Category Archives: General Assembly

Constitutional Voting In The PC(USA)

Leave a reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 219th General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church (USA) — Further Reflection On Not Business As Usual

2 Replies

Back in July following the meeting of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I commented here about the one item that really stuck out to me as a point where the Assembly diverged from the expectations of “business as usual.”  This item of business was in response to an overture from the Synod of South Atlantic to create a new non-geographic Korean language presbytery.

I think most odds-makers would have considered this a routine item that would have flown through pretty much under the radar considering it was nearly unanimously recommended by the committee and how much other business the Assembly would be spending its time on.  However, two young Korean-American women pastors rose to speak against the item and when the vote was take it was soundly defeated (125-514) by the commissioners.

The first pastor to speak was the Rev. Theresa Cho from San Francisco and following the Assembly she posted a reflection on the meeting that included comments about this particular business item.  Today she has posted a follow-up titled “Both sides of the truth: Non-geographic presbyteries ” where she not only comments in more detail on the action at GA, but as the title suggests, points out that the defeat of the request has implications as well.  If the competing demands a denomination lives with in their non-geographic language presbyteries is of interest to you this is a must-read.  In fact, it is a great window into some aspects of racial-ethnic ministry in general.

The new article was prompted by deeper discussions around this overture and the related issues at a Pastor Theologian Consultation last week.  Rev. Cho writes about her situation and journey from GA to this Consultation.  Talking about her cultural background and the consultation she says:

At this consultation, I had the opportunity to be heard and to listen.As a 2nd generation, the younger doesn’t speak up to share differing opinions with the older. It is seen as disrespectful. At this consultation, I had the opportunity to speak up and to listen.

Then, regrading the contrast to GA she writes:

I’ll be honest, after GA, I had the luxury of going back to my wonderful life. I received the accolades of my colleagues and peers for having the courage to speak up. And although I did hear some of the “gossip” of the effects of how the defeat of overture 04-08 was impacting some of the Korean community, the only personal impact to me was hearing some of the difficult remarks being made to and about one of my colleagues and friend who also spoke against the overture. Besides that, I went back to my life, working in a non-Korean church where I am appreciated for my pastoral skills despite of my racial ethnicity, gender, and age.However, my time [at the consultation] shed a light on how what I intended to be life-giving actions were life-taking for another and vice versa.Throughout these discussions, I felt the extremes of both emotions: joy for speaking out and being heard and grief for knowing that it was at the expense of my parent’s generation; honor for being acknowledged as a voice that matters and shame for participating in “airing out the dirty laundry” and betraying my people; and empowered to know that a few voices can change a vote and powerless when it is perceived as disobedience and disrespect.

I will let you continue reading the article as she discusses the question “What is the real issue regarding non-geographic, Korean-language presbyteries?”  These are not easy issues but they are something any Presbyterian branch needs to consider in the light of modern cultural realities.  I encourage you to read Theresa’s whole article.

Church Of Scotland General Assembly 2011 Moderator Designate Announced

Leave a reply

Today the Church of Scotland announced that the moderator designate for the next General Assembly will be the the Rev. David Arnott.

Following his training at St. Andrews University and the University of Edinburgh, Rev. Arnott served his probationary placement in Greenock and was ordained to Stobhill Parish Church in Gorebridge (now part of Gorebridge Parish Church ).  After six years there he was called to Netherlee Parish Church, Glasgow, and then Hope Park, St. Andrews. While in Glasgow he served two years as a part-time chaplain at Her Majesty’s Prison Barlinnie. (It is Scotland’s largest prison and a bit infamous, as noted in this article from 2000 about a reported closure that did not happen, but the prison was extensively renovated soon after.)

Rev. Arnott also has rendered extensive service to the Kirk.  As Convener of the Glasgow Presbytery Business Committee he helped restructure the presbytery’s committee structure. While in St. Andrews Presbytery he served as a chaplain to a hospital and two schools, in addition to presbytery service as the convener of two committees and the Moderator of Presbytery in 2007.  He also has extended service on various national church committees.

The Kirk press release gives more details and there is a BBC article and an AllMediaScotland release that both closely follow the official press release.   UPDATE: No sooner had I posted here than Davidkhr’s post appeared on his blog with a little reflection on whether this was the right choice for the church or a “safe” choice.

As we anticipate a General Assembly meeting with some controversial topics, the Rev. Arnott has both my congratulations on being selected as Moderator designate and my prayers for his skill and wisdom guiding the meeting and for his year visiting around the Kirk.

Two Moderator Designates For Next General Assemblies — Free Church Of Scotland And Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand

Leave a reply

No rest for the GA Junkie…

With the conclusion of this year’s GA cycle the circle of life general assemblies keeps on going and we start to look forward to the Assembly Season in 2011.  This week brought two announcements of moderator designates for their respective assemblies.

Today the press is reporting that the Free Church of Scotland has announced their Moderator Designate for the 2011 GA, the Rev. James Maciver, pastor of the Knock Free Church on the Island of Lewis.  According to the news story he has been the pastor there for thirteen years.  He served at East Kilbride for ten years before that after his induction in 1987.  Rev. Maciver has served as a committee, presbytery and synod clerk.  Since 2000 he has served as the Principle Clerk of the General Assembly.  UPDATE: The Free Church web site now has the news story.

With the conclusion of their General Assembly the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand announced that the Rev. Ray Coster is the Moderator Designate for the next Assembly in 2012 and will then serve in that position until the 2014 Assembly.  Rev. Coster has served the St. Andrew’s church in Mt. Maunganui for 25 years and in that time it has grown into a multi-congregation church with five pastoral leadership teams, one for each congregation.  Before his present position he served at Trinity Presbyterian in Timaru for nine years.

Following his being introduced to the Assembly he delivered a few comments to the commissioners, beginning with:

Assembly, I am sure that the one hundred people who have stood in this spot before me as Moderator designate have said that this is a great honour. And it is. I pray that when my time finishes I, like Graham will say, Church you have given me a great privilege. I really do appreciate the support you have given me, but even more the trust you have shown to me. It is a lot to live up to and I hope I can make a good contribution to the life of the Presbyterian Church as your next moderator. I have been in the arms of this church since infancy and I will die in her arms when my time comes to go home.

A bit later he talks about how he is not much for assembly politics and goes on to say of his gifts:

Never been a great assembly orator – sat through many assemblies and never said a word. But, give me a pulpit and one ear that will listen and you can’t shut me up. I love talking about Jesus. I love discussing the faith. I love encouraging others.

He concluded his remarks with his desires for the church, including this about elders:

As a parish minister I have been so strongly supported by good elders. I believe that elders are the hidden strength, underestimated and sometimes unappreciated wisdom of this church. In a parish they are like the keel of the ship. They are the story holders, the ethos carriers. I would love to encourage the elders and spend time with them.

(That’s a good quote — I will use that one again.)
And this is his closing remark about the church in general:

But if there is one thing more than anything else that lies deep in my heart it is to see the church living as a resurrection church; a church that has an intimacy, closeness with the risen Lord. A church that knows life and has life and gives life to all people. A resurrection church knows that it does not exist for itself, it exists for the world in which it lives. A church that is not concerned for its self-survival, but is always ready to sacrifice and suffer for the community around it. A church that is alive in the market-place as much as it is inside the church. It should never escape our attention that all of the miracles of the resurrection church in Acts occur in the Market-place, not the church setting. Only one occurs on the steps of the Temple. A church that has confidence in its Lord and a boldness in its mission. A church that moves in the power of the Holy Spirit. A church that lives the benediction – the good word. The empowering grace of Jesus, the overwhelming love of God, the joyful and happy fellowship of the Spirit. It’s a church of people who know that when they are in Jesus, God is not ticked off with them. They are the apple of his eye.

There has been a bit of reaction to this selection, not the least of which is Rev. Coster’s daughter who tweeted “So proud of my dad!”  There is media coverage from the Bay of Plenty Times and the press release on Scoop.

So my congratulations to both of these gentlemen and best wishes and prayers as they prepare to take up this office to which God has called them through the voice of the people.

General Assembly 2010 Of The Presbyterian Church Of Aotearoa New Zealand

Leave a reply

Spring is in the air and it is time for another General Assembly…

Of course, if it is Spring the Assembly would be in the Southern Hemisphere, and so we look forward to the convening of General Assembly 2010 of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand at St. Andrew’s College in Christchurch in just a few hours.  It will conclude this Sunday October 3.

The theme of the Assembly is “Making Disciple-Making Disciples,” a topic chosen by the incoming Moderator, the Rev. Peter Cheyne.  As Rev. Cheyne says in the press release announcing the theme “It is about making disciples who become sufficiently mature to then make another generation of disciples.”  There is a booklet available on-line that will be used at the Assembly for six small-group Bible study discussion sessions on the topic.  Rev. Cheyne has started blogging, including a reflection on this topic.  (From a technical perspective it appears that the RSS feed is for the whole church web site and there is not one specific to his blog.)

So, for those GA Junkies playing along at home here is what you need to know:

Two important items I have not found yet are the docket and an on-line news page.  I will update here when I do find them. But this is a note that there will be audio files available of certain events so keep an eye out for that. UPDATE: The News and Audio Page is now being updated.

Similarly, I have been searching but have not found anyone tweeting the GA, officially or unofficially, and no hashtag.  Again, will update if I find anything.

The back story to this GA is the September 4 magnitude 7 earthquake near Christchurch.  For those not familiar with earthquake behavior the aftershocks behaviour is very typical (GNS calls it “textbook“) and they continue with five in the magnitude 3 range in the last day reported by the GeoNet official agency information.

Since the earthquake there have been a number of information reports and updates from church-related sources.  Linked to the GA web page is an update related to the Assembly.  And thanks to notes from the Rev. Geoff King of Knox Church, Christchurch, as well as the Presbyterian Research blog for posting the accounts, we have Pastor King’s three updates about the situation after the earthquake with one that day, another the next day, and the last a week on.  (That is the ecclesiastical perspective, for the geological angle I really appreciated the great photos of faulting that GNS has up on their scientific response page.)

So in the same way that prophet Amos marks time with an earthquake in his day this GA will probably be remembered for its temporal and geographical proximity to the Darfield earthquake.

Stay tuned in the coming week and let us see what God does among his people as they meet on the South Island.  Prayers for the meeting.

47th Session Of The General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church Of Australia

Leave a reply

The 47th Session of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Australia began this evening at the Chinese Presbyterian Church in the Surry Hills area of Sydney, N.S.W.  The GAA meets on a triennial basis with much of the governance of the church happening in the General Assemblies of the state churches (e.g. Presbyterian Church of Australia in the state of New South Wales ).

The incoming Moderator of the General Assembly is the Rev. David Jones of Hobart.  In honor of the 450th anniversary of the Scottish Reformation a special service will be held on Tuesday night with the message brought by the Rev. Dr. Sinclair Ferguson.

That is pretty much the extent of the official information I can find.  For the unofficial I recommend the Rev. Gary Ware.  His writing can be found on his blog mgpcpastor’s blog where he has already posted a GAA 101 with a great overview that will satisfy both the GA Junkies as well as the more casual observer.  He has also posted a two part entry about the opening session and worship service.  His writing includes nice details as well as pictures of the Assembly.  I should also say that the Rev. Ware is on Twitter at @gjware but it looks like his tweets are generated automatically when he updates his blog.  I’ll keep watching for other Twitter users or a hashtag and update if I find anything.

So my best wishes for a productive meeting from the PCA and I look forward to the news that will come out of it.

Sunday Worship At The PC(USA) 219th General Assembly Catalyzes Global Discussion

2 Replies

To say that the Sunday worship service at the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) does not really follow the Regulative Principle of Worship is probably an understatement.  It is always a major production with the message from the outgoing Moderator, the Lord’s Supper, liturgical dance, massed choirs, commissioning of missionaries, remembrance of those Teaching Elders who have joined the Church Triumphant, and lots of music.

I intentionally use the word “production” in the preceding paragraph because this worship service is one:  It is planned a year in advance, is held in a custom decorated worship space, is carefully choreographed and planned, involves hundreds of people, communion is served to thousands of attendees, and is expected to be culturally sensitive or politically correct, depending on your point of view.  Those years that I have attended GA I have always gone to the worship service but I have friends who, for a variety of reasons, have avoided it and found alternate worship services.

Well this year, in addition to the usual worship elements, at the 219th General Assembly there was an additional element that I don’t remember from any previous year: giant puppets.

Now, before I get into this specific case it is probably helpful to point out that the use of giant puppets in worship has become a hot topic in worship circles recently so the use of puppets by the PC(USA) just fed into this controversy.  This YouTube video set off a round of discussion a couple of years ago that included comments from First Things and Insight Scoop among others.

Well this summer, a couple of videos from the opening Sunday worship went viral with corresponding discussion.  I heard about the puppets from the press release but looking back it was probably Viola Larson’s posting of the video and a second video where I first saw them.  It was then picked up by Bad Vestments with their “Giant Papier-mâché Calvinist Puppets of Doom.”  (And Bad Vestments quickly followed with two more examples from other churches.)  At this point the blogosphere weighed in, most with critical comments, including Ad Dominum, Stand Firm, and Gairney Bridge.  Jody at Quotidian Grace ran a poll and of the 43 readers  that responded, 2/3 answered the question “Are giant puppets appropriate in worship?” with “Hell No!”

I’ll say that considering the discussion about this topic that has been going on none of this current controversy seemed out of the ordinary to me.  But then it crossed the Atlantic…

On August 28th the immediate past Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland weighted in on his personal blog, and he too was critical:

It all looks a bit pagan to me, and certainly out of place in a denomination that claims to be Christian and reformed.

…

Given the other decisions and proposals of the General Assembly with regard to Christian marriage and the place of practising homosexuals in leadership, it seems that PCUSA has drifted away from its biblical and reformed roots. But some people have been pointing that out for many years.

At the present time there are 16 comments to this post — check them out, there is some good material in there.  Today Will Crawley of the BBC Northern Ireland on his blog Will & Testament highlights Dr. Carson’s blog post and the responses in the comments section.  It turns out that that the commenters are mixed in their opinion and include a brief one saying “Not nearly as silly looking as an Orange or Black parade,” and another that observes “There are children and young people present at the opening of their general assembly. Maybe they do some things better than us.”

One long comment, and most reasoned response in my opinion, comes from the noted Belfast blogger Alan in Belfast.  In the comments he says in part:

Stafford, some might say that the opening procession has a bit more life and colour about it than PCI’s stately procession of ex-moderators! But surely it is difficult – perhaps dangerous – to pick a 5 minute excerpt out of an opening event that took a couple of hours and criticise it. Cherry-picking lacks context, lacks any verbal or written explanation of the significance of what was happening. Surely General Assembly Opening hermeneutics requires a bit more context and material before jumping to conclusions.

Later he continues:

The second video – the puppets – has no connection with PCUSA as far as I can tell. It might have helped in the post if you’d made that clear. Maybe it’s because I spent a very pleasant half hour recently talking to Oscar the Grouch, but I do note that puppets seem to have a place in NI Christian teaching. My daughter attended a holiday Bible club a few weeks ago which featured a pair of camels that could be accused of helping spread the Gospel. And the same puppets (or is the puppeteers) have taught children from PCI at more than one Kid’s Praise Party.

And Alan concludes with:

Is there no light to be had at all in either of these situations? As the “standards of the church” that get read out at PCI ordinations and installations say:

“In exercising the inalienable right of private judgement the Christian is not to set his reason above the Word of God, or to refuse light from any quarter.”

Dr. Carson responded:

Alan, you are absolutely right about the importance of context, and nowhere is this more important than in your last statement. “Not refusing light from any quarter” does not mean that anything goes or that all opinions are equally valid for reformed Christians. The statement comes in the context of affirming the authority and sufficiency of Scripture and the inadequacy of human reason. The statement goes on to say that conscience is free from “the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to His Word or beside it, in matters of faith and worship.” It is for that reason that traditionally reformed churches have opted for only those elements in worship which are commanded or recognised in the Bible. No one’s conscience should be bound by being required to participate in worship which includes other elements not prescribed by Scripture.

Peter, another commenter, also has a long and thoughtful response to Alan where he talks about children wanting to know “what is real.”  He concludes with “Real sins, like exclusion, are dealt with by participating in real dramas, real dramas like eating and drinking with people, real dramas like words, words of kindness and grace, real dramas like offering, again, the hand of friendship even after it has been spurned. Real dramas like the Cross.  And that, to my mind, is what is pagan about such events in the church, it is the replacing of the real drama with a made up one of our own, one behind which we hide… and the really disturbing thing is that we can hide behind the most orthodox of doctrine.”

But the real zinger in this discussion, and thanks to Will Crowley for pointing this one out, is from a “Bemused Parent” who was at Dr. Carson’s church, First Portadown.

Truth is stranger than fiction ! ! !

At First Presby’ Portadown, on Sunday, our children’s address consisted of one man dressed all in black, he was the Dark Destroyer(Satan) and the other, dressed in white, was Jesus. They had a tug of war! Go(o)d v’s evil. First time evil won then Jesus with the help of his “friends”, won.

We were all encouraged to cheer and boo the appropriate “hero”.

Stafford, your children’s address was different, are you taking your led from PCUSA? You obviously do not reject light from any quarter. What are you planning next week?

Maybe the best summary of all this is a phrase that Peter and Alan have been discussing back and forth in the comments — “Where do you draw the line?”