbytery to the individual churches. They met with the pastor of St.Andrews and the session, which is the governing board of the church. It was decided that the active membership of the atheist be nullified and instead he be placed on the 'baptized' roll. (So I'm guessing he was baptized at St. Andrews, not sure.) A baptized member btw can receive communion. PCUSA isn't particularly regimented about who can receive communion, as long as they are baptized.

The COM will also work closely with St. Andrews. PCUSA has a Book of Order that defines how business gets conducted in the church and I'm guessing that this will be their basic guideline as far as guidance.

St. Andrews can and is actually encouraged to go down this road again if they feel the gentleman's intentions are sincere and authentic.

So...active member, not - but he is encouraged to continue attending and participating in the life of the church.

My personal thoughts - I think the Holy Spirit is working in the gentleman. I also think the Holy Spirit is working in those of us who question and debate this. I am proud to be a Presbyterian and I trust that God knows what he is doing!!

 

[LindsayDunn228]

Some questions I have:

Has this church baptized the man (I am unaware of any Christian church that accepts never-baptized members, and if so, this should not be and is not Christian)? If so, then the church is making a mockery of Baptism.

Has this church permitted the man to partake of Communion/Lord's Supper/Eucharist? If so, then the church is making a mockery of Communion/Lord's Supper/Eucharist.

You are exactly right. It's cheapening the church.

 

[Disneyrsh]

Ok, as a practicing presbyterian, I feel semi-qualified to respond to the article.

First, it looks like he was attracted to the presbyterian church because this particular branch of protestantism is *very* politically organized. And I don't mean that in a bad way, I mean that in the sense that our government system of three branches, executive, judicial, and legislative, was based upon the Presbyterian church's setup, which continues to exist today.

Presbyterians are, as a group, *very* rational, and *very* careful to make decisions following the steps laid down within the church concerning church matters. From the article, this is obviously what attracted him.

The presbyterians also seem, from my point of view, having been to many, many different types of churches, much more tolerant of what others might call a 'weak' or 'misplaced' faith.

If you asked most of the people in my church what they think of him, the reply would be that "God works in mysterious ways."

They may call us "The Frozen Chosen", but sometimes not getting all up in someone's face about religion works wonders...

 

[Disneyrsh]

So this guy was "confirmed" (don't know what they call it) in the church? You can't just join up and be a member without an actual confirmation ceremony?

In the Catholic Church it's more defined. No, we'd never let someone be part of a sacrament who didn't agree to the terms, so to speak.

When I joined, I came in having never been baptized and only rarely attending church. We started going to the presbyterian church, for reasons rather complex and personal to discuss here, and liked the people there. Warm, not pushy, friendly, easygoing. When we decided to become members, we both (DH and I) had to go through several months of classes to underdstand just what it meant to be a Presbyterian.

Then at the end of the classes we chose to join, and were inducted as new members at the beginning of church in front with our Reverend. It's a little fuzzy remembering now, but we agreed to uphold our end, and the rest of the church (in a truly amazing roar of voices) agreed to uphold their end, and we became members.

So, yes, there was an actual ceremony. We dressed up.

Oops, have to add I was also baptized during this ceremony as well.

I'm guessing Jensen's already been baptized and has proof of it; I doubt seriously as an atheist he would have been able to go through the baptism without flat out lying about his beliefs, and his whole publicity stunt is about 'honesty'. So he's dodged that theological bullet.

 

[Chipperdini]

VickiVM - Thank you for the additional information.

It was decided that the active membership of the atheist be nullified and instead he be placed on the 'baptized' roll.

If I may ask, what is the difference between active membership and the baptized roll?

St. Andrews can and is actually encouraged to go down this road again if they feel the gentleman's intentions are sincere and authentic.

Correct me, please, if I misunderstand: are you saying that St. Andrews will revisit the issue of active membership if they feel the gentleman’s intentions are sincere and authentic? If so, what is meant by sincere and authentic intentions?

My personal thoughts - I think the Holy Spirit is working in the gentleman.

If I may ask, what makes you think this? The only information I have is from the article, and I’m not seeing such based on that information.

I also think the Holy Spirit is working in those of us who question and debate this.

How so/To what end, if I may ask?

I trust that God knows what he is doing!!

I do too, but not everything is of God.

 

[Disneyrsh]

VickiVM - Thank you for the additional information.

If I may ask, what makes you think this? The only information I have is from the article, and I’m not seeing such based on that information.



How so/To what end, if I may ask?



I do too, but not everything is of God.

I'm not sure the quote of a quote of a quote would work, but if she thinks it's the Holy Spirit working, then that's what she thinks. She doesn't need evidence-that's the nature of faith!

You can't prove everything is of God, and you can't prove everything isn't of God. Again, nature of faith...

 

[VickiVM]

VickiVM - Thank you for the additional information.
If I may ask, what is the difference between active membership and the baptized roll?
Correct me, please, if I misunderstand: are you saying that St. Andrews will revisit the issue of active membership if they feel the gentleman’s intentions are sincere and authentic? If so, what is meant by sincere and authentic intentions?

First, here is copy from the minutes of the June meeting:

"12. St. Andrew’s, Austin, Session was directed as follows:
a. Declare that the reception of Robert Jensen into active membership was “irregular” and thus void.
b. Direct that St. Andrew’s session to move Robert Jensen to the “Baptized” Role.
c. Direct the session of St. Andrew’s to work with representatives of COM to create a constitutionally appropriate process for receiving members.
d. Encourage the session of St. Andrew’s, if it so chooses, to re-examine Robert Jensen, if he so desires, according to the process developed by the session and representatives of COM."

I'm going with the assumption that the copy meant "roll" and not "role". When a member is active, each church pays a fixed amount per head to the next level of presbytery, and then I believe the presbytery pays a certain amount to the General Assembly level. Each church is supposed to maintain accurate counts of membership and should remove 'inactive' members yearly. So essentially, there is a financial responsibility of each church per active member.

I'm also assuming that if they church decides to entertain Jensen's request for membership, they will take care to heed the COM's recommendations and require he be more 'authentic' about his motivations - such as a true desire to not only follow in Christ's teachings, but to profess him Lord and Saviour. "Authentic" is my personal word I use when I'm speaking about a person's faith that is aligned with what I believe Christ would want from a Christian.

And as for the Holy Spirit - I truly believe when there is debate and question about the nature of God and his purpose for us, the Holy Spirit begins to move in people in ways they might not expect. When we begin to discern what is not the purpose of God, then his will and true purpose begins to take shape and has clarity. I don't necessarily think of God's will intellectually, but emotionally and that, for me at least, I think is the nature of the Holy Spirit.

Challenging our faith and beliefs is a good thing, I think. It's these challenges I believe that define more clearly our own faith.

 

[VickiVM]

No - not everything is of God. I'm not implying that. However, our response should be. I believe that Mission Presbyterian and the COM did the right thing.

 

[VickiVM]

Oh - and check us out!!! Believers and non-believers alike sharing thoughts and opinions without bashing or hating (and we're on page 8 already). Yeah for us!!

 

[Chipperdini]

I'm not sure the quote of a quote of a quote would work, but if she thinks it's the Holy Spirit working, then that's what she thinks.

Well, yes, of course what she thinks = what she thinks. VickiVM has stated what she thinks, so I think we’ve got that much. I wondered why she thinks what she thinks.

She doesn't need evidence-

Oh? I’m sorry; I don’t know VickiVM, and I was unaware that she doesn’t need evidence for what she thinks. I was working on the assumption that she does, and I’d prefer to stick with that assumption until she tells me otherwise or I conclude otherwise.

that's the nature of faith!

I am concerned with Christian faith in this thread, and if you mean to say that Christian faith = no need for evidence, then I strongly disagree.

You can't prove everything is of God,

I wouldn’t attempt to. In a previous post, I stated that not everything is of God. If it is true (and I’m convinced that it is) that not everything is of God, then it follows that it cannot be true that everything is of God.

and you can't prove everything isn't of God.

I wouldn’t attempt to. Some things are of God. If it is true (and I’m convinced that it is) that some things are of God, then it follows that it cannot be true that everything isn’t of God.

Again, nature of faith…

See above.

 

[Chipperdini]

First, here is copy from the minutes of the June meeting:

Again, thank you for the additional information.

c. Direct the session of St. Andrew’s to work with representatives of COM to create a constitutionally appropriate process for receiving members.

I’m curious about “c”. Does this mean that there was not formerly a “constitutionally appropriate process” in place for receiving members? How did the members prior to Mr. Jensen’s “membership” become members?

d. Encourage the session of St. Andrew’s, if it so chooses, to re-examine Robert Jensen, if he so desires, according to the process developed by the session and representatives of COM."

I’m also curious as to what (new?) process will be created, and why.

When a member is active, each church pays a fixed amount per head to the next level of presbytery, and then I believe the presbytery pays a certain amount to the General Assembly level. Each church is supposed to maintain accurate counts of membership and should remove 'inactive' members yearly. So essentially, there is a financial responsibility of each church per active member.

Am I to understand that the only membership concern here is a financial one? I would hope being an active member means more than being one who merely has a price on his head.

I'm also assuming that if they church decides to entertain Jensen's request for membership, they will take care to heed the COM's recommendations and require he be more 'authentic' about his motivations - such as a true desire to not only follow in Christ's teachings, but to profess him Lord and Saviour. "Authentic" is my personal word I use when I'm speaking about a person's faith that is aligned with what I believe Christ would want from a Christian.

“not only follow in Christ’s teachings”

By his own mouth Mr. Jensen does not follow Christ’s teachings, and based on the article he is not at this time even wavering in his non-belief. (I know it’s not “politically correct,” but Christ did not come to teach us: Be Nice.)

I don't necessarily think of God's will intellectually, but emotionally and that, for me at least, I think is the nature of the Holy Spirit.

Are you saying that, for you, you understand God’s will to be whatever you feel is His will, and you attribute what you feel regarding God’s will to the Holy Spirit?

No - not everything is of God. I'm not implying that. However, our response should be. I believe that Mission Presbyterian and the COM did the right thing.

I agree that the church’s response to this situation should be of God. I agree that it was right for the church to void Mr. Jensen’s membership. I cannot say that I agree with Mr. Jensen’s being on the “baptized roll” if the only difference between an active member and a person on the “baptized roll” is a financial one. Questions remain for me, and I don’t have enough information to offer any opinion other than what I first posted in this thread. I stand by my initial post.

Oh - and check us out!!! Believers and non-believers alike sharing thoughts and opinions without bashing or hating (and we're on page 8 already). Yeah for us!!

It’s pleasant, to be sure. However, I’m never surprised by “bashing” and “hating” though. Jesus saves people, but He also offends people. I strive to be civil but uncompromising - and undoubtedly I fall short at times *sad* - but if it’s a choice between everyone disliking/hating me and Christ, I’ve already made my decision and by His grace I’ll stand/persevere.

I’ll (hopefully) be away from the Internet for the next 9 days or so. I think the best thing for me to do would be to pray for Mr. Jensen and the churches involved. I hope you have a Happy 4th of July. Take care, and best wishes for you and yours.


Chip/Heather

 

[goofygirl]

I'm finding myself leaning more and more towards what I've read a pastor say: "I'm almost to the point of relegating the term 'Christian' into the 'Do Not Use' section of my vocabulary. It has, for all intents and purposes, lost its meaning in that it has come to mean pretty much what anyone wants it to mean."





I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not.

I think it's inexusable. I think it's preposterous, and that a church that allows non-Christian members is not a Christian church. I think the church should be reprimanded and required to revoke the man's "membership" and reaffirm its faith or be stripped of its membership within the larger body to which it is affiliated and presumably accountable. If the larger body sees no problem with it then it is in error as well, and probably in a number of ways.

Some questions I have:

Has this church baptized the man (I am unaware of any Christian church that accepts never-baptized members, and if so, this should not be and is not Christian)? If so, then the church is making a mockery of Baptism.

Has this church permitted the man to partake of Communion/Lord's Supper/Eucharist? If so, then the church is making a mockery of Communion/Lord's Supper/Eucharist.

I bet if he started to write big fat checks to the church, you, and many others would have no problem with him being a member.

And FYI- I myself have partaken in Communion prior to being baptized. It was ANYTHING BUT a mockery and cheap. It was a beautiful thing to see that the Holy Table was open to anyone. It was wonderful to feel included. In my opinion, it is much worse to treat Communion as a "members only" activity which excludes people.

 

[disykat]

I'm still confused (though I admit I didn't read too carefully). Am I to understand that a Catholic can be a "member" of the Catholic church, but not entitled to participate in the sacraments?

In a Protestant church, all are welcome, but you become a member by baptism and a public profession of faith (during the church service you repeat a creed) and making a commitment to your church. There is no way to be a "member not entitled to sacraments". Professing Christians who are not members would also be "entitled" to sacraments. The key is the profession of faith (whether privately or out loud), not having your name on a roster.

I would not be upset in the least to have an athiest come to church. I would be upset though to have one stand up and profess his faith to join and then say he didn't mean it he only wanted membership. It'd be similar to a bridegroom repeating his vows and then turning around and saying it was a bunch of hogwash he just wanted the gifts. It makes a mockery.

There's absolutely no reason for someone to JOIN a Christian church if they aren't Christian. If they only want to socialize and join in some of the ministries they are welcome to do so without making a false profession of faith and joining. We have many regulars at our church who don't become members.

 

[Buckalew11]

I bet if he started to write big fat checks to the church, you, and many others would have no problem with him being a member.

I KNOW I'd have a problem with it and I think Chipperdini would also. Money doesn't speak to everyone like you think it does.

And I agree with disykat's post:

I'm still confused (though I admit I didn't read too carefully). Am I to understand that a Catholic can be a "member" of the Catholic church, but not entitled to participate in the sacraments?

In a Protestant church, all are welcome, but you become a member by baptism and a public profession of faith (during the church service you repeat a creed) and making a commitment to your church. There is no way to be a "member not entitled to sacraments". Professing Christians who are not members would also be "entitled" to sacraments. The key is the profession of faith (whether privately or out loud), not having your name on a roster.

I would not be upset in the least to have an athiest come to church. I would be upset though to have one stand up and profess his faith to join and then say he didn't mean it he only wanted membership. It'd be similar to a bridegroom repeating his vows and then turning around and saying it was a bunch of hogwash he just wanted the gifts. It makes a mockery.

There's absolutely no reason for someone to JOIN a Christian church if they aren't Christian. If they only want to socialize and join in some of the ministries they are welcome to do so without making a false profession of faith and joining. We have many regulars at our church who don't become members.

 

[VickiVM]

God bless and Happy 4th to everyone. Enjoyed reading everyone's opinions!

 

[MrsPete]

I agree, except that he's not visiting, he joined the church.

Exactly. A Christian church should welcome all visitors; however, membership is reserved for those who publically accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. After all, it's a CHRISTian church.

 

[auntpolly]

Exactly. A Christian church should welcome all visitors; however, membership is reserved for those who publically accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. After all, it's a CHRISTian church.

It's just that "joining" mean different things to different faiths, denominations, churches.

I forgot about this -- did we ever figure out what "joining" means in the Presyterian Church?

 

[auntpolly]

I'm still confused (though I admit I didn't read too carefully). Am I to understand that a Catholic can be a "member" of the Catholic church, but not entitled to participate in the sacraments?

There are rules for the sacraments, and maybe some priests have rules for membership of parishes, but I am here to tell you that I have on occasion moved and have had to do nothing but "sign up" with the parish office.

This doesn't entitle me to much more than get offering envelopes int he mail, though. My kids could go to PSR, but then again, any kids can go. I had kids in my classes who's parents weren't members. I could go to mass, and go to confession, but of course anyone can.

To be part of the sacraments, that's a different matter.

 

[phillybeth]

I'm still confused (though I admit I didn't read too carefully). Am I to understand that a Catholic can be a "member" of the Catholic church, but not entitled to participate in the sacraments?

This is kind of hard for a cradle Catholic to explain, but I will try.

In order to receive the sacraments, you must be baptized, make a concious decision to recieve the sacrament, and make a profession of faith- the Apostle's Creed is a part of the Mass, so each time you attend you are making that profession. You must also be in a state of grace, with no unconfessed sins. However, to be a registered member of a parish, there is no other requirement than to be baptized AFAIK. Participation in the sacraments is a personal choice.
Basically, by being baptized you become a member of the Catholic Church- meaning the worldwide membership of the Church.
Techically, the only way you would not be entitled to participate in the sacraments is if you were not in a state of grace. In practice, however, most people attend religious classes as children to prepare them for recieving the sacraments at the appropriate age levels. Penance and Holy Communion is usually around 7-8 in the US. Confirmation (when you take on your adult responsibilities in the Church and reaffirm the baptismal promises made on your behalf) is around age 12. Adults wishing to convert attend classes to learn about the Church and prepare for the Sacraments.

 

[auntpolly]

This is kind of hard for a cradle Catholic to explain, but I will try.

In order to receive the sacraments, you must be baptized, make a concious decision to recieve the sacrament, and make a profession of faith- the Apostle's Creed is a part of the Mass, so each time you attend you are making that profession. You must also be in a state of grace, with no unconfessed sins. However, to be a registered member of a parish, there is no other requirement than to be baptized AFAIK. Participation in the sacraments is a personal choice.
Basically, by being baptized you become a member of the Catholic Church- meaning the worldwide membership of the Church.
Techically, the only way you would not be entitled to participate in the sacraments is if you were not in a state of grace. In practice, however, most people attend religious classes as children to prepare them for recieving the sacraments at the appropriate age levels. Penance and Holy Communion is usually around 7-8 in the US. Confirmation (when you take on your adult responsibilities in the Church and reaffirm the baptismal promises made on your behalf) is around age 12. Adults wishing to convert attend classes to learn about the Church and prepare for the Sacraments.

Yeah, sorry I didn't answer that very well -- it's just that when you are part of the Catholic Church you are part of something so much bigger than just your parish. You are a confirmed Catholic no matter which Catholic parish you atttend -- you become part of the Catholic Church once, stay in that "state of Grace" like Beth said, and it doesn't really matter what parish you "belong to".