Monthly Archives: March 2008

Who owns the Web Site — A New Property Battle in the Web 2.0 Church

Over the last couple months a number of events have transpired related to the Episcopal and Anglican Diocese(s) of San Joaquin in California.  Briefly, the Diocese voted to realign from the American Episcopal Church to the Anglican Southern Cone, the American Episcopal Church appointed a new provisional bishop to shepherd the remaining Episcopal faithful, and over the weekend The Episcopal Church held a service of healing and forgiveness Friday evening and a special convocation and service of celebration Saturday that included the confirmation and installation of Bishop Jerry Lamb as the provisional bishop of the diocese.  The Episcopal Diocese is now gearing up to get their property back from the realigned Anglicans.

While all of that was expected the surprise of the weekend, as reported by VirtueOnline, is that the web site of the Anglican group, www.sanjoaquin.anglican.org, has been replaced by a redirect to the Episcopal Diocese web site at www.diosanjoaquin.org.  Details of the switch are not clear yet, but the Anglican site is safe, now at the address www.sjoaquin.net.  Something happened at their web host, anglican.org and the details are not complete yet.

As a geek, web builder, and network administrator, I curious about some of the details and hope more come out.  However, it serves as a lesson that in the Web 2.0 world the church’s property includes not just brick and mortar but names, addresses, and on-line content.  You have been warned.

Upcoming PCA General Assembly

Coming up on June 10-13, 2008, in Dallas, Texas, will be the 36th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America.  There is both an Assembly web site as well as one from the host committee.  Both web sites are basic but functional and the host committee’s site has the program for Women in the Church (WIC) and the children and youth program.  While the youth day trip to Six Flags and the Laser Tag event would get the attention of my Jr. Higher, the “mixer” with seminary students is a nice touch to acquaint them with another aspect of the wider church.

The docket is published and there are now twelve overtures posted on the overtures page.  I will tackle the latest on the “hot button” overture at the end of this post.  The rest fall into natural groupings.

From Southeast Alabama Presbytery come a set of three overtures all related to people becoming members of the church.  Now the details are incomplete since the text of the overtures is not posted yet (the site says that Clerk is still waiting on information from the Presbytery) but all are proposed changes to the Book of Church Order. Overture 1 would make modifications to the section that defines the methods by which people are received into or dismissed from the Church.  The next, overture 2, deals with “Transfers to Church Membership.” and overture 3 would “Require Affirmation of the Apostles Creed for Membership.”  More on these as the text becomes available.

Overture 4, from Presbytery of the Blue Ridge, also is related to membership, specifically what are informally known as the “membership vows.”  In the present wording the Book of Church Order, section 57-5, says that the minister may ask the five questions to those seeking membership by profession of faith.  This overture makes the simple, but significant, change of the may to a shall.  So if approved by the GA and confirmed by the Presbyteries the questions would be mandatory.  For reference the five questions deal with 1) do you acknowledge yourself as a sinner? 2) do you believe in Jesus Christ and rest upon Him alone for salvation? 3) Relying on the Holy Spirit will you live as followers of Christ? 4) will you support the Church? and 5) Do you submit yourself to the Church government and discipline?

Speaking of Church discipline, there are two overtures that deal with procedures in discipline cases, both from Missouri Presbytery.  Overture 6 addresses procedures during the investigation of a Teaching Elder (minister) who has had an accusation made against him.  Specifically, it adds a new paragraph to 31-2 that would have an investigating committee or commission formed and would permit the presbytery, by a 2/3 vote, to suspend the Teaching Elder from his responsibilities.  As the proposed amendment says:

At any time while its investigation is in process, the presbytery may suspend the teaching elder from active ministerial duties if it believes the man’s credibility, effectiveness, or fitness for office has been seriously compromised by these reports. Such a suspension shall never be done in the way of censure, since it is not tantamount to a judgment of guilt in the investigation; rather, it is a means of protecting the integrity of the gospel as well as the peace and unity of the church. Great care should be exercised not to invoke this provision too hastily or without sufficient grounds and careful deliberation.

It should be noted that the change here is to provide for suspension during investigation since section 31-10 already provides for suspension from official duties once the charges have been filed.  The second overture in this group, overture 7, clarifies the rules of discipline by explicitly stating that reports that warrant an investigation are “judicial” in nature and need to be treated as such.  These two proposed changes to the Rules of Discipline have the feel of ones that arose because of questions, confusion, or circumstances in a specific case in Missouri Presbytery.

There are three overtures related to presbytery boundaries.  Overture 12 from Evangel Presbytery asks to divide the presbytery since it now has the maximum recommended number of churches.  The southern half in the Birmingham, Alabama, area would retain the Evangel name and the northern half would become the new presbytery.  Overture 5 from Northwest Georgia Presbytery asks to have two additional counties, not currently included in a PCA presbytery, included in Northwest Georgia.  Overture 10 is effectively a concurring overture from neighboring Tennessee Valley Presbytery saying that they have no objections.  This is important because Tennessee Valley does have groups working in that area looking at planting churches.  However, overture 10 has a note from the Stated Clerk pointing out the title of the overture, “Revise Tennessee Valley Presbytery Boundary,” is actually incorrect since the two counties currently belong to no presbytery and so Tennessee Valley’s boundaries will not change.

Also, there are two overtures that have a common link to military chaplaincy.  The first and least obvious, overture 8, from Rocky Mountain Presbytery, is a “Tribute to TE William B. Leonard,
Jr.” who has given many years of service to Presbyterian and Reformed churches, service extending back before the founding of the PCA.  Among this service is the founding and serving as the first Executive Director of the Presbyterian and Reformed Joint Commission on Chaplains, an agency with connections to the PCA and four other Reformed denominations. 

The second is overture 11 from the Presbytery of the Ascension that is titled “Sending Reformed Military Evangelists to U.S. Oversees Military Communities.”  This is a complex overture in a number of respects but the bottom line is that it calls for better church evangelism and support in overseas military communities beyond the work of the chaplains from the Joint Commission.  For the GA to deal with it will require its consideration by four different commissioner committees and it calls for the creation of an additional national committee for the denomination which will require a Book of Church Order change.  Briefly, the four action items are: 1) encourage each presbytery to establish a committee to work on church planting among church families stationed around the world. 2) Have a coordinated PCA effort for this church planting as well. 3) Encourage commissioning evangelists for military colleges and military bases nationally and globally. and 4) establish the Reformed Military Ministries as a denominational committee parallel to the Reformed University Ministries for college chaplains.  Because of the issues involved and the complexity of this overture I can see this as a “sleeper” that could lead to extended debate and consideration of the partnership with the Joint Commission for this work.

Finally, we have the issue that several of us in the blogosphere have been tracking for a while, the question of ordination and ordination standards as it applys to the place of women in the diaconate or deaconesses.  Overture 9, from the Philadelphia Presbytery, calls for the creation of a study committee for sorting this all out.  For some of the background leading up to this you can check out my previous post on this from about a month ago.  The summary is that the Book of Church Order and the Westminster Standards state that only men may serve in ordained office, but some question the Scriptural support for this for deacons, some ask how women can be involved in service that is like that of deacons, and some are wondering what actions or procedures are, or are not, ordination.  Not much has officially changed in the last month, but plenty of people are weighing in on the topic.  As before, the strongest proponents of strictly having men serve in anything even close to an ordained office are the Bayly Brothers.  In addition to their earlier blog posting they have recently added another that is a reprint of a piece Timothy Bayly wrote for Ligonier Ministries’ publication Table Talk ten years ago.  There is also an extensive post on Green Baggins by Bob Mattes that considers the Greek text , and one of the (currently 204) comments is by Doug Wilson that defends the unique role of deaconess.  Another detailed post that directly addresses the “where ases” in the overture is on the blog “The Cellar Door.”  And in a brief post A Reforming Mom affirms and links to the Bayly Brothers earlier post, so it is not just the “male hierarchy” of the PCA that is in favor of preserving the status quo.  At this time there has been little I have seen directly related to this overture arguing for the ordination of women as deacons in the PCA posted in the blogosphere except maybe in blog comments on the BaylyBlog or Green Baggins.

It has struck me that there is currently a higher level of discussion of deacons and deaconesses in the general blogosphere right now.  It is impossible to say if it is directly linked to this overture and controversy.  One example is Thabiti Anyabwile on Pure Church who has several posts this month about deacons in general.  If you want a women serving as deacons analysis of the Greek text you can see a discussion by Baptist minister Wade Burleson on the role of women in the offices of the church.

As the PCA heads towards this General Assembly there is a new dynamic beginning to surface and that is the current prominence nationally of PCA Teaching Elder Tim Keller, Senior Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan.  In addition to Redeemer’s growth and strong ministry in New York City, Rev. Keller also has a best selling popular book out now called “The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism.”  The extent and emphases of Redeemer Presbyterian Church is a subject for another time, and I am not sure yet whether the church would fall into the “emergent” category, but with their programs and “popular feel” there is a rising level of concern among some in the PCA about their orthodoxy.  This includes the diaconate ministry of the church described in a carefully worded web page which mentions but does not distinguish between deacons and deaconesses and refers to both as “officers.”  Because of the intended scope of this post being the General Assembly I’ll return to TE Tim Keller and the situation at Redeemer another time, but I just wanted to point out a rising level of concern among PCA bloggers about Redeemer as exemplified by, among other, the BaylyBlog, Confessional Outhouse, and a long related discussion on the Puritan Board.  The PCA is not a “one size fits all” Presbyterian branch and has in the past addressed questions of orthodoxy head-on rather than walking around the “elephant in the room.”  We will see how this develops.

Looking back at this post I am now aware that I have read a lot on these issues from bloggers with a fairly close reading of the Westminster Standards and not a lot who identify themselves with the PCA and have a more relaxed or flexible view of the standards and Scripture.  I try hard to keep this blog balanced so if you think there is another voice out there I should be reading and quoting more feel free to let me know in the comments or send me e-mail at steve_at_gajunkie.com.

Keep watching these issues as GA approaches and we will see how they develop.

Upcoming PC(USA) General Assembly — Late-March Update

Things continue to move forward towards the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  There has been little “news” but enough changes since my last update that I think it is time for another one.

First some “fluff” items:
The General Assembly web site has changed it’s “look and feel” so it is now unique in the PC(USA) domain.  It no longer fits the standard design you see on most other pages but has its own style with the navigation bar across the top, a wider area for content, and a gray “motif” with less contrast than the main pages.  I don’t see a change in the content though.  One thing that is gone is the prominent link to the Committee on Local Arrangements (COLA) and the COLA web site still has a style based on the PC(USA) main page.

The second item is that my son finally got registered on-line for the assembly.  The process was slow and threw back server errors a couple of times, but worked in the end.

Finally, there is now a detailed schedule of events posted for the GA, 26 pages worth, listing not just the business sessions and worship, but all the special meals you can buy tickets for and the speakers or awards at those meals.  My son looked at that and asked “but what would I be interested in?”  I pointed him to a couple that are up his alley.   I’ll return to a couple of interesting items on the schedule at the end of this post.

Over the last couple of weeks the number of overtures has only grown slightly, but the number of recommendations listed on PC-biz has started explode.

For the overtures, there are six new ones, bringing the total to 86.  Of these, there is one more about the FOG report (Overture 81)  from the Presbytery of Western North Carolina to receive the report, have officers and Governing Bodies study it, get back to the Stated Clerk by Jan. 1, 2010, and refer the business to the 219th GA in 2010.  Overture 86 is fairly routine business to establish Truckee Lutheran Presbyterian Church as a union church in Truckee, Nevada.  There is also a social witness overture, 82, from Twin Cities Area Presbytery, challenging the denomination to work for shalom in the world.  The overture singles out no specific geographic area or particular conflict, but does oppose the doctrine of preemptive war as well as torture while supporting the promotion of human rights.

The other three overtures are more unique, have some nuance, and have interesting implications for Presbyterian politics.

The first is Overture 83, “On Equal Rights for Families of Same-Gender Partners” from New Brunswick Presbytery.  This overture touches both sides of the PC(USA)’s seemingly paradoxical stand on same-sex relationships.  As the rational of the overture points out, the PC(USA) has a history of social witness promotion of the civil rights of same-sex couples.  At the same time the denomination has been embroiled in the controversy over the ban on the ordination of active homosexuals and on same-sex unions.  Some, on both sides, see these opposite stands as contradictory while many in the center do understand the differing social and polity stands to be perfectly compatible with our Reformed theology.  This overture is interesting because it touches both parts and blurs the difference.  Point 1 is pretty clear on renewing the commitment to civil rights.  But Point 2 asks for a special committee to report to the next GA on the relationship between our two positions.  Specifically it asks for a report on:

a.The history of the laws governing marriage and civil union, including current policy debates.
b. How the theology and practice of marriage have developed in the Reformed and broader Christian tradition.
c. The relationship between civil marriage and Christian marriage.
d. The effects of current laws on same-gender partners and their children.
e. The place of covenanted same-gender partnerships in the Christian community.

The final point in the overture is to support congregations as they “extend pastoral care to same-gender couples and their families.”

Overture 84 is a request from the Flint River Presbytery to change the standing rules so that amending the standing rules or suspending the standing rules only requires a majority vote rather than a super-majority of 2/3.  We will see how far this gets because one of our subordinate standards (just kidding!) is Robert’s Rules of Order which has a 2/3 vote to suspend the rules.  All that the overture rational says is that the current 2/3 imposes an “unrealistic constraint.” I have seen the GA amend and suspend the rules several times so it can be done for good reason.  Somebody who wants to look for “conspiracy theories” might find something in this change.  I’ll have to reread the minutes from the last GA to see what business was related to a failed suspension of the standing rules.

Finally, overture 85 proposes a change in the investment restrictions on General Assembly Council (GAC) allowing them to invest with organizations other than the Presbyterian Foundation.  The rational is that the GAC is the only PC(USA) entity required to use the Foundation exclusively and it points out that the Board of Pensions has done better elsewhere.  This overture was brought by the Synod of the Southwest.

As I mentioned above, the number of recommendations to the Assembly is growing, currently up to 26 beginning with the Report of the Form of Government Task Force as Recommendation 1.  In this post I’m not going to do a item-by-item analysis of the recommendations.  Some are routine approvals of a new seminary president (7), seminary trustees (6), Historical Society and Mountain Retreat Association Board members (20 and 26).  Some are the official wording or the items from the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy that I discussed in February.  Many of the remaining are recommendations from the General Assembly Council.  Let me highlight a couple:

Recommendation 19 is unique, so far, in that it is the only recommendation with proposed changes to the Book of Order.  This is unusual to come from an agency, but this is the result of the referral to the GAC of an overture to the 217th GA in 2006 to create a non-geographic Korean language sy
nod.  Following a consultation in December 2006 the GAC is recommending that a non-geographic synod not be authorized, but is suggesting changes to the Book of Order that would allow a church in a synod without a non-geographic language presbytery be able to join a non-geographic presbytery in another synod.  This does have interesting polity implications since Overture 10 is asking for a general flexibility in presbytery and synod membership.

Another document suggested for change is the Open Meeting Policy in recommendation 18.  This is more of a change for clarification saying that observers may not only attend, but have copies of the documents, and that cases under the Rules of Discipline also fall under the category of closed meetings.

There have been some new items among groups affiliated with the PC(USA) related to GA.  On the schedule I mentioned earlier, you will find that on any given day you can have a briefing by Presbyterians for Renewal at lunch time.

Also at every lunch break will be “Something Happening for Love Justice and Jesus” by That All May Freely Serve (TAMFS).  The description is:

Come out to celebrate the ALL of the Church’s future. Music? Art? Theater? Something Else? Watch for signs, check www.tamfs.org for where to gather for these daily events.

This appears to be linked to their advocacy at GA this year titled “New Church (R)evolution!”  Their web site describes it as:

Young adults and seminarians – our New Church (R)evolution team – will
claim their birthright as members of a just and inclusive church.
Through positive, life-giving action, the New Church (R)evolution will be the church we seek, as we invite the PCUSA to have the courage to join us in living into freedom and justice! [emphasis in the original]

With the mention of “young adults,” and the descriptions on the associated brochure, the target audience is clearly the same as has been the concern in the various discussions of Web 2.0 and the future of the church.  As the brochure says in one box, “Studies consistently show that people under 35 have heard the gospel message and support the inclusion of all believers, LGBTQ or otherwise. So while some people continue to use tactics to ensure exclusion, the next generation has already decided for the full equality of all people.”

Clearly TAMFS has a strategy for connecting with the younger generation in ways familiar to that culture.  It will be interesting to see if it does connect, if there are enough younger generation present to connect with, and if any conservative/evangelical leaning groups will have a similar presence.

This will be interesting so stay tuned for GA.

GA 101: Where Does the GA Business Come From? — Incoming!

A General Assembly would still be interesting if all the players got together, worshiped, elected a Moderator, elected individuals to national committees, councils, and commissions, heard greetings from other ecumenical bodies, reviewed the minutes of lower governing bodies, and then adjourned and went home.  But you could do that in a day or two and it would leave the Moderator with little to preside over.  It would not be the same as when they have to preside over a business session with a substitute motion on the floor, an amendment to an amendment under discussion, and a commissioner rising to a point of order to challenge the Moderator’s ruling on the last point of order.  I have not seen this happen in other Presbyterian branches very often, but a parliamentary situation similar to this happens usually once each Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly.  Without some business to do, the commissioners would never have this intellectually challenging (and mildly entertaining) opportunity.  More important, the church would not have the opportunity to wrestle with the application of our Reformed theology to real-world issues.  So where does this business come from?

From the church:
Being a connectional system, the first, and what should be the ultimate, source of business is from the lower governing bodies of presbyteries and synods (if the church has synods and if the General Synod is not the highest governing body).

In most branches presbyteries can pass overtures that are sent to the General Assembly.  An overture is a request for the Assembly to consider something, a change to the Constitution or the Acts, establishing a new committee or task force to address a current issue, requesting that an existing committee study an item, or some other request for action or change at the highest level.

In the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) there is an additional form of request from a presbytery.  Using what is called a “Memorial,” a presbytery may send to the General Assembly a request for a judicial proceeding by the GA’s Standing Judicial Commission. 

(This should not be confused with “Memorial Resolutions” passed by some branches, like the Bible Presbyterian Church, that honor devoted church workers who have gone to be with the Lord in the preceding year.)

Overtures to the General Assembly must almost always come from a middle governing body.  Individuals would bring a proposed overture to their session and if approved by the session it would be advanced to presbytery for its approval.  If approved, it would then become business for the Assembly.  In the PCA an overture must be considered by the presbytery, but the individual or session can still advance it to the Assembly even if the presbytery disapproves of it. [RAO 11-10]  However, the presbytery disapproval must be clearly indicated on the overture.

The overture is the one form of business that can deal with just about anything in the church, be it the constitution or polity, financing, structure, or theological and social witness issues.  Every other source of business usually has some restrictions placed on it, although in smaller branches the new business from the floor can have few limits.

While controversial overtures tend to get the most attention, it should also be noted that some overtures deal with less controversial matters such as setting or moving boundaries of presbyteries, transferring churches between presbyteries, or establishing churches as union churches.

In my experience, the PC(USA) has far more overtures than any other Presbyterian branch.  For example, there are now 80 overtures on the business list for the PC(USA) 2008 GA.  At the present time the PCA has 12 overtures listed for its consideration at this year’s GA, while the Church of Scotland had only one overture to consider at its last GA in 2007 and the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand (PCANZ) had five overtures at its last GA in 2006.

From the institution:
At the General Assemblies of the larger Presbyterian branches, like the Church of Scotland, PCANZ, and the PC(USA), much of the Assembly’s time is spent dealing with business in the form of reports or deliverances from the national church structure.  (Technically, a deliverance is the “for action” portion of a report for branches like the Church of Scotland that use this term.)  For smaller branches these reports are still part of the business but with less internal structure they represent a smaller part of the total docket.

Business in reports might include review and actions related to the seminaries, reports from departments in the national office, report of the nominating committee and election of individuals to national committees, and the reports and actions from those committees. 

Often the action items from a committee are related to an overture at a preceding GA that the Assembly approved and then referred to the committee to do the work and the committee is now returning the finished product for the Assembly’s consideration.  This is usually how major items of business get accomplished.  With no General Assembly running more than a week, and most being composed of at least one hundred commissioners, it is impossible for an Assembly to create from scratch a major polity or theological document.  Instead, the request is sent to a committee or specifically created task force for their work and then a future Assembly has the opportunity to deal with their product by modifying, adopting, commending, accepting, or rejecting the work on behalf of the larger church.

From before:
Another source of business, while not usually one of the major ones, is unfinished business from the last Assembly.  These “referrals” from one Assembly to the next can be for a number of reasons from the Assembly running out of time on its docket to the business being complicated or controversial and the first Assembly decides that the church needs time to deal with it outside the Assembly.

One of the more interesting continuing items of business that is happening is the revision of the Directory for the Public Worship of God by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.  This is an effort that already has 18 years of work in committees and now the final editing is being done by the General Assembly.  The 2007 GA was able to get through only five of the eighteen sections and so referred the item to the 2008 GA.  PC(USA) GA Junkies in particular will appreciate that one item of extended discussion dealt with the language of “shall,” “will,” “must,” and the like.  We will see how much further they get this year, and it should be remembered that no Assembly is bound by a previous Assembly’s actions so even those first five sections will be on the floor again.

From within:
In some branches, like the PCA and the PC(USA), business can be introduced by the commissioners themselves.  In the PC(USA) these are specifically known as “commissioner resolutions” and each resolution must be submitted by two commissioners and no commissioner may sign more than two commissioner resolutions.  In both the PCA and PC(USA) there is a deadline early in the Assembly for these resolutions or “new business” to be submitted so that the commissioners and committees hav
e adequate time to deal with them.  At the last PC(USA) GA in 2006 there were 18 commissioner resolutions, of which 13 were debated and the remaining five were declined because they could be dealt with in items already docketed.

Another item that usually comes, at least partly, from within is the budget.  While another body may have already prepared a proposed budget, many actions by the assembly have financial implications and at the end of the Assembly the commissioners usually need to approve the final budget including the changes they have introduced as a result of the business they have conducted.

For review:
In a connectional system it is the responsibility of the higher court or body to review the actions of the lower bodies.  In most Presbyterian branches, this means that the General Assembly, usually through a working group of commissioners, reviews the records of the presbyteries, synods, and the seminary or seminaries.  And being the highest governing body the Assembly has the responsibility to review its own minutes.

In some branches, like the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, there are no permanent judicial commissions so the GA itself becomes the “court of last resort” for the appeal of judicial cases from the presbyteries and will, as a whole, sit and hear the appeals brought to it and decide the case.

Well, that is all the different sources of business for a General Assembly that I can think of.  Not all Presbyterian branches have every one of these types of business, but all (or maybe almost all) have most of these in one form or another.  To be clear, these are the sources of “business” in the sense of items to be acted upon.  An Assembly can also have presentations, communications, reports, and greetings that it may “receive” but not debate and vote upon and these can come from many different sources.

So now that we have outlined where the business comes from the next post will be on how the Assembly deals with it:  Doing the Business of GA — Decently and in Order

Remedial Case Filed Against Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area Over Restoration of Ordination

The Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area yesterday posted on their web site and blog the announcement that a remedial case has been filed with the Synod of Lakes and Prairies claiming that the vote of the Presbytery at a special meeting on January 26 was irregular.  That vote, in the affirmative, was to approve a non-essential departure in beliefs therefore restore the Rev. Paul Capetz to the exercise of ordained office.  According to the announcement the claim was filed by the Rev. David Bierschwale, the Rev. David Lenz, and Elder Carol Shanholtzer.  Here are the claimed irregularities from the Presbytery announcement:

“Complainants believe that the action was irregular in the following
particulars and/or the governing body exceeded its authority and failed
to act as constitutionally required in the following particulars:

The PTCA determined that compliance with the behavioral requirements of G-6.0106b is non-essential;

and,

The PTCA restored to the ministry of Word and Sacrament a person who
admits and declares that he will not lead his life in conformity to the
historic confessional standards of the church, specifically the
requirement contained in Section G-6.0106b.”

While I don’t think that this filing was unexpected in light of the Presbytery’s actions, at this point in time it also must be viewed through the lens of both the recent GAPJC decision and any possible action by the 218th General Assembly that begins three months from today.

The announcement was that a claim has been filed so we must now wait for the process to work as the Synod investigates and the Synod PJC prepares to do its work.  Stay tuned.

What Happened to “Sinful”?

Over the last ten days there has been a lot of discussion about “Sin” in the media and out in the blogosphere.  What there has not been a lot of discussion about is being “Sinful.”

In an obligatory Holy Week piece USA Today has an article on “Has the ‘notion of sin’ been lost?”  This caps off a couple of weeks that have seen a governor resign for indiscretions, his replacement admit to his own arguably questionable actions, and the media spin an interview with a Vatican official about modern responsibilities into a list of the “new seven deadly sins.”

But as I read through the USA Today piece I kept thinking that “this is missing the point.”  What the article talked about was the view of sin as a list of things we should or should not do.  A recent survey by Ellison Research shows that if you put together a list of sins some are roundly accepted on the list (adultery by 81% of Americans, racism by 74%) and some are struggling to be recognized as wrong (only 30% think gambling is).  But while it is one thing to come up with lists of specific actions, what the USA Today article dances around is the larger question of what is Sin anyway what about humans as Sinful beings.

There are hints of the larger view in the article.  The Rev. Albert Mohler is quoted in part as saying “I wonder whether even some Christian churches are making the connection between Christ’s death and resurrection and victory over sin — the linchpin doctrine of Christianity.”  Note that he said “sin” as a singular, a condition or concept.  The article just keeps on going with the lists.

Later on the article gets closer with material from Michael Horton:

People have to see themselves as sinners — ultimately alienated from God and unable to save themselves — for Christ’s sacrifice to be essential.

and from Pope Benedict XVI

“People who trust in themselves and in their own merits are, as it were, blinded by their own ‘I,’ and their hearts harden in sin. On the other hand, those who recognize themselves as weak and sinful entrust themselves to God, and from him obtain grace and forgiveness.”

So the measure of sin is not ourselves but God.  And our ultimate condition as humans is that we are sinful and unable to save ourselves.  It is not about committing sins that are on a list.  It is about our Sinful human nature.  If sin is only about what society says I should or should not do and I can work on that myself, this weekend is just about jelly beans and chocolate.  If we recognize that there is no way we can save ourselves, that we can not even come close to what God requires, that we have violated the image of God in us, and that we can not be saved by our best efforts but by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then this weekend becomes a joyous spiritual celebration.  When it comes to sin and our sinful nature we don’t want “fair,” we need Grace.

So from the Westminster Shorter Catechism

Q. 14. What is sin?
A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.

Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adam’s first transgression?
A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.

Q. 20. Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
A. God, having out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace to deliver them out of the estate of
sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.

Q. 25. How doth Christ execute the office of a priest?
A. Christ executeth the office of a priest, in his once offering up of himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice, and reconcile us to God, and in making continual intercession for us.

Q. 84. What doth every sin deserve?
A. Every sin deserveth God’s wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come.

Q. 85. What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse, due to us for sin?
A. To escape the wrath and curse of God, due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption.

Thanks be to God for the gift of His Son.

Have a meaningful Easter Weekend.

More from the Stewardship Conference: Stewardship as a Spiritual Discipline

If you read my post discussing the first news article about the Stewardship Conference you know that I found those speaker’s comments to reflect a fairly narrow, “follow the money,” understanding of stewardship.  We now have a news story with the comments of the Rev. Karl Travis, senior pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Fort Worth, TX, that reflect a much richer understanding of stewardship as a spiritual discipline. This new story, also by Evan Silverstein from the Presbyterian News Service, is titled “Transforming the Understanding of Stewardship.”

The idea is not that the institution needs us to give, but that we need to give for our own spiritual well being.  As the article says early on:

Now the time has come for the emphasis to shift from preserving and promoting the institution to furthering the well-being of its parishioners, especially when it comes to worshipers growing personally and spiritually through disciplined financial giving to their church.

In other words stewardship is not about the church’s need to receive. Stewardship is first about the individual’s need to give.

Just to remind you, Paul considers giving a spiritual gift:

6. We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. 7. If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; 8.if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.  [Romans 12:6-8, NIV]

Rev. Travis talked about stewardship as a lifestyle choice.  He is quoted as saying “Stewardship is about the joyous discipline of thanking God with the
way we live our lives and spend our money and share our money.”  This gets closer to the stewardship of “time, talents, gifts, and service” that I am used to.

The article has a couple of other good quotes from Rev. Travis about stewardship:

If you’ve come to this conference because your church is in rough financial waters and you’re wondering how to increase its budget to pay the light bill, fair enough. But take note: If that’s your initial theological pitch, you’re going to remain in the dark.

and

I have grown tired of the stewardship pitch beginning with the church hat-in-hand. People want now to speak first of joy, grace, the individual benefits of disciplined generosity.

In his presentation Rev. Travis, like Mr. Easley, made reference to Dr. Walter Brueggemann’s “Liturgy of Abundance, Myth of Scarcity” article.

So stewardship is not about perpetuating a particular church as an institution or preserving a denomination.  It is about our relationship to God as a member of a covenant community that is the Body of Christ.

One final closing quote from the article:

Stewardship is an exuberant conversation within which we step
toe-to-toe with the idolatries of this age and declare with a loud and
clear and resonant voice, ‘I am not your slave! I am a child of God,
sealed by the Holy Spirit, marked as Christ’s forever, and nothing you
can ever say or do can ever make that not true.’

Arthur C. Clarke: 1917 – 2008

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

This is know as Clarke’s Third Law and is one of his most quoted statements, at least by me.  (Right up there with HAL’s line “I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that.”)

It comes from Arthur C. Clarke, the noted science fiction writer who passed away yesterday.  There are numerous tributes and remembrances of him in the news and in the blogosphere so I am not going to attempt another one.  But personally, I have always admired his writing for the scientific accuracy and depth and the timeless themes.  Reading science fiction as I was growing up had a major impact on me and Mr. Clarke was a part of that.

This line, however, touches me in the day-to-day of my life when I am dealing with computer users in my department and family.  After “fixing” a problem with a click or keystroke and they ask “how did you do that?” I have to decide if I have time and they have patience for me to fully explain it, of just leave it as magic.  The perils of being a professional geek.

For the record, the other two of Clarke’s Three Laws are:

  1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something
    is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
  2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

Episcopal Church Update and their Polity Debate

“Blood on Every Page”

That is a phrase we in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) throw around to explain the volume, detail, and nature of our Book of Order.  The phrase is taken from one of our better know books on polity and expresses the fact that much of what has made its way into the Book of Order can be traced back to specific problems that arose and after the fact we decided that clarification or detailed rules were needed to address future instances.  One valid criticism of the proposed new Form of Government is that in the revision we will lose an accumulation of “institutional memory.”  It is also one of the strong arguments for the revision that the Book of Order is so cluttered with these reactive amendments that maybe it is time to start over with a clean copy and begin again.

If you have been following the drama in the American Episcopal Church the last few weeks you know that the recent developments have come down to an argument about applying their church, or canon, law.  I will return to that argument in a moment, but let me fill in the details from my last post  on the topic back in early December.  At that time the convention delegates to the Diocese of San Joaquin, California, had voted by a wide margin to change the diocese’s bylaws to change their oversight from the American Episcopal Church to the Southern Cone in South America. (Episcopal news story reporting that action)  The reason for the diocese’s departure, like in other mainline churches today, is the controversy over ordination standards related to practicing homosexuals.  Since then proceedings have been underway against the Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, John-David Schofield, for “Abandonment of the Communion.”  Well the proceedings reached their final step on March 12, 2008, when the House of Bishops voted to agree with the investigation board to the “deposition” (that would be removal, not testimony under oath) of Bishop Schofield as well as a retired bishop, William Cox, from Maryland.  (Episcopal news story)

For Bishop Schofield’s part, he sent, or at least posted on the Diocese web site, a letter of resignation from the House of Bishops on March 1.  Reception of this letter by the Presiding Bishop has not been acknowledged.  So we have “You can’t fire me, I quit.”

Also, the House of Bishops at their meeting approved Bishop Jerry Lamb to serve as provisional bishop to the Continuing Episcopalians in the Diocese of San Joaquin.  The appointment needs to be confirmed by the diocese on March 29.  (Episcopal new story)

While I am not sure what all the implications of deposition are, Bishop Schofield and the majority of the Diocese seem happy to have joined, and welcomed by, Southern Cone.  The deposition seems a formality at this point, unless the American Episcopal Church can find some muscle from either civil authorities or the Worldwide Anglican Communion, to get the realigned churches in San Joaquin back in the fold.

Now, here is the current controversy over polity:  The section of canon law related to the process of removing a bishop for Abandonment of Communion ( Title IV Canon 9 ) says in Section 2:

Otherwise, it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the House. If the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the Ministry, and pronounce and record in the presence of two or more Bishops that the Bishop has been so deposed.

The vote was taken by voice vote so the exact count is not known, but as the Living Church News Service reported on March 14, from their reading of this section the vote could not have been valid.  By their count there were 294 members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote on March 12.  That would require 148 bishops to vote in the affirmative to agree to the disposition.  However, they know that only 131 bishops were registered for the meeting and 15 of those left before this item of business.  By their reading “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent” had not happened and the deposition was not valid.

Needless to say, the church hierarchy disagrees with this interpretation and issued a response the next day.  Here it is in its entirety:

The Presiding Bishop’s chancellor has confirmed the validity of votes
taken in the House of Bishops on March 12, correcting an erroneous
report published online March 14 by The Living Church News Service.  

Chancellor David Booth Beers said votes consenting to the
deposition of bishops John-David Schofield and William Cox conformed to
the canons. 

“In consultation with the House of Bishops’ parliamentarian prior to
the vote,” Beers said, “we both agreed that the canon meant a majority
of all those present and entitled to vote, because it is clear from the
canon that the vote had to be taken at a meeting, unlike the situation
where you poll the whole House of Bishops by mail. Therefore, it is our
position that the vote was in order.”

A quorum had been determined at the meeting by the House of Bishops’
secretary, Kenneth Price, Bishop Suffragan of the Diocese of Southern
Ohio.

So the official interpretation, by somebody like the Stated Clerk, is that the vote was valid.  They interpret the phrase in Section 2 “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” to mean “a majority
of all those present and entitled to vote.”  I will say that I may be missing certain implications of the next line “because it is clear from the
canon that the vote had to be taken at a meeting” because I am a GA Junkie, not a HOB (House of Bishops) Junkie.  They appear to be saying that “since this vote must be taken at a meeting by implication Title IV.9.2 must refer to those at the meeting.”  But others who are more familiar with Canon Law still see problems with this, like this viewpoint expressed by the Anglican Communion Institute today.

In the midst of this it is interesting to note one final item in the Anglican controversy at the moment.  Coming up this summer is the Lambeth Conference in England, a once-a-decade gathering of about 800 bishops from the Worldwide Anglican Communion.  The conference is by invitation and participants do not come as specific delegates or representatives of their churches.  At the present time Bishop Schofield is on the invitation list, but Bishop Gene Robinson, the openly gay Bishop of New Hampshire, is not on the list and will probably only attend as an observer.

And after that diversion we now return you to our regular Politics of Presbyterianism.

UPDATE:  At about the same time I finished this up and posted it Virtue Online posted a detailed entry with quotes from several, presumably conservative, cannon lawyers that argue the interpretation of the Canon Law making the vote valid is not reasonable.  In particular one expert cites other places in the Canon Law where there are detailed specifics about which bishops need to vote.  This corroborates the interpretation that “the whole House of Bishops” means everyone eligible, not just those present.

UPDATE 2:  In looking over this polity issue I have found a post on the blog Father Jake Stops the World which takes the position that the vote was valid and tackles the canon law and the math to explain why.  His argument centers on the necessary quorum.  However, he closes with a comment I think a lot of people could affirm at this point: “The wording of that canon certainly needs to be cleaned up. That is quite clear.”

Better Mission Funding Through On-Line Social Networking?

You may have seen yesterday’s article from the Presbyterian News Service of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) by Evan Silverstein titled “Fresh approaches to stewardship needed, Easley says.”  The Easley is General Assembly Council Vice-chair Charles F. Easley and he was speaking to the Presbyterian Stewardship Conference in Fort Worth, Texas.

The article, while associated with the conference, mainly covered Mr. Easley’s plenary speech.  He is quoted as saying that “We have got to devise new ways to tap into the passions of people.”  And the goal?  He pointed out that in the next two years $50 to $60 trillion dollars will change hands from one generation to the next which will “give rise to a new generation of wealthy donors — ages 40 to 50 — who will demand to see ‘measurable results’ for their money before agreeing to contribute to the mission of their churches or other charities.”  In addition, Elder Easley reminded the audience that the pattern in the church today is designated  giving and that the church can not depend on the average person attending church because they have stopped coming.

Mr. Easley outlined programs the PC(USA) might implement to raise awareness and interest in mission giving and a final report will be made to the upcoming General Assembly.  The objective is to “bring resources into the church” once you learn about the passion of its members.  One of the tools proposed in the new mission funding system will be a “season of interpretation.”  This sounds like the mission worker visit we had last fall which was interesting but penetration into the churches in our presbytery was weak.  No further details are given except that the goal is to make this an annual event and that members could chose what they have a passion for.  Another component to the report is encouraging not just the transfer of wealth, but the transfer of stories and knowledge about mission from older to younger generations.  Finally, there are ideas about using on-line social networking sites to promote mission giving through relationship building.

The article concludes with Mr. Easley discussing the ideas of Walter Brueggemann about the “Liturgy of Abundance, Myth of Scarcity” and how much abundance Americans have.

Commentary Mode:  Based on these comments it appears that Mr. Easley is sending the message that “people are not coming to the PC(USA) therefore we need to pursue, court, and build relationships with high net worth individuals to support our world-wide mission because the few left in the pews can’t or won’t do it.”  Sorry if I got that wrong, but that is a major attitude I got from this article.  And I hate to say it but if this is the message that we are sending to the “average person in the pews” they will once again wonder what is up in Louisville and where is my money going?

[In case you want to argue with me here is the quote copied from the article:  “And he said forget about bringing in enough money by depending on those
coming to church. ‘It’s just not going to happen because they don’t
come,’ Easley said.”  Yes, I’m pulling one line out, but there is a strong message sent in that line.  Don’t believe me?  I read it to my wife and her response was “That’s kind of scary.”]

Apart from the emphasis on the “high net wealth” individuals in preference to the “average person in the pews” I think that Mr. Easley is starting down the right track.  Storytelling, interpretation, relationship building are all important aspects of responsible (I will avoid the word “increased”) mission giving.  My congregation is a prime example:  While we do still contribute some money each year to “undesignated” mission giving at all levels of the denomination, far more goes into specific mission projects, several not PC(USA) or of any denomination, that we have a specific relationship with.  And for most of these missions our church usually sends people on mission trips to supply some sweat as well as money and to bring back stories and experience.

This brings me to one of my major concerns about Mr. Easley’s comments and what I can tell about this conference.  (Note: I have come to respect the reporting of Mr. Silverstein so I am going to attribute these to the speaker and not the reporting or editing.)  From his comments, and the list of workshops at the conference, it is pretty clear that this conference was about Stewardship of Money.  In and of itself that is not necessarily a bad thing.  But I believe that Jesus calls us to Stewardship of Our Whole Lives, so that means we need to be responsible about our “time, talents, gifts, and service.”  If giving is down is it because we are only asking for their money?  And with the proposed new Form of Government, how does this approach to stewardship fit into the new Missional Polity.

So, I would encourage the approach of relationship building.  Go the Facebook and MySpace route because one paragraph or one sentence in the Mission Yearbook for Study and Prayer is not enough to build the relationship, and barely enough to give us something to pray over.  I hope the season of interpretation catches on, because we do need to feel connected with those we support.  While the Mission Yearbook is nice it often feels like drinking from a fire hose; find ways for congregations and individuals to effectively connect one-on-one with mission workers.  And figure out more ways that we can also use our “time, talents, and service” as will as “gifts.”  Look at the enthusiasm and participation that the PC(USA) has had in the Gulf Coast through Presbyterian Disaster Assistance and the impact it has had on both the area and those who have gone there to work.  And maybe if the average person in the PC(USA) does learn about and own the mission program you won’t have to emphasize high net wealth individuals for mission funding.