Monthly Archives: May 2010

The 2010 Assemblies Discussing Central Points Of Presbyterian And Reformed Thought

This past weekend the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland held a special session to celebrate and remember the 450th anniversary of the Reformation in Scotland that produced the Presbyterian church.  (You can watch the two hour long session on the Church of Scotland web site.)  And for those who keep track, this past Thursday (when I started writing this) marked the 446th anniversary of John Calvin’s death.  It seems to me the various Assemblies this year in their business have more ties to Calvin and Knox than happens in most years.

As I think back on the Church of Scotland Assembly I’m sure that for many of us who followed the meeting there was an interesting sense of paradox (or irony or outright contradiction even) having to do with the fact that on the one hand the Assembly endorsed the Third Article Declaratory defining the Kirk as a territorial church with a mission to the whole of Scotland, while on the other hand cutting ministerial staffing 10%.  I probably can not state it any better than Davidkhr who says in his blog post about the Assembly:

It’s all very well making potentially visionary statements looking at alternative forms of ministry, but the education process within the membership will be impossible. Let’s face it, and the Committee/commission didn’t, the vast majority of ordinary members expect a form of ministry that may have happened 40 years ago, and the only ‘visit’ from the church that is valid is the dog collar. That is plainly ridiculous in today’s situation. Parishes will get bigger, more vacancies are planned for, more churches needing covered with interim ministries, it’s a recipe for meltdown….

Or have I missed something in all this ?

And this in a Presbyterian branch which has been proactive about considering the church of the future with their Church Without Walls initiative and the various Commissions and Panels on restructuring the church.

I’ll return to this in a moment, but as I consider the Assembly meetings now adjourned and those yet to convene it strikes me that more than most years there will be a lot of discussion, more than usual, around the application and relevance of several points which many of us consider central to what it means to be Reformed and Presbyterian.  Some of these are…

Worship
We are all familiar with the “worship wars” but the echoes this year seem to be very much concerned with the original Reformed understanding of divine worship and the inspiration and value of the Psalter.  At their Assembly, the commissioners of the Free Church of Scotland agreed to a special Plenary Assembly later in the year to discuss the possibility of permitting flexibility in worship and providing for a congregation to include music other than unaccompanied exclusive psalmody.

But I found it meaningful how much unaccompanied Psalm singing there was at the Church of Scotland Assembly, not just at the special session but throughout the week. A significantly larger amount of the music sung that week was unaccompanied Psalms, more than I remember from previous years.

Teaching and Ruling Elders in Joint Ministry
This gets to the heart of many discussions this year and especially part of the solution of the Third Article and the ministry cuts paradox.  The Special Commission on the Third Article Declaratory in their report made it clear that to accomplish that mission would require new ways of being the church.  And as Davidkhr makes clear above it will fail, meltdown in his language, if there are not new ways.

But that is the beauty of the model of shared ministry that we see in the Presbyterian and Reformed system.  Under no circumstances is leadership for the teaching elder alone.  Authority, responsibility, and accountability lie with both the teaching and ruling elders.  And while there are plenty of service roles for others in the church, in times of reduced staffing there is opportunity and responsibility for the ruling elders to live into their role and help leading the church where there is now need.  Yes, there is need for training regarding some areas, but a great opportunity for ruling elders to be part of the joint leadership the Reformed tradition recovered.

And I would say that many Presbyterian branches would benefit from being intentional about the joint ministry of teaching and ruling elders.  This is not necessarily a budgetary argument but an understanding of call.

But in this regard there are a couple of other points where our GA’s are touching on this joint ministry.  One of these is in the balance of teaching elders and ruling elders standing for Moderator and Vice-Moderator of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  Five of the six Moderator candidates are teaching elders and all four of the announced Vice-Moderator candidates are teaching elders.  Only one in ten, 10%, is a ruling elder.  Now I actually think this says something about how the PC(USA) structures these position and I will rant about discuss that another time, but at a minimum it does implicitly say something about how the church looks at this joint ministry.

Another branch where this joint ministry has been mentioned as lacking is in the Presbyterian Church in AmericaCommentators have pointed out that having teaching and ruling elder parity at GA is a problem with more conflicts and less incentive for ruling elders to attend.  This is one of the “back stories” to the Strategic Plan…

Connectionalism
This leads us into one of the areas that is constantly being worked out in Presbyterian branches, and that is our connectionalism — how each governing body is connected to the others.  I have to think that if we were not a fallen and sinful people this would come naturally, or even be unnecessary, but having our sinful nature it does not come as easily for us to determine what of our authority, power and treasure we are to reserve for one governing body and what portion is properly exercised by higher or lower bodies.  Just as we believe that our human nature is such that authority should not be concentrated in one individual but rather in a body, we also believe authority should not be concentrated in one governing body but shared (not necessarily equally) across higher and lower governing bodies with review and appeal between them.  (And this is just the polity argument and not the role of connectionalism as representative of the Church as the Body of Christ.)

Having said this, the connectional level of Presbyterian polity is one of the most sensitive issues in several branches right now and for the PCA Strategic Plan the several ways that it proposes to improve connectionalism may be the most controversial and contentious points.  One thing the report considers is how the Administrative and Assembly functions of the denomination should be supported and how to assess churches for the financial support of these areas.  There are numerous analyses and a counter proposal being circulated so at the Assembly we will have a significant discussion on the specific implications of connectionalism.

At the upcoming Assembly of the PC(USA) a different situation will be on the floor.  The PCA Strategic Report begins with the position that growth has slowed and started to reverse and asks the question “What do we need to do to start growing again?”  The PC(USA) discussion begins with the fact that the current structure was designed for a church roughly one million members larger and asks the question “How do we need to structure ourselves for our smaller size?”  There are proposals for specific tweaks, like abolishing synods, to requests for creating a committee or commission to study the role of higher governing bodies and suggest, and in the case of the commission implement, changes to the presbytery and synod structure of the denomination.

As a parallel proposal, there is also a PC(USA) overture for a “New Synod,” and flexible presbyteries, that would allow connectionalism along the lines of theological affinity.  But the PC(USA) is not alone here because the Evangelical Presbyterian Church also has a proposal before it for presbyteries to have, in my words, “fuzzy boundaries,” to allow for congregations to align themselves in presbyteries that have a similar stance but on one very specific issue, the ordination of women as teaching elders.

And finally, the Church of Scotland, in several reports including the Panel on Review and Reform, is looking at devolving responsibilities from the General Assembly level to the presbytery level.  We will see more of these specifics as the year unfolds and they are discussed and implemented.

Confessions
I would be remiss if I did not mention one more traditional item and that is our confessional nature as Presbyterians.  The PC(USA) GA will be discussing a recommendation to add the Belhar Confession as a confessional standard.  I will leave it at that for now as I am working on a much more extensive post on the PC(USA) and its confessions.

So that is what I am seeing.  In my memory I can’t remember so many Presbyterian branches dealing with so many of the characteristics that we of the Presbyterian and Reformed tradition consider core to our doctrinal framework.  So hold on — it looks to be an interesting summer.

Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — Sixth Candidate For Moderator And Other Details

Having hit a short break between Assemblies, the GA of the Church of Scotland finishing this morning (my time) and the Presbyterian Church in Canada scheduled to convene in just over a week’s time, I need to get caught up on some recent developments in the PC(USA).  The first is the announcement of a sixth candidate for Moderator of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

The Presbytery of Santa Barbara has issued a call for a special presbytery meeting on June 9 to act on the endorsement of the Rev. Julia Leeth, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Lompoc, to stand for Moderator of the General Assembly.  In the letter accompanying the notice Rev. Leeth writes:

I feel called to be the Moderator of the 219th Assembly because I love His Church. I feel comfortable and have some experience moderating meetings that are both pleasant and challenging.  I have skills that lend themselves to moderating a meeting that may be at time [sic] pleasant and at others challenging.  I want to be a good steward of my gifts and this is a very tangible way to respond to God’s call.  In the same way that I have tried to foster relationships with every person in our presbytery, including those who may have a different theological perspective than I, I plan to foster relationships at this General Assembly.  In this way, we can all see the wonderful things that God is doing in and through His people across the denomination.

She continues:

Finally, I stand on the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  I hope to proclaim this truth in everything that I do and say and am and am to become.

The Layman has an article on her candidacy published on May 19 that lists the called presbytery meeting for June 1.  The Outlook article of May 20 just talks of a June meeting.  And Robert Austell has added her to his list of Moderator candidates on his GA Help site.  I don’t see an article from the Presbyterian News Service yet, which is interesting because they were quick to jump on the news of the fifth candidate before he was endorsed by his presbytery.

Regarding the Moderator election most of the Moderator candidates have now named their Vice-Moderator designees.  These Vice-Moderator candidates are:

Rev. Landon Whitsitt with Elder Cynthia Bolbach
Rev. Theresa Cho with Rev. Maggie Lauterer
Rev. Marilyn Gamm with Rev. Eric Nielsen
Rev. Hector Reynoso with Rev. Julia Leeth

The General Assembly web site is filling out nicely, including the Moderator Election page with the first five candidates.  Most of the site is basic information for commissioners and the docket is not much more than the planned times for meetings but no listing of which committees will be reporting when.

In addition to GA Help there are a few other GA specific web sites coming on line.  In an individual effort, Bob Davis is putting together material at Presbyblog.  There are also advocacy group web sites tracking GA including Covenant NetworkMore Light Presbyterians, Presbyterian Coalition, Presbyterians for Faith Family and Ministry, Presbyterian Peace Fellowship, and Presbyterian Voices for Justice.  I’ll add the PC(USA) to my GA Junkie wiki in the near future.  And let me know of resources I’ve missed.

Well enough PC(USA) for now – that GA is still 38 days away.  There is lots more action before then.

General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland — Being The Churh Where You Are

Today’s business of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland had some interesting threads about the geographic nature of the church and what it means to be the Church where you are.  There is also an interesting “personality” thread that I will return to in a moment.

The morning worship began with a nice metric setting of Psalm 24 from the 1929 Scottish Psalter (“Ye gates lift up your heads on high”) and included holy communion.  (The morning video update contains a lengthy section of that Psalm singing. And according to the order of worship the Sanctus in the Great Thanksgiving was sung.)

The balance of the morning and part of the afternoon was spent discussing the Report of the Special Commission on the Third Article Declaratory.  (Due to the time difference I was not able to follow much of the morning session live and so am depending on the video update and to a much lesser extent the archived real time updates.) Since I have previously discussed this report at length I am not going to revisit the written report.  The comments from the convener of the Special Commission, the Very Rev. Dr. Alan D. McDonald, included pointing out that as the Special Commission traveled around and talked with people and congregations they found that “being a territorial church is regarded as a privilege.” As Mr. McDonald is quoted as saying, “The Kirk is not a supermarket, in business only where there is a customer base.”  As the morning update puts it, the Commission came to the point where the question was not whether the Third Article should be retained or deleted but rather, “how can the principles it enshrines be implemented not in 1929, but in the present context?”  In response to a question about how the Kirk, with its already tight resources, can continue to minister everywhere.  The convener is quoted as replying that where there are people but no minister “the people fulfill the remit.”

In the end the deliverance was approved with only minor modifications in wording.

In the afternoon session one of the items following the Special Commission report was the Report of the World Mission Council.  For this discussion I would like to cast a very narrow focus on item 9 in the deliverance:

9. Noting the desire of the congregations of St Andrew’s Nassau and Lucaya Kirk, Freeport to affiliate to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (USA) as an interim step towards the formation of a Presbyterian Church of Bahamas, agree to their severance from the Church of Scotland, commend them for their Christian mission and service over the past two hundred years and wish them God’s continuing blessing as they take forward their life and witness in the Bahamas.

Let me press rewind for a moment because this item has been hitting the press the last few days.  Consider this headline and lede from heraldscotland:

Congregation quits Kirk in protest over gay ordination

17 May 2010

An entire congregation has quit the Church of Scotland in the Bahamas after its minister resigned over the issue ofthe first gay ordination.

Around 800 members of the Kirk will hear at its annual General Assembly in Edinburgh this week that after the Reverend John MacLeod resigned from St Andrew’s in Nassau, the capital of the islands, his congregation has opted to leave the Church.

It is also expected that the 200-year-old parish will be followed by another in the Bahamas, Lucaya Kirk at Freeport, at a time when the Church of Scotland faces potentially its greatest schism in its 450-year history – over the issue of gay ordination.

The World Mission Council of the Kirk will reveal that the congregation in Nassau voted in favour of leaving the Kirk, almost immediately after approval of the assembly to join the fundamentalist Evangelical Presbyterian Church of America, which takes the position homosexuality is against the Scriptures and is opposed to women being ordained.

It is interesting, having watched the full Assembly discussion on this item, that I did not hear one comment regarding the current controversies in the Church of Scotland.  And they clearly did not do their homework when they call the EPC “fundamentalist” (if they should be using that term at all) since it is, to put it one way, the most liberal of the conservative Presbyterians in the U.S. allowing the ordination of women under “local option.”

Yesterday’s Tribune article tries to set this straight:

Presbyterian Church breakaway ‘not linked to gay issue’

Published On: Thursday, May 20, 2010

REVEREND Scott Kirkland has rejected claims that the ordination of gay ministers in the Church of Scotland drove Presbyterian kirks in the Bahamas to break away.

The minister of Lucaya Presbyterian Church in Freeport announced at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in Scotland this week that Presbyterian congregations in the Bahamas had voted in favour of leaving the “mother church” after 200 years to align with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) in the United States.

A total of 39 church members voted in favour of joining the EPC and three against after Rev John Macleod resigned from St Andrew’s Presbyterian Kirk in Nassau and admitted it was partially over the Church of Scotland’s ordination of its first openly gay minister, Scott Rennie.

So yes, we are dealing with two different churches and two different clergy on only one was represented at the Assembly.  But, the Rev. Kirkland gave a nice speech from the floor of the Assembly about the realignment of the church.  As I said, neither he nor anyone else in the Assembly session, linked the departure of these two parishes to controversies.  The decisions are related to geography, proximity to their new presbytery in Florida, and the EPC’s experience with developing new foreign presbyteries with the vision of one day having established stronger churches in those areas.  He specifically mentioned the work the EPC is doing with St. Andrews Presbytery in Argentina and the five-year cooperative agreement there between the EPC and St. Andrews.  The plan that is being proposed is a similar one to build up the church to do mission in the Bahamas.

I will close with comments from the Very Rev. Andrew McLellan on both these topics.  Regarding the subject of territorial mission, the video update relates his telling two stories from his own experience related to the importance of the Kirk “being there.”  One was from his work with prisons and a particular inmate who did not know he had a pastor until the pastor from his home parish came to visit him.  As Mr. McLellan told the story, the fact that he had a pastor and the pastor had visited him meant a lot to that individual.  The second story was about an employer/employee tribunal and a colleague of Rev. McLellan’s who was asked to be with the employee, but found he was welcomed as well by the employee’s supervisor because he was trusted by both of them.  Those stories were offered as examples of what territorial ministry means.

Regarding the Lucaya Presbyterian Church in Freeport, Rev. McLellan spoke of his father who was at one time the pastor of that church and is buried in the church yard there.  He spoke of his father’s devotion and stubborn loyalty to the Church of Scotland and paraphrasing Rupert Brookes he spoke of how even though the church may realign with the EPC, “There will forever be some part of that foreign field that will for ever be Church of Scotland.”

As I write this over my lunch hour in L.A. the evening session is under way in Edinburgh and the section with the past Moderator’s address is closing with the hymn “As A Fire is meant for burning.”  I leave you with the first verse which ties all this up nicely –

As a fire is meant for burning
with a bright and warming flame,
so the Church is meant for mission,
giving glory to God’s name.
Preaching Christ, and not our customs,
let us build a bridge of care,
joining hands across the nations,
finding neighbours everywhere.

The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland

The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland will convene tomorrow, 20 May, in Edinburgh at 10 AM local time.  The occasion will be marked by the unique honor of a 21-gun salute from Edinburgh Castle. The Assembly continues through 26 May.

There is plenty of on-line information to keep a G.A. Junkie entertained for the next week:

  • There will be a live audio and video webcast.
  • For the scheduled business check out the Daily Agenda page and to follow along you can find the Committee Reports on another page.
  • You can get the information on what has taken place from the Official Press Releases (already in high gear) and the Daily Updates which should include both an archived version of the daily web updates and a once or twice a day audio recap.
  • For all the other stuff that is going on for Assembly week check out the Events page.
  • This year there is an official 2010 General Assembly blog.
  • The Assembly does a great job on Twitter and you can follow the official feed @generalassembly and all the rest of us using the hashtag #ga2010 (although a couple other Presbyterian branches and a couple of non-Presbyterians seem to be using it as well.
  • Youth delegates from the Church of Scotland Youthwork program will be participating in the Assembly and blogging on the COSYBlog, as well as on Twitter at @cosy_nya and on Flickr.

The Moderator of this Assembly will be the Right Reverend John Cairns Christie of St Andrew’s Church, West Kilbride.  The Lord High Commissioner will be Lord Wilson of Tillyorn KT.  (I had to look it up – KT is the suffix for the The Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle.)

I have already mentioned a couple of items on the docket for this Assembly – The Third Article Declaratory, a Ministries Council report that reduces ministerial staffing by 10% over four years, and the strategic plan for property management and disposal.  And we must remember that the Special Commission considering ordination standards does not report back this year.  But there is plenty more on the docket to be considered.

So tune in and follow along because it should be a good meeting.

General Assembly Of The Free Church Of Scotland

The General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland convened this evening with opening worship and installation of the Moderator, the Rev. David Meredith. The Assembly will begin with business sessions tomorrow following the address from the new Moderator.

This year the Free Church has made it easier to follow the Assembly with real-time updates on their web site.  Begin at the church web site and click on the news box for the day that you are interested.  (For active business you will need to refresh the page.)  The stub for tomorrow’s business has been posted.

There are pages for reports to the Assembly and for Assembly news.

I will dig into the Assembly reports a bit more soon, hopefully tomorrow, but the highest-profile, and maybe the most controversial, item of business is the Supplementary Report on Worship.  At the last Assembly the Board of Trustees was given the remit to consider if the church should allow flexibility in worship from the status quo, particularly regarding music and permitting music other than exclusive psalmnody.  This report discusses the differences of opinion that the Board found regarding this issue, specifically 2/3 of the sessions favoring the status quo and one third supporting more flexibility.  In light of the division and the advice from presbyteries to go slow the Board is recommending a Plenary Assembly later this year where every minister and equal numbers of ruling elders could gather only for the purpose of discussion and dialogue on the issue.  This would provide a basis for later legislation.

In addition to significant press coverage (example 1, example 2 ) the provision for some flexibility has been a major cause of the editor of the official publication, The Record.  Last week the Rev. David Robertson published on his blog an extended version of an editorial he placed in the publication that argued for more flexibility in worship and contrasted the need for the Free Church to be permissive about worship with the larger Church of Scotland’s policy about ordaining women which was supposed to be permissive but has now become required.  This is not his first editorial advocating for a more permissive stance on worship singing — he published an editorial in the July 2009 edition that suggested flexibility so the denomination could become an option for Church of Scotland congregations to realign if they were concerned over that branch’s stance on ordination standards.  It is also amusing to note that the press headlines usually say something about the denomination considering “lifting the ban on music.”  To be precise, unaccompanied singing of “inspired songs,” meaning the psalms, is permitted now.  The question being discussed is the use of instruments and the singing of other “uninspired” hymns.

Finally, I have been intending to develop a reference space for my personal use but have decided to make it publiclly accessible if others are interested.  Over at gajunkie.wikidot.com I have started a Wiki where I hope to consolidate the basic information about the polity of Presbyterian branches and information to help you follow the developments in those branches.  It is not intended to be as comprehensive and focused on General Assemblies as Robert Austell’s GA Help site is about the PC(USA).  As GA season progresses I am hoping to build out my listing and if I miss a critical piece of information please let me know.

So, keep watching as we see what the Free Church of Scotland is about this week as their Assembly meets.

The PCA Strategic Plan — How Do You Grow Larger?

The 38th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America will be considering the new Strategic Plan for the PCA.  The church is putting significant effort into presenting and interpreting the Plan including the main report with the narrative of the Plan, an executive summary dealing mainly with the funding proposals contained in the Plan as well as a slightly longer detailed description of the funding formula, and a concise summary of the changes to the Book of Church Order that would be necessary to implement one part of the Plan.  On the interpretation side, there is a five part video on the Plan web page that I think does a good job explaining the situation and what the Plan includes to address those issues.  There is also an FAQ  and a page of comments about the Plan from “PCA leaders” (a note that all the comments are positive, a fact noted in the file name which contains the word “endorsements”).  The PCA publication byFaith has articles about the committee approving the Plan, reaction to the Plan (again positive) from pastors,  and responses to questions/criticisms that have been raised.  Speaking of criticisms, the PCA blogosphere has been buzzing about the Plan and from what I have read it has generally been doubtful or critical of the plan.  For a collected list of all these responses keep an eye on the blog Johannes Weslianus where Wes White has been keeping track of all this.  He posted his latest list yesterday where it is instructive to note that there are no unofficial positive responses to the Plan but 10 (some in multiple parts) “cautious/skeptical” responses and two “opposed” — But that is the nature of the blogosphere which, interestingly, is something the Plan comments on ( pg. 13 ).  Wes also includes his picks for “Best Concise Summary” of the Plan.

I have made selective general comments about the Plan twice now, but before I launch into my more detailed analysis I think it is important to remind you of the lens that I read the Plan through.  On the one hand I am a ruling elder in a denomination other than the PCA so as I read the report I can miss some of the history, nuances and subtleties that it contains, references, or includes implicitly from the ethos of the denomination.  On the other hand, I am an observer and student of “big picture” Presbyterianism and some of the conclusions I have drawn from the report are similarly big picture and I have not seen them mentioned in the comments on other blogs (although I have fallen behind in my reading so if this is bringing the observation to the party late I apologize).

Let me begin with my two general observations about the Strategic Plan.  The first is that it does a very good job of describing the situation and circumstances that the PCA finds itself in today.  In fact, the point of my first post was that the insight of the report is so good that their observations and isolation of the issues can be applied to not just the PCA but to may of the Presbyterian and Reformed branches at this time.  While I previously highlighted the opening section of Identifying Our Challenges (p. 7) I found the whole section, including the North American and European Challenges, Global Challenges, and Internal Challenges to be comprehensive and useful.  I also found the sections on Identifying Opportunities and Identifying Strengths to be good.  More on some of those specifics in a moment.

The other thing that struck me was that as I read through the report, and especially the recommendations, I kept thinking “that is something a ‘large denomination’ does.”  After thinking that enough times it struck me that what the report seems to be proposing, intentionally or not, are ways for the PCA to make the structural leap from a medium sized denomination to a large denomination.  Let me explain…

There are widely recognized and described styles of congregations based upon their size — one of the most widely used, the Rothauge system, has Family, Pastoral, Program, and Corporate churches from smallest to largest in size.  While the styles and boundaries between them are not hard and fast (I would say that my own congregation well into the Program size still has strong characteristics of the Pastoral style) it is a useful general scheme for understanding congregational dynamics.  A similar system could probably be developed based on denomination size although I am not aware of one.  And while the congregation size system has some variability, I would expect the denomination system to be even more variable depending on where a particular church falls in the congregational-hierarchical polity spectrum.  But having said that, the PCA is one of a few Presbyterian branches in the vicinity of 300,000 members and I have suspected that for Presbyterian branches there may be a transition point there.  One indication of this may be the slowing growth the PCA has seen recently (although there are numerous other possible explanations as well).

Why is there a transition point?  As the Report itself identifies (p. 13) “Our organizational cohesion has not primarily been achieved by shared mission goals, ministry practice, organizational support, worship style, ethnicity, political perspectives or economic status – but by doctrinal agreement.”  To go forward the Report describes the evolution of the denomination in this way:

Our values are well identified in the “motto” of the PCA: Faithful to Scripture, True to the Reformed Faith, and Obedient to the Great Commission.

The phrases of this motto also provide insight into the missional development of the PCA. It is fair to say that commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture was the driving force of our founding and that the churches who initially came into the PCA immediately united in this value. Determining what it meant to be true to the Reformed faith was not as unifying, and created significant debates among us for the next 30 years. These debates both clouded understanding of our mission and inhibited cooperative participation in it. While progress has been made in defining how we will hold each other accountable for being true to the Reformed faith, relational tensions wax and wane around this issue. Thus, the next stage of PCA development likely relates to the last phrase of our motto. How we do mission together, and whether we can do mission together, is the key to our future. If we are able to unite in missional purpose, we have much to contribute to the future of the Kingdom; if we cannot, then our future is likely incessant, inward-focused pettiness.

To put it into general terms – when small a branch can be held together by a strong common tie, probably historical or doctrinal, but as it grows the increase in size creates enough diversity that at a certain point a “critical mass” is reached where well-intentioned and sincerely held doctrinal differences threaten the cohesion of the group and unity needs to be found in something other than shared history or doctrinal conformity.  At least that is my perspective on denominational size and where I see the PCA as I read this report.

So as I read through the report I saw several items that I would identify with a “large denomination.”  These proposals include advisory delegates, representation/quotas/places at the table, pro rated and progressive assessments for Administrative work, and “safe places” to talk.  And when I say “large denomination” I’m sure that many in the PCA would rightly think PC(USA) , but I would also include the few other large Reformed branches, like the RCA and the Church of Scotland as well.  Therefore, to emphasize the generality of my argument I use the generic label rather than a specific denomination.

Now, let me also say that in a general sense the proposals for growth are in and of themselves neutral.  It will be how they are implemented and used that determines their usefulness and missional applicability and validity.

One final comment about the report in general:  As I read it I had to agree with many of the other commentators that when it got to the actual plan portion it got very specific and business-like and it was tough to tell that this had anything to do with a church.  Taking from one of Wes White’s Best Concise Summaries, David A. Booth says this:

Addressing specific details in the PCA’s proposed strategic plan that one Elder or another objects to still leaves the denomination approaching Christ’s Church like a non-profit organization that simply needs to be managed better. This is not to imply that the men involved in crafting the PCA’s proposed strategic plan have anything other than good motives. Furthermore, some of the problems that the report is wrestling with are very real problems for the PCA. What should be called into question is the very idea of grand strategic planning within the Church of Jesus Christ. We cannot manage-in the Kingdom of God.

There is a tension in how we use human means to organize ourselves to do God’s work.

As something of a counter argument I would recommend watching the five part video posted on the web page.  It not only adds substantial and much-needed theological depth that the printed report itself lacks, but provides an interesting commentary on the challenges the church in general faces and the changes in society.  Even non-PCA members might find the first three segments of this presentation interesting where the general challenges are discussed.  (It is about the first 30 minutes of this 49 minute presentation.)

Having now expended a substantial number of words on my general observations I will only briefly touch on just a few of the specifics of the report.

In the report it talks about “animating values” (what gets us interested) and “formal values” (stated standards of the church).  There is a list of 27 animating values of local churches (p. 5) and I did not see where those came from and whether there was a particular order to them.  I must admit that if ordered I would have “Right administration of the Sacraments” and “Good Bible preaching” higher than their respective 8 and 10 on the published list.  I was also a little surprised for a Reformed branch to include “Revival thru viral repentance and faith” in the list but maybe I’m not interpreting that correctly. (Or maybe I’m too T.R. for my own good.)

There is a great list on page 6 related to the animating values of groups that I think does an good job of classifying the various identities within the PCA and how they are viewed by others.  One thought that crossed my mind as I read the report, and that seems to be a sub-text in some of the discussions in the PCA, is how the churches from the former RPCES are, or are not, part of this group identity?  While “Southern Presbyterianism” seems to be a factor in places in the report, the RPCES heritage is not.

Another great list is that of Internal Challenges (p. 12-14) which, as I noted above, transcends the PCA.  I was particularly interested to see item 6 on the list:

6. Pervasive Disregard for Eph. 4:15 and Matthew 18 in Discussions of Differences
Our organizational cohesion has not primarily been achieved by shared mission goals, ministry practice, organizational support, worship style, ethnicity, political perspectives or economic status – but by doctrinal agreement. The downside of so valuing doctrine is that we have little tolerance within or without the church for theological variance. Our tendency is not simply to consider those who differ with us wrong – but to consider them bad (because they are obviously “compromisers” or “unbiblical”). It is easy for us to give moral status to our theological perspective – even on secondary issues, and thus rationalize uncharitable characterizations of those who differ (esp. on blogs)

I think this is an issue that has not been vocalized enough but will have to be in the future as more of our interaction goes into the virtual world.  A topic for another time and nice to see listed, but we must be careful not to uniformly demonize the web.

On that same list item 18 had me scratching my head a little bit: “Lack of Desire among Young Leaders to Assume Positions with PCA’s Most Significant Pulpits and Organizations (perception that they are moribund and dangerous for families)”  If read at face value this is interesting because the “clergy crunch” currently is typically described as small rural churches, not flagship or tall steeple.  But maybe with my lack of connection to the PCA I am missing something here.

Let me move on to the specific recommendations.

Theme 1. Safe Places – This would provide open forums for expressing any opinions regarding the selected topic at GA meetings and encourage similar forums in a presbytery context.  The goal is to provide a safe, non-judgmental environment for bringing up differing viewpoints on Biblical Belief, Ministry and Mission.

Theme 2. More Seats – These recommendations relate to getting representatives at the table from currently unrepresented groups: younger generation, women, ethnic leaders, global church representatives.  Some of this involves participation on committees, in forums, and mentoring.  This theme also includes identifying, credentialling, and encouraging non-ordained vocational ministries.

Theme 3. Global Mission – This is more of a mixed bag and more controversial.

Means 1 – I would describe this as being more intentional about working in Gospel outreach outside the PCA.

Means 2 – “Develop a unifying funding means” – This is the revision of the funding model for the Administrative Committee and the only part of the report that requires a change to the Book of Church Order.  For the details here see the Rules Changes document, but the change to BCO 14-1 would empower the GA to collect the mandatory assessment, and the change to 14-2 specifies that TE and RE commissioners to the Assembly are only in good standing if their congregations have paid the fees.  Otherwise they have voice but not vote.  The last action would change the Rules of Assembly Operations 14-11 to describe the fee, proposed to be capped at 0.4% “of local church Tithes and Offerings.”

Means 3 – To develop a method to evaluate GA level ministry to support only those “critical to our calling.”

Means 4 – “Partner with national & international ministries with whom we can most effectively participate in God’s global mission.”  This would have the church be selective in who they partner with and withdraw from organizations with whom they do not share “ministry priorities,” and NAPARC is mentioned by name to withdraw from.  In other words, put resources of gifts and talents towards ministry and not doctrine.

Well, that is a summary of the document.  There is plenty of reading there for you as well as in all the various responses. At great risk of being too selective I am going to highlight one particular response that seems to have gotten referenced around the blogosphere as much as any of them have…

On the Aquila Report William M. Schweitzer has a commentary titled “Thoughts on the PCA Strategic Plan: Is It Presbyterian?”  In this article he highlights three areas where the Strategic Plan would compromise ecclesiastical standards as Presbyterians understand them.  First, the provisions for future planning and implementation decision making shifts power from the presbyteries to the Cooperative Ministries Committee.  Second, the use of non-ordained vocational ministries would circumvent the process of call, exploration, and response understood in our process of certification and ordination and derived from the Pastoral Epistles.  And finally, the idea of more “seats at the table” compromises the role of “biblically qualified and ordained elders” and shifts power from elders to advisory delegates.

Well, as I said, the on-line response has been very concerned to negative but what will ultimately matter is the discernment of the body through the debate and vote on the floor of the Assembly.  Is the question whether the PCA has reached a point in their size where structural changes are needed to grow?  Or does the church go back to “being the church” and concentrate on spreading the Gospel. (Which is one of the theme of the Plan.)  There are well known names on both sides of this issue at the moment and it will be interesting to hear from the broad range of commissioners as they discuss this.  I’m sure there are a lot more viewpoints out there that have not been expressed yet.  Stay tuned.

Church Of Scotland/Roman Catholic Agreement On Baptism

In reading through materials for the Church of Scotland General Assembly that will convene its meeting in just over a week my attention was caught by an item contained in the report of the Committee on Ecumenical Relations.  It seems that although the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops did not sign off on an ecumenical statement on baptism with some American Reformed churches, a similar agreement is in place in Scotland.  The deliverance of the Committee on Ecumenical Relations asks the Assembly to “4. Encourage the use of the Liturgy for the Renewal of Baptismal vows on appropriate ecumenical occasions as part of the fruits of the Joint Commission on Doctrine’s study on Baptism.”

Within the body of the report they say this about the agreement and the liturgy:

5.3 The Joint Commission on Doctrine (Church of Scotland – Roman Catholic Church) published a joint report on baptism as a study guide for local congregations in 2008. This booklet could not have been written 20 years ago and harvests the fruits of decades of faith and order discussion within the World Council of Churches and between the WCC and the Vatican in the Joint Working Group. Though some may dismiss this important aspect of the ecumenical movement as “old fashioned”, the faith and order agenda continues to provide the platform on which local developments can grow. The Joint Commission has followed up its study on Baptism by producing a PowerPoint presentation that gives the framework out of which the study has come and by commissioning the production of a joint liturgy for the reaffirmation of baptismal vows. All three resources belong together as the fruit of the Joint Commission’ study on Baptism and it is hoped that they will be widely used. The liturgy has been drawn up by a small group that included representation from the Scottish Episcopal Church. This liturgy is now available for general use on appropriate ecumenical occasions.

Now, while the report says the “liturgy is now available” I have not found it in electronic form in the report, on the Committee’s web pages, including the resources page , or in their extranet area .  (If it is there and I missed it please let me know.)

The bottom line here is that while I am not currently in a position to see how the two forms of agreement differ, it is interesting that one Reformed/Roman Catholic dialogue was able to craft a mutually agreed statement while another has not been able to do so yet.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — Fifth Candidate For Moderator

When I posted yesterday on the third and fourth nominees standing for the Moderator of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I thought that I would be waiting a couple more weeks to present the fifth candidate until his presbytery endorsed him.  But I changed my mind when I considered that 1) starting next Monday I want to devote as much time as possible to following the Assembly meetings that will be in progress and 2) a Presbytery endorsement this late brings up some interesting timing issues in the Standing Rules.

Let me briefly point out the timing described in Chapter H of the Standing Rules of the General Assembly.  First, section H.1.b.(1) gives a far limit for endorsing a Moderator candidate and that is not before the previous Assembly adjourns.  But note that there is no minimum time before the Assembly that a nominee must be announced and endorsed.  The implication is that at the time of the election of the Moderator at the Assembly a new name of a commissioner may be brought from the floor.

But there is a big advantage to being endorsed ahead of time and that is your inclusion in the document produced by the Office of the Stated Clerk described in section H.1.b.(3)(e).  This has specific deadlines for inclusion including submission of all materials not less than 45 days before the Assembly convenes and the Office of the Stated Clerk publishing the final “booklet” electronically 15 days before the Assembly.  It should also be pointed out that under section H.1.b.(2) “ordinarily” each Moderator nominee needs to submit the name of the commissioner they will put forward to be confirmed as their Vice-Moderator 45 days before the Assembly.  (But how does that work if they are nominated from the floor? I guess that gets by in the “ordinarily.”)

So what does that mean this year?  If I did the math correctly next Thursday, May 19, is the 45 day deadline for materials and Vice-moderator names.  The packets will be available no later than Friday June 18.  So, with this in mind consider the fifth nominee for Moderator of the 219th General Assembly…

The Rev. James A. Belle has been nominated to stand for election as Moderator with the anticipation he will be endorsed by the Presbytery of Philadelphia at their next stated meeting on May 25.  According to the Presbyterian News Service story, since 2005 he has been the pastor of Holy Trinity-Bethlehem Presbyterian Church.  The announcement is brand new and I have found no formal announcement, web presence, or social media site so there is not a lot more information.  I will update here when I find those.  There is an article from The Layman with a bit of research they have done.

The PNS article provides a bit of background telling us that Rev. Belle is a second career minister having his first degree in music and employment in the army for 10 years using his musical talents.  Training for his second career for the church included not only an M.Div. from Johnson C. Smith Theological Seminary but a master of church music from there as well.

He does make a statement quoted in the PNS article (and probably drawn from his Q&A for the info booklet) that – inserting my bias here – resonates with me:

“I see biblical and confessional ‘illiteracy’ as the major obstacles facing our church today,” Belle wrote in a statement on key theological issues. “I hold ministers of the Word and Sacrament directly responsible within the last 20 years for the lack of confessional and polity training to and for our laity. Without an understanding of the Scriptures and their historic linkage to the confessions, the Book of Confessions is difficult to understand.”

Based on that, I look forward to reading more.  And if the Assembly elects him as their Moderator, and if the Belhar Confession is sent to the presbyteries, with his expressed passion for the confessions it will be interesting to hear him interpret the Assembly’s actions.

Financial Implications — Decisions Coming To General Assemblies

I am struck by the number of Presbyterian branches that have financial issues to deal with right at the moment.  I highlighted some of these a couple of weeks ago when I posted a large block of text from the new Strategic Plan from the Presbyterian Church in America .  A few brief excerpts that are relevant for today’s purpose say:

[D]espite our formal values of connectional polity and cooperative ministry, less than half of the churches of the PCA support any denominational agency or committee (less than 20 percent give at the Partnership Share level).

The cooperative efforts that do exist are often directed toward affinity gatherings or the ministries of large churches that have become missional expressions of the animating values of specific groups.

We remain an anti-denominational denomination – excusing individualistic ministry by re-telling the narratives of past abuses in former denominations, demonizing denominational leadership or movements to justify non-support of the larger church, or simply making self-survival or self-fulfillment the consuming goal of local church ministry.

I bring these up as a very good summary of where Presbyterian denominations find themselves today in these still-challenging economic times.  Compared to other branches the PCA finds itself in a relatively good financial position.  However, the GA will be considering this report and its recommendations for implementing a new formula for supporting the work of the Assembly.

A situation a bit more stressful is that of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland whose General Assembly held at special meeting at which they authorized raising £1 million for a special hardship fund for those impacted by the collapse of the Presbyterian Mutual Society.  While this is being raised through a special appeal and not general funds, the plan will be presented to next month’s GA for approval.

To the east across the North Channel the Church of Scotland General Assembly will be debating plans to reduce expenses by disposing of property, including church buildings, and reducing ministerial staffing, as measured by FTE’s, by 10%.  As the report of the Ministries Council says:

Where there is no vision, the people perish”(Prov 28:19), declares the Wisdom writer. This was a sentiment most likely forged in crisis, addressed to people who found the pressures around too great to raise their heads and look around. These are words which speak into our current situation in the Church of Scotland, facing as we do a significant crisis in relation to ministries. A deficit budget of £5.7M is quite simply unsustainable. Given that the Ministries Council is responsible for 87% of the Church’s budget, this is a crisis for the whole Church, not just for the Ministries Council.

Which brings us to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and hard decisions that continue to be needed, right now by the General Assembly Mission Council but soon by the General Assembly itself.  As followers of the PC(USA) know this is not new — the Outlook Article reminds us that over the last eight years about 250 positions have already been eliminated.  Thirty of those were early retirement packages offered to staff following the February 2010 GAMC meetingAt that meeting CFO Joey Bailey presented financial projections of 15 – 20% lower unrestricted funding for 2011.  The Council also approved a new set of Guiding Principles for Planning Decisions. Going into the GAMC meeting this week Leslie Scanlon of the Outlook writes:

This time, denominational leaders have warned that the cuts could mean the elimination of entire programs or areas of ministry. As council member Matt Schramm put it in February: “We may have to say goodbye to some long-treasured programs that no longer serve the needs of the church.”

Expect significant news to develop over the rest of this week as the GAMC wrestles with significant decisions.

But the 219th General Assembly will have review on some of these actions, responsibility for approving overtures with “financial implications” that will affect the GAMC’s proposed budgets, and setting per capita for the next two years.  In addition, there are overtures to the GA that not only have financial implications but address the financial practices directly.

One of these is Item 03-09 (overture 72) from Great Rivers Presbytery which would add a line to the section about special committees that says “Special committees and commissions should be appointed only in very rare and exceptional circumstances, i.e. national or denominational crisis.”  The rational makes clear that this is suggested for representational and procedural reasons, but knowing how the special committee I was on was constrained by budgetary considerations I know that carefully controlling the creation of special committees will put less strain on budgets.

Another more direct one is item 03-04 (overture 54) from San Diego Presbytery that would, for budgetary reasons, restore the number of GA commissioners to the lower levels before the switch to biennial Assembly meetings.

Finally, for today, there is item 09-02 (overture 34) from Sierra Blanca Presbytery requesting “the 219th General Assembly (2010) to consider that all undesignated funds flowing from the Presbyterian Foundation to the General Assembly Mission Council (GAMC), a Corporation, be allocated directly to individual presbyteries (by percentage of denominational membership) for direct dispersal to particular churches of that presbytery, as each presbytery determines.”  While this overture seeks to implement G-9.0402b (“The administration of mission should be performed by the governing body that can most effectively and efficiently accomplish it at the level of jurisdiction nearest the congregation.”) the rational acknowledges that it will impact the GAMC in unspecified ways.  (Although I am pretty certain someone in leadership on the GAMC has come up with at least some rough figures.)

So where does this take us?  It all depends on how you view and address the challenges.

In the PC(USA) there are two proposals, one from the Office of the General Assembly, the other overture 58 from Synod of the Southwest (with five presbyteries and one synod concurring), that would review the  middle governing bodies of the PC(USA) but neither of these would directly review the structure of the General Assembly and its agencies.

For the PCA the Strategic Plan suggests:

This Strategic Plan seeks to address these realities by helping the PCA identify its challenges, address them with strategies that are consistent with our biblical values, and build denominational support for implementing these strategies. The overall goal is to enable the church to work together to steward its blessings and resources to advance the cause of Christ according to the principles and priorities of his Word.

For the C of S Ministries Council they answer their opening statement that I quoted above with this statement:

Out of crisis, however, can come both vision and opportunity. The remit of the Council is: the enabling of ministries in every part of Scotland and elsewhere where appropriate, giving special priority to the poorest and most marginalized, through recruitment, training and support of recognised ministries of the Church and the assessment and monitoring of patterns of deployment of those ministries.  In fulfilling this, we want to take seriously the scale of work which needs to be done, initially to 2014, then beyond towards a revitalized ministry at the end of this new decade. 2020 Vision does not imply that we can wait until 2020 to sort things out! Far from it, change must begin now and continue as a full and natural part of life for the years ahead.

Now it is up to the Assemblies to each collectively discern God’s will and lead their respective branches in the mission that they decide on.  May the Lord bless them and guide them in this mission.

Update 5/24/10 – Corrected the spelling of Matt Schramm’s name.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — Third And Fourth Candidates For Moderator

In the last two weeks two additional nominees have been endorsed by their presbyteries to stand for election as Moderator of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  So here are the third and fourth nominees for the post, listed in order of their endorsement, and there is now word of a fifth candidate awaiting endorsement as well.

On Tuesday April 27 the Presbytery of Western North Carolina endorsed the Rev. Maggie Palmer Lauterer to stand for Moderator of the 219th General Assembly.  She is the pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Burnsville, N.C.  In order to endorse her for Moderator it was first necessary to elect her as a substitute commissioner to the assembly to replace a clergy commissioner who relinquished his position to make way for her.

A well-produced flyer in PDF format is available from the presbytery web site introducing the Rev. Lauterer. In that flyer she says:

We are a denomination of many small churches and I believe that a passion for the small church is an imperative for PCUSA [sic] leadership. My recent experience has been in a 113-year-old small church, one that had suffered two splits in the ten years prior to my arrival.

And later adds

I believe that, as members of the PCUSA [sic], we are called to be members of a worldwide Presbyterian community. My experience guides me and, I feel, can guide our denomination as we pursue a deeper understanding of the world’s struggles. I have traveled with Presbyterian groups to many places. I have helped build a school in Recife, Brazil; I have studied church issues as I traveled across Central America to Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Guatemala. I have studied the complex issues of the Middle East, traveling in Jordan, Egypt, Palestine and Israel. In the sensitive era of Perestroika, I traveled to Russia seeking a sister city and commonality — a novel idea in those days — in what was then the Soviet Union.

For the last five years, I have traveled with other members of our church to Guatemala, establishing a strong and growing relationship with our sister church (Nueva Esperanza) in San Felipe, and learning more about the PCUSA’s role in Guatemala.

And she concludes with her third issue

And, lastly, but of no less importance, I do not believe that growth of the Church has as much to do with age and location as it does with our openness to the transformative powers of the Trinity as we are called toward new frontiers – the new front lines of being Christ’s Church, of  “doing Christ’s Church” in the light of the radical love Christ has taught us. As I stand for Moderator, that standard will be my standard.

The information sheet also tells us that she is a second-career pastor, having served her congregation since her ordination in 1999.  She previously worked in journalism and made an unsuccessful run for U.S. Congress.  She has served in several forms at the presbytery level, including as Moderator of presbytery.  She has also served on leadership for different workshops and conferences.  And she and her husband have two adult children and two grandchildren.  Finally, on a personal note, according to the bio she also plays the dulcimer, although it does not specify if it is the Appalachian or hammer variety.  (I play both so either is fine with me.)

For additional information you can check out articles from the Presbyterian News Service, The Layman, The Outlook.  I have not yet found a web or social network presence for her candidacy but will update here if I do.

On May 6 the Presbytery of Northern Waters endorsed the Rev. Eric Nielsen to stand for election as Moderator of the 219th General Assembly.  The Rev. Nielsen is the pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Eau Clair, WI. (Catchy church motto: “The perfect church for people who aren’t.”)

He has established a web presence at www.ericnielsen.org where he, or his team, have created a fairly basic and informative site.  The front page has a nice description of his faith journey and I appreciate the twists and turns his call to ministry took.  In particular, I like this description of how others helped him discern his call:

I was active in my church growing up, but never thought of serving God as a pastor. In college I studied Economics and planned to teach high school. I studied voice for several years, was a part of my university’s opera company, and even earned an audition with the Metropolitan Opera – music has always been a large part of my life. But during those college years God’s call came to me once again in a very unexpected way. One day while working with the choir of First Presbyterian Church in Waterloo, IA, their pastor, Jack Boelens handed me an envelope. Inside was an airline ticket. He said the Session of the church believed I had gifts and a calling for ministry, and so they were sending me to Louisville Seminary to attend an Exploratory Weekend. I didn’t know what to say. It just so happened that I had no classes the Friday of this event, removing any excuse not to go. Not convinced this is what I was supposed to be doing, I acknowledge that I was given a lot to pray about.

His forms of service to the denomination include a variety of presbytery work as well as some work on the synod level including Moderator of the Synod of Lakes and Prairies.  He has served churches in the Midwest as well as earlier work in the Louisville, KY, area.

He has posted his answers to the questions that the Office of the General Assembly asks.  In answering the question about what the Belhar Confession would bring to the denomination he writes:

Each of our confessions is context specific. Belhar could be seen as a natural progression of our 20th century statements. The Theological Declaration of Barmen addressed the challenge of idolatry in the community of faith. The Confession of 1967 narrowed the focus of such idolatry as it spoke to unique issues of the 1960s, of which racism and disunity were significant. Our last confession, The Brief Statement of Faith, sought to move us further toward the under-standing of justice and reconciliation. Belhar could now direct the action of the church –moving us from statements of belief to actions that reflect those beliefs – based upon the teachings of Scripture and our obedience to Jesus Christ.

Regarding “ministry to and with youth and young adults” he says:

In most congregations young adults are the missing generation. While we might be able to provide resources and encouragement as the national church, the fact is that this challenge will only be addressed at the congregational level.  While I want to affirm the importance of family ministry, I believe we need to simultaneously increase efforts toward singles ministry. Only 25% of all U.S. households are now married parents with children. We have many single parent households. Young adults are getting married and having children much later in life, yet often church programs and efforts are focused on the “traditional family.”

And regarding the new revised Form of Government he begins:

I believe that the proposed changes to our current Form of Government (FOG) is much needed and long overdue. Corporations and other institutional entities have been moving and adapting to a changing social context for the last several decades, trying to keep ahead of technologies and changing social realities. The Church, however, has remained entrenched in a 1950s corporate model (a model corporations themselves have long since abandoned). A one-size-fits-all approach no longer works in business; it doesn’t work for the Presbyterian Church either.

And stay tuned for his blog.  The tab is there but so far only a test message and I don’t see the RSS feed.  For more info there are also stories from the Presbyterian News Service and The Layman.

So that rounds out the field to four candidates, one elder and three ministers.  As I said at the beginning, it appears we can expect a another clergy candidate.  In addition, the question and answer book is in preparation so that will give us more background as well as the corresponding Vice-Moderator candidates.  Stay tuned because there is lots more to come.