Category Archives: Personal Note

It Is Never Easy, And Sometimes Ugly

This has not been an easy Spring for me as several close friends have joined the Church Triumphant.  As I put together my annual reflection on The Saints last year it seemed that the list was shorter than usual.  This year’s list has already exceeded last year’s and many of these saints are, as I said, close friends.  The reality of death was part of my reflection when I preached the Easter Sunrise Service at my church.  (Yes, I refused to start with the resurrection because you need to know the bad news before you can understand the Good News.  If you are really interested the church might post the audio of the sermon shortly.)

Many of you are aware that the founder and original Internet Monk, Michael Spencer, joined the Church Triumphant on April 5.  This week his wife, Denise Day Spencer, posted a wonderful yet difficult reflection on Michael’s journey and final days.  It is a very tough read but very worthwhile — I highly recommend it.  Thank you Denise for sharing that.

You have to read the whole thing but I want to quote one of the final paragraphs:

In those first days and weeks after Michael left me, all I seemed to be able to recall of him was his grueling illness and his grim death.Little by little, memories of his life are returning. I want to remember him vibrantly alive, teaching and preaching and writing and podcasting.Talking and laughing and eating and studying. But whenever my thoughts turn to the starkness of his passing, I will remember: We may be born to die, but we were created to live.

Too often I also remember friends and family as I last knew them and not as the vibrant individuals they were earlier.  And I have found this particularly a problem for those that have been ravaged by Alzheimer’s disease.  Many have done amazing things and lived very full lives.  As the Archbishop responds to his assistant’s concern in Death Comes For The Archbishop by Willa Cather – “I will not die of a cold, I will die of having lived.” 

So for those in my life who’s final days were not vibrant and lively but ugly and difficult, I pray that I too may remember you at your best.

How bright these glorious spirits shine!
Whence all their bright array?
How came they to the blissful seats
of everlasting day?
Lo! these are they, from sufferings great
who came to realms of light,
and in the blood of Christ have washed
those robes which shine so bright.
[from Scottish Paraphrases, 1781, source]

Update: After posting and reflecting on this I think my awareness was heightened by the latest installment in a series on NPR and the current storyline in a daily comic strip.

Following The FIFA World Cup – Or – As A G.A. Junkie What I Like About Association Football

For me it is a very unfortunate coincidence that the FIFA World Cup falls at the peak of General Assembly Season.  I must confess that my GA tracking has gotten a bit distracted by following the beautiful game.  Sometime I will blog about how being a soccer referee has informed my theology and how I turned that into a children’s sermon – but that is not today.  Right now I wanted to give a few more general thoughts about the game and, hold on, Presbyterian polity.

To give a brief background I grew up in a city known for its support of soccer with an NALS team and now a team in the “revived” NASL.  As a youth we played pick-up games, a couple of which resulted in injuries requiring significant medical treatment to friends of mine.  While I only played organized soccer one year on a Jr. High team I have followed local teams, college and professional, where I have lived.  I am a trained soccer coach and referee.  It is the latter that connects with my passion for Presbyterian polity.

The first point I want to touch on is the origin of the “organized” game.  While the exact origins of the game are debated, and many cultures seem to have similar style games, the rules that the present game derives from come from a series of rules developed between British public schools who played similar style games but each with their own specific differences.  (See where I’m going with this about different Presbyterian branches?)  The rules of what we now recognize as Association Football and the predecessor to the modern Laws of the Game were agreed upon in 1863 with the formation of the Football Association.  Some of the schools’ versions of the games involved the use of the hands and an alternate game, based on the game played at Rugby School , was codified in 1870 as rugby football. (Note the not-so-subtle inclusion of the rugby goal in the banner picture on the Rugby School web site.)  So bottom line for polity: rules were agreed by collections of individuals representing the different schools and where different rules were favored different branches of the sport developed.

Association Football is sometimes referred to as The Simplest Game because the objective and core rules are easy to explain.  As one colleague of mine puts it, you could give the whistle to someone who has never seen the game before and tell them to blow it when they see something wrong and they would get 90% of the fouls and restarts. (But they would not know what to do after they blow the whistle.)  There are 17 Laws of the Game which take 47 pages to explain in the official, nicely illustrated, rulebook .  And yes, there are also pages and pages of interpretation and other stuff that go with it.  But, it takes Major League Baseball 12 pages just to explain the Objective of the Game and the equipment.  Or, compare the rules for a soccer kickoff versus an NFL kickoff:

Soccer Football
Kick-off

A kick-off is a way of starting or restarting play:
    • at the start of the match
    • after a goal has been scored
    • at the start of the second half of the match
    • at the start of each period of extra time, where applicable
A goal may be scored directly from the kick-off.

Procedure
   • all players are in their own half of the field
    • the opponents of the team taking the kick-off are at least 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball until it is in play
   • the ball is stationary on the centre mark
   • the referee gives a signal
    • the ball is in play when it is kicked and moves forward
   • the kicker does not touch the ball a second time until it has touched another player
After a team scores a goal, the kick-off is taken by the other team.

Infringements/Sanctions
If the kicker touches the ball a second time before it has touched another player:
   • an indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team to be taken from the place where the infringement occurred * (see page 3)
For any other infringement of the kick-off procedure:
   • the kick-off is retaken

Kickoff

  1. In addition to a kickoff, the other free kick is a kick after a safety (safety kick). A punt may be used (a punt may not be used on a kickoff).
  2. On a safety kick, the team scored upon puts ball in play by a punt, dropkick, or placekick without tee. No score can be made on a free kick following a safety, even if a series of penalties places team in position. (A field goal can be scored only on a play from scrimmage or a free kick after a fair catch.)
  3. A kickoff may not score a field goal.
  4. A kickoff is illegal unless it travels 10 yards OR is touched by the receiving team. Once the ball is touched by the receiving team or has gone 10 yards, it is a free ball. Receivers may recover and advance. Kicking team may recover but NOT advance UNLESS receiver had possession and lost the ball.
  5. When a kickoff goes out of bounds between the goal lines without being touched by the receiving team, the ball belongs to the receivers 30 yards from the spot of the kick or at the out-of-bounds spot unless the ball went out-of-bounds the first time an onside kick was attempted. In this case, the kicking team is penalized five yards and the ball must be kicked again.
  6. When a kickoff goes out of bounds between the goal lines and is touched last by receiving team, it is receiver’s ball at out-of-bounds spot.
  7. If the kicking team either illegally kicks off out of bounds or is guilty of a short free kick on two or more consecutive onside kicks, receivers may take possession of the ball at the dead ball spot, out-of-bounds spot, or spot of illegal touch.


As a soccer referee I find the soccer rules simpler and shorter than other sports’ rulebooks.  And taking this one step further, you could almost consider the FIFA Laws of the Game as a confessional standard since that basic rulebook is applicable from the Jr. High games I referee to the World Cup.  An amazing continuity throughout the game as the Westminster Standards provide a document many Presbyterian branches look to.

The other thing about the soccer rules is their flexibility, intended like the new revised Form of Government for the PC(USA).  While certain things are hard and fast, like the procedure above for the kick off, other things are left up to the particular situation.  For example, in the Laws of the Game there is no specified size of field, only a range: 90-120 meters long and 45-90 meters wide.  The only requirement is that the field must be longer than wide.  Yes, for international matches there is a smaller range, at the larger end, and individual tournaments, like the World Cup, can specify exact field dimension.  Also, the referee is not to stop play for a foul if stopping the game would cause the fouled team to lose an advantage (unlike basketball which always stops for a foul which drives me crazy). And the famous (at least in the soccer world) Advice to Referees 5.5 says:

5.5 TRIFLING INFRACTIONS
“The Laws of the Game are intended to provide that games should beplayed with as little interference as possible, and in this view it isthe duty of referees to penalize only deliberate breaches of the Law.Constant whistling for trifling and doubtful breaches produces badfeeling and loss of temper on the part of the players and spoils thepleasure of spectators.”

There is a degree on interpretation, like AI’s or PJC decisions, that a referee makes to strike a balance between flow and control of the game.  One would hope that our application polity would be similar.

Which brings me to my final point and that is to point out that in soccer a nil-nil draw is a perfectly acceptable outcome to a game.  A soccer game does not require a winner.  The exception is tournament situations where after the extra time (over time) we have the shootout which most soccer fans, players, coaches and referees consider a dreadful way to determine a winner — but nothing better has been worked out yet.  The reason that many find it dreadful gets back to the philosophy that the game does not require a winner.  It is among the lowest scoring of sports and the play for the 90 minutes as the players work to put the ball in the back of the net is just as important as actually putting the ball in the back of the net.  Like Presbyterian assemblies, the process is as important as the outcome.  How we discern the will of God together is important to our life together.

There is one more similarity between the two disciplines which is unfortunate.  The intent is that an Assembly is one team working together but with different members with different understandings that help inform the process.  It is unfortunate when an Assembly or Synod takes on the feel of a soccer match with two different teams on the pitch (field) each trying to push the ball over opposite goal lines.

I do not intend to argue an analogy between the two areas but only to point out a few of the parallels.  Something to ponder as I keep #ga219, #30ga and #pcaga on my Twitter feed while live streaming Brazil v. PRK over lunch.  Your milage may vary.  Play on!

Congratulations Are In Order

I wish to add my own congratulations to the many already expressed to Mr. Rocco Palmo on the occasion of his receiving an honorary doctoral degree from Aquinas Institute of Theology of St. Louis where yesterday he served as the commencement speaker for the class of 2010.

If you are familiar with Dr. Palmo’s blog you can probably tell why I admire his work — He writes the influential Roman Catholic blog Whispers in the Loggia.  He is a trained journalist who writes like one while writing a blog tightly focused on one denomination and primarily on news from the U.S.  In a nice background piece on TMCnet.com (originally published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch) it says:

In awarding Palmo an honorary doctorate, the 84-year-old Dominican seminary is making a statement about the changing relationship between journalism and the Catholic church. The award for Palmo’s work on his blog Whispers in the Loggia is also an expression of how American Catholic leaders hope to encourage a younger generation to engage their faith through news.

And a colleague says of him writing:

Ann Rodgers, religion reporter for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, said that when Palmo started attending the annual meetings of the U.S.Conference of Catholic Bishops, an event traditional reporters have covered for years, “he was like a rock star. I had archbishops asking me to introduce them to Rocco.”

So, my congratulations on this honor and the honor it reflects on those that use new media.  And my personal admiration for the effort at running a quality blog focused on one niche in religious reporting.  Best wishes.

Destructive Haitian Earthquake

It has been a while since I have drifted from my usual theological and polity discussions into my area of professional work.  Yesterday’s Mw=7.0 earthquake in Haiti has prompted me to now digress to the natural world for this discussion.

I am sure that most of you are aware of the major earthquake on the west end of the island of Hispaniola in the Caribbean.  The epicenter of the earthquake was about 10 miles west of Port-au-Prince, the capital of Haiti which is on the western part of the island.

I should begin by saying that while the occurrence of the earthquake was not a surprise I was a bit surprised by the size.  While magnitude 5 and 6 earthquakes occur regularly around the Caribbean we don’t see magnitude 7 earthquakes that often – this is one of six in the last 10 years around the Caribbean basin.  In this area there was another magnitude 6.5 to 7 earthquake off the northeast side of the island in 2003.  Of these Caribbean earthquakes this one was a bit unique in that it occurred on land and not in the ocean.  And there was a Mw=8 earthquake centered on the east end of the island in 1946.

One of the big questions when an earthquake gets this large is where the fault broke.  Up to magnitude 5 the length of fault that breaks is relatively small so the epicenter does a good job of describing the location of the earthquake.  For larger earthquakes the epicenter is nothing more than the point it starts at and major fault slip can occur some distance away.  In this case the good news, if you want to call it that, is that all the major aftershocks are to the west of the epicenter giving strong evidence that the fault broke to the west away from Port-au-Prince.  So not only was the strongest shaking not in the capital but the energy was directed away from it.  Yes, little consolation considering the scale of the damage that we are seeing.

The presence of this earthquake, and in fact the presence of the island of Hispaniola itself, can be attributed to this area being on a sliver being pushed up on the boundary between the Caribbean and North American plates.  There is a major fault zone just off the north shore of the island and then this one that cuts across and through the south side.


Having knowledge of the tectonic setting of Haiti and the presence of these faults it is not surprising that there is a moderate seismic hazard for the region.  However, don’t let the colors fool you – the highest hazard areas in this region are still an order of magnitude lower than most of the “low hazard” areas here in Southern California.  (And no, I’m not even going to attempt to explain what the numbers mean other than to say that it is related to the probably of experiencing damaging shaking in 50 years.)

There is one more very interesting (at least to me) behavior we see in earthquakes and that is a ten-to-one ratio of number of earthquakes as the magnitude increases.  This holds for the whole world, regions of the world, and aftershock sequences like this one.  So far the numbers are right on as demonstrated by the fact that as of now there are reported 35 earthquakes greater than, or equal to, magnitude 4.5.  If we increase one magnitude point to earthquakes greater than or equal to 5.5 there are four, including the main shock.  The magnitude-frequency ratio is holding.  (For the real geeks and seismologists I come up with a b-value of 1.05 currently but that presumes completeness of the IRIS catalog down to 4.5.)

If you want more maps and technical details on this earthquake you can check out the USGS information page for it.

Let me return to Presbyterianism to conclude.  I know that mission boards are trying to get information and status reports from workers in the country — my brother-in-law has not been able to reach his contacts there yet.  From the reports there is extensive damage to an already weak infrastructure so news may be slow getting out.  There were mission trips from New Jersey and Wisconsin churches in the country and news just appeared that the both groups are safe.  And disaster aid is being collected by PWS&D (PC Canada), PDA (PC(USA)). (I’ll add others as I see them.)  UPDATES: The PC(USA) now has a press release about mission workers, mission teams, and disaster assistance.  There is now an update from the OPC.  The PCA Mission to North America is evaluating the situation and taking contributions.  And there is an announcement that the Canadian Government will match donations to PWS&D. The Cumberland Presbyterian Church has made a donation, and encourages more, through Church World Service.

Finally, a couple of years ago I wrote about a “theology of earthquakes,” if you will.  If you want more on how I fit my professional work into my theological framework check that out.

And keep praying, not just for the devastation in Haiti but in areas all around the world that need help recovering from whatever disasters have struck them.

God’s Love Made Visible

Believe it or not, this is a General Assembly post…

Back in 1997 I was a commissioner to the 209th General Assembly of the PC(USA).  The outgoing Moderator of the 208th GA, the Rev. John Buchanan, arranged for jazz musician and composer Dave Brubeck to lead a performance of his Christmas choral piece La Fiesta de la Posada one evening. (Yes, this was in June.)  It was a great break from the intense business of a GA.  Furthermore, while the whole piece was inspiring, one of the sections in particular, “God’s Love Made Visible,” really moved me in the unity of the words and music, it has stuck with me for these 12 years, and listening to the CD is now part of my regular Christmas discipline.  So on this day of the celebration of the Incarnation, I give you the opening of “God’s Love Made Visible”:

God’s love made visible!
Incomprehensible!
He is invincible,
His love shall reign!

From love so bountiful,
blessings uncountable,
make death surmountable.
His love shall reign!

Happy Reformation Day 2009

In honor of Reformation Day I spent yesterday and today doing something really, well, Reformed.

The annual Assembly meeting of the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii PC(USA) happened this weekend.  Appropriate to fall on Reformation Day 2009. 

And while in Reformation Day we commemorate a specific event — Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church door in Wittneberg on this day in 1517 — that event is remembered by a wide range of Protestants as a defining moment in church history that would shortly include a number of other reformers around Europe.  (With due recognition of Luther’s predecessors like John Wycliffe and Jan Hus.)

From that we of the Presbyterian and Reformed traditions get our concept of clergy and ordained laity ruling jointly with parity in all the courts of the church.  Not a synod, conclave or conference that calls only the high level clergy together to make decisions.  Not a bicameral body where the clergy meet together in one room and the laity meet separately in another room.  But a meeting where those of us without formal theological training participate side-by-side with church professionals on equal footing to make ecclesiastical decisions.

And the really radical part is that serving on an equal footing means that the ruling elders can lead the meetings.  A geologist and computer tech like me can be the one called and elected by the governing body to plan and chair the meeting.  This is radical — the thought that someone without formal theological training could run the meeting of a church governing body.  Sure, I have a whole bunch of church experience and am well versed on church polity and some aspects of theology.  But in few places do you see the person up-front without a clerical collar, robe, or staff.

So on this Reformation Day we remember what the Reformers brought to the Christian church — bringing the Church to all the people.  This includes the Holy Scriptures in the common language.  The opportunity to pray directly to God without an intermediary.  The responsibility of those chosen from among the congregation as leaders to serve as the shepherds of the flock.  In short – the idea that the clergy in the church are not inherently closer to God than the people in the pews.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.  As it was in the beginning is now and every shall be.  World without end. Amen.

Vacation Reflections – Big Picture, Big Question, Big Churches

 Yes, I am still around.  I have just been gone on vacation.

Having grown up in New York I have a great affection for the Adirondack Mountains, but that was last year’s vacation.  This year it was the High Sierra Nevada at the highest campground that you can drive into in California.  For the record, that campground is almost twice the elevation of the highest point in New York.

People ask if I prefer one to the other.  The answer is no, because each has its own personality and distinctive and each holds its own memories in my life.

For vacation this year I did not take a lot of reading material.  No plane trips to do reading on and I had to pilot the truck.  My vacation reflection this year was more digesting information than ingesting it. Much of what I reflected on still needs to be fleshed out, but here is the broad sweep of what I considered and will be working on in the coming months in this blog…

 Sierra Nevada Lake

Big Picture:  Over the last couple of years more than one person has commented that I have a hole in my coverage of Presbyterian Politics.  That hole is the Uniting/United Churches, those of Canada and Australia in particular.

In a sense they are right since those branches are part of the Presbyterian tradition in those countries.  For example, when the United Church of Canada (not to be confused with the other UCC) was founded 70% of the Presbyterians joined that branch while 30% went with what is now called the Presbyterian Church in Canada.  So I’ll try to find time to study up on the polity of those two branches to see if their polity is Presbyterian enough to include in the branches I follow.

But in thinking about these churches another big-picture concept really dominated my thinking — the “missing branches” in all those family tree diagrams.  You know the type of diagrams I’m thinking of.  There is the United Church of Canada diagram that shows all the branches coming together, but leaves off those churches that elected not to unite, such as those now in the Presbyterian Church in Canada.  And the diagram for American Presbyterianism is no better.  If you check out some of the family trees for the American Presbyterian Churches (example 1, example 2) they include the formation of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in 1810, but leave out other related Restoration Movement branches, specifically the Stone-Campbell Movement that came straight out of the Presbyterian church.  (It is mentioned in the Presbyterian History Center narrative time line.)   The Rev. Barton Stone was one of the leaders in the Cainridge, Kentucky, area that signed the 1804 Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery.  And while Stone and the Campbell’s were all Presbyterian ministers who began at similar times but in different places on the frontier without knowledge of each other, their movements joined in 1832 to form the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). (Two notes:  1. As you can see in the history the Disciples have not been without their own splits.  2. It is also interesting to note that another leader and denomination that came out of this time period of the Second Great Awakening and Restoration Movement thinking was Joseph Smith Jr. and the LDS (Mormon) Church.  Unlike the Stone-Campbell Movement no direct Presbyterian connection or influence is claimed there.)

So the Big Picture questions include thinking about not just the obvious Presbyterian branches but the more diverse spin-offs.  And in my very scientific manner I started thinking about quantifying theological diversity.  I now have the start of a statistical scheme to ask the question “How Presbyterian are you?”  This does beg the question of how to define Presbyterian to measure everyone against but I am hoping that will become clear as the project develops.  Maybe I’ll use John Knox as the standard.    This project is just getting started but my initial experiments suggest that quantifying denominational DNA could produce some interesting results.

Big Question:  In pondering the extended family trees of Presbyterians in North America, the U.K., and Australia the big question that is really bugging me now is “What is the line between schism and other division or realignment?”  And don’t say “when property is involved” because the Scottish court recently had to decide on a case where theological differences between the Free Church and the Free Church (Continuing) were not a factor.  No, the question really is whether the rules to call something a schism are clear?  When is it schism and when is it Reformed and Always Reforming?  Do we use the term schism when we want to cast the differences in a negative light?  Can a schism be good? John Calvin and Martin Luther didn’t see it as schism but restoring the True Church to New Testament standards.  Hold that thought and I’ll return to it in the coming months.

Big Churches:  One topic that I have been struggling with for well over a year now is whether “big churches” can be truly Reformed in nature.  The issue here boils down to this: If the Church is the Covenant Community called together by God with Christ as its head, and if a particular church is the Body of Christ in a particular place and time, does a (fill in the blank) church preserve the concept of the local Covenant Community?  Now, fill in that blank with some sort of “big” church, be it a multi-worship-service church, a multi-congregation church, a multi-site church, or the church in the virtual world.  If all of the members are not worshiping together is it one particular church or individual churches using the same leadership, infrastructure, or name?  This is one topic that I am not sure I’ll actually address very much in the coming months.  While I’ll keep musing on the Church Virtual, I’m still not sure that thinking about big churches is the best use of my blogging time since several
other
people have been thinking about it as well.  But time will tell what I do with this topic.

There has been another interesting development in the news media concerning big churches and that involves leadership transitions in one Reformed and one Presbyterian church with high-profile senior pastors.  At the Crystal Cathedral, which as a member church of the Reformed Church in America could be thought of as the Reformed Church of Garden Grove, California, there has been some questions about leadership with the senior pastor the Rev. Robert Schuller apparently removing, or encouraging the departure of, his son from leadership and placing his daughter in leadership instead.  (news article)  In another high-profile succession, the Rev. W. G. Tullian Tchividjian was recently called by the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (PCA) to serve as senior pastor, filling the pulpit previously occupied by the Rev. D. James Kennedy.  Now the media has jumped on a disagreement between the Rev. Tchividjian and the Rev. Kennedy’s children which has apparently led to some vocal dissenters being banned from the church and a judicial proceeding being initiated. (news article)

The interesting thing in both cases is that there is little mention of the church governing bodies in these disputes.  Now, recognizing that the news media does not really understand Reformed and Presbyterian polity, it could just be a lack of good reporting on the part of the media.  After all, being good connectional churches I would expect the consistory and classis, in the case of the Crystal Cathedral, and the session and Presbytery of South Florida, in the case of Coral Ridge, to be working together to work through these differences decently and in order.  Or because of their sizes are they working through them internally?  It will be interesting to see if we have church government done decently and in order.

So there you have a summary of my thinking from the past week.  I expect that some of this will be making it into blog posts in more developed form in the near future.  Stay tuned…

The True Preaching Of The Word Of God

In case you haven’t noticed my blogging has slowed to a crawl the last few weeks in spite of a lot of stuff going on that I really want to discuss.  But the nature of my life when I am teaching a class is that I lose my lunch hours that are otherwise devoted to blogging or research for this blog.  (Now if you want a review of the global seismicity for the last six weeks I can produce that pretty quickly.)  With the class now completed I hope to increase the output of my Reformed and ecclesiastical thoughts while giving my mind a break from network protocols and non-elastic deformation of fault zones.  (But with some deference to writing that I need to get done for the Special Committee.)

This past weekend was a very nice one in spite of the fact that my oldest headed back to college and took the youngest along for a couple of weeks.  On Saturday I had a wonderful conversation with a recent high school graduate that while discussing trust and human nature drifted into the topic of human sinfulness.  Now it didn’t go there by that name, but the Reformed theologian in me wanted to engage this young Methodist in conversation on human nature and sin but unfortunately that would have taken the conversation in a direction that was outside the bounds of the discussion.  Maybe another time.

And yesterday in worship we heard the “true preaching of the Word of God” and had the “right administration of the Sacraments of Jesus Christ.”  Our speaker yesterday was a preacher that my wife and I almost never disagree over what they preach and how it is preached.  We can’t say that about all the preachers we hear, although there are some we distinctly both approve of and some we uniformly question.

Our youngest is at the point where he is learning to carefully listen to a sermon and discern the spiritual content of the message.  We were encouraged a couple of years back when he told us that the preacher he most (or is that actually?) enjoyed listening to was a good friend of ours who I consider one of the best young preachers in the region.  It reminded me that when I was growing up I too had a particular minister at our church who was best at keeping me engaged in the message.

We had a “teachable moment” a few weeks ago when we heard another preacher none of us had heard before.  Maybe the most telling was reaction of some others in the congregation who thought it was a wonderful sermon.  My reaction was not as glowing.  It was not a bad sermon by any means.  I assure you that I have heard worse, a lot worse.  That is part of the price that is paid when you serve as a COM liaison to Pastor Nominating Committees.  And through the experience of listening to as many as ten sermons a week I came up with a series of things I look for when I evaluate a sermon.  Now I teach earthquakes, not homiletics, so trained professionals might have additions or subtractions from this list, but as we as a family were discussing the recent sermon these are some of the things I mentioned, albeit in a more kid-friendly form.

  • First is fidelity to the scripture as a whole.  Is there anything in the sermon that just does not agree with what the Bible says and the Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches.  The moment I hear something that I understand as contrary to Scripture, be it blatantly contrary or even the possibility of being a misunderstanding, I usually stop following the sermon as closely.  A pastor we had a number of years ago, who was clearly orthodox in his theology, said that if he saw me flipping through my Bible during the sermon he got nervous that he had said something wrong.  Glad I found that out later.
  • Second, is the preacher sticking to the passage chosen for the day?  (I will leave it for another time to discuss lectionary versus sequential versus “this is what I want to preach on” selection of the scripture.  Let me just say that I personally use the lectionary passages and mark in my own notes if the speaker does or does not.)  The question at the end of the sermon is not “was that an interesting sermon” but did they exegete that passage or did they use that as a jumping off point to just talk about some other passages scattered throughout the Bible.  There is no problem in my mind with comparing and contrasting various passages in the sermon.  Scripture is indeed interpreted in the light of Scripture.  It is when the announced passage is only briefly touched on before launching into what would more aptly be called a Bible survey talk.  That would be using the Bible to make a point, not taking a specific passage and finding the point in that passage.  Since “God acts first” the message should flow from the scripture, not the other way around.
  • Is the Gospel preached?  I would guess that some readers would want this listed first, with good justification.  But if you notice I have developed this as a series of concentric circles zeroing in on this central mark.  The ultimate goal of the true preaching of the Word is the “proclamation of the Gospel for the salvation of humankind.”  But to get there you need the first two.  And there is a tension in this between just throwing something in at the end about the justifying work of Jesus Christ and how you need him in your life on the one hand and finding a Messianic overtone in every single verse of the Old Testament on the other.  The former trivializes it and the latter can obscure the message inherent in that text.  Our preacher yesterday made the transition from the Old Testament text to how it points to salvation in Jesus Christ in such a profound, artful, and relevant manner that it really did emphasize both the Old Testament message as well as the gospel of salvation.  It was a thing of beauty.

In addition to my “technical score” based on my exegetical guidelines I also have the more practical aspects that go into the “style points”:

  • Does the message hold together?  Is there a logical progression through the sermon from the Scripture text selected to the concluding points at the end.  I don’t automatically look for a three-point sermon, I have heard what I would consider great sermons with only one point and some with seven points.  The idea here is the effort that went into shaping the sermon into an understandable argument and not a deadly “Saturday night special” that went together at the last minute.
  • Do all the stories, jokes, and quotes support the point of the sermon?  These added touches have their place but when used in a formulaic or excessive manner can distract from the delivery of the message of Scripture.  The message should speak through these additions, not be obscured by them. 
       For the pastors that always begin with a random joke just to warm up the audience that is an automatic half-point deduction in my scoring.  (I have to see the connection within the first minute or two of the message.)  When quotes are used just to add a different voice but the quote is only tangential, that also gets counted as a negative.  I am sure more than one preacher at my church has used a humorous comment in our worship service and noticed that while much of the congregation is chuckling I’m straight faced and shaking my head because I could not see the connection or value.  (Be warned, our family pew is right under the pulpit.)  And a sermon that seems like a stand-up comedy routine drives me crazy with the over use of the humor.   There is no intrinsic problem with any of these additions and when used well they can play a great service when they both enhance or illustrate the point being made while adding another “voice” to the preaching.  The problem comes when they are overused, used in a formulaic manner, or are gratuitous and don’t really add anything to the message.
  • Is the delivery engaging but not distracting?  Our human nature is such th
    at our minds tend not to drift as easily if there is an element of “entertainment” when we are listening to a presentation.  Fluctuations in the voice, dramatic pauses, and leaning over the pulpit rail are one thing.  But running around the chancel, continuous wild arm movements, a multitude of items for an “object lesson” and the like draw attention to the preacher not the message that is being preached.  But on the other end of the spectrum, one of the most famous sermons ever preached, “Sinners in the hands of an angry God” by Jonathan Edwards was reportedly simply read with no “hellfire and brimstone” flourishes and very little modulation of the voice.

A couple of items that may be most noticeable to some people are not on my list above.  One of the sacred cows in some churches is length.  Working with PNC’s one of the items some made a top priority was how long the speaker went.  It was not unusual for the first comment made after the tape was turned off was “that was too long.”  I can’t say I was very successful dissuading them of placing that criteria so high.  Personally, I have heard some terrible five minute sermons and some excellent 45 minute sermons.  We need to learn to listen for the message not watch the clock.  (And I will stop there otherwise I’ll get into the rant about not needing to watch the clock in worship because it is the Lord’s Day anyway and we should not be filling it up with other stuff that we need to rush out of church on time (whatever that is) and get to…)  But back to the topic of length — there is a place for making the sermon the “right length,” but the message and the worship service should decide the length, not the brunch reservations.  With the possible exception of a worship service that is broadcast live and must fit the format, the elders telling the preacher that sermons last 12 minutes is a disservice to the preaching of the true word of God.

Another item that some people have legitimate opinions over but is not on my list is the use of pulpit versus podium versus nothing.  I must admit that this is not a big thing for me.  I do appreciate and honor the tradition of the pulpit, and maybe we need to educate our congregations on that tradition and heritage.  But in my mind the true preaching of the Word is more a matter of content than location.  And this may have something to do with the fact that on a sermon tape you usually can’t tell where they are delivering it, and also that I have led worship on our church camping trips for many years where the community is simply gathered in a circle in the woods.  The use of a pulpit does tend to cut down on the unwanted dramatic touches however.

Finally, I know that many people have strong feelings for and against the use of video clips in sermons, especially some churches where it is an expected part of the message.  Again, this is a neutral item for me.  It is in the same category as jokes, quotes, and stories.  If it enhances or illuminates the message than use it, if it is a gimmick only to get people’s attention or is formulaic, than it may be a problem.

So, these are my guidelines developed after listening to, and making notes on, hundreds if not thousands of sermons.  But I fully acknowledge that they are what works for me as I apply the test of the “True Preaching of the Word of God.”  I’m sure many of you have different opinions on some of these items.  In the end the important thing is that the Word is truly preached.

Calvin 500 Celebration: Thoughts On The Linkage Of Theology And Polity — Part 3: Election Leads To Covenant Community

 
from Wikimedia Commons

Still a community is asserted, such as Luke describes when he says,”The multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul,” (Acts 4: 32) and Paul, when he reminds the Ephesians, “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling,” (Eph. 4: 4). For if they are truly persuaded that God is the common Father of them all, and Christ their common head, they cannot but be united together in brotherly love, and mutually impart their blessings to each other. [Inst. 4.1.3]

For John Calvin the conclusion is inescapable:  If humankind was incapable of doing anything, anything at all, to save itself because of the taint or corruption of Sin, and if some are saved for eternity, then it must be the Sovereign God that has saved us.  On the one hand this is nothing new for this argument can be found back at least to Augustine.  But in the climate of the 16th century and the Protestant Reformation Calvin was the major proponent and the doctrine of election may be his most famous, or infamous to some, teaching.

But the concept of predestination is only the start of a very important logical chain, not the end-all of Reformed thought.

As the scripture quote at the top says, with our election by God comes not just salvation for eternity but adoption.  God is the “common Father of them all” because in election comes adoption.  And if adopted, than we are all part of God’s family, the Body of Christ with “Christ as their common head.”

Hence the Church is called Catholic or Universal, (August. Ep. 48,) for two or three cannot be invented without dividing Christ; and this is impossible. All the elect of God are so joined together in Christ, that as they depend on one head, so they are as it were compacted into one body, being knit together like its different members; made truly one by living together under the same Spirit of God in one faith, hope, and charity, called not only to the same inheritance of eternal life, but to participation in one God and Christ. [Inst. 4.1.2]

To collapse this chain down, if predestination then the Church.  There can not be one without the other, at least in Calvin’s reasoning.  The two are inseparable.  Calvin speaks of the Invisible Church:

Sometimes when [the Scriptures] speak of the Church they mean the Church as it really is before God – the Church into which none are admitted but those who by the gift of adoption are sons of God, and by the sanctification of the Spirit true members of Christ. In this case it not only comprehends the saints who dwell on the earth, but all the elect who have existed from the beginning of the world. [Inst. 4.1.7]

And a little bit later Calvin says something very interesting about the Invisible Church:

The Church universal is the multitude collected out of all nations, who, though dispersed and far distant from each other, agree in one truth of divine doctrines and are bound together by the tie of a common religion. In this way it comprehends single churches, which exist in different towns and villages, according to the wants of human society, so that each of them justly obtains the name and authority of the Church; and also comprehends single individuals, who by a religious profession are accounted to belong to such churches, although they are in fact aliens from the Church, but have not been cut off by a public decision. [Inst. 4.1.9]

So if I understand Calvin’s words in this translation, the invisible Church is not just those that attend, but single individuals that do not attend but have at one time accepted Christ and have not subsequently rejected Christ.  If that reading is correct, this has very powerful implications I will come to in a moment.

Taking the logic chain even further we are confronted with other realities that must follow from this conclusion.  The Church is not just like a family — it is a family in God.  Not only can we not chose our family members, we can not even chose our own family ourselves.  We are placed in the Church and those around us in the church, whether we like it of not, are given to us to care for each other as charged by God and guided by Christ.

So as we consider Calvin’s doctrine of the Church, what are the implications for the Church and our polity?

One implication is that like it or not, we belong to each other.  And this is not belonging in the sense of seeing each other every Sunday morning for an hour, maybe 65 minutes if the preacher goes long.  This is belonging in the sense that those around us are truly brothers and sisters in a divine family that each of us has been adopted into through no merit or decision of our own.  The responsibility descends from God — as He has shown his care for us we need to show that care for those around us.  And it is an awesome responsibility because, whether we agree or disagree, whether we like each other or not, we are family together.

But the quote above about single individuals really shook me.  The implication is that there are those around us that are part of the Invisible Church yet are not part of a local congregation — And we have no way of being for sure short of their outright rejection.  The conclusion is that there are a bunch more people around us that we need to treat as brothers and sisters in Christ.  Yes for the sake of the Gospel and because all humans contain the image of God we should not mistreat or dishonor any other individual.  But beyond that there are others around us who are part of God’s family.

While many have considered Calvin’s model for congregational care in Geneva, the regular visitation by the elders to determine the spiritual health of each household, as controlling and prying, in Calvin’s view of the Church it was a proactive care of his spiritual brothers and sisters.  In our “my business is none of your business” modern western culture how many Presbyterian and Reformed churches send out elders to visit their whole congregation on a regular basis.  My church does it every few years, far to infrequently, but I was privileged to be serving on session one time when we did do it.  I will tell you that it was a very inspiring and meaningful activity to go out and get to know these individuals in their own home, one that has brought me closer to them in a way that seeing them on Sunday morning never could.  As the elder making the visits I was truly blessed.

Calvin 500 Celebration: Thoughts On The Linkage Of Theology And Polity — Part 2: Human Sinfulness And Making Decisions Collectively

Article 4 – Natural Man
We acknowledge man by nature to be blind, darkened in understanding, and full of corruption and perversity of heart, so that of himself he has no power to be able to comprehend the true knowledge of God as is proper, nor to apply himself to good works. But on the contrary, if he is left by God to what he is by nature, he is only able to live in ignorance and to be abandoned to all iniquity. Hence he has need to be illumined by God, so that he come to the right knowledge of his salvation, and thus to be redirected in his affections and reformed to the obedience of the righteousness of God. [1536 Geneva Confession]

(Note: I use the 1536 Geneva Confession extensively in this post and in the other posts as well because of the concise form in which it presents many of these concepts.  I should point out that it is believed the Geneva Confession was written by Calvin’s colleague Wilhelm Farel so while not directly attributable to Calvin it almost certainly reflects the thoughts and influence of Calvin.)

While the Sovereignty of God is one side of the coin in Reformed theology, the Sinfulness of Humankind is the opposite side.  This is another foundational doctrine on which John Calvin built his theological framework and which influences Presbyterian polity today.

This is also one of the most controversial points of Reformed theology because of the extent to which Calvin considers humans sinful.  We do not just do bad things that are wrong and sinful.  We are not good at heart and can correct our ways by ourselves.  We have been infected by the original sin of Adam and Eve and are born in a sinful condition.  And this original sin is such that our sinful condition taints everything that we do.

(While I do not intend to do an exhaustive discussion of our sinful nature I do want to clarify for those not familiar with Calvin’s view of the sinful condition that he does not say the human beings are “totally evil” or can do nothing good under any circumstances.  He does say that even the good works we do have at least some self-interest embedded in them and are not done completely out of pure and selfless motivation.  As Calvin says in the Institutes of the Christian Religion:

If any are disposed to think more modestly, and concede somewhat to God, that they may not seem to arrogate every thing as their own, still, in making the division, they apportion matters so, that the chief ground of confidence and boasting always remains with themselves. [Inst. 2.1.2]

At least for me that hits a bit close to home.)

It is important to note that Calvin distinguishes between the Natural Man (as in Article 4 above) and the Regenerate Man that has received salvation through Jesus Christ (Article 8 of the Geneva Confession).  Yet, while the Natural Man is blinded and “has no power to be able to comprehend the true knowledge of God,” the Regenerate Man is better but still has no hope of complete perfection. As Article 9 begins:

Finally, we acknowledge that this regeneration is so effected in us that, until we slough off this mortal body, there remains always in us much imperfection and infirmity, so that we always remain poor and wretched sinners in the presence of God.

A point here is that confession once does not clear us but we need to be aware of our continuing sinful nature and need for on-going confession and pardon.
And Article 9 also says:

And, however much we ought day by day to increase and grow in God’s righteousness, there will never be plenitude or perfection while we live here.

So as we consider Calvin’s doctrine of the Sinfulness of Humankind, what are the implications for the Church and our polity?

The most significant point from a Presbyterian polity perspective is that because of this continuing taint of sin, this lack of perfection in human beings, a group collectively making decisions will be better able to discern the will of God than a single individual acting alone.  It is why Presbyterians always hold power and authority in governing bodies rather than in particular individuals.  The wisdom of the group will be better than the wisdom of the one.  They hold each other accountable and help to bring out the best in each other.  The discernment of the group helps to cancel out individual motives and repress personal ambitions.

Does this always work out?  No, for all synods and councils “may err, and many have erred.” (Westminster Confession XXXI.4) but for the most part collective decision making will do better than individual authority.

This does not negate the primacy of a minister of Word and Sacrament having the freedom to preach as they are led by the Spirit.  But, within the community there is still the leadership, governance, and discipline of the ruling elders to hold the preacher accountable and assure that the Word is rightly preached.  And likewise, it is the congregation’s responsibility to elect those who meet the moral and spiritual standards to be elders over them.  And the higher governing bodies have the right and responsibility of review of lower governing bodies, yet are made up of commissioners from the lower bodies.  In all things the different parts of the Body of Christ hold each other accountable so that together we may fight against the taint of sin to best work the will of God.

One application of this is for the officers of the church to take seriously their role in discerning the will of God.  Realize that the goal and objective of the various procedures of review and approval is to help verify that what is being done is what God would be having us do.  It is not to jump through another hoop or for the governing body to “show who is in charge.”  It is a collective discernment and each group that is part of the process needs to take its role seriously.