Category Archives: commentary

A Very Preliminary Look At Amendment Voting In The PC(USA)

2 Replies

The holidays are now behind us and traditionally this is the time when voting on amendments to the Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) kicks into high gear.  So I thought that I would take the first, preliminary look at possible trends in the voting.  But first some preliminaries…

Let me first make a couple of comments about the question “why bother?”  Well, beyond the fact that crunching data is the sort of thing that I enjoy doing I also think that it gives one of the best windows into what is going on in the denomination at this time.  It is a widely accepted generalization that the decisions of the General Assembly do not necessarily reflect the thinking of the “people in the pews.”  The usual evidence that is pointed to is the fact that three times previously the GA has sent an amendment to remove or rewrite G-6.0106b in the Book of Order, and three times it has been rejected by the presbyteries.  Another example of a disconnect is the negative reaction from many churches to the GA decision to boycott companies who supply items linked to the Israel-Palestine conflict.  So, while Research Services gives us statistics based on opinion poles of sampled members, the vote counts, both the absolute and relative numbers, give us an insight into how ruling and teaching elders react to the issues the Assembly sends down to them.  In short, I think the vote numbers can give us an insight into how the PC(USA) is changing.

So what is different this year about the vote?  I think there are four things that need to be taken into account.

1) Each year the Assembly sends an amendment with a bit different wording and that might make a difference.  This year the proposed language speaks more about the examination, that the governing body is responsible for it, and that they are to be guided by the Scriptures and the confessions.   One of the more interesting lines is “The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003).” So while the confessions and the Scriptures are to guide the governing body, the candidate’s qualifications seem to be focused on the constitutional questions.  So, how will any individual commissioner view the proposed wording this time around?

2) This vote is coming right after another vote two years ago while the previous interval was seven years from 2001 to 2008.  There are a number of ways that this could manifest itself with two possibilities being the reduced turnout due to a “fatigue factor” and/or little change in the numbers due to less time for the church to evolve.

3) I will not develop this point here, but will just say that in looking at the numbers for the last four votes (96-B, 97-A, 01-A, 08-B ) I consider the vote on amendment 01-A to be a unique case with a turnout of conservative voters in proportions not seen in the other three votes.  I will say that so far for 10-A this observation seems to still hold with the current numbers looking a lot like the last round of voting.

4) Overall, the voting is not just about “fidelity and chastity” this year but there is also the addition of the Belhar Confession to the Book of Confessions and a whole new revision to the Form of Government.  The voting could have different dynamics this year due to this expanded slate and the dynamics of the timing of scheduling the votes.

OK, now the data.  While the official count is always kept by the Office of the General Assembly , it only gives the totals.  For the Amendment A vote I have been comparing the breakdown by presbytery from several sources: the Yes On Amendment A site, Covenant Network, Reclaim Biblical Teaching, and the Layman.  Voting on the Belhar and nFOG are covered by both the Layman and the Reclaim Biblical Teaching site.  Then for breaking news there is always Twitter.  I’ve got my own tally sheet shared online, but I don’t claim to have it updated as quickly as the others.  And if you want a detailed list of resources related to these votes you should start with Robert Austell’s GA Help web site.

So, at the present time the Belhar Confession trails by 17-12 (remember it needs 2/3 for a confession to be approved), nFog is passing 10-7, and after a flurry of voting yesterday Amendment A is currently failing 15-20.  In total, 67 of the 173 presbyteries have voted on at least one of these items, eight have voted on two and three have voted on all three.  You can see that so far the presbyteries are taking the votes deliberately and not usually taking more than one at a time.

Of the four that have voted on both the Belhar and 10-A the votes have been very similar: Alaska – 24% yes Belhar and 31% yes 10-A, Lackawanna – 45% yes Belhar and 40% yes 10-A, New Castle – 72% yes Belhar and 70% yes 10-A, Santa Barbara – 23% yes Belhar and 27% yes 10-A.  While this is not proof that commissioners view Belhar and 10-A as being closely linked, it is suggestive that many may view both of them through a common filter.

Correlations for nFOG with the other two are not as close.  Sometimes there is a similar proportion, like Alaska that had identical 7-22 votes on each, or Des Moines which had 64% yes on Belhar and 70% yes on nFOG. Sometimes it is not as close, such as Eastern Oklahoma that barely passed 10-A but passed nFOG on voice vote, or Northumberland which was 36% yes on Belhar but only 13% yes on nFOG.

But these are early trends of just a small number of votes so we will see what develops over the next six months.

I want to finish by taking a quick look at the repeat voting on G-6.0106b comparing Amendment 10-A to 08-B.  We have reports on 35 presbyteries having held their votes and so far two have moved from “no” to “yes” (Eastern Oklahoma, Eastern Virginia) and one has moved the other way (Lake Huron).  So the net change at this point is one to the yes column.

Looking at the total yes and no votes, we find that there are 6% fewer total votes (3848 versus 4101) for these 33 presbyteries.  It is interesting to note that this 6% decline in commissioners voting exactly matches the overall decline in membership in the PC(USA) over the last two years (3.1% plus 2.9%).  Taken as a whole, the
number of commissioners voting yes is up 5% (1875 this vote versus 1786
in the last vote) while those voting no have declined 15% (1973 down
from 2315).  If the decline in total votes were proportionally represented in the yes and no votes we would expect 88 fewer yes votes and 199 more no votes.  So the decrease in no votes can not be explained only by the increase in yes votes but there must also be a decline in the number of commissioners who favor “fidelity and chastity” who are voting.

For the 33 presbyteries with reported numbers (Northern NY and Cayuga-Syracuse had hand or voice votes without recorded numbers), 23 had a decrease in the number of votes, 9 had an increase and one was exactly the same.  Now, some normal fluctuation in the number of commissioners attending the meeting is to be expected and I have usually placed this at +4%.  Taking this into account,  eight lower totals and five higher totals for a total of 13 more are added to the unchanged category.  This total of 14 is just a bit less than half of all the presbyteries voting so far.  The greatest decline is from Elizabeth Presbytery which had only 76% of the commissioners present as they had for the last vote.  This could easily be attributed to the inclement weather in the northeast this weekend. However, Genesee Valley, which voted at the same time, had only a slight decrease of 3%.  The largest increase was in Newton Presbytery which had 1.14 times the number of commissioners as the last vote.  Of the four increases that I consider significant (in a statistical but only quasi-rigorous sense), there are three presbyteries that voted no and one voted yes.  Tempting but dubious to draw conclusions from such a small sample.

If we look at yes and no votes broken down by presbytery, on average there are 19% more yes voters and 13% less no voters.  For the presbyteries that voted yes there was only a 1% increase in the number of yes voters and 16% decrease in no voters.  For the presbyteries that voted no, the increase in yes voters was 31% while the no voters decreased by 11%.  That increase in no votes was pulled by a couple of large increases, but it suggests that the Yes on A get out the vote campaign is having an effect while the similar effort for No on A is not as effective.

Let me warp up this discussion with the general observation that I am seeing the whole range of behaviors in different presbyteries.  The three presbyteries that switched all had significant increases on the prevailing side with 12%, 21% and 22% increases.  On the other side were varying decreases from 5%, to 14% to 23%.  The switch in position was a two-way street apparently caused by both gains and losses.  There were a couple of presbyteries with uniform change, such as Great Rivers which had a 3% increase in both the number of yes and no votes, or Newton which had a uniform 19% increase in both columns.  There are also presbyteries, like Central Florida and Stockton, where the total number of votes was very constant and the votes shifted columns.  It was into the yes column for Central Florida and towards no for Stockton.  There is only one presbytery, Mississippi, where the no votes were stable (47 versus 49) but the yes votes increased (up to 11 from 2).  And there are two presbyteries, Boston and New Castle, where the yes votes remained constant but the no votes declined significantly.  And then there are the rest of the presbyteries which exhibit more complex changes that can not be explained solely with these simple end-member models.

So, that is what I am seeing so far.  As I said, this is preliminary because with only around 30-40 presbyteries having voted on each amendment drawing statistical conclusions would be a bit early.  However, there are interesting trends developing and we will see how those play out.  Stay tuned… I’ll get out the white board and draw geeky charts and graphs next time.

Web 2.0 And The Internet Are Changing The World — An Example From The Scientific Community

1 Reply

Here is an interesting case study that might be of interest to the Church Virtual/Open Source Church/Wiki Church types out there.  In watching this unfold in my professional life I found some interesting parallels in what happened with the reaction to this scientific discovery and what I think about regarding how the church does theology and polity in a Web 2.0 world.

While I want to focus here on the interaction that took place in the on-line world, let me briefly describe the announced scientific discovery behind this so that you have some context.

Back on December 2 a team of researchers associated with the NASA Astrobiology Institute published an interesting paper in Science magazine and held a press conference hosted by NASA to announce and discuss their results from bacteria they found in Mono Lake, California.  This bacteria appears to, at least partially, substitute arsenic for phosphorus in the chemical building blocks of the cell.  These building blocks could include enzymes and proteins.  There is a good discussion of the science related to this in articles from Wired, Science Daily, and a NASA article.  The abstract, but not the full article, is publicly available from Science. (Those readers in academic or research settings may have institutional access to the full article.) Interestingly, while researching this story I found an article from last Spring in The Times (of London) that has much of the scientific story at that time.  If you are not familiar with the biology and chemistry behind this you might not realize that, if the results hold up, this is a very significant scientific discovery.  At a minimum, they have discovered a life form that can live in an extreme, and normally very toxic, environment.

Well, this story went “viral,” if you will pardon the expression.  The press conference was streamed and, having been tipped off by a colleague that it was “going to be interesting,” I followed along and heard the news and the discussion.  There was plenty of coverage of the event across the news spectrum ( for example PC Mag, The Boston Globe, The Telegraph, just to name a few in addition to those above)  as well as the blogosphere (e.g. WeirdWarp, The Curious Wavefunction ).

Now, previous controversial discoveries raised a bit of professional chatter as well as some brief media attention and then usually disappeared from the radar to all except those who really cared.  (an example in a moment)  This announcement took a different path — five days later a widely publicized critique also went viral.  The original critique by Rosie Redfield appeared on her blog as a way, as she puts it, to clarify her thinking.  This was picked up by Slate and then spread to other blogs and developed a life of its own with one asking if this was a NASA publicity stunt and another wondering if this is “flim-flam.”  In short, the new Web 2.0 allowed for scientists to “wonder out loud” to both their colleagues and the public and media at large as well as providing a platform for the general public to discuss and weigh in on a discovery which was not necessarily in their realm of expertise.

Speaking of “not in your realm of expertise” let me comment briefly on my professional view.  As I suggest above the results are interesting.  A number of years ago I was a bit player in some research on the tufa towers in Mono Lake so the environment is not completely unknown to me.  It is a weird and wonderful place but the habitat harsh.  Anything that survives there will be interesting.  To me these bacteria are clearly a good subject to understand better.  On the other hand… I am strongly persuaded by the arguments of the critics and find the most radical conclusions about the arsenic substituting for phosphorus lacking the strong support I would look for regarding such a revolutionary conclusion.  To invoke Carl Sagan’s second best known quote: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”

In short, what has happened here is that a tantalizing and potentially extraordinary discovery has been extracted from the “traditional” scientific process and is now “owned” by the greater on-line community through the ability to distribute the information to the whole world in real time and for the on-line community to be able to interact with it.

Whether you think that is a good thing or not we must accept that it is the new reality of our society.  If you want to make an announcement of an extraordinary discovery to the world, be prepared to have anyone out there weigh in, not just your colleagues in the small academic fishbowl of your discipline.

Consider two previous extraordinary announcements.  Back in 1989 there was a claim that nuclear fusion could be accomplished on a lab bench at low temperatures – the so-called “cold fusion.”  Because the experiment was simple and the researchers published their experimental setup, physicists everywhere were trying to reproduce it, all without success.  But what happened is that the theory did not go away but a few people continued looking at the possibility even if the original experiment was not verified. (article in Wired, Wall Street Journal ) 

Another similar, and NASA connected, discovery was the announcement in 1996 of possible life preserved in a meteorite that originated from Mars.  The publication of this finding was also accompanied by a NASA news conference and picked up by the press.  But with a unique sample and without the web it left the skeptics in the general public without a forum for discussion or criticism.  Now, with time, the scientific community sees better explanations for what was seen in the original meteorite study, but like cold fusion a much lower profile search still continues. (Good backgr
ound info)

Returning to the arsenic life debate, the topic was hot enough that there was a panel discussion at the American Geophysical Union meeting regarding, not the science, but the course the reaction had taken.  This was live streamed and I enjoyed watching and tweeting my thoughts as the discussion progressed.  However, if you are looking for other Twitter messages check out the hashtag #arseniclife and the tweets by Alexandra Witze, @alexwitze, a contributing editor to Science News.  Her coverage was very good.  Some of her more thought provoking tweets about the process (names in front are the speakers on the panel – listing available from the panel moderator’s blog):

Steele: Everyone has a voice now. Is this how science will be self
correcting on a much quicker timescale?

Petit: Information is good, and messy. The more we have, the more it
flows and more robust society is

Steele: Scientists shd have more responsibility to understand effect of
what they say to public.

Harris: Does refusing to engage in conversation ever help one’s case?
(Not that this happened here.)

Oremland: I think not engaging hurt us. Gave us appearance of being
elitist.

Petit: Peer review worked fine. It put out a hypothesis that’s being
chewed on pretty hard.

Steele: If you stick to peer review process are you being elitist?

Sperling: there is a time needed to get things right. Blogosphere will
claim it’s about conversation, but they want scoop #arseniclife

Oremland: Point is about human response to things without time for
reflection.

One final detail on this – while the researchers would have preferred to have responded in the traditional “comment and reply” format, the nature of the response in the blogosphere did persuade them to publish a non-traditional reply to the criticism that had been distributed.

Going forward it will be interesting to see how quickly these claims are verified or contradicted.  It will also be interesting to see how quickly the viral nature of this news dissipates.

Regarding what this means for any organization and it’s interaction with modern society and culture I encourage you ponder this case study and come to your own conclusions and lessons.  Having reflected on this for almost a month now, let me share a few things that come to mind.

1) The easier access to information and the ability to discuss it has changed society.  Just as Luther’s German Bible and the Authorized Version of the English Bible put God’s word in the language of the people, the Internet now puts all manner of information at our finger tips.

2) But maybe this information is too easily available.  As the final tweets suggest “there is a time needed to get things right” and time is needed for reflection.  Do we get information too fast to be able to put it in context and reflect on the meaning?  Do we get too much information to be able to process it properly?
 
3) What is the responsibility of those of us with formal training in these areas to others who are trying to figure out what is means?  How do we communicate if what we view as being responsible is viewed by the general population as being elitist?

4) What have 8-second sound bites, a 24/7 news cycle, and 140 character messages done to our ability to communicate and discuss complex or deep concepts?  Are we looking too quickly for the bullet point or the executive summary with out looking for what is behind it or how it fits into a bigger picture?

Anyway, those are questions that come to mind for me.  Your mileage may vary.  But have fun with it.

Another Comic Strip Mentioning Presbyterians

3 Replies

Well, Bruce Tinsley and his Mallard Fillmore comic strip are at it again with the reference to Presbyterians.  You may remember his previous reference a little over a year ago where he referred to “radical Presbyterians.”  Rev. Ed has preserved that comic and he and I riffed on it a bit.

The comic strip from today and the reference to “rogue Presbyterians” is not so amenable to the discussion of Presbyterian polity so I only note it for the reference.  (Then again, maybe it does fit the Presbyterian Church of Nigeria post I just finished — I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine if one side or the other is “rogue.”) In fact, it appears that the use of Presbyterian is simply to make the rhyme work in the limerick.

But I will also note the… what shall I call it?  coincidence, irony, providence?… of being at work over my lunch hour on my previous post about Nigeria and Presbyterians only to have a phone call from my family alerting me to the fact that the comic strip had also made reference to both of those.  Sometimes reality is stranger than fiction.

TRADITION!

Leave a reply

Q. What is the difference between in-laws and outlaws?

A. Outlaws are wanted.

Now, for the record I married into a great family and have always felt included.  But part of the deal with marriage is all the rest of the family, and just as importantly all of the Traditions, are part of the package as well.  I may be included but not always comfortable and at times I have to work at it to participate in the Traditions and customs that are part of the culture of my wife’s family, and probably never more so than at Christmas.  (And again, for the record, my wife has to handle the strange and different Traditions on my side.)

In the movie Fiddler on the Roof the main character Tevya introduces the song “Tradition! ” with the line “And how do we keep our balance?  That I can tell you in one word: tradition.”  And the rest of the movie deals with how Tevya, the family and the village copes with changes in tradition.

The traditions are important in families – It is not simply “this is how we do it,” but in doing it that way the consistency and shared experience of past celebrations provide the familiarity that many people cherish about holidays. 

On the one hand, whether it be our family celebrations, our circle of friends, or our faith communities, we have to first acknowledge that tradition helps us, like Tevya says, to keep our balance.  It provides a foundation and comfort zone to those who are familiar with the tradition.  On the other hand, just like a spouse integrating into a new family, we also need to acknowledge that to those entering the group often these traditions can be confusing or uncomfortable at best, and possibly come across as legalism and perceived exclusion at worst.  What is a balancing or stabilizing effect for some is a barrier or deterrent for others.

The challenge of course is that there is no simple solution to this tension.  Each community, be it family or congregation, must figure out the balance and give-and-take for itself.  How much does it value and find rootedness in the tradition and how things are supposed to be done.  And how much does the community want to make newcomers feel welcome, comfortable, and integrate easily.  Tradition is important for many reasons – but what traditions define the community and what limit it?  How can we step back and determine what is important and what is not?

So I wish you a wonderful Christmas Day and the blessings of this season.  And may you find comfort in your traditions while providing a welcome to those who are being brought into it.

One Day Of Giving Thanks?

1 Reply

I don’t do Thanksgiving well.

Don’t get me wrong.  On this day the American society sets aside to give thanks I can “do up” the day.  I spent much of it joyfully cooking up the feast for my family.  It is a day I can relax and do something I enjoy that I don’t normally have time to do.  (And Saturday I will defend my Dutch Oven cobbler championship, but that’s another story.)

But in the grand scheme of things I think I have problems with the complexity of the day.  I know it’s not supposed to be complex, its supposed to be simple – a day set aside to give thanks to God for His grace, mercy, provision and blessings. But every year it seems that some new layer of complexity is added to the day – usually in the form of something that has to do with the next season starting earlier and earlier.

So, among the complexities that I personally struggle with are:

  • Thanksgiving has become one of the high-holy days of American culture. (The good part here is that while commercialization for the next holiday season encroaches on, or even infringes on, the day, Thanksgiving has still mostly escaped commercial influences.)
  • By virtue of being part of our cultural narrative the holiday has been shaped by the culture.  With schools avoiding religion who do students think the Pilgrims were thankful to?  Only the indigenous people – the context of divine provision has been eliminated.
  • While one particular narrative is the one American culture celebrates today, my time living in New Mexico raised my awareness of other narratives, including earlier events.
  • Modern American culture has standardized on the one narrative, but earlier in American history a day of thanksgiving could be declared by civil governments at various times in response to some important event, including military victories.  (And likewise, days of prayer and fasting were declared in times of need.) While there was the tradition of Thanksgiving in the fall as a harvest festival, there was still a sense of cause and effect, or call and response rather than a date that could be placed on the calendar a decade in advance. (That is of course still acknowledging the Biblical parallel Feast of Sukkot which was part harvest festival which was also tied to a specific day on the calendar, Tishri 15.)
  • And finally, I probably dread and fear the sharp transition from a day of giving thanks to the mass celebration of materialism that the day following Thanksgiving has become.

So, since I don’t do Thanksgiving well I want to give you stories from two people who do.  These are both about thanksgiving when that seems like the last thing a person would be inclined to do.

The first is from pastor Mark D. Roberts who has a couple of very good Thanksgiving reflections on his blog.  But I want to highlight the story of pastor Martin Rinkart.  Rinkart ministered in Germany during the very difficult and devastating period of the Thirty Years War, but also wrote the hymn “Now Thank We All Our God,” a hymn that is now almost exclusively associated with Thanksgiving in our worship.

The second one if from elder Jody Harrington and her wonderful blog Quotidian Grace .  (And I take the time to plug hers since she has the job at Presbyterians Today of plugging everyone else’s blogs and should get some recognition as a blogger in her own right.)  As a nice antidote to Black Friday she has a post today about Bless Friday, but I wanted to highlight her previous post about “Thankfulness with a Heavy Heart.”

So I hope all my American readers had a good day of giving thanks and to all of you, wherever you may be, may we remember daily to whom we owe the greatest thanks.

Be filled with the Spirit, as you sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs among yourselves, singing and making melody to the Lord in your hearts, giving thanks to God the Father at all times and for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[Eph 5:18b-20]

The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.’
[Job 1:21]

Celebrating The Reformation… And A Couple Of Important But Less-Known Players

2 Replies

The Protestant church likes to have a day they can nail down to celebrate the Reformation. (pun intended, as if you had to ask)  Today is that day commemorating Professor Martin Luther posting an invitation to debate some theological points on a public bulletin board.

But I keep reminding myself, and others, that the Protestant Reformation was a very complex movement and while our celebration today of a public challenge that was a very major event in the Reformation and the life of Martin Luther, it is one event among many remarkable ones.  Over at Reformation21 Carl Trueman has an interesting piece where he makes the case that maybe a better event to mark was the actual realization of a public academic debate on some of Martin Luther’s theses that occurred on April 26, 1518.  And Luther’s were not the first steps in the Reformation but the likes of Jan Hus and John Wycliffe preceded Luther by over a century.

Another part of the complex history are the individuals that surrounded Luther and critical roles they played.  We are commonly aware of fellow academics and reformers like Philipp Melancthon, but today I want to lift up two others without whom, I would argue, Luther would not have been as successful as he was.

Frederick III
[Wikimedia Commons]
Frederick III, Elector of Saxony
Frederick the Wise
(1463-1525)

I think it could be argued that without the help of Frederick, Martin Luther’s cause would have been lost, and maybe his life as well.  Frederick was Luther’s protector in the early years of the German Reformation.

His first move was to make sure that Luther got a hearing at home and he arranged to have Luther tried at the Diet of Worms rather than being extradited to Rome.

The second move was his having Luther kidnapped and put into protective custody in the Wartburg Castle after he was condemned by the Diet.

Frederick had little personal contact with Luther, and it is not clear from my reading how sympathetic Frederick was to Luther’s theological perspective (I have seen arguments both ways), but he had a concern for his subjects and used his diplomatic savvy to take care of Luther as one of his own.  It is widely recognized that Frederick was a fair and just ruler who avoided conflict, hence the the title “the Wise.”

Johann von Staupitz
Vicar general of the German Congregation of Augustinians
(ca. 1460 – 1524)

Where Frederick was Luther’s political protector, von Staupitz was Luther’s theological and ecclesiastical enabler.  Again, Luther probably could not have done what he did without the actions taken by von Staupitz.

Interestingly these also came in two different steps, but this time several years apart.  The first was his pastoral care and spiritual direction of Luther as a young monk under his care.  One time Luther spent six hours in confession to von Staupitz.  Counseling Luther in his spiritual desperation, it was von Staupitz that pointed him to the means of grace and the saving blood of Christ.  Beyond that, von Staupitz encouraged Luther to pursue an academic career, and we all know where that led.

The second action, taken several years later after the theological dispute arose, was von Staupitz releasing Luther from the Augustinian order.  This was one of the “it seemed like a good idea at the time” moves whose immediate consequence was a win-win.  Luther got more ecclesiastical independence and the good name of the order was no longer tied to a potential heretic.  Long term however, the “powers that be” would have preferred to have had control over Luther and von Staupitz did come under suspicion and accusation for aiding Luther.

 

Johann von Staupitz
[Wikimedia Commons ]

Ignatius Loyola
[Wikimedia Commons]
An Interesting Conjunction

One more interesting point to emphasize the complexity of the Reformation…

Based upon the historical timelines, it appears that the great reformer John Calvin overlapped with the great Counter-Reformer Ignatius of Loyola, at the Collège de Montaigu of the University of Paris.  This happened in 1528 as Ignatius was arriving and Calvin was about to depart.  There is no evidence that they met, or knew each other there, but it is interesting how the same school would produce two great minds on opposite sides of the Reformation.

John Calvin
[Wikimedia Commons]

So, a happy Reformation Day to you, if you are so inclined.  But in a larger sense take a moment to marvel at the sovereignty of God and how he uses many people with many different skills and talents, and for that matter different perspectives, to work out his purposes. Soli Deo gloria – To God Alone Be The Glory!

The 219th General Assembly Of The PC(USA) — Not Business As Usual For One Item

Leave a reply

Please allow me to be cynical about the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) for a moment as I reflect on my observation that most of the items before the Assembly and how the Assembly dealt with them were pretty much “business as usual.”  There was of course that unique session where both the Final and Minority reports of the Special Committee on Civil Union and Christian Marriage were commended to the whole church. But for the most part I frequently found myself thinking “been there, done that.”

Part of this was because so many high-profile items were really reports back from committees and task forces the last Assembly created.  Some of the deja vu was because these are items that keep coming back to every Assembly, like the ordination standards. And some is because the business contains a lot of routine items  like approving minutes, transferring churches, and creating presbyteries.  That is, until that last one stops being business as usual…

On the morning of Thursday July 8 the Committee on Middle Governing Body Issues late in their report brought a simple request from the Synod of South Atlantic, item 04-08:

The Synod of South Atlantic overtures the 219th General Assembly (2010) to approve the organization of a new non-geographic Korean language presbytery pursuant to its powers under G-13.0103n.

The Synod had passed this overture on a unanimous vote and the Assembly committee had also approved it by a wide margin, 43-2.  Seemed like a slam-dunk but it was not.

A few commissioners, including two young second-generation Asian-American women pastors, rose to speak against forming the non-geographic Korean language presbytery and their pleas were so persuasive that the Assembly disapproved the item 125-514-7. (If you want to watch yourself check out the Video On Demand, Session 5, Part 9, at 1:09 except the video cuts out before the end)  Every Assembly holds a few surprises and for the 219th this was one of the biggest for me.

There were a couple of arguments against the new presbytery – lack of women leadership and challenges for clergy who serve in English ministry in Korean congregations.  The speakers argued that it is difficult to advocate for women clergy and young leadership in language presbyteries that tend to not favor those in their culture.  In addition, for ministers that speak English and serve second-generation ministries in Korean churches but do not speak Korean, or do not speak it well, participating in the life of the presbytery is difficult to impossible.  It makes it challenging to develop new young second-generation leadership speaking English in a language presbytery.

As you may be aware the GA’s relationship with non-geographic language presbyteries is a bit conflicted.  For example, the 218th GA sent a mixed message.  On the one hand they passed a Book of Order amendment which would provide a bit more flexibility in membership in non-geographic presbyteries but in doing so made sure to include a clause that non-geographic presbyteries should have an end date – they are to be transitional and not permanent.  On the other hand, the Assembly, from the same committee, approved another item that granted the continuation of Hanmi Presbytery without term limit.  So what message is being sent here?

Returning to the 219th GA, I should note that later in the day on Thursday there was a report on Twitter, but I have not verified it from a second source, that one of the women who spoke against the motion was physically assaulted for taking that position against the non-geographic presbytery.

Related to this is the rough time the PC(USA) has, and maybe American Presbyterians in general have, with being a racially diverse church.  I mentioned in an earlier post that I was a bit surprised that the Rev. Jin S. Kim, a minister with extensive service to the denomination and high name recognition, would have polled the lowest in the voting for Moderator of the GA.  A friend suggested that maybe this was not in spite of his name recognition, but because of it.  This could be very true — He directly speaks of the lack of racial diversity in the PC(USA) and what that means in terms of the changing demographics of the U.S.  In his candidating speech to the GA I heard him say what he has said before about this.  Here are excerpts from that speech (Video on demand, Session 3, Part 1, 53:40)

Those of you who know me know that I have no shortage of critiques of our denomination.  I quarrel with this church every day… I quarrel with our sense of entitlement to the prestige of a bygone era.
…
I quarrel with a racism that makes us even now a 92% white Eurocentric denomination in the 21st century, unable to embody the sovereignty of God and the priesthood of all believers in our local congregations.
…
The U.S. Census estimates that whites will be a minority by 2042 — are you making the connection? While the liberals blame the close-mindedness and homophobia of conservatives for our decline, and the conservatives blame the lack of commitment to biblical orthodoxy of the liberals, both seem to miss the massive demographic shift that really is the critical reason for our decline… The basic problem in my view is that we remain a Eurocentric, white, middle-class church wedded to a way of doing faith as deeply dependent on enlightenment rationalism.  But since the sixties the U.S. has become a post-modern nation in which the rational is only one of many competing ways of interpreting God.

This is his concern for the church and the starting point for where he sees that the denomination needs to go.  You will see similar themes in the news article about his sermon to the 218th GA.

And finally, American Presbyterianism has a segregationist past as well.  While there are a number of resources related to this, let me just mention that a bit of a fuss has recently arisen over a new book that looks at some of this history.  Yes, the focus is on institutions that are now affiliated with the Presbyterian Church in America, but the history is longer than either the PCA or the PC(USA) and extends back to our common ancestor, the Presbyterian Church in the United States.  In the extensive comments on the post I would point you to one in particular by TE Ligon Duncan, the current pastor of one of the churches prominant in the book talking about how the church has moved on.

So somewhere between our past history and being the Body of Jesus Christ in the future where there is no majority ethnic group in the U.S., the church finds itself today.  What can we learn from the past to help us move into the future?  Are non-geographic presbyteries a useful tool for transition or a structure that allows congregations to isolate themselves – a form of modern segregation – that is holding us back?  While I don’t know if this GA made the right decision, it was refreshing to hear the arguments and see them faithfully wrestling with the question.  Prayers that they did faithfully discern the will of God.

UPDATE: The Rev. Theresa Cho, the first commissioner to speak against the new presbytery, has posted on her blog about this item and her perspective on it.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — The Clock Is Ticking

4 Replies

While I am working on a longer post about some of the racial-ethnic issues that have surfaced in the PC(USA) and the wider Presbyterian family in the last few days I wanted to break away for a moment to make a brief comment about what happened in the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Thursday night and Friday morning.

To summarize the actions: Thursday night the Assembly took the recommendation of the Commissioner Committee on Civil Union and Marriage Issues and amended their recommendation commending the Final Report of the Special Committee so that it now commends both the Final Report and the Minority Report from the Special Committee to the denomination.  Only a short while later the Assembly voted 348 to 324 to have the rest of the items from the Assembly Committee answered by the action on the Special Committee’s reports.  This effectively said that changes to the definition of marriage in the Book of Order, which was outside the charge to the Special Committee, would not be considered this year.  Friday morning, as probably anticipated by every polity wonk tracking this, the motion was made to reconsider the previous night’s action and after some debate the Assembly voted 275 to 407 not to reconsider.  I am guessing that result was also anticipated by most polity wonks, although I must admit I was surprised by the large margin of the vote.

OK – impartial observer mode off and commentary mode on.  Beware of snark…

1) As a member of the Special Committee on Civil Unions and Christian Marriage I would like to personally thank the Assembly for the confidence you placed in our report to make it, the whole thing with Final and Minority combined, the final word on marriage from this Assembly and for the PC(USA) for the next two years.  I truly appreciate the word to the church to have them study what we wrote — I know that I learned a lot about the topic from researching the report.  But aside from the definition of Christian marriage, the church finds itself in an interesting situation right now where we have in W-4.9001 an inaccurate definition for civil marriage in certain jurisdictions, still saying civil marriage is between a man and woman while some states have moved away from that.  Hopefully the church will use this time the Assembly has given it to contemplate how to better define Christian marriage while acknowledging that the definition of civil marriage is changing in some places.

2) While acknowledging that a lot of people are frustrated, to say the least, by the Assembly deferring the issue all together, this whole sequence points to a much larger issue related to the Assembly — the Assembly has far too little time to do way too much business.  Both the move to quickly answer all the other business with the report as well as the strong response not to reconsider it today are, in my observation, an indication that the commissioners are setting priorities for what items they are willing to engage in lengthy debates about and they essentially said that this was not one of them.  Back at the 209th GA when I was a commissioner we reached 1 AM on Friday night (i.e. Saturday morning) and just started referring business to the 210th GA to finish off the docket.

Please be clear that I am not saying that the commissioners were looking to ignore the issue, wanted a quick fix, or needed an easy out, especially because of the late hour.  What I am saying is that in the multitude of factors that the commissioners were weighing, consciously and subconsciously, the fact that they had a limited amount of time to deal with an overwhelming amount of work was a factor that influenced some and, I believe, the original resolution passed at that hour when it probably would not have passed at an earlier hour of the day.

After tracking GA’s for a number of years I have come to understand that an Assembly has one good debate per day in them.  It appears that Thursday’s debate was on the issue of ordination standards.  The commissioners saved their energy for that and when finished they then had enough of hot topics for the day.  Again, this is not a reflection on the inherent importance of the topic itself, only the tendency of the Assembly to prioritize the use of their time and energy.

If you are wondering about the energy level of the Assembly, it was clear from the commissioners at the microphone that by Friday morning the energy was starting to fade — There was one commissioner that had lost track of which day it was and another that had lost track of which vote they were taking.

Now, my comments here are not a conservative’s plea of “Let not deal with it and keep the status quo.” This is a realist’s plea to say “Let’s find a better way to deal with it.”  That is also part of the message of our Special Committee report.  The Assembly has a limited amount of time to deal with a whole lot of business.  For the most part the commissioner committee process is successful and the full Assembly tends to trust the intense discernment and study each committee puts in on the topic.  But there are still enough major issues to eat up more time than the GA has to faithfully deal with them.

So, can we step back for a moment and ask if the PC(USA) is trying to do too much business with too little time?  Are we giving ourselves space to be the body of Christ together in real discernment listening to each other.  That is what the Special Committee did and our conclusion was that we were brothers and sisters in Christ around that table and while we could not come to agreement on that topic, we were still around the table together.

I don’t know the answer.  I ask myself if we need to limit the business to an Assembly.  Do we need to restructure the way business gets done.  Do we need more Assemblies, each more specifically focused.  I’m still thinking and have not decided yet.  But it is my conclusion that at the present time the General Assembly feels the constraint of the clock too much with too much to do in too little time to properly work through it.

My thoughts for today — your milage may vary.

Presbyterian Government And American Government — The Same Only Different

2 Replies

It is common among American Presbyterians, when trying to explain our system of Presbyterian Government, to appeal to the structure of our Federal government to help explain how we do things.  This is for good reason because the two governmental systems have strong similarities in their elected representative forms, the presence of checks and balances, and the appearance of different branches of government.  The parallels are not coincidental — while it is often said that the U.S. Government was patterned on the Presbyterian system, several authorities I have consulted prefer to say that the two systems developed at the same time in the same cultural and philosophical climate.

It can not be denied that there is a strong tie between the two.  James Madison was one of the most influential members of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, possibly the individual having the greatest single influence on the government structure in the Constitution.  He was also a graduate of the Presbyterian College of New Jersey, now Princeton University, and following his graduation in 1771 he remained there for another year or two as he studied with the college president, the Rev. John Witherspoon, who had recently arrived from Scotland to serve as the college’s sixth president.  While Madison himself seems to have affiliated with the Episcopal Church, his education clearly included heavy influence by Presbyterians.  (For reference regarding timing, the Presbyterians instituted multiple synods and brought them together in the first General Assembly in 1789 in Philadelphia.)

However, while I have used the analogy between the Presbyterian and American systems of government in the past I have moved away from that because the differences between them are just as important to our polity as the similarities.

One of the big differences is that Presbyterianism is a different sort of representative government.  When a teaching or ruling elder participates in the deliberations of a governing body they may be there as the representatives of the members that elected them to that position, but they are not there to represent the views of those people.  The Presbyterian church is not a democracy or a republic, it is a theocracy.  The very first thing the PC(USA) Book of Order says is:

All power in heaven and earth is given to Jesus Christ by Almighty God, who raised Christ from the dead and set him above all rule and authority, all power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. God has put all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and has made Christ Head of the Church, which is his body. [G-1.0100a]

And lest you think they are alone the PCA Book of Church Order begins in a very similar way.  Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church and those in governing bodies are there to seek God’s will and do it, not to follow the opinion of the people.  I would first note that this Book of Order section is a constant reminder to me of what the purpose of church government is and this probably explains why I really don’t like that the new revised PC(USA) Form of Government has moved this away from the opening lines of the Foundations section.  My second note here is to clarify that I am not saying that the opinions and views of those we represent are not important — they are very important.  But they need to be considered as part of the discernment process and possibly held in tension with the leading of the Holy Spirit.  As the Book of Order says “Presbyters are not simply to reflect the will of the people, but rather to seek together to find and represent the will of Christ.” [G-4.0301d]

Maybe the most serious error frequently made in trying to explain Presbyterian government is to describe it as having three branches like the Federal system.  It is tempting to equate the full Assembly as a legislative branch, the judicial commission as the judicial branch, and an executive as the executive branch.  The truth is that a Presbyterian governing body has only one branch and that is the body itself.  We have single bodies which are mostly legislative, or deliberative, and the executive or judicial functions exist not to be branches in their own right but as parts of the governing body to assist the body in carrying out its mission.  Not to put too fine a point on this, but remember that judicial commissions are just that – commissions.  They are empowered or commissioned to act on behalf of the governing body with the full authority of the governing body, within the limits specificed by the governing body.  A commission is an extension of the body to do a particular job, not a separate body.

And this brings me to a third difference, the system of checks and balances.  In the Federal system the primary system of checks and balances is between the three coequal branches of the U.S. government.  Another system of checks and balances exists between the Federal government and the state governments but how strong a system of checks that should be is a matter of discussion by constitutional scholars.  In the connectional Presbyterian system the checks and balances are in “governing bodies (traditionally called judicatories or courts) in regular gradation.” [G-4.0301c]  Our governing bodies are not independent but each sends representatives to the higher one and each higher one has the responsibility of review on the lower ones.  Governing bodies are not independent and autonomous but have come together to be the Body of Christ together in this time and place.

And so, on this 234th anniversary of the Rev. Witherspoon and his fellow delegates to the Continental Congress affixing their signatures to the Declaration of Independence, with a Presbyterian General Assembly underway, we acknowledge the deep connections in history and philosophy the two systems of government share. But we also recognize that these two governments have two different purposes and serve two different ends and so there are also structural and philosophical differences between the two reflecting how their purposes diverge.

So where every American Presbyterians find themselves today, be it in Minneapolis or somewhere else, have a very good Fourth of July.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — Candidates For Moderator And… (1) Social Media

As I have been analyzing the nominees standing for Moderator of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I have noticed a number of interesting things.  I’ll do an analysis of their statements and positions in the next post, but in compiling this information I noticed a wide range of approaches to their use of social media in connecting with the church.

Before I begin, let me acknowledge that in addition to the usual search engines, including Facebook search and Twitter search, I have to thank Robert Austell and his GAhelp.net Moderators page as well as the information from the “In their own words” feature published by the Layman.  And for comments on the role of the Moderator and the election of the Moderator you can check out my GA 101 article “The Moderator — All Things In Moderation.”

Before I launch into this let me answer the legitimate question “Why does this matter?”  I would say that it matters because individuals on the national level of the PC(USA) have now bought into the idea that the world has changed and that new technology is the way to go.  After all, the 219th is supposed to be the first paper-free Assembly.  At the 218th GA the election of Bruce Reyes-Chow as the Moderator was supposed to herald a new day and the church was now adopting technology and moving into the 20th 21st Century.  Now I think that we can all agree on two things: 1) Bruce’s use of social media is exceptional and 2) Vice-Moderator Byron Wade did an admirable job trying to keep up with Bruce.  For the record you can follow Bruce on his personal blog, Moderator’s blog, church blog, Facebook , Twitter, and podcast , to name only some of his social media connections.  And in my opinion, Byron has really held his own to Bruce by writing a really excellent blog (think quality not quantity), as well as his Facebook and Twitter presence.

The other thing I am trying to figure out for this analysis is what are typical “Moderator campaign” numbers for social media followers.  At the present time Bruce has 4996 Facebook friends (there is a limit of 5000) and 2688 Twitter followers.  Byron has 1881 Facebook friends and  519 Twitter followers.  But their numbers increased dramatically after they were elected and I don’t know what their stats were during the campaign.  Maybe a good comparison would be the Rev. Bill Teng, who I would judge as the second-most social media savvy nominee for the 218th.  He currently has 531 Facebook friends.  Interestingly, the current nominee I would judge most social media connected in the pool for the 219th GA is Vice-Mod nominee Landon Whitsitt who has 596 Facebook friends and 184 Twitter followers.  So about the 500-600 range for a well-connected nominee before election? What about the rest of this year’s pool…

Web page
This is technically old-school Web 1.0 and even Bruce has not had one of these.  These are sites with static web pages that do not include interaction through comments.

Moderator nominee Rev. James Belle/ Vice-Mod nominee Rev. Wonjae Choi – No Moderator specific site I could find.

Moderator nominee Elder Cynthia Bolbach/ Vice-Mod nominee Rev. Landon Whitsitt – No Moderator specific site I could find.

Moderator nominee Rev. Jin S. Kim/ Vice-Mod nominee Rev. Matt Johnson – No Moderator specific site I could find.

Moderator nominee Rev. Maggie Lauterer/ Vice-Mod nominee Rev. Theresa Cho – Moderator specific site

Moderator nominee Rev. Julia Leeth/ Vice-Mod nominee Rev. Hector Reynoso – Dynamic (music, scripting) site but no interaction

Moderator nominee Rev. Eric Nielsen/Vice-Mod nominee Rev. Marilyn Gamm – Moderator specific site

Blog/Web 2.0 Site
This is like a traditional web site but new articles are easily posted in sequence, there is interaction through comments and the content can be tracked through a “feed” using RSS or Atom.

Belle/ Choi -No blog I could find.

Bolbach/ Whitsitt – Food for Thought (11 entries, all posts closed for commenting) (Landon also has a personal blog with occasional Mod comments.)

Kim/ Johnson –New Church Rising/GA Moderatorial (The main blog has been active as the church blog since October 2009.  The GA Moderatorial specific section has two posts.)

Lauterer/ Cho – Finding Our Voice (Brand new this week, one post)

Leeth/ Reynoso- None I could find

Nielsen/Gamm -The website has a blog page but it appears to only be used to comment to the Rev. Nielsen.  No postings

Facebook
It appears that most nominees have personal Facebook pages but since they are not Moderator related and have privacy set to keep the general public out I won’t link to them.  Here are the Moderator-related pages I found:

Bolbach/Whitsitt
Lauterer/Cho
Nielson/Gamm

Twitter
Most of the nominees have Twitter accounts.  While Cynthia Bolbach has one listed in the Mod lists, it is private so not Moderator related and not listed here.  Here are the others I know of and their statistics:

   Twitter name Followers  Following Tweets
 Theresa Cho  @theresaecho  73  103  132
 Maggie Lauterer  @maggielauterer  16  13  9
 Julia Leeth  @julia_leeth  10  0  10
 Hector Reynoso  @elvicemoderator  5  16  7
 Landon Whitsitt   @landonw  184  171  7155


Other
I was very impressed that two of the nominees also have items up on YouTube:

Bolbach
Lauterer
Nielsen

That is what I and other web sites know about. If I have missed anything or something new is launched let me know and I’ll update the article.

Analysis and Conclusion
As I look at these statistics I have a hard time seeing any of these candidates stepping up to anywhere near the social media connectedness that Bruce and Byron established right from the start, with the obvious exception of Landon.  For the other candidates the level of connectedness so far gives the impression that they are either just getting their feet wet in this sphere or are not placing a major emphasis upon it.

So the question is, does it matter?  If you are of the opinion that the world has not changed then all this is probably interesting but not important.  Or, with the stereotype of the typical Presbyterian being of the “greatest” or “boomer” generation that does not heavily invest their connectedness in social media, this lower penetration into Web 2.0 may be perfectly reasonable since few of the commissioners, whose votes count, would be influenced.

But I think that this does make a difference at two levels.  The first is that the YADs, now YAADs, have traditionally predicted the outcome of the Moderator election on their first advisory vote.  One has to ask if their enthusiasm for a nominee has a conscious or unconscious influence on the commissioners in their voting.  If so, connecting with the YAADs in their native media would be helpful to a nominee.

The second place that I think it makes a difference is connecting with the larger church.  While I don’t know for certain, I have to think that a Moderator nominee who shows they can connect with the younger members, and potential members, of the denomination would be viewed favorably by commissioners when they make their decisions, especially if they are thinking about the graying of the church.  But the other half of the battle is for the successful nominee to actually be connected after they are elected.

As I look through all these media statistics I have trouble seeing any of the Moderator nominees with a strong social media presence or potential.  Conventional wisdom is that a Vice-Moderator choice has little, if any, affect on the Moderator voting so I don’t know if Landon’s strong on-line presence would be any substantial support to Cynthia Bolbach.  But looking through this data that is the only real strength I see at the moment.

Finally, this post is not intended to pressure any of the nominees into redesigning their campaigns to have a more substantial Web 2.0 component.  On the one hand I think it is a little too late for that and on the other I think what is more dangerous than not having a social media connection is one that is forced and unauthentic.  Web 2.0 is, after all, about being yourself and being transparent, right?  My advice is to be yourself, but try to have your on-line presence reflect who you are.

With 17 days left before the election I would not expect a change in presentation now to make a difference in the Moderator election.  So maybe this is more an argument for the successful nominee to figure out how to integrate more social media into their time as Moderator.  Do we expect a repeat of Bruce and Byron’s presence — probably not.  But by the same token we would expect the Moderatorial term to reflect that the world has changed, at least if we believe that it has.  Stay tuned to see how they do.