Monthly Archives: November 2010

One Day Of Giving Thanks?

1 Reply

I don’t do Thanksgiving well.

Don’t get me wrong.  On this day the American society sets aside to give thanks I can “do up” the day.  I spent much of it joyfully cooking up the feast for my family.  It is a day I can relax and do something I enjoy that I don’t normally have time to do.  (And Saturday I will defend my Dutch Oven cobbler championship, but that’s another story.)

But in the grand scheme of things I think I have problems with the complexity of the day.  I know it’s not supposed to be complex, its supposed to be simple – a day set aside to give thanks to God for His grace, mercy, provision and blessings. But every year it seems that some new layer of complexity is added to the day – usually in the form of something that has to do with the next season starting earlier and earlier.

So, among the complexities that I personally struggle with are:

  • Thanksgiving has become one of the high-holy days of American culture. (The good part here is that while commercialization for the next holiday season encroaches on, or even infringes on, the day, Thanksgiving has still mostly escaped commercial influences.)
  • By virtue of being part of our cultural narrative the holiday has been shaped by the culture.  With schools avoiding religion who do students think the Pilgrims were thankful to?  Only the indigenous people – the context of divine provision has been eliminated.
  • While one particular narrative is the one American culture celebrates today, my time living in New Mexico raised my awareness of other narratives, including earlier events.
  • Modern American culture has standardized on the one narrative, but earlier in American history a day of thanksgiving could be declared by civil governments at various times in response to some important event, including military victories.  (And likewise, days of prayer and fasting were declared in times of need.) While there was the tradition of Thanksgiving in the fall as a harvest festival, there was still a sense of cause and effect, or call and response rather than a date that could be placed on the calendar a decade in advance. (That is of course still acknowledging the Biblical parallel Feast of Sukkot which was part harvest festival which was also tied to a specific day on the calendar, Tishri 15.)
  • And finally, I probably dread and fear the sharp transition from a day of giving thanks to the mass celebration of materialism that the day following Thanksgiving has become.

So, since I don’t do Thanksgiving well I want to give you stories from two people who do.  These are both about thanksgiving when that seems like the last thing a person would be inclined to do.

The first is from pastor Mark D. Roberts who has a couple of very good Thanksgiving reflections on his blog.  But I want to highlight the story of pastor Martin Rinkart.  Rinkart ministered in Germany during the very difficult and devastating period of the Thirty Years War, but also wrote the hymn “Now Thank We All Our God,” a hymn that is now almost exclusively associated with Thanksgiving in our worship.

The second one if from elder Jody Harrington and her wonderful blog Quotidian Grace .  (And I take the time to plug hers since she has the job at Presbyterians Today of plugging everyone else’s blogs and should get some recognition as a blogger in her own right.)  As a nice antidote to Black Friday she has a post today about Bless Friday, but I wanted to highlight her previous post about “Thankfulness with a Heavy Heart.”

So I hope all my American readers had a good day of giving thanks and to all of you, wherever you may be, may we remember daily to whom we owe the greatest thanks.

Be filled with the Spirit, as you sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs among yourselves, singing and making melody to the Lord in your hearts, giving thanks to God the Father at all times and for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[Eph 5:18b-20]

The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.’
[Job 1:21]

Mixing Politics and Religion In The CCAP – Or – Who Speaks For The Church

Leave a reply

In Presbyterian polity it is usually the understanding that when a leader (moderator or clerk) of a governing body makes a statement they speak for themselves unless that governing body has taken an on the record position and then the leader can officially convey the position of the body.

At the present time in the Blantyre Synod of the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian there is a complicated situation that not only raises the question of a leader speaking for a body when the body is not on the record, but also possibility taking action in consultation with the civil government.  Hold onto your hats as I unwind this, and hopefully I have a good enough handle on this to get it right and do it justice.

Just as background, the last time I looked at church and state in the CCAP it was with one of the other three Malawi synods, the Livingstonia Synod in the northern part of the country. This new controversy is with the synod in the southern part of the country.

This current controversy began at the very end of October when all eight of the Roman Catholic bishops and bishop elect from the Karonga diocese signed an open pastoral letter directed to Malawi’s President Bingu wa Mutharika and his government.  There are eight specific issues dealing with the workings of the government and the President’s party and they caution the President that he is heading towards becoming a dictator.  The article also notes that another pastoral letter from the bishops played an important role in moving the country from one-party rule to a multi-party system in 1992.

From a polity stand point it is helpful to note that this letter is coming from a unanimous group of bishops in an episcopal system to a political leader who an adherent with their church.  It is also worthwhile to know that this is the twentieth such pastoral letter the bishops have issued over a period of several years.

A bit over a week later, on November 11, the Moderator of the Blantyre Synod, the Rev. Reynold Mangisa, and the deputy general secretary of the Synod, the Rev. Austin Chimenya held a press conference where they criticized the bishops’ actions because “it did not follow protocol.”

Now, while I refer to the two leaders at the press conference, based on the reporting on the conference by The Nation, it would appear that Mr. Mangisa did most, if not all, the talking.  In one quote he does begin by saying “As officials of Blantyre Synod, we believe…”  But this article is very good from the perspective that it attributes the position to these officials only and, as I will discuss in a moment, it has a number of contrary quotes from other Presbyterian leaders, both in the Synod and around the country.  On the other hand, an article in Malawi Voice not only begins with the headline that says in part “CCAP attacks Catholic Bishops” but continues the point in the lede to the article where they say:

The Blantyre Synod of the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian (CCAP)
has attacked the Episcopal Conference of Malawi (ECM) of the Catholic
Church over its last month’s pastoral letter to President Bingu wa
Mutharika.

In this article the remarks are clearly reported as coming from the church, and not just the synod but the whole church, if you only read the headline.  And if you want another variation, an article from ENInews says in the headline that the criticism came from the leader, but the lede says it comes from the Synod.

As I said, the article in The Nation is good because, with out explicitly saying so, they make it very clear the opinions expressed come from those leaders, even if the leaders though they were representing the church.  Among the contrary voices in that article is that of the General Secretary of the Synod, the Rev. McDonald Kadawati, who is also the acting chair of the ecumenical Public Affairs Committee (PAC).  In fact, the PAC came out in support of the bishops’ letter.  When asked for comment he indicates that he is not aware of the new synod statement and is quoted as saying “I don’t think what you are
saying is true about my officers. They can’t say that.”

Well, “They can’t say that” pretty much sums up where it went from there.  The next step was a emergency special meeting of Synod.  In the Malawi Voice article about calling the meeting General Secretary Katawadi chooses his words carefully.  The article indicates he said that he was not around when Mr. Mangisa made his comments so he does not know if the rest of the Synod was behind them as well.  He is quoted as saying “It is not tension per say, [sic] but we are meeting this evening to hear from
our moderator first before we come out with a stand as Synod.”

The meeting was held on Monday and Tuesday of last week, November 15 and 16.  The first thing to come out of the meeting was an official apology to the Roman Catholic Bishops for the Moderator’s comments.  According to The Nation, the official statement from the meeting reads in part:

We withdraw the statement made on our behalf by the synod moderator, the
Reverend Reynold Mangisa. We apologise for the divisions and hatred
that may have been caused to both our Catholic brothers and sisters as
well as within our synod, other CCAP sister synods, the public at large
and development partners.

And it is reported that the statement includes support for the Bishops’ statement, that it was overwhelmingly approved and that Mr. Mangisa’s signature is found with the others on the document.  He is not responding to media questions other than to confirm that they see his signature on the statement.  However, in an article about the apology from Afrique en ligne, former General Secretary and designated spokesperson, the Very Rev. Silas Mcozana, says of the meeting and Mr. Mangisa “at first, there were differences but later Rev. Mangisa saw the point.” In addition, the article informs us that a five-member team was appointed to handle the apology and the statement and that the team, or some of its members, had met with the Roman Catholic Archbishop to personally apologize for the comments.

The second item to come from the meeting is an investigation into this whole incident.  A story from The Nation indicates that all four top officials of the Synod – Kadawati, Chimenya, Mangisa, and Vice-Moderator Rev. Mercy Chilapula – will be subject to this investigation.  But the twist in this matter came from a series of articles by the Nyasa Times that allege the involvement by the Presidential Adviser on Religious Affairs Rev. Billy Gama in the original statement.  The first article talks about how Gama and two other government officials tried to talk the bishops into recalling the letter and not reading it in the congregations.  A second article alleges that Gama had Mangisa call the press conference and Gama funded it.  A third article talks about how Gama is not a subject of the investigation by the Synod but a following article says other sources in the Synod claim that he is.  The most recent article from yesterday says that the paper has a source that says the Office of the President and Cabinet was directly involved and the Rev. Gama was the intermediary.  The problem, of course, is that there is as yet no corroboration or named sources so verification of the allegations is difficult.  We will see what, if any, of this is part of the Synod report next week.

But getting back to Presbyterian polity and Biblical instructions, an article from the Nyasa Times today is particularly interesting.  This article says that the Rev. Mangisa had substantial support in the Synod meeting.  His supporters are reported as saying that he was right to criticize the bishops for their openly criticizing one of their own rather than first rebuking the President privately.  Also, his supporters say that he does have the authority to speak, without prior instructions, for the Synod.  The article says “Those backing the Spiritual Father said as a sitting moderator, Rev
Mangisa is the official mouth piece of the Blantyre Synod and does not
need permission to speak.”  The article also claims that Rev. Mangisa agreed to the apology under pressure.

As I said, the next installment of this drama is scheduled to play out in a week when the six unnamed members of the investigating committee report.  That is, unless the Nyasa Times or someone else doesn’t come out with new claims or evidence before than.

But as I highlight throughout this post, aside from the charges of government influence, this episode raises questions of what a Presbyterian official can do apart from the governing body they have leadership in.  The General Secretary seems to think that speaking for the Synod requires the explicit backing of the Synod.  Some of the members of the Synod are reported to fell that having been selected by the body to be the moderator then endows him with the authority to speak for the church.  We will see how this develops within that branch.

Constitutional Voting In The PC(USA)

Leave a reply

It will be a busy seven months for the presbyteries in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  The 219th General Assembly sent three high-profile constitutional changes down to the presbyteries for their concurrence and then there are all the rest of the amendments.

My first reaction was to take these as four different packages, each at a different presbytery meeting.  The problem of course is that while my presbytery has the meetings to do that most others do not.  So it looks like they will be doubling up on some of these debates.

It is still early in the voting on all the amendments so I’m not really ready to start drilling down into the data just yet.  But I will make some observations about the process so far.

First, where am I getting my data?  Well, with the proliferation of Twitter I think many of us are getting our own real-time updates on presbytery meetings.  But in terms of compiling the data for later reference, I know of two sources:  1) The Layman is publishing charts of voting on all three high-profile amendments:  Amendment 10-A, new Form of Government, and the Belhar Confession. 2) More Light Presbyterians is maintaining their own chart of presbytery voting at their Yes on Amendment A blog, but as the name suggests that is specific to that issue.  From these various sources I am compiling and posting my own spreadsheet for analysis with the emphasis on my preferred focus of correlations between the different issues and with no promise that the chart will be updated in a timely manner.  Finally, we can not forget the official voting report which does not have a break down by presbytery but which has been updated today to reflect that the Belhar Confession needs a 2/3 vote to pass.  (It was originally listed as simple majority.)

At this juncture it is interesting to note that with almost two months of voting behind us six presbyteries have voted on nFOG (4 yes, 2 no), fifteen have voted on 10-A (4 yes, 11 no), and nineteen have voted on Belhar (13 yes, 6 no).  While it is far too early to predict outcomes it is interesting to note that on 10-A no presbytery has switched votes yet from the last “fidelity and chastity” vote but for some presbyteries voting “no” the votes have been closer.  (Presbytery of the James had a 153-153 tie.)  It is also interesting to see that the Belhar is just barely making the 2/3 ratio it needs to pass.

In my mind it is easy to see why the nFOG has been tackled by the fewest presbyteries — It is the most complex and the longest and probably has the greatest long-term implications.  Extended time for study and discussion is warranted.  The Belhar being the furthest along?  I have to think that it is viewed as the last controversial of the three and a good one to begin with.  In a couple of presbyteries it has passed by an overwhelming margin, unanimously in Cimarron Presbytery .

It is also interesting to observe that two presbyteries, Alaska and Santa Barbara, each knocked out all three in one meeting and in both cases did not concur with all three.  No other presbytery has taken on more than one of these yet.

But with this many items in a time period in which we usually just track one high-profile amendment it will become very busy soon, probably just into the new year.  Stay tuned.

Historic Shift By The Plenary Assembly Of The Free Church Of Scotland

Leave a reply

I hope that I am not resorting to hyperbole to refer to today’s action by the Free Church of Scotland as a “historic shift,” but in looking at the history of that branch I have seen few points where they have relaxed their standards like they did today.  If you look at their lineage, their strong standards are one of the reasons they still exist as a Presbyterian branch — This is the part of the church formed in the Disruption of 1843 that did not unite with the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland in 1900, a union that eventually led to that branch merging back into the national Church of Scotland.  But I at least thought it was important enough that I made it my “Today in Presbyterian History” post on Twitter today.

Well, in the Plenary Assembly today the commissioners adopted by a vote of 98-84 an amendment to the Trustees report on worship that relaxes the church’s standards on what music is sung in worship and whether instruments may be used.  One important section reads:

The General Assembly ordain that, with regard to the sung praise of congregations in worship, each Kirk Session shall have freedom, either to restrict the sung praise to the Psalms, or to include paraphrases of Scripture, and hymns and spiritual songs consistent with the doctrine of the Confession of Faith; that each Kirk Session shall have freedom whether to permit musical accompaniment to the sung praise in worship, or not.

Dare I use the phrase “local option?”  OK, maybe I’m being a bit too snarky here.  On Twitter @Tribonian expresses the view that “it was a momentous moment, and one which gives protection and liberty to each side of the discussion. Praise the Lord”

Anyway, I still am reading through the live updates for more of the nuances of the Assembly and to answer some questions I have.  As far as I can tell there were no further amendments to the amendment.  And thanks to @BryanInScotland on Twitter for confirming that the Assembly decided this does not need to be sent  down to the presbyteries under the Barrier Act.  Once I have better confirmation on the final text I’ll discuss it in detail.

I will conclude by saying that the live updates indicate a wide-ranging debate with commissioners of differing views both referring to scripture and desiring unity.  Interestingly, that unity included over-seas congregations and groups that were interested in partnering with them but found it difficult with the strict understanding of worship music.  It should also be pointed out that the flexibility applies only on the congregation level and the amendment makes clear that higher courts of the church are still bound to use unaccompanied inspired music.  Another provision is that public congregational worship must still include some singing of Psalms.

A very interesting development and I’ll have more to say when final details are published.

The “Worship Issue” And The Plenary Assembly Of The Free Church Of Scotland

Leave a reply

Later today the Free Church of Scotland will gather in a special Plenary Assembly to consider the Report of the Board of Trustees concerning worship .  I think the best summary of the requested action comes from the brief news item on the Free Church web site and so I reproduce the core of it here:

The Free Church Board of Trustees have published their report with recommendations to come before the Plenary Assembly in Edinburgh on 18th and 19th November. The report recommends the following:

  • The rescinding of the 1932 Act, which requires our form of worship to be read out at inductions
  • The rescinding of the 1910 Act, which requires that ministers speak against “innovations”
  • The affirmation of our current practice, which is to avoid the use of uninspired materials of praise, as well as musical instruments.
  • The adjustment of the 1905 Act to stipulate that the form of worship in the Free Church of 1843 was as above.
  • That public worship occurs when a Kirk Session or superior court calls for worship.

So now that you have the basic information let’s start to unpack it.

First, a brief history of the recent developments related to this issue, taken mostly from the 2010 Assembly report and the Trustees report for this Plenary Assembly.  This began with the General Assembly meeting in 2009 when a proposal was brought to study whether the church should continue to restrict worship singing to unaccompanied “inspired materials of praise,” usually interpreted to mean Psalms.  The Assembly endorsed this proposal for the church to, as a whole, consider this topic and had the Trustees bring a proposal to the next Assembly and to send the request to the presbyteries under the Barrier Act.  The presbyteries approved the concept by a vote of 6-2.

One advocate of the introduction of more flexibility in worship music is the editor of the Free Church’s periodical The Monthly Record, the Rev. David Robertson, who wrote an editorial with comments in favor of the changes in the July 2009 edition (see point 3 at the end in the section “What about the Free Church?.”)

The Trustees returned to the 2010 Assembly with a proposal that included 1) “recognising the divisive nature of the worship issue and the desire on all sides not to be rushed prematurely into a conclusion” 2) that a special Plenary Assembly be called before the end of 2010, 3) that a Plenary Conference be called before the Assembly, and 4) “The General Assembly instruct Presbyteries to organise a day of prayer… focused on the issues pertaining to worship… and also on the necessity to maintain the unity of the Church.”

The Plenary Conference was held the last week of August and the church web site has a brief report that concludes with this:

The Conference was a risky venture. Many delegates feared that it may
have exposed, and indeed exacerbated, division. It turned out, however,
to be the opposite, providing a forum for discussion and fellowship. The
November Assembly will now have to make some kind of decision, which
will hopefully bring this to a conclusion (at least for the time being.)
We continue to pray that God will keep us together. If this week is
anything to go by, there is every indication that He will.

So that brings us to the Plenary Assembly that begins today.  The proposed deliverance has nine points, the one most focused on the issue being number three that says:

The General Assembly, recognising that the majority of Kirk Sessions have not been persuaded by the arguments presented for change and therefore either support the current worship practice or have no desire to move from this practice, affirm that the practice of the Free Church of Scotland in public worship shall be to avoid the use of uninspired materials of praise and of instrumental music.

The Trustees heard from many Kirk sessions with 57 in favour of the status quo, 25 favouring permitting flexibility, and 13 expressing no preference. But as the report describes, a number of issues came out of the Plenary Conference and some of the other points address those.  For example, there was some lack of clarity about what exactly the nature of the vows and instructions to ministers meant, so there is a proposal to strike relevant acts regarding those.  The conference also brought up questions about what the definition of public worship was, so point four clarifies this by stating “The General Assembly stipulate that public worship occurs when a Kirk Session or a superior court of the Church call God’s people to assemble to worship him, in contradistinction to meetings called for testimony, fellowship and other purposes.”

There are five amendments and addenda now listed on the Plenary Assembly web page.  One amendment requests the replacement of the main body of the deliverance with actions that would repeal restrictions and leave the ordering of worship as a matter for the Kirk session. Another amendment goes the opposite direction and strikes points three to seven replacing it with a single paragraph clarifying the action to be taken at Ordinations and Installations.  There is a third that rewrites these points, keeping the exclusive “inspired materials of praise,” but allowing instruments.

The addenda, by their nature, are more limited.  One requests a halt to the discussion, effectively maintaining the current state.  The other presents no action directly related to the discussion but instead requests more and updated material, saying:

The General Assembly instruct the Psalmody Committee to investigate, collect and, if necessary prepare from within the resources of the Church appropriate portions of Scripture, other than the 150 Psalms, in a form which accurately renders the thought of the original and is suitable for singing in public worship. The Committee is empowered to seek the cooperation of others with the requisite linguistic, theological, literary and musical skills and is required to report progress to the 2011 General Assembly.

There are a few bloggers weighing in as well.  David Robertson has a good pre-Assembly post that outlines the issues better than I can since it comes from someone in that branch.  It does have his perspective favouring change which can be seen in his closing:

The Key Question – is, or should be, what does the Scripture say?
And what has become abundantly clear over the past couple of years, as
we have looked at, and examined this subject, is that our current
practice is by no means the only mandated practice in the Bible – and
that few of our Free Church office bearers really believe that. We do
not have the right to bind the Church, or the consciences of Christians,
to that which cannot be clearly demonstrated from the Scriptures.

Given the above it is clear that that vows do not need to be changed,
the constitution does not need to be changed, and even the practice of
individual congregations does not need to be changed. But the Assembly
legislation should be changed to allow sung biblical truth and musical
accompaniment, in those congregations where it is appropriate.
However this must not be a free for all. Our legislation must make
clear that the Free Church is a Reformed church which holds to a
Reformed position of worship. We are not a ‘broadly evangelical’
church. We are The Free Church of Scotland – we will always be a psalm
singing church (though inclusive psalmody rather than exclusive) and a
church that is biblically reformed in doctrine, worship, evangelism,
discipline and government. The plenary assembly will show whether we
have the wisdom, maturity and foresight to ensure that that claim is not
a hollow one.

Hinting at having similar sympathies, but recognizing the current state of the Free Church, John Ross has an interesting article where he outlines a plan of study to go forward so as to preserve the unity of the Kirk. And I found the writing of Ethan Smith informative as he looks at the Free Church and praises their emphasis on unity and their “debating with charity.”

So as we go into the special session I have not seen any particular related activity on Twitter but the Free Church web site will be providing live updates. (And it looks like it might be echoed by David Robertson.)

On a personal note, I would mention that in the last six months I have several times heard Psalms sung in an unaccompanied manner in the context of public worship, usually in connection with the celebration of the 450th anniversary of the Scottish Reformation, and have found them deeply moving.  The Free Church of Scotland has several examples on their web site and I would also recommend examples from YouTube of  Psalm 33, Psalm 103, and Psalm 147 among others. (Or, for a change of pace check it out in Gaelic.)

Over the summer David Robertson issued “Psalms Please – A Plea ” that asked why more churches don’t sing Psalms.  One answer is that we do, but frequently in paraphrase form with no education of our congregations as to their origin.  Many of the songs of Isaac Watts are Psalm paraphrases including “O God, Our Help In Ages Past,” (Psalm 90 ) and “Joy to the World” (Psalm 98 – no it was not originally a Christmas song but a paraphrase, admittedly with Watt’s enhancement of messianic overtones.)  But most hymnals contain multiple pieces based on the Psalms, some more literal than others.  It is up to our biblical literacy and worship education to realize the ultimate source of what we are actually singing.

So with that editorial moment over I turn you over to the Plenary Assembly.  I look forward to their deliberations and appreciate that every deliverance related to the worship issue concludes with a call for the Kirk sessions to set aside a day of prayer for the church as it works through this.

Officers Of The Church — Prepetual Or Three-And-Out?

5 Replies

In my recent reading I found a convergence of ideas that I want to spend some time musing about.  The basic theme of this is the nature of the ordained offices of Ruling Elder and Deacon in branches where the office is perpetual but the service on the local board is not.  I have not done a comprehensive survey of this point of Presbyterian polity but in my experience the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is the only branch I am aware of that has terms with limits as the only option, in their case six years, then requiring an individual to go off the board (session for elders, board of deacons for a deacon) for one year before serving again on that board.  For many branches, and historically for mainline American Presbyterians, once your are called as a Ruling Elder of the church you continue serving on the session without limit.  You can voluntarily step down due to personal circumstances, and if you move churches you remain an elder but you do not automatically go on to the new church’s session.  And usually there is a process to remove you from the session should circumstances warrant.  But it is not the case that you leave because “your time is up.”  (The exception there would be in the sense of joining the Church Triumphant.    )

Personally, my service as an elder on session lasted five years (I was first elected to fill a vacant partial term) and in the 12 years since I have not been invited back onto my church’s session.  I state this only as fact and not as complaint because in those 12 years I have never ceased serving the church in the capacity of a ruling elder in other governing bodies of the church.

But my experience, vis a vis the congregation, is not unique based upon the numbers in the Presbyterian Panel background summary. PC(USA) Research Services, in what I consider a misleading and inaccurate division, categorizes their sample population into “elders” and “members.”  If you dive into the data you find that when they refer to elders they mean elders currently serving on session.  Furthermore, they report that of what they classify as members, more than one-third (38%), are ordained Ruling Elders.  If you take all the individuals that have been ordained as Ruling Elders or Deacons (or both) it turns out to be more than half of the “members.” There is a very large population within the PC(USA) that have been ordained to church office.  As we will see in a minute this is such a large group that within a congregation it is difficult to effectively use them to serve on the session.  The Panel survey is silent on other ways that this large pool of ordained officers live out their call in the life of the church if they are not serving on session.

Now consider how the survey question is worded:

Have you ever been ordained an elder in a Presbyterian church?
Have you ever been ordained a deacon in a Presbyterian church?

I’m not sure if they are trying to capture those who have demitted and are no longer ordained officers, but in my experience that is a pretty small number, probably so small it would not be statistically significant.  I would think that they could better reinforce the perpetual nature of the ordained office by asking “Are you an ordained elder (or deacon) in a Presbyterian church?” Or maybe they are recognizing that individuals may not realize the office is perpetual and phrase the question so that it still captures the respondents correctly. In that case we need to do a better job of educating our ordained officers.  But either way, the nature of the survey questions do nothing to reinforce the perpetual nature of the office.

OK, that is a particular point in the ethos in the PC(USA) that really rubs me the wrong way (in case you couldn’t tell) and that I have ranted about before.  But it is not just me… In the resource piece by the Rev. Joseph Small that was posted for the Special Commission on Middle Governing Bodies I found this (as part of a longer section beginning on page 4 that is well worth the read)(my emphasis added):

What led to the bureaucratization of sessions and presbyteries? At root, it was the bureaucratization of American society, and the church’s endemic eagerness to follow culture’s lead. But there are proximate symptoms and causes. In the 1950’s, Presbyterian polity was changed at several points for the very best of reasons, but with unintended, unfortunate consequences.

First, the understanding of “elder” as a called ministry within the congregation was weakened by the introduction of a regulation stipulating that elders could serve no more than two consecutive three-year terms on the session. This mandatory rotation of elders was instituted for one very good reason and one of questionable intention. The ordination of women as ruling elders had been part of (northern) Presbyterian polity since 1930, but most sessions had few if any women serving. Limiting terms of service on sessions was one way of opening the eldership to new persons, notably women. The regulation had its desired result, but this appropriate motive was joined by another, less noble one. It was thought that mandatory rotation would break the hold of “bull elders” on the life of the church, reducing the capacity of sessions to thwart pastors in their attempts to modernize and renew congregational life.

The unintended result of mandatory rotation was the loss of an understanding of elders as persons called to one of the ordered ministries of the church. Term limits for service on the church session produced brief tenure by an ever expanding circle of members. In many congregations, one three-year term became the norm, and the understanding of the eldership was transformed from a called ministry to merely taking one’s turn on the board. Short-term, inexperienced elders also increased the influence of pastors by diminishing the ministry of called, knowledgeable elders. This imbalance, evident in sessions, became especially pronounced in presbyteries where well-informed pastors were accompanied by revolving elders who knew less and less about matters before the assembly.

My thanks to Rev. Small for including the historical context along with his concurrence on the effect that I have seen of rotating elders.  I’m glad to know that this is a recognized issue and not something I’m just reading into the polity.

What are the positives?  As Rev. Small points out it encourages (forces?) diversity and additional voices on the session.  What are the negatives?  Personally, I am especially concerned about the loss of the understanding of the roll of elders and on this I believe the other problems hinge.  And, in addition to the lack of experience and the loss, in some cases, of the joint governance, I have seen another issue where nominating committees have to find someone to “fill the position” and it becomes more of an issue of who will say yes as opposed to who has a sense of call.  I, and others I have met who are in congregations with similar happenings, would rather see the position left vacant until it can be filled by someone who does have the sense of call.  In some times and places the position of ruling elder has become just another position for someone to help out with.

In his 1897 book The Ruling Elder at Work, the Rev. J. Aspinwall Hodge captures the weight of the office and the nature of it as he writes as a fictionalized elder nominee in the opening paragraphs:

The Pastor of our church has just informed me, that the Session has decided
that the number of Elders should be increased. This has long been
regarded necessary. A meeting of the church will soon be called for that
purpose. I am troubled, because the Session desire to nominate me as
one of the new Elders. I wanted to decline at once, but the Pastor
informs me that I should with care and prayer consider what may be my
duty. He urges that, while the communicants have the privilege to
nominate and elect their own representatives, they have the right to
expect the advice of the Session, as its members are in a position to
consider the questions involved more fully than the communicants can.
They are required constantly to observe the christian character and
efficiency of the members of the church, and are thus prepared to judge
of the personal qualifications of those to be nominated. From their
intimate knowledge of the people, they should be able to propose those
who would be most acceptable to the various classes in the congregation, and
who can best represent them. And being well acquainted with the
peculiarities of themselves and of the Pastor, they can best select
those who are qualified to cooperate with them in maintaining the unity
of the church and the spirituality of the members. On the other hand,
the Session ought not to be a self-perpetuating body. It should impart
the information which it possesses, and give advice, but the
communicants can nominate and elect whom they please. Our Session,
feeling the responsibility, had, after long and serious consideration,
by a unanimous vote, determined to nominate me as one of the new Elders.

The question is, therefore, distinctly before me,
and I must consider it. The deliberate judgment of the officers of the
church demands respect, and my Pastor adds that he knows that the desire
is general in the congregation to have me an Elder.

I recently found out about a training program for ruling elders at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.  This program, designed to be completed in two years of full-time study, leads to a Master of Ministry for the Ruling Elder degree.  The program is described to “help the
Ruling Elder function on the Session, Presbytery, and General Assembly levels in a biblical fashion.”  But they do add the qualifier that “the fact that Greenville Seminary offers these programs for the training and/or continuing education of Ruling Elders in no way implies that a seminary education is needed for the Ruling Elder to function properly in his office.”  I wonder if SFTS or Fuller will every bring a program like this to the Left Coast? (Or if there are enough other interested ruling elders to make that worthwhile?)

Before I finish this post let me present a thought exercise:  Consider a congregation of 240 members.  If we use the Panel information and figure that one-third of the members are ordained elders that would mean that there are 80 elders in the congregation.  I modeled this exercise on a congregation roughly the size of my own and my first reaction was that 80 was way too high.  However, after thinking about it some more I am now inclined to think that it is high, but not by too much.  For this thought exercise I will continue to use it. (And you will probably figure out that while the numbers are pretty close to my church, for this exercise I have selected numbers that give round numbers for us to talk about.)

Now consider a session of 12 members.  This is a reasonable number for this size congregation.  It represents 5% of the members and would be organized into three classes of four.  If we have a situation where every elder serves only one term so four elders from our pool of 80 go onto the session each year then each elder in the pool would wait 20 years between their terms on the session.  (So I have another eight years to wait.)

Of course, the situation is not that simple.  In the case where each year two of the four were eligible to serve a second term and agree to do so, only two elders would need to be drawn from the pool so the rotation would be 40 years between terms.  To add one more level of complexity what if we say that of the two “open” spots each year, one is filled from the pool but one is filled by a new elder, someone who is ordained to the office that year, then it would be 80 years between terms for those in the pool and the pool would grow by one new elder each year.

Now, this model does not take into account those that leave the pool by death or transfer, and of course it does not include elders joining the pool by transfer into the church.  In addition, it does not include those who due to age, health, or other circumstance are in the pool but not up to the responsibilities of serving the church any more.  (And I know several very faithful and dedicated elders who have inspired me who are now in this category.)

The bottom line though is that, if the Panel data is correct, each congregation has an abundance of called and ordained individuals, ruling elders and deacons, sitting out there in the pews every week.  How does the congregation continue to give them opportunities to live out their call?  How do we reinforce to them, and the church as a whole, that the office is perpetual?  If we are going to limit service on the session, how do we intentionally find ways to uses elders in other appropriate roles?  Should the denomination’s polity include provisions for limiting the number of elders so such a large back-log does not build up and individuals are able to serve on the session, and thus more often use the spiritual gifts that were recognized in them when they were originally called to serve on the session?

I want to leave you with one last image:  In about a month-and-a-half at least a couple of the elders in my church who are going off of the session will have to give up their name tags that also identify them as “Elder.”   What message does this send to them and other ordained officers not serving on boards about the perpetual nature of the office?  What message does this send to the congregation about the nature of the ordained office?  Just because they are not on the session and have stopped wearing the name tag do they stop functioning as elders or stop thinking of themselves as such?  What does this mean for the PC(USA) as a whole?

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Special Commission On Middle Governing Bodies Gets To Work

4 Replies

Over the last two weeks the Special Commission on Middle Governing Bodies created by the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) got down to work.  The 21 members of the Commission were named by the Moderators of the 218th and 219th Assemblies.

For historical perspective, the last General Assembly level commission in the American mainline Presbyterian church was the Special Commission of 1925 created by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.  In the report of that Special Commission we are told that their charge was:

[T]o study the present spiritual condition of our Church and the causes making for unrest, and to report to the next General Assembly, to the end that the purity, peace, unity and progress of the Church may be assured.

The charge that the 219th GA gave the present commission is a bit more detailed:

1.  The commission will consult with sessions, presbyteries, synods and the wider church on the mission and function of middle governing bodies.  Such a process should include:

a.  current diversity in the role and functions of middle governing bodies.
b.  demographics and financial realities that affect the role and function of synods and presbyteries.
c.  the role of each governing body in its oversight role–presbyteries of congregations, synods of presbyteries, and General Assembly of synods–both historically and in present experience.
d.  relationships with General Assembly agencies in role and function.

2.  The commission will develop models that reflect the roles of middle governing bodies in our polity and the changing context of our witness in the United States and their relationships with other governing bodies.

3.  The commission will prepare a report to the 220th General Assembly (2012) of its findings and any recommended Book of Order changes. Recommendation for future roles and responsibilities will also be made to the 220th General Assembly about changes in middle governing bodies that may best serve the PCUSA [sic] in the 21st century.

4.  The commission will implement, within the powers granted it, any decisions forwarded from the 219th General Assembly (2010) and approved by presbyteries regarding the form and function of middle governing bodies with the report to the 220th General Assembly (2012).

5.  By direction of the 219th General Assembly (2010), or upon a majority affirmative vote of the affected presbytery or presbyteries or a majority affirmative vote of the presbyteries in the affected synod or synods, the commission is authorized to act as the General Assembly according to

a.  G-13.0103m: “to organize new synods and to divide, unite, or otherwise combine synods or portions of synods previously existing;”
b.  G-13.0103n:  “to approve the organization, division, united, or combining of presbyteries or portions of presbyteries by synods.”

6.  The commission will supervise the Special Administrative Review Committee on Puerto Rico and act on any recommendations they may make within the powers given to the commission.

7.  The actions of the commission shall require a two-thirds majority for approval.

Following the naming of the members of the Commission I had the opportunity to be part of the first consultation the Commission held, even before the first face-to-face meeting of the Commission. Maybe it is more accurate to say that the newly appointed Moderator of the Commission, the Rev. Tod Bolsinger, came to our Synod Assembly meeting and in a couple of the break-out sessions tried a few things out on some of us. In return, I think it is fair to say, we introduced him to a few things as well.

It is worth taking a moment to introduce you to Tod, and while the GA Moderators have not elaborated on their decision, I think you will see why Tod got the invite to convene this group.  First, yes that is the correct spelling of his name with only one “d” and I will leave that for him to explain.  Second, his present call is as the senior pastor and head of staff of San Clemente Presbyterian Church in Los Ranchos Presbytery.  He blogs at “It Takes A Church…” which is a reference to one of his books, It Takes A Church To Raise A Christian: How the Community of God Transforms Lives.  He also mentions some church and leadership consulting activity. In addition to all this, he was the Moderator for his presbytery’s Odyssey group to re-imagine the functioning of the presbytery.  So he has a tremendous background in both the redesign part and the leadership aspect making him a good candidate to convene this new group.  (And as I will get to in a minute, the materials for the Commission’s first face-to-face meeting include a white paper from the Odyssey group.)

So at our Synod Assembly meeting Tod conducted two listening sessions as part of the breakouts that we did.  Both were well attended – the second was overflow – and in neither case did he get through his whole set of questions on PowerPoint slides.  Some of the points he wanted to make were:

  • The Commission on Middle Governing Bodies ( MGB ) is not looking for one answer but multiple models for the PC(USA)
  • MGB Commission wants feedback on “How are those governing bodies best organized to be responsive both to the Spirit of Christ & opportunities for discipleship?”
  • “Are the structures of history the best platforms for carrying our mission into the future?”
  • Calvin organized Geneva to “be responsive” to the immigrant community.  How do we organize to be responsive to our communities?
  • The Commission will be listening, experimenting, discerning. Tod says he will be looking for “safe, modest experiments”

Tod then started a discussion around a series of questions he had for us to answer. A few of the better discussion starters were:

  • What is a Synod? Why did you first get involved in Synod work?
  • What do we celebrate about being Synod? Who are the heroes of the Synod?
  • What do we want to preserve in our current MGB system? Conversation must start with what will not change. What is our risk tolerance?

I (@ga_junkie) was live-tweeting this consultation and this last question was rephrased in a response from @davehackett: Conversation must start with what is most valuable to preserve. (And the rephrasing was endorsed by Tod later on.) I should also mention that my tweet about the “safe, modest experiments” raised the question from @KathleenLambert about whether a safe, modest experiment is an oxymoron?

One thing Tod found out from this was that he had way too much material for the time available (one hour).  It also seems that Tod was not expecting me, or anyone else, to be live-tweeting or blogging this consultation.  I didn’t announce it but I was sitting there typing on my laptop throughout it so I was not hiding my activity. (This does raise the question of what is social media etiquette for such meetings — I had not brought my “I’m Blogging This” badge with me.  I think a lot of us presbynerds figure open sessions in the PC(USA) are fair game without need to announce our intentions unless told otherwise.)  The result was that I tweeted with my usual MGB hashtag of #mgb and at the end of the talk Tod (@todbol by the way) told us he would be using #mgbcomm.  A bit later that day he retweeted many of my posts with the “official” hashtag. As I will get to in a minute, the MGB Comm is encouraged, if not outright required, to be Web 2.0 connected.

The next event was the first meeting of the Commission in Baltimore at the end of last week.  Actually, looking at their docket they approved the minutes of an October 14 conference call, so they have been at work for a while now.  This meeting was full of the getting-started sorts of things, including the intro remarks by the GA Moderator and Stated Clerk, team building exercises, and the usual breaking into subgroups to begin discussion and work. The listed sub-groups are the Research Strategy group, the Emerging Models group, and the “Soil Tilling Group:” Preparing the Church for Change.

The meeting did include two presentations: The first was “Middle Governing Bodies in a Changing Religious Cultural Context” by the Rev. Eileen Lindner.  Via @lscanlon  we have tweets about her presentation (and in fact tweets about the whole meeting – THANKS Leslie!), including these two, the second of which was heavily retweeted:

Eileen Lindner: Measure church vitality differently – not by membership. How many come to pray? How many bring food?

Eileen Lindner to #mgbcomm: “Don’t be afraid. Be afraid of doing nothing and hoping for the best.”

The second presentation was by the Rev. Joseph Small titled “What is a Middle Governing Body, really? A Theological Perspective.”  This was tied to a 2008 resource piece by Rev. Small among the Commission’s papers about “The Travail of the Presbytery.”  One tweet about the talk from a member of the Commission, @miriamdolin, said “#mgbcomm ‘s task according to joe small is to recover communion among congregations. Wow, no pressure!”

There was also a discussion about another resource piece titled “’How Did We Get This Bureaucratic Model?’ or ‘What Kind of Presbytery Do We Really Want?’”  This is also known as Odyssey Group White Paper 1 and comes out of the Los Ranchos Presbytery redesign group Tod chaired.

I’ve skimmed these resources and they all seem to provide a good starting point for the Commission to begin discussions and discernment.  There are some points in each that I’d like to explore further but I’ll save that for another time since this post is getting on the longer side. But as the Commission searches for models and experiments it will be interesting to see how such proposals as the New Synod and flexible presbyteries are considered and evaluated, along with the continuation of synods in our structure.

As I mentioned before, this Commission was urged to get connected to Web 2.0 and social media.  Tod has encouraged all interested parties in the PC(USA) to follow him on Twitter with his handle @todbol and the mgbcomm hashtag.  There is a Facebook page which is a place for open discussion about the Commission’s work and it appears to be very active. And at the end of the meeting several members of the Commission popped up on Twitter with brand new accounts — We will see if this is mostly for listening or speaking.

According to tweets from @lscanlon, Tod ended the meeting with three questions the Commission will look at next time:

  1. What’s the function of a middle governing body?
  2. What definitions & terms should they explore?
  3. What are the changing realities of our world that affect our discipleship?

And wrapping up this part, a couple of things @todbol tweeted help set the tone – “The question of the day isn’t what we are going to do, but what is God already doing.” and “There is a yearning for presbyteries etc to do more discernment together. What keeps us from practicing discernment?“

That wraps up my summary of the meetings.  I originally thought I would add a bit of commentary regarding that question number 1 about mgb’s, but considering the length I’ll post separately about that.  I do want to add one comment about something from the meeting…

Based on a section of the White Paper one of the members of the Commission, @johnvest, tweeted “Discussing institutional isomorphism at #mgbcomm.” This piqued my curiosity since in addition to the biological and organizational sense that isomorphism is used here, in my field of geology it has application as well regarding minerals.

In an environmental sense, be it natural or cultural environment, isomorphism refers to the organism or institution taking on a particular shape based on, or dictated by, the environment it is in.  In a mineralogic sense it refers to minerals of different compositions having the same basic shape.

The geologic alternate to this is polymorphism — minerals of the same composition having different shapes.  The best known example is carbon which has one crystal structure for the mineral graphite and another for diamond.  A couple of other examples include the chemical calcium carbonate which some clams make in the form of calcite for their shells and others in the form of the mineral aragonite.  And for different pressure and temperature conditions, there are at least six different naturally occurring crystal structures of silicon dioxide, including the common mineral quartz.

My first question was was to wonder whether our present institutional structure would permit presbyteries to be polymorphic.  Given the same basic ingredients could different judicatories use them to form different shapes based on the local conditions.  Beyond that, does the new Form of Government currently before the presbyteries help us, or even encourage us, to be polymorphic?  Maybe the big question, given that Tod has already helped do something like this in Los Ranchos Presbytery without outside help, is what role does the Commission play to do this across the church?

Let me take this geologic object lesson one step further:  In mineralogy we have some fascinating mineral forms called pseudomorphs.  You probably picked up on the Greek roots and realize that this means “false shape.”  They are a mineral that has taken the shape of another.  But how this typically happens is interesting and possibly instructive.  Under the original conditions a mineral will grow within another rock and fill a space that has the shape typical of its crystal shape.  Then, when conditions change, that mineral alters to another chemically similar mineral.  But in the alteration it keeps the exterior form that the original mineral carved out for itself rather than reshaping the rock around it to its own new form.  There is a great page of pictures of pseudomorphs that shows the results of the iron sulfide mineral pyrite altering to similar iron minerals limonite and goethite but keeping the cubic shape of pyrite.

I probably don’t have to spell out the object lesson here other than to ask the question whether the present presbytery structure is actually a pseudomorph with an outward shape reflecting circumstances under which they were formed at an earlier time but now with a composition that would not naturally take on that shape.

Anyway, you hopefully followed my scientific explanation and maybe it will give you something to think about like it did for me.  Thanks John for sharing that comment on Twitter.

Well this process has a long way to go and the Commission will be traveling around the denomination for both full commission meetings as well as presbytery and synod consultations.  The next meeting is in February in Orlando, then the end of May in Seattle, in Indianapolis in October, and Dallas in February 2012.  Keep watching to see where this process goes.

More Official Presbyterians On Social Media

Leave a reply

It should be no surprise that I take an interest in how Presbyterians world-wide are adopting and using social media, especially those with some official ecclesiastical capacity.  So today I note a few new additions to the roll of Presbyterian officers on web 2.0.

The one that I am most excited about is a new blog from the freshly-installed Moderator of the General Assembly of the Uniting Presbyterian Church of Southern Africa.  The Rev. George Marchinkowski is letting us follow him around on his moderatorial term with a blog appropriately titled Moderatorial Moments.  My own excitement comes from the fact that we now have a window into a Presbyterian branch that doesn’t pop up on the interwebs too much, at least that I have been able to track.  So far Rev. Marchinkowski’s writing has been mostly narration of the visits he has made, but even that provides interesting insights into that particular branch.

As I said, this is one of the Presbyterian churches that does not get as much exposure from what I can tell (although it may have something to do with multiple languages in Southern Africa and there may be more that I can’t read and my searches don’t find).  The denomination was formed eleven years ago with the merger of the Presbyterian Church of Southern Africa, which was established by settlers coming into the region, and the Reformed Presbyterian Church, which originated from Scottish missions with the indigenous people.  A good article on the uniting of these churches and the UPCSA’s history can be found on the blog Grace and Mercy, written by the pastor of Centurion West Presbyterian Church, the Rev. Andries Combrink.

Turning to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly, the Rev. Gradye Parsons, is breaking new ground for that branch with his weekly videos on his own YouTube channel.  So far he has tackled the election of elders, a three-part series on becoming an elder, and this week he posted the second part in his future of the church series.

I also realized that while I have pointed out the monthly columns web page of the PC(USA) General Assembly Moderator, Vice-Moderator and Stated Clerk, I neglected to also inform you of the official blogs for GA Moderator Cynthia Bolbach and Vice-Moderator Landon Whitsitt.

So enjoy these new sources of information and insight into the workings of Presbyterianism.

How Bright These Glorious Spirits Shine! — Reflection On All Saints Day

Leave a reply
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.

Once again I observe the Commemoration of All Saints.  In my reflections last year it struck me that the year was an “easy” one, if there is such a thing when remembering those that have gone to join the Church Triumphant.  That was not the case this year as there were more friends than past years that went on to their heavenly reward, and more close friends than any previous year. 

Now, with triumphal palms they stand
before the throne on high,
and serve the God they love, amidst
the glories of the sky.
His presence fills each heart with joy,
tunes every mouth to sing:
by day, by night, the sacred courts
with glad hosannas ring.

So this year I remember the following saints who left their mark upon my life and for whom I give thanks that I could share the spiritual journey with them.

  • Jim – A gentleman, in the true sense of the word, who well into his 90’s was in worship on the Lord’s Day almost every week and who had a smile on his face that reflected Psalm 122, “I was glad when they said to me, ‘Let us go to the House of the LORD'” He loved to be with the community in worship and it showed.
  • Melissa – A childhood friend. I did not know the quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer at the time, but in retrospect I recognize that she was the first of my peers to reflect what he writes in Life Together: “Therefore, the Christian needs another Christian who speaks God’s word to him… The Christ in his own heart is weaker than the Christ in the word of his brother(/sister); his own heart is uncertain, his brother’s(/sister’s) is sure.”
  • Sally – Who struggled with trials for several years but kept the joy of the LORD in her life.
  • Randy – A faithful servant of God who worked hard to spread the Kingdom.
  • Irwin – Another faithful servant, elder and leader who showed many of us the great wisdom in a simple word well and timely spoken.
  • Scott – A friend who loved music, and loved to play music to God’s glory.
  • Myrna – A people person who loved those in her care deeply and was deeply loved by them.  She left a very big hole in many lives.
  • Lillian – One of the quiet, faithful members who doesn’t attract attention but when they are gone their absence is felt.
  • Fred and Leonard – Two gentleman who were both members of “the Greatest Generation” and who both spent an incredible amount of time working with young people.  Although they lived a continent apart they both had the same big hearts, unselfish giving of their time, were an inspiration to many that they worked with, and passed away with a week of each other.

I add to that list a friend of many of us, the Rev. Howard Rice.  I had the great pleasure of getting to know Howard when he joined our presbytery, saw him regularly and in getting to know him had several stimulating discussion with him. We agreed on many points of Reformed theology and worship and we disagreed on a bunch as well.  But I will always treasure Howard’s smile and the deep respect he showed for every individual.

Finally, in an unusual step for me I would also add someone I did not know personally, I only met him once, but even at a distance his life radiated so much of the gospel.  When UCLA basketball coach John Wooden died a bit short of his 100th birthday we lost not just a great philosopher but a great role model, especially when it came to his marriage to Nellie and how he worked at it.  While much of his life was inspirational, the effort he put into his marriage impresses me the most.

So a word of thanks to all these saints who in big ways and little, for a short time or an extended period, whether known or unknown to them, have touched my life and shaped my faith and life in positive ways.  As you have gone on to your heavenly reward this past year we are the poorer for your absence.  Thank you and I look forward to the great reunion before the Throne someday.

Hunger and thirst are felt no more,
nor suns with scorching ray;
God is their sun, whose cheering beams
diffuse eternal day.
The Lamb who dwells amidst the throne
shall o’er them still preside,
feed them with nourishment divine,
and all their footsteps guide.

‘Mong pastures green he’ll lead his flock,
where living streams appear;
and God the Lord from every eye
shall wipe off every tear.

How Bright These Glorious Spirits Shine!
Words by Isaac Watts, 1707
Versified from Scottish Paraphrases 1781
As used at the Church of Scotland 2010 General Assembly Closing Worship