Category Archives: news

Upcoming PCA General Assembly

Coming up on June 10-13, 2008, in Dallas, Texas, will be the 36th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America.  There is both an Assembly web site as well as one from the host committee.  Both web sites are basic but functional and the host committee’s site has the program for Women in the Church (WIC) and the children and youth program.  While the youth day trip to Six Flags and the Laser Tag event would get the attention of my Jr. Higher, the “mixer” with seminary students is a nice touch to acquaint them with another aspect of the wider church.

The docket is published and there are now twelve overtures posted on the overtures page.  I will tackle the latest on the “hot button” overture at the end of this post.  The rest fall into natural groupings.

From Southeast Alabama Presbytery come a set of three overtures all related to people becoming members of the church.  Now the details are incomplete since the text of the overtures is not posted yet (the site says that Clerk is still waiting on information from the Presbytery) but all are proposed changes to the Book of Church Order. Overture 1 would make modifications to the section that defines the methods by which people are received into or dismissed from the Church.  The next, overture 2, deals with “Transfers to Church Membership.” and overture 3 would “Require Affirmation of the Apostles Creed for Membership.”  More on these as the text becomes available.

Overture 4, from Presbytery of the Blue Ridge, also is related to membership, specifically what are informally known as the “membership vows.”  In the present wording the Book of Church Order, section 57-5, says that the minister may ask the five questions to those seeking membership by profession of faith.  This overture makes the simple, but significant, change of the may to a shall.  So if approved by the GA and confirmed by the Presbyteries the questions would be mandatory.  For reference the five questions deal with 1) do you acknowledge yourself as a sinner? 2) do you believe in Jesus Christ and rest upon Him alone for salvation? 3) Relying on the Holy Spirit will you live as followers of Christ? 4) will you support the Church? and 5) Do you submit yourself to the Church government and discipline?

Speaking of Church discipline, there are two overtures that deal with procedures in discipline cases, both from Missouri Presbytery.  Overture 6 addresses procedures during the investigation of a Teaching Elder (minister) who has had an accusation made against him.  Specifically, it adds a new paragraph to 31-2 that would have an investigating committee or commission formed and would permit the presbytery, by a 2/3 vote, to suspend the Teaching Elder from his responsibilities.  As the proposed amendment says:

At any time while its investigation is in process, the presbytery may suspend the teaching elder from active ministerial duties if it believes the man’s credibility, effectiveness, or fitness for office has been seriously compromised by these reports. Such a suspension shall never be done in the way of censure, since it is not tantamount to a judgment of guilt in the investigation; rather, it is a means of protecting the integrity of the gospel as well as the peace and unity of the church. Great care should be exercised not to invoke this provision too hastily or without sufficient grounds and careful deliberation.

It should be noted that the change here is to provide for suspension during investigation since section 31-10 already provides for suspension from official duties once the charges have been filed.  The second overture in this group, overture 7, clarifies the rules of discipline by explicitly stating that reports that warrant an investigation are “judicial” in nature and need to be treated as such.  These two proposed changes to the Rules of Discipline have the feel of ones that arose because of questions, confusion, or circumstances in a specific case in Missouri Presbytery.

There are three overtures related to presbytery boundaries.  Overture 12 from Evangel Presbytery asks to divide the presbytery since it now has the maximum recommended number of churches.  The southern half in the Birmingham, Alabama, area would retain the Evangel name and the northern half would become the new presbytery.  Overture 5 from Northwest Georgia Presbytery asks to have two additional counties, not currently included in a PCA presbytery, included in Northwest Georgia.  Overture 10 is effectively a concurring overture from neighboring Tennessee Valley Presbytery saying that they have no objections.  This is important because Tennessee Valley does have groups working in that area looking at planting churches.  However, overture 10 has a note from the Stated Clerk pointing out the title of the overture, “Revise Tennessee Valley Presbytery Boundary,” is actually incorrect since the two counties currently belong to no presbytery and so Tennessee Valley’s boundaries will not change.

Also, there are two overtures that have a common link to military chaplaincy.  The first and least obvious, overture 8, from Rocky Mountain Presbytery, is a “Tribute to TE William B. Leonard,
Jr.” who has given many years of service to Presbyterian and Reformed churches, service extending back before the founding of the PCA.  Among this service is the founding and serving as the first Executive Director of the Presbyterian and Reformed Joint Commission on Chaplains, an agency with connections to the PCA and four other Reformed denominations. 

The second is overture 11 from the Presbytery of the Ascension that is titled “Sending Reformed Military Evangelists to U.S. Oversees Military Communities.”  This is a complex overture in a number of respects but the bottom line is that it calls for better church evangelism and support in overseas military communities beyond the work of the chaplains from the Joint Commission.  For the GA to deal with it will require its consideration by four different commissioner committees and it calls for the creation of an additional national committee for the denomination which will require a Book of Church Order change.  Briefly, the four action items are: 1) encourage each presbytery to establish a committee to work on church planting among church families stationed around the world. 2) Have a coordinated PCA effort for this church planting as well. 3) Encourage commissioning evangelists for military colleges and military bases nationally and globally. and 4) establish the Reformed Military Ministries as a denominational committee parallel to the Reformed University Ministries for college chaplains.  Because of the issues involved and the complexity of this overture I can see this as a “sleeper” that could lead to extended debate and consideration of the partnership with the Joint Commission for this work.

Finally, we have the issue that several of us in the blogosphere have been tracking for a while, the question of ordination and ordination standards as it applys to the place of women in the diaconate or deaconesses.  Overture 9, from the Philadelphia Presbytery, calls for the creation of a study committee for sorting this all out.  For some of the background leading up to this you can check out my previous post on this from about a month ago.  The summary is that the Book of Church Order and the Westminster Standards state that only men may serve in ordained office, but some question the Scriptural support for this for deacons, some ask how women can be involved in service that is like that of deacons, and some are wondering what actions or procedures are, or are not, ordination.  Not much has officially changed in the last month, but plenty of people are weighing in on the topic.  As before, the strongest proponents of strictly having men serve in anything even close to an ordained office are the Bayly Brothers.  In addition to their earlier blog posting they have recently added another that is a reprint of a piece Timothy Bayly wrote for Ligonier Ministries’ publication Table Talk ten years ago.  There is also an extensive post on Green Baggins by Bob Mattes that considers the Greek text , and one of the (currently 204) comments is by Doug Wilson that defends the unique role of deaconess.  Another detailed post that directly addresses the “where ases” in the overture is on the blog “The Cellar Door.”  And in a brief post A Reforming Mom affirms and links to the Bayly Brothers earlier post, so it is not just the “male hierarchy” of the PCA that is in favor of preserving the status quo.  At this time there has been little I have seen directly related to this overture arguing for the ordination of women as deacons in the PCA posted in the blogosphere except maybe in blog comments on the BaylyBlog or Green Baggins.

It has struck me that there is currently a higher level of discussion of deacons and deaconesses in the general blogosphere right now.  It is impossible to say if it is directly linked to this overture and controversy.  One example is Thabiti Anyabwile on Pure Church who has several posts this month about deacons in general.  If you want a women serving as deacons analysis of the Greek text you can see a discussion by Baptist minister Wade Burleson on the role of women in the offices of the church.

As the PCA heads towards this General Assembly there is a new dynamic beginning to surface and that is the current prominence nationally of PCA Teaching Elder Tim Keller, Senior Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan.  In addition to Redeemer’s growth and strong ministry in New York City, Rev. Keller also has a best selling popular book out now called “The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism.”  The extent and emphases of Redeemer Presbyterian Church is a subject for another time, and I am not sure yet whether the church would fall into the “emergent” category, but with their programs and “popular feel” there is a rising level of concern among some in the PCA about their orthodoxy.  This includes the diaconate ministry of the church described in a carefully worded web page which mentions but does not distinguish between deacons and deaconesses and refers to both as “officers.”  Because of the intended scope of this post being the General Assembly I’ll return to TE Tim Keller and the situation at Redeemer another time, but I just wanted to point out a rising level of concern among PCA bloggers about Redeemer as exemplified by, among other, the BaylyBlog, Confessional Outhouse, and a long related discussion on the Puritan Board.  The PCA is not a “one size fits all” Presbyterian branch and has in the past addressed questions of orthodoxy head-on rather than walking around the “elephant in the room.”  We will see how this develops.

Looking back at this post I am now aware that I have read a lot on these issues from bloggers with a fairly close reading of the Westminster Standards and not a lot who identify themselves with the PCA and have a more relaxed or flexible view of the standards and Scripture.  I try hard to keep this blog balanced so if you think there is another voice out there I should be reading and quoting more feel free to let me know in the comments or send me e-mail at steve_at_gajunkie.com.

Keep watching these issues as GA approaches and we will see how they develop.

Upcoming PC(USA) General Assembly — Late-March Update

Leave a reply

Things continue to move forward towards the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  There has been little “news” but enough changes since my last update that I think it is time for another one.

First some “fluff” items:
The General Assembly web site has changed it’s “look and feel” so it is now unique in the PC(USA) domain.  It no longer fits the standard design you see on most other pages but has its own style with the navigation bar across the top, a wider area for content, and a gray “motif” with less contrast than the main pages.  I don’t see a change in the content though.  One thing that is gone is the prominent link to the Committee on Local Arrangements (COLA) and the COLA web site still has a style based on the PC(USA) main page.

The second item is that my son finally got registered on-line for the assembly.  The process was slow and threw back server errors a couple of times, but worked in the end.

Finally, there is now a detailed schedule of events posted for the GA, 26 pages worth, listing not just the business sessions and worship, but all the special meals you can buy tickets for and the speakers or awards at those meals.  My son looked at that and asked “but what would I be interested in?”  I pointed him to a couple that are up his alley.   I’ll return to a couple of interesting items on the schedule at the end of this post.

Over the last couple of weeks the number of overtures has only grown slightly, but the number of recommendations listed on PC-biz has started explode.

For the overtures, there are six new ones, bringing the total to 86.  Of these, there is one more about the FOG report (Overture 81)  from the Presbytery of Western North Carolina to receive the report, have officers and Governing Bodies study it, get back to the Stated Clerk by Jan. 1, 2010, and refer the business to the 219th GA in 2010.  Overture 86 is fairly routine business to establish Truckee Lutheran Presbyterian Church as a union church in Truckee, Nevada.  There is also a social witness overture, 82, from Twin Cities Area Presbytery, challenging the denomination to work for shalom in the world.  The overture singles out no specific geographic area or particular conflict, but does oppose the doctrine of preemptive war as well as torture while supporting the promotion of human rights.

The other three overtures are more unique, have some nuance, and have interesting implications for Presbyterian politics.

The first is Overture 83, “On Equal Rights for Families of Same-Gender Partners” from New Brunswick Presbytery.  This overture touches both sides of the PC(USA)’s seemingly paradoxical stand on same-sex relationships.  As the rational of the overture points out, the PC(USA) has a history of social witness promotion of the civil rights of same-sex couples.  At the same time the denomination has been embroiled in the controversy over the ban on the ordination of active homosexuals and on same-sex unions.  Some, on both sides, see these opposite stands as contradictory while many in the center do understand the differing social and polity stands to be perfectly compatible with our Reformed theology.  This overture is interesting because it touches both parts and blurs the difference.  Point 1 is pretty clear on renewing the commitment to civil rights.  But Point 2 asks for a special committee to report to the next GA on the relationship between our two positions.  Specifically it asks for a report on:

a.The history of the laws governing marriage and civil union, including current policy debates.
b. How the theology and practice of marriage have developed in the Reformed and broader Christian tradition.
c. The relationship between civil marriage and Christian marriage.
d. The effects of current laws on same-gender partners and their children.
e. The place of covenanted same-gender partnerships in the Christian community.

The final point in the overture is to support congregations as they “extend pastoral care to same-gender couples and their families.”

Overture 84 is a request from the Flint River Presbytery to change the standing rules so that amending the standing rules or suspending the standing rules only requires a majority vote rather than a super-majority of 2/3.  We will see how far this gets because one of our subordinate standards (just kidding!) is Robert’s Rules of Order which has a 2/3 vote to suspend the rules.  All that the overture rational says is that the current 2/3 imposes an “unrealistic constraint.” I have seen the GA amend and suspend the rules several times so it can be done for good reason.  Somebody who wants to look for “conspiracy theories” might find something in this change.  I’ll have to reread the minutes from the last GA to see what business was related to a failed suspension of the standing rules.

Finally, overture 85 proposes a change in the investment restrictions on General Assembly Council (GAC) allowing them to invest with organizations other than the Presbyterian Foundation.  The rational is that the GAC is the only PC(USA) entity required to use the Foundation exclusively and it points out that the Board of Pensions has done better elsewhere.  This overture was brought by the Synod of the Southwest.

As I mentioned above, the number of recommendations to the Assembly is growing, currently up to 26 beginning with the Report of the Form of Government Task Force as Recommendation 1.  In this post I’m not going to do a item-by-item analysis of the recommendations.  Some are routine approvals of a new seminary president (7), seminary trustees (6), Historical Society and Mountain Retreat Association Board members (20 and 26).  Some are the official wording or the items from the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy that I discussed in February.  Many of the remaining are recommendations from the General Assembly Council.  Let me highlight a couple:

Recommendation 19 is unique, so far, in that it is the only recommendation with proposed changes to the Book of Order.  This is unusual to come from an agency, but this is the result of the referral to the GAC of an overture to the 217th GA in 2006 to create a non-geographic Korean language sy
nod.  Following a consultation in December 2006 the GAC is recommending that a non-geographic synod not be authorized, but is suggesting changes to the Book of Order that would allow a church in a synod without a non-geographic language presbytery be able to join a non-geographic presbytery in another synod.  This does have interesting polity implications since Overture 10 is asking for a general flexibility in presbytery and synod membership.

Another document suggested for change is the Open Meeting Policy in recommendation 18.  This is more of a change for clarification saying that observers may not only attend, but have copies of the documents, and that cases under the Rules of Discipline also fall under the category of closed meetings.

There have been some new items among groups affiliated with the PC(USA) related to GA.  On the schedule I mentioned earlier, you will find that on any given day you can have a briefing by Presbyterians for Renewal at lunch time.

Also at every lunch break will be “Something Happening for Love Justice and Jesus” by That All May Freely Serve (TAMFS).  The description is:

Come out to celebrate the ALL of the Church’s future. Music? Art? Theater? Something Else? Watch for signs, check www.tamfs.org for where to gather for these daily events.

This appears to be linked to their advocacy at GA this year titled “New Church (R)evolution!”  Their web site describes it as:

Young adults and seminarians – our New Church (R)evolution team – will
claim their birthright as members of a just and inclusive church.
Through positive, life-giving action, the New Church (R)evolution will be the church we seek, as we invite the PCUSA to have the courage to join us in living into freedom and justice! [emphasis in the original]

With the mention of “young adults,” and the descriptions on the associated brochure, the target audience is clearly the same as has been the concern in the various discussions of Web 2.0 and the future of the church.  As the brochure says in one box, “Studies consistently show that people under 35 have heard the gospel message and support the inclusion of all believers, LGBTQ or otherwise. So while some people continue to use tactics to ensure exclusion, the next generation has already decided for the full equality of all people.”

Clearly TAMFS has a strategy for connecting with the younger generation in ways familiar to that culture.  It will be interesting to see if it does connect, if there are enough younger generation present to connect with, and if any conservative/evangelical leaning groups will have a similar presence.

This will be interesting so stay tuned for GA.

Remedial Case Filed Against Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area Over Restoration of Ordination

Leave a reply

The Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area yesterday posted on their web site and blog the announcement that a remedial case has been filed with the Synod of Lakes and Prairies claiming that the vote of the Presbytery at a special meeting on January 26 was irregular.  That vote, in the affirmative, was to approve a non-essential departure in beliefs therefore restore the Rev. Paul Capetz to the exercise of ordained office.  According to the announcement the claim was filed by the Rev. David Bierschwale, the Rev. David Lenz, and Elder Carol Shanholtzer.  Here are the claimed irregularities from the Presbytery announcement:

“Complainants believe that the action was irregular in the following
particulars and/or the governing body exceeded its authority and failed
to act as constitutionally required in the following particulars:

The PTCA determined that compliance with the behavioral requirements of G-6.0106b is non-essential;

and,

The PTCA restored to the ministry of Word and Sacrament a person who
admits and declares that he will not lead his life in conformity to the
historic confessional standards of the church, specifically the
requirement contained in Section G-6.0106b.”

While I don’t think that this filing was unexpected in light of the Presbytery’s actions, at this point in time it also must be viewed through the lens of both the recent GAPJC decision and any possible action by the 218th General Assembly that begins three months from today.

The announcement was that a claim has been filed so we must now wait for the process to work as the Synod investigates and the Synod PJC prepares to do its work.  Stay tuned.

More from the Stewardship Conference: Stewardship as a Spiritual Discipline

Leave a reply

If you read my post discussing the first news article about the Stewardship Conference you know that I found those speaker’s comments to reflect a fairly narrow, “follow the money,” understanding of stewardship.  We now have a news story with the comments of the Rev. Karl Travis, senior pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Fort Worth, TX, that reflect a much richer understanding of stewardship as a spiritual discipline. This new story, also by Evan Silverstein from the Presbyterian News Service, is titled “Transforming the Understanding of Stewardship.”

The idea is not that the institution needs us to give, but that we need to give for our own spiritual well being.  As the article says early on:

Now the time has come for the emphasis to shift from preserving and promoting the institution to furthering the well-being of its parishioners, especially when it comes to worshipers growing personally and spiritually through disciplined financial giving to their church.

In other words stewardship is not about the church’s need to receive. Stewardship is first about the individual’s need to give.

Just to remind you, Paul considers giving a spiritual gift:

6. We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. 7. If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; 8.if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.  [Romans 12:6-8, NIV]

Rev. Travis talked about stewardship as a lifestyle choice.  He is quoted as saying “Stewardship is about the joyous discipline of thanking God with the
way we live our lives and spend our money and share our money.”  This gets closer to the stewardship of “time, talents, gifts, and service” that I am used to.

The article has a couple of other good quotes from Rev. Travis about stewardship:

If you’ve come to this conference because your church is in rough financial waters and you’re wondering how to increase its budget to pay the light bill, fair enough. But take note: If that’s your initial theological pitch, you’re going to remain in the dark.

and

I have grown tired of the stewardship pitch beginning with the church hat-in-hand. People want now to speak first of joy, grace, the individual benefits of disciplined generosity.

In his presentation Rev. Travis, like Mr. Easley, made reference to Dr. Walter Brueggemann’s “Liturgy of Abundance, Myth of Scarcity” article.

So stewardship is not about perpetuating a particular church as an institution or preserving a denomination.  It is about our relationship to God as a member of a covenant community that is the Body of Christ.

One final closing quote from the article:

Stewardship is an exuberant conversation within which we step
toe-to-toe with the idolatries of this age and declare with a loud and
clear and resonant voice, ‘I am not your slave! I am a child of God,
sealed by the Holy Spirit, marked as Christ’s forever, and nothing you
can ever say or do can ever make that not true.’

Episcopal Church Update and their Polity Debate

1 Reply

“Blood on Every Page”

That is a phrase we in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) throw around to explain the volume, detail, and nature of our Book of Order.  The phrase is taken from one of our better know books on polity and expresses the fact that much of what has made its way into the Book of Order can be traced back to specific problems that arose and after the fact we decided that clarification or detailed rules were needed to address future instances.  One valid criticism of the proposed new Form of Government is that in the revision we will lose an accumulation of “institutional memory.”  It is also one of the strong arguments for the revision that the Book of Order is so cluttered with these reactive amendments that maybe it is time to start over with a clean copy and begin again.

If you have been following the drama in the American Episcopal Church the last few weeks you know that the recent developments have come down to an argument about applying their church, or canon, law.  I will return to that argument in a moment, but let me fill in the details from my last post  on the topic back in early December.  At that time the convention delegates to the Diocese of San Joaquin, California, had voted by a wide margin to change the diocese’s bylaws to change their oversight from the American Episcopal Church to the Southern Cone in South America. (Episcopal news story reporting that action)  The reason for the diocese’s departure, like in other mainline churches today, is the controversy over ordination standards related to practicing homosexuals.  Since then proceedings have been underway against the Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, John-David Schofield, for “Abandonment of the Communion.”  Well the proceedings reached their final step on March 12, 2008, when the House of Bishops voted to agree with the investigation board to the “deposition” (that would be removal, not testimony under oath) of Bishop Schofield as well as a retired bishop, William Cox, from Maryland.  (Episcopal news story)

For Bishop Schofield’s part, he sent, or at least posted on the Diocese web site, a letter of resignation from the House of Bishops on March 1.  Reception of this letter by the Presiding Bishop has not been acknowledged.  So we have “You can’t fire me, I quit.”

Also, the House of Bishops at their meeting approved Bishop Jerry Lamb to serve as provisional bishop to the Continuing Episcopalians in the Diocese of San Joaquin.  The appointment needs to be confirmed by the diocese on March 29.  (Episcopal new story)

While I am not sure what all the implications of deposition are, Bishop Schofield and the majority of the Diocese seem happy to have joined, and welcomed by, Southern Cone.  The deposition seems a formality at this point, unless the American Episcopal Church can find some muscle from either civil authorities or the Worldwide Anglican Communion, to get the realigned churches in San Joaquin back in the fold.

Now, here is the current controversy over polity:  The section of canon law related to the process of removing a bishop for Abandonment of Communion ( Title IV Canon 9 ) says in Section 2:

Otherwise, it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the House. If the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the Ministry, and pronounce and record in the presence of two or more Bishops that the Bishop has been so deposed.

The vote was taken by voice vote so the exact count is not known, but as the Living Church News Service reported on March 14, from their reading of this section the vote could not have been valid.  By their count there were 294 members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote on March 12.  That would require 148 bishops to vote in the affirmative to agree to the disposition.  However, they know that only 131 bishops were registered for the meeting and 15 of those left before this item of business.  By their reading “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent” had not happened and the deposition was not valid.

Needless to say, the church hierarchy disagrees with this interpretation and issued a response the next day.  Here it is in its entirety:

The Presiding Bishop’s chancellor has confirmed the validity of votes
taken in the House of Bishops on March 12, correcting an erroneous
report published online March 14 by The Living Church News Service.  

Chancellor David Booth Beers said votes consenting to the
deposition of bishops John-David Schofield and William Cox conformed to
the canons. 

“In consultation with the House of Bishops’ parliamentarian prior to
the vote,” Beers said, “we both agreed that the canon meant a majority
of all those present and entitled to vote, because it is clear from the
canon that the vote had to be taken at a meeting, unlike the situation
where you poll the whole House of Bishops by mail. Therefore, it is our
position that the vote was in order.”

A quorum had been determined at the meeting by the House of Bishops’
secretary, Kenneth Price, Bishop Suffragan of the Diocese of Southern
Ohio.

So the official interpretation, by somebody like the Stated Clerk, is that the vote was valid.  They interpret the phrase in Section 2 “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” to mean “a majority
of all those present and entitled to vote.”  I will say that I may be missing certain implications of the next line “because it is clear from the
canon that the vote had to be taken at a meeting” because I am a GA Junkie, not a HOB (House of Bishops) Junkie.  They appear to be saying that “since this vote must be taken at a meeting by implication Title IV.9.2 must refer to those at the meeting.”  But others who are more familiar with Canon Law still see problems with this, like this viewpoint expressed by the Anglican Communion Institute today.

In the midst of this it is interesting to note one final item in the Anglican controversy at the moment.  Coming up this summer is the Lambeth Conference in England, a once-a-decade gathering of about 800 bishops from the Worldwide Anglican Communion.  The conference is by invitation and participants do not come as specific delegates or representatives of their churches.  At the present time Bishop Schofield is on the invitation list, but Bishop Gene Robinson, the openly gay Bishop of New Hampshire, is not on the list and will probably only attend as an observer.

And after that diversion we now return you to our regular Politics of Presbyterianism.

UPDATE:  At about the same time I finished this up and posted it Virtue Online posted a detailed entry with quotes from several, presumably conservative, cannon lawyers that argue the interpretation of the Canon Law making the vote valid is not reasonable.  In particular one expert cites other places in the Canon Law where there are detailed specifics about which bishops need to vote.  This corroborates the interpretation that “the whole House of Bishops” means everyone eligible, not just those present.

UPDATE 2:  In looking over this polity issue I have found a post on the blog Father Jake Stops the World which takes the position that the vote was valid and tackles the canon law and the math to explain why.  His argument centers on the necessary quorum.  However, he closes with a comment I think a lot of people could affirm at this point: “The wording of that canon certainly needs to be cleaned up. That is quite clear.”

Better Mission Funding Through On-Line Social Networking?

Leave a reply

You may have seen yesterday’s article from the Presbyterian News Service of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) by Evan Silverstein titled “Fresh approaches to stewardship needed, Easley says.”  The Easley is General Assembly Council Vice-chair Charles F. Easley and he was speaking to the Presbyterian Stewardship Conference in Fort Worth, Texas.

The article, while associated with the conference, mainly covered Mr. Easley’s plenary speech.  He is quoted as saying that “We have got to devise new ways to tap into the passions of people.”  And the goal?  He pointed out that in the next two years $50 to $60 trillion dollars will change hands from one generation to the next which will “give rise to a new generation of wealthy donors — ages 40 to 50 — who will demand to see ‘measurable results’ for their money before agreeing to contribute to the mission of their churches or other charities.”  In addition, Elder Easley reminded the audience that the pattern in the church today is designated  giving and that the church can not depend on the average person attending church because they have stopped coming.

Mr. Easley outlined programs the PC(USA) might implement to raise awareness and interest in mission giving and a final report will be made to the upcoming General Assembly.  The objective is to “bring resources into the church” once you learn about the passion of its members.  One of the tools proposed in the new mission funding system will be a “season of interpretation.”  This sounds like the mission worker visit we had last fall which was interesting but penetration into the churches in our presbytery was weak.  No further details are given except that the goal is to make this an annual event and that members could chose what they have a passion for.  Another component to the report is encouraging not just the transfer of wealth, but the transfer of stories and knowledge about mission from older to younger generations.  Finally, there are ideas about using on-line social networking sites to promote mission giving through relationship building.

The article concludes with Mr. Easley discussing the ideas of Walter Brueggemann about the “Liturgy of Abundance, Myth of Scarcity” and how much abundance Americans have.

Commentary Mode:  Based on these comments it appears that Mr. Easley is sending the message that “people are not coming to the PC(USA) therefore we need to pursue, court, and build relationships with high net worth individuals to support our world-wide mission because the few left in the pews can’t or won’t do it.”  Sorry if I got that wrong, but that is a major attitude I got from this article.  And I hate to say it but if this is the message that we are sending to the “average person in the pews” they will once again wonder what is up in Louisville and where is my money going?

[In case you want to argue with me here is the quote copied from the article:  “And he said forget about bringing in enough money by depending on those
coming to church. ‘It’s just not going to happen because they don’t
come,’ Easley said.”  Yes, I’m pulling one line out, but there is a strong message sent in that line.  Don’t believe me?  I read it to my wife and her response was “That’s kind of scary.”]

Apart from the emphasis on the “high net wealth” individuals in preference to the “average person in the pews” I think that Mr. Easley is starting down the right track.  Storytelling, interpretation, relationship building are all important aspects of responsible (I will avoid the word “increased”) mission giving.  My congregation is a prime example:  While we do still contribute some money each year to “undesignated” mission giving at all levels of the denomination, far more goes into specific mission projects, several not PC(USA) or of any denomination, that we have a specific relationship with.  And for most of these missions our church usually sends people on mission trips to supply some sweat as well as money and to bring back stories and experience.

This brings me to one of my major concerns about Mr. Easley’s comments and what I can tell about this conference.  (Note: I have come to respect the reporting of Mr. Silverstein so I am going to attribute these to the speaker and not the reporting or editing.)  From his comments, and the list of workshops at the conference, it is pretty clear that this conference was about Stewardship of Money.  In and of itself that is not necessarily a bad thing.  But I believe that Jesus calls us to Stewardship of Our Whole Lives, so that means we need to be responsible about our “time, talents, gifts, and service.”  If giving is down is it because we are only asking for their money?  And with the proposed new Form of Government, how does this approach to stewardship fit into the new Missional Polity.

So, I would encourage the approach of relationship building.  Go the Facebook and MySpace route because one paragraph or one sentence in the Mission Yearbook for Study and Prayer is not enough to build the relationship, and barely enough to give us something to pray over.  I hope the season of interpretation catches on, because we do need to feel connected with those we support.  While the Mission Yearbook is nice it often feels like drinking from a fire hose; find ways for congregations and individuals to effectively connect one-on-one with mission workers.  And figure out more ways that we can also use our “time, talents, and service” as will as “gifts.”  Look at the enthusiasm and participation that the PC(USA) has had in the Gulf Coast through Presbyterian Disaster Assistance and the impact it has had on both the area and those who have gone there to work.  And maybe if the average person in the PC(USA) does learn about and own the mission program you won’t have to emphasize high net wealth individuals for mission funding.

Notes on African Presbyterian Churches

Leave a reply

Over the last couple of weeks there have been some interesting reports about Presbyterian activities and politics in parts of Africa, but the reports of governing body actions have been too short to warrant a full post.  So here is a post bundling news from Sudan, Ghana, and Malawi.

Sudan
There were two brief reports by Anyuak Media from the General Assembly of the Sudan Presbyterian Evangelical Church (SPEC) a couple of weeks ago.  The first article is about the Rev. Philip Akway Obang being elected as the General Secretary of the SPEC.  Rev. Philip (as the article refers to him) has a degree in business administration as well as theological training.  The article says that he has been a church worker for 18 years doing evangelism and parish ministry, probably in a capacity like a Commissioned Lay Pastor.  He completed his theological training four years ago and was ordained a pastor two years ago.  One of the reasons for the article from Anyuak Media is because Pastor Philip is the only Anyuak pastor in the SPEC so there is cultural pride here.

The second article about the GA talks about establishing the first Synod in the SPEC.  The article reports that the new Synod will have two presbyteries, the North and West, and have about 70 pastors.  This is pretty much the extent of details on the new Synod and from a polity and connectionalism perspective it is not clear the role of the new governing body.  The article almost makes it sound like it is the highest governing body and that it might be operating in parallel with the GA.  Part of the confusion might be related to the church structure necessitated by the civil war in that country.  According to Reformed Online the SPEC maintains separate administrative units in government held areas and rebel-controlled areas so this might be related to that division.

The Anyuak Media article also provides a brief overview of the Presbyterian church in Sudan and the Reformed Online site expands on that.  The SPEC is the northern church while the Presbyterian Church of Sudan (PCOS) works mainly in the south.  Unlike northern and southern US Presbyterians, this is not a result of the civil war but due to the history of their development.  The SPEC began as a presbytery of the Egyptian reformed church while the PCOS was established by American missionaries.  Both have parallel administrations due to the civil war and both have churches in the other’s regions, apparently without problems.  The World Council of Churches web site says that they cooperatively run a seminary.  The half-century history of civil war has kept the two churches from uniting.

Ghana
The Presbyterian Church of Ghana is one of the more active African branches and it enjoys a good working relationship with the civil government.  A couple of news articles have appeared recently.  One covers the installation of the new national executive committee of the Bible Study and Prayer Group of the Presbyterian Church in Kumasi.  The featured speaker was the Right-Reverend Dr Yaw Frimpong-Manso, the current Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ghana.  He reminded the new officers to live exemplary lives and to be agents of change.  Another article covers the first graduation from a new campus at Okwahu of the Presbyterian University College.  The ceremonies included a message from Ghana’s President John Agyekum Kufuor read by Ms Elizabeth Ohene, Minister of State in Charge of Tertiary Education.  The message said “the Presbyterian Church had been a faithful ally of government in
providing the manpower needs of the country since it established a
primary school in 1843 and a training college in 1948.”  The article does note that the GA Moderator was present at this ceremony as well.  And finally, regional Presbyterian leaders have condemned violence in Bawku that destroyed property belonging to workers at the local Presbyterian hospital and is causing some of the workers to leave.  The church is actively providing supplies to workers who lost property in the violence.

Malawi
This not so much news, but blog posts about visiting Malawian churches on the blog Swords into Plowshares, the Peacemaking Blog of the PC(USA).  These blog entries record the visits, meetings, adventures, and worship services of a PC(USA) affiliated group as they traveled through this part of Africa.  The visit included the Presbyteries of Blantyre and Dwangwa, and the Livingstonia Synod of the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian (CCAP).  One major focus of the trip was the programs to combat HIV/AIDS in the country and caring for those with and affected by the disease.  The PC(USA) has a significant presence in partnership work in the country.  While the blog entries make no mention of the internal controversy in the CCAP, and I have heard no updates for a while, several of these governing bodies are involved in territorial disputes over church planting I have mentioned before.

Upcoming PC(USA) General Assembly — Mid-March Update

Leave a reply

As the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) gets closer the overture process is winding down, but lots of other things are winding up.

On the official web pages, my observation in my last post was correct and the GA Business page has been generalized, the overtures removed, and all information shifted over to PC-biz.  Also, the two previously unlisted overtures, 62 and 68 have appeared in the list now.

One can understand why overture 68 was being worked on for so long.  Foothills Presbytery has put together an extensive overture, both in recommendation and rational, that does some major word-smithing of the Form of Government Task Force (FOG) proposed text for the new Foundations of Presbyterian Polity and Form of Government sections of the Book of Order.  I should note right up front that the task force might have rearranged the first four chapters into three new chapters of Foundations, but this overture rewrites a lot of text in both sections to change the theological focus.  The overture runs almost 16,000 words in length and if pasted into a word processor comes to 38 pages.  Just some more light reading for the commissioners.

To quote the overture the intent of this theological redirection is:

1. Ensure that any revised Form of Government (and Foundations) approved by the General Assembly shall give pre-eminence to the Reformation marks of the true Church, with due consideration of their inner dynamics.

2. Ensure that any revised Form of Government (and Foundations) approved by the General Assembly shall give preference to the church participating in the mission of the triune God in contrast to the church as the delegated/ instrumental bearer (or provisional
demonstration) of God’s mission to the world.

To put it another way, from the Rational, “the marks of the true Church are participatory—where Christ is, there is the Church (ubi christus, ibi ecclesia). The marks are not instrumentalist—where the church is, there is Christ (ubi ecclesia, ibi christus).”  So this is about making the constitutional language reflect the initiative of God and that the church participates in the mission of God.  Much of the language in the General Rational section of this overture closely parallels the Missional Polity document the task force worked with and this overture appears to be proposing changes to the FOG that would more closely align the two in theological perspective.

As I read through the proposed language I find no changes in church operations, although the argument can be made that the FOG Task Force has removed operations from the new Form of Government anyway.  In some cases the word-smithing does not really change any language but places things into more readable forms, like creating bulleted lists, or splitting items in a list into more exclusive bullet points.  But there are a lot of changes in language placing new emphasis on the Triune God and the mission of God (missio Dei).  Some of the changes are linguistically subtle.  Some of these strike me as just some “clean-up” editing.  For example (added text in italics)

G-1.02 A congregation in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) can be organized and dissolved only by the authority of a presbytery and shall function under the provisions of this Constitution.

Some, while subtle word-wise, are theologically more important.  An example of this:  A line in G-1.0301 would change from

One becomes a member of the church through faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and acceptance of Christ’s Lordship in all of life.

to

Believing that Jesus Christ is Savior and Lord over all of life makes one a member of the church.

This is a good example of one consistent change in the overture where the language of “faith” in Jesus Christ seems to be uniformly replaced with “believing.”  Change like this are intended to place a greater emphasis on participating, as opposed to call and response.

As I read through this overture it strikes me that this seems to be somebody or some group’s idea of what the task force report should be if it is to be truly missional.  Looking at the members of the task force there is no one from Foothills so it did not come directly from a member who wanted to see more.  The overture is so complete and so extensive there has to be a “rest of the story” on this one.  It would be interesting to know how long the presbytery commissioners wrestled with this overture since it is so extensive.  And being this extensive, it will give the commissioners on the GA Form of Government Revision Committee even more to do.  I look forward to listening to, and maybe talking with, the GA overture advocate for this one.

Well, what else is new?  Maybe the most high-profile of the remaining overtures is 80 from Peace River Presbytery which complains about the Evangelical Presbyterian Church “actively pursuing a strategy to persuade Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) churches to disaffiliate.”  One interesting twist on this overture is that it asks for an investigation by the Executive Office of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC) into the EPC’s actions.   Remember that the current president of WARC and presumably the head of the Executive Committee is the Rev. Dr. Clifton Kirkpatrick.  (Have I heard that name before?)  If it were to go to WARC he would obviously recuse himself from any investigation.  A similar overture that complained about the EPC was proposed, but not approved, by Mississippi Presbytery.

The remaining overtures are directed at social witness policy, or closely related topics.  Some that impact PC(USA) entities: 76 on Directing GAC to produce Adolescent Human Development Resources since the 217th General Assembly discontinued the human sexuality resources; 78 on Directing PDA (Presbyterian Disaster Assistance) to continue nurturing relationships with presbyteries affected by the storms of 2005; 79 is another request to reinstate the Office for Environmental Justice, similar to overture 24; and finally 77 is a request that this GA celebrate “Living Waters for the World.”  The remaining new overtures are 73 – “On the use of non-disposable food service items,” 74 – On addressing the violence and suffering inflicted on Iraqi women…, and 75 – On temporary suspension of military aid to the State of Israel.

That does it for the major new business that I have seen published.  I would note that there will be a meet and greet with all four Moderator candidates at the Presbyterian Church of Lawrenceville, NJ, on April 25.  And the Witherspoon Society has gotten their GA web site started.

Decision in the PCA SJC Louisiana Presbytery Case

1 Reply

On March 6 trial was held by the Standing Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church in America in the case of Louisiana Presbytery and their examination of TE Steven Wilkins.  In a moment the results of that trial…

But to cover the bases I want to get caught up on the prosecutor situation since my last post on February 11.  As I mentioned at the end of that post, RE Sam Duncan had announced his intention to resign as the prosecutor in the case.  Upon his resignation TE Dewey Roberts was named as the prosecutor.  Our thanks to Rev. Lane Keister at Green Baggins for posting RE Duncan’s resignation letter.

Well, after trial on Thursday and deliberations that evening, the SJC returned their verdict on Friday morning.  In count 1, a technical count about classifying declared departures that Louisiana Presbytery pleaded “not guilty” to, the charge was dismissed.  In count 2, that the presbytery did not conduct the examination of TE Wilkins to properly find a “presumption of guilt,” to which the presbytery pleaded “guilty,” the SJC “admonished” the presbytery, the lowest form of correction.

Now, I am not going to try to reinvent the wheel here because there is a good summary post at Reformed Musings about the proceedings, and if you want the details from a ruling elder close to the situation in Louisiana Presbytery you must check out HaigLaw’s post about the decision.

Looking forward it is tempting to say that the PCA has sent a message that Federal Vision Theology is not compatible with their doctrinal standards and that remaining leaders and churches who hold to the Federal Vision will flee or quickly be chased away to the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC).  But it is important to point out that this whole case was more about examinations regarding the theology than about the theology itself.  And there is not one unified Federal Vision Theology but several varying approaches leaving some aspects doctrinally untested.  So the controversy may continue until a clear declaration regrading doctrinal standards is made by the SJC.  Or, the PCA might take this as a good point to take a break and get distracted by its next controversy.

But it will be interesting to see what sort of “legs” this topic has because it has clearly “got the attention,” “struck a nerve,” “rattled the cages,” (fill in your favorite cliché here) of the various proponents and opponents to this theological controversy.  And, with out going into details here, note that it deals with the nature of the covenant community, a topic at the core of Reformed theology.  But one post on Green Baggins currently has 707 comments to it and there is a thread on Puritan Board that has developed quite a discussion as well (4239 posts to date). So at least at the moment the topic has momentum in the blogosphere.  We will see what happens next and what happens to the momentum.

The Future of the Mainline Church

Leave a reply

This is one of those “convergence of thoughts” posts were several things coalesce in your thinking and you realize the significant common thread running through them.  What was probably the catalyst for this was the report that the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released last week titled “ U.S. Religions Landscape Survey.”  I’ll return to specifics of that survey in a minute, but in that report I saw nothing that I did not already know from my experience and anecdotal evidence; it just quantifies the observations.

The bottom line is that the report says, among other things, what we already know about mainline Protestant denominations:  the members are getting older and the denominations are getting smaller.  Not a surprise to anyone following the PC(USA) membership trends which saw a 1.4% decrease in the number of churches between 2003 and 2006 and a 5.7% decrease in membership in the same time period.  The one year decline for 2005-2006 was 2.0% for the PC(USA).  Over the same three-year time period the PCA reported a 5.7% growth in the number of churches and a 4.2% increase in membership. (Note that I chose the PCA and not the EPC so there is not an argument to be made that those gains are mostly departing PC(USA) members and churches.)  Similarly for the United Methodists, the title of a Christian Post article yesterday pretty much says it all: No Future for Methodists Unless Change Occurs, Say Leaders.

For the PC(USA) (and, while I did not dig up the statistics, the “mainline” Presbyterian branches in other countries as well), one observation is that we do not retain our young people.  That is supported by the Pew Forum study.

First, another academic survey which again quantifies in today’s college students what I saw happen among my peers at a state university 25 years ago.  The Pew Forum has a Q&A on their site with Alexander W. Astin, the director of the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA on “ Spirituality in Higher Education: A National Study of College Students’ Search for Meaning and Purpose“.  As they define it, college students become less “religious” (they stop going to church) and more “spiritual” (things like “attaining inner harmony”) between their freshman and junior years.  There is also a measure of their political thinking and the students tend to become more “liberal” in their thinking.  (Note that the Pew Forum Q&A does not include confidence intervals but if it is like most national surveys it is about +/-4% which actually renders some of the statistical differences for politics on the Pew page as indistinguishable.) (Digression: If you want an interesting discussion of differing impacts of “progressive” and “conservative” faculty on college campuses check out an article by Harrison Scott Key from World on the Web.)  I’m still doing some thinking about the UCLA study’s categories and classifications, but they support what many of us recognized over the last couple of decades, if not longer. [I will note that my day job is in academania so I have a front row seat to this. I was in a group recently where two students were having a discussion over whose form of yoga was better.]

If I had to summarize the Pew Forum study in one line it would be that today American churches, religion, and spirituality have become a commodity with individuals looking for consumer satisfaction and not brand loyalty.  And no, I’m not the first to say that.

As background, for the total population they found that 78.4% of Americans self-identified as Christians breaking down to 51.3% Protestant, 23.8% Catholic, and the balance of 3.3% other Christian including Eastern Orthodox and two groups not everyone would group with the Christians, Latter Day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses.  The next largest group was “Unaffiliated” comprising 16.1% of the population but within that group, in addition to the atheists and the agnostics there is what you might call the “apathetic,” although the study calls them “nothing in particular.”  Now apathetic is not quite right because part of the “nothing in particular” are “secular unaffiliated” who would be the apathetic, but there is also a “religious unaffiliated” who do say religion plays a significant part in their lives, but apparently not organized religions groups.  If you care about particular states, regions, ethnic groups, or other demographics the report is extensive and the web site easy to drill down through to get some very detailed information.

One other interesting detail is that among the Evangelical Protestants the second largest group is Nondenominational.  Baptists are the largest group among Evangelical Protestants with 41% of the group and then Nondenominational and Pentecostals are tied for second with 13% of the group for each.  For the record, Evangelical Presbyterians, led by the PCA, are 3% of the group.

I should mention that in the survey there is a third Protestant tradition tracked, that being the “Historically Black Protestant Church.”  However, since Presbyterianism comes in at 0% in this tradition I won’t be regularly referring to it.

One more little detail:  Since the individuals in the survey self-identify their religious affiliation I am curious about the “Mainline Presbyterian” breakdown.  While 1.1% of respondents were PC(USA), <0.3% identified themselves as “Other Presbyterian in the Mainline Tradition” and 0.7% as “Presbyterian in the Mainline Tradition, not further specified.”  So if you are Presbyterian in the Mainline Tradition, but not PC(USA), what are you?  Ex patriot Church of Scotland, PC Ireland or some other global Presbyterian branch?  Another American Presbyterian who thinks they are mainline? Someone who has left the PC(USA) but still identifies with the mainline church, whether or not attending elsewhere, or someone who won’t admit to being in the PC(USA)? According to the narrative of the study these were individuals who identified themselves as Presbyterian but no further, and who said they were not “born-again or evangelical.”  And what about PC(USA) members who identified themselves as “Evangelical?”

With that overview, let me turn to one small piece of the Pew study, specifically the religious landscape with young adults and migration patterns away from the denomination of their upbringing.  The study finds that 62% of Americans over age 70 identify themselves as Protestant while only 43% of those in the 18-29 age bracket do.   As for Unaffiliated, it is claimed by 25% of the 18-29 age group while claimed by only 8% of the over 70 group.  And in each of these groups the age distribution, while not strictly linear, does increase or decrease consistently. The survey also looked at shifting religious affiliations by comparing the tradition an individual was raised in versus where they are now.  (Note that multiple changes or changes back to the original are not seen.)  The biggest changes are seen in the Unaffiliated group with 7.3% of the population being raised unaffiliated but 16.1% claiming it now.  And most of that gain was in the “Nothing in particular” cat
egory.  The second largest gains were seen in the Nondenominational Protestant category with 1.5% raised in that tradition but 4.5% currently identifying with it.  Within those currently self-identifying as Protestants, 18% of Evangelical Protestants were raised outside Protestantism and 31% switched from another Protestant family while for those in Mainline Protestantism it is similar with 16% from outside and 30% from another Protestant family.  That leave 51% and 54% respectively who are currently in the tradition they were raised in.

Now that is a bunch of numbers, but breaking that last one down by denominations the Baptists have the best retention rate at 60% with no change while Presbyterians have one of the worst with only a 40% retention rate.  Of those that were raised Presbyterian and changed roughly equal numbers, about 15% went to each of other Evangelical Protestant denominations, other Mainline Protestant denominations, and No Religion.

I will point out that some of these numbers about migration apply to individuals across the age spectrum.  But considering the UCLA study, the fact that Unaffiliated is strongest among the 18-29 age group, and my qualitative observation of college and college age being the time that young people now lose touch with the church, I would argue that while these trends are not specific, they are at least representative if not dominant in the college age group.

With each of my three children, there is a clear attraction to the energy, vitality, and relationships that certain other churches in town have.  All three, while growing up at home and faithfully attending and serving at our Presbyterian church, also regularly attend the youth group at another church.  (And there are two different “other” churches between the three of them.)  These other churches have thriving youth programs that attract, hold, and educate the kids.  They are not attracted by the theology, they are attracted by the energy and the relationships.  These two other churches are not Presbyterian, but I have seen nothing that a Presbyterian church could not do.  In fact from reading his blog, I think Mark Smith’s church does do things like this with their youth.  But from what I have seen it takes work.  Not just work by the Youth Director, not just work by the Youth Team, but work by the whole church.  The whole church?  Yes, because some of us “frozen chosen” have to be ready to sometimes have worship music that might include a drum set and electric guitars.  Yes, because some of us need to get off our duffs and be ready to help out with youth events like Mark does.  Not only can a small youth team not do it alone, but if we want to empower the younger generation of our members (note, not the “future of the church” or the “next generation”, they are with us today) we need to show them that they are valued by the broad community and have a place in our worship and the life of the community.  And I think we can do that without compromising our Reformed faith and traditions (I’ll have to think more about how some of this might interact with the “ regulative principle of worship“).  [I think I just outlined an upcoming moderatorial sermon.]

[Please forgive me if I seem hypocritical by making these suggestions and yet my own kids also attend other church youth groups.  I would point out that 1) they are still engaged in our church and its youth group and 2) My wife, and I to a lesser degree, have been active with youth events and the youth team.  But we are not above looking at what makes other youth programs successful and it takes the time and the efforts of a lot of people to change the climate and educate the faith community.]

A final piece of anecdotal evidence:  Over the last week I have been part of two interesting conversations with two young men.  The first had just finished high school and was starting at a local community college.  He grew up in the Baptist church and from what we adults could piece together he was now in rebellion against a strict upbringing.  He could clearly and succinctly exposit his religious views and they were clearly theistic and non-Christian.  Here, I thought, was a college student headed for the Unaffiliated, but I hope that in the near future he is able to work out some of his uncertainties with the help of an understanding and non-judgmental faith community.  The second conversation was with our son who requested that we have him excused from the last few minutes of his school day so he could attend the memorial service for a member of our church.  While it was a wonderful and faithful gentleman who had gone to be with the Lord, he was not a close friend so my wife and I were initially skeptical that all our son wanted was an excuse to get out of one of his least-favorite classes.  But as we talked with him we realized that he was serious about wanting to be part of the faith community that gathered to remember this saint and so we pulled him from school for the worship service.  It demonstrated for me that something had clicked for my son about being community in the church.

Within the PC(USA) this spring it will be interesting to see if the denomination can get and hold the attention of young adults.  One driving force is the Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow and his standing for election as Moderator of the General Assembly with a Web 2.0 campaign.  Yes, the other three candidates, Rev. Bill Teng, Rev. Carl Mazza, Elder Roger Shoemaker, all have web sites and Mr. Mazza is blogging.  But Bruce’s web site is updated frequently and has the Web 2.0 bells and whistles like DOPPLR, Facebook, yelp.  From one of his posts it is apparent that questions are being raised about this modern style and whether that is an appropriate way to run a campaign.  For the Moderator election I’m not sure how much of that will help him; it is my experience that few commissioners are in the demographic that appreciates Web 2.0 or that it would influence their vote.  But taking a long view, it should be the hope of those who care about the future of the PC(USA) that Bruce simply doing that will attract and hold the attention of the younger generation of PC(USA) members and leaders.  Or maybe wake some of the rest of us up to what we need to be thinking about.

As I work through my GA 101 series I am thinking about how Reformed Theology, Presbyterian polity and Web 2.0 intersect, inform each other, and maybe conflict.  From a traditional Reformed approach, does an on-line community gathered together in the “virtual” world differ from the covenant community gathered together in the “real” world?  Can you have a true Reformed “Second Life” church?  (That is not Second Life as in The Church Triumphant but as in “The Church Virtual.”)  So I plan to revisit this piece of Reformed theology in detail in my concluding installment of the GA 101 series: Reformed theology and Presbyterian polity for the future — The Church Virtual?

But for now I have written enough and probably glazed over a bunch of eyes with all the statistics.  The take-away is that the numbers continue to not look good for the PC(USA) in the long run and we need to think about how our community, within the bounds of our Reformed faith, needs to adjust.