Category Archives: commentary

Keeping the Lord’s Day — Revisited

1 Reply

Regular readers of this blog know that I have half seriously/half humorously visited the topic of keeping the Lord’s Day before.  While I do have some fun with this topic, our family does try to keep in mind that this is a day set aside for God.  However it sometimes seems to be a far cry from a “day of rest” when we have five people all going in four different directions on a Sunday evening: our daughter to worship and my wife and I to our small group Bible study, while still needing to get the boys to their respective small group studies.  And while we may spend time on Sunday afternoons getting odd jobs done around the house, we do try not to go shopping or go out to eat.  And yes, like yesterday when I sat down and watched a bit of an MLS game and part of the Canada-Honduras soccer match, we do sometimes relax in front of the television, usually watching sports.

One thing that is interesting to note about the commandment to set a day apart for God is that it is the longest of the commandments.  It gives not just the command that nobody and no animal in the household is to do work, but also the rational that God worked for six days and rested on the seventh.  Any polity wonk would think that with that much documentation serious consideration should be given to it.

While I would say that our family is respectful but not legalistic about the Lord’s Day, an interesting poll and discussion has begun over on the PuritanBoard about “Is watching NFL Football a violation of the 4th commandment?”  At the moment in the poll the results are running 20-8 that it is a violation.

But what is more interesting is looking at the discussion.  This is not a simple yes/no question as the various issues brought up in the discussion address.  There are so many subtleties and aspects that it would make a group of rabbis debating the law proud.  Such issues as…

Is it a violation of the sabbath just because of what I do or also because those I am watching are working?

Is it a violation if I record the game on Sunday but watch it another day?

Is it a violation if I recorded it on Saturday and watch it on Sunday?

Does the Lord’s Day begin and end at midnight or at sunset and if it is that latter can I watch the late game?

Is participating in a PuritanBoard discussion work and so should PuritanBoard be shut down on the Lord’s Day?

So we Presbyterian and Reformed hold this, like other things, in the tension of taking God’s Word seriously while still being gracious and not legalistic about the commandments.

Statistics and “Missing” Information

2 Replies

Over the last week I have had two conversations about statistics and in each case there is something missing or hidden if you just look at the information as presented in the table.  This was also an important point at a church committee meeting on Saturday where we were working on the 2009 budget.  Not statistics but financial data and the way that the accounting professionals presented it to us: while correct by their professional standards, it did not always make it straight-forward to understand exactly where the money was coming from and going to.

Statistics are frequently tricky and if you want proof of that from another perspective, and you are not already reading it, Bradley Wright, a professor of sociology interested in the sociology of Christianity has a series going right now on statistics at his blog, fittingly named, Bradley Wright’s Weblog.  I really enjoy his writing, but that may be because I am a fellow academaniac.

Anyway, here are the two I was discussing…

The first statistic:  Contemporary Christian Music
This one began with the observation that almost everything we sing in worship was “contemporary” at one time.  Like I explained to my kids yesterday (to the usual eye roll that Dad is doing it again) the two great Issac Watts hymns our preacher chose for worship (that they didn’t really care for) were significant because of the influence Watts had in moving English worship music away from the literal Psalter.  (And I do realize that there are some readers who consider that the beginning of the end for mainline Reformed worship.)

But what about contemporary worship music today.  One measure of what is being sung is the monthly list from Christian Copyright Licensing International, better known as CCLI.  This is who a church pays the small royalty fee to when they use modern music in worship for congregational singing.  Well the August 2008 list is now available and while it includes a few that our congregation regularly sings in worship most are not used in my church.  It is interesting that the list includes one song, Lord I Lift Your Name On High, with the incredibly low CCLI number of 117947.  (Like a serial number giving the approximate order it entered the CCLI catalog.)  Twenty two of the songs on the list have numbers above one million and many above four million.

The oldest list available from the search page is August 1997.  What is the latest and greatest on that list… You guessed it, good old 117947, Lord I Lift Your Name On High.  But as I look down the eleven year old list I recognize most of the songs as ones that we regularly sing in worship.  Is my church so out of date in singing these “traditional” songs that everyone else has passed us by so they no longer appear on the CCLI list?  No, when we, and other churches, sing them now it is “please open your hymnals to number 36.”

While the CCLI list is a useful tool for the “cutting edge” contemporary music, once a song has been widely adopted and enters the hymnals it drops off the CCLI list.  The CCLI list ceases to be a good measure of all “contemporary” worship music, at least if contemporary music goes back more than a few years.

(In putting this post together I found on the CCLI site the results of a survey they did of their license holders about music in worship.  What is the problem here?  It is the sample population.  If they only sampled their license holders they completely missed congregations that exclusively use printed material not requiring a CCLI license.  None the less, there is some interesting stuff in those statistics but I’ll leave that for another time.)

The second statistic:  Churches Leaving the PC(USA)
I make frequent mention of the Presbyterian Church (USA) annual statistics and the decline in membership numbers.  What is interesting is that while the number of members has declined by more than 2%, the number of churches has declined by less than 1%.  Yes, part of this is that the vast majority of churches in the PC(USA) are losing members, but part of the difference might be from how the PC(USA) accounts for the statistics when a church leaves the denomination.

As best as I can figure out, in the case where a congregation choses to disaffiliate, rather than request a transfer, and an administrative commission can identify a minority to continue the church, the result in the statistics is a large relative loss of membership, but no loss of a church.  I am not saying this is a false reporting of the information; it is a technically correct way to list the data.  I am just pointing out that it does mask the nature of the membership loss that occurred.  It almost seems we need a category for “continuing churches decimated by schism.”  Where are footnotes when you need them.

So that is what I have seen masked in how the statistics are reported.

The Changes in the PC(USA) Ordination Exam on Biblical Exegesis — Brief Observations and Comments

1 Reply

Last week the news broke, just in time for the latest round of ordination exams, that there would be changes to the grading of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Ordination Exam on Biblical Exegesis.  The Presbyteries Cooperative Committee on Examinations announced two changes: 1) “The demonstration of a working knowledge of Greek and/or Hebrew will no longer be a requirement in order to complete the examination successfully.”  2) The inquirers and candidates will be asked to offer a “faithful interpretation” rather than “a principle meaning” of the text.

According to a document from the PCCEC these changes come from input received during a self-study.  The committee has implemented the changes as a response to those concerns.

This one came in below my radar screen and I must thank the other bloggers I will reference below for alerting me to it.  They have all made their own comments about it, and most in more detail and focus than I will.  I simply wish to highlight a few issues in this discussion.

1.  The Future Is Now
Maybe the most important thing to come out of this, from my polity wonk viewpoint, is that this is the first highly visible change resulting from our new polity model.  While we may have been focused on the Form of Government revision (nFOG) from the Task Force and the 218th General Assembly that the Assembly referred to the presbyteries for further review, we need to remember that the revision to Chapter 14 of the current Form of Government, sent to the presbyteries by the 217th GA and approved by them, was in the same spirit as the nFOG.  This is a model that removes procedural details from the Book of Order and shifts it out to “manuals” to be written and approved by other agencies and governing bodies.  So now Chapter 14 simply says that there will be ordination exams and one of the topics that will be covered is “Biblical Exegesis” rather than giving specifics about the Exegesis exam and what particular details it will cover.

If the nFOG gets adopted expect a lot more of this.  Depending on how you look at it this is not necessarily a negative thing.  In this case, while the Cooperative Committee may have changed the grading of the exam, the door is now open for a presbytery’s Committee on Preparation for Ministry to adopt grading and interpretation of the exam that are stricter than previously specified in the Book of Order.

So, if the church as a whole does not like this change what do they do?  (I would note that between the many blogs I read and a Google search I have found only negative comments about this change by bloggers, but it is usually those objecting that shout loudest.  However, reading through the comments on the blog posts I reference there are positive comments about the change like this one from Adam Copeland.)  It is not clear to me that there is an established method for input and adjustment to these new manuals from the wider church other than expressing concern to the committee and supervising agency or council.  There are of course always Book of Order amendments.

For more on the change in polity regarding this I refer you to Pastor Bob.

2.  This Discussion Has Been Going On Throughout Global Presbyterian History
I won’t go into great detail here, but while Presbyterians have historically held higher education requirements than almost any other denomination, the exact nature of those requirements has been a topic of discussion from the very beginning and continues today.  Whether pastors can be trained at small specialized institutions instead of full-fledged universities was a topic of discussion in 18th century American Presbyterianism regarding the Log College and today in the Church of Scotland regarding Highland Theological College.

One of the issues that has been mentioned related to this level of theological training is the high failure rate, possibly related to uneven grading, for any of the more “subjective” or “interpretative” ordination exams.  (The polity exam also regularly comes up in this category.)  Again, read through the comments on some of the referenced blog posts for individual stories regarding conflicting graders’ comments.

3.  This Shifts But Does Not Necessarily Weaken The Standards
If the Cooperative Committee and their exam graders were the final word than a good case can be made that the standard is weakened.  There is a great series of posts by Mark D. Roberts (First, Second, Third, Fourth, Postscript) on the change and what the weakening of the original language requirement and the different meanings of “a principle meaning” versus “faithful interpretation” imply.  (There is more great discussion in the comments to these posts and Jim Berkley has a follow-up.)  I think we will have to wait a little bit to see how this change is actually implemented in the grading.

What this change has effectively done has highlighted the responsibility of the graders for interpreting that standard, and shifted the responsibility for judging the candidates ability with the original language to their Committee on Preparation for Ministry.  While the proficiency with the original languages will not be graded it will be commented on for the benefit of the CPM’s.  What will the CPM’s do with that?

In essence this change has moved some of the authority and responsibility from the central structure of the denomination back out to the presbyteries.  It is now up to the CPM’s to take this new responsibility seriously, but you can bet that through differing levels of oversight and differing philosophies there will be a less uniform standard for candidates certified ready to receive a call.

A personal reaction:  First, I am a ruling elder and never had to suffer through ordination exams.  (Want to trade for my doctoral exams?)  However, having had formal Latin training and a few “kitchen table” classes on Greek, I have a rudimentary knowledge of that original language.  (Sorry, no functionality for Hebrew.)  I do sometimes follow sermons in my Greek text and have done my best to work with both the Greek and transliterated Hebrew on the few times I have preached.  From this background I am sorry to see original language ability disappear as an explicit requirement for the exam and if the exam grading remains like this I hope the CPM’s will still seriously evaluate a candidate’s functionality with the original languages when deciding if they are certified ready to receive a call.

Women in Ordained Ministry in the Church — Current Discussion and Some Thoughts

Leave a reply

The first item, or actually two items, of news relates to the ongoing discussion in the Presbyterian Church in America about the role of women in the diaconate.  You may remember that at their General Assembly back in June there was a significant discussion about establishing a study committee to look at this issue and the various aspects of ordination versus commissioning versus participation.  In the end the Assembly decided not to establish the study committee but to continue the discussion in the denomination, including through the process of records review.

As part of that continuing discussion the PCA publication byFaith has just published on-line a pair of articles that do a great job of presenting two of the aspects of this issue:

The Case for our Current Policy on Female Deacons by Ligon Duncan

The Case for Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Deaconesses by Tim Keller

Each of the articles is well written for a knowledgeable but not scholarly audience.  For instance, they presuppose that you know a bit about the issue and are familiar with the concepts of complementarianism and egalitarianism.  But they do a good job of discussing relevant points in the history of the debate as well as theological and scriptural issues without your eyes glazing over when presented with the Greek vocabulary.

It is also important to point out that the articles are written by two high-profile and respected teaching elders in the PCA with somewhat different views, but who both acknowledge, if not affirm, the present constitutional standard of the PCA that only men may hold any ordained office.  They also affirm the constitutional standard that women are to be involved in the diaconate ministry.  The articles discuss two different approaches to that involvement.

For those of us not in the PCA this is not an unrelated issue.  Between the PCA, with no ordination of women, and the PC(USA), with full ordination of women, there is the Evangelical Presbyterian Church with “local option” ordination.

As the movement of churches disaffiliating from the PC(USA) began and these churches generally realigned with the EPC, there were concerns raised about the status of women’s ordinations in the realigned churches.  In particular, Presbyterians for Renewal had an article in their 12 reasons to stay in the PC(USA) on “The PC(USA) Affirms and Encourages Women.”  (All of my links to that original article are now broken but there is a post at Renewing.NewCastleFPC.org that has the original list of 12 reasons to stay in the PC(USA).)  There was also a series of articles by the Network of Presbyterian Women in Leadership titled “Has anyone asked the women?”

In thinking about this I wondered “How much of an issue is this at the present time?”

So in my morning coffee break and over lunch today I did a quick survey.  I took the EPC list of churches in the New Wineskins/EPC Transitional Presbytery and did a quick, and probably unscientific, look at all listed web sites to see how many had women on staff who were ordained as ministers.  I would first note that of the 30 churches on the list, there is only one with a woman as the solo/senior/head pastor.  In total I found about six women in what appeared to be ordained pastoral positions at these 30 churches.  (I gave one or two ambiguous names the benefit of the doubt as being women and on some church web sites technical titles that a GA Junkie would want were absent, so again I had to make my best judgment if the individual was ordained.  I also included one commissioned lay pastor.  Like I said, it was quick, “back of the envelope,” and unscientific.)  My best count from the web sites is that there are at least 66 total ordained ministers at these churches.  At six out of 66 there are about 9% ordained women serving in these churches.  So in reality, while six individuals may have an issue when the transitional presbytery dissolves (depends on the status of women in the presbyteries these churches will be transferred into), 91% will have no problem.  (Interestingly, I just called up the PC(USA) 2007 statistics, and while they break out male/female elders and deacons, they don’t for ministers.  But I would bet that the percentage of ministers in the PC(USA) who are women, while less than 50% is more than 9%.  I did a count of my presbytery membership and it is 15%.  For ministers serving churches it is 22% in my presbytery.)

It is interesting to consider the reasons for this low percentage of women in ordained ministry in these churches.  I am not aware of a departure of women from the church as the church departs for the EPC.  Maybe there is already a “corporate culture” at these churches that gives them an affinity for the EPC including the lower likelyhood of women in ordained office.  Or you could play thought games with the cause and effect:  “Because they have few women in leadership they have an affinity for the EPC” or “Because they have an affinity for the EPC they have few women in leadership.”  While not losing sight of the fact that these churches are realigning with the EPC for other reasons, the issue of women in ordained leadership, or not in leadership as the case may be, appears to be an associated factor.

But at another level it is an issue.  Over the last couple of months I’ve had conversations with two women attending my church about their sense of call to ordained ministry.  For both, because of “where they are,” ordained ministry in their present situation is not an option, whether it be denominational membership or seminary attendance.  They are still talking to God about whether the call is authentic and if so should they make a change in their situation.

And given time, maybe this will not be an issue with the EPC.  I have speculated that with a continued or increased realignment of churches from the PC(USA) to the EPC there can’t but help being a certain “PC(USA)-isation” of the EPC which I expect will include the spreading of women’s ordination under local option, if not the approval of the ordination of women across the denomination.  As I frequently say, time will tell.

The Church — Integrated Not Institutional?

3 Replies

There are some big happenings just south of here in Orange County this weekend.

The Presbyterian Global Fellowship is holding their third annual Inside-Out Conference in Long Beach this weekend. For details of what is happening you can check out the PGF Outbox blog.  (For the GA Junkies out there this is the same convention center that was the site of the 212th General Assembly (2000) of the PC(USA).)

There’s also some political event going on at a megachurch down there.  With the price of one of the good seats at $2000 I’m skipping it.  But seriously, this blending (blurring?) of church and state has raised issues with some people. (Example 1 and Example 2 from On Faith)

But I want to take a step back from this direct and high-profile political involvement and mention another church and culture article.  This comes from David Virtue of Virtue Online and in a recent post he discusses a book by Dr. Peter Hammond titled Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat. (now apparently out of print)  Mr. Virtue begins his entry with this:

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.

Islam
has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The
religious component is a beard for all the other components.

You may or may not agree with this and if you agree you may consider the concept of a complete system a positive or a negative (Mr. Virtue goes on to discuss it as a negative).  But it struck me that a scholar and friend of mine views the ancient Hebrew society as a complete system with implications for the modern Christian Church to be integrated in society, not an institution outside it.  This is not that the United States should be a theocracy, but rather how Christians corporately and individually participate in our culture.  And yes, this flies in the face of American individualism and the church as just a spiritual institution.

The Rev. Dr. Robert Linthicum is a parish associate at our church and head of the parachurch organization Partners in Urban Transformation.  Previously an urban parish minister and leader at World Vision in urban ministry, he is an expert in community organizing.  With his background and study he has a theological perspective that sees the Biblical instructions to ancient Israel as a complete system, an integration of their spiritual, economic and political life so that there are no rich or poor but a culture that is equitable to everyone.  And through this lens he reads the rest of the Bible to see God’s people as the workers for God’s social vision even today.

Now, you may not agree with his theological viewpoint; I can say that I am not in total agreement with some of the things I have heard Bob say.  But in the same way that Mr. Virtue is discussing Islam as a complete system, this particular view has ancient Israel intended to be a complete system and the Christian Church the inheritors of that legacy.

I have been trying to find a good resource on line that explains some of this but have not located any.  You can get some of this viewpoint from one of Rev. Linthicum’s sermons (larger mp3, smaller wma).  His central books on this are Transforming Power and Building a People of Power.

For consideration.  Your mileage may vary.

For All Have Sinned And Fall Short Of The Glory Of God

1 Reply

When the rumors about John Edwards’ sexual impropriety turned into a full-blown news story and then a confession I sort of shrugged and thought “this is not news, it is a reminder.”  First, this has happened before, and second being in a Reformed denomination “sin” is not just something we do, “sinful” is something that we are.  So I pretty much stopped following the story, what with the situation in the country of Georgia and the Olympics seeming a lot more important.  One thing that did catch my attention in many of those news reports was that so many of them contained a litany of other politicians from both sides of the aisle that had their own problems with marital infidelity.

But today I came across an article on Ethics Daily that pointed out an interesting twist on this story:  Back in June of 2007 on a CNN candidates forum about politics and religion Edwards was asked about the “Biggest sin he had ever committed.”  He gave a typical non-committal answer that he sins multiple times every day and that we are all sinners, that we all fall short, and we all need to confess and repent.

What caught my attention was not so much that he said this on the air after his affair had ended, but rather the article pointed out that when he issued his statement this week the affair was not referred to in terms that would sound as much like a “sin” but “a serious error in judgment.”  While this wording avoids the cosmic implications, I will give him credit that at the end of the statement he acknowledges that he lost perspective and uses scripture-like language about being “stripped” and “made low”:

In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was
special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you
want to beat me up — feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have
already beaten up myself. I have been stripped bare and will now work
with everything I have to help my family and others who need my help.

But in thinking about this another thing jumped out at me which has been one of my criticisms of G-6.0106b in the PC(USA) Book of Order:  At the present time we have two ethics situations playing out among prominent national politicians — John Edwards’ sexual impropriety and Ted Stevens’ indictment for financial impropriety.  Which is getting more press?  Is one of these a “bigger sin” than the other.  OK, I’ll admit that there is a confession and the “other woman” in the Edwards case and Stevens’ is denying any wrong-doing.  Still, in the case of Edwards no civil laws were broken while Stevens has criminal charges against him.  In general, it seems to me that a national figure’s sexual sins get bigger play in the media than other types of wrong doing.  If you believe Google News counts, John Edwards has 17,500 while Ted Stevens has 7,000.

As I suggested above, the PC(USA) has done something similar with the Book of Order.  While G-6.0106b talks about “any self-acknowledged practice the confessions call sin” the section singles out “fidelity and chastity.”  I am not so much advocating change in the language as I am for perspective and balance in how we regard different sins.  Even in sexual sins, do we give the same weight and seriousness to heterosexual adultery by officers of the church as we do with homosexual relationships?

For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. [Romans 3:23]

(And just in case you thought about the irony of John Edwards name, some headline writer at the Hartford Courant did produce “J. Edwards in the hands of an angry God” for one of their columnists although the column seems to have no religious references.  Sometimes a good headline is hard to pass up.)

Reflections On The Church Virtual #1

13 Replies

In a couple of previous posts I began my “out loud” reflections on The Church Virtual, the concept of Christians gathered in Covenant Community not face-to-face in a specific geographic location, but in virtual communities like those now developing in a Web 2.0 world.  I opened this line of thought back in early March and posted some preliminary development of it about a month later.  Since April I have been doing some serious theological reading and thinking on this idea, but then I went to General Assembly…

I’ll return to that in a minute.  But since April I have been trying to form a framework or grid to help me think about, or “measure” or “test” how the church as virtual community would exist or function.  I am trying to be careful not to unduly constrain thinking about the Church Virtual, while still trying to have something solid on which to hang the thinking.

So let me throw out there the basic outline for thinking about this.  For me one of the most basic measures of the church is from Chapter 18 of the Scots Confession, the “notes of the true kirk (church):”

The notes of the true Kirk, therefore, we believe, confess, and avow to
be:

  • first, the true preaching of the word of God, in which God has
    revealed himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles
    declare;
  • secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ
    Jesus, to which must be joined the word and promise of God to seal and
    confirm them in our hearts;
  • and lastly, ecclesiastical discipline
    uprightly ministered, as God’s word prescribes, whereby vice is
    repressed and virtue nourished.

This is a start, but as the following lines in the confession indicate it applies to specific or particular churches.  The virtual community usually does not pretend to take on the role of a particular church, but rather a fellowship or community of believers that guides and supports across geographical boundaries.

My second guide for the Church is the six “Great Ends of the Church:”

  • the proclamation of the gospel for the salvation of humankind;
  • the shelter, nurture, and spiritual fellowship of the children of God;
  • the maintenance of divine worship;
  • the preservation of the truth;
  • the promotion of social righteousness;
  • and the exhibition of the Kingdom of Heaven to the world

Not that the notes of the true church should be disregarded, but this gives a little more to work with for on-line community.

Now, I am going to try to tackle, or at least poke on, all nine of these points in one post or another as I get time to convert my random musings into coherent, or at least less random, reflections.  But even as I put this one together I struggled with some overlap between various of these concepts.  And I decided “live with it.”  So here it goes…

Maybe the most obvious and natural way that the on-line community relates to these various points is in the category of “shelter, nurture, and spiritual fellowship of the children of God.”  For example, different blogs fill different niches in cyberspace and many do not have the explicit intent of fostering “fellowship.”  I know that I personally don’t write this blog to be “warm and fuzzy” and there are a bunch that I read which are the same way.  But even while reading more scholarly posts about the emergent church, or global economics, or ecclesiology, if you read the blog regularly you get a sense of the person behind the blog and do develop an emotional connection.

Getting a sense of the person behind the blog is easier when the blog author does mix in the personal news and comments with the other items and for those bloggers who post almost exclusively their personal journeys the connection is easier.

OK, so there is a one-way connection there?  Does that make it part of the virtual covenant community?  I think it is in a qualified sense.

Anytime we care about, and especially pray for, another Christian, whether they know it or not, that interaction is mediated by the Holy Spirit which formed the covenant community to begin with.  Because God is involved we were linked as Christian brothers and sisters to begin with even before we began reading each others blogs.  The sharing in the virtual community did not establish the connection, it “realized” it.  But while the implicit connection is present in the existing relationship established by divine facilities, to live into that community we need to have some two-way interaction.  While the obvious source of interaction in these cases is the comments section at the end of the blog (one of the reasons that I and others have noted the inability to comment on the blog of the Moderator of the Church of Scotland), I would argue that since God is the creator of the covenant community and the Holy Spirit empowers it, that responding back with prayer is another valid response to blog posts that establishes us in the two-way divinely-mediated relationship.

And there are cases where it seems the authors are, by design, trying to facilitate Christian community on the web.  In my reading through blogs I have found a few of these that have really touched me and in which I have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit.  One is a blog by Kristin called “Barefoot and Laughing” where she is chronicling her journey with cancer and treatment.  There are other blogs and web sites where people are sharing this journey, but something about Kristin’s writing, her transparency and honesty in this journey reached out and grabbed me.  Check out the posts I’m Scared and Crucible.  Your mileage may vary.  But I hold this up as an example of very real and intimate writing that draws us into community with one another, even if our only response is to lift the person up in prayer.

Another blog that I regularly read is “journalling” by Liz, a minister in Scotland.  In each of these brief posts, all illustrated with a single photograph, she shares with us a little bit of each day and a spiritual insight.  Again, you may prefer something different, but I look forward to reading each installment and following the twists and turns of her call and ministry.

A final example is “Our Table Must Be Full” by Carl Mazza.  As one of the candidates for Moderator of the General Assembly Carl was writing blog posts about his ministry as his time and circumstances permitted.  What was most touching about these entries was that they were usually not about him but were wonderful stories about individuals he met in his ministry to the homeless.  Once I got a chance to meet and hear him at GA it was very quickly clear that the blog entries were just as much about who Carl is and his enormous heart for those people in difficult circumstances that he ministers to.  With the conclusion of GA I do hope that Carl continues sharing these stories with us.

I hold these up as examples of blogs through which I find myself much more connected with the Christian community around the world, ones where we do participate in the “shelter, nurture, and spiritual fellowship of the children of God.”  I would guess that if you are a regular blog reader you have your own. (And note the overlap here because these blogs can sometimes include “proclamation of the Gospel” and “exhibition of the Kingdom of Heaven.”)

The question is frequently raised as to whether there are limits to how open, transparent, and honest one should be in their blogging.  In an ideal world there would be no limits, but in this fallen world not everyone is part of the covenant community, and even those of us who are can take things the wrong way sometimes and the blogging can impede the spiritual fellowship.  This is probably more often the case when you are blogging about others rather than just about yourself.

In my reading, Mark Smith over at Mark Time is at the forefront of thinking this through.  Through his hard experience of trying to be open and honest in the virtual community he has offended and hurt some in his particular church.  As a result of that, and in consultation with his pastor, he is leading the charge on a scripturally-based foundation for what is and is not appropriate sharing in the virtual community.  Thanks Mark for taking that on.  It is interesting to note that this has overlaps with other of my nine thinking points, maybe particularly “ecclesiastical discipline
uprightly ministered.”  And as you can probably surmise by how he got in trouble, he is another blogger who shares the twists, turns, joys, and disappointments of his life with us regular readers of his blog.

So this brings me to General Assembly and my experience there.  Having established certain relationships in the virtual community I was amazed by the added dimension to the relationship when there was the opportunity to meet my “imaginary friends” (as we were calling each other) in a face-to-face setting.  My EP has as a constant theme the vision of gathering at the table, with the various sacrament, meal, and discussion implications.  This was truly the case for me in meeting several of those that I had known only through their blogs and podcasts.  Having known them from their virtual persona the element of in-person contact seemed considerably more significant.

As Christians this should not surprise us.  In his earthly ministry Jesus was about human contact:  Touching those he healed, taking time for the less important in society, sharing a meal with outcasts and sinners.  In fact, while I believe that Jesus was capable of doing most, if not all, healings from a remote location he almost always did them in contact or close proximity to the individual.  Only in the case of the centurion’s servant can I think of “action at a distance” when the centurion tells Jesus he understands orders given and obeyed. [Matt. 8:5-13]

So while the advent of Web 2.0 has enhanced ministry and fellowship opportunities in the virtual community, I have so far come to the conclusion that it is a tool that can initiate, enhance, and maintain our spiritual fellowship, but I don’t see the Church Virtual as a total replacement for “the shelter, nurture, and spiritual fellowship of the children of God” within the particular church.

Collecting Confessions in the PC(USA)

2 Replies

At some point when I was a kid I began collecting stamps as a hobby. I
started with this big, 3-inch-thick album and a determination to fill
it up, at least with the common stamps I could find or afford.

As
I got older I came to the realization that I would
not be able to get every stamp in the world to put in the album so I
became more selective in the stamps that I collected. Finally, by the end of high school, I was specializing in stamps in a very specific
theme (geology, surprise?) that meant something to me.

This
is how I have come to view the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Book of Confessions. In a sense
we are collectors of confessions.

Every other Presbyterian branch that
I regularly follow has adopted the Westminster Standards as their sole subordinate standard.
Even the Church of Scotland has left their Scots Confession for
Westminster.  In fact, the Westminster Standards were the only confessional standard for the Presbyterian Church in the United States before reunion in 1983.  (The introductory Confessional Nature of the Church Report in the Book of Confessions states that historically multiple confessional standards are the norm, not the exception, outside of North America.  However, in the contemporary Presbyterian churches that does not seem to be the case.  While I have not done an exhaustive search I give as examples Article II of the Constitution of the Church of Scotland that says “The principle subordinate standard… is the Westminster Confession of Faith” and there is similar verbiage in the Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand.) 

The PC(USA), on the other hand, has a Book of Confessions with eleven different documents, but arranged so that the Westminster Shorter and Longer Catechisms are a single chapter for numbering.  There are two ancient creeds (Nicene and Apostles’), several Reformation confessions and catechisms (Scots, Heidelberg, Second Helvetic, and Westminster), and the three modern documents (Barmen, 1967, and the Brief Statement).

So, is the PC(USA) trying to collect everything out there
that looks interesting or are we being selective and discerning in our
collection?  I would hope the latter and that is why there is a higher bar to cross to change the Book of Confessions than to change the Book of Order.

I will “confess” that I like
the collection that we have. I regularly include the first question of
the Heidelberg Catechism in my personal devotions. “To glorify God and
enjoy Him forever,” answer 1 from the Westminster shorter, is a guiding principle for me. The three marks of the church
in the Scots confession are a reminder as I work on my church duties. And I stand in awe of
the boldness and audacity of the Barmen Declaration every time I read
it. Yes, I could still have all this if they were not in the Book of
Confessions, but their presence there identified them to me initially
and gave them a certain authority for my life.

The
problem with the collection is that we have no single standard to guide
us. With eleven documents
it can take time and effort to figure out how the confessions guide us
and sometimes the answer between two of them is different or a confession differs from our modern understanding. The introductory section to the Book of Confessions lists many of these specific difficulties (III.C.2).

So, if we are collectors, what
we put in the collection needs to be worthy of being added, otherwise
we end up with a book of documents with no system, coherence, or
meaning. In the most recent developments there is a proposal to adjust the Heidelberg Catechism and add the Confession of Belhar. In the next
three to four years the church will have to decide if they make a meaningful
addition to the Book of Confessions.

Concerning
the Heidelberg catechism there is a strong argument for restoring the
accuracy of the translation. There is also an argument that while Question 87 may not specifically translate the original German text of the Catechism, it does reflect the underlying scriptural passage to which the original author was making reference. I guess my primary disappointment
in the recent GA actions is that five specific questions were singled
out for adjustment rather than an assessment of the whole document.
Adjustments to documents are not unheard of: In 1997 the church replaced the Nicene Creed with the Ecumenical version of the
Nicene Creed updating the language to modern English. But this also
opens up the question of whether other documents, like the Westminster
Confession should be “perfected” to their true form, as was pointed out in a comment on a previous post.  In fact, the Book of Confessions carries, in parallel, both of the pre-reunion versions of the Westminster Confession from the PCUS and the UPCUSA.

As for
including additional documents how do we decide what should be added?
This GA the decision was made to add the 1986 Confession of Belhar. But why that one?
Interestingly the recommendation was made by the Advocacy Committee on Racial-Ethnic Concerns,
not by overture from a presbytery like the Heidelberg adjustments. So why this
one and not others? In past years I have heard suggestions that the
Belgic Confession of 1618 or something associated with John Calvin like the French Confession of 1559 or the Geneva Confession and Catechism should be included.  (Wouldn’t that make sense for the Calvin 500 year anniversary?) Other suggestions floating around include the Accra Confession.  In addition, the Athanasian Creed is referenced as a
standard in the Second Helvetic Confession [5.078]. And the PC(USA) also has Belonging to God: A First Catechism
and The Study Catechism. Start including all of these and the Book of
Confessions begins to look like one of the three volumes of Philip
Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom.

I do not argue for, or against, any one of these documents.  I do raise the question of what is our perspective on which documents should find inclusion in our subordinate standards.  Yes, we are collectors.  Do we have an understanding and focus of what we are collecting?
Is there a system more than “this looks interesting” or “this one is
unique?” In our ordination vows we agree to be “instructed and led” by the confessions.  As
we study which confessions to make constitutional documents we should
make sure that our ultimate authority, Scripture, guides our
confessional standards, not that our desire to “collect” another confession is our prime motivation.

IV. All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general
or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to
be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in
both.
[Westminster Confession, Chapter XXXI, Section 4]

What Will The Next Year Look Like In The PC(USA)?

4 Replies

What will the next year look like in the PC(USA)?

At
the PC(USA) General Assembly in the hours following the Assembly passing another proposed amendment to change G-6.0106b, the
question that moderators, clerks, and executives seemed to be asking
one another was “What does this mean for your presbytery?” With the
passage of the overture to send the modification of G-6.0106b back out to
the presbyteries again there was concern for what the next year would
look like in their body. And this was from leaders who themselves and
their presbyteries were across the theological spectrum. This was not about the issues, this was about the health of the Body of Christ.  The executives were concerned enough about this that they gathered in prayer and reflection on this issue.  It was almost
as an afterthought that anyone asked the question “Will it pass?” (In
case you wonder, the consensus is probably not.)

For those who care about this issue, and many do, this is an important issue.  Whether you see this as an issue of justice or an issue of Scriptural authority, either way these are things that the church should be about.  But we must conduct our discussions and hold our debates and interpret to our wider church in ways that witness to Jesus’ “High Priestly Prayer” where He says “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” [John 17:20, 21]

Amendment B was
passed in 1996 adding G-6.0106b to the Form of Government. Now, in the
following ten General Assemblies its removal or modification have come up at virtually every GA,
and twice, in 1997 and 2001, sent out to the presbyteries for modification or removal. Is it any
wonder that the “people in the pews” are getting tired of it. We polity
wonks and GA Junkies have an insight into how God, through the Holy
Spirit, works in our covenant communities through these governing body
meetings and our connectionalism. We need to recognize that the roughly 2000 people here at the
General Assembly represent about 0.1% of the PC(USA). Suppose we say
that there are twenty times that number who are polity wonks and care
about this stuff as a polity exercise: That means that 98% of the PC(USA) does not really
understand the process. (Note: I chose twenty times because that gives
twice the number of ministers in the PC(USA) so we will say that for
every minister there is an elder, or a member like Mark, who also understands.)

The point is that this issue keeps coming back and most of the PC(USA) either doesn’t care, doesn’t really understand why, or thinks there are better things to be spending our time on.  And again, this cuts across the theological spectrum.

How will this situation in the PC(USA) change? I see a few possible pathways to accepting the status quo or the removal or modification of G-6.0106b.

The first is the movement of the Holy Spirit.  I do not discount the power of the Holy Spirit and prayer to bring the church together enabling us to settle this or set it aside.

Another is generational change. If what appears to be the current trend continues, as the younger generation comes into fuller leadership in the church  they, if the YAAD vote is any indication, will be more amenable to passing these changes at the presbytery level.  This may be complicated if individuals, with more experience  and exposure to a variety of ideas, change their theological leanings with age.  It is also a call to all of us to provide sound theological and Biblical teaching to each generation so they are prepared to move into leadership and make these decisions.

Maybe the most likely avenue to acceptance of new ordination standards by the denomination will be attrition.  As the discussion and disagreements continue the evangelical side is finding it more faithful to depart than dispute.  The ultimate end member of this is that the PC(USA) will be left as a smaller, throughly progressive denomination that can then adopt these ordination standards.  With enough departures this would effectively result in a de facto schism.  Of course, the disagreements could rise to the level of creating a full-scale rapid parting of ways at some time in the future.  Or, the outcome could be two churches under one roof if flexible presbytery membership, similar to what has been proposed at the last two GA’s, is adopted.

The most unfortunate path for change would be apathy:  enough people on one side get tired of the dispute and just give up while remaining with the denomination.  Schism is preferable to apathy?  From a practical standpoint apathy would be the most convenient — no more dispute over polity and property while keeping as many people and places on the books as possible.  From a Reformed perspective it would be bad news because it means that we as a denomination have given up on working in community to be faithful to our Biblical heritage by being “always reforming according to the Word of God.”

So what does the year hold?  I hope and pray that as this comes to our presbyteries there will be a working of the Holy Spirit and that we may be open to the Spirit’s leading so that we may be faithful to what we are taught by Scripture concerning both qualifications for ordained office as well as glorifying God in how we discuss and decide on it.

Friday morning in San Jose

5 Replies

“It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood” one of our Presbyterian colleagues used to say.

However, there may be a few dissenting votes on that one right now here at the PC(USA) General Assembly.

The weather has been nice, with the exception of the air quality.  The morning news says that air quality will be bad again today, but especially bad at the other end of the Bay Area in the north that will get the smoke from the fires the worst today.

The Assembly moved through business well by the end of the day yesterday, probably more from fatigue than practice.  However, by the end of the evening at 11 PM the Assembly had only covered one of the reports docketed for the evening session.  The good news is that we have gotten through ten of the fifteen reporting committees.  (Bills and Overtures has ongoing reports)  The bad news is that most of the controversial items on social justice, peacemaking, polity, and ordination are still before us.  Just for reference, the original docket has social justice as the only committee to report this morning, and then has them docketed for more time this afternoon.  Get those cokes ready, it could be a long night of debate and a short night of sleep.

So what has happened so far?  The big ones are that there will be no changes to what per capita can fund, the GAC and Foundation have found a way to be friends (for the moment), the Form of Government revision will be sent out to the presbyteries and studied and reworked for the next two year, the church will begin the process of reworking the Heidelberg Catechism and will begin the process of studying the Belhar confession, among other things.

The order of the day will be the election of the new Stated Clerk.  There are four nominees, but as I read the tone of the commissioners I’m going to stick my neck out and say Gradye on the first ballot.  But what do I know, I thought there would be debate on beginning the process for the Belhar confession.

So sit back, hold on tight, have your caffeine ready, and here we go on another fun filled day at General Assembly.

Commentary:  I must add that my heart has been very heavy since the session last night.  I have been praying over the two decisions made back-to-back last night that seem to skew our priorities.  In the first, the Assembly could not come up with about $100,000 a year to fully staff an office to deal with preventing and healing related to clergy sexual abuse.  In the second decision they set aside 20 times that amount for legal funds to help presbyteries with court cases related to churches leaving the PC(USA).  I’m sorry for the rant, but I’m truly wrestling with how I interpret to my congregation that almost $1 of their GA per capita contribution will go to these legal fees! that we could not find the money for the first, but will ask for donations for the second when there are other mission opportunities out there.

UPDATE: Looking through PC-biz and based upon the financial implications reports it looks like I got the source of funds for the $2,000,000 wrong.  It looks like it will come from extra opportunity giving.  I have modified my comments above accordingly.