The Report of the Form of Government Task Force — General Comments and the Foundations of Presbyterian Polity

2 Replies

A few weeks ago the Form of Government task force (FOG) completed its work and released their final report for the consideration of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in June.  This is not light reading and it took some time to digest the report and the accompanying documents.  While all the documents listed on the FOG web site are useful, I found that I relied on the “ Side-by-side comparison of the current to proposed form of government” the most since it best shows what has been removed in addition to the changes in wording.

It is important to keep in mind the charge to the task force from the 217th GA:  The Task Force was to rewrite the Form of Government section of the Book of Order to provide more leadership to congregations as “missional communities” and allow for flexibility for governing bodies to best work with congregations in our modern world.  However, the basic fundamental polity was not to be changed, the presbytery was to remain as the central governmental unit, and controversial sections G-6.0106b and G-8.0201 were not to be touched in wording but could be renumbered.

The changes to the Form of Government that are proposed are of two types:  There are organizational changes that move sections around, consolidate chapters, and even create a new part to the Book of Order.  Then there is editing to make the Book of Order a “Constitutional document, not a manual of operations.”  To achieve this aim all procedural sections are edited out.

The organizational change that has gotten the most coverage has been the division of the current Form of Government into two sections.  The first four chapters with the foundational polity has been put into a new section now called “Foundations of Presbyterian Polity” (Foundations) and the remaining material kept in a smaller “Form of Government” (Government).  In addition, the Form of Government has been shortened further by moving some supporting material out of the constitution and into handbooks for the Committee on Ministry and the Committee on Preparation for Ministry.  In the reorganization of chapters the first four chapters of the current Form of Government are now three chapters in the Foundations section while the remaining fourteen chapters of Government have been reorganized down to six.

With the removal of the procedural sections how much has the Form of Government been shortened?  While page sizes and formatting make it challenging to get exact counts, the current Form of Government chapters 5 to 18 covers 112 pages in the published Book of Order and roughly 75 pages in the side-by-side comparison.  The new Form of Government is 64 pages as formatted in the report and roughly 43 pages in the side-by-side comparison.  These two measures are pretty consistent so without doing a word count the general appearance is that the reduction in size is by almost one half.

For comparison, the comparable document for the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, The Code, is divided into two parts with Part I having about 40 pages of structure and Part II containing almost 100 pages of “Rules.”  In the Presbyterian Church in America, the Book of Church Order is 346 pages long with 84 pages in their Form of Government section and something like the PC(USA) chapter 1 in a Preface.  The PCA BCO is sized and typeset very much like the PC(USA) Book of Order so this is a close comparison.  Finally, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church Book of Order has a Book of Government section of about 76 pages.

In reviewing all of the material from the Form of Government Task Force (FOG) the rational for the structural reorganization makes sense to me.  One of the reasons for splitting out the Foundations part on its own is to make it clear that those principles apply to Directory for Worship and the Rules of Discipline parts in addition to the Form of Government.  This is something that I have always accepted implicitly so I don’t have a problem making it explicit.  Likewise, I am not opposed to the consolidation of chapters in the Government sections.  Anyone who has flipped between current chapters 6 and 14 trying to figure out some point of pastoral search or ordination, or who has searched chapters 9, 10 and 11 trying to locate a specific section on governing bodies, can probably appreciate this reorganization.

However, in reviewing the details of the editing there are proposed changes which open up questions and concerns for me.

For purposes of length and readability I have decided to split this blog post and so will discuss the proposed new part, the Foundations of Presbyterian Polity in this post and in my next one will pick up with the revised Form of Government part.  So…

Looking first at the Foundations part, the FOG claims:

The new Foundations preserves the vast majority of the text of the current first four chapters. There are sixty-seven paragraphs in the current G-1.0000 through G-4.0000. Of those sixty-seven paragraphs, sixty-three of them have been brought over into The Foundations of Presbyterian Polity. In thirty-five of the preserved paragraphs, the new text presents verbatim the contents of the current text. Twenty-eight of the paragraphs preserved have undergone some revision or modification, such as the combination of several smaller paragraphs into one larger one or the revision of content.

The Task Force, and its members individually, make a big deal about the continuity between the current and proposed versions.  But some of the changes, while subtle are not insignificant.  The red flag here should be the 28 paragraphs that have been “preserved” but modified.  These include subtle changes, like old G-1.0100a that refers to “Almighty God” but is replaced in new F-1.0201 with just “God.”  Or in the next paragraph where “his Kingdom” is replaced with “God’s new reality.”  I am in favor of using gender-neutral language where possible, but this change shifts the theological meaning.

There are points where the editing does improve the text in my opinion.  One example is the Great Ends of the Church where the current G-1.0200 lists them in a narrative paragraph but the new F-1.0304 splits them out as a bulleted list.  Likewise, the current G-3.0200 is supposed to be about “The Church as the Body of Christ” but the section starts with the church being the “provisional demonstration of what God intends for all humanity” and the “Body of Christ” language is down in G-3.0200c.  In the proposed F-1.0301 that Body of Christ section is moved to the top and the Provisional Demonstration immediately follows.  Personally I like that better.

It is interesting to note what has been deleted from Foundations.  In particular, I would point to the current G-2.0500b which was not carried over to Foundations.  This section begins “Thus, the creeds and confessions of the church reflect a particular stance within the history of God’s people.”  I’m not sure why this was eliminated since I think it helps us as Reformed Christians to recognize and understand that many of our confessional documents were written to address theological issues at a
particular point in history.

I have two other stylistic comments about the new Foundations:

First, there are a lot less numbered sections.  While most of the words are still there the citation system no longer gets you some of the detailed sections as it used to.  For example, in the current G-2.0500 Faith of the Reformed Tradition there are six paragraphs, each numbered down to trailing letters and numbers (such as G-2.0500a.(1), a citation length that a GA Junkie would love).  In the proposed revision the only citation, covering the same six paragraphs is F-2.05.

Second, I don’t like the opening.  Now here I may be getting picky but sometimes the first line of a book sets the tone for the whole thing.  Here are the choices to open the Book of Order:

Current Proposed
All power in heaven and earth is given to Jesus Christ by Almighty God, who raised Christ from the dead and set him above all rule and authority, all power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. God has put all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and has made Christ Head of the Church, which is his body. The mission of the Church is given form and substance by the sovereign activity of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Church bears witness to this one God’s sovereign activity in the world as told in the Bible and received by faith through the confessions of the people of God. The Church recognizes this activity of God in the goodness of creation and in the story of God’s dealings with humanity and with the children of Abraham; in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; and in God’s sustaining, forgiving, and demanding grace that forever issues in the call to discipleship. The Church proclaims that in the one God’s threefold work it finds its assurance of blessing, its call to ministries of compassion and justice, and its hope for itself and for the world.

For me, the current opening section is favored.  The main reason I favor it is that it contains many recognizable references to scripture, including the very first phrase which is taken from the Great Commission in Matt. 28, which if we are truly interested in missional polity would not be a bad thing to start with.  Yes I know that the proposed actually mentions mission as the second word, but somehow the identification with specific scripture passages really strengthens the current opening.  As a second reason, and this may be tied to the first, I am just struck by the more forceful and poetic nature of the current version.  Now this is subjective and your opinion may be different, but that is how it affects me.

If I had to vote at this point on the Foundations part I would probably vote no, but only weakly.  As a consensus document I could live with it.  None of our documents are perfect and while I do have objections I consider them minor in the grand scheme of things.  In any of our polity documents there are places I would love to make changes.  And there are places that I consider the new document an improvement.

Having gotten through the changes to the Form of Government as a whole, and the new Foundations of Presbyterian Polity part I will finish up the new Government section and some concluding comments that I will post separately tomorrow.  Have fun and stay tuned.

Ordination Standards Post-PUP in San Francisco Presbytery Meeting this week

1 Reply

The next test case in the wake of the report on the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity is approaching the Presbyterian Church (USA) at the San Francisco Presbytery meeting this Tuesday, January 15.  At that meeting the Committee on Preparation for Ministry will ask the presbytery to declare Ms. Lisa Larges, a candidate and acknowledged homosexual, certified ready to receive a call and to undergo examination at the April presbytery meeting.

Like the other two cases ( Scott Anderson, Paul Capetz) this requested action comes with history.  Back in 1991, the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area voted to certify her ready to receive a call and informed the presbytery of her sexual orientation.  The decision was challenged in the Synod of Lakes and Prairies Permanent Judicial Commission who upheld the Presbytery action.  It was then appealed to the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission who overturned the Presbytery action and Synod PJC decision. ( LeTourneau vs. Presbytery of Twin Cities Area GA PJC Decision from the That All May Freely Serve web site since decisions before 1997 are not on the GA PJC Decision web site.)  So, Ms. Larges has been waiting since then, recently working as the Regional Partnership Coordinator for That All May Freely Serve.  Somewhere in that time of waiting Ms. Larges must have transferred to San Francisco Presbytery since there is a web page on the Witherspoon Society web site indicating that she asked the San Francisco CPM to certify her ready in April 2004 and it was denied at that time by a vote of 15-5.  So now, with the passage of the PUP report things seem to have changed and the CPM must have approved the status change since they are now bringing the business to the floor of presbytery.  There is an article in the on-line edition of the Oakland Tribune on InsideBayArea.com.

Two other notes:
First, regarding that particular presbytery meeting, this is also the meeting where I have previously noted that the Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow will be asking to be endorsed as a candidate for Moderator of the General Assembly.  I also found it interesting that the Rev. Joan Gray, Moderator of the General Assembly, will be present and preaching at the worship service.

Second, in a follow-up to the Paul Capetz case, the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area (note a trend here) canceled their called meeting of December 1, 2007, to consider his restoration to ordained office.  There is now a called meeting on January 26, 2008 to consider the matter and his “declared departure” and the presbytery’s Committee on Ministry has produced additional documentation on the case that you can presently download from a link at the bottom of the page.

PCA SJC Indictment of Louisiana Presbytery and other developments

Leave a reply

Within the last couple of days the initial documents related to the Presbyterian Church in America‘s General Assembly Standing Judicial Commission case against Louisiana Presbytery related to their examination of Teaching Elder Steve Wilkins have been published on the web.  We are indebted to Bob Mattes for the documents as well as an analysis.

The story so far:  The Central Carolina Presbytery complained to the 2006 PCA GA that Louisiana Presbytery had as a member TE Steve Wilkins who held theological views that differed from the Westminster Standards.  The GA SJC ordered Louisiana Presbytery to examine TE Wilkins, which they did and the GA SJC reviewed the case in October 2006 and said that they did the examination wrong.  Over the winter of 2006-2007 Louisiana Presbytery did an exhaustive reexamination of TE Wilkins and found that his views did not differ substantially from the Standards.  The GA SJC ruled again that this time the examination process was appropriate but in judging the examination the presbytery did not properly examine the differences in theology.  The result was that the Louisiana Presbytery is going to trial concerning their examination finding.

The prosecuting team has now issued their indictment of Louisiana Presbytery and Mr. Mattes has posted it on his regular blog Reformed Musings.  Specifically, the indictment has two counts:  1)  That the presbytery “failed properly to handle TE Wilkins’s differences” with the Westminster Standards.  2) “Louisiana Presbytery failed to find a strong presumption of guilt that some of the views of TE Wilkins were out of conformity with the Constitution…”

To summarize the remaining bulk of the two counts, Louisiana Presbytery was responsible to not just examine TE Wilkins and take his word that he viewed his theology in conformity with the standards, but they also were required to critically examine what he wrote and said, and “classify the differences” according to the Rules of Assembly Operations (RAO)  16-3(e)(5) (The RAO can be found towards the end of this online PCA Book of Church Order.)  In this section the RAO has three categories of differences: semantic, not out of accord, out of accord with the Standards.  Presbyteries must assign the differences to one of these as part of the examination process.

The indictment is a long document that also lays out large pieces of TE Wilkins’ responses to support the “strong presumption of guilt.”

In addition to the indictment, there is also a citation from the PCA SJC ordering a plea to be entered by February 1, and if a “not guilty” plea is entered, ordering the trial to begin on March 5, 2008.

In addition to the indictment and citation, Bob Mattes also provides a commentary as one of the guest bloggers on the Green Bagginses blog.  This is a great discussion of the details of the case and analysis of what Louisiana Presbytery did versus what the RAO requires.  I want to highlight three of his comments.

First, regarding the significance of this case he writes: “This is a landmark case in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the likes of which one nobody wanted to see but one which has become absolutely necessary for the peace and purity of the church. As such, the SJC is being absolutely scrupulous with its procedures, following their guidance to the finest detail.”

Second, it is important to remember who is on trial, not TE Steve Wilkins, but Louisiana Presbytery.  However, Mr. Mattes points out:

Of course, TE Wilkins isn’t on trial here, Louisiana Presbytery will be if they plead “not guilty.” However, it is LAP’s incorrect handling of TE Wilkins’ examination at the core of this case, which naturally involves his views in a major way. TE Wilkins doesn’t have to be on trial for his views to play a major role in the case.

Finally, in terms of possible results if Louisiana Presbytery is found guilty, he says this:

…LAP has two options open to it:

1. LAP can repent of its errors and demonstrate this by conducting a fair and impartial trial of TE Wilkins; or

2. LAP can leave the PCA with the churches that agree with TE Wilkins’ errors.

The Federal Vision theology is being discussed in several of the conservative Presbyterian and Reformed branches in North America and how this case plays out could (will?) have far reaching consequences.

In other developments, one of the things the blogosphere has been a-buzz over is a great summary of Federal Vision Theology by Prof. R. Scott Clark at Westminster Seminary California.  It is of moderate length but does a great job not only laying out the basic structure of the Federal Vision theology but discussing its historical background.

In one other interesting development, Pastor James McDonald in his blog Family Reformation posted an article by his friend R. C. Sproul Jr.  that was originally published elsewhere.  In this reprinted article Sproul is pretty clear that his beliefs are not in line with the general tenets of Federal Vision Theology, but he is still gracious to his friends in the Federal Vision camp.  He does not clearly come out and say they are wrong, he just says that he does not accept those theological ideas.

GA 101: The Cast of Characters – A Score Card to Identify the Players

Leave a reply

Enough of the more general material that focused on the theology and structure behind our Presbyterian system. It’s now time to look at General Assemblies specifically.  Let’s begin by looking at who is there.

God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit
While I won’t spend much time here, it is important to note that the whole system of Presbyterian government is based on the idea that we gather in groups to discern together God’s will.  As the constitution of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI) says, “Christ is always present in His Church and governs it by God’s Word and Spirit
through the ministry of men.” [ The Code, IV-15(2)]  The delegates to any Presbyterian governing body are not there to vote their opinions, or to represent the views of the body that sent them.  They are there to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (PC(USA)) Book of Order puts it thus: “Presbyters are not simply to reflect the will of the people, but rather to seek together to find and represent the will of Christ.” [G-4.0301d]

Commissioners
Here is where the action is.  The commissioners are sent by their presbyteries or sessions to gather together for the decision making.  From my looking around there are two general methods by which commissioners to General Assembly are determined.

For the smaller Presbyterian branches the general rule is that every church can be represented by minister/teaching elders and ruling elders.  In several branches the representation is every minister/teaching elder is a voting delegate and the session may select two ruling elders to go as commissioners as well.  The largest branches that use this system are the PCI and the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) which, according to their web sites and Wikipedia, have roughly the same membership at a bit over 300,000.

For larger churches this would lead to very large assemblies.  For the PC(USA) the assembly would number about 30,000 commissioners.  Instead, presbyteries send commissioned representatives to GA.  In the PC(USA) it is currently one clergy and one elder commissioner for every 8000 church members in a presbytery.  In the Church of Scotland (CofS) it is one quarter of the minister members of a presbytery and a corresponding number of the elder members of the presbytery.  While many CofS presbyteries sent their commissioners on a rotational basis, the GA passed a rule that commissioners must be formally elected, not just assigned on a rotating basis.

One additional category of commissioners will probably surprise many of you and that is deacons.  In most branches of Presbyterianism the deacons are purely an office of service not of governing.  However, in the Church of Scotland, deacons in The Diaconate are trained and ordained professionals.  While they frequently have a ministry of care and service, like social work, they are also able to lead congregations, if necessary, with some limitations on their responsibility and authority.  In this form of leadership they are in a ruling capacity and function somewhat like a commissioned lay pastor in the PC(USA).  Again, for representation, one quarter of The Diaconate can go as commissioners to GA.

Delegates
In most Presbyterian branches the term delegates is used for other representatives to GA who have official standing and usually have voice but not vote.  A significant exception is the PC(USA) where in committee the delegates have both voice and vote, but have only an advisory vote in plenary.

Ecumenical Delegates
For every branch that I have followed in the General Assemblies there are Ecumenical Delegates from other like-minded churches.  In some cases, like the most conservative churches, the number and diversity of the ecumenical delegates is fairly limited.  In the case of the large churches, like the PC(USA) and the CofS, there are ecumenical delegates invited from (probably) every member church of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and every Presbyterian branch around as well as the “full communion” denominations.

Youth Delegates
I know that two branches, the PC(USA) and the CofS, have one youth delegate from each presbytery attend GA as advisory delegates.  In the PC(USA) they only have voice in plenary, but in the CofS they can make motions under certain circumstances, but not vote on the motions.

Other Delegates
The PC(USA) also has student advisory delegates from its seminaries, known as Theological Student Advisory Delegates (TSAD) as well as advisory delegates from the mission field.

Moderator
Every Presbyterian governing body has a Moderator to run the business meetings and GA is no exception. The Book of Church Order of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) describes the position by saying “The Moderator of a court has the necessary authority to keep order, to expedite business, to convene, recess and adjourn meetings in
conformity with rules of the court.” [16-4A]

The manner in which the Moderator is chosen varies between the different branches.  In the US branches the Moderator is usually chosen from among the commissioners and in most cases must be an elected commissioner.  The PC(USA) system seems to be the most sophisticated with election to be a commissioner, then endorsement by their presbytery to stand for Moderator.  There can be a simple campaign leading up to GA with nominating speeches on the floor.

In the other branches a nominating committee usually selects a candidate from among submitted nominees well in advance of GA and it is usually an honor for long-term dedicated servants of the church on the national level.  While they must be elected by the Assembly, it is usually a formality at the beginning of business.

The most unusual selection process may be the one used by the PCI.  On a designated evening a few months before Assembly all of the presbyteries meet simultaneously and take nominations and vote on their choice.  There is no predetermined list.  The candidate nominated by the most presbyteries becomes the moderator-elect.  Now there is a process that really depends on the guidance of the Holy Spirit in a very Presbyterian manner.

In a few branches the Moderator can nominate, and the Assembly approve, a Vice-Moderator to assist the moderator.  In most branches if the current Moderator needs a replacement a former Moderator will preside over the meeting.

There is much more to be said about the Moderator and I’ll address that in the next installment.

Clerk
Every Presbyterian governing body also has a clerk who has duties not just to record the proceedings of the body but to be an ecclesiastical officer with other responsibilities usually including monitoring compliance with polity and guiding judicial proceedings.

For most branches, particularly the larger churches, the Clerk of the General Assembly, in some branches called the Stated Clerk, is a full time position and the officer has the responsibility for helping run the church between Assemblies and carrying out the Assembly’s actions.  They usually have a
term that covers three or four years and is renewable.  Clerks of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Very Rev. Dr. Finlay Macdonald and of the PC(USA), the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, have both served in that position since 1996.  Because of this longevity in office, employment between Assemblies, and responsibility for polity interpretation, the Clerks of General Assembly are frequently viewed, rightly or wrongly, as the most influential or powerful individuals in a church.

Frequently an Assembly will also have other subordinate clerks assisting the main clerk. I don’t know if it is their intrinsic personality, or the fact that since they are not in the top job they don’t have to be as concerned with “upholding the dignity of the office,” but Depute Clerk
Reverend Dr Marjory A. MacLean of the CofS and Associate State Clerk Reverend Gradye Parsons of the PCUSA have always struck me as a bit more “colorful” than their bosses.

Other Officials
In some rare circumstances there are others who have some official standing at the Assembly.  The most obvious case I know of is the Lord High Commissioner at the GA of the Church of Scotland.  The CofS is not the state church, but it is the national church, so there is always a Lord High Commissioner at the Assembly as the representative of the crown.  On occasion the monarch is in attendance, but usually it is a friend who has connections to the CofS or sometimes, like 2007, it is one of her children or another relative.  In general, the Lord High Commissioner has no voice or vote during debate (although on rare occasion the individual is a presbytery commissioner as well) but does deliver a speech at the beginning and end of the Assembly.

Corresponding Members
At most Assemblies certain individuals are accorded the position of corresponding members.  The individuals who most commonly hold this status are former Moderators of the Assembly.  In addition, representatives of certain committees and in the PC(USA) Stated Clerks of Synods are corresponding members.  In general, corresponding members have voice in floor debate but no committee membership and no vote.

Committee Chairs
These are not the chairs of committees made up of Assembly commissioners, but the chairs, moderators, or conveners of committees of the church that are bringing business to the Assembly.  While I will discuss the business of the GA’s in another installment, I will say at this point that much of the business of a GA comes from committees that have been working in the time between Assemblies.  In many GA’s these committee chairs directly present their business to the Assembly for information and possibly action.  In certain cases, like the PC(USA), while some committees, like the nominating committee, report directly to the Assembly through their chair, in most other cases the committee reports through an Assembly committee and the commissioner chairing the Assembly committee reports, with the other committee chair speaking during the report.

Worship Leaders
During the Assembly meeting time there are scheduled and unscheduled times of worship.  The unscheduled times can be gathering times when commissioners and delegates are returning from a break, when a short break is needed in the docket, or to prepare the commissioners and delegates to vote on an important issue.

Many times the Assembly Moderator will call upon a commissioner with musical gifts to regularly lead worship singing during the Assembly.  This is not an official position but a use of gifts for the service of God.  One exception that I know if is the Church of Scotland where the Assembly, like many of the churches, has a Precentor, who has the official duty of leading singing.

Staff
Not much to say here.  Throughout an Assembly, especially a large one, there are numerous paid staff and volunteers running around making sure things run smoothly and people and documents are taken care of.  Many times specific people have specific duties.  For example, in the PC(USA), presbytery stated clerks staff the microphone stations and help advise commissioners on writing amendments and parliamentary procedure, and theology students are used as runners to deliver documents to the commissioners and delegates.  Other experienced individuals, frequently presbytery or synod staff, serve as resource staff to Assembly committees.

Observers
Finally, there is the rest of us.  Many of us do attend GA’s in no official capacity to see the church at work, experience the many associated activities, and find out first hand what is going on both on the Assembly floor and off.

Concluding Notes
As a general rule the different players at a GA can be identified by different colored badges that allow access to different areas.

Commissioners can develop various reputations over the course of an Assembly and the staff of the Church of Scotland keeps track of the number of times a commissioner jumps up to the microphone.  Their “jack in the box commissioner” at the 2007 GA jumped up to the microphone 15 times with two other commissioners in double digits.  (Sorry, my link for this audio update is now broken.)

Well, I think that about covers the cast of characters at a General Assembly.  Let me know if I overlooked anyone.  Next, I’ll go back and look at the Moderator in more detail in my next installment: The Moderator – All things in moderation.

What is “Contemporary” Worship Music?

Leave a reply

What is “Contemporary” worship music?  As I participated in worship yesterday morning that was a question running through my mind.  As I talked with my wife and daughter following the service it turns out that was the question running through their thoughts as well.

What helped focus our minds on this topic was our annual ritual of celebrating Christmas with the extended family.  This year the tally for the Fourth Sunday in Advent and Christmas Eve, December 23 and 24, was five worship services at three churches in two days.  Throw in yesterday’s service and we have had a well rounded week of worship variety.

At one of those churches worship was “high church” or at least “high church music.”  This was not by anyone’s measure contemporary and the church justifiably prides itself on its sophisticated worship music.  As I joked with my family on the way home, “At least this year the words were all in English.”  No Latin or Medieval French this year.  But this church is no stranger to “contemporary worship,” having started a contemporary service over 30 years ago but again with “sophisticated” music appropriate to the church’s tradition.  They used material like Avery and Marsh and some of the contemporary music now found in the current Presbyterian Hymnal.  If you excuse the oxymoron, it is what I have come to think of as “traditional contemporary.”  Maybe “institutional contemporary” is more accurate.

On the other end was my daughter’s “seeker sensitive” church.  Instrumentation was “modern rock band” and selection was mostly from current Christian artists, although there was a high-energy version of “Hark, the Herald Angels Sing” with the recognizable melody.

In between was the “Contemporary” service at a main-line (non-Presbyterian) church.  This service uses the traditional praise band, bank of vocalists, and words projected on the overhead screens.  In terms of the overall tone of worship, the usual elements of worship are present and the sermon is delivered in a traditional manner, no drama or video clips.  But what struck me about the service music, especially from Sunday December 24, was that the list and order of songs was probably the same as it was last year.  In fact, it was probably about the same as when we were there ten years ago.  In worship yesterday the songs were more varied with some that I sang twenty years ago and some are of recent vintage, according to my daughter.  It is services like these, with old and well worn music and a low key praise band, that strike me as being “just contemporary enough” that traditionalists are not too uncomfortable but the congregation can point to it as “contemporary.”

So there are three worship styles, all self-identified as contemporary, but all VERY different in their style and approach.  As my family was discussing, “contemporary” is not a clear term but can mean many different things.

In thinking about it, contemporary now seems to be not so much about what it is, but about what it is not.  “Contemporary” is not traditional.  “Traditional” is music in fixed metre and verses, played on an organ, piano or maybe traditional instruments, sung by a congregation standing in the pews using denominational hymnals.  That is what contemporary is not.

Now I suspect that there is an accepted vocabulary out there to describe these different flavors of contemporary.  But the ultimate question that I have been pondering for a while is when does a “contemporary” liturgy and style become so well established, like the main-line service that has seemed the same for the last ten years, that it is no longer truly contemporary?

Territorial Disputes in Malawi between Synods – Update

Leave a reply

I first caught this news story fifteen months ago and posted about it then.  I am surprised that I had not seen any further news on it until this week.  But while there is an update this week, the responses and “back story” seem to be representative of Presbyterian controversies elsewhere (or is that everywhere?).

The earlier post has a bit more background, but just briefly, the geographic Livingstonia Synod in Malawi, part of the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian (CCAP), was talking about establishing a non-geographic presbytery based on a language group that would include churches within the bounds of the neighboring Nkhoma Synod.  This was without the coordination of the Nkhoma Synod and they were not agreeable to it.

Well this week the Nyasa Times on their web site published an article in which the General Secretary of the Livingstonia Synod, Reverend Matiya Nkhoma, confirmed that a 19th presbytery had been formed and that its offices would be in Lilongwe within Nkhoma Synod.  Based on the quotes in the article Rev. Nkhoma presents this issue as resolved saying “As Livingstonia Synod, we recognize churches Nkhoma has in our mission area. This matter is over.”  (And no that is not a typo, the second name of the General Secretary is the same as the name of the adjoining synod according to the article.)

Well, Nkhoma Synod does not think it is resolved.  According to the article:

General Secretary for Nkhoma Synod, Reverend Davidson Chifungo said a commission of inquiry instituted by the General Assembly recommended that all churches in the border areas belonging to either of the synods ought to be handed over to owners of the mission area.

It goes on to say that Livingstonia Synod has not been very Christian in resolving this dispute.

The first thing that jumps out at me is the differing views of this controversy from the different sides.  One says it is resolved, or can be quickly and quietly, the other is implying the General Assembly will need to look at it.  This is the same at the dispute over women ministers that just broke out in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland that I blogged about a couple of days ago.

The thing that was more interesting to me was that the article from the Nyasa Times web site has comments at the bottom where the (currently) four contributers provide local insight and history to the dispute.  One comments that this was supposed to have been settled almost 40 years ago when there was a similar dispute at that time and geographic boundaries were set down.  The next talks about how the problem began with movement of people groups due to economic opportunities and how Nkhoma Synod had jumped over Livingstonia first a while back.  It strikes me that the basic nature of these issues is not unique to those governing bodies in those places but we see variations on it throughout the various branches of the Presbyterian church (and other churches as well).

It sounds like this issue is escalating so there may be more news on it in the next few months.  In surfing around I have not yet been able to determine when the next General Assembly of the CCAP will be but I’ll keep looking.

Presbytery Meeting by Video Conference

1 Reply

I don’t know if this is a first for any Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) presbytery, but it is the first for the Presbytery of the Northern Plains and the first one I have heard of.

On Friday January 25, 2008, the presbytery will gather at four video conference sites the presbytery has established and meet together electronically.  The web page for the presbytery meeting says that presbytery committees have been meeting at these sites, all at churches across the presbytery, for over a year.  This meeting, being the first of the calendar year, will include the installation of the new moderator and vice-moderator as well as communion.

From the geography involved the desire to video conference is understandable.  The presbytery is the whole state of North Dakota plus the northwest corner of Minnesota and just a small piece of Montana.  Since the other two presbytery meetings of the year are listed as two day meetings at specific locations, this appears to be an accommodation for winter weather on the high plains.

However, I would not be surprised if another geographically large presbytery has already done this and I am sure that more will since the technology is available.  There is obviously a balance here between the desire to be more cost and time efficient with our meetings and the recognition that we are a covenant community that does meet together to govern the church.  The use of four sub-sites is a nice way to try to strike the balance.  I hope to get some reaction to how it works out.

Controversy over Women Ministers in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland

Leave a reply

A controversy has broken out in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI) over the ordination of women, particularly as ministers.

For background, the PCI has had female elders since the 1920’s and the General Assembly approved the ordination of women in 1973.

Now, in the Northern Ireland city of Portadown two PCI churches, First Portadown and Armagh Road Church have held a joint Christmas service for over 60 years.  However, this year the Rev. Stafford Carson, the pastor at First Protadown, which was scheduled to be the host church, extended the invitation for Armagh Road to join them, but specifically excluded their new female minister, the Rev. Christina Bradley, from preaching, as is the tradition.  The Armagh Road Church declined the invitation if it came with those conditions and for the first time in 60 years the two churches held separate services.

This has developed into a national debate in the PCI, as well as in Irish Society.  The news broke before Christmas, including an article in the Belfast Telegraph.  Since then the Belfast Telegraph has printed a well written opinion piece that outlines many of the details as well as setting out the implications going forward.

The Rev. Bradley says that she will bring this to the church’s 2008 General Assembly while those who oppose the ordination of women, welcome the opportunity to overturn the 1973 GA decision.  The Belfast Telegraph opinion piece seems to think there is a very real chance of a split in the PCI over this:

The Presbyterian Church may wish to prevent a split, but it cannot afford to sit on the fence. The General Assembly needs to decide its policy and implement it at the earliest opportunity.

Either it ratifies its policy of ordaining women – and instructs all serving clergy to fall in line – or it takes a step back into the dark ages and decides to banish women from the pulpit. Further equivocation will undermine the church’s credibility.

The Moderator of the General Assembly of the PCI, Dr. John Finlay, has gotten involved and met with the two ministers in Portadown over the last few days.  The Belfast Telegraph published an article with his comments in today’s edition.  In the article he suggests that this can be resolved quickly and locally and will not become an issue for the GA:

I am confident the two churches can resolve the issue between them. Both ministers are reasonable people.

I do not minimise the problem, but we must continue to reconcile the two schools of thought over women ministers in the Presbyterian Church.

However, the article goes on to quote Dr. Finlay to say:

But there are conscientious objectors who interpret the Scriptures differently and the Church allows their freedom of conscience,

This is the law of the Church. We have to accommodate both points of view, or the Church could be torn apart.

There has to be a counter-balance so that ministers have control of who enters their pulpit and Stafford Carson exercised that right according to his conscience.

Mrs Bradley may see it as discrimination against women, but I tried to reassure her it was simply to square a circle within the Presbyterian Church.

But in contrast, the article closes with Rev. Bradley’s comment that “I cannot see it otherwise than discrimination.”

That doesn’t make it sound like it will be resolved quickly and quietly.

The Christmas Story: Reading it with New Eyes

Leave a reply

In my Christmas reflection/greeting yesterday I chose a slightly different but, to my understanding of the Greek text, reasonable reading of the passage.  Specifically, in John 1:14 where we usually say that the Word “dwelt” among us, an alternate translation is that it “tabernacled” or literally “pitched its tent” among us.

If you want an even more counter-cultural example, I recommend an article from the Christianity Today web site titled “ No room at the what?”  This is a great, and challenging, discussion of how we view the “no room at the inn” phrase and what the Greek text and the cultural setting may actually be.

Is this applicable to how we view Presbyterian polity?  Absolutely.  If you have every worked with a congregation of a different cultural background, you know they will read, interpret and apply polity with certain cultural understandings and expectations which could differ and conflict with your established understandings.  Presbyteries have sometimes needed extensive discussions to come to a mutual understanding about the views of polity and each others cultural understandings.  The need for flexibility to accommodate different cultural approaches, for better or for worse, is one element in the rewrite of the PC(USA) Form of Government.

The question in any of our polity becomes “What is fundamental to our theology and what can be flexible to accommodate cultural traditions and backgrounds?”

A good Feast of Saint Stephen to you and a happy Boxing Day.

Happy Celebration of the Incarnation

Leave a reply

In the beginning was the Word,
    and the Word was with God,
    and the Word was God…

…The Word became flesh
    and pitched his tent among us.
(From John 1)

This is the mystery, and the magnificence, of Christmas!  God, in the person of the Son, came to earth and dwelt among human kind, fully human  and fully God.  This reality, the Incarnation, was the theme of one of the services we attended last night.  And while one of the sermon illustrations was one of the good, but over used and simplistic, explanations of the reason for the incarnation, I can not criticize it because any human explanation of this divine mystery is going to be simplistic and flawed.

So on this Christmas day, thank God for the gift he has given us and celebrate it with family and friends.

Merry Christmas.

(And for tomorrow, Happy Boxing Day or Feast of Saint Stephen if you are so inclined.)