Monthly Archives: June 2010

Annual Statistical Report Of The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

2 Replies

Earlier today the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) released their annual statistics in the form of the comparative statistics summary, a statement from the Office of the General Assembly, and the miscellaneous information which gives some demographic breakdowns.  On the one hand it is temping to say “there it is – nothing new” and move on to other business.  The magnitude of the numbers and the trends seen are generally in line with the trends over the previous decade.  But there are a couple of interesting numbers in the statistics I would like to bring out.

First, for the geeks in the crowd here are the background details.  I will look at the numbers from the statistical summaries for 2001 to 2009.  These can be compiled from the 2004, 2006 and 2009 reports.  (Warning: The PC(USA) has said they will roll out a new web site at the GA next week and I don’t know how many of these links will break.)  More complete statistics covering a greater time period can be found with the full Comparative Statistics but the 2009 report will not be available until the Fall and certain numbers don’t correspond between the two reports so I have limited myself to the summaries.  My compilation and calculations are available from a sheet on Google Docs .

The first number everyone looks at is the total membership of the PC(USA).  That has declined from 2,140,165 in 2008 to 2,077,138 in 2009, a loss of 63,027 members or 2.9%.  On a percentage basis, this is on the high side, only a bit lower than the 3.14% decline seen last year and well above the smallest decline of 1.68% in 2002.  Looking at the gains in membership over the last eight years, the number of youth under 18 has been a very steady percentage of the total at about 20%.  Interestingly, the number joining by certificate has declined from 31% in 2001 to 26% in 2009.  Most of this is offset by the “other” and adult profession of faith categories.

Looking at the losses, it is fairly impressive how steady each of those categories is on a percentage basis over the last eight years – by certificate 17-18% of the loss, transfer to the Church Triumphant (death) 20-21% of the loss, and the remainder, about 62%, in the “other” category which means they resigned their membership without transfer or stopped coming and were dropped from the rolls.

Considering the congregations, on a percentage basis the decline this past year marks a new high with the net loss of 94 churches translating into a 0.87% decline.  However, as you would expect, with the rate of decline of churches being less than one third the rate of decline of membership, the ratio of members per church has steadily dropped from 224/church in 2001 to 195 in 2009.  Another new high was the number of churches dissolved at 88, the previous high being 71 in 2007.

One of the numbers to keep in mind is the number of churches dismissed, 15 this year down from last year’s high of 25.  The conventional wisdom is that these churches are going to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and in fact their Stated Clerk’s report lists 22 churches received from the PC(USA).  This is not an exact comparison since the clerk’s report is for the year since the last GA and the statistical report is for calendar year 2009.  Of those 22 congregations, the EPC report lists two new mission churches, or church plants, that were “constituted” in 2009 and “came from the PCUSA [sic]” not being “received.”  These churches probably fall into the category of dissolved on the PC(USA) books.  It would be nice to know how many of the dissolved churches were due to the presbytery closing down the church for low membership numbers, and how many were churches that ceased to be viable after a group left en mass to realign between branches without being formally dismissed by the presbytery.  I think the churches dissolved category has some more stories to tell.

We now come to one of my favorite, and maybe most enigmatic, categories, the Ministers.  First let me say that I wish we had a breakdown here between active and honorably retired ministers.  I do realize that the some honorably retired ministers are serving churches.  That breakdown will be contained in the full comparative statistics in the Fall.  Overall, the number of ministers continued the downward trend begun last year — in 2008 the church had a net loss of 82 ministers and in 2009 the net loss was 51.  But with 21,235 ministers at the end of 2009 that decline represents a small one-quarter of one percent.  The PC(USA) has just about two ministers for every church.  The numbers have gone from 1.90 ministers/church and 118 members/minister in 2001 to 1.99 ministers/church and 98 members/minister in 2009.  Lest you think this will change any time soon, the number of candidates for ministry has increased substantially from 892 in 2001 to 1182 in 2009.  That is now more than one candidate for every ten churches in the denomination.  For reference, there were only 351 ordinations in 2009, about one-third of the number of candidates.  Is it a paradox that the PC(USA) is good at developing and retaining pastoral leadership but has been loosing members for years?  (For reference, the 2008 full report listed 13,462 activeministers of which 8457 were in parish ministry.  That means that in 2008 there was less than one parish clergy per church, and that includes the associate ministers, and slightly more than one-third of the active ministers were doing something else.)

Finally, the giving.  For the first time both the total contributions and the per member contributions declined in 2009.  Total contributions were down $37 million or 3.4% while on a per member basis giving declined slightly by $4.42 to $1011.35, which is 0.4%.

Having crunched the numbers let me comment briefly on two comments the Rev. Gradye Parsons, Stated Clerk of the PC(USA) General Assembly, is quoted as making in the OGA statement.  The first is his encouragement at the increase in the number of adult baptisms in 2009.  This is clearly a cause for celebration and I in no way want to negate the importance of this number climbing from 6296 in 2008 to 6820 in 2009.  But allow me to put this in perspective over the last eight years.  Back in 2001 and 2002 there were reported 3.9 adult baptisms per 1000 members.  The ratio peaked in 2004 with 4.4 adult baptisms per 1000 members and has generally declined since then.  The ratio of 3.3 adult baptisms per 1000 members for 2009 is an improvement over both 2008 and 2007, but is still below the numbers of 6-8 years ago.

The other point the Rev. Parsons made was “the overall number in membership losses was the lowest it has been inthe last decade.”  Please allow me to go into mathematician mode and point out that this is not necessarily the good news it may appear.  Consider the PC(USA) with a steady decline, let us say 3% annually.  If it begins at some point in time with 2.1 million members this rate of decline means that in the first year it will have a net loss of 63,000 members.  In the next year the starting number is 3% smaller so the net loss is 3% smaller — 61110 members.  Similarly, the next year the net loss is 59,277 members.  In other words, with a constant rate of decline in total membership there will also be a corresponding decrease in the net loss of members when considering the actual numbers.  Even though you are losing less members on a net basis the rate of decrease remains constant.  Hopefully that makes sense.

So statistically the PC(USA) remains where it has been.  Most numbers continue the trends of the past few years and are in the ranges we have seen most of the last decade.  What this means for the future of the denomination is left as an exercise for the reader… And the GA commissioners next week.

38th General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In America

Leave a reply

The 38th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America will convene in Nashville, Tennessee, at 7:30 pm today, Tuesday June 29.  The committees of commissioners began their meetings yesterday.

For more official information on the meeting of the Assembly here are the appropriate documents:

An important resource will be the byFaith site with posted updates, live streaming, and Twitter updates from @PCAbyFaith .

Speaking of Twitter, the hashtag will be #pcaga and there looks like a large crew of folks entering into the conversation.  I’ll pass on highlighting any specifically right now but as the week progresses if I find any particularly helpful I’ll update here.  But have a look because they appear to be a great bunch of G.A. Junkies.

There are no posted reports coming to the Assembly (please correct me if I missed them) but the headline item is the new Strategic Plan put forward by the Cooperative Ministries Committee.  For all the official materials and interpretation refer to the page from the Administrative Committee.  There has been official promotion of the plan at byFaith Online including the latest article from a couple of days ago with links to earlier pieces.  There has been a tremendous amount of analysis, discussion, critique, and criticism of the Plan and I will not even attempt to review it here.  The best compilation of all that has been written (101 total links- see why I don’t want to summarize) is over at Johannes Weslianus but being the geek and statistics freak that I am I must point you to an excellent article by Martin Hedman who points out the substantial problems in the data that underlie the conclusion and recommendations of the report.

Some of the business items are the old perennial ones. There are once again overtures (7 of the 28 total) that deal with the role of women in ordained office or a position that could be seen as similar to ordained office.  The other on-going discussion regarding Federal Vision theology can be expected to arise in the review of presbytery minutes.

Finally, for today, I would highlight an overture that seeks to clarify the polity of the PCA for church planting and mission churches and make it more flexible.  If you are not aware the EPC and the PC(USA) are also taking a hard look at their polity to decide if it can be streamlined and made more flexible for mission.

While those branches are interested in broad revisions of the constitutional documents, Overture 15 from Potomac Presbytery focuses only on one chapter of the Book of Church Order, Chapter 5 on Mission Churches and Organization of a Particular Church.  As the overture says at the beginning:

Whereas, the Presbyterian Church in America has been faithfully committed to church planting since its inception and should only deepen that commitment, and

Whereas, church planting in the Presbyterian Church in America will be served by a process that is clear where necessary and flexible where possible, and

Whereas, certain phrasing in the Book of Church Order has caused various degrees of confusion, inconsistency and even frustration among those involved in church planting

To this end this overture provides a nearly complete rewrite of the chapter. (Don’t let the official title “Revise BCO 5-2; 5-3; 5-4; 5-8; 5-9; 5-10; 5-11; add new 5-5; and Renumber Thereafter” fool you.)  As the rational contained in the extensive footnotes explains, when Emmanuel Presbyterian Church of Arlington, Virginia, organized they found the process confusing.  This is a “Blood on Every Page” overture that proposes changes based on their hard experience.  They say of their experience:

While the organization was relatively smooth, BCO 5 was found to be confusing in many parts, open to various interpretations, and in some places, contradictory to the practices of a particular church. Hearing similar reactions from church planters and others familiar with the organization process led to a consensus that mission churches would benefit from a revision of BCO 5.

From their experience they talk about the basis for some of the revisions:

A guiding principle for the overture is that mission churches should mirror the practices of particular churches as nearly as possible. Not only would doing so thereby adopt the reasoning behind such practices, it also helps establish in the minds of the mission church the correct procedures they will be using after organization.

From both a comparative reading of the overture with the current BCO language as well as spot-checking detailed portions there are only minor adjustments in pure polity in this new language.  There is, as the introduction suggests, significant simplification of the process language.  One example of an point where the language was heavily modified is regarding the selection of officers.

 Current wording Proposed wording
 5-9. The following procedures shall be used in nominating and training ruling elders prior to organization and the election of a Session:

1. All men of the mission church (unless they decline) shall receive instruction in the qualifications and work of the office of ruling elder by the organizing commission or the evangelist.

2. These men shall be examined by the organizing commission or the evangelist concerning their Christian experience, their knowledge and acceptance of the constitutional standards of the church, and their willingness to assume the responsibility of the office of ruling elder according to the qualifications set forth in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. The organizing commission or the evangelist shall present a list of all who are found qualified to be nominated.

3. Not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date of election, petitioners shall submit, from the list of all those found qualified, nominations of members for the office of ruling elder to the Presbytery-designated organizing commission or evangelist. (Compare BCO 24-1)

4. The congregation will determine the number of ruling elders following procedures outlined in BCO 24-3 and 24-1.

5. At the organizing meeting ordination and installation shall follow the procedure set forth in BCO 24-6.

6. Those elected, ordained and installed ruling elders should meet as soon as is practicable to elect a moderator and a clerk. The moderator may be one of their own number or any teaching elder of the Presbytery with Presbytery’s approval.

5-10. If deacons are elected, follow the procedures of (1) through (5) above. If deacons are not elected, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the ruling elders.

  5-9. c. When the temporary government determines that among the members of the mission congregation there are men who appear qualified as officers, the nomination process shall begin and the election conclude following the procedures of BCO 24 so far as they may be applicable.

d. The election of officers shall normally take place at least two weeks prior to the date of the organization service. However, the effective date of service for the newly elected officers shall be upon the completion of the organization service.

e. If deacons are not elected, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the session, until deacons can be secured.



That should give a good idea of the simplifications proposed.  The question now is whether that is too simplified or whether the references to other section of the BCO cover the requirements for PCA officers.

So, get ready for a great week of GA watching, tweeting and discussion.  For those in Nashville — enjoy. For the rest of us polity wonks, we look forward to absorbing the wisdom of the “fathers and brothers.”

30th General Assembly Of The Evangelical Presbyterian Church

Next Wednesday, June 23, the 30th General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church will convene in Englewood, Colorado.  Plenary business will commence with worship at 8:30 AM on Thursday morning.  For those following along at home here is what you need to know:

Business
One more thing I did not include in the above list is the notice of a commissioner resolution.  It appears that this was submitted today by the commissioner(s) from the Presbytery of Mid-America asking to divide the presbytery into two different presbyteries with specified “exchange” of certain churches to align congregations with the ordination standards of each new presbytery.  This resolution was submitted because the Stated Clerk ruled that a nearly identical overture, Overture 10-B (p. 8-10), was ruled out of order.  The resolution is a parliamentary move to put the question on the floor provided that 2/3 of the commissioners agree with allowing the resolution. (I have my doubts it will get the necessary super-majority.)

While the rational behind the ruling that the Overture is “not properly before the Assembly” is not listed on the web page and I have not found it in a report yet, it is almost certainly because this overture puts the cart before the horse and a presbytery with the ability to bring neighboring congregations into membership is not yet possible.  That accommodation is included in the report of the Interim Committee on the Ordination of Women Teaching Elders and until the Assembly acts on their recommendations and it is sent to the presbyteries for concurrence the exchange of congregations can not happen.  Yes, sometimes being decently and in order can be slow.  But we will see whether the Assembly agrees to consider the commissioner resolution.  The recommendations from the Interim Committee include one to have the Moderator appoint a Study Group to make recommendations on presbytery boundaries across the whole denomination.

I have discussed the work of the Interim Committee previously and this will likely be a major point of discussion for the EPC since these provisions will help guide the church into the future as they live into their motto of  “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things charity.”  The commissioners will have an opportunity to discuss the report with the Committee at an information/discussion session on Thursday afternoon. 

The two commissions and one other interim committee have submitted reports but there are no action items contained in them.  It was interesting to note the report of the Interim Committee on Constitutional Revision which will report at a future Assembly.  However, as they set to work they began by establishing the following seven points to guide them:

1. “No bloating”: we will continually ask, “Does this belong in the constitution or should it go elsewhere in a supporting document?”

2. Language and stylistic elements are to be governed by the “KISS” principle: seek straightforward language as much as possible for clarity, readability.

3. Standardize nomenclature: identify significant titles and terms uniformly and avoid synonymous descriptions.

4. Keep in mind, Jesus’ commands is not burdensome: maintain a clear delineation between the authority delegated to each level of our governance and the responsibilities incumbent upon officers and members as part of Christ’s Body.

5. Allow the Westminster Confession of Faith and its fundamental principles to guide our work.

6. Recognize and preserve those rights reserved in perpetuity by our standards.

7. Scripture is our law; the Westminster Confession is our interpretation of Scripture; the Book of Order is our application of both.

It will be interesting to see what ultimately comes of their work and how it is received.

The second overture (pg. 7) before the Assembly will be a boundary change to the Presbytery of Florida to now include the Bahamas.  This change will allow two churches in the Bahamas that were dismissed by the Church of Scotland last month to join the EPC as a step towards the goal of creating the Presbyterian Church of the Bahamas in the future.

Finally, I would anticipate some discussion by the EPC of the PC(USA) task force report going to their GA which examined the accusation that the EPC was recruiting from the PC(USA) and found that the denomination had not done that.  This will only come up in the report of the Fraternal Relations Committee and not as an action item because the Committee has chosen to not respond until the PC(USA) GA has acted upon the task force’s report and recommendations.  I’m still digesting the EPC account of the EPC/PC(USA) meeting, details which were absent from the PC(USA) task force report, as well as the Transitional Presbytery Commission report and the membership statistics in the Stated Clerk’s report .  I’ll post more on all that next week after I’ve crunched some numbers.

So lots going on at the EPC meeting next week that will have an impact in several different areas of their mission.  I am looking forward to the discussion.

It Is Never Easy, And Sometimes Ugly

Leave a reply

This has not been an easy Spring for me as several close friends have joined the Church Triumphant.  As I put together my annual reflection on The Saints last year it seemed that the list was shorter than usual.  This year’s list has already exceeded last year’s and many of these saints are, as I said, close friends.  The reality of death was part of my reflection when I preached the Easter Sunrise Service at my church.  (Yes, I refused to start with the resurrection because you need to know the bad news before you can understand the Good News.  If you are really interested the church might post the audio of the sermon shortly.)

Many of you are aware that the founder and original Internet Monk, Michael Spencer, joined the Church Triumphant on April 5.  This week his wife, Denise Day Spencer, posted a wonderful yet difficult reflection on Michael’s journey and final days.  It is a very tough read but very worthwhile — I highly recommend it.  Thank you Denise for sharing that.

You have to read the whole thing but I want to quote one of the final paragraphs:

In those first days and weeks after Michael left me, all I seemed to be able to recall of him was his grueling illness and his grim death.Little by little, memories of his life are returning. I want to remember him vibrantly alive, teaching and preaching and writing and podcasting.Talking and laughing and eating and studying. But whenever my thoughts turn to the starkness of his passing, I will remember: We may be born to die, but we were created to live.

Too often I also remember friends and family as I last knew them and not as the vibrant individuals they were earlier.  And I have found this particularly a problem for those that have been ravaged by Alzheimer’s disease.  Many have done amazing things and lived very full lives.  As the Archbishop responds to his assistant’s concern in Death Comes For The Archbishop by Willa Cather – “I will not die of a cold, I will die of having lived.” 

So for those in my life who’s final days were not vibrant and lively but ugly and difficult, I pray that I too may remember you at your best.

How bright these glorious spirits shine!
Whence all their bright array?
How came they to the blissful seats
of everlasting day?
Lo! these are they, from sufferings great
who came to realms of light,
and in the blood of Christ have washed
those robes which shine so bright.
[from Scottish Paraphrases, 1781, source]

Update: After posting and reflecting on this I think my awareness was heightened by the latest installment in a series on NPR and the current storyline in a daily comic strip.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — Candidates For Moderator And… (1) Social Media

As I have been analyzing the nominees standing for Moderator of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I have noticed a number of interesting things.  I’ll do an analysis of their statements and positions in the next post, but in compiling this information I noticed a wide range of approaches to their use of social media in connecting with the church.

Before I begin, let me acknowledge that in addition to the usual search engines, including Facebook search and Twitter search, I have to thank Robert Austell and his GAhelp.net Moderators page as well as the information from the “In their own words” feature published by the Layman.  And for comments on the role of the Moderator and the election of the Moderator you can check out my GA 101 article “The Moderator — All Things In Moderation.”

Before I launch into this let me answer the legitimate question “Why does this matter?”  I would say that it matters because individuals on the national level of the PC(USA) have now bought into the idea that the world has changed and that new technology is the way to go.  After all, the 219th is supposed to be the first paper-free Assembly.  At the 218th GA the election of Bruce Reyes-Chow as the Moderator was supposed to herald a new day and the church was now adopting technology and moving into the 20th 21st Century.  Now I think that we can all agree on two things: 1) Bruce’s use of social media is exceptional and 2) Vice-Moderator Byron Wade did an admirable job trying to keep up with Bruce.  For the record you can follow Bruce on his personal blog, Moderator’s blog, church blog, Facebook , Twitter, and podcast , to name only some of his social media connections.  And in my opinion, Byron has really held his own to Bruce by writing a really excellent blog (think quality not quantity), as well as his Facebook and Twitter presence.

The other thing I am trying to figure out for this analysis is what are typical “Moderator campaign” numbers for social media followers.  At the present time Bruce has 4996 Facebook friends (there is a limit of 5000) and 2688 Twitter followers.  Byron has 1881 Facebook friends and  519 Twitter followers.  But their numbers increased dramatically after they were elected and I don’t know what their stats were during the campaign.  Maybe a good comparison would be the Rev. Bill Teng, who I would judge as the second-most social media savvy nominee for the 218th.  He currently has 531 Facebook friends.  Interestingly, the current nominee I would judge most social media connected in the pool for the 219th GA is Vice-Mod nominee Landon Whitsitt who has 596 Facebook friends and 184 Twitter followers.  So about the 500-600 range for a well-connected nominee before election? What about the rest of this year’s pool…

Web page
This is technically old-school Web 1.0 and even Bruce has not had one of these.  These are sites with static web pages that do not include interaction through comments.

Moderator nominee Rev. James Belle/ Vice-Mod nominee Rev. Wonjae Choi – No Moderator specific site I could find.

Moderator nominee Elder Cynthia Bolbach/ Vice-Mod nominee Rev. Landon Whitsitt – No Moderator specific site I could find.

Moderator nominee Rev. Jin S. Kim/ Vice-Mod nominee Rev. Matt Johnson – No Moderator specific site I could find.

Moderator nominee Rev. Maggie Lauterer/ Vice-Mod nominee Rev. Theresa Cho – Moderator specific site

Moderator nominee Rev. Julia Leeth/ Vice-Mod nominee Rev. Hector Reynoso – Dynamic (music, scripting) site but no interaction

Moderator nominee Rev. Eric Nielsen/Vice-Mod nominee Rev. Marilyn Gamm – Moderator specific site

Blog/Web 2.0 Site
This is like a traditional web site but new articles are easily posted in sequence, there is interaction through comments and the content can be tracked through a “feed” using RSS or Atom.

Belle/ Choi -No blog I could find.

Bolbach/ Whitsitt – Food for Thought (11 entries, all posts closed for commenting) (Landon also has a personal blog with occasional Mod comments.)

Kim/ Johnson –New Church Rising/GA Moderatorial (The main blog has been active as the church blog since October 2009.  The GA Moderatorial specific section has two posts.)

Lauterer/ Cho – Finding Our Voice (Brand new this week, one post)

Leeth/ Reynoso- None I could find

Nielsen/Gamm -The website has a blog page but it appears to only be used to comment to the Rev. Nielsen.  No postings

Facebook
It appears that most nominees have personal Facebook pages but since they are not Moderator related and have privacy set to keep the general public out I won’t link to them.  Here are the Moderator-related pages I found:

Bolbach/Whitsitt
Lauterer/Cho
Nielson/Gamm

Twitter
Most of the nominees have Twitter accounts.  While Cynthia Bolbach has one listed in the Mod lists, it is private so not Moderator related and not listed here.  Here are the others I know of and their statistics:

   Twitter name Followers  Following Tweets
 Theresa Cho  @theresaecho  73  103  132
 Maggie Lauterer  @maggielauterer  16  13  9
 Julia Leeth  @julia_leeth  10  0  10
 Hector Reynoso  @elvicemoderator  5  16  7
 Landon Whitsitt   @landonw  184  171  7155


Other
I was very impressed that two of the nominees also have items up on YouTube:

Bolbach
Lauterer
Nielsen

That is what I and other web sites know about. If I have missed anything or something new is launched let me know and I’ll update the article.

Analysis and Conclusion
As I look at these statistics I have a hard time seeing any of these candidates stepping up to anywhere near the social media connectedness that Bruce and Byron established right from the start, with the obvious exception of Landon.  For the other candidates the level of connectedness so far gives the impression that they are either just getting their feet wet in this sphere or are not placing a major emphasis upon it.

So the question is, does it matter?  If you are of the opinion that the world has not changed then all this is probably interesting but not important.  Or, with the stereotype of the typical Presbyterian being of the “greatest” or “boomer” generation that does not heavily invest their connectedness in social media, this lower penetration into Web 2.0 may be perfectly reasonable since few of the commissioners, whose votes count, would be influenced.

But I think that this does make a difference at two levels.  The first is that the YADs, now YAADs, have traditionally predicted the outcome of the Moderator election on their first advisory vote.  One has to ask if their enthusiasm for a nominee has a conscious or unconscious influence on the commissioners in their voting.  If so, connecting with the YAADs in their native media would be helpful to a nominee.

The second place that I think it makes a difference is connecting with the larger church.  While I don’t know for certain, I have to think that a Moderator nominee who shows they can connect with the younger members, and potential members, of the denomination would be viewed favorably by commissioners when they make their decisions, especially if they are thinking about the graying of the church.  But the other half of the battle is for the successful nominee to actually be connected after they are elected.

As I look through all these media statistics I have trouble seeing any of the Moderator nominees with a strong social media presence or potential.  Conventional wisdom is that a Vice-Moderator choice has little, if any, affect on the Moderator voting so I don’t know if Landon’s strong on-line presence would be any substantial support to Cynthia Bolbach.  But looking through this data that is the only real strength I see at the moment.

Finally, this post is not intended to pressure any of the nominees into redesigning their campaigns to have a more substantial Web 2.0 component.  On the one hand I think it is a little too late for that and on the other I think what is more dangerous than not having a social media connection is one that is forced and unauthentic.  Web 2.0 is, after all, about being yourself and being transparent, right?  My advice is to be yourself, but try to have your on-line presence reflect who you are.

With 17 days left before the election I would not expect a change in presentation now to make a difference in the Moderator election.  So maybe this is more an argument for the successful nominee to figure out how to integrate more social media into their time as Moderator.  Do we expect a repeat of Bruce and Byron’s presence — probably not.  But by the same token we would expect the Moderatorial term to reflect that the world has changed, at least if we believe that it has.  Stay tuned to see how they do.

Following The FIFA World Cup – Or – As A G.A. Junkie What I Like About Association Football

Leave a reply

For me it is a very unfortunate coincidence that the FIFA World Cup falls at the peak of General Assembly Season.  I must confess that my GA tracking has gotten a bit distracted by following the beautiful game.  Sometime I will blog about how being a soccer referee has informed my theology and how I turned that into a children’s sermon – but that is not today.  Right now I wanted to give a few more general thoughts about the game and, hold on, Presbyterian polity.

To give a brief background I grew up in a city known for its support of soccer with an NALS team and now a team in the “revived” NASL.  As a youth we played pick-up games, a couple of which resulted in injuries requiring significant medical treatment to friends of mine.  While I only played organized soccer one year on a Jr. High team I have followed local teams, college and professional, where I have lived.  I am a trained soccer coach and referee.  It is the latter that connects with my passion for Presbyterian polity.

The first point I want to touch on is the origin of the “organized” game.  While the exact origins of the game are debated, and many cultures seem to have similar style games, the rules that the present game derives from come from a series of rules developed between British public schools who played similar style games but each with their own specific differences.  (See where I’m going with this about different Presbyterian branches?)  The rules of what we now recognize as Association Football and the predecessor to the modern Laws of the Game were agreed upon in 1863 with the formation of the Football Association.  Some of the schools’ versions of the games involved the use of the hands and an alternate game, based on the game played at Rugby School , was codified in 1870 as rugby football. (Note the not-so-subtle inclusion of the rugby goal in the banner picture on the Rugby School web site.)  So bottom line for polity: rules were agreed by collections of individuals representing the different schools and where different rules were favored different branches of the sport developed.

Association Football is sometimes referred to as The Simplest Game because the objective and core rules are easy to explain.  As one colleague of mine puts it, you could give the whistle to someone who has never seen the game before and tell them to blow it when they see something wrong and they would get 90% of the fouls and restarts. (But they would not know what to do after they blow the whistle.)  There are 17 Laws of the Game which take 47 pages to explain in the official, nicely illustrated, rulebook .  And yes, there are also pages and pages of interpretation and other stuff that go with it.  But, it takes Major League Baseball 12 pages just to explain the Objective of the Game and the equipment.  Or, compare the rules for a soccer kickoff versus an NFL kickoff:

Soccer Football
Kick-off

A kick-off is a way of starting or restarting play:
    • at the start of the match
    • after a goal has been scored
    • at the start of the second half of the match
    • at the start of each period of extra time, where applicable
A goal may be scored directly from the kick-off.

Procedure
   • all players are in their own half of the field
    • the opponents of the team taking the kick-off are at least 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball until it is in play
   • the ball is stationary on the centre mark
   • the referee gives a signal
    • the ball is in play when it is kicked and moves forward
   • the kicker does not touch the ball a second time until it has touched another player
After a team scores a goal, the kick-off is taken by the other team.

Infringements/Sanctions
If the kicker touches the ball a second time before it has touched another player:
   • an indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team to be taken from the place where the infringement occurred * (see page 3)
For any other infringement of the kick-off procedure:
   • the kick-off is retaken

 Kickoff

  1. In addition to a kickoff, the other free kick is a kick after a safety (safety kick). A punt may be used (a punt may not be used on a kickoff).
  2. On a safety kick, the team scored upon puts ball in play by a punt, dropkick, or placekick without tee. No score can be made on a free kick following a safety, even if a series of penalties places team in position. (A field goal can be scored only on a play from scrimmage or a free kick after a fair catch.)
  3. A kickoff may not score a field goal.
  4. A kickoff is illegal unless it travels 10 yards OR is touched by the receiving team. Once the ball is touched by the receiving team or has gone 10 yards, it is a free ball. Receivers may recover and advance. Kicking team may recover but NOT advance UNLESS receiver had possession and lost the ball.
  5. When a kickoff goes out of bounds between the goal lines without being touched by the receiving team, the ball belongs to the receivers 30 yards from the spot of the kick or at the out-of-bounds spot unless the ball went out-of-bounds the first time an onside kick was attempted. In this case, the kicking team is penalized five yards and the ball must be kicked again.
  6. When a kickoff goes out of bounds between the goal lines and is touched last by receiving team, it is receiver’s ball at out-of-bounds spot.
  7. If the kicking team either illegally kicks off out of bounds or is guilty of a short free kick on two or more consecutive onside kicks, receivers may take possession of the ball at the dead ball spot, out-of-bounds spot, or spot of illegal touch.


As a soccer referee I find the soccer rules simpler and shorter than other sports’ rulebooks.  And taking this one step further, you could almost consider the FIFA Laws of the Game as a confessional standard since that basic rulebook is applicable from the Jr. High games I referee to the World Cup.  An amazing continuity throughout the game as the Westminster Standards provide a document many Presbyterian branches look to.

The other thing about the soccer rules is their flexibility, intended like the new revised Form of Government for the PC(USA).  While certain things are hard and fast, like the procedure above for the kick off, other things are left up to the particular situation.  For example, in the Laws of the Game there is no specified size of field, only a range: 90-120 meters long and 45-90 meters wide.  The only requirement is that the field must be longer than wide.  Yes, for international matches there is a smaller range, at the larger end, and individual tournaments, like the World Cup, can specify exact field dimension.  Also, the referee is not to stop play for a foul if stopping the game would cause the fouled team to lose an advantage (unlike basketball which always stops for a foul which drives me crazy). And the famous (at least in the soccer world) Advice to Referees 5.5 says:

5.5 TRIFLING INFRACTIONS
“The Laws of the Game are intended to provide that games should beplayed with as little interference as possible, and in this view it isthe duty of referees to penalize only deliberate breaches of the Law.Constant whistling for trifling and doubtful breaches produces badfeeling and loss of temper on the part of the players and spoils thepleasure of spectators.”

There is a degree on interpretation, like AI’s or PJC decisions, that a referee makes to strike a balance between flow and control of the game.  One would hope that our application polity would be similar.

Which brings me to my final point and that is to point out that in soccer a nil-nil draw is a perfectly acceptable outcome to a game.  A soccer game does not require a winner.  The exception is tournament situations where after the extra time (over time) we have the shootout which most soccer fans, players, coaches and referees consider a dreadful way to determine a winner — but nothing better has been worked out yet.  The reason that many find it dreadful gets back to the philosophy that the game does not require a winner.  It is among the lowest scoring of sports and the play for the 90 minutes as the players work to put the ball in the back of the net is just as important as actually putting the ball in the back of the net.  Like Presbyterian assemblies, the process is as important as the outcome.  How we discern the will of God together is important to our life together.

There is one more similarity between the two disciplines which is unfortunate.  The intent is that an Assembly is one team working together but with different members with different understandings that help inform the process.  It is unfortunate when an Assembly or Synod takes on the feel of a soccer match with two different teams on the pitch (field) each trying to push the ball over opposite goal lines.

I do not intend to argue an analogy between the two areas but only to point out a few of the parallels.  Something to ponder as I keep #ga219, #30ga and #pcaga on my Twitter feed while live streaming Brazil v. PRK over lunch.  Your milage may vary.  Play on!

How Much Presbyterianism Can You Handle In One Day?

Leave a reply

How much Presbyterianism can you handle in one day?  While I think I could probably manage consecutive General Assemblies and Synods for a long time, it appears that my limit is two concurrent… the third I’ll have to handle by “tape delay.”

Yes, the last couple of days there have been three meetings of the highest governing bodies of different branches going on at the same time and I did indeed saturate.

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland finished up this morning.  I think that the notification of the conclusion of the Assembly on Twitter from @pciassembly – “The Overtures were agreed. The 2010 Assembly is over. Thanks for following.” – probably came none too early as I checked in on the live streaming and saw the numbers in the Assembly Hall steadily dropping as the final session went on.  I won’t speculate if they maintained a quorum and no one seemed ready to ask that question.

The session was prolonged by a significant amount of business held over from previously arrested reports.  In particular, I was curious about three items from the Panel on Ministries ( in the General Board report ) where the GA approved general schemes for part-time ministry, auxiliary ministry and the appointment and training of evangelists.  In one of the more interesting moments of the session the Assembly heard a request from the Presbytery of Monaghan which, after having its boundaries extended, requested to change its name to the Presbytery of Monaghan Plus.  There was a serious question asked “Is that the best you can do?” and the speaker outlined the geographic and theological basis for the presbytery committee’s choice of name.  The motion died for lack of a second so they will ponder anew a name change.

At the same time I was following the Presbyterian Church in Canada General Assembly on Twitter hashtag #ga136 and on their Cover It Live board.  No lack of interesting polity and parliamentary action there either.  Got to love the discussion board comment just now posted by GMRoss saying “book of forms revisions during the duldrums of the heat of the afternoon – Don’s checking them off. are we asleep, complacent, or making real changes?”  Sounds like the complaints about the heat in the Assembly Hall during the Church of Scotland GA a couple of weeks ago.

Like the Irish, there was a parallel discussion in the Assembly in Canada about flexible ministry.  The Assembly agreed to the plan put forward by the Clerks of Assembly to explore the possibility of commissioned ministry that I talked about earlier.  There was significant discussion about the Life and Mission Agency’s recommendation 15 regarding three overtures dealing with Educational Requirements for Candidates from Other Theological Schools.  The committee submitted a recommendation that they report back next year.  When an amendment was proposed that would specify certain requirements the Moderator, correctly in my opinion, ruled that it was a separate motion and therefore what was proposed from the floor was a “notice of a motion” ( see page F-9 in Practice and Procedure ) or as sometimes poetically referred to a “notion of a motion.”  This is part of the standing rules to give commissioners a chance to ponder the action before having to vote on it and requires that notice appear in advance of the debate itself.  The Moderator’s ruling was challenged, but the Assembly upheld the ruling of the Moderator with the result that there will be an extra session this evening to consider the motion.  (N.B. this would not have worked yesterday for there was clear indication on the Twitter feed that there was a more important event yesterday evening. )

Finally, I have not had a chance to keep up with the third meeting, the 206th meeting of the General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church finishing up today.  I’ll go back and have a look at that business later but for regular updates I would refer you to Brian Howard, Tim Phillips, and Seth Stark who are all at the meeting.

Yes, GA season is in full swing.  Enjoy it while you can all you G.A. Junkies.

General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church In Ireland

Leave a reply

I awoke this morning to find a flurry of tweets and checking in found that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland has convened.  If this year is anything like last year, and the the first day is proving that to be the case, the PCI GA meeting will generate the most official tweets of any of the Assemblies.  So far today alone we have had 137 tweets from @pciassembly since the session began including the tweet “Twitter got overloaded.”  No wonder.

The Assembly actually began last night with worship and the installation of the new Moderator the Rev. Dr. Norman Hamilton.

So if you want to follow along it helps to have the documents.

What has caught headlines so far is the address of the incoming Moderator last night where he condemned sectarianism.  He actually talks about this in a larger context involving the church.  After beginning by enumerating a number of pressures on the world at the current time he turns to the hope of the church:

All of this may seem rather downbeat and maybe even depressing — not what we all come to the opening night of the General Assembly for! Yet it is in this new context that there is great opportunity for the light of the Bible, the love of God and work of the Spirit to bring hope,encouragement and much needed grace to individual lives, local communities and indeed the whole land. So let me sketch out very briefly a little of what this might look like.

The OT prophet Jeremiah was quite explicit when he made it clear to God’s people that one of their key roles was to seek the welfare of the whole community where God had placed them, and that included the welfare of those who had even oppressed them. Jesus followed this through with his astounding command in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5.44) to ‘love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you’. The apostle Peter repeated the message when he wrote to a church under serious pressure that Christian people were to be a blessing to others as a pre-requisite to being blessed by God themselves. (1 Peter 3.9)

A bit later he goes on to say:

We really do need to resist the temptation — and it is a strong one –that man lives by politics alone. We do not. Politics is certainly important. Indeed democracy is one of the jewels of a good Christian heritage — and I want to say that publicly here tonight with some of our political reps present.

We value you personally, and we value the work that you do. But the privilege of choosing political leaders and representatives can — and often does — degenerate into passing the buck to them for every perceived problem and evil, and then criticising them when they appear powerless to fix them for us. How often do so many of us who are Christian people complain about our leaders – long before we even think it proper to pray for them and ask for the Spirit of God to guide themin their work. Giving in to the temptation to always expect Stormont or the Dail or Westminster or the local council or the doctor or the teacher or the social worker or the community group (the list is endless…) to fix things for us is to deny the power of prayer, the work of the Spirit and the Biblical imperative of active warm hearted Christian citizenship which was regarded as normal – right throughout the Scriptures. (emphasis added)

For the non-PCI reading this be sure to read that section, especially the part I put in bold, with the Presbyterian Mutual Society failure in the back of your mind.  But the Moderator’s primary concern here is not the Society situation.  He goes on to talk about Christians being engaged in their political world and says “we want to bring our best insights into scripture to public policy.”  He continues:

For the claims of atheists and secularists to have the truth themselves or to argue that they are in some neutral faith-free zone — such claims too need to be vigorously challenged and properly refuted. And, it has to be said, the church throughout this whole island is desperately short of people able and willing to do this… which is itself a terrible commentary on our spiritual and theological weakness.

But what he has in mind the problem of sectarianism.  Here is an extended portion of that section as he approaches his conclusion.

One of the most pungent areas where we desperately need a recovery of righteousness in public is in the area of community relationships, both inside communities and across communities.

You might expect me to say this, coming as I do from 22 years in North Belfast, but the healing of relationships is a real Christian priority for every single one of us here this evening, whether we live in the city, the town or in a rural area, – whether we live in Cork or in Coleraine — Dublin or Derry.

Let me give you an example from the areas OUTSIDE of Belfast.

The latest figures from the PSNI – and I have them here – show that in 10 of the 25 District Council area outside Belfast, there had been arise of over 25% in sectarian motivated incidents between 2008/09 and 2009/10. In only 2 of those councils had there been a reduction of more than 25%.

There is a problem with sectarianism right across much of Northern Ireland, and it is acute in what might be seen as some very surprising places.

The failure to agree a community relations agenda and community relations strategy is, in my view, a public disgrace, given our history.That disgrace is heightened by the apparent failure of much of wider society to even be concerned about it, never mind outraged by it.

And it is a huge discouragement to the many individuals and groups whose vision and work for a healthy and integrated society over the years continues to be so unappreciated and undervalued. Our apparent contentment with widespread social apartheid is, to quote again those words from the book of Proverbs, a disgrace to the nation.Made no less by the fact that this is not a new issue at all — St Augustine, 1600 years ago, wrote: ‘For it is one thing to see the land of peace from a wooded ridge, and another to tread the road that leads to it’

I would love to be part of a public discussion, carried out with grace and with rigour, as to how to face this demon in our midst. I might even be bold enough to say that I would like to help kick start the moribund, even non existent, public discussion about what a coherent,shared and healthy society looks like. And I would want to do so, on the basis of bringing my best understanding of Scripture to that discussion. Every generation, every society, every individual… we all need to bring our failures to the Lord and have them exposed — for as Jesus told us plainly in John’s Gospel (8.32) it is the truth that liberates… Isn’t it strange that such liberating truth from the lips of Jesus seems so unattractive at times? As does the call of Micah(6.8) in these profoundly discomforting words… He has showed you Oman, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

I look forward to seeing how he works with this theme in the Assembly and throughout his Moderatorial year.

136th General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Canada

4 Replies

The 136th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada convenes in Sydney, Cape Breton at 7:30 pm this Sunday, 6 June 2010.  (Some preliminary meetings and activities will begin the day before.)  Here is what you need to know to follow along:

Business before the Assembly
As I look through the reports I have not seen anything that strikes me as a high-profile or “lightning rod” issue.  I could easily be wrong because I read it too fast or I am not familiar with the current concerns in the church.  (And I am sure that someone will let us know if I did miss something.)

There are a lot of interesting items coming to the Assembly.  One of those is the recommendation against having biennial assembly meetings.  Some of the committee reports weigh in on the question but one of the most interesting, at least to me, is the response from the Committee on History.  In their extended response they cast it in the historical perspective and legacy of the church and one of their sections says:

2. The legacy of church union has something to teach us about the unique situation of The Presbyterian Church in Canada. As Prof. Keith Clifford says in The Resistance to Church Union, 1904-1939 (p. 142), the Presbyterian Church Association worked around the courts of The pre-Union Presbyterian Church in Canada appealing to the membership directly and suggesting an inbred hostility to the clerical establishment which was regarded by many lay people opposed to Union as having predetermined Church Union. After 1925 there was an inbuilt suspicion of the centralization of authority resulting sometimes in an inchoate democratization (and laicization) of the power base of The Presbyterian Church in Canada. One can only imagine what the Presbyterian Church Association would say today about biennial Assemblies.

Another very interesting item is the revisions to the judicial process.  The judicial process chapter of the Book of Forms was modified in 2006 and will be reviewed in the future after there has been more experience with it.  However, the Clerks of Assembly are recommending (recommendation 17) an immediate addition that would permit an investigating committee to make the determination that insufficient evidence exists and they could unilaterally decide not to proceed with a disciplinary case.  The other interesting recommendation related to judicial process is that the Assembly Council is recommending (recommendation 7) the Clerks of Assembly be instructed to consider recommending to the Assembly appropriate legislation to establish a standing judicial commission.  I was disappointed to see that the Life and Mission: Communications unit is considering closing down the Being Presbyterian blog, but I do personally know the work involved in keeping multiple blogs active and can understand the concern.  And where the PC(USA) has developed a Social Media Policy for its GA, the Life and Mission Agency report contains a proposed (recommendation 4) General Assembly Digital Images Policy.  And in another parallel, I found an interesting response in the Clerks of Assembly report to Overture 14 (recommendation 16) asking for the elimination of synods:

The framers of Overture No. 14, 2010 suggest that the synods of our church have become ineffective, expensive in terms of both time and money, and a source of disenfranchisement for many elders and ministers.

The Clerks of Assembly remind the Assembly that across the country synods function in different ways. Some provide an important source of collegial community for ministers and elders who are serving in remote parts of the country; some provide strong governance oversight; and some play substantial roles in overseeing the work of thriving camping ministries and that of regional staff.

Synods, that would like to reduce the scope of meeting both in terms of the number of individuals attending and costs involved, now have the option of functioning as commissioned synods.

There are two items that particularly jumped out at me.  The first is interesting because of my being a polity wonk and the issue raises an interesting polity question at the intersection with the effort to be more flexible in how the church does things.  In the Clerks report there is a response to an item that began as an overture in 2008 requesting the option to commission lay missionaries to administer communion in hardship situations such as in remote and rural churches.  The Life and Work Agency returned a recommendation concurring with the overture and the 2009 Assembly then sent it on to the clerks to have the polity wording worked out.  The recommendation from the Ministry and Church Vocations unit in 2009 was against this course of action. (And the report notes that some presbyteries, based on the 2009 approval, had begun commissioning missionaries which the clerks quickly let them know that this has to be done decently and in order and it was only approved in concept and the Assembly had yet to approve the details.)

In their report the clerks note that they find themselves in a bit of a polity dilemma — while it was the will of the 2009 Assembly to move forward with this action this was in conflict with previous Assemblies, as recently as 2008, affirming as a theological doctrine of the denomination that only Ministers of Word and Sacraments celebrate the sacraments.  So here is their proposal:

While hearing the need articulated for an alternative method of providing the communion in areas where ministers of Word and Sacraments are not readily available, the Clerks believe it would be highly irregular to reverse this aspect of the church’s doctrine and practice by creating what could be deemed a new order of ministry without the usual theological reflection by the denomination. Normally, a document outlining a new position is sent to the church for study and report. The responses to the study and report are taken into account and the “new position” may be modified according to wisdom received by the process.

Therefore, while the Clerks have proposed legislation as requested, they, together with the Life and Mission Agency: Ministry and Church Vocations, offer a study paper that is designed to encourage the church to contemplate this important issue from a theological perspective. Before guidelines for education or other requirements are proposed, the Clerks would like to hear from the church through responses to this document.

The formal recommendation (recommendation 3) is that the study paper and proposed legislation be sent out to the church for study and comment and the clerks will return in 2011 with their recommendation, revised according to the responses.

The other item that caught my attention was the study paper reported by the Committee on Church Doctrine and posted as a separate document on the web site.  This sixty-page study paper titled “One Covenant of Grace: A Contemporary Theology of Engagement with the Jewish People,” is also being recommended for study and comment by the church in advance of formal adoption by the 137th Assembly in 2011.

It should be no surprise that this caught my attention because of all the publicity that the Report of the Middle East Study Committee to the 219th General Assembly of the PC(USA) is causing.  But, let me be clear that these are two very different documents in scope and purpose.  While the PC(USA) report would be characterized in the peacemaking and social witness focus, the PCC document is focused on doctrine, specifically the issue of supersessionism, that is, how Christians and Jews are related as God’s chosen people.  The PC(USA) report focuses on modern relationships between ethnic groups and biblical implications for the land.  The reports are related to the extent that they each have an extensive discussion of the biblical background of the Jewish nation and how the biblical narrative demonstrates their special relationship with God.  The two discussions provide nice compliments to each other in many ways.

The concluding doctrine statement in the PCC report, which will be studied this year and considered for adoption by the 2011 Assembly reads in part:

In stating our relationship with the Jewish people we reaffirm a central tenet of our Reformed faith expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, that there is one covenant of grace embracing Jews and Gentiles and therefore, not “two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations” (VII, 6).
Accordingly, we affirm that the Jewish people have a unique role in God’s economy of salvation and healing for our world. Jesus himself taught that “salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22) and the Apostle Paul stated: “to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen” (Romans 9:4-5). The Jewish people have a pre-eminent place in God’s covenant, John Calvin, finely said, for they are “the firstborn in God’s family.”

We affirm that God has graciously included Gentile Christians, rightly called “posthumous children of Abraham” (J. Calvin), by engrafting them into the one people of God established by God’s covenant with Abraham. This means that Jews have not been supplanted and replaced by Christians in the one covenant. As Paul teaches, God has not rejected or abandoned them: “I ask, then has God rejected his people? By no means!” (Romans 11:1).

Lots of interesting stuff here.  I look forward to the discussion of these and other topics at the Assembly.  Stay tuned.

Governing Body Reaction To The PCA Strategic Plan

Leave a reply

There has been a tremendous level of reaction to the Strategic Plan that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America will be considering at its meeting in just about four weeks.  The reaction has been dominantly concerned, skeptical or negative with the explanation and defense of the Plan coming almost entirely from official channels.  If one had to judge the prospects of this Plan based only on the blogosphere it faces a very difficult path to approval.  BUT, there is no telling what the mind of the commissioners to the Assembly is on this and, maybe more important, what will happen with the movement of the Holy Spirit as the body discusses and discerns together this proposal.  Comment in the blogosphere is not a scientific sampling.

Having said that, there is now an important development on this topic in the form of an Overture (Overture 24 – “A Call for PCA Renewal”) that will be coming to the Assembly from Northwest Georgia Presbytery.  I would suggest checking out the post on the Aquila Report which includes not only the text of the overture but a very helpful introduction by Jon D. Payne.

Where the PCA Strategic Plan is mostly administrative and mechanical in its recommendations the Overture is pastoral.  As TE Payne says in the introduction:

The “Alternative Plan” is not an attempt to cause further division in the PCA. On the contrary, the overture is simply meant to unite and renew our denomination in the theology and practice of Westminster Presbyterianism.

and

We believe that many PCA elders will identify more with this “Alternative Plan” and be pleased to have before them a positive, biblically-based alternative to the elaborate “PCA Strategic Plan” of the Cooperative Ministries Committee (CMC).

And one of the overtures whereases says:

Whereas, the greatest and most urgent need of the Presbyterian Church in America is not a complex strategy, but a clarion call to renew our avowed commitment to the Biblical, Reformed, Confessional, and Presbyterian Faith – a system of doctrine which has, for centuries, cultivated God-glorifying unity,humility, worship, spiritual/numerical growth, mission, service, sacrifice, giving, and cooperation all over the world;

The heart of the overture is a 17 point plan for renewal of the PCA.  Here are the 17 points without editing:

A renewed commitment to the centrality of the God-ordained, efficacious means of exegetical, Christ-centered, application-filled, expository preaching(Is. 55:10-11; Ez. 37:1-10; Jn. 21:15-17 Mk. 1:38; Acts 2:42; 20:26-27; ICor. 1:22-25; 2 Tim. 4:2-4; WLC 67, 154-5).

A renewed commitment to the centrality of the God-ordained, efficacious means of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Gen. 17:9-11; Ex. 12; Mt. 26:26-29;28:19; I Cor. 10:16-17; 11:17-34; Col. 2:11-15; I Pet. 3:21; Rev.19:6-9; WLC 154; 161-177).

A renewed commitment to the centrality of the God-ordained means of private,family and corporate prayer (Ps. 63; Mt. 6:5-15; Mk. 1:35; Acts 6:4;Eph. 1:15-23; Phil. 1:9-11; I Thess. 5:17; I Tim. 2:1; WLC 154;178-196). 

A renewed commitment to – and delight in – the Lord’s Day (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex.20:8-11; Is. 58:13-14; Mk. 2:23-28; Jn. 20:1;19; Acts 20:7; Rev. 1:10;WCF 21). ;

A renewed commitment to worship on God’s terms, according to Scripture (Ex.20:4-6; Lev. 10:1-3; Deut. 12:32; Jn. 4:23-24; Acts 2:42; Col. 2:18-23;Heb. 10:24-25; 12:28-29; WCF 21.1).
  
A renewed commitment to private, family, and public worship (Ps. 63; Mt. 6:6,16-18; Neh. 1:4-11; Dan. 9:3-4; Deut. 6:4-6; Eph. 6:1-4; Ps. 100:4; Acts2:42; Heb. 10: 24-25; WCF 21.5-6).

A renewed commitment to wed our missiology to Reformed ecclesiology (Mt.28:18-20; Acts 14:19-23; 15:1-41; 20:17, 28; I Cor. 11:17-34; The Pastoral Epistles; Titus 1:5; WCF 25; 30-31).
 
A renewed commitment to loving, Word and Spirit-dependent, prayerful and courageous evangelism (Mt. 5:13-16; 28:18-20; Acts 4:1-13; I Peter3:15-16; WLC 154-7).

A renewed commitment to biblical church discipline (Mt. 18:15-20; I Cor. 5:1-13;11:27-29; II Thess. 3:6, 14-15; I Tim. 5:20; WLC 45; WCF 30).

A renewed commitment to biblical diaconal ministry (Acts 6:1-7; Phil. 1:1; I Tim.3:8-13). 

A renewed commitment to catechize our covenant children in our homes and churches(Deut. 6:4-6; Prov. 22:6; Mk. 10:13-16; Eph. 4:12-13; 6:1-4; WSC).

A renewed commitment to biblical masculinity and femininity (Gen. 2:18-25; Deut.31:6-7; Prov. 31:10-31; I Cor. 16:13; I Peter 3:1-7; Eph. 5:22-33; I Tim. 2:11-15; WLC 17).

A renewed commitment to entrust the leadership of the Church into the hands of the ordained leadership (Jn. 21:15-17; I Tim. 5:17; Heb.13:17; I Pet.5:1-3; WLC 45).

A renewed commitment to the Reformed Confession which we have avowed, before God and men, to promote and defend as our system of doctrine (I Tim. 6:12;Heb. 4:14; 10:23; Jude 3; Westminster Standards). 

A renewed commitment to the mortification of sin and worldliness (Rom. 6:11-14;8:13; 12:1-2; I Cor. 6:12; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 4:20-24; I John 2:15-17; Gal.6:14; WLC 76-7).  

A renewed commitment to the doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, apart from works of the law (Gen. 15:6; Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:16-17; 3:21-26; 4:1-5; 5:1; Gal. 2:15-16; 3:10-14;Phil. 3:1-11; WCF 11).  

A renewed commitment to rest, by faith, in Christ alone for salvation, without minimizing Gospel obedience (i.e. the third use of the law) / (Rom.1:5; 6:1-2; 8:5-8; II Cor. 7:1; Col. 1:28; Eph. 4:1; 5:1-21; Phil. 3:12;I Thess. 5:23; Heb. 12:14; I John 5:3; WCF 19.5-7).

As the title of the overture says, this is a call to renewal not a step-by-step business plan to implement new programs.  This overture has more to do with what happens on the individual and congregational level and the Strategic Plan is more focused on the General Assembly and the denominational ministry units.

I would note two things about this overture.  The first is that while it is proposed as an alternative proposal to the Strategic Plan, the actions that are proposed in each are not mutually exclusive as I read it.  As I said, each has a different focus for its implementation.  Yes, the overture specifically singles out some items for concern, specifically the “safe spaces,” but the 17 points are more general.  The second point here is that it puts forward the points and leaves the details of implementation and follow-up to the congregations and presbyteries.  It asks for “A renewed commitment to biblical diaconal ministry” but the specifics of what this means will apparently be left to the current discussion, overture process and presbytery review process.  When there is a disagreement over exactly how to interpret this we are left with the status quo.

But in support of this proposal, at least in terms of the general idea underlying it, I have recently run into two research studies that would seem to agree with what is being suggested here.

The first is the May 16, 2010, edition of the program The White Horse Inn.  On that show they spoke with Prof. Christian Smith, a sociology professor at the University of Notre Dame, about his latest book Souls in Transition: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults.  Lots of interesting stuff in that broadcast but there was one observation that particularly struck me and seems relevant to this discussion.  Dr. Smith made the observation that one of the most important factors in the religious development of young people, even if they have left home, are their parents.  He says in the interview “Even after the kids have left home, out of tons of variables, the second most important factor in forming what the religious lives of 18 to 23 year olds looked like was the religious, the faith lives, of their parents back when they were teenagers.”  (It may have struck me because I have a household full of teenagers.)  He says a bit later “If we see something troubling among young people it is probably because the generation raising them has something troubling going on.”  The implication is that if we lose the current 18-23 year old generation it is because we lost their parents’ generation.  So this gets right to the heart of a couple of these points that call the church to renewal through religious disciplines at not even the congregational, but at the family level.

The second source is the book Vanishing Boundaries: The Religion of Mainline Protestant Baby Boomers by Hoge, Johnson and Luidens.  In this book the authors review and consolidate a lot of other research studies about the decline of the Mainline Protestant churches, compare it with their own work, and draw some interesting conclusions while arguing away, legitimatly in my reading of it, some of the conventional wisdom about the reasons for the decline.  After the GA season when I have time to devote to other topics I’ll write a much longer post about the book.  For the moment, let me say that the “vanishing boundaries” of the title are the vanishing distinctions between the mainline church and the culture around it.  Referring to earlier studies and conclusions by another researcher, Dean Kelley, they write:

Kelley had emphasized that the mainline denominations were not set apart by distinctive lifestyles or values from the rest of middle-class America.  “We believe Kelley is right” [one of the book’s authors wrote in an earlier paper] “when he says that denominations most embedded in the surrounding culture are most subject to favorable or unfavorable shifts in that culture.  These denominations benefited from a favorable cultural context in the 1950s but suffered in the late 1960s.”

The findings from our study of Presbyterian confirmands and from other recent research have convinced us that Kelley was right to describe the mainline Protestant denominations as weak and to emphasize the critical importance of belief – or “meaning,” as he puts it – in creating and sustaining strong religious bodies. [pg. 181]

Let me note two things:  First, the book’s authors begin this section by saying “When we began this study we were unclear about the usefulness of Kelley’s theory…”  [pg. 180]  They did not come in looking to prove this theory.  I should also mention that in this terminology “strong” and “weak” refer to an organization’s ability to mobilize members and their resources to accomplish a shared objective.

Religions of highest strength are, in Kelley’s words, agencies for “transforming men and groups into vigorous, dynamic, conquering movements.”  In their early days, the Anabaptists, the Methodists, and the Mormons were religions of this sort. [pg. 181]

I would note that this is a sociological, not theological, result that explains the data but does not place any intrinsic merit on the organizations themselves and their belief systems.  However, within that constraint the model provides one possible, and to these authors the best, explanation of what has been happening in the long-term membership patterns of the mainline churches.

So what does this have to do with the Strategic Plan and a possible alternative?  As I noted in an earlier post it seems that the PCA may be close to making a transition to the next larger size of denomination organization and function.  If you accept the authors’ conclusion that to grow the denomination must be an agency for transformation, then what is the best way to accomplish that?  Can that be accomplished with a call to renewal, with changes in the administrative structure, some combination of both or something else entirely?  Let us pray for the leading of the Holy Spirit as the Assembly discerns this.