Well, you knew this would be big, and not just in a metaphorical sense...

The Office of the General Assembly has made available on their web site the publication with the changes to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Constitution that the 219th General Assembly is sending down to the presbyteries.  It comes in three parts so get those reading glasses ready!

Part 1 is the nFOG , or technically the new Foundations of Presbyterian Polity section and the revised Form of Government section.  Fifty eight pages long -- All the new Book of Order text plus the "Advisory Handbook for Councils for the Development of Policies and Procedures Required by the Form of Government."  Then there is a second eight-page booklet to serve as a guide in considering the nFOG with links to the online resources about the revision.

I say that the booklets are mostly ready because the spot for the second amendment booklet is there but no link is provided yet.  By process of elimination this must be the proposed amendments to the Book of Confessions, the addition of the Belhar Confession.  I will revise and link here when posted.

Part 3 is all the other amendments to the Book of Order.  There are 15 amendments in all covering the G, W and D sections with numbering for the current Book of Order.  If you are keeping count, that will be another 32 pages of reading. For each G section amendment there is an editor's note about how that would translate into the nFOG. 

(It is also interesting to note a typo in the cover letter to Part 3 that says Belhar will be part 3.  No big deal.)

But here is an interesting insight into how Presbyterians do things:  According to those editors notes five of the eight G section changes would add language to the Book of Order if the nFOG version is adopted.  Only one, the change to current section G-6.0106b, would actually change wording in the nFOG, and two amendments would be rendered moot by adopting the nFOG.  So we reduce our polity and make it flexible only to immediately start adding to it. I'll analyze all that another time.

So start downloading and have at it.

The last three days the Permanent Judicial Commission of Redwoods Presbytery has been hearing arguments in the disciplinary case of Redwoods Presbytery v. Jane Adams Spahr.  The Rev. Spahr is accused of conducting ceremonies for same-sex couples that are prohibited by the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) but were legal civil marriages under the laws of the State of California at the time.  If this sounds familiar it is -- this is a variant on the case filed against Rev. Spahr in 2004 that lead to General Assembly PJC Decision 218-12 that gave us the, shall we say interesting, decision that the Rev. Spahr could not have been guilty of conducting same-sex marriages because "The SPJC found Spahr guilty of doing that which by definition cannot be done. One cannot characterize same sex ceremonies as marriages for the purpose of disciplining a minister of the Word and Sacrament and at the same time declare that such ceremonies are not marriages for legal or ecclesiastical purposes."  It may be a unique legal decision, but it is the prevailing interpretation on this subject and figures in the Commission decision.

This Commission sustained three of the four charges against Rev. Spahr, all related to the authority of the Book of Order and her persisting in preforming these ceremonies after the previous GAPJC decision.  But the Commission also weighed in with their judgment about the current polity situation in the the PC(USA).

Before I get to a discussion of the decision, I want to make a couple of observations about the trial itself.

One aspect of this trial is that it was probably the first one with significant real-time commentary on Twitter.  You can find most of the tweets under @revjanespahr and #revjanie.

It was interesting to follow the trial play-by-play, but as with most things on Twitter these days it also came with the attendant amount of snark, such as: "Oh God, she just mentioned the 'silent majority.'" and "Blackstone: Same old same old -- GAPJC."  I would also note that virtually all of the tweets I saw were from Rev. Spahr's supporters with none, that I saw, from anyone clearly supporting the prosecution.  Maybe I just didn't find the hashtag.

A couple of items came across in the tweets that I wanted to comment on.
1) The argument that the Directory for Worship is descriptive and that it contains no "shalls."  This was the argument that carried the day in a Presbytery PJC decision that acquitted the Rev. Jean Southard in a similar case in Boston Presbytery.  However, on appeal the Synod PJC found that the Presbytery PJC was in error in this reasoning and we await a General Assembly PJC case to clarify this.  But I will also say that after serving on the Special Committee on Civil Unions and Religious Marriage I came away with the understanding that W-4.9001 was the equivalent of a "shall" section and that is why I wanted to recommend to the General Assembly wording to make the civil marriage section of the definition more flexible.

2) Also related to the Special Committee and the definition, I think several of us on the Committee, myself included, came away from the study wondering if the church should be acting as the agent of the state in executing marriage licenses.  In my own experience I know that in such diverse settings as Mexico and Germany the civil marriage and the religious marriage are two distinct events with the religious ceremony possibly happening minutes or years after the civil ceremony.  This concept came up in this trial, based on the tweets, with arguments by the defense that the two are linked in the Book of Order and by the prosecution that they are not.  At least that is what I gathered from two 140 character messages.

Anyway, with that as preface, and with the understanding that this case probably has two appeals to go before it is settled, what did Redwoods Presbytery PJC give us this time?

Charge 1 was that Rev. Spahr solemnized a marriage "in direct violation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (GAPJC) in its Decision and Order in Disciplinary Case 218-12."  This effectively says that W-4.0991 is a constitutionally binding requirement of the Book of Order.

Charge 2 was that Rev. Spahr "persisted in a pattern or practice of disobedience concerning the aforementioned authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order."  In other words, since the previous GAPJC decision she had conducted multiple same-gender marriages.

Charge 3 was that Rev. Spahr "By intentionally and repeatedly acting in violation of the above-referenced authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order as set forth in Disciplinary Case 218-12, you, JANE ADAMS SPAHR, failed to be governed by polity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), in violation of your ordination vows (W-4.4003e)."

These three charges were sustained by the Commission on a 4-2 vote.

The fourth charge was unanimously not sustained: By publicly, intentionally and repeatedly acting in violation of the Book of Order, you, JANE ADAMS SPAHR, have failed to further the peace, unity, and purity of the church (W-4.4003g).

OK, that is the verdict.  Expect an appeal and another trip to the GAPJC. (And expect mainstream media reports to miss the nuances of the polity.)

What is most interesting about the decision is the second page with the commentary by the Commission.  They begin:

The Permanent Judicial Commission, in sustaining the first three charges, recognizes that while the Rev. Dr. Jane Spahr has indeed performed these marriages, which were and continue to be legal marriages, she did so acting with faithful compassion in accord with W7.3004. These marriages were legal in the State of California, being civil contracts (W4.9001), and are different from same sex ceremonies. The testimonies of those at court clearly demonstrated this difference.

We commend Dr. Spahr and give thanks for her prophetic ministry that for 35 years has extended support to “people who seek the dignity, freedom and respect that they have been denied” (W7.4002c), and has sought to redress “wrongs against individuals, groups, and peoples in the church, in this nation, and in the world” (W7.4002h).

But their commentary goes on as a word for the whole church:

In addition, we call upon the church to reexamine our own fear and ignorance that continues to reject the inclusiveness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.(G3.0401c) We say this believing that we have in our own Book of Order conflicting and even contradictory rules and regulations that are against the Gospel.

But the decision concludes with these words:

Notwithstanding the foregoing, we are constrained to accept that the following language in GAPJC Disciplinary Case 218-12 is authoritative and should be followed until and unless modified: “We further hold that the officers of the PCUSA authorized to perform marriages shall not state, imply or represent that a same sex ceremony is a marriage. Under W4.9001, a same sex ceremony is not and cannot be a marriage.”

and

We implore the Synod and General Assembly levels of our church to listen to these testimonies, which are now part of this record, to take them to heart, and to do what needs to be done to move us as a church forward on this journey of reconciliation.

The penalty imposed is censure with rebuke (D-12.0102) and she is "enjoined to avoid such offenses in the future."  If the decision is appealed the censure is held until the completion of the process if this decision is upheld.  Censure with rebuke is the lightest option available to the Commission and is effectively a formal declaration that what she did went against the constitution of the PC(USA).

Addendum:  A couple of additional words of commentary on this decision.  I waited a few hours to add this both to give me time to think about it and because I thought the decision pretty much spoke for itself. But to cast this in light of our polity the members of the PJC walked the fine line between "God alone is Lord of the conscience" [G-1.0301a] and "It is necessary to the integrity and health of the church that the persons who serve in it as officers shall adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity as expressed in The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government." [G-6.0108a]  Their commentary clearly, to me at least, reflects their personal frustration that while they agree with the pastoral care Rev. Spahr has carried out and disagree with the applicable sections of the Constitution and the current interpretations, the majority none-the-less recognized their obligation to abide by the current standards enacted by the majority.  One can object to the strength or extent to which the PJC majority expressed their personal beliefs, but one must admire and appreciate their faithfulness to the PC(USA) process and connectionalism.  So yes, they effectively said "These are the rules, you have broken the rules, we think the rules are wrong but we must still find you guilty."  This was further expressed in the penalty, which is the lightest that can be imposed and is effectively saying "Go and sin no more."

Also in contemplating this decision the question keeps coming round of what specifications of error could be cited as grounds for appeal?  Since the defense seems to have focused on the idea that W-4.9001 is descriptive and prescriptive, that is that there is no "shall" language in there, that is certain to be one of the points.  This has been discussed for a while now and it will be useful if the GAPJC does provide guidance on what it means for the Directory for Worship to be descriptive.  From what I have seen and heard I don't think I can pick out any procedural points that would be grounds for appeal but I did not follow extremely closely.  I don't think that either personal conscience or the difference between civil and ecclesiastical definitions of marriage would be strong points of appeal.

Expecting an appeal, or possibly a decision in the Southard case that could impact this one, it is far too early to say this is the final word on this decision and this issue.  However, it does highlight where the PC(USA) is right now with different understandings on marriage and the fact that there needs to be a recognition that same-gender marriages are legally recognized in some jurisdictions and countries.  As the Special Committee report said...

Last Saturday I tried to outline the news out of Malawi regarding some clergy leadership of the Livingstonia Synod of the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian (CCAP) that crossed some national political leaders in their messages at a funeral for a doctor who had only days before been removed from his position as the Minister of Health.  For more details see my writing from Saturday, but the bottom line is that when I was writing on Saturday the three pastors had been arrested Friday but two were released the same day.  A magistrate had denied bail for the third on Saturday.

I am pleased to report that on Monday the magistrate granted the Rev. Levi Nyondo, Secretary-General of the Synod, his release on bail of K100,000 (about US$658) with instructions to check in regularly with the police.  Trial is set for September 14.  (coverage from The Nation )

What has been interesting has been the reactions reported by the media from other groups in the country.

In the message at the funeral Rev. Nyondo is reported to have suggested that the Livingstonia Synod would be supporting current Vice-President Joyce Banda of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for president in 2014.  Then there was an article in the The Nation where DPP member and government minister Symon Vuwa Kaunda said at a Tuesday news conference that Ms. Banda was not the party candidate for 2014.  Then today the official party spokesman is reported to have said that Tuesday's comments were only "an expression of interest" by Mr. Vuwa and that there is no official party candidate yet.

Another article talks about the opposition United Democratic Front (UDF) calling on the DPP and Livingstonia Synod needing to come together to mend their differences for the good of the country.  The spokesperson is quoted as saying "It is dangerous for church and state to be fighting, both are entities that yield (ed. wield?) power in their own right and for them to be fighting each other can put the whole country in a very awkward situation."  However the response from the DPP is that "The issue is between police and the Livingstonia Synod, and I wonder how the DPP is coming in..."

Even more interesting from the point of view of a GA Junkie is the reaction from another CCAP synod, Nkhoma Synod generally in the central part of the country.  I say "generally" because Livingstonia and Nkhoma have had disagreements about church planting in each others territory as individuals from different tribal groups move around the country.  They have now agreed to be flexible in their geographic nature.

With that as background, it is noteworthy to see an article where a spokesperson, the Deputy Moderator, for the Nkhoma Synod denies giving "moral support" as claimed by a Livingstonia speaker.  Instead they "only prayed for sustainability of his spirit silently."  To me prayer is a substantial form of support but I think they are looking for public support because he goes on to say that "As any other Malawians we were concerned, but chose to speak through silence."

The best article I have read today on this whole situation is an op-ed piece in the Nyasa Times titled "Marginalizing the north."  The author, whose name I can't seem to find in the article, writes as someone from the south of the country but provides a very insightful and balanced view of the geographic/ethnic/religious dynamics and tensions that exist.  He starts off by saying "As a Southerner, I feel the North has been hard done by when it comes to certain elements of how public life and civil service have been organized and structured in Malawi."  He discusses several issues but within the political representation section he says:

The refusal by Livingstonia Synod to come to terms with Nkhoma Synod is a complex, very complex political issue. It should not just be understood as a mere squabble over boundary issues. It is a political conflict, largely because Nkhoma Synod, glorified and represented the Banda regime, something the Livingstonia Synod rejected throughout.

To ask or even condemn Livingstonia Synod for ‘failing’ to come to agreeable terms with Nkhoma, an iconic representation of the demagoguery of the MCP is, is in my opinion, overstretching the tortured political memories. It’s almost like criticising the people of Moto Village in Mangochi for not voting for MCP.

A bit later he says of the clerics that were arrested:

Instead of arresting them, let us mediate  on what may have transpired such ‘treasonous’ statements. Think about the progression of political developments: the quota system (I was not a beneficiary and will never support preferential treatment in education); the sacking of DPP officials and ministers from the North; the feeling of marginalization, after the North staunchly supported Bingu’s survival under intense persecution from the UDF and MCP between 2004 and 2009; the firing of three DPP ministers from the North (even when one or two from the same region replaced them); and then, the death of a minister after being sacked.

He does say that the north has its own problems, issues, and reasons that it is not innocent in this.  But as this situation develops I found this a wonderful insight from a Malawian who is outside the current tensions.  We will see what happens in the trial in two weeks.

I think many of us expected it to be only a matter of time before these two worlds collided and while blogging has been increasing in religious circles it appears we now have, to my knowledge at least, the first case in Presbyterian circles of possible ecclesiastical discipline for statements made while blogging.  More on that in a moment, but first a little perspective...

Public airing of theological discussions goes back at least as far as a crazy German monk who annoyed Pope Leo X by nailing 95 Theses to a chapel door in Wittenberg.  It may seem strange to us today but in that time and place it was Martin's equivalent of blogging back in 1517.

But as Presbyterians our system has some interesting features that help inform our understanding of discussion and church governance.  Going back to the "Radical Principles of Presbyterianism" that statement includes:

[T]hat a larger part of the Church, or a representation of it, should govern a smaller, or determine matters of controversy which arise therein; that, in like manner, a representation of the whole should govern and determine in regard to every part, and to all the parts united: that is, that a majority shall govern;

This has been understood to include the necessity of meeting together, or as the PC(USA) Book of Order puts it [G-4.0301e]

e. Decisions shall be reached in governing bodies by vote, following opportunity for discussion, and a majority shall govern;

So within the Presbyterian system there are two principles I want to highlight at this juncture: 1) The system is representative, having Elders, Teaching and Ruling, chosen by God through the voice of the people that are responsible for most of the decision making.  2) That these representatives come together for conducting business, to join together in discerning the will of God at prescribed times and places.

In the long run point number one above may be the more interesting and complicated of the two.  For today, let me side-step this point by observing that the vast majority of those on the internet discussing the fine points of Presbyterian polity are Teaching and Ruling Elders or candidates working to be ordained as Teaching Elders.  But as much as Presbyterianism is a step away from an episcopal system towards democratization of the ecclesiastical structure, it will be important to think through the implications of the internet when everyone in the denomination can contribute to doctrinal, polity and theological discussions in near real time.  What does it look like when you scale up the congregational structure from the level of a particular church to the level of national discussion.  (For some very interesting thinking about that you can start reading TE Landon Whitsitt's chapter drafts for The Open Source Church.)

Let me focus instead on the second point above -- that discussions related to governing body decisions are intended to occur in the face-to-face environment of the judicatory meeting, and what happens when they happen outside that circle.

I want to start out by noting that taking issues out of the judicatory and into public forum is noting new.  As I mentioned above, in a sense Dr. Martin Luther did that in 1517, and it has happened on a regular basis ever since.  Many individuals who had either reputation or means of communication have taken advantage of them.

Let me give two contrasting examples from the Presbyterian Church in Canada during the church union movement early in the twentieth century.  I take these from N. Keith Clifford's book The Resistance To Church Union In Canada 1904-1939.

The first individual is Robert Campbell, senior clerk of the General Assembly.  He was the first major opponent of church union and beginning in 1904 he argued against it based on a number of different issues.  As only us Presbyterian polity wonks could appreciate, while much of his theological argument did not get significant traction, he had a certain level of agreement from some prominent proponents of union regarding specific polity arguments he made, especially concerning the process of sending the union question down to the presbyteries under the Barrier Act.  Leave it to the Presbyterians to rally around process.  As Clifford says [pg. 26]

There were indeed others who had doubts about union, but it was Campbell who defined the issues, exposed the irregularity of the unionists' procedure, and proposed the alternative around which the first resistance organization crystallized.  Once the resistance became organized outside the structures of the church however, Campbell's position as senior clerk of the assembly prevented him from assuming leadership of the movement, and he gradually slipped into the background.

His "slipping into the background" did not prevent him from taking his stand and voicing his opinion in public and he published a couple of pamphlets and one book ably making the case against union and generally forcing the unionists to address, and even agree with, his objections.  However, Clifford later speaks of his leadership [pg. 41] when new alliances were forming against union:

The problem in this instance was not Campbell's background but his position as senior clerk.  He had been appointed to this permanent position in 1892, more than a decade before the church union question appeared on the assembly's agenda.  Consequently, he saw himself as a leader of the whole church and not just a part of it.  When the dissidents organized in 1910, therefore, he would not accept a leadership position, even though the purpose of the group was to support his alternative of federation.  Thus, when the resistance movement began to take on a life of its own, shaped by those who assumed leadership, Campbell gradually faded into the background of the controversy to the point where later opponents of union failed to appreciate that except for his efforts the unionists might very well have accomplished their purpose in 1912.

Furthermore, after 1912, no one who was opposed to union was elected moderator or appointed to any major committee responsibility in the church.  As a result, from 1913 until his death in March 1921, [ed. note: Union was accomplished in 1925] Campbell served an assembly dominated by unionists.  His role tended to deflect attention even further  from his importance as an early opponent of union.  The ironic twist  in all this was that the unionists recognized the significance of Campbell's refusal to accept an office in any of the resistance organizations, and when he died, they were the only one who publicly eulogized him for his service to the church during his twenty-nine years as clerk of the General Assembly.

Clifford goes on to quote some of the eulogies.  One said that while they might have differed with him in opinion, "yet we never ceased to admire the lucidity of his argument, his confidence that he was right, and the courtesy with which he treated an opponent."  Another spoke of him as a "keen debater" who could take as well as give but "he was without bitterness and never allowed public differences to interfere with private friendships."

On the other hand, where there have been repeated tensions about what is printed and how it is written has been in official publications of Presbyterian branches.  The Canadian union debate was no different.  Following the 1910 General Assembly meeting Dr. Ephraim Scott, editor of the official publication the Presbyterian Record became a main target.  Dr. Scott had recorded a dissent to the Assembly action to send the union proposals to the presbyteries and that and later public criticism of the unionists actions made him a target.  There were calls for him to resign if he could not support the official position of the Assembly and in the following year various charges and rebuttals were publicly aired.  At the 1911 Assembly the outgoing Moderator said that the Record was "not worthy of the church and needed shaking up."  [Clifford, pg. 30]  An amendment to a committee report was proposed that would require faithful representation of the Assembly action or strict neutrality.  Clifford reports that the amendment failed because one prominent unionist argued the reporting was not sufficiently biased to remove the editor and another respected commissioner, at that time neutral on union, argued that the church press should be free and the editor could express his own views.  It also helped that presbytery voting on the 1910 proposal was showing weaker support for union than the proponents expected and they realized that there was a longer road ahead than they had reckoned.  But it should be noted that, as Clifford tells it, few - if any - specific charges were brought against Scott and none were validated.  As the editor he was a convenient and high-profile target.

As I said a moment ago, the use of an official publication by the editor to advocate a particular position is still a major issue and in the last couple of years we have seen criticism in the Free Church of Scotland for advocating the flexibility to have worship music beyond unaccompanied psalm singing, in the Church of Scotland in advance of the 2009 Assembly where the editor advocated her stance on the ordination standards issue, and recent criticism of the PC(USA)'s Presbyterians Today for taking a position that seemed to presume adoption of the Belhar Confession.

Related to the situation I'll mention in a moment, Sean Gerety comments about another historical case, the Clark-Van Til debate in 1944, where the Presbyterian Guardian provided information on, and editorialized for, the Van Til side of the debate but information on the Clark side had to be obtained privately.

So can Presbyterians take their debates outside the meetings?  Clearly I think that they can, to some degree, since my own blogging sometimes crosses the line from news to commentary.  And I appreciate Dr. Richard Mouw's historical perspective, comments, and opinion on why the Belhar Confession should not be adopted by the PC(USA).  There are numerous examples of other bloggers who contribute in this way.  There appears to be real value in the Web distributing information and opinion to a wider audience than could be reached using earlier techniques, like a chapel door or the party line in an official publication.

But having said that some branches have decided that wider and public debate at certain times and on certain topics is not appropriate.  For the 219th General Assembly the PC(USA) put out a document on Using Social Media At General Assembly.  The short answer in the document is "don't during meetings," except they phrased it like this "The guiding principle for using social media at a General Assembly is to be attentive and present to the community gathered immediately around us and to the mysterious and wondrous movement of the Spirit of Christ in this place."  This addresses the use of social media only during the meeting.  At the 2009 Church of Scotland General Assembly they decided that the topic of ordination standards was such a hot topic that the Assembly approved a ban on discussing the topic in public, including the web, while a special commission does its work.  As far as I have seen, the silence on the topic has held very well.  (Update:  Please see the comments for some more on the PC(USA) policy and clarification of implementation and intent.)

So with that as perspective let's look at the current specific case.  On the one hand it revolves around a larger issue in the PCA right now, the controversy over the Federal Vision Theology.  But on the other hand this case is dealing with it at the local level, specifically in the Siouxlands Presbytery, that I have written about before.

But the issue at the moment is not the Federal Vision argument itself but how the argument has been conducted.  A complaint has been filed with the presbytery by Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church, Minnetonka, MN, complaining that TE Brian Carpenter "caused great offense and harm to us as a church, as well as harm to the good name of our pastor..."  They go on to note the action filed with the presbytery and say:

However, in the context of the Presbytery alone, we were content for the matter to be heard and disposed of in the proper courts, being the called meeting of October 20, 2009, with Dr. Moon’s testimony of what we know to be his true beliefs.

Mr. Carpenter, however, was unwilling to allow the issue to remain within the confines of Presbytery and the appropriate courts. Instead, in actions that worked to prejudice Dr. Moon’s good name and reputation in the larger PCA and Reformed world, Mr. Carpenter wrote an inaccurate and unfair representation of Dr. Moon’s views on the Aquila Report, a public blog. Mr. Carpenter has every right to disagree with Presbytery, to think it wrong, and even (perhaps) to report the actions taken by our Presbytery. But his actions went beyond these to the point of ensuring Dr. Moon’s good name and reputation, as well as the name of our church, were damaged publicly, and in some ways irretrievably.

In another complaint Christ Church Mankato complained against TE Wes White

We, the Session of Christ Church, write to bring to your attention a matter of utmost concern to us.

On February 7, 2010 TE White began posting information on his blog that we believe to be injurious to TE Lawrence, Christ Church, and the Siouxlands Presbytery. On February 18, we contacted TE White privately and informed him of his fault (Matthew 18:15ff), requesting that he remove the posts, acknowledge his fault, and ask forgiveness of those he had wronged. TE White replied to us that his conscience was clear in the matter, and has not removed the posts nor sought forgiveness.

The blog posts we object to are as follows...

In the matter of the first complaint the investigating committee found a strong presumption of guilt but the presbytery chose instead to refer it back to the committee to provide specific instances with analysis of the error(s).  That blog post provides TE Carpenter's response to the committee and defense of his position which includes issues of how his case was handled.  May help explain the alternate motion the presbytery adopted.  On his own blog he has a new post analyzing the requirements of the Book of Church Order and advocating for an open process in judicial proceedings.

Regarding his own case TE White tells us "The Administrative Committee of the Presbytery of the Siouxlands reviewed these materials and was unsure as to what the Session of Christ Church was asking."  It sounds something like a judicial case on which no remedy can be applied.  The Administrative Committee recommended the presbytery refer it to decide what options are available.  The presbytery, again, chose a different course and passed a substitute motion to appoint a committee to conduct a BCO 31-2 investigation.  (The investigation to decide if charges can be filed and if so, what charges.)

So at this point we have two individuals for which specific charges are being considered related specifically to their blogging activities.  Christ Church closes their second letter with this request:

Since this is not the first time disputes have arisen over what someone has said about someone else or the Presbytery on the internet, we request that the Presbytery make its expectations clearly known.

This is what the PC(USA) and the Church of Scotland did with their actions.  You may not agree with the total ban in each case but at least they were clear.

Where does this leave us?  You may have your own thoughts on all this but here are a few that occur to me.

First, in these specific instances we will have to see where the judicial process leads.  There are specific charges to be brought, a presbytery level trial if the strong presumption of guilt is present and charges made.  And then there is the possibility of appeal.   Buckle up for the ride.

Second, it is tempting to make the distinction that you can blog about doctrine but not about people.  However, a bit of reflection and you realize that when the problem, perceived or real, is that another individual holds a view in error it is our responsibility to inform that person of their error.  What is more important here is how that happens.

Third, the larger problem here is that the problem, in the opinion of some people, was that the presbytery had erred.  Remember, we hold in tension the polity principle mentioned above "that a majority shall govern," with the Westminster Confession of Faith (XXXI.iv) "All synods or councils... may err, and many have."  How do we balance majority rule with the possibility of corporate error?  As Presbyterians we look to the review of higher governing bodies.  As the problem goes wider does that now make blogging to the wider audience acceptable?

Fourth, for good or ill the Internet and blogging are powerful tools for disseminating information and expressing opinions to a wide audience.  And it is not going away.  These cases show that the lines of what are and are not acceptable are not well defined and so we will need to find ways to live with it and behave in a Christian manner on it.  We could take the "no blogging" approach, the "blog but no names" rule or "keep it abstract not concrete" to limit what could be construed as personal attacks.

As corollaries to all this let me suggest that we bloggers should be slow to compose and do it prayerfully.  When I began my first field mapping class the professor suggested to us that we should be as free with the eraser as the pencil.  And continuing with this theme, we need to be aware that with our fallen nature we will make mistakes and if we are at this long enough offend someone.  The facts may be in our favor but can we present them in such a way that, as they said of Robert Campbell, "he was without bitterness and never allowed public differences to interfere with private friendships."

Let me conclude by saying that I am not passing judgment in these particular cases or even weighing in on the actions of anyone involved.  I have not been following it closely enough to have a well-formed opinion and I will rely on the full judicial process to investigate and adjudicate that.

So where are the lines?  Can we correct error in such a way as to preserve truth and make ecclesiastical discipline restorative, even on the web?  This issue will not go away so I look forward to others weighing in and governing bodies discerning where they wish to draw the lines.  Let us see what develops.

That is the headline on one on-line story in the Nyasa Times about yesterday's incident at the funeral for recently sacked health minister Prof. Moses Chirambo that is related to the continuing dispute over the education quota system.  The Church of Central Africa Presbyterian Livingstonia Synod has for over six months now been voicing concern about the government's quota system that, in the church's opinion, restricts the number of students accepted to university from their region in the north.

Yesterday the issues arose again at the funeral for Moses Chirambo.  Prof. Chirambo was a trained ophthalmologist who, up to a few days before his death, was serving as the country's health minister.  I will let the account of the funeral from the Malawi Voice tell the next part of the story:

After eulogies from various dignitaries that included Vice President Joyce Banda and speaker of national assembly Henry Chimunthu Banda, it was the turn of the Synod to take over the proceedings.

When the Synod’s General Secretary Rev. Levi Nyondo took to the podium, he openly criticised President Bingu wa Mutharika for firing Chirambo out of his cabinet last week.

The Reverend said Mutharika erred in firing the late Chirambo saying there was nobody matching his academic and profession reputation hence it made no sense to have him fired from the cabinet unceremoniously.

But Nyondo’s remarks did not go down well with the DPP youth director for Rumphi Christopher Mtambo [sic] who shouted on top of his voice telling the Reverend to take politics out of the proceedings.

Ntambo’s reprimand to the Reverend irked Moderator of the Synod Mezuwa Banda who stood and starts accusing the DPP of trying to intimidate the church telling Ntambo to shut up as time for the party to speak was gone.

This triggered the cacophony which took the DPP’s former member Harry Mkandawire and Themba la ma Themba Chikulamayembe to calm down. When the dust settled down, the ceremony proceeded.

Friday evening, following the funeral and interment, police arrested Livingstonia Synod Moderator Rev. Mezuwa Banda, Synod General-Secretary Rev. Levi Nyondo and his deputy Rev. Maurice Munthali.  Mr. Banda and Mr. Munthali were released later Friday evening but General-Secretary Nyondo remains in custody.  According to the Malawi Voice article:

Northern Region police spokesperson confirmed of the release of the two. "But we are still keeping Rev Nyondo because we have found out that he was the one who uttered most of the treasonous words at the funeral, but so we are still doing our investigations."

While that is the only direct quote from a police spokesperson reported in the media, from the news reports the charge seems to simply be "treasonous words," the closest to a specific comment the news sources identify seems to be the "hint" or "comment" that the Synod would support current Vice-President Joyce Banda in the 2014 Presidential elections.

According to another article from the Nyasa Times Mr. Nyondo was denied bail today.  The article says

Magistrate Justus Kishindo rejected Nyondo’s bail application, saying he would “tamper with evidence”.

At last report that is where the judicial process stands although the article also reports that people are gathering outside the Court to protest the arrests and detention.

The second Nyasa Times article also reports on the response from Malawi's Human Rights Consultative Committee.  Here is an extended quote for the full statement as reported:

The Human Right Consultative Committee (HRCC) has also condemned the arrest of Rev Nyondo.

HRCC executive director Undule Mwakasungula said on Saturday, “Malawi was heading back to the one party dictatorial rule practiced during the MCP [Malawi Congress Party] regime.”

“History is repeating itself,” said Mwakasungula while pointing out the church had a social role to play in society and that the views of the Livingstonia Synod clergy were critical to addressing issues affecting people of the northern region.

He said “Malawi is a democratic country” and people with dissenting views with the government “should not be oppressed.”

“We cannot undermine the importance of the clergy in the consolidation of our democracy.   The clergy were the pioneers of advocating for democracy and human rights in Malawi and they continue to take a leading role in safeguarding our hard won democracy,” said Mwakasungura.

“We at CHR would also like to remind the DPP led government to realize that the law should not be used to target those that do not share their views.”

The rights defenders added:”It is a pity that in this age the DPP led government just like the Malawi Congress Party and United Democratic Front before it used the treason and sedition charges to settle political scores with those deemed to be from the other political divide.

“It is even more disheartening and costly to tax payers to note that most if not all perceived treason and sedition cases either die a natural death or are still being dragged through the corridors of our justice system. Tax payers have been forced on numerous occasions to pay compensation to those that have been wrongly accused of treason and sedition.”

CHRR said the moves by Mutharika government of turning Malawi into a police state need to be checked now and for all.

“We do not want to find ourselves in the bottom pit that Zimbabwe has found herself in. It is high time that the DPP realize and learn to live with those that have different point of view and accommodate their view. It is possible to practice clean politics.”

CHRR pressed for the immediate and unconditional release of Rev Levi Nyondo.

Two notes from the polity wonk perspective:  1)  It is interesting to see the HRCC make statements supportive of the role of the church in social issues. 2) I find it interesting that the views of who one or two leaders will support in an election four years away are taken so seriously.  Normally under Presbyterian polity we acknowledge that individual leaders can speak for themselves but unless endorsed by their governing body they do not speak for the larger church.

This has a ways to go and is part of a larger disagreement.  We will see where it goes.  Stay tuned.

There is additional coverage by NewZimSituation.com, and AFP.

Have you gazed on naked grandeur    where there’s nothing else to gaze on, Set pieces and drop-curtain scenes galore, Big mountains heaved to heaven,     which the blinding sunsets blazon, Black canyons where the rapids rip and roar? Have you swept the visioned valley     with the green stream streaking through it, Searched the Vastness for a something you have lost? Have you strung your soul to silence?     Then for God’s sake go and do it; Hear the challenge, learn the lesson, pay the cost. [from Call of the Wild, by Robert W. Service, 1916]

I don't know if the picture above does anything for you -- maybe the picture is too small, maybe you have to be there, or maybe alpine scenery doesn't stir your soul -- but I will tell you that this landscape deeply moved me last week on my summer vacation.  It was my favorite vista of a great trip that included so many wonderful landscapes.

My time away was a week-long backpacking trip from near June Lake, California, going over 50 miles across the Sierra Nevada to Yosemite Valley, mostly on the John Muir Trail .  This picture was taken just after crossing Donohue Pass, which at 11,056 ft. was the highest elevation we attained on the hike.

While I am personally careful not to confuse the Creation with the Creator, I none-the-less am surprised whenever I do a trip like this how much the Creation stirs my soul.  And some of these quotes do a great job of putting into words those emotions, whether it be from Robert Service poems or a well known quote from John Muir:

Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves.

Something about these trips work deep inside me, give me an appreciation for the Creator, allow me time and space to think, and return me home with renewed energy.

This was a trip with family and friends and the camaraderie and companionship were as much a part of experience as the scenery and tired feet. The emotional "high-point" of the trip was on the last day when we ascended Half Dome.  Here is my younger son and I on top with Yosemite Valley behind us.

One of the constant balancing acts of the trip was the competing interests of taking in the vistas and keeping moving so we could get to our stopping point for the night and set up camp.  The picture at the bottom of this post is a small part of my second-favorite vista of the trip.  We had just crested a ridge and now had an unobstructed view of all of Little Yosemite Valley and the south side of Half Dome.  I was asked "Ready to go?" to which I responded "No! I could easily spend another hour looking at this.  But I guess we better get going and get to the camp site."

Whether it be our own spiritual journey or our Presbyterian way of doing things, in those areas we also hold in tension the reaching of a goal and the value of the journey along the way.  The end result is important, but how we get there can be valuable and rewarding as well.

(And I do realize that while on this trip both the journey and the destination were positive parts, there are times in both daily life and ecclesiastical government when the journey is not as enjoyable and edifying and there is an urge to get through it and reach the goal.)

Looking ahead, on the trip I did a bit of reading and a lot of thinking, but this year the reading and thinking raised far more questions than they answered so I'm not sure when, or even if, any of it will find its way into this blog.  Time will tell.

However, in whatever way works for you and at whatever time your schedule permits may you too find rest, refreshment and renewal in whatever ways God works through the Holy Spirit to provide it in your life.  May God's blessings be upon you and those close to you.

	Let us probe the silent places,    let us seek what luck betide us; Let us journey to a lonely land I know. There’s a whisper on the night-wind,     there’s a star agleam to guide us, And the Wild is calling, calling. . .let us go. [Call of the Wild]

As I write this the 74th General Synod of the Bible Presbyterian Church has convened with worship at Grace Bible Presbyterian Church, in Sharonville, Ohio.  The Synod will be meeting today through next Tuesday, August 10, with the theme taken from Hebrews 13:1 "Let Brotherly Love Continue."  All of the messages delivered at the Synod will be based on passages from Hebrews 13.

Consulting the Docket, the meeting includes committee meetings today, a free day/family day on Saturday, and the Lord's Day devoted to the business of worship.

Additional materials for the meeting, reports and resolutions/overtures are distributed at the meeting so there is not much else to link to right now.  I'll add a link here for updates if any become available and will post a summary once the actions of the Synod are posted on the web site.

With most of the General Assemblies now concluded it is interesting to see new Moderators taking to the web in various forms.  Here is a quick run-down of what I have seen so far...

The stand-out, in my opinion, is the Rev. Dr. Herb Gale , Moderator of the 136th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, who has not only taken to blogging quickly, but with gusto as well.  He is writing an official blog where he has already posted 12 entries, ten of them since the General Assembly where he was installed.  Of course, it helps to have something to write about and his last four entries (1, 2, 3, 4 ) detail his experience of attending a reception for the British Monarch on her visit to Canada.  In particular I would recommend the last one in the series where he reflects on the event and makes some theological connections.  He writes in part:

In the monarchical system as it has evolved in Canada, it doesn’t matter what our rank or station – whether we are a parking lot attendant or the Prime Minister of Canada – we are all servants of the Queen, who is herself a servant of the people.  The fact that everyone addresses her as “Your Majesty” is in fact a great leveller of status, simultaneously lifting up the lowest in rank and lowering the highest in rank. Surely this is a reflection of the profound spiritual significance of what we experience as we submit to the sovereign grace of the true King of kings (and queens), Jesus Christ our Lord, who shed his blood that we might all attain true royal status.   And as the lights suddenly came on as we stood in line to greet the Queen, as my own name was called to be introduced to Her Majesty, I thought of the passage from 1^st Peter:

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation,God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.

Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people;

Once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.  (1^st Peter 2:9-10)

I look forward to reading more from Mr. Gale.

The other notable web presence is from Elder Cynthia Bolbach, Moderator of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in the form of an official web page with her monthly column.  I have been keeping an eye on her individual blog, Food for Thought, but she has posted nothing there since before the Assembly.  She is however up to two tweets.   And the Mod Squad Facebook Page has been transitioned to the new moderatorial team.

UPDATE: The Rev. Harry Reeder, the Moderator of the 38th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, has now posted his thoughts on the Assembly on his personal blog InPerspective.

On the other hand, it has been a bit disappointing that two other new Moderators have not yet, as best as I can tell, kept up the blogging that their predecessors began.  It appears that the official Moderator blog of the Church of Scotland has disappeared and that the Rt. Rev. John Christie will not be keeping us updated on his thoughts and activities the way the Very Rev. William Hewitt did. (And it is disappointing that Rev. Hewitt's entries have not been publicly archived.) Likewise, I am keeping an eye out for blogging activity from the Rev. Norman Hamilton, Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, but I have not seen it yet either.

It is worth noting that the Rev. Landon Whitsitt, Vice-Moderator of the 219th General Assembly of the PC(USA), continues his active blogging on his personal blog, Landonville.  It will be interesting to see how much he overlaps his personal musings with official duties in that space.  (But if you want a preview of the book he is writing keep watching his writing blog. Interesting stuff there too. )

Finally, it is worth noting that two of the past moderators have not disappeared from the blogosphere.  The Rev. Stafford Carson, immediate past Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, continues to write his blog as he returns to parish ministry.  Similarly, the Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow has posted his last official blog entry as Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the PC(USA), but anyone that knows Bruce knows that his personal blog will keep going strong.

I hope that in the coming days I'll find more official blogging out there but this is a start for this crop of Moderators.

In celebration of my transition point in the Summer from part-time teaching back to my regular gig, and because I can use it, I thought I would share with you a few of my favorite places to have Twitter bring you some humor.  To the twitter-intelligentsia out there these are probably already familiar to you, but maybe someone out there will find these new and entertaining.

The first is simply an acknowledgement of some very sharp and refined Presbyterian humor from PCAPresbyter during GA season.  While he does have amusing tweets during the off-season, how can you match such great lines as he had during the PCA GA.

The PCA has a strong theology of penal substitutionary amendments.

GA: God's plan for cultivating perseverance in Presbyterians.

OK, so maybe only the other polity wonks are ROTFL with stuff like that but I always enjoy when we can take a moment to step back and not take ourselves too seriously.  Well done PCAPresbyter!

Now, for religious humor that is not quite as refined, but that can also be a very funny insight into our foibles and idiosyncracies, I would point to the well know religious humor outlet XIANITY.  While this source puts out several satirical posts a day, a few of my favorites aimed at the Reformed folks include:

ROME: Reformer gored during the Running of the Papal Bulls.

MIRACLES: Report of entire Presbyterian congregation being raised from dead turns out to be everyone standing to sing hymn #78

FOOD: Calvinists pressure General Mills to change name of popular cereal to Providential Charms®

And of a more general theme:

CHURCH: Shabbat riot ensues as Messianic Jew replaces shofar with vuvuzela. #worldcup

LOCAL: Sunday service delayed after Pastor loses keys to "Church of the Open Door"

BREAKING NEWS: Bizarre kindergartner responds with something other than "Jesus" to Sunday School teacher's questions.

Moving on to the refined, but secular, the writers and journalists out there probably already know about FakeAPStylebook, a twitter feed that satirizes that bastion of journalistic and literary advice, the venerable AP Stylebook.  Recent gems include:

there/their/they're - What,seriously? This confuses you?

Sprinkle the word "quantum" throughout science articles, particularly if you have no idea what you're talking about.

Never say anything about a colleague in a private e-mail that you wouldn't put in print, since it's going to end up there anyway.

Real estate listings should not describe a building as a "murder house." Be specific: ax murder house, chainsaw murder house.

And finally, moving from twitter accounts to hashtags and the satirical to the ridiculous, in a play on the Wikileaks drama, there is now a Star Wars send-up called #wookieleaks:

DiscordianStooj: Empire covering up evidence that bombing of asteroids damages the habitat of endangered space slugs. #wookieleaks

FireLifeSafety #Wookieleaks Investigators claim sprinkler systems would have prevented Death Star explosions.

peterhau RT @KendalCole: Skywalker rumored to have spoiled Christmas for Vader, "I felt his presents." #wookieleaks <- now that's a good twitter joke!

Some Twitter humor that I follow that I pass along for your reading enjoyment.  Your mileage may vary.

So, having gotten that little bit of ardor out of my system we return to our regularly scheduled order here on this blog. Have fun!

In a couple of weeks I will be taking my annual vacation and this year I will have to pack light.  No thick volumes on the ecumenical movement or church history this year.  After looking around and thinking about this I decided to take along for reading several of the articles in a collection on the Patheos web site on The Future of Mainline Protestantism.  This is an interesting collection of opinions coming almost completely from progressive authors.  I know several of the authors, have heard several more speak, and have read other works by most of the rest.  And based on the skimming I have done so far, they all see a positive future for the mainline.  So check back at the end of the month when I'll post my thoughts on what I have read from there.

But in preparation for that I have started going through a series of purely mathematical thought exercises about possible numerical futures for the mainline, and specifically the PC(USA).  For the most part these are intended to be disconnected from theological, institutional or political specifics, although the more detailed model at the end does use some of that.  They are also intended to be general concept models that represent particular cases, not specific predictions of the size of the church in fifty years.  On the one hand, I will be making specific calculations based on the numbers for the PC(USA).  On the other hand, these cases apply to more than one of the mainline churches and can probably be applied to other denominations as well. So here is what I have thought about.

Case 1 - Status quo
At the present time the mainline denominations are all declining in membership at the rate of a few percent per year.  Clearly if this continues into the future each will reach a point where that church will not be viable.

For example, for 2009 the PC(USA) reported a total membership of 2,077,138, a net loss of 63,027 from the year before.  A quick calculation shows that with a constant loss of this many members the denomination would reach zero in 33 years in 2042.

As you can probably figure out this is not realistic for a number of reasons, some of which I'll talk about in the last, and most complex, model.  A better way to look at the status quo is to consider a constant rate of loss.  In 2008 the rate was 3% and in 2009 it was 2.9% so if we look at three different constant rates - 2.5%, 3.0% and 3.5% - this is what we get for the PC(USA).

Year	Constant Number	Constant Rate
	63,027/yr	2.5%/yr	3.0%/yr	3.5%/yr
2010	2,014,011	2,025,210	2,014,824	2,004,438
2020	1,383,841	1,572,230	1,485,780	1,403,673
2030	753,571	1,220,569	1,095,650	982,967
2040	123,301	947,564	807,959	688,354
2042	0	900,778	760,208	641,013
2050		735,622	595,808	482,042
2060		571,085	439,363	337,566

Case 2 - Renewed Growth
I saw you roll your eyes at this one.  Yes, there is a case to be made that the mainline represents an out-dated model that will not survive but rather decay into oblivion as outlined in Case 1.

But remember that this is only a thought experiment.  Furthermore, while there is a denomination-wide decline in church membership, on a congregation-by-congregation level this is not necessarily so.  Several congregations in my presbytery have shown stable membership over the last ten years (example 1, example 2, example 3 ). (And I will note that this crosses theological lines.)  In addition, every so often a national entity issues a list of growing PC(USA) churches and there is a general document abut the characteristics of the fastest growing churches.  I could not quickly find that list (I'll update here if I do) but checking three high-profile congregations I found recent (5-10 year) growth rates of 11.0%, 3.5%, and 2.6%.  This is not a scientific sample of growing churches, only a few that I checked.  The point is that the decline is not uniform across all the congregations in the PC(USA) and that is probably true of other mainline churches as well.  In fact, there is a book out there (that I have not read) that looks at 15 growing Presbyterian churches and why they are growing.

Now, without my actually saying what needs to be done to reverse the decline and begin growing, let me present the model for this case that would propose that a mainline church can get itself organized and take steps to help enough congregations reverse their decline and begin growing in the next decade so that beginning in 2020 the denomination as a whole can begin growing at 1% per year.

(The disclaimers: I am not advocating anything specific at this time, and especially not advocating a cookie-cutter one-size-fits-all franchise scheme for the mainline denominations that would produce a business plan for homogenous churches that are all the same. And I do know that the PC(USA) has been working on doing this one way or another, with out a reversal of the membership decline, for years now. I am also well aware of some of the other complexities of church growth these days, such as the argument that when churches grow all they are really doing is attracting members that are leaving other churches so church growth in many cases is competition for a limited, and declining, resource.  Remember, this is just a thought experiment.)

So here is what the reversal model looks like:

Year	Annual Growth Rate	Membership
2009		2,077,138
2010	-3.0%	2,014,824
2011	-2.6%	1,962,438
2012	-2.2%	1,919,265
2013	-1.8%	1,884,718
2014	-1.4%	1,858,332
2015	-1.0%	1,839,749
2016	-0.6%	1,828,710
2017	-0.2%	1,825,053
2018	0.2%	1,828,703
2019	0.6%	1,839,675
2020	1.0%	1,858,072
2030	1.0%	2,052,467
2040	1.0%	2,267,201
2050	1.0%	2,504,400
2060	1.0%	2,766,416

Case 3 - Partitioning or Pruning Model
What if, to use the cliche, we are "right-sizing" the mainline.  Consider that the decline in the churches will continue until the target size is reached and then the membership will reach a stable equilibrium.

Well, that is the idea in the abstract but to actually crank out some numbers here I will have to propose certain conditions that I can model.  Taking the conventional wisdom that the mainline is becoming more liberal or progressive, why don't we set as a target size the number of liberals in the church suggesting that all the conservatives will eventually be departing one way or another.

For the PC(USA) I have previously commented on the changes seen in the Presbyterian Panel surveys. (Sorry with the change in the PC(USA) web site links in that post to some of those data sources are now broken and I am trying to restore them.)  By one measure, in 2008 34% of the PC(USA) considered itself theologically conservative, 41% moderate, and 25% liberal.  Another measure is the question of whether "Only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved" where 39% agreed, 25% were not sure, and 36% disagreed.

Now, as a simple first-order model what if we say the evangelicals leave, the progressives say and the moderates split.  There is some symmetry in the survey results so for the sake of argument let's say that the denomination's target size is 50% of the 2009 membership and that the total membership loss rate of 3% per year comes completely from the half that is experiencing the departures so we reduce the size of those in the group that remain by 6% per year.  This is then constant rate of decline for part of the church and no decline for the other with the total size slowly approaching the target size.  Numerically this wold look like:

Year	Membership
2009	2,077,138
2010	2,014,824
2020	1,564,395
2030	1,321,787
2040	1,191,114
2050	1,120,732
2060	1,082,823
Target	1,038,569

Case 3a - Complex Partitioning or Multiple Effect
OK, as a final model let us leave the realm of first-order models and consider something with two levels of complexity. As those that have looked at membership statistics know, there are many different factors involved in the mainline decline.  For this model let us take the 3% decline of the Partition Model and say that 2.5% of that is theology-based departures and it gets applied fully to the declining group.  Let us also say that there is a 0.5% decrease for other reasons - cultural, political, social - all lumped into that one decline.  This decline is applied uniformly to both groups.  (I arrived at this 0.5% number from looking at general rates of decline of Protestant denominations in the American Religious Identification Survey.)  So now, instead of "right-sizing" the denomination to a fixed target size we have a model where the membership is rapidly declining towards a target size that is declining itself, but at a much slower rate.

Year	Membership
2009	2,077,138
2010	2,014,824
2020	1,540,278
2030	1,251,397
2040	1,068,914
2050	947,759
2060	862,294

Putting it all together
Here is a chart showing the five different models for direct comparison.




Closing words and Commentary
As I wrap this up I should probably repeat again that these are mostly first-order models that use constant or smooth variations in the constants.  Other cases could be developed for the rapid departure of particular groups or for the outright division of the church.  And while I have modeled the partitioning into two groups you could also imagine the case where it is best modeled as three groups - conservatives, moderates and liberals each in their own partition, or maybe conservatives, emergents, and everyone else.

Having put all of these forward I will state that my own leaning at the present time is to view the future of the PC(USA), and probably some other mainline churches, as following a hybrid model where the church experiences a partition decline coupled with a general decline model.  But I think at some time, and maybe not in the next 50 years, the church will reach a "right-size" or equilibrium state where membership will hold fairly steady.  But based on these models I will say that the current PC(USA), and similar churches, will not look anything like the present church in size or structure.  Time will tell if this is right and what the church will actually look like.

But having said what I expect to happen, let me also say that I am praying for the reversal model.  I look to God to find a way for the PC(USA) and other churches to move beyond the current divisions and find a way to bring the Gospel to the world in such a way that people are attracted to the church and the numbers grow again.  It does occur to me that maybe this would require partition in order for the witness to begin again and the churches to grow.  I don't know what the answer is but I pray we are attentive to God's leading as we honestly and prayerfully discern together where we are going.

Now on to another general look at this sort of thing from a different angle, coming up in two or three days.