Category Archives: Blogging

More Official Presbyterians On Social Media

Leave a reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

Web 2.0 Meets Ecclesiastical Discipline — Where Are The Lines Of Responsible Blogging?

4 Replies

I think many of us expected it to be only a matter of time before these two worlds collided and while blogging has been increasing in religious circles it appears we now have, to my knowledge at least, the first case in Presbyterian circles of possible ecclesiastical discipline for statements made while blogging.  More on that in a moment, but first a little perspective…

Public airing of theological discussions goes back at least as far as a crazy German monk who annoyed Pope Leo X by nailing 95 Theses to a chapel door in Wittenberg.  It may seem strange to us today but in that time and place it was Martin’s equivalent of blogging back in 1517.

But as Presbyterians our system has some interesting features that help inform our understanding of discussion and church governance.  Going back to the “Radical Principles of Presbyterianism” that statement includes:

[T]hat a larger part of the Church, or a representation of it, should govern a smaller, or determine matters of controversy which arise therein; that, in like manner, a representation of the whole should govern and determine in regard to every part, and to all the parts united: that is, that a majority shall govern;

This has been understood to include the necessity of meeting together, or as the PC(USA) Book of Order puts it [G-4.0301e]

e. Decisions shall be reached in governing bodies by vote, following opportunity for discussion, and a majority shall govern;

So within the Presbyterian system there are two principles I want to highlight at this juncture: 1) The system is representative, having Elders, Teaching and Ruling, chosen by God through the voice of the people that are responsible for most of the decision making.  2) That these representatives come together for conducting business, to join together in discerning the will of God at prescribed times and places.

In the long run point number one above may be the more interesting and complicated of the two.  For today, let me side-step this point by observing that the vast majority of those on the internet discussing the fine points of Presbyterian polity are Teaching and Ruling Elders or candidates working to be ordained as Teaching Elders.  But as much as Presbyterianism is a step away from an episcopal system towards democratization of the ecclesiastical structure, it will be important to think through the implications of the internet when everyone in the denomination can contribute to doctrinal, polity and theological discussions in near real time.  What does it look like when you scale up the congregational structure from the level of a particular church to the level of national discussion.  (For some very interesting thinking about that you can start reading TE Landon Whitsitt’s chapter drafts for The Open Source Church.)

Let me focus instead on the second point above — that discussions related to governing body decisions are intended to occur in the face-to-face environment of the judicatory meeting, and what happens when they happen outside that circle.

I want to start out by noting that taking issues out of the judicatory and into public forum is noting new.  As I mentioned above, in a sense Dr. Martin Luther did that in 1517, and it has happened on a regular basis ever since.  Many individuals who had either reputation or means of communication have taken advantage of them.

Let me give two contrasting examples from the Presbyterian Church in Canada during the church union movement early in the twentieth century.  I take these from N. Keith Clifford’s book The Resistance To Church Union In Canada 1904-1939.

The first individual is Robert Campbell, senior clerk of the General Assembly.  He was the first major opponent of church union and beginning in 1904 he argued against it based on a number of different issues.  As only us Presbyterian polity wonks could appreciate, while much of his theological argument did not get significant traction, he had a certain level of agreement from some prominent proponents of union regarding specific polity arguments he made, especially concerning the process of sending the union question down to the presbyteries under the Barrier Act.  Leave it to the Presbyterians to rally around process.  As Clifford says [pg. 26]

There were indeed others who had doubts about union, but it was Campbell who defined the issues, exposed the irregularity of the unionists’ procedure, and proposed the alternative around which the first resistance organization crystallized.  Once the resistance became organized outside the structures of the church however, Campbell’s position as senior clerk of the assembly prevented him from assuming leadership of the movement, and he gradually slipped into the background.

His “slipping into the background” did not prevent him from taking his stand and voicing his opinion in public and he published a couple of pamphlets and one book ably making the case against union and generally forcing the unionists to address, and even agree with, his objections.  However, Clifford later speaks of his leadership [pg. 41] when new alliances were forming against union:

The problem in this instance was not Campbell’s background but his position as senior clerk.  He had been appointed to this permanent position in 1892, more than a decade before the church union question appeared on the assembly’s agenda.  Consequently, he saw himself as a leader of the whole church and not just a part of it.  When the dissidents organized in 1910, therefore, he would not accept a leadership position, even though the purpose of the group was to support his alternative of federation.  Thus, when the resistance movement began to take on a life of its own, shaped by those who assumed leadership, Campbell gradually faded into the background of the controversy to the point where later opponents of union failed to appreciate that except for his efforts the unionists might very well have accomplished their purpose in 1912.

Furthermore, after 1912, no one who was opposed to union was elected moderator or appointed to any major committee responsibility in the church.  As a result, from 1913 until his death in March 1921, [ed. note: Union was accomplished in 1925] Campbell served an assembly dominated by unionists.  His role tended to deflect attention even further  from his importance as an early opponent of union.  The ironic twist  in all this was that the unionists recognized the significance of Campbell’s refusal to accept an office in any of the resistance organizations, and when he died, they were the only one who publicly eulogized him for his service to the church during his twenty-nine years as clerk of the General Assembly.

Clifford goes on to quote some of the eulogies.  One said that while they might have differed with him in opinion, “yet we never ceased to admire the lucidity of his argument, his confidence that he was right, and the courtesy with which he treated an opponent.”  Another spoke of him as a “keen debater” who could take as well as give but “he was without bitterness and never allowed public differences to interfere with private friendships.”

On the other hand, where there have been repeated tensions about what is printed and how it is written has been in official publications of Presbyterian branches.  The Canadian union debate was no different.  Following the 1910 General Assembly meeting Dr. Ephraim Scott, editor of the official publication the Presbyterian Record became a main target.  Dr. Scott had recorded a dissent to the Assembly action to send the union proposals to the presbyteries and that and later public criticism of the unionists actions made him a target.  There were calls for him to resign if he could not support the official position of the Assembly and in the following year various charges and rebuttals were publicly aired.  At the 1911 Assembly the outgoing Moderator said that the Record was “not worthy of the church and needed shaking up.”  [Clifford, pg. 30]  An amendment to a committee report was proposed that would require faithful representation of the Assembly action or strict neutrality.  Clifford reports that the amendment failed because one prominent unionist argued the reporting was not sufficiently biased to remove the editor and another respected commissioner, at that time neutral on union, argued that the church press should be free and the editor could express his own views.  It also helped that presbytery voting on the 1910 proposal was showing weaker support for union than the proponents expected and they realized that there was a longer road ahead than they had reckoned.  But it should be noted that, as Clifford tells it, few – if any – specific charges were brought against Scott and none were validated.  As the editor he was a convenient and high-profile target.

As I said a moment ago, the use of an official publication by the editor to advocate a particular position is still a major issue and in the last couple of years we have seen criticism in the Free Church of Scotland for advocating the flexibility to have worship music beyond unaccompanied psalm singing, in the Church of Scotland in advance of the 2009 Assembly where the editor advocated her stance on the ordination standards issue, and recent criticism of the PC(USA)’s Presbyterians Today for taking a position that seemed to presume adoption of the Belhar Confession.

Related to the situation I’ll mention in a moment, Sean Gerety comments about another historical case, the Clark-Van Til debate in 1944, where the Presbyterian Guardian provided information on, and editorialized for, the Van Til side of the debate but information on the Clark side had to be obtained privately.

So can Presbyterians take their debates outside the meetings?  Clearly I think that they can, to some degree, since my own blogging sometimes crosses the line from news to commentary.  And I appreciate Dr. Richard Mouw’s historical perspective, comments, and opinion on why the Belhar Confession should not be adopted by the PC(USA).  There are numerous examples of other bloggers who contribute in this way.  There appears to be real value in the Web distributing information and opinion to a wider audience than could be reached using earlier techniques, like a chapel door or the party line in an official publication.

But having said that some branches have decided that wider and public debate at certain times and on certain topics is not appropriate.  For the 219th General Assembly the PC(USA) put out a document on Using Social Media At General Assembly.  The short answer in the document is “don’t during meetings,” except they phrased it like this “The guiding principle for using social media at a General Assembly is to be attentive and present to the community gathered immediately around us and to the mysterious and wondrous movement of the Spirit of Christ in this place.”  This addresses the use of social media only during the meeting.  At the 2009 Church of Scotland General Assembly they decided that the topic of ordination standards was such a hot topic that the Assembly approved a ban on discussing the topic in public, including the web, while a special commission does its work.  As far as I have seen, the silence on the topic has held very well.  (Update:  Please see the comments for some more on the PC(USA) policy and clarification of implementation and intent.)

So with that as perspective let’s look at the current specific case.  On the one hand it revolves around a larger issue in the PCA right now, the controversy over the Federal Vision Theology.  But on the other hand this case is dealing with it at the local level, specifically in the Siouxlands Presbytery, that I have written about before.

But the issue at the moment is not the Federal Vision argument itself but how the argument has been conducted.  A complaint has been filed with the presbytery by Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church, Minnetonka, MN, complaining that TE Brian Carpenter “caused great offense and harm to us as a church, as well as harm to the good name of our pastor…”  They go on to note the action filed with the presbytery and say:

However, in the context of the Presbytery alone, we were content for the matter to be heard and disposed of in the proper courts, being the called meeting of October 20, 2009, with Dr. Moon’s testimony of what we know to be his true beliefs.

Mr. Carpenter, however, was unwilling to allow the issue to remain within the confines of Presbytery and the appropriate courts. Instead, in actions that worked to prejudice Dr. Moon’s good name and reputation in the larger PCA and Reformed world, Mr. Carpenter wrote an inaccurate and unfair representation of Dr. Moon’s views on the Aquila Report, a public blog. Mr. Carpenter has every right to disagree with Presbytery, to think it wrong, and even (perhaps) to report the actions taken by our Presbytery. But his actions went beyond these to the point of ensuring Dr. Moon’s good name and reputation, as well as the name of our church, were damaged publicly, and in some ways irretrievably.

In another complaint Christ Church Mankato complained against TE Wes White

We, the Session of Christ Church, write to bring to your attention a matter of utmost concern to us.

On February 7, 2010 TE White began posting information on his blog that we believe to be injurious to TE Lawrence, Christ Church, and the Siouxlands Presbytery. On February 18, we contacted TE White privately and informed him of his fault (Matthew 18:15ff), requesting that he remove the posts, acknowledge his fault, and ask forgiveness of those he had wronged. TE White replied to us that his conscience was clear in the matter, and has not removed the posts nor sought forgiveness.

The blog posts we object to are as follows…

In the matter of the first complaint the investigating committee found a strong presumption of guilt but the presbytery chose instead to refer it back to the committee to provide specific instances with analysis of the error(s).  That blog post provides TE Carpenter’s response to the committee and defense of his position which includes issues of how his case was handled.  May help explain the alternate motion the presbytery adopted.  On his own blog he has a new post analyzing the requirements of the Book of Church Order and advocating for an open process in judicial proceedings.

Regarding his own case TE White tells us “The Administrative Committee of the Presbytery of the Siouxlands reviewed these materials and was unsure as to what the Session of Christ Church was asking.”  It sounds something like a judicial case on which no remedy can be applied.  The Administrative Committee recommended the presbytery refer it to decide what options are available.  The presbytery, again, chose a different course and passed a substitute motion to appoint a committee to conduct a BCO 31-2 investigation.  (The investigation to decide if charges can be filed and if so, what charges.)

So at this point we have two individuals for which specific charges are being considered related specifically to their blogging activities.  Christ Church closes their second letter with this request:

Since this is not the first time disputes have arisen over what someone has said about someone else or the Presbytery on the internet, we request that the Presbytery make its expectations clearly known.

This is what the PC(USA) and the Church of Scotland did with their actions.  You may not agree with the total ban in each case but at least they were clear.

Where does this leave us?  You may have your own thoughts on all this but here are a few that occur to me.

First, in these specific instances we will have to see where the judicial process leads.  There are specific charges to be brought, a presbytery level trial if the strong presumption of guilt is present and charges made.  And then there is the possibility of appeal.   Buckle up for the ride.

Second, it is tempting to make the distinction that you can blog about doctrine but not about people.  However, a bit of reflection and you realize that when the problem, perceived or real, is that another individual holds a view in error it is our responsibility to inform that person of their error.  What is more important here is how that happens.

Third, the larger problem here is that the problem, in the opinion of some people, was that the presbytery had erred.  Remember, we hold in tension the polity principle mentioned above “that a majority shall govern,” with the Westminster Confession of Faith (XXXI.iv) “All synods or councils… may err, and many have.”  How do we balance majority rule with the possibility of corporate error?  As Presbyterians we look to the review of higher governing bodies.  As the problem goes wider does that now make blogging to the wider audience acceptable?

Fourth, for good or ill the Internet and blogging are powerful tools for disseminating information and expressing opinions to a wide audience.  And it is not going away.  These cases show that the lines of what are and are not acceptable are not well defined and so we will need to find ways to live with it and behave in a Christian manner on it.  We could take the “no blogging” approach, the “blog but no names” rule or “keep it abstract not concrete” to limit what could be construed as personal attacks.

As corollaries to all this let me suggest that we bloggers should be slow to compose and do it prayerfully.  When I began my first field mapping class the professor suggested to us that we should be as free with the eraser as the pencil.  And continuing with this theme, we need to be aware that with our fallen nature we will make mistakes and if we are at this long enough offend someone.  The facts may be in our favor but can we present them in such a way that, as they said of Robert Campbell, “he was without bitterness and never allowed public differences to interfere with private friendships.”

Let me conclude by saying that I am not passing judgment in these particular cases or even weighing in on the actions of anyone involved.  I have not been following it closely enough to have a well-formed opinion and I will rely on the full judicial process to investigate and adjudicate that.

So where are the lines?  Can we correct error in such a way as to preserve truth and make ecclesiastical discipline restorative, even on the web?  This issue will not go away so I look forward to others weighing in and governing bodies discerning where they wish to draw the lines.  Let us see what develops.

Congratulations Are In Order

Leave a reply

I wish to add my own congratulations to the many already expressed to Mr. Rocco Palmo on the occasion of his receiving an honorary doctoral degree from Aquinas Institute of Theology of St. Louis where yesterday he served as the commencement speaker for the class of 2010.

If you are familiar with Dr. Palmo’s blog you can probably tell why I admire his work — He writes the influential Roman Catholic blog Whispers in the Loggia.  He is a trained journalist who writes like one while writing a blog tightly focused on one denomination and primarily on news from the U.S.  In a nice background piece on TMCnet.com (originally published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch) it says:

In awarding Palmo an honorary doctorate, the 84-year-old Dominican seminary is making a statement about the changing relationship between journalism and the Catholic church. The award for Palmo’s work on his blog Whispers in the Loggia is also an expression of how American Catholic leaders hope to encourage a younger generation to engage their faith through news.

And a colleague says of him writing:

Ann Rodgers, religion reporter for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, said that when Palmo started attending the annual meetings of the U.S.Conference of Catholic Bishops, an event traditional reporters have covered for years, “he was like a rock star. I had archbishops asking me to introduce them to Rocco.”

So, my congratulations on this honor and the honor it reflects on those that use new media.  And my personal admiration for the effort at running a quality blog focused on one niche in religious reporting.  Best wishes.

New Official Web Site Design And Blog From New Zealand

1 Reply

If you have not visited the web site of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand recently then you have missed the redesign of their site.  It is a sharp design with good use of graphics and easy, logical navigation bars.  It is a design that give the page a new look while preserving elements of the “feel” of the old site.  A nice transition.  And there are nice dynamic elements – check out the “Find something fast” bar at the top. When the Book of Order is at the top of this list you know you will please a GA Junkie.  But maybe the best thing about the new site is that there is now a feed for new info posted to the site, a great help for those of us with feed readers.  The redesign does unfortunately mean that many links in all my past posts about the PCANZ are now broken.

But for me the real news from New Zealand is that the PCANZ Archives Research Centre has begun its own blog, “Presbyterian Research,” in the same style as the blog from the PCA Historical Center, “The Continuing Story.”  Like The Continuing Story, Presbyterian Research highlights the denominational history and ethos with short vignettes and glimpses of items in their collection.  Any GA Junkie would appreciate the story about the 1901 General Assembly which got into a debate on the floor of the Assembly over the robes the Moderator was wearing.  Another item highlights a recent lecture to the Research Network by the Rev. Dr. Susan Jones.  (The print version is available on-line.)  The item describes the lecture

…which probed the development of ministerial training in the PCANZ.  She not only placed her research in an historical context but she also analysed the nature of the training itself. Her analysis showed that training has been fragmented and that ordinands have often learned academic subjects but they have not been helped to integrate knowledge into their faith.

When the article describes the topic as “continually challenging” that can probably be applied to Presbyterian branches everywhere.

And finally, what geek can not appreciate a blog where the first article is titled “Hello world!”  (For the non-geeks, it is now a standing tradition among programmers that your first programming exercise is to write a program that prints out the words “hello world.”)

So far it is interesting reading.  I look forward to much more.

Some Brief Updates

Leave a reply

There are a number of stories I have covered recently that now have updates that I have been collecting.  However, with no sign that there will be enough other related information for any to warrant a post of their own in the short term I now present a series of these in one general post.

Church of Scotland/Free Church of Scotland Discussions

In an update to the internal discussion in the Church of Scotland over ordination standards, it was announced by the Free Church of Scotland last week that they have decided to suspend their biannual talks with the CofS.  In the news item they say:

However, the Free Church has said that, in the light of the uncertainty over the Kirk’s position on homosexuality following the induction of an allegedly gay minister earlier this year, which appeared to be sanctioned by their General Assembly, it cannot for the time being continue “as if nothing had happened.”

The announcement goes on to say that the decision was accepted with regret and then quotes the convener of the Free Church committee:

Rev. Iver Martin, Convener of the Free Church Ecumenical Relations Committee, said, “Suspending the talks, whilst regrettable, was the most tangible way of expressing the Free Church’s discomfort with the failure of the Church of Scotland to take a thoroughly Biblical stand on the place of marriage between one man and one woman.” The Free Church continues to value and encourage the close relationship that there is between congregations of both denominations in many areas of Scotland.

Case heard by the Presbyterian Church in America Standing Judicial Commission

It has been over a year since I have touched on the Federal Vision discussions in the PCA, and in that time the controversy has been moving along quietly but steadily.  Since the 35th General Assembly adopted the report of a study committee that was critical of this theological perspective the denomination has been dealing with it in the regular presbytery review process.  For the Pacific Northwest Presbytery this began with a theological examination about 13 months ago and the presbytery accepting that examination.  A complaint was filed and this past week the Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA heard the complaint.  Jason Stellman over at De Regnis Duobus is one of the complainants in the case and has provided his observations of the proceedings.  He includes this description:

A couple of the eyebrow-raising statements from the respondant include: (1) His insistence that the Westminster Standards do not teach that the covenant of works sets forth a distinct principle by which we receive eternal life from that of the covenant of grace; (2) His encouragement to the SJC that they all read John Frame’s review of Horton’s Christless Christianity so as to learn from Frame how to avoid the dangers of Westminster Seminary California’s sectarianism; and perhaps the most telling of all was (3)seeing firsthand what happens when one flattens out redemptive history so as to take Yahweh’s dealings with Old Testament Israel under the conditional, Mosaic covenant as an unqualified, across-the-board paradigm for understanding how God relates to the church today. When asked by the commission, “In what sense are we saved by baptism?”, the response was given, “Well, in the same sense that God can pardon his people and then damn them.”

The PCA SJC has 42 days to render their decision (unlike the PC(USA) GAPJC which must render their decision before the meeting adjourns).  TE Stellman concludes with this:

And to those of you who love asking, yes, if they find in favor of Leithart [the respondant] and against us, I will submit to that and never bring it up again.

Deaconess Issues In The PCA

The more prominent discussion in the PCA recently has been the status of women serving in ordained office, or what seems to resemble ordained office.  Recently, the discussion was fueled by a video of a commissioning service at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, NY.  Well, Bob Mattes asked the senior pastor at Redeemer, TE Tim Keller, about the video and has posted the response at Green Baggins.  In short, Rev. Keller writes:

We do not ordain our deaconesses nor do we ask our congregation to obey and submit to them. The minister in the video is newer on our staff and he accidentally read the deacons’ questions from the BCO and did not use the different questions we commonly use for deaconesses.  Others who go to Redeemer can attest that this is not our practice, and it will not be in the future. The minister in the video apologized when he realized what he had done.

While Mr. Keller has provided this explanation I would note that the BaylyBlog, one of Redeemers strongest critics, has updated the original post to acknowledge the explanation, but they basically say there is still a problem with what Redeemer does.

Responses To A Minister’s Term Not Extended By The Uniting Church In Australia

A couple of months ago I posted some comments on my initial review of the polity in the Uniting Church in Australia and illustrated that with a controversy that had erupted when the Illawarra Presbytery declined to extend the term of the Rev. Gordon Bradbery to his present call at Wesley Uniting Church on the Mall.

Now, before we go getting too Presbyterian about this, let me remind you that this is the Uniting Church and while the Presbyterians were part of the union that formed the church the polity is a bit different.  In that denomination the pastors are called with specified term lengths which may or may not be renewed or extended.  In addition, even though a congregation may vote overwhelmingly to want the call extended by the fixed amount, the presbytery, and in this case the synod as well, have substantial input into the extension.

So in the last two months there has been no change in the presbytery’s decision not to extend Rev. Bradbery’s term, but there has been plenty of activity regarding the decision and trying to get popular support for reversing the decision.  This includes a meeting of presbytery leaders with Rev. Bradbery (what the Illawarra Mercury called “peace talks”) and a letter from the Presbytery, a Facebook page to gather support and communicate to his supporters, an online petition (currently 20 signatures), as well as a recent op-ed piece in the Illawarra Mercury.  Too early to tell if the popular support will sway the presbytery but it is interesting to see the role the Internet is playing in the rather local story.

And finally, not an update but a news brief…

New Official PC(USA) Blog – Beyond the Ordinary

There is a new official blog from the PC(USA) called Beyond the Ordinary that discusses the U.S. Congregational Life Survey.  It is written by staff from the PC(USA) Research Services office and, as you would expect from them, deals with their statistical numbers.  It will be interesting to see what they have to say.

The 37th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church In America — Moving From Committee To Plenary

2 Replies

The 37th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America began yesterday with their committee work and will continue with seminars and committee meetings most of today with the opening plenary session this evening.  They will be meeting all this week (June 15-19) in Orlando, Florida.

If you are following the GA you probably already know about these resources, but I will list them just in case:

Unfortunately there is no webcasting this year but there is a very active community on Twitter using the hashtag #pcaga. (Editorial note – I like the use of a hashtag that is not specific to a particular year so it can be continuing and reusable.  This does presume that Twitter will still be useful a year from now.)

Leading up to the Assembly there have been some good blog posts.  In particular I would point out Kevin Carroll’s post on “A Newbie’s Survival Guide To General Assembly” on Reformed and Loving It.  There is also an interesting “preview” article by Ed Eubanks, Jr., on General Assembly 2009 — Hopes and Expectations.

Overtures
The Overtures Page shows that there are now 22 overtures to the Assembly.  In my last post reviewing the overtures I left off at No. 15.  Of the remaining seven, six deal with new presbyteries or revising presbytery boundaries; and several of those are concurring with overtures already discussed.  The one additional overture, Overture 18, is titled “A Declaration Concerning Homosexuals In The Military.”  (byFaith news article) In this overture Eastern Pennsylvania Presbytery asks to have the Declaration endorsed and delivered to the President by the Moderator.  The Declaration lays out the Biblical prohibitions on homosexual behavior and asks that the Government observe scriptural morality and not normalize homosexual behavior in the military.

For many of the overtures the Assembly will be considering I would commend two blogs to you.  In each case these writers have taken the individual overtures and discussed them in greater detail than I have had the opportunity to do.  The first is Jordan Mark Siverd who writes necdum videmus.  He has written on Overtures 3, 6, and 7.  And Kevin Carroll also did a great job discussing most of the overtures with articles about Overtures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 22. (I hope I caught them all.  Apologies if I missed any.)

From the PCAbyFaith Twitter feed, and one news article, we do have information from yesterday’s meeting of the Bills and Overtures Committee about the committee’s recommended action on some of these overtures:

  • Overture 1 on Removal of Censure to answer in the affirmative as amended
  • Overture 2 on RAO debate of minority reports to answer in the affirmative
  • Overture 3 on Assumption of Original Jurisdiction to answer in the negative
  • Overture 4 on Adding “Interim Pastor” to answer in the negative
  • Overture 5 on Study Committee on the Role of Women to answer by Overture 10
  • Overture 6 on Marriage to answer in the negative
  • Overture 8 on Examination of Men from other Denominations be answered in the negative (reported vote 37-33 with 3 abstain)
  • Overture 9 on Judged differences from Confessional Standards for Men From other Denomination answer in the affirmative
  • Overture 10 (and 5) on Role of Women answer in the negative.  News Story.  May be minority report
  • Overture 13 on Adopt Danvers Statement answer in the negative
  • Overture 14 on Giving Notice on Intention to Withdraw answer in the negative
  • Overture 15 on Directing Philadelphia Presbyter to Adopt Specified Policy on Role of Women ruled out of order by Clerk and Overtures Committee
  • Overture 18 on Declaration on Homosexuals in the Milty answer in the negative.

And now we see what is the will of the full Assembly.

So I will be following by Twitter, blogs and news as best as I can.  I don’t anticipate any regular updates since I have some ecclesiastical functions that will be keeping me highly occupied the next few days.  But I will comment briefly if news warrants.

About One In Ten Thousand Presbyterians A Presbyterian Blogger

3 Replies

OK, I had a long commute home yesterday — an L.A. “get away Friday” and all that.  And as I was thinking about my quest for sources for perspectives on the General Assemblies or Synods of some of the smaller Presbyterian branches I began to wonder how many I should be looking for.  I did a quick back of the envelope calculation and my conclusion is:

Roughly one in every 10,000 Presbyterians blogs on Presbyterian matters.

Beyond this it also appears that there are about the same number of institutional blogs from churches, governing bodies, or affiliated organizations.

Now this is a rough estimate and not very scientific.  If you want evidence of that I rushed to Wikipedia for the membership numbers.

And if you want to do this scientifically you would have to decide matters such as:  Does BRC get counted one, two, or three times?  Does a church or organization blog get counted as institutional if it is predominantly written by one individual?  Does an institutional blog count if it is mostly just news and not reflection?

So here is my initial back-of-the-envelope calculation.  The PC(USA) lists 2.2 million members.  Presbyterian Bloggers lists 144 “Members of our Community.”  Beyond that I have about 42 more blogs on my feed reader not in their list.  That brings the total to 186.  Knowing that there are several more blogs that I don’t follow it strikes me that a number in the 225 to 250 range is probably about right.  Hey, I said this was back of the envelope.  It’s got to be close to an order of magnitude.  So 220 blogs for 2.2 million members is one for every 10,000.

How does this hold up in other branches?  A quick check of the OPC gives a membership of about 29.000 and I can identify three individual and three church blogs.  I’m probably missing a couple individuals so it is a bit better than the 1:10,000, but still order of magnitude close.  How about the PCA?  Membership – 346,000.  I can identify 41 blogs by individuals and I’m probably missing a few, but it still appears closer to 1:10,000 than 2:10,000.  The ARP?  It looks like 30,000 members and three individuals blogging as well as three churches.  For the EPC they are listed as having 85,000 members and I read the blogs of four individuals.  A search only turned up a couple more so this appears to be a case where the estimate is ballpark but over estimates.  Or I need to look harder.

Moving outside the US the numbers, or my ability to find the blogs, drop off.  For instance, for the Presbyterian Church in Canada I can only find a couple of blogs by individuals for a church of 120,000 members.  Again, for the Presbyterian Church in Ireland I can again only find a couple of blogs for a church of 300,000.  I don’t think I am missing the other 28 if the ratio holds.  For the Church of Scotland I follow 18 and there are probably a few more, but still for a church of 500,000 it still seems short of the 50 expected blogs.

So does this serve a purpose?  For me as a researcher it does.  Coming from the field of seismology we have several empirical mathematical relationships that tell us how many earthquakes to expect in particular situations.  We use them for calculating earthquake hazard and seeing if we are “short” of earthquakes and so should expect the earth to catch up.  In this case I now have an empirical relationship that tells me about how many bloggers to expect in a denomination.  If I’m short, as in the EPC, maybe I should be checking around for a few more that I am missing.  If I’m on the number, like the ARP, I’ll keep my eyes open for more, but won’t put excessive effort into “finding the one lost blogger.”  And for social scientists and “new media” people out there maybe this tells you something.  And hey, if I messed something up here I’m sure you’ll let me know.

Thoughts from the mind of a research scientist.  Your mileage may vary.

Greetings On Trinity Sunday

Leave a reply

For those of you who use the liturgical calendar, I wish you a happy Trinity Sunday.

Some of you may have seen “If God text messaged the 10 Commandments.” (h/t Being Presbyterian)

Well, in case you did not see it the Liturgical Comic Strip Agnus Day for Trinity Sunday has the Athanasian Creed down to a tweet:

The Dad, Son & Spirit are God; God is Dad, Son & Spirit; Dad≠Son, Son≠Dad, Dad≠Spirit, Son≠Spirit, Spirit≠Dad, Spirit≠Son. Done.

Yes, less than 140 characters.  Even room for a hashtag.  As the straight man in the strip says to the maverick – “You scare me.”

Have a blessed Lord’s Day.

A Shared History And Blogging Presbyterians

1 Reply

There are times when I start talking about the Church Fathers, especially Augustine, that people’s eyes glaze over and sometimes complain that “he was a Catholic theologian” (usually not in as many words though).

Well, besides the fact that John Calvin incorporated a lot of Augustine’s thinking in his own work, many in the Reformed Tradition seem to forget the fact that in the roughly 2000 years of the Christian Church, the present Reformed Church has only been around for one-quarter of that time.  (And I say “present Reformed Church” because the object of the Reformation, and of our “always being reformed” is to more closely follow the pattern of the early New Testament church.  But that is a topic for another time…)

In the same manner many in the mainline American Presbyterian Church think that all those other Presbyterian branches running around are just groups that “broke off from us.”  They forget that the mainline has split and merged three times itself and that at the time of the American Civil War there were four parts to the mainline church (if it can be thought of as mainline at that time) and the present PC(USA) has, as a merged body, only been in existence for less than 10% of the history of American Presbyterianism.

(As an interesting aside, with the controversy in the Church of Scotland this past week I have been correlating their history with the American Presbyterian history.  The major Scottish split, “The Disruption of 1843” is about the same time as the American Old School/New School split of 1837.  I’ll be looking into that further to see about connections.)

All of this to say that there is a whole bunch of American Presbyterian history that the majority of modern Presbyterian branches share.  With that in mind the following three blogs may be of interest to others who share an interest in Presbyterian history, or at least what got us to the point we are now at polity-wise.  Don’t expect these blogs to always be “mainline friendly,” but they provide great historical insights into where we are now.

Old Life Theological Society – The moment I heard that Darryl Hart was a contributor to this blog I was hooked.  The material is a mix of current events and historical information, but even the posts about current topics come with a good dose of historical perspective.

The PCA Historical Center has just started two new blogs as well.  (Remember that shared history?  If you want the historical background on the PC(USA) Book of Order that came from the PCUS branch they have all of that online.)  Thanks to Mr. Wayne Sparkman, the director of the PCA Historical Center for overseeing these two new blogs.

The first one is the PCA History Blog and the description says that this is a place for people to share their stories about the PCA.

The second one is The Continuing Story and the purpose says that it  “. . . is to provide a convenient place to share some of the wealth of
treasure to be found in the archives at the PCA Historical Center.”  Among the information posted so far are pictures of the oldest item in the collection, a 1641 Calvin medal struck for the centennial celebration of Calvin’s return to Geneva.

So here is more information to keep us GA Junkies educated.  Thanks for the blogs and happy reading.

General Assembly of the Church of Scotland — Say What?

Leave a reply

To use the line from the old Westerns — “It’s quiet around here.  Too quiet.”

Yes, at least for the last day it does seem that office holders and members of the Church of Scotland have been observing the “urged” “quiet period” regarding public discussion of issues related to human sexuality.  One day down, 735 to go.  (For the record, I am an office holder and member in another Presbyterian denomination.  I can’t imagine our gang being so well behaved.)

Anyway, sarcasm, cliches, and snarky comments aside, I have to admit that I have been very impressed with how “all the usual suspects,” on both sides of the issue, have taken this to heart.  Stewart Cutler did comment on the “gag” order itself.  Ian Watson posted the text of a news story about the quiet period.  Danny expresses the concern that waiting another two years just allows each side to become entrenched.  And Chris Hoskins, in his reflection on Monday, says he’ll avoid that topic in his daily reflection.

What are the instructions?  The minutes have not been posted yet, and I don’t see a full read-back in the daily updates, but tracking back the changes (and checking it against Stewart’s text) it seems that the sections dealing with the quiet period say

2. Instruct all Courts, Councils and Committees of the Church not to
issue press statements or talk to the media or to make public comment,
whether in publications or otherwise, on decision-making in relation to
contentious matters of human sexuality, with respect to Ordination and
Induction to the Ministry of the Church of Scotland, until 31 May 2011;

and

3. Urge all members who are subject to the discipline of the Courts of
the Church of Scotland to act in accordance with the process outlined
in 1 and 2.

And it was understood in the debate that blogging was included in the prohibited communication.

The exact parameters are still not specifically understood and I am sure the boundaries will be worked out as people “test the limits” of the motion.  As people have a chance to think this through there may be official guidelines.  And while I consider it unlikely, there may even be a complete breakdown for individuals since the term is “urge,” not a strict instruction like “shall,” leaving little force for ensuring compliance.  In fact, the limits are being tested already, as reported by the Scotsman, with one minister writing a letter to that paper criticizing the Assembly’s earlier action in the Aberdeen case.  As a member of a presbytery it is being debated if he is representing the presbytery after being “instructed” not to comment, or acting as an individual after being “urged” not to.  As is customary in Presbyterian polity it will be up to the presbytery to decide on a case to discipline a member.

And what constitutes “public comment?”  Could the suggested actions of some sessions to withold their payments to the larger church in protest be considered a form of public comment?  This is a form of protest and comment that has been used in the PC(USA) and has clearly gotten the attention of some governing bodies there.

So there are many uncertainties and two years to go with this.  We will see what understandings develop as time goes on.