Category Archives: news

Nominees For Moderator Of The 138th General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Canada

Leave a reply

The First of December – It is time again for the Principal Clerk of the Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada to announce the names of those nominated to serve as the Moderator of the next General Assembly.  This year the nominees for Moderator of the 138th General Assembly are

  • The Rev. John Borthwick – Currently pastor of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Guelph, Ontario.  The biographical sketch on the church web site tells us that he has been at the church just short of nine years with five years pastoring in Toronto before that. It also says “His current areas of interest are
    conflict mediation, change theory, and the influences of consumer culture on society.” His work leading local churches to build a house for Habitat for Humanity was recognized by a local publication in 2008.

  • The Rev. Peter Bush – Pastor of Westwood Presbyterian Church in Winnipeg, Manatoba. From the church web site there is a  list of articles he has written, including a January 2010 piece for the national magazine, the Presbyterian Record, on the Priesthood of all Believers. Style points for the church staff listing where his title is Teaching Elder.

  • The Rev. Gordon Haynes – Rev. Haynes is on the denominational staff in Toronto where he was the Associate Secretary for Canadian Ministries/The Vine. Beginning this fall he began research for a project that will “provide the [Life and Mission Agency] staff and Committee with the material upon which a national strategy will be formulated.” The announcement goes on to say “The report will identify possible future ministry opportunities as well
    as areas of potential growth and innovation in presbyteries.”

  • The Rev. Dr. Andrew Johnston – Pastor of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, Ottawa, Ontario for just under 14 years. His bio on the church web site lists his service to the church including Moderator of the Presbytery of Ottawa and President of the Christian Council of the Capital Area.  He was awarded a D.Div. from Presbyterian College, Montreal, in 2007.

  • The Rev. Dr. John Vissers – Rev. Vissers serves as Principal of the just mentioned Presbyterian College.  His official bio on the College web site indicates that he began his ministerial career in the pastorate, including at Knox PC, Toronto. He previously taught at Ontario Theological Seminary (now Tyndale Seminary). His M.Div. and Th.D. are from Knox College, Toronto. He also holds a Th.M. from Princeton Theological Seminary.  His bio also tells us that his research interests include “Reformed theology, contemporary theology and constructive Christian doctrine.”

An interesting group – all male, all Teaching Elders, three in the parish, one from the west, and a diversity in ages.

Ballots will go out to the presbyteries shortly and the announcement of who the presbyteries have discerned to lead the next General Assembly will be announced at the beginning of April.  Our prayers are with all the nominees.

Developments In The Church Of Scotland Related To The Ordination Trajectory

Leave a reply


Over the last couple of months there have been some issues hitting the news that are tied to the action of the Church of Scotland deciding at their General Assembly last May to start down a trajectory that in about three or four years could lead to the training and ordination of active homosexuals as church officers.

The first item is pretty recent hitting the media earlier this week. While it has been picked up by several media outlets, all reports seem to be based on a November 14 article in The Guardian with the headline “Gay clergy row threatens mass resignations from Church of Scotland: Breakaway church possible with up to 150 ministers ready to quit over ordination of gay clergy.”

Let me first compliment the article as a whole for being balanced reporting concerning this issue but criticize the headline and the lede for being a bit sensationalistic.  When you read the story you find that the figure of 150 mass resignations comes from one source, Kirk Session Clerk Mike Strudwick of Gilcomston South Church, a church that is looking to leave the Church of Scotland. He may well be right about the mass resignations.  The article tells it like this:

[Strudwick] predicted other churches opposed to gay ordination could follow, and
perhaps form a new breakaway church. He said he could “well believe”
there were 150 ministers considering resignation.

It also attributes to him the idea that “Maybe five or six years down the line there will be a grouping of like-minded evangelical Presbyterian churches.”

But no one else quoted in the article will go nearly so far in predicting the future of the Kirk.  The article says this about the statement from the official spokesman

However, a spokesman for the Church of Scotland denied that so many
ministers were threatening to leave and urged critics of gay ordination
to wait until a theological commission reported in 2013.

The Rev. Ian Watson, a leader in the evangelical group Forward Together, is described as holding the opinion that “only a few ministers would leave in the near future.” He is quoted as saying

“If there will be an exit, it will be two, three years down the line at least.”

As a side note, Forward Together has their annual meeting tomorrow so we will see if additional insights come out of that.

On the other side of the question the article says this:

The Rev Peter Johnston, of the liberal One Kirk [sic] group which supports
gay ordination, said he believed some rebels were threatening to leave
simply to put pressure on the church, but hoped most critics wanted to
keep talking about a harmonious solution.

The general assembly’s
decision “does leave them in an awkward position”, he said. “I can grasp
that but the majority of folk in the Church of Scotland want to see
what the theological commission comes back with. From our perspective,
we’re still trying to keep dialogue open with all people.”

And the article accurately captures one major barrier to departure, the same barrier faced in many Presbyterian denominations including the PC(USA).

One obstacle to mass departures is that ministers who resign loses their
home, income and future pension payments. Congregations would lose
their church and its buildings.

So thanks to the Guardian for letting each voice be heard.  As a transition to the next issue let me include two more lines from the article.  The first looks ahead to the next GA:

Critics of this strict ruling [referring to the loss of home, pension and buildings] are thought to be planning to contest it
in May, in a bid to give rebellious ministers greater protection.

The next is a quote from the Kirk’s official spokesman that points out that this issue is far from resolved:

The Church of Scotland spokesman added: “It is disappointing that any
ministers or members feel the need to leave the church before the
commission reports.

“We stress that no final decisions have been taken, and the church is currently holding more dialogue on this issue.”

The fact that no final decisions have been taken is the key polity point in the second item rattling around the Scottish media right now.

The Scottish Government is in the midst of a 14-week Consultation on Marriage that will conclude on 9 December. The consultation asks for input on introducing same-sex marriages and religious ceremonies for civil unions.  Because the Church of Scotland is in the midst of its own discussion and study of these topics, in very Presbyterian fashion it has declined to contribute to the government discussion.  Until a future General Assembly, and possibly the presbyteries under the Barrier Act, make an explicit decision on the topic, the Kirk is remaining silent. The silence is also required under the moratorium on commenting on the issue the GA has put in place while the issue is being studied. Well, sort of…

While most of the Kirk has remained quiet, the silence is not exclusive and the Lewis Presbytery has, as a body, let the government know of their opposition.

On the other side, the Rev. Scott Rennie, the partnered gay minister whose call to an Aberdeen church precipitated the current controversy, has been talking to the media and has expressed his support for the government changing the definition of marriage.

And the group Forward Together has submitted a response to the Scottish Government and made a copy of the official form available on their web site.

Finally, a statement by the Kirk, published by Defend Marriage in Scotland, leaves the door open for a “properly considered response” coming through the Legal Questions Committee which usually responds with more of an eye to the civil legalities than the theological and doctrinal angle.

Other churches, including other Presbyterian branches, have not been silent on the issue.  The Free Church of Scotland has issued an official statement through their Commission of Assembly. The statement begins

The Commission of Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, (5th
October 2011), wishes to express its deep dismay over the Scottish
Government’s current proposals to introduce same sex marriage in
Scotland. Its opposition does not arise out of any kind of homophobia,
but a concern that 1) the timeless definition of marriage as the
voluntary union of one man and one woman would be changed irreversibly
and 2) the timeless institution of marriage would be permanently
undermined if the government effectively changes its meaning to include
same sex couples.

Many churches, both congregations and denominations, have given input to the consultation on both sides of the issue. In particular, there were articles today (e.g. Christian Concern) about 70 church leaders representing 20,000 members, sending a letter to the First Minister urging the government to keep the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. These signatories include at least a few from the Church of Scotland, including the Rev. Dominic Smart of – wait for it – Gilcomston South Church, the church of the Kirk Session Clerk I began with at the beginning of this post.

As was pointed out earlier, this is an issue that has a long way to go. Maybe an organized group will develop that will pull out of the Church of Scotland en masse. Maybe it will be in one’s and two’s over the next few years as the discussion progresses. We will have to wait and see. The journey continues…

Update (1 Dec 2011): The Church of Scotland has weighed in on the consultation regarding same-sex marriage with a “no, not at this time.”  There is a brief press release with a summary of the main points as well as the full 19 page response form.  In addition to outlining where the Church of Scotland is at this time, including the process that was put in motion by the 2011 General Assembly, they weigh in with this concerning the issue at hand:

The Church of Scotland cannot agree that the law in Scotland should be
changed to allow same-sex marriage. The Government’s proposal
fundamentally changes marriage as it is understood in our country and
our culture – that it is a relationship between one man and one woman.
In common with the historic position of the Christian Church, the Church
of Scotland has always viewed marriage as being between one man and one
woman. Scriptural references to marriage, whether literal or
metaphorical, all operate under this understanding. To redefine marriage
to include same-sex marriage may have significant and, as yet,
inadequately considered repercussions for our country, for the
well-being of families, communities and individuals.

They go on to say

The Church of Scotland is concerned about the speed with which the
Scottish Government is proceeding on this issue, and believes that the
debate has so far been patchy, undeveloped and exclusive of both
ordinary people and the religious community. The Government states that
the purpose of this proposal to re-define marriage is to accommodate the
wishes of some same-sex couples. The Church believes that much more
measured consideration is required before the understanding of marriage
which is entrenched and valued within the culture of Scotland, both
secular and religious, is surrendered to accommodate this wish.

Fourth Moderator Candidate For 220th PC(USA) GA (2012) Endorsed

Leave a reply

Last week a fourth candidate was endorsed to stand for Moderator of the 220th General Assembly (2012) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) when Palo Duro Presbytery endorsed Teaching Elder Randolph “Randy” Branson.

TE Branson is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Graham, TX, and currently serves as the Moderator of the Presbytery. According to the PC(USA) announcement, TE Branson is a graduate of the University of Oklahoma and San Francisco Theological Seminary. (SFTS has posted the PC(USA) announcement on their web site.) He has served churches in Texas and Southern California.

He has provided a quote to the Presbyterian News Service about his vision where he says:

“The middle of the church needs to demand and expect a culture of
respect and appreciation in the PC(USA). Palo Duro Presbytery has been through a lot and we’ve
figured out a way to get along across a lot of viewpoints. I’m hoping to offer that to the denomination. We can’t keep going the
way we’re going.”

In addition to the Presbyterian News Service article, there is also coverage from the Presbyterian Outlook and The Layman.

In looking around for links and chatter it appears that TE Branson has little in the way of a social media presence.  He does have his sermons available on iTunes, but no immediate finding of blog, Facebook or Twitter handles. (Please let me know if I have missed these.)

I congratulate TE Branson on his endorsement and add him to my prayers for the 220th GA.

[ Additional note: It was interesting to find another pastor named Randy Branson on the web who is in the Pentecostal Church of God, actually just down the street from me.  He does have a strong web presence with a web site and Facebook page and I am hoping his links have not kept TE Branson’s information from being found.]

Third Moderator Candidate For 220th PC(USA) GA (2012) Endorsed

Leave a reply

On Tuesday October 11 a third candidate for Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) joined the group when Teaching Elder Robert Austell was endorsed by the Presbytery of Charlotte.

TE Austell is the pastor of Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, where he has served for almost ten years. Previously he was an associate pastor in Lenoir, NC.  His M.Div. is from Princeton Theological Seminary with some coursework at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He also has a D.Min. from Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte. His dissertation was on worship and music and is available through lulu.

The Presbytery of Charlotte has issued a two page press release that is full of quotes about Robert. Speaking of his own sense of call he is quoted as saying:

“I have challenged my congregation to stretch beyond their walls and answer the question, ‘What is God doing in and around you, and how can you be a part?’ With the discernment and blessing of my family, elders, and local congregation, standing for Moderator seems to be the clear answer of how God would have me answer that question. I see it as an extension of the calling and work which I have already been doing – loving ordinary and imperfect people and pointing them to the extraordinary grace of God in Jesus Christ. I believe I am being called at this time to remind the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) of the extraordinary God that has called us together into being and leads us out into the world with hope and Good News as a distinct, truth-and grace-bearing people.”

The chair of the presbytery’s nominating committee, Teaching Elder Lee Koontz, provides this quote:

“If I may be allowed some personal privilege here… I personally am excited to support Robert’s candidacy, and I recognize that he has substantial gifts that would serve the denomination well as Moderator. Among those gifts is the ability to speak authentically and faithfully to a wide spectrum of Presbyterians. During a time in which we’re discussing congregations potentially leaving the denomination, Robert is able to relate to those who want to leave, those who want to stay, and everyone in between, and he does so with compassion and understanding. That’s one of many reasons that I’m excited to support his candidacy for Moderator of the 220th General Assembly.”

His candidacy has been covered by the Presbyterian News Service, in an article in the Presbyterian Outlook about the second and third candidates, and by The Layman Online in their article about all three candidates.

The Rev. Dr. Austell has served as the Presbytery moderator, Presbytery Council Vice-Moderator and is the Moderator-elect of the Presbytery Council.  He has served the presbytery in a number of positions and is known as a worship leader for conferences.

Robert was a commissioner to the 218th General Assembly (2008) and may be best known from that Assembly as one of the commissioners who co-sponsored the commissioner resolution On Urging a Gracious, Pastoral Response to Churches Requesting Dismissal from the PC(USA). More recently Robert created the well-known GA Help web site to help guide interested individuals through the 219th GA in 2010.

Needless to say, Robert is well represented in the virtual world with his Moderatorial web site, personal blog lighthouse/searchlight church, and on Facebook and Twitter (@gspcrobert).

So, best wishes and prayers for TE Austell as he stands for Moderator.

Now, how many more candidates are yet to come?

Two Brief News Items From The Church Of Scotland

Leave a reply

In the last couple of days two simple, but important, news items have come out of the Church of Scotland.

First, you may remember that just before Christmas last year a burglary at the home of then Moderator John Christie resulted in the loss of the ceremonial ring of the Moderator.  Well, this week part of the ring was returned to the Church of Scotland in an anonymous envelope.  The stone from the ring, an amethyst engraved with the seal of the church, is now back in the possession of the Kirk.  It is presumed that the gold from the ring has been sold. The news and a picture of the ring as it was originally is in a story from the BBC.

The second news item is the announcement of the first ordination of a new variety of minister, an Ordained Local Minister, earlier today.

Congratulations to Dr. Fiona Tweedie, previously a university statistics lecturer, who will be serving at Barclay Viewforth Church. She is the first in a class of five that has been training for this position and who will all be ordained over the next month.

The form of service as an Ordained Local Minister was approved by the General Assembly back in May and is described in the press release like this:

The Ordained Local Ministry (OLM) was approved by May’s General Assembly, the Church’s decision-making body. Unlike parish ministry,
OLMs will be deployed by their Presbytery rather than being called to a
specific congregation and participate in around 10-hours of work a week.

With a flexible approach to training and serving, the new scheme is
expected to be popular amongst congregational members feeling a call to
ministry but unable to work full-time as a minister due to other work
and family commitments.

In line with that description, the article says Dr. Tweedie’s new responsibilities are:

She has been appointed as Edinburgh Presbytery’s mission facilitator and
researcher – an unpaid post in which she will contribute to the
Church’s strategy to engage with communities across the city.

Looking at the Ministries Council Report from the last GA, the concept of Ordained Local Minister (OLM) is described this way:

1.8.2.4 Concept of OLM: OLM is conceived as a nonstipendiary form of the ministry of Word and Sacrament, aimed at engaging those with an appropriately tested sense of call towards ordination, but who wish to serve primarily in a localised ministry. This would often, though not exclusively, be in support of those working in leadership roles as Parish Ministers (whether full-time or part-time). The normal expectation would be that OLMs would offer around 10 hours per week in an unpaid role, though it is recognised that some may find themselves in situations where they are able and willing to offer more time. It is also likely that in some circumstances OLMs will be appointed to work in other roles specifically designated by Presbyteries, for some of which they may receive payment (eg as a Locum).

In function, the report describes the OLM like this:

1.8.2.12 The function of the OLM would be a localised one. Appointments to OLM posts would be the prerogative of Presbytery, in a manner analogous to that of the existing Auxiliary ministry, to a particular locality or a specific role. If an OLM should move Presbytery for one reason or another, he or she would be eligible to take up an appointment in that Presbytery, but only able to do so as directed by Presbytery (and obviously where an appointment exists!). It is clear that existing Auxiliaries work in a wide variety of roles and there is no proposal to diminish the spheres of activity. On the contrary, it is anticipated that OLMs will gradually come to be deployed in creative and innovative ways by Presbyteries.

If you are interested in further details there is the full description of the OLM in the Ministries Council Report beginning on page 46. The Ministries Council is still refining the position and more adjustments are expected at the 2012 General Assembly.

In the mean time we congratulate Dr. Tweedie and her colleagues and offer our prayers for their ministry.

Reverberations From Ordination Decisions: The PC(USA) And Her Global Partners

2 Replies

[Ed. note: This is the first in a three part series that I hope to get written and posted over the next week.]

Over the last few months a couple Presbyterian branches have made decisions to make, or move towards making, standards for ordination more inclusive, particularly regarding the ordination of individuals who are in active same-sex relationships.  These decisions have made waves in the international Presbyterian community and these waves will be reverberating in the community for a while to come.  This is a look at one specific reverberation.

In a couple of widely publicized decisions the General Assemblies of the
Iglesia Nacional Presbiteriana de México (IPNM) (National Presbyterian Church In Mexico) and the Presbyterian Church of Ghana (PCG) have gone on record expressing disapproval of the passage of Amendment 10-A by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and warning that it jeopardizes the partnering relationship between the churches. However, each of these decisions have multiple nuances that seem to be getting lost in the media headlines and tweets.

The IPNM decision was made at a called Consultation of the General Assembly held August 17-19.  This decision was then communicated to the PC(USA) in a letter to the Stated Clerk and the PC(USA) has posted an English translation.  It says in part

In my position as Secretary of the H. General Assembly of the
National Presbyterian Church of Mexico, I [Presbyter Amador Lopez Hernandez] am sending the present
document to communicate the official decision made by our National
Presbyterian Church of Mexico, in the last extraordinary and legislative
Council meeting held at El Divino Salvador Church, in Xonacatlán,
Mexico, on August 17-19, 2011, regarding the partnership between our
Churches, which states:

“To revoke Article 41, number 4 of our Manual of Procedures, which
entitles us to have official, covenant relations of work and cooperation
with the PC (U.S.A.) and terminate the official relationship with the
church, starting on August 18, 2011. As the General Assembly, we are
open to restore the partnership and work together in the future, if the
Amendment 10 A is rescinded.”

As I said above, this came from a special Consultation of the General Assembly and it is interesting to note that the primary purpose of the called meeting was ordination standards, but specifically the ordination of women.  The Presbyterian Outlook article helps fill in the details:

The Mexican church, with close to two million members, held a special
assembly Aug. 17-19 specifically to discuss the ordination of women –
voting overwhelmingly, by a margin of 158 to 14, to sustain its policy
of not ordaining women. The assembly also voted 103 to 55 not to allow
any sort of grace period for presbyteries that had, on their own,
already begun ordaining women. That vote means that any presbytery which
has already ordained women must immediately revoke those ordinations.

They also let us know that the vote to end the relationship with the PC(USA) came on a vote of 116 to 22 and was only a small part of this meeting.

In light of the full scope of these decisions made by this General Assembly it is interesting to note that in the blogosphere and twitterverse the PC(USA) related decision seems to be held up with little to no mention made of the other one. To be fair only the one decision directly affects the PC(USA) so that is one possible explanation. (At least one blog (non-PC(USA) related) did highlight the decision about the ordination of women and only mentioned the other in passing.)

Now, my Spanish is not very good, but from what I can tell and getting translation help from a couple of different sources it seems that when this meeting is discussed on the IPNM Facebook page it seems to be the women’s ordination issue which gets the most attention.

There is of course a response from the PC(USA), first an official statement then a webinar (archived presentation available from the Mexico Ministry page) to help those involved in ministry with the IPNM understand the new lay of the land.  In the webcast Dave Thomas (World Mission regional liaison for Mexico) gives a great description of the timeline and process for the decision.  He concludes by saying “And I think it’s ironic to think that here’s a church in Mexico that has nearly two million members, do you know it is almost the same size as the PC(USA), and yet 116 men voting on one Friday afternoon changed things. And in spite of the fact that thousands of people on both sides of the border, thousands of people from both countries have been impacted, have been transformed by God’s grace and by the work that they have been able to do jointly through this partnership we have had with the National Presbyterian Church of Mexico.” There is clearly a tone of sadness and frustration in his voice as he says this but also a hint of condescension. My personal reaction is “this is what Presbyterianism is about” were a small subset of the whole church, be it 200 commissioners or 850, try to discern God’s will and make decisions for the whole church. And it seemed to me that throughout the webinar there were times when comments by panelists or questions from participants projected the expectations, process, standards or norms of the PC(USA) onto our sister Presbyterian church.

The webinar did offer an opening – As Maria Arroyo (World Mission area coordinator) said “…[The IPNM] would continue receiving the presbyteries in partnership that voted against 10-A and also were willing to sign something saying that they were against 10-A and they would conform to the principles of the Mexican Church.”

In his comments, Hunter Farrell (Director of Presbyterian World Mission) summarizes the situation and includes this comment, “Perhaps the most regrettable piece in this is that the Mexican Assembly in its action reduces us and our 139 year relationship to one question, our stance on a particular issue — It is critically important, and that is not to say the theology is not important, but the result is that we are reduced to yes or no on one particular question. And ironically that is what our church was trying to move away from by adopting 10-A — to broaden that understanding of ordained ministry.” He continues “At the same time our part in this, we understand from the perspective of Presbyterian World Mission, is to accept and respect the decision by the Mexican Presbyterian Church.”

This changed relationship will have to be lived into and there are still more questions than answers. The Mexico Ministry page does note that on September 8 an agreement between the two churches was reached to continue boarder ministry.

The second decision made and stance taken was from the Presbyterian Church of Ghana. This came from the 11th General Assembly recently concluded and can be found in both a communique from the Assembly as well as a summary page. But again, there appear to be nuances that are not reflected in the blogosphere and twitterverse.

For example, one article is headlined “Presbyterian Church of Ghana (PCG) severs ties with US partner over homosexuality.” Is the the situation?  That is a definite maybe!

First, let’s take a look at what the church has actually publically said.  The Communique is a bit longer and so I will focus on that.  The section begins on page 21 and starts by echoing the announced stance from earlier this year. It also reaffirms the earlier announcement that “The General Assembly wishes to state that although it unreservedly condemns homosexuality as sin, the Church is prepared to offer the needed pastoral care and counseling for those wishing to come out of the practice, in keeping with the truism that, ‘God hates sin but loves the sinner.’”  It is only in the last paragraph of this section that they address foreign partners and say, in total:

The Presbyterian Church of Ghana is further taking steps – a process which has began with its just ended General Assembly to sever relationship with any partner church local and foreign that ordained homosexuals as ministers and allowed for same sex marriages and wants to make it clear that we respect the decisions of our Ecumenical Partners abroad concerning gay and lesbian practice and same-sex marriages and believes that our position would also be duly respected by them.

Note that there is an “and” in there – that the conditions appear to be both “ordained homosexuals as ministers” AND “allowed for same sex marriages.”

Now unfortunately this appears to be all we have to go on.  I have requested clarification from the General Assembly Clerk on this point but am still waiting for his response.  (Will update if I get one) I am not aware that the church has sent official notification to any partners yet, but please point me in the right direction if I have missed something. It looks like we will have to wait until the church has worked out more of the details.  It also raises the question about other partners like the Church of Scotland which has not approved ordination or marriages but has set a trajectory in that direction.

So all the headlines about severing ties? At the present time it appears that no specific action has been taken from this decision and since the PC(USA) does not currently permit same sex marriages it appears that the PC(USA) does not currently fit the stated criteria.  It is interesting to note that the Moderator of the General Assembly of the PCG, the Rt. Rev. Prof. Emmanuel Martey, is currently touring the USA and we may get more clarification from his statements here.

Are there other partnerships in jeopardy? It does appear that there are.  Without being specific, in the webinar Maria Arroyo does say that some partners in the Caribbean and Latin America will be considering their relationship with the PC(USA) at their upcoming General Assemblies or General Synods.  In addition, Rev. Jim Miller gives us a five point declaration from the National Council of the Korean Presbyterian Church of the PCUSA. This is an entity within the PC(USA) but probably reflects broader attitudes within this ethnic community nationally and internationally.

I don’t think I need to stick my neck out very far to predict that over the next year we will see a variety of responses from PC(USA) international partners ranging from approval to acceptance to disapproval to dissolution of the relationship.  And in cases like there, where a possible way forward is provided based on their standards, it will be interesting to see how all this develops. But in it all we do pray for God’s mission to be advanced in whatever ways God ordains.

Next, a look at what has been happening in the Church of Scotland over the last few months.

The Fellowship Gathering — Through The Tweets Dimly

9 Replies

Last week was an interesting week for me, what with the Virginia earthquake on Tuesday and the two day Fellowship of Presbyterians Gathering in Minneapolis on Thursday and Friday.

I did not make it to The Gathering so I have been trying to follow it from my vantage point over here on the Left Coast. News and blog articles about the event are starting to appear, but it was fascinating to track the Twitter comments and interactions during the meeting.  However, what I found was that while the tweets were interesting and helpful they were not enough to help me connect all the dots to understand what the Fellowship is and where it is going. (Guess you had to be there… )  What follows is not so much reporting on the Gathering but sharing my impressions from and about the social media content related to it. As Scott Keeble (@skeeble99) put it:

Gotta love overreactions to 140 char. summaries of a conference you aren’t at.

If you want to play along at home you need to check out the tweets with the hashtag #mn2011.  As the meeting was getting underway I did comment that I did not see a lot of use of the #pcusa hashtag and by implication there was a distancing from the institution. Several friends of different theological stripes informed me that it is indeed common practice to only use the conference hashtag and that nothing sinister should be seen in the use of hashtags.  I stand corrected and apologize for casting aspersions where nothing should have been read into it.

Now, if you want a good look at the best play-by-play of the event you need to check out the constant stream of tweets from Carolyn Poteet (@cvpotweet) who was the unofficial live-tweeter. Her stats say she is only at 1034 tweets ever — I would have sworn that she had 10,000 in one day last week! Of course, she hit her rate limit a couple of times and to get the complete picture you need to also check the tweets from @TomJHouston which she co-opted to keep the info coming while her account was in time-out.  Carolyn, thanks for all your efforts! Your tweets helped tremendously to follow along. (Generally tweets I quote but are not identified as from another source came from Carolyn and I trust that my quoting her in what follows does not stray from Fair Use.)

Also be aware that there were times when the participants split up into breakout sessions so if you see tweets sent at about the same time but on very different topics that is probably what is happening.

Moving on from the reporting to the “conversation” the first thing that impressed me was the theological breadth represented by those tweeting from The Gathering. In particular there are several people I know that I don’t think were at the meeting to sign up for the New Reformed Body but were checking out the Gathering for other reasons. I trust that they will provide their thought in the blogosphere in the near future. Based on the Twitter activity I make a back-of-the-envelope calculation that about 5-10% (100-200 people) of those present probably held viewpoints contrary to the view of orthodoxy the Fellowship seems to be promoting.

In addition, I was pleased to see at least three of the “big four” from the General Assembly at the meeting.  The GA Moderator and Vice-Moderator were there — Moderator Cynthia Bolbach made some well-received comments towards the end of the meeting, judging by the tweets, and Vice-Moderator Landon Whitsitt was his usual self providing a nice stream of insightful comments throughout the meeting. (More on this later) If I understood the tweets correctly, GA Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons was also in attendance and spoke briefly — as Seth Normington (@revnormsy) put it “Brief, rather opaque comments from ga stated clerk, gradye parsons. Nice of him to attend. Blessings, good sir.” There was no mention of GAMC Executive Director Linda Valentine being present and likewise but I saw no identification that anyone else from the GAMC was in attendance. [Update: Thanks to Jody Harrington’s comment below where she commented that Linda Valentine was at the conference. The text above has been adjusted appropriately.]

That leads me into a few observations about the meeting gleaned pretty much exclusively from the tweets:

  • Besides the breakout sessions there were also discussion groups. It looks like the higher governing body professionals and officers were grouped together in their own groups. I did not see an explanation of this and am curious why.
  • Carmen Fowler LaBerge (@csfowler2003) informs us “#mn2011 registration info: 950 clergy; 575 elders; 53 church administrators; 20 PCUSA staff; 68 presbytery execs. 300 didn’t indicate.” (That would be 1966 total)
  • Carolyn also tweeted the answer to one of the nagging questions I had: “Primary diff from New Wineskins – tone.” Another time a speaker is quoted as saying “I felt like New Wineskins got hijacked by angry people.”
  • Leslie Scanlon (@lscanlon) of the Outlook provides us with some of the descriptions of where the conservatives feel they or the denomination is – “Some metaphors used at #MN2011. Deathly ill. Stuck in a box canyon. Car sunk in swimming pool. #pcusa”
  • Because it is Twitter with a 140 character limit the acronyms were flying. Two that I had to recalibrate my brain for were NRB – which to this group means New Reformed Body but I normally think of as National Religious Broadcasters – and the FOP (or FoP) – which of course here means Fellowship of Presbyterians but in my day job is a professional organization.
  • There were questions from afar about the diversity in the Gathering but I did not see the questions answered.  However, at one point Carolyn tweets this telling comment “Potty parity at #mn2011! First time in my life I’ve ever seen a line at the men’s room but sailed through the ladies’!”

Going back to that bullet point about the tone of this group, I was struck by how positive the official portion of the meeting was.  That did not completely extend to the Twitterverse, but I’ll talk about that below. Based on the 140 character reports the leadership of the FOP is in communication with, and maybe even working with, the OGA leadership.  It was also made clear that  “we are not calling anybody apostate,” and “will not seek to demonize the #PCUSA in any manner.” And one final quote on this – “One of the ways this won’t be a spin off to a new denom (quickly), is b/c we don’t want to lose relationships w/people we love.”

Two big topics at this meeting that are inexorably linked are the New Reformed Body and theological beliefs, usually referred to as the Essential Tenets of the Reformed Faith.

Coming into the meeting the FOP had made it clear that the NRB (yes, I can throw acronyms around too ) was going to happen but that there were a lot of details to be worked out.  The impression I got from the Twitter reporting and discussion is that enough details have to be worked out and now this is a train that has left the station and is headed for the announced constitutional convention January 12-14, 2012, in Orlando. But the FOP clearly hopes for the NRB to continue in some form of partnership with the PC(USA).  One comment was “the degree to which the NRB can relate back to the PCUSA, and we hope it can, baptisms, ordinations, permeable boundary.” Another said “hopefully we can share some HQ functions – missions, theology and worship…” One of the themes I found most helpful was the description of what they are about in this sequence of tweets from Carolyn: “like-minded church to unite around a common purpose. from Phil 2:1-2,” “we’ve created such a broad tent that there’s no center pole. we need to establish essentials again,” and “need to make clear abt what’s at the center rather than police the
boundaries, so people can determine if it’s a good fit for them.”

Related to this is the question of standards.  At the Gathering the NRB was described as an “empty warehouse” waiting to be filled.  That is to be done this Fall when draft documents are posted on the web site, regional gatherings are held, and they are finalized at the constitutional convention in January.  There is a clear intent to define or state the Essential Tenets of the Reformed Faith. But this led to a lot of Twitter conversation about the standards.  There were comments about the return of subscription. While not necessarily advocating subscription, @BenjaminPGlaser, who was at the meeting, asked in a tweet “I wonder how many of the ministers/ruling elders at #mn2011 could affirm the WCF w/out major qualification…” (WCF is of course the Westminster Confession of Faith, a document that Presbyterians historically have included in the standards that needed to be subscribed to.) There were also references to Machen, particularly his final sermon recently republished in Theology Matters. To that TwoFriars commented “Machen’s fundamentals are NOT Reformed essentials, FYI.” Along a similar line Landon Whitsitt (@landonw) commented “I’m struggling to reconcile the fact that the “essentials of faith” being thrown out at #mn2011 are classicly Evangelical, not Reformed.” Craig Goodwin (@craiggoodwin) had a number of thoughtful comments about standards and in response to Landon asked ” …are Evangelical, not Reformed. Can’t be both?” It will be interesting to see what this discussion produces throughout the Fall leading up to the January meeting.

Going forward I suspect the real hard questions will not revolve around the theology, although they probably should, but around the “Three P’s”, yes pensions, property and power.  To put it bluntly – can you take it with you when you leave?  From the Q&A portion of a presentation on the NRB Carolyn tweeted “lots of Qs about per capita, pensions, etc. A – we’re not giving answers
at this point, don’t want to get tangled in the details.”  This turned out to be a bit deeper than it seems — they put off some of the discussion of details to a breakout on Friday but they are also putting off details until the relationship of the NRB with the PC(USA) is more clearly defined.

I want to look at this topic of the relationship between the NRB and the PC(USA) in more detail another time after the presentation videos are posted and I have had a chance to digest them.  Let me just say here that three possible models were proposed: 1) This might be accomplished with union presbyteries – a polity solution that already exists. [ed. note – I should have seen that before now!] 2) Create the category of affiliate churches or affiliate presbyteries like the current affiliate members. Requires new polity language. 3) Leave completely.  Regarding this, Carolyn quotes Jim Singleton: “Singleton – yes, this is gonna be messy!!”

Now, a couple of weeks ago in my pre-Gathering piece I suggested that this event was a Rorschach Test for those who had issues with the PC(USA).  Well, I see now that I was right in concept but wrong in scope.  This event was a Rorschach Test for the whole PC(USA) and maybe even for American Presbyterianism more broadly. But after the broad reaction that the very first Fellowship letter last February engendered I should have expected that.

Departing from Twitter for a moment it is important to note that groups with opposite views have posted very specific pieces on their web sites interpreting or making suggestions related to the Gathering.  More Light Presbyterians issued a call to prayer for the meeting and a related article.  Individually, Janet Edwards offered a suggestion to the FOP ahead of the Gathering, as did Shawn Coons, and Adam Walker Cleaveland wanted to make sure the elephant in the room got named. Clearly this meeting had a lot of people’s attention across the denomination.

So back to Twitter and the meeting…

First, in the interest of full disclosure I would comment that I (@ga_junkie) did not tweet much but did make the one comment I discussed above that could have been considered snarky, and also a second that could be taken that way as well.  Early on Andrew Johnson (@AndrewJohnsonYM) tweeted “New reformed body… no brand but Christ” which I retweeted adding “Starting to sound like the Springfield Presbytery”. (If you need the reference, Springfield Presbytery was part of the Stone-Campbell Movement that left the Presbyterians two centuries ago proclaiming “No creed but Christ” and led to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). )

The vast majority of Twitter comments I saw were constructive and contributed to the social media discussion.  Yes, a lot may have had a snarky edge to them, but I found few offensive and there was a general improvement in tone when the organizers made it clear that this new group was not about demonizing the PC(USA).

Yet most of the comments, my own included, seemed to clearly reflect the lens through which the writer was viewing the Gathering.  Exempli gratia:

DavidIvie1 David Ivie
#mn2011 why would a group convene to protest gay ordination and then on day one celebrate women’s ordination? no sense of irony?

David_Berge
David Berge
#mn2011 lots of people talk about “post-denominationalism” 4 better or worse #fellowshippres is actually doing something about it

rwilliamsonjr Robert Williamson Jr
If you want to leave, I will
bid you peace. If you want to stay, I will embrace you. But I can’t
relate to the leave-but-stay option

Stushie57
John Stuart
The future of the Church is in Christ’s good hands, not conferees nor ordinands.

joyousjava Lara B Pickrel
Sometimes our churches’ panicky attempts to keep people from leaving (for the sake of numbers) feels like idolatry.

craiggoodwin
Craig Goodwin
Pleasantly surprised by tone and focus of #mn2011. Did it take finally losing the vote for Presby evangelicals to get focused on mission?

Reading the events through our own lens or filter is not inherently an issue.  It is what shapes our diversity and understanding of the world and the conversation and listening process for others helps us to not only see alternatives but can help us refine, sharpen or adapt our own perspective.  Along those lines I have to point out and say how much I appreciated the tweets from Landon Whitsitt (@landonw) who was multi-tasking and reporting on the proceedings through both his open source lens as well as his progressive lens. This tweet captures his dual perspective:

Okay…I’m putting my cards on the table. Except for including GLBT
persons, I want a church that looks like what I’m hearing at #mn2011

Let me conclude by saying that in spite of some sharp comments in the Twitterverse I was generally very impressed by the depth, breadth, level, volume, tone, thoughtfulness and civility of the Twitter conversation around this event.  But the operative word here is “around.” While the live tweeting helped me know what was going on I still feel that I am looking through a glass dimly related to where this is going. The quotes that were passed on and the sessions reported on still seemed to reflect the influence of the core group of tall-steeple pastors. There seemed to be lots and lots of discussion of a New Reformed Body but I did not sense how that might have been informed or moderated by Dr. Mouw’s comments regarding why we need each other. And I am still left with the impression that tail number four may be wagging this dog. But this is only what I see from my remote vantage point via the Twitterverse.

So, as this moves on I am looking forward to several things. First, I want to see the videos when they get posted on the Fellowship site so I have the primary sources for much of this information and I can judge for myself. Second, I await written accounts from those who were there – something longer than 140 characters. (The Presbyterian Outlook has already posted several articles by Leslie Scanlon including ones on the lead off presentations, Richard Mouw’s message, the talk by Ken Bailey, and an initial summary. There are similarly one, two, three and four articles from the Presbyterian News Service.  In addition, it looks like Two Friars and a Fool are aggregating blog posts on the Gathering but I would single out Jim Miller’s which is getting a lot of Twitter recommendations.) Once I have a chance to view, read, think and digest I anticipate being ready to make some more comments about the content of the meeting.

Looking out a bit further the real test of this model as the open source community that Landon is looking at will be in the process for posting, consulting, editing and approving the new documents for the New Reformed Body.  At this point I am pretty much trusting Landon’s impression of the proceedings so far in its promise for development of a Covenant Community in a participatory environment.

Looking even further ahead, there is a good possibility that both the New Reformed Body’s partnership with the PC(USA) as well as developments in the other FOP streams will require actions by the 220th General Assembly and changes to the Book of Order. Leslie Scanlon captured this quote from Mark Brewer:

“This next General Assembly is going to be wild.”

I look forward to seeing how the development process works and what product it results in.  I also look forward to seeing how the broader church reacts as this progresses.  This has the promise of being new territory — I like an experiment and I hope you do too.  Stay tuned…

Between A Rock And A Hard Place

Leave a reply

Well, it is not exactly Scylla and Charybdis, but the Mid-Atlantic states of the U.S. found themselves in the shaking of a moderate earthquake Tuesday while keeping a watchful eye on Hurricane Irene.

I want to talk about the relative risks later in this post, but first a little bit on the earthquake itself.

As you can probably imagine Tuesday was an interesting day at work for me.  The day began with hearing about the other significant earthquake in Colorado. When I heard about it on the radio I was expecting it to be a bit further west in the more active seismic belt where I have worked (fifth from top and third from bottom if you really care).  But I found it was to the east along the front of the Rocky Mountains.  An interesting location but not completely unexpected.

Then about 11 AM PDT my computer ground to a halt.  Checking around I found that my Twitter feed for earthquakes had gone crazy and that a 5.8 had occurred back on the east coast.  At about the same time my email sprung alive with notes from college friends with questions or comments.  Now here was an interesting event. And it was the largest earthquake globally on Tuesday.

For a comparison of this earthquake to previous eastern US events you can have a look at the USGS Historic Earthquake list.  The largest east coast earthquake is the 1886 Charleston, SC, earthquake at 7.3 and there are no other east coast earthquakes over 7 on the list. There are no earthquakes on the list in the magnitude 6 range. The next earthquake is an 1897 event in western Virginia which appears to still hold the record as the largest earthquake in the state. In total there are thirteen earthquakes in the magnitude 5 range in the coastal states.  Then there are seven more earthquakes for which there is not complete enough information to accurately estimate a magnitude, but we know that the intensity of shaking was strong enough that we can safely consider them to also be in the magnitude 5 or larger range.

So, for the eastern seaboard that are 21 earthquakes in about 300 years or an average of one earthquake about every 14 years. The previous one? Nine years ago in northern New York.

It is interesting to look at the seismic hazard map for the contiguous United States.  An experienced Presbyterian will appreciate the seismic hazard zones for the central and eastern US.  With only a few exceptions we don’t know where major deep faults are and which of the myriad of faults are inactive and which might be reactivated. Therefore, where there is higher seismic hazard is where something has happened in the past, just like some sections of the Book of [Church] Order are there because something happened. In that part of the world seismic hazard analysis is reactive.

The western US is a different story.  We think we know where active faults are, can measure their activity and put hazard estimates on specific geologic features and not just broad areas. Hazard zones are more narrowly defined and we believe have better known values.

So with that quick intro to seismic hazard estimation, lets consider how it compares to other natural hazards.  The bottom line for much of the country is that earthquakes are the least of your worries.

A good comparison comes from an analysis by Barton and Nishenko for the USGS. They find that for the United States the probability of having 10 fatalities for an event in a given year is 11% for an earthquake, 39% for a hurricane, 86% for floods, and 96% for tornadoes. For a graphical representation of where you would expect these consider this map from Insurance Center Associates. There is a similar one from the New York Times. (And it is worth pointing you to Robert Simmon’s critique of how this map represents the data.)

Now, let me make what will seem at first to be a quantum leap…

One of the thing’s I appreciate about our Reformed heritage is the concept of Vocation. What this means in my field is that when I talk to people about earthquakes I recognize that there are usually emotional issues underlying many of the questions they ask me.  In a sense, I am not just an earthquake geologist but I become a counselor or therapist as well.  In other words, I am doing ministry in a particular and unique way.

What I have found in doing this is that to a given individual the type of natural disaster is just as important as the risk of a disaster itself.  It is clear to me from talking with dozens of people that the different numbers only matter to a point and that people have different personal comfort levels with different types of risks. This is brought home nicely in a split-panel cartoon that ran right after the Northridge Earthquake — in one panel a guy is up to his eye balls in snow reading a newspaper headline saying “Earthquake hits California” and in the other panel a Californian, with debris behind him, is reading the headline “Record Cold Grips Northeast.” And each of them is thinking “Why would anyone live there?”

Why would anyone live in earthquake country? Because they don’t like tornadoes, hurricanes or blizzards.  Likewise, I know people who have left California for the Midwest because they are more comfortable with tornadoes than earthquakes.  Some people like predictability. Some hate waiting for the unknown in a tornado warning and would rather not have the suspense and have an earthquake hit out of the blue.  Some have a sense of security knowing that hurricanes have a season when they hit and you get two days notice.  Some would rather have an earthquake and get it over with.  I think that I have heard it all.

Likewise I sometimes wonder if different Presbyterians have preferences for different risks in the church. I will leave the development of that idea as an exercise for the reader.

So to those between the rocking of the earthquake and the hard place of the hurricane, may you know God’s solid presence in the midst of earth’s uncertainty. To all of those who are in the path of Irene, whether it has already gone through you or is still headed your way, we lift our prayers.  To those in the epicentral region of the earthquake we pray that your damage is not substantial and is easily repaired and give thanks that there was no loss of life and no serious injuries. To those currently meeting in Minneapolis we pray that no tornadoes will go through town. And to all affected by the many different types of natural disasters we pray for God’s comfort and peace for you in the midst of it.

Fellowship PC(USA) Gathering — Some Things To Pay Attention To

8 Replies

I have to admit that for the purposes of blogging I was not really tracking the Fellowship PC(USA) Gathering too closely.  Yes, I knew it was coming up but I did not have it ranked too high on the news scale of the stories I was tracking. It struck me as a bit of a New Wineskins redo and instead I have been struggling to stay on top of other news items, especially in the midst of General Assembly Season.

Now, this may seem contradictory, but in the interest of full disclosure let me also say that personally I have been very curious about the Fellowship gathering and how it fits into the PC(USA) big picture at the present time.  In fact I was interested enough, and the questions in my own congregation were numerous enough, that I very seriously considered attending. However, family commitments are keeping me home that weekend and it seemed a long way to go for a two day meeting.

Having now put my cards on the table, I will continue by saying that I have changed my mind and now consider this something that all of us in the PC(USA) need to be watching.

What changed my mind? First, the size.

At the present time the Fellowship PC(USA) is saying that they have pre-registered an overflow crowd of 1900 attendees.  Checking some numbers, it seems that this will be the largest gathering in the PC(USA) this year, and I think it will make it one of the largest gatherings of Presbyterians in the world this year.

How big? Not as big as a PC(USA) General Assembly, but the PC(USA) Big Tent gathering had an announced attendance of around 1700.  The NEXT Church event was 350.  The PCA General Assembly had 1,183 commissioners and the Church of Scotland GA had around 800 commissioners.  For the GA’s, if we make a rough estimate that observers are about the same number as commissioners that puts their total attendance in the same ball park as the Fellowship PC(USA) is expecting. In the PC(USA), 1,900 members would represent almost one in every thousand of the total membership. If you want to consider congregations, the 830 congregations expected to have representatives make up about 8% of the PC(USA) churches.

Is it a minority? Yes. Is it significant? In light of the size of other gatherings I think it is.  The material from the Fellowship says “The initial planners thought there might be a few hundred people interested in new ways of ‘being church’…” This event has evolved into something bigger.

So lets be honest – to bring together the largest gathering of Presbyterians this year with a six-month lead time says something about the state of the PC(USA). However, I think it says more about the uncertainty some members of the PC(USA) feel than it necessarily says about the new organization itself.

Why do I say this?  Consider the developments in that time.  The Fellowship PC(USA) launched with a letter and a white paper which quickly needed some clarifications added to it. Early on there was a video by the Rev. Jim Singleton talking about a “new kind of fellowship” as a group mostly within the PC(USA), but maybe some outside it, and advertises it as an idea to be presented to the Fellowship gathering.  There is also an interesting video by Rev. Singleton where he takes credit for the “deathly ill” phrase and gives the explanation behind it.  Then in May, with the impending passage of Amendment 10-A, the Fellowship issued another letter that said “we are committed to starting a new Reformed Body without leaving the PC(USA).”  So having a portion of the Fellowship outside but in correspondence with the PC(USA) had been de-emphasized.  (Although it should be noted that one of the signatories to that letter is Head of Staff at a church that is now exploring dismissal, but keep reading because this letter has been superseded.)  The Fellowship also announced the hiring of the Rev. Dr. Paul Detterman as Administrative Consultant for the Fellowship.  On June 24 they announced that the main room had reached capacity and that registrations were going to be taken for an overflow room bringing the total possible registration to 1,450.

At about that time another letter was posted with new goals for the Fellowship.  They say:

The goal of the Fellowship is to form a new way for Presbyterian
congregations to relate, recapturing more of what it means to be the
body of Christ.  The mission of the Fellowship is to create an
environment in which these congregations can grow and thrive as
communities in covenant.

And they acknowledge that the landscape has changed:

While the original motivation for the Fellowship was a desire to
positively impact the decline and increasing dysfunction of the PC(USA),
the passage of Amendment 10-A has brought an enormous challenge into
the discussion.  Suddenly, a new reality has emerged in our
denomination, creating a crisis of integrity for Presbyterians who
remain committed to theological orthodoxy.

And the new Reformed Body outside the PC(USA) was back on the table:

One option under the Fellowship umbrella will be a new Reformed body
that, while desiring to maintain mutually helpful association with the
PC(USA) and its related institutions, will nonetheless provide a clear
and distinct identity beyond the PC(USA).  Documents required for the
creation of this new Reformed body are in process.

And in an interesting admission they say “We believe the new Form of Government (nFoG) provides specific options previously unavailable to us, and we are exploring these.” And somewhere about this time the name changed from the Fellowship PC(USA) to Fellowship of Presbyterians. (For reference, the new domain name fellowship-pres.org was acquired on August 11) [Update: The Fellowship discussed their new name and logo on August 16.]

The final step in this prologue to the meeting was a letter from the Administrative Consultant titled “What to expect in Minneapolis…”  I will return to this in just a moment.

It is important to also recognize that while this may be the most high-profile effort under way there are numerous other initiatives floating around.  One of these is the creation of Presbytery Committees of Correspondence. (News coverage by the Presbyterian Outlook, The Layman) (And for those not familiar with the term, “Committees of Correspondence” is a loaded term going back to the American Revolution)  In another development the Presbytery of San Diego has created an Administrative Commission to work with churches interested in moving their membership to them as a like-minded presbytery, “if the way be clear,” effectively forming a flexible, semi-geographic, or “fuzzy-boundary” (as I like to call it) presbytery.

So, in this present landscape what should we be watching for at the Fellowship Gathering? In looking this over I see a Rorschach Test in all of this – if there are 2000 people there will there be 2000 different opinions and expectations?  Has the Gathering come to represent a visible way of expressing protest or uncertainty about the PC(USA) without enough common vision?  In his recent letter Mr. Detterman admits as much:

As the spring progressed, however, and it became clear that ordination
standards and a significant portion of the Book of Order would be
changed, the August Gathering became the go-to place for many more
people with a wide range of different needs and concerns.  As the number
of registrations grew, so did people’s expectations.  Now with well
over 1,900 people attending, the “gathering” appears to have morphed
into a “happening.”

and

The 830+ congregations sending representatives have many different
needs.  Some are looking for a “safe” place in the wake of changed
ordination standards.  Others are looking for innovation and
opportunities for missional engagement.  Some are committed to
continuing long-term relationships with the PC(USA) while others will be
seeking assistance toward an expedient departure.  People who are
coming to Minneapolis looking for an ecclesiastical “silver bullet,” an
instant solution that calms the waters of their ministry will be
disappointed.

With that introduction the letter gives four things, or “tiers,” to expect:

First, for those happy, content, or accepting of where they are the gathering will be offering “ideas and options for nurturing Christ-honoring ministry in place.”

Second, some attendees will be interested in innovative and creative changes in presbytery structure. “A few of these models will be explained and explored.”

Third, for congregations not in a comfortable place in their presbytery “new possibilities for “affiliate” congregations will be introduced.” This will also include discussion of possible changes to be sent to the 220th General Assembly.

Finally, there is the option of a “new Reformed Body,” now explicitly distinct from the PC(USA). This goes on to say:

The idea is to recapture our core identity, believing that Reformed
theology has much to say to our contemporary culture, and that Calvin’s
original vision for the nature and role of presbyteries offers a better
way of relating to one another than most of us are experiencing now.  In
forming this new Reformed “body,” there is also the opportunity to move
with imagination and energy into the reality of a post-denominational
world.

The letter is clear that no votes will be taken at this meeting.  The letter says “We will be presenting a carefully-designed range of options, all covered
by a large “umbrella” of shared commitment to Jesus Christ, to God’s
mission in the world, and to each other.  Discernment and intelligent,
Christ-honoring discussion will be the heart and soul of our time
together.”

I have to think that there are a few more possibilities out there as well so it will be interesting what comes to the surface and what ideas and reports come out of the Gathering.

It will also be interesting to see what reaction there is from outside the Gathering.  There has been a bit so far from beyond the Fellowship’s sphere of influence.  Shawn Coons has written encouraging them to honor the statement on the web site that their actions be “mutually helpful association with the PC(USA) and its related institutions.”  An article from The Christian Century anticipates a strong preference for the fourth option above in a piece titled “Lull before another Presbyterian storm?“

I do want to point you to one more video before I go.  One of the keynote speakers at the Gathering is Dr. Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary.  He was gracious enough to take the time and speak with my presbytery and I understand that he has been speaking to others as well.  Los Ranchos Presbytery heard him and posted the video of his hour-long talk.  It is not exactly the same as what he discussed with us, but his perspective and passionate argument for staying together as a denomination make the video well worth watching.  (At our presbytery meeting he spoke more about practical ways that we could work out to stay together.)

So, I look forward to hearing about this gathering from a distance.  The official Twitter account for the Fellowship is @fellowshippcusa [Update: changed to @fellowshippres] and the announced hashtag is #MN2011. We will see who else is tweeting and blogging from the event. And as it goes, maybe we will have enough pieces of a large jigsaw puzzle to start finding a picture emerging.

[As a postscript let me point out that the Presbyterian Outlook was working on this event in very similar directions as I was and got their stuff posted over the weekend.  They have (at least) one article about the Gathering, another on the mixed signals, and an editorial.]

Presbyterian Church Of Ghana And Their Stand On Homosexuality

2 Replies

For those of you who follow things generally Presbyterian on your news or Twitter feeds you know that a recent development related to the Presbyterian Church of Ghana went viral, or at least high-profile.

The specific development is a news story about an announcement that the church “is to establish therapy centres
for homosexual victims for counselling and rehabilitation in the various
communities.” But what you might suspect is true, that this is not a sudden revelation and there is more to this story in the church and Ghanaian society.

Let me acknowledge right up front that this conversion or reparative therapy is a controversial topic and there are critics and defenders in professional circles, the community, and the church.  And it is worth mentioning that in “western” circles the critics currently outnumber the defenders in all these groups.  A week ago NPR ran a story on this and with the critical listener response the story brought the NPR Ombudsman wrote a great piece giving more background on the topic.

Having said that, let me move on because I want to focus more on the background to this announcement than on the announcement specifically.

On one level it is important to recognize that the level of discussion on the topic of homosexuality has risen a bit recently in the PCG because the it seems to be a topic of particular interest to the current Moderator of the General Assembly, the Rt. Rev. Prof. Emmanuel Martey, and he has been outspoken about it.  About a month ago he did a radio interview aimed at an international audience with Isaac Kofi Amissah, host of the program “Alpha and Omega Gospel” on “Volta Power FM.”  An article about the interview is long and covers most of the standard discussion regarding the view that homosexuality is sinful.  Rev. Martey does give a hint about today’s announcement when it is reported that the host asks about what he would do if he finds a member of the Presbyterian Church is gay or lesbian.  Martey is quoted as replying:

I will approach such a person and counsel him or her and offer my help
to make him or her change for the better to please God and feel
comfortable to live in society. But if such a person does not repent
after all such assistance, I will not hesitate to sack or give him the
marching orders from the Church because if such a person is allowed to
remain there, his immoral action could go a long way to affect other
members of the church.

Within the PCG the opposition to homosexuality has become a significant theme.  Other pastors are also preaching against it, including the Second Minister of a District and another District Pastor who told the Ghana News Agency that “homosexuality and lesbianism are against our culture, which the builds society” and “More importantly, it was against God’s rules as the bible clearly points out”.

But it is not just the PCG that is currently making statements. Almost a month ago on July 18th the Christian Council of Ghana, of which the PCG is a member, released a statement urging Ghanaians to vote against politicians who support LGTBQ rights.  The press conference to announce the stance was covered by Joy Online (story republished by Modern Ghana) and in an account published by Church Ministry Center and another by the Christian Post.  The Joy Online article begins “The Christian Council of Ghana has condemned in no uncertain terms the practice of homosexuality in Ghana.”  The article from Church Ministry Center is full of quotes including these from the Rev. Dr. Fred Deegbe, General Secretary of the Council:

“We call on all Christians to vote against politicians who promote and support homosexuality.”
…
“We Ghanaians and for that matter Africans cherish our rich and strong
values on issues such as homosexuality and we must not allow anyone or
group of people to impose what is acceptable in their culture on us in
the name of human rights.”
…
“[If] this detestable and abominable act is passed into law, the
passage of a law allowing the practice of homosexuality in the country
will bring the wrath of God upon the nation and the consequences will be
unbearable.”

The Rt. Rev. Martey was at the press conference and made similar statements, and the Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Church in Ghana, the Right Rev. Matthias Mededues-Badohu, received coverage for his remarks as part of an article in Changing Attitude.

This debate, brought to the forefront by statements by religious leaders, is one within the Ghanaian culture in general.  Just before the Christian Council statement there was a report that President Mills had made a comment to the press supporting the opposition to homosexuality but Ghana News Now reports that President Mills denies making those comments and demanded, and got, a retraction from the government owned Ghanaian Times. But last week President Mills encouraged the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Ghana to maintain “the moral sanctity of society” but apparently without mentioning homosexuality specifically. Others are weighing in against legalizing homosexual conduct, including an Imam in an op-ed piece in Ghana Web.  Finally, there is a long article from Daily Guide which provides a more balanced and comprehensive look at the issue as well as a bit of coverage from the Council announcement.

There is at least one prominent voice with a contrary opinion and a voice advocating for LGBTQ rights, Prof. F. T. Sai.  Prof. Sai is an expert on population and sexual-health studies, the former chair of the Ghana AIDS Commission, and an adviser to a former president of Ghana.  And in this piece from Ghana Web he takes on the statements made by Moderator Martey, with his response paraphrased like this:

If homosexuals are too filthy to meet the criterion of charitable
Christian acceptance, then wherein lies the authoritative designation of
the Church as an unreserved sanctuary for the bereft, deprived and
destitute? Of course, a confessing Christian may or may not accept the
lifestyle of the homosexually inclined, but does such acceptance or
rejection warrant any provocative name-calling on the part of those
fully convinced of their Christian moral self-righteousness?

Another article by VibeGhana.com provides a similar report, but Prof. Sai is not without his detractors and The Herald has a critical and negative op-ed piece about his position.

As you might expect there is a lot of negative reaction to these recent developments in Ghana, much of it coming from outside the country.  The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission has announced the Coalition Against Homophobia in Ghana. And while the blogosphere has been covering the issue for some time, such as Doug Ireland’s 2006 article “Ghana: Media Leads Anti-Gay Witch-Hunt,” new reaction comes from Behind the Mask, Str8talk, LGBT Asylum News, and South Florida Gay News. And three sites, African Activist, Youth and Human Rights Ghana, and gagelouis701 make a point of contrasting the PCG with its partner church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) which, at about the same time as the Council statement, made its ordination standards more flexible.  On the other side, Samuel Obour reports that the PCG “would decide later this year whether or not to continue relations with
churches which had decided to ordain homosexuals in any part of the
world.”

This is not an issue that will resolve itself quickly or easily, as many other Presbyterian branches know.  It is also important to realize that much of this increased rhetoric is aimed at having input and influence in the election process looking ahead to Presidential elections over a year from now. And it reminds us that in many parts of Africa the churches, and in this case the Presbyterian Church, is a major part of the country’s culture and politics. We shall have to wait and see where this goes.