Monthly Archives: August 2011

The Fellowship Gathering — Through The Tweets Dimly

9 Replies

Last week was an interesting week for me, what with the Virginia earthquake on Tuesday and the two day Fellowship of Presbyterians Gathering in Minneapolis on Thursday and Friday.

I did not make it to The Gathering so I have been trying to follow it from my vantage point over here on the Left Coast. News and blog articles about the event are starting to appear, but it was fascinating to track the Twitter comments and interactions during the meeting.  However, what I found was that while the tweets were interesting and helpful they were not enough to help me connect all the dots to understand what the Fellowship is and where it is going. (Guess you had to be there… )  What follows is not so much reporting on the Gathering but sharing my impressions from and about the social media content related to it. As Scott Keeble (@skeeble99) put it:

Gotta love overreactions to 140 char. summaries of a conference you aren’t at.

If you want to play along at home you need to check out the tweets with the hashtag #mn2011.  As the meeting was getting underway I did comment that I did not see a lot of use of the #pcusa hashtag and by implication there was a distancing from the institution. Several friends of different theological stripes informed me that it is indeed common practice to only use the conference hashtag and that nothing sinister should be seen in the use of hashtags.  I stand corrected and apologize for casting aspersions where nothing should have been read into it.

Now, if you want a good look at the best play-by-play of the event you need to check out the constant stream of tweets from Carolyn Poteet (@cvpotweet) who was the unofficial live-tweeter. Her stats say she is only at 1034 tweets ever — I would have sworn that she had 10,000 in one day last week! Of course, she hit her rate limit a couple of times and to get the complete picture you need to also check the tweets from @TomJHouston which she co-opted to keep the info coming while her account was in time-out.  Carolyn, thanks for all your efforts! Your tweets helped tremendously to follow along. (Generally tweets I quote but are not identified as from another source came from Carolyn and I trust that my quoting her in what follows does not stray from Fair Use.)

Also be aware that there were times when the participants split up into breakout sessions so if you see tweets sent at about the same time but on very different topics that is probably what is happening.

Moving on from the reporting to the “conversation” the first thing that impressed me was the theological breadth represented by those tweeting from The Gathering. In particular there are several people I know that I don’t think were at the meeting to sign up for the New Reformed Body but were checking out the Gathering for other reasons. I trust that they will provide their thought in the blogosphere in the near future. Based on the Twitter activity I make a back-of-the-envelope calculation that about 5-10% (100-200 people) of those present probably held viewpoints contrary to the view of orthodoxy the Fellowship seems to be promoting.

In addition, I was pleased to see at least three of the “big four” from the General Assembly at the meeting.  The GA Moderator and Vice-Moderator were there — Moderator Cynthia Bolbach made some well-received comments towards the end of the meeting, judging by the tweets, and Vice-Moderator Landon Whitsitt was his usual self providing a nice stream of insightful comments throughout the meeting. (More on this later) If I understood the tweets correctly, GA Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons was also in attendance and spoke briefly — as Seth Normington (@revnormsy) put it “Brief, rather opaque comments from ga stated clerk, gradye parsons. Nice of him to attend. Blessings, good sir.” There was no mention of GAMC Executive Director Linda Valentine being present and likewise but I saw no identification that anyone else from the GAMC was in attendance. [Update: Thanks to Jody Harrington’s comment below where she commented that Linda Valentine was at the conference. The text above has been adjusted appropriately.]

That leads me into a few observations about the meeting gleaned pretty much exclusively from the tweets:

  • Besides the breakout sessions there were also discussion groups. It looks like the higher governing body professionals and officers were grouped together in their own groups. I did not see an explanation of this and am curious why.
  • Carmen Fowler LaBerge (@csfowler2003) informs us “#mn2011 registration info: 950 clergy; 575 elders; 53 church administrators; 20 PCUSA staff; 68 presbytery execs. 300 didn’t indicate.” (That would be 1966 total)
  • Carolyn also tweeted the answer to one of the nagging questions I had: “Primary diff from New Wineskins – tone.” Another time a speaker is quoted as saying “I felt like New Wineskins got hijacked by angry people.”
  • Leslie Scanlon (@lscanlon) of the Outlook provides us with some of the descriptions of where the conservatives feel they or the denomination is – “Some metaphors used at #MN2011. Deathly ill. Stuck in a box canyon. Car sunk in swimming pool. #pcusa”
  • Because it is Twitter with a 140 character limit the acronyms were flying. Two that I had to recalibrate my brain for were NRB – which to this group means New Reformed Body but I normally think of as National Religious Broadcasters – and the FOP (or FoP) – which of course here means Fellowship of Presbyterians but in my day job is a professional organization.
  • There were questions from afar about the diversity in the Gathering but I did not see the questions answered.  However, at one point Carolyn tweets this telling comment “Potty parity at #mn2011! First time in my life I’ve ever seen a line at the men’s room but sailed through the ladies’!”

Going back to that bullet point about the tone of this group, I was struck by how positive the official portion of the meeting was.  That did not completely extend to the Twitterverse, but I’ll talk about that below. Based on the 140 character reports the leadership of the FOP is in communication with, and maybe even working with, the OGA leadership.  It was also made clear that  “we are not calling anybody apostate,” and “will not seek to demonize the #PCUSA in any manner.” And one final quote on this – “One of the ways this won’t be a spin off to a new denom (quickly), is b/c we don’t want to lose relationships w/people we love.”

Two big topics at this meeting that are inexorably linked are the New Reformed Body and theological beliefs, usually referred to as the Essential Tenets of the Reformed Faith.

Coming into the meeting the FOP had made it clear that the NRB (yes, I can throw acronyms around too ) was going to happen but that there were a lot of details to be worked out.  The impression I got from the Twitter reporting and discussion is that enough details have to be worked out and now this is a train that has left the station and is headed for the announced constitutional convention January 12-14, 2012, in Orlando. But the FOP clearly hopes for the NRB to continue in some form of partnership with the PC(USA).  One comment was “the degree to which the NRB can relate back to the PCUSA, and we hope it can, baptisms, ordinations, permeable boundary.” Another said “hopefully we can share some HQ functions – missions, theology and worship…” One of the themes I found most helpful was the description of what they are about in this sequence of tweets from Carolyn: “like-minded church to unite around a common purpose. from Phil 2:1-2,” “we’ve created such a broad tent that there’s no center pole. we need to establish essentials again,” and “need to make clear abt what’s at the center rather than police the
boundaries, so people can determine if it’s a good fit for them.”

Related to this is the question of standards.  At the Gathering the NRB was described as an “empty warehouse” waiting to be filled.  That is to be done this Fall when draft documents are posted on the web site, regional gatherings are held, and they are finalized at the constitutional convention in January.  There is a clear intent to define or state the Essential Tenets of the Reformed Faith. But this led to a lot of Twitter conversation about the standards.  There were comments about the return of subscription. While not necessarily advocating subscription, @BenjaminPGlaser, who was at the meeting, asked in a tweet “I wonder how many of the ministers/ruling elders at #mn2011 could affirm the WCF w/out major qualification…” (WCF is of course the Westminster Confession of Faith, a document that Presbyterians historically have included in the standards that needed to be subscribed to.) There were also references to Machen, particularly his final sermon recently republished in Theology Matters. To that TwoFriars commented “Machen’s fundamentals are NOT Reformed essentials, FYI.” Along a similar line Landon Whitsitt (@landonw) commented “I’m struggling to reconcile the fact that the “essentials of faith” being thrown out at #mn2011 are classicly Evangelical, not Reformed.” Craig Goodwin (@craiggoodwin) had a number of thoughtful comments about standards and in response to Landon asked ” …are Evangelical, not Reformed. Can’t be both?” It will be interesting to see what this discussion produces throughout the Fall leading up to the January meeting.

Going forward I suspect the real hard questions will not revolve around the theology, although they probably should, but around the “Three P’s”, yes pensions, property and power.  To put it bluntly – can you take it with you when you leave?  From the Q&A portion of a presentation on the NRB Carolyn tweeted “lots of Qs about per capita, pensions, etc. A – we’re not giving answers
at this point, don’t want to get tangled in the details.”  This turned out to be a bit deeper than it seems — they put off some of the discussion of details to a breakout on Friday but they are also putting off details until the relationship of the NRB with the PC(USA) is more clearly defined.

I want to look at this topic of the relationship between the NRB and the PC(USA) in more detail another time after the presentation videos are posted and I have had a chance to digest them.  Let me just say here that three possible models were proposed: 1) This might be accomplished with union presbyteries – a polity solution that already exists. [ed. note – I should have seen that before now!] 2) Create the category of affiliate churches or affiliate presbyteries like the current affiliate members. Requires new polity language. 3) Leave completely.  Regarding this, Carolyn quotes Jim Singleton: “Singleton – yes, this is gonna be messy!!”

Now, a couple of weeks ago in my pre-Gathering piece I suggested that this event was a Rorschach Test for those who had issues with the PC(USA).  Well, I see now that I was right in concept but wrong in scope.  This event was a Rorschach Test for the whole PC(USA) and maybe even for American Presbyterianism more broadly. But after the broad reaction that the very first Fellowship letter last February engendered I should have expected that.

Departing from Twitter for a moment it is important to note that groups with opposite views have posted very specific pieces on their web sites interpreting or making suggestions related to the Gathering.  More Light Presbyterians issued a call to prayer for the meeting and a related article.  Individually, Janet Edwards offered a suggestion to the FOP ahead of the Gathering, as did Shawn Coons, and Adam Walker Cleaveland wanted to make sure the elephant in the room got named. Clearly this meeting had a lot of people’s attention across the denomination.

So back to Twitter and the meeting…

First, in the interest of full disclosure I would comment that I (@ga_junkie) did not tweet much but did make the one comment I discussed above that could have been considered snarky, and also a second that could be taken that way as well.  Early on Andrew Johnson (@AndrewJohnsonYM) tweeted “New reformed body… no brand but Christ” which I retweeted adding “Starting to sound like the Springfield Presbytery”. (If you need the reference, Springfield Presbytery was part of the Stone-Campbell Movement that left the Presbyterians two centuries ago proclaiming “No creed but Christ” and led to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). )

The vast majority of Twitter comments I saw were constructive and contributed to the social media discussion.  Yes, a lot may have had a snarky edge to them, but I found few offensive and there was a general improvement in tone when the organizers made it clear that this new group was not about demonizing the PC(USA).

Yet most of the comments, my own included, seemed to clearly reflect the lens through which the writer was viewing the Gathering.  Exempli gratia:

DavidIvie1 David Ivie
#mn2011 why would a group convene to protest gay ordination and then on day one celebrate women’s ordination? no sense of irony?

David_Berge
David Berge
#mn2011 lots of people talk about “post-denominationalism” 4 better or worse #fellowshippres is actually doing something about it

rwilliamsonjr Robert Williamson Jr
If you want to leave, I will
bid you peace. If you want to stay, I will embrace you. But I can’t
relate to the leave-but-stay option

Stushie57
John Stuart
The future of the Church is in Christ’s good hands, not conferees nor ordinands.

joyousjava Lara B Pickrel
Sometimes our churches’ panicky attempts to keep people from leaving (for the sake of numbers) feels like idolatry.

craiggoodwin
Craig Goodwin
Pleasantly surprised by tone and focus of #mn2011. Did it take finally losing the vote for Presby evangelicals to get focused on mission?

Reading the events through our own lens or filter is not inherently an issue.  It is what shapes our diversity and understanding of the world and the conversation and listening process for others helps us to not only see alternatives but can help us refine, sharpen or adapt our own perspective.  Along those lines I have to point out and say how much I appreciated the tweets from Landon Whitsitt (@landonw) who was multi-tasking and reporting on the proceedings through both his open source lens as well as his progressive lens. This tweet captures his dual perspective:

Okay…I’m putting my cards on the table. Except for including GLBT
persons, I want a church that looks like what I’m hearing at #mn2011

Let me conclude by saying that in spite of some sharp comments in the Twitterverse I was generally very impressed by the depth, breadth, level, volume, tone, thoughtfulness and civility of the Twitter conversation around this event.  But the operative word here is “around.” While the live tweeting helped me know what was going on I still feel that I am looking through a glass dimly related to where this is going. The quotes that were passed on and the sessions reported on still seemed to reflect the influence of the core group of tall-steeple pastors. There seemed to be lots and lots of discussion of a New Reformed Body but I did not sense how that might have been informed or moderated by Dr. Mouw’s comments regarding why we need each other. And I am still left with the impression that tail number four may be wagging this dog. But this is only what I see from my remote vantage point via the Twitterverse.

So, as this moves on I am looking forward to several things. First, I want to see the videos when they get posted on the Fellowship site so I have the primary sources for much of this information and I can judge for myself. Second, I await written accounts from those who were there – something longer than 140 characters. (The Presbyterian Outlook has already posted several articles by Leslie Scanlon including ones on the lead off presentations, Richard Mouw’s message, the talk by Ken Bailey, and an initial summary. There are similarly one, two, three and four articles from the Presbyterian News Service.  In addition, it looks like Two Friars and a Fool are aggregating blog posts on the Gathering but I would single out Jim Miller’s which is getting a lot of Twitter recommendations.) Once I have a chance to view, read, think and digest I anticipate being ready to make some more comments about the content of the meeting.

Looking out a bit further the real test of this model as the open source community that Landon is looking at will be in the process for posting, consulting, editing and approving the new documents for the New Reformed Body.  At this point I am pretty much trusting Landon’s impression of the proceedings so far in its promise for development of a Covenant Community in a participatory environment.

Looking even further ahead, there is a good possibility that both the New Reformed Body’s partnership with the PC(USA) as well as developments in the other FOP streams will require actions by the 220th General Assembly and changes to the Book of Order. Leslie Scanlon captured this quote from Mark Brewer:

“This next General Assembly is going to be wild.”

I look forward to seeing how the development process works and what product it results in.  I also look forward to seeing how the broader church reacts as this progresses.  This has the promise of being new territory — I like an experiment and I hope you do too.  Stay tuned…

Between A Rock And A Hard Place

Leave a reply

Well, it is not exactly Scylla and Charybdis, but the Mid-Atlantic states of the U.S. found themselves in the shaking of a moderate earthquake Tuesday while keeping a watchful eye on Hurricane Irene.

I want to talk about the relative risks later in this post, but first a little bit on the earthquake itself.

As you can probably imagine Tuesday was an interesting day at work for me.  The day began with hearing about the other significant earthquake in Colorado. When I heard about it on the radio I was expecting it to be a bit further west in the more active seismic belt where I have worked (fifth from top and third from bottom if you really care).  But I found it was to the east along the front of the Rocky Mountains.  An interesting location but not completely unexpected.

Then about 11 AM PDT my computer ground to a halt.  Checking around I found that my Twitter feed for earthquakes had gone crazy and that a 5.8 had occurred back on the east coast.  At about the same time my email sprung alive with notes from college friends with questions or comments.  Now here was an interesting event. And it was the largest earthquake globally on Tuesday.

For a comparison of this earthquake to previous eastern US events you can have a look at the USGS Historic Earthquake list.  The largest east coast earthquake is the 1886 Charleston, SC, earthquake at 7.3 and there are no other east coast earthquakes over 7 on the list. There are no earthquakes on the list in the magnitude 6 range. The next earthquake is an 1897 event in western Virginia which appears to still hold the record as the largest earthquake in the state. In total there are thirteen earthquakes in the magnitude 5 range in the coastal states.  Then there are seven more earthquakes for which there is not complete enough information to accurately estimate a magnitude, but we know that the intensity of shaking was strong enough that we can safely consider them to also be in the magnitude 5 or larger range.

So, for the eastern seaboard that are 21 earthquakes in about 300 years or an average of one earthquake about every 14 years. The previous one? Nine years ago in northern New York.

It is interesting to look at the seismic hazard map for the contiguous United States.  An experienced Presbyterian will appreciate the seismic hazard zones for the central and eastern US.  With only a few exceptions we don’t know where major deep faults are and which of the myriad of faults are inactive and which might be reactivated. Therefore, where there is higher seismic hazard is where something has happened in the past, just like some sections of the Book of [Church] Order are there because something happened. In that part of the world seismic hazard analysis is reactive.

The western US is a different story.  We think we know where active faults are, can measure their activity and put hazard estimates on specific geologic features and not just broad areas. Hazard zones are more narrowly defined and we believe have better known values.

So with that quick intro to seismic hazard estimation, lets consider how it compares to other natural hazards.  The bottom line for much of the country is that earthquakes are the least of your worries.

A good comparison comes from an analysis by Barton and Nishenko for the USGS. They find that for the United States the probability of having 10 fatalities for an event in a given year is 11% for an earthquake, 39% for a hurricane, 86% for floods, and 96% for tornadoes. For a graphical representation of where you would expect these consider this map from Insurance Center Associates. There is a similar one from the New York Times. (And it is worth pointing you to Robert Simmon’s critique of how this map represents the data.)

Now, let me make what will seem at first to be a quantum leap…

One of the thing’s I appreciate about our Reformed heritage is the concept of Vocation. What this means in my field is that when I talk to people about earthquakes I recognize that there are usually emotional issues underlying many of the questions they ask me.  In a sense, I am not just an earthquake geologist but I become a counselor or therapist as well.  In other words, I am doing ministry in a particular and unique way.

What I have found in doing this is that to a given individual the type of natural disaster is just as important as the risk of a disaster itself.  It is clear to me from talking with dozens of people that the different numbers only matter to a point and that people have different personal comfort levels with different types of risks. This is brought home nicely in a split-panel cartoon that ran right after the Northridge Earthquake — in one panel a guy is up to his eye balls in snow reading a newspaper headline saying “Earthquake hits California” and in the other panel a Californian, with debris behind him, is reading the headline “Record Cold Grips Northeast.” And each of them is thinking “Why would anyone live there?”

Why would anyone live in earthquake country? Because they don’t like tornadoes, hurricanes or blizzards.  Likewise, I know people who have left California for the Midwest because they are more comfortable with tornadoes than earthquakes.  Some people like predictability. Some hate waiting for the unknown in a tornado warning and would rather not have the suspense and have an earthquake hit out of the blue.  Some have a sense of security knowing that hurricanes have a season when they hit and you get two days notice.  Some would rather have an earthquake and get it over with.  I think that I have heard it all.

Likewise I sometimes wonder if different Presbyterians have preferences for different risks in the church. I will leave the development of that idea as an exercise for the reader.

So to those between the rocking of the earthquake and the hard place of the hurricane, may you know God’s solid presence in the midst of earth’s uncertainty. To all of those who are in the path of Irene, whether it has already gone through you or is still headed your way, we lift our prayers.  To those in the epicentral region of the earthquake we pray that your damage is not substantial and is easily repaired and give thanks that there was no loss of life and no serious injuries. To those currently meeting in Minneapolis we pray that no tornadoes will go through town. And to all affected by the many different types of natural disasters we pray for God’s comfort and peace for you in the midst of it.

Fellowship PC(USA) Gathering — Some Things To Pay Attention To

8 Replies

I have to admit that for the purposes of blogging I was not really tracking the Fellowship PC(USA) Gathering too closely.  Yes, I knew it was coming up but I did not have it ranked too high on the news scale of the stories I was tracking. It struck me as a bit of a New Wineskins redo and instead I have been struggling to stay on top of other news items, especially in the midst of General Assembly Season.

Now, this may seem contradictory, but in the interest of full disclosure let me also say that personally I have been very curious about the Fellowship gathering and how it fits into the PC(USA) big picture at the present time.  In fact I was interested enough, and the questions in my own congregation were numerous enough, that I very seriously considered attending. However, family commitments are keeping me home that weekend and it seemed a long way to go for a two day meeting.

Having now put my cards on the table, I will continue by saying that I have changed my mind and now consider this something that all of us in the PC(USA) need to be watching.

What changed my mind? First, the size.

At the present time the Fellowship PC(USA) is saying that they have pre-registered an overflow crowd of 1900 attendees.  Checking some numbers, it seems that this will be the largest gathering in the PC(USA) this year, and I think it will make it one of the largest gatherings of Presbyterians in the world this year.

How big? Not as big as a PC(USA) General Assembly, but the PC(USA) Big Tent gathering had an announced attendance of around 1700.  The NEXT Church event was 350.  The PCA General Assembly had 1,183 commissioners and the Church of Scotland GA had around 800 commissioners.  For the GA’s, if we make a rough estimate that observers are about the same number as commissioners that puts their total attendance in the same ball park as the Fellowship PC(USA) is expecting. In the PC(USA), 1,900 members would represent almost one in every thousand of the total membership. If you want to consider congregations, the 830 congregations expected to have representatives make up about 8% of the PC(USA) churches.

Is it a minority? Yes. Is it significant? In light of the size of other gatherings I think it is.  The material from the Fellowship says “The initial planners thought there might be a few hundred people interested in new ways of ‘being church’…” This event has evolved into something bigger.

So lets be honest – to bring together the largest gathering of Presbyterians this year with a six-month lead time says something about the state of the PC(USA). However, I think it says more about the uncertainty some members of the PC(USA) feel than it necessarily says about the new organization itself.

Why do I say this?  Consider the developments in that time.  The Fellowship PC(USA) launched with a letter and a white paper which quickly needed some clarifications added to it. Early on there was a video by the Rev. Jim Singleton talking about a “new kind of fellowship” as a group mostly within the PC(USA), but maybe some outside it, and advertises it as an idea to be presented to the Fellowship gathering.  There is also an interesting video by Rev. Singleton where he takes credit for the “deathly ill” phrase and gives the explanation behind it.  Then in May, with the impending passage of Amendment 10-A, the Fellowship issued another letter that said “we are committed to starting a new Reformed Body without leaving the PC(USA).”  So having a portion of the Fellowship outside but in correspondence with the PC(USA) had been de-emphasized.  (Although it should be noted that one of the signatories to that letter is Head of Staff at a church that is now exploring dismissal, but keep reading because this letter has been superseded.)  The Fellowship also announced the hiring of the Rev. Dr. Paul Detterman as Administrative Consultant for the Fellowship.  On June 24 they announced that the main room had reached capacity and that registrations were going to be taken for an overflow room bringing the total possible registration to 1,450.

At about that time another letter was posted with new goals for the Fellowship.  They say:

The goal of the Fellowship is to form a new way for Presbyterian
congregations to relate, recapturing more of what it means to be the
body of Christ.  The mission of the Fellowship is to create an
environment in which these congregations can grow and thrive as
communities in covenant.

And they acknowledge that the landscape has changed:

While the original motivation for the Fellowship was a desire to
positively impact the decline and increasing dysfunction of the PC(USA),
the passage of Amendment 10-A has brought an enormous challenge into
the discussion.  Suddenly, a new reality has emerged in our
denomination, creating a crisis of integrity for Presbyterians who
remain committed to theological orthodoxy.

And the new Reformed Body outside the PC(USA) was back on the table:

One option under the Fellowship umbrella will be a new Reformed body
that, while desiring to maintain mutually helpful association with the
PC(USA) and its related institutions, will nonetheless provide a clear
and distinct identity beyond the PC(USA).  Documents required for the
creation of this new Reformed body are in process.

And in an interesting admission they say “We believe the new Form of Government (nFoG) provides specific options previously unavailable to us, and we are exploring these.” And somewhere about this time the name changed from the Fellowship PC(USA) to Fellowship of Presbyterians. (For reference, the new domain name fellowship-pres.org was acquired on August 11) [Update: The Fellowship discussed their new name and logo on August 16.]

The final step in this prologue to the meeting was a letter from the Administrative Consultant titled “What to expect in Minneapolis…”  I will return to this in just a moment.

It is important to also recognize that while this may be the most high-profile effort under way there are numerous other initiatives floating around.  One of these is the creation of Presbytery Committees of Correspondence. (News coverage by the Presbyterian Outlook, The Layman) (And for those not familiar with the term, “Committees of Correspondence” is a loaded term going back to the American Revolution)  In another development the Presbytery of San Diego has created an Administrative Commission to work with churches interested in moving their membership to them as a like-minded presbytery, “if the way be clear,” effectively forming a flexible, semi-geographic, or “fuzzy-boundary” (as I like to call it) presbytery.

So, in this present landscape what should we be watching for at the Fellowship Gathering? In looking this over I see a Rorschach Test in all of this – if there are 2000 people there will there be 2000 different opinions and expectations?  Has the Gathering come to represent a visible way of expressing protest or uncertainty about the PC(USA) without enough common vision?  In his recent letter Mr. Detterman admits as much:

As the spring progressed, however, and it became clear that ordination
standards and a significant portion of the Book of Order would be
changed, the August Gathering became the go-to place for many more
people with a wide range of different needs and concerns.  As the number
of registrations grew, so did people’s expectations.  Now with well
over 1,900 people attending, the “gathering” appears to have morphed
into a “happening.”

and

The 830+ congregations sending representatives have many different
needs.  Some are looking for a “safe” place in the wake of changed
ordination standards.  Others are looking for innovation and
opportunities for missional engagement.  Some are committed to
continuing long-term relationships with the PC(USA) while others will be
seeking assistance toward an expedient departure.  People who are
coming to Minneapolis looking for an ecclesiastical “silver bullet,” an
instant solution that calms the waters of their ministry will be
disappointed.

With that introduction the letter gives four things, or “tiers,” to expect:

First, for those happy, content, or accepting of where they are the gathering will be offering “ideas and options for nurturing Christ-honoring ministry in place.”

Second, some attendees will be interested in innovative and creative changes in presbytery structure. “A few of these models will be explained and explored.”

Third, for congregations not in a comfortable place in their presbytery “new possibilities for “affiliate” congregations will be introduced.” This will also include discussion of possible changes to be sent to the 220th General Assembly.

Finally, there is the option of a “new Reformed Body,” now explicitly distinct from the PC(USA). This goes on to say:

The idea is to recapture our core identity, believing that Reformed
theology has much to say to our contemporary culture, and that Calvin’s
original vision for the nature and role of presbyteries offers a better
way of relating to one another than most of us are experiencing now.  In
forming this new Reformed “body,” there is also the opportunity to move
with imagination and energy into the reality of a post-denominational
world.

The letter is clear that no votes will be taken at this meeting.  The letter says “We will be presenting a carefully-designed range of options, all covered
by a large “umbrella” of shared commitment to Jesus Christ, to God’s
mission in the world, and to each other.  Discernment and intelligent,
Christ-honoring discussion will be the heart and soul of our time
together.”

I have to think that there are a few more possibilities out there as well so it will be interesting what comes to the surface and what ideas and reports come out of the Gathering.

It will also be interesting to see what reaction there is from outside the Gathering.  There has been a bit so far from beyond the Fellowship’s sphere of influence.  Shawn Coons has written encouraging them to honor the statement on the web site that their actions be “mutually helpful association with the PC(USA) and its related institutions.”  An article from The Christian Century anticipates a strong preference for the fourth option above in a piece titled “Lull before another Presbyterian storm?“

I do want to point you to one more video before I go.  One of the keynote speakers at the Gathering is Dr. Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary.  He was gracious enough to take the time and speak with my presbytery and I understand that he has been speaking to others as well.  Los Ranchos Presbytery heard him and posted the video of his hour-long talk.  It is not exactly the same as what he discussed with us, but his perspective and passionate argument for staying together as a denomination make the video well worth watching.  (At our presbytery meeting he spoke more about practical ways that we could work out to stay together.)

So, I look forward to hearing about this gathering from a distance.  The official Twitter account for the Fellowship is @fellowshippcusa [Update: changed to @fellowshippres] and the announced hashtag is #MN2011. We will see who else is tweeting and blogging from the event. And as it goes, maybe we will have enough pieces of a large jigsaw puzzle to start finding a picture emerging.

[As a postscript let me point out that the Presbyterian Outlook was working on this event in very similar directions as I was and got their stuff posted over the weekend.  They have (at least) one article about the Gathering, another on the mixed signals, and an editorial.]

75th General Synod Of The Bible Presbyterian Church

Leave a reply

The 75th General Synod of the Bible Presbyterian Church will convene tomorrow, August 11th, at the Tacoma Bible Presbyterian Church with morning worship.  The meeting will continue through next Tuesday, August 16th.  The theme of the session is “The Essential Connection: Our Union With Christ.”

The docket for the meeting is posted and shows a mix of business, worship, prayer and teaching. All of the messages and workshops have titles that go with the theme of the meeting:

“United as Foundation and Building” (Eph. 2:20-21)
“United with Saints” (WCF 26)
“United in our Commitment to Peace and Purity” (forum)
“United as Body Members”
“United in Hope of Eternal Life”
“United in Heritage”
“United as Husband and Wife”
“United in Battle”
“United in Fellowship” (seminar)
“United in Encouragement” (banquet message)

And we can anticipate that some of these, maybe most, will be posted on the Synod Audio web page following the meeting.

Traditionally, no reports are posted electronically for the Synod meetings but following the meeting important actions and resolutions will be announced on the News page and the minutes will be available on the Synod page (on the right).

Other potential sources about the meeting include the Presbyterian Missionary Union which usually posts about their activity at Synod (and has posted the Synod announcement on their site) as well as the host church, Tacoma Bible Presbyterian Church, which does have a Twitter feed (@TacomaBPC).  I am not aware of other news sources or Twitter feeds or hashtags for the meeting but will update if I see any.

UPDATE: Have not seen much yet in news feeds, but Tacoma BPC is posting pictures of the Synod to their Facebook page.

So that is the rundown as I know it for this meeting. Prayers for their deliberations, I look forward to listening to the messages and hearing about their decisions.

Presbyterian Church Of Ghana And Their Stand On Homosexuality

2 Replies

For those of you who follow things generally Presbyterian on your news or Twitter feeds you know that a recent development related to the Presbyterian Church of Ghana went viral, or at least high-profile.

The specific development is a news story about an announcement that the church “is to establish therapy centres
for homosexual victims for counselling and rehabilitation in the various
communities.” But what you might suspect is true, that this is not a sudden revelation and there is more to this story in the church and Ghanaian society.

Let me acknowledge right up front that this conversion or reparative therapy is a controversial topic and there are critics and defenders in professional circles, the community, and the church.  And it is worth mentioning that in “western” circles the critics currently outnumber the defenders in all these groups.  A week ago NPR ran a story on this and with the critical listener response the story brought the NPR Ombudsman wrote a great piece giving more background on the topic.

Having said that, let me move on because I want to focus more on the background to this announcement than on the announcement specifically.

On one level it is important to recognize that the level of discussion on the topic of homosexuality has risen a bit recently in the PCG because the it seems to be a topic of particular interest to the current Moderator of the General Assembly, the Rt. Rev. Prof. Emmanuel Martey, and he has been outspoken about it.  About a month ago he did a radio interview aimed at an international audience with Isaac Kofi Amissah, host of the program “Alpha and Omega Gospel” on “Volta Power FM.”  An article about the interview is long and covers most of the standard discussion regarding the view that homosexuality is sinful.  Rev. Martey does give a hint about today’s announcement when it is reported that the host asks about what he would do if he finds a member of the Presbyterian Church is gay or lesbian.  Martey is quoted as replying:

I will approach such a person and counsel him or her and offer my help
to make him or her change for the better to please God and feel
comfortable to live in society. But if such a person does not repent
after all such assistance, I will not hesitate to sack or give him the
marching orders from the Church because if such a person is allowed to
remain there, his immoral action could go a long way to affect other
members of the church.

Within the PCG the opposition to homosexuality has become a significant theme.  Other pastors are also preaching against it, including the Second Minister of a District and another District Pastor who told the Ghana News Agency that “homosexuality and lesbianism are against our culture, which the builds society” and “More importantly, it was against God’s rules as the bible clearly points out”.

But it is not just the PCG that is currently making statements. Almost a month ago on July 18th the Christian Council of Ghana, of which the PCG is a member, released a statement urging Ghanaians to vote against politicians who support LGTBQ rights.  The press conference to announce the stance was covered by Joy Online (story republished by Modern Ghana) and in an account published by Church Ministry Center and another by the Christian Post.  The Joy Online article begins “The Christian Council of Ghana has condemned in no uncertain terms the practice of homosexuality in Ghana.”  The article from Church Ministry Center is full of quotes including these from the Rev. Dr. Fred Deegbe, General Secretary of the Council:

“We call on all Christians to vote against politicians who promote and support homosexuality.”
…
“We Ghanaians and for that matter Africans cherish our rich and strong
values on issues such as homosexuality and we must not allow anyone or
group of people to impose what is acceptable in their culture on us in
the name of human rights.”
…
“[If] this detestable and abominable act is passed into law, the
passage of a law allowing the practice of homosexuality in the country
will bring the wrath of God upon the nation and the consequences will be
unbearable.”

The Rt. Rev. Martey was at the press conference and made similar statements, and the Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Church in Ghana, the Right Rev. Matthias Mededues-Badohu, received coverage for his remarks as part of an article in Changing Attitude.

This debate, brought to the forefront by statements by religious leaders, is one within the Ghanaian culture in general.  Just before the Christian Council statement there was a report that President Mills had made a comment to the press supporting the opposition to homosexuality but Ghana News Now reports that President Mills denies making those comments and demanded, and got, a retraction from the government owned Ghanaian Times. But last week President Mills encouraged the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Ghana to maintain “the moral sanctity of society” but apparently without mentioning homosexuality specifically. Others are weighing in against legalizing homosexual conduct, including an Imam in an op-ed piece in Ghana Web.  Finally, there is a long article from Daily Guide which provides a more balanced and comprehensive look at the issue as well as a bit of coverage from the Council announcement.

There is at least one prominent voice with a contrary opinion and a voice advocating for LGBTQ rights, Prof. F. T. Sai.  Prof. Sai is an expert on population and sexual-health studies, the former chair of the Ghana AIDS Commission, and an adviser to a former president of Ghana.  And in this piece from Ghana Web he takes on the statements made by Moderator Martey, with his response paraphrased like this:

If homosexuals are too filthy to meet the criterion of charitable
Christian acceptance, then wherein lies the authoritative designation of
the Church as an unreserved sanctuary for the bereft, deprived and
destitute? Of course, a confessing Christian may or may not accept the
lifestyle of the homosexually inclined, but does such acceptance or
rejection warrant any provocative name-calling on the part of those
fully convinced of their Christian moral self-righteousness?

Another article by VibeGhana.com provides a similar report, but Prof. Sai is not without his detractors and The Herald has a critical and negative op-ed piece about his position.

As you might expect there is a lot of negative reaction to these recent developments in Ghana, much of it coming from outside the country.  The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission has announced the Coalition Against Homophobia in Ghana. And while the blogosphere has been covering the issue for some time, such as Doug Ireland’s 2006 article “Ghana: Media Leads Anti-Gay Witch-Hunt,” new reaction comes from Behind the Mask, Str8talk, LGBT Asylum News, and South Florida Gay News. And three sites, African Activist, Youth and Human Rights Ghana, and gagelouis701 make a point of contrasting the PCG with its partner church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) which, at about the same time as the Council statement, made its ordination standards more flexible.  On the other side, Samuel Obour reports that the PCG “would decide later this year whether or not to continue relations with
churches which had decided to ordain homosexuals in any part of the
world.”

This is not an issue that will resolve itself quickly or easily, as many other Presbyterian branches know.  It is also important to realize that much of this increased rhetoric is aimed at having input and influence in the election process looking ahead to Presidential elections over a year from now. And it reminds us that in many parts of Africa the churches, and in this case the Presbyterian Church, is a major part of the country’s culture and politics. We shall have to wait and see where this goes.

Presbyterian Mutual Society — Payout Begins And The Cost Of The Failure

Leave a reply

There has been a flurry of activity in the Presbyterian Mutual Society situation in Northern Ireland over the last few days.  The Administrator’s web site provides a nice timeline in their press releases.  The Court approved the Scheme of Arrangement (Press Release, FAQ) back on 4 July.  Then last Thursday (28 July) they put up an “almost there” notice — they wanted everyone to know that with the complexity of the bailout they were making sure all the conditions were met for the transaction to proceed.  Finally on Monday ( 1 August ) they posted the cheques. (Translation for American readers: “The check is in the mail.”)  The investors were getting their money the next day.  Today the Administrator put a clarification up on the web site about a mistaken report regarding the recovery amounts to the different level investors.

Needless to say, the media is all over this including the Irish Times, Belfast Newsletter and BBC. And the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, is getting a lot of credit for making this happen.  The Presbyterian Church in Ireland has issued a statement welcoming the payments and saying:

In particular [Moderator of the General Assembly] Dr Patterson joined [Former Moderator] Dr Carson in expressing thanks to
those who had voluntarily deferred a return of some of their money so
that others would benefit. “I would express sincere thanks to every
Congregational Committee and every individual who has opted to leave an
extra amount in the PMS so that smaller savers could be paid off first.
It is evidence that there is a spirit of kindness and generosity and
compassion within our Church. It’s been heart warming to see that those
who could have left money in the society so that the small savers could
get all their money back,” he commented.

The statement also expresses continuing concern for the investors who have had to wait almost three years for the return of their money, in many cases the tied-up funds represented a good deal of their retirement savings.

Dr. Stafford Carson has his own comments on his blog. He includes this statement about how the distribution worked out:

The other area of interest is the actual percentage required from those
who opted to make an additional deferment. Individuals and congregations
were given the option of leaving an additional 5% or 10% of their funds
in the PMS so that smaller savers could get all of their money back. I
hear that the response to that appeal has been so good that the actual
amounts may be less than half of that which larger savers were prepared
to defer. That is a tremendous response and shows that there is a
reservoir of generosity and compassion within PCI in spite of the PMS
debacle.

This leads me to a moral of this story. While there are plenty of lessons in all this regarding denominations running investment funds or mutual societies straying too far from their stated purpose, an article in the Belfast Newsletter probably has the most important take-away for those of us in ministry — The headline is “Savers tell of dismay at losing trust in church.”

As you read the story you will see that where the church members lost trust was not in the failure in the first place but in the denomination’s response.  You had to be a member of the church to invest in the Mutual Society but the denomination at first tried to hold the investment failure at arms length.  The story has this extended quote from Mr. Mervyn Redmond of Ballywalter:

“The church disowned us from the start and it just didn’t want to know,” he said yesterday.

“They
deceived us and we were told lies by members of the Presbyterian
Church, and we have been so hurt that we can no longer call ourselves
Presbyterian.

“I’ve never given up my faith or Christianity, but I don’t belong to a church any more.”

It is interesting to note that two of those interviewed for this story specifically single out Dr. Carson for his advocacy and compassion. (And people are posting their thanks to him in the comments to his blog post.)  As Mr. Redmond put it:

“Dr Carson never turned his back on us at any stage,” he said.

“There
were times when he was wearing two coats – he had to be on the church’s
side and he had to be on our side. He was in a very awkward position on
our behalf.”

There are a total of four interviews in the article, each individual having a varying degree of estrangement from the denomination and some from Christianity in general.

But let me leave you with Dr. Carson’s closing line which adds some additional perspective to the situation.

It would be good if, on this day of thanksgiving, those who are in
receipt of PMS cheques remembered the really needy people in our world
and considered sending a thank offering to Tearfund or Christian Aid.

Two PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions On Ordination Standards — A Plate Of Polity, Doctrine On The Side…

4 Replies

Today the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) released their decisions in two closely watched remedial cases.  One reason for the high-profile nature of the cases is the fact that they began their lives with G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” language, in the Book of Order, but as of last month that language has been removed and modified in the new G-2.0104b. Does the change in language make the cases moot?  The GAPJC said yes… and no.

If you want the summary and outcomes, here you go:

The case of Session of Caledonia Presbyterian Church and others v. Presbytery of John Knox deals with the examination for ordination of Mr. Scott Anderson.  The key quote in this decision is:

The Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Moot is granted, and the Stay of Enforcement is lifted. The only alleged irregularities set out in Appellants’ Notice of Appeal cite G-6.0106b and Authoritative Interpretations of that section as the basis of their Appeal. The language of that section was removed from the Book of Order prior to the GAPJC hearing of the Appeal. In granting this motion, this Commission declines to rule upon the application of a provision of the Book of Order that no longer exists. Nothing in this Decision should be construed to interpret the ordination standards under the new Form of Government, as that issue is not before the Commission.

The second case is that of Parnell and others v. Presbytery of San Francisco and results from the examination to ordain Ms. Lisa Larges.  This case was not dismissed but eight of the specifications of error were not sustained for the same reason the Anderson case was dismissed. Where this was different is that doctrine was cited as an irregularity.  The decision says:

The record does not reflect that the SPJC ruled on the Appellants’ contention that Scripture and the Confessions prohibit certain sexual behavior. While the Appellants’ complaint was based primarily on G-6.0106b, the Appellants clearly and consistently presented arguments at trial on the basis of scriptural and confessional standards without objection by the Presbytery. Since the doctrinal issue is central to the Appellants’ case, it was error for the SPJC not to expressly rule upon the issue.

The case is remanded back to the Synod of the Pacific PJC and the SPJC is “encouraged to direct the Presbytery to reexamine the candidate under G-2.0104b.”

OK, that’s the bottom line.  Now polity wonks, lets do some more reading.

Regarding the Caledonia v. John Knox decision what is striking to me is that while the decision itself is just the dismissal and relatively straight-forward, I did after all give you the complete Decision in the quote above, this is a longer decision.  Of the 15 commissioners on the GAPJC (there is one vacant position) eight signed on to one of the three concurring comments and five signed at least one of the dissenting comments. (One commissioner signed both dissenting comments.) So a lot of the commissioners wanted to say something and these additional comments essentially triple the length of the decision.

The concurring comments included commentary on how the General Assembly had issued a flawed Authoritative Interpretation, how the Commission could not consider broader issues than G-6.0106b because they were not raised in the appeal, how the Presbytery should have started over with Anderson under the new Book of Order language as suggested, and how some commissioners would have preferred to have affirmed the SPJC decision rather than dismiss the case.

The dissenting comments focus on how the SPJC decision is flawed because it did not address the doctrinal arguments (like the SPJC decision in the Larges case) and the flawed nature of the GA AI.

The catch of course is that while these statements were made in the decision, since the case was dismissed they do not raise to the standard of Interpretation.  However, the tension over the AI from the General Assembly that allowed scrupling of practice as well as belief has been substantial and that issue is reflected in the concurrence by Copeland, Kim, Cramer and Cornman says:

While we find the “Knox AI” to be flawed, we believe that the Presbytery acted in good faith when it based its decisions on its interpretation of that Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108 adopted by the 218th General Assembly (2008). G-13.0103r of the Form of Government in force at the time of the contested ordination examination states, “The most recent interpretation of a provision of the Book of Order shall be binding.” In this case this would be the Knox AI. The flaw of the Knox AI, however, is that it fails to recognize that any AI, regardless of who issues it, cannot modify a specific requirement of the Book of Order. An AI can interpret the Constitution but the only way to modify such an explicit requirement (G-6.0106b) is through the amendment process.

The decision in Parnell v. John Knox is more extensive, but eight of the eleven specifications of error are dismissed because “the constitutional provisions under which the Candidate was examined are no longer part of the Constitution.”  A ninth was dismissed because they found that the record did not sustain the claim that the presbytery itself departed from the Essential Tenants of the Reformed Faith by approving the candidate. There were two specifications of error regarding the SPJC not dealing with the doctrinal issues raised and only dealing with process. These are the errors that were sustained.  I have quoted the relevant portion of the decision above where the GAPJC points out that “the Appellants clearly and consistently presented arguments at trial on the basis of scriptural and confessional standards without objection by the Presbytery.”  The GAPJC decision is careful to also note that “In sustaining this specification of error, this Commission is not ruling on whether doctrinal error or abuse of discretion occurred, but only that it is not evident from the language of the decision whether or not the SPJC ruled upon this matter.”

There is a concurring opinion by one commissioner who expresses caution that review of ordaining bodies decisions should be done carefully:

The protocol for review by an appellate body needs, therefore, to be very prudently limited to those cases in which either an ordaining body or a Permanent Judicial Commission has very clearly erred or the process is so defective as to have deprived one of the parties of due process, such that there are extraordinary reasons for reversal. The duty of a reviewing body is to be discharged with caution and great deference.

He says that the only reason he can concur is because the recommendation is to have the presbytery do the examination again under the new standard.

There is also a dissent by three commissioners who feel there are no grounds to have the doctrine arguments reviewed by the SPJC: “For an appellate body to be empowered to micromanage the ordination process without there being extraordinary reasons would be ill-advised.”  They conclude their comments with the economic argument:

Both parties urged this Commission not to remand this case for further hearings as they recognized that to do so would not only cause significant and unnecessary expense to the church, but would also result in no difference in outcome. This Commission is charged with securing th
e “economical determination of proceedings.” We believe that sending the case back to the SPJC does not accomplish that charge.

A couple of things jump out to me in these decisions:

1) Previous GAPJC decisions regarding ordination standards seem to have been crafted so that members of the GAPJC were unanimous, or nearly so, in the decision. The decisions give the appearance that this was done by focusing on the process.  The variety of voices heard in these decisions, particularly the Caledonia v. John Knox, strikes me as a shift in tone and there is no longer an emphasis on high-consensus decisions.  It may be the change in circumstances with the passage of 10-A.  It might have to do with the fact that these cases have reached a level of maturity that all the procedural issues have been beaten out of them and they are now down to the core doctrinal issues.  Or it may be that the church as a whole has reached a point where we need to start taking these issues seriously.  I don’t know if others agree but looking over these decisions I sense a change in tone from previous ones.

2) Related to that, these decisions appear to me to be sending a message that the GAPJC  is ready to start dealing with those issues, maybe even wanting to based on some of the writing.  The feeling is not unanimous, as a couple of the minority comments argue for leaving those issues to the presbyteries.  But one concurring decision in the Caledonia v. John Knox case says:

Additionally, the Appellants, while arguing on appeal a scriptural basis for overturning the Presbytery’s action, failed to include such arguments in either their original complaint or the specification of errors. These omissions meant that this Commission was unable to address issues broader than the application of G-6.0106b in its Decision.

They almost seem to be lamenting the fact that they wanted to deal with this but could not work on that problem because of the structure of the appeal.

Now, there is an opinion that differs from mine regarding this, but as I read these decisions it seems to me that the GAPJC is saying it might be time to examine the doctrine at the highest level.  The caveat they place is that it needs to be done decently and in order by properly arguing it at the court of first impressions and by properly appealing it in the brief.

So the bottom line – In Mr. Anderson’s case the process has concluded.  The stay of enforcement is lifted and he is cleared to be ordained.  As for Ms. Larges, the process continues.  There will be another trial before the SPJC on the doctrinal issues, there will probably be another examination for ordination before the presbytery based on the new Book of Order language, and I would suspect another appeal to the GAPJC following the new SPJC hearing.  While this extends a very long journey even further, the apparent benefit to many of us in this upcoming cycle will the the opportunity to actually have the GAPJC rule on the doctrine and not just the process.  Stay tuned…

[Update: Note the comment below by the Rev Mary Holder Naegeli who was in the midst of this case. 1) The remand does not necessarily mean a reopening of the trial, 2) doctrine was discussed by the PJC in the proceedings but not in the decision, 3) The GAPJC consensus seemed to be that they would not accept the case for review another time.  Thanks Mary.]

“The Medium Is The Message”… Again

2 Replies

Well, I am back on the grid after a series of trips and time in the wilderness – a literal wilderness not a spiritual one.  I have a number of ideas outlined from this time of camping, work and reflection and hope to get them worked up as blog posts shortly.  This includes some thoughts on Landon Whitsitt’s book Open Source Church, which played into what I want to talk about today.

In my brief time back on the grid a bit over a week ago the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) released the PDF version of the new Book of Order and initially charged for it.  This was a break from tradition, both for the PC(USA) specifically as well as for Presbyterian and Reformed Churches in general. There was an initial uproar about it and a few days later the decision was reversed. As Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons tweeted (@gradyemp) “I will confess that we have not explained well the move to charge for the download.” With that the controversy quickly died down — We have returned to normal and all is right with the world again.

First, thanks to all who wrote me with the update that the download was once again free. I did catch it just before going off the grid again but did not have time to properly respond.  Now I have had a chance to reflect on this a bit.

Some observations:

1. Once again “the medium is the message” and the medium now is Twitter.  I have found it interesting how quickly a topic can get circulated via Twitter.  As one article says, “Twitter Does Not Supplant Other Media, It Amplifies It.”  This change was quickly amplified on Twitter and that is where the majority of the questions, answers, guesses and complaints were circulated, all in 140 characters or less.

2. As I indicated in my initial response the move to charge crossed a line that I am not aware that any other Presbyterian or Reformed denomination had previously crossed. (Please correct me if I missed one.) This does not mean that the PC(USA) should not have taken this route.  The fact that they started down this road, even if they quickly turned back, is an indication that cost recovery needs to come from somewhere, especially if sales of hard copies are dropping as more people acquire the electronic version. If the Book of Order is to support itself then as sale of print copies decreases it only makes sense to charge for the electronic copies. I am pretty sure that was the rational behind the move. The other alternative is that initial publication costs be funded through per capita.

3. As the quote from the Stated Clerk above indicates the move was not done well. Again, the medium is the message. In addition to the change being made with no advance warning or interpretation the license terms of the new version were not explained.  The copyright notice it carries is the same as the print version.  Does that mean that I have to pay $10 for every computer I want to store it on? Can I store it in the cloud on something like Dropbox or Google Docs? Can all the ruling elders in a single household use the same download copy? Can a church, presbytery or synod office pay for one copy for the administrative and ecclesiastical personnel to share? Should it contain DRM measures to control the use?  I could keep on going.  While the questions are currently moot the issue is that the world has changed and that electronic use agreements can not be the same boiler plate we are used to in the paper copyright statements.

4. A couple brief quotes from Landon Whitsitt’s book are applicable here:

In so many areas of church organizational life, I believe that part of the problem we in the church have is that we unreflectively mimic what we see played out in the business world. “Business” is hard to avoid because it affects so much of our lives. [p. 148]

and

But when we employ modern business practices unreflectively, we begin to internalize the value systems from which those practices spring. [p. 149]

Now, those familiar with the book may comment that the book deals with orgaization and leadership while this controversy has to do with the sale of a document.  True enough, but in making the decision to start charging for it did the organization reflect on why to charge or was it reduced to a “business decision.”

5. Speaking of Open Source Church, when I saw that The Book of Order download was no longer free my first reaction was that somehow violated open source principles. (And I was not the only one.) But it was only with a little reflection that I came to realize that the Book of Order does not even come close to the Open Source Definition.  Again, Landon had a lot to say about this as well.

Let me suggest that this incident says a lot more about how we operate than whether we are willing to shell out a few bucks for our constitutional document.  It says a lot about how we communicate with each other, or don’t communicate as the case may be.  As I suggest, if we have to pay for the paper version why should we not have to pay for the digital version. (Maybe the paper version should have a premium price to pay for the materials as well as the labor of putting it together.) But it also suggests that more thought needs to be put into the differences between an electronic and paper version in regards to how they are used.

Let me also suggest that the church as a whole should be open to new models.  How about an even more radical form of the Book of Order that I have not had time to pursue yet (so go ahead and run with this if you are interested). What if the Annotated Book of Order was online as a Wiki. Yes, it would require permission to upload all the text, but the idea is that the actual text and official annotations are displayed and locked, but us polity wonks generate additional commentary and discussion on the material.  It would be possible to include preceding versions of the text for historical perspective and language from other branches for comparison.  Think of it as sort of a Presbyterian polity midrash.

It is fascinating to view the interaction here of the top-down control structure and the new instantaneous bottom-up feedback made possible through social media.  The church needs to adjust to the media in many different aspects, if not embrace it, as the technology advances.