Monthly Archives: April 2009

The Day Of Resurrection

Leave a reply

Happy Resurrection Sunday for those readers who observe it.  And for those for who do not follow a liturgical calendar but celebrate Christ’s resurrection every Lord’s Day, I hope yesterday was as meaningful as always.

I am liturgical.  I do find spiritual meaning in the annual rhythm of the church calendar.  (If it was good enough for St. Augustine it’s good enough for me. )  My family sometimes jokes that we are C&E (Christmas and Easter) Christians — while we are active in the church and attend worship weekly the Holy Days are a big deal for us with more activities and multiple services per day.  In case you wonder where my blogging has been, I sometimes wonder  what I’m doing at six worship services in the last four days when I’m not clergy.

The penultimate service was our church’s sunrise service early yesterday.  We have to warn the neighbors that there will be a brass quartet outside on the back lawn.  For one day a year they are very understanding.  And for me there is something very deep and meaningful about worshiping the risen Christ as the sun rises on Resurrection Sunday.  Some years when I could not find a sunrise service that fit my theological leanings I have simply had my personal devotions out in the desert (wilderness?) as the sun came up.  And while I make it a point on Easter morning to be in worship at the sunrise, I am a morning person and I very frequently have my devotions  around the time of sunrise anyway.

Another meaningful part of worship yesterday was having both the sunrise service and the regular worship service close with the hymn “The Day of Resurrection.”  Outside of the metrical Psalms this is one of the oldest texts in our hymnal written by John of Damascus in the eighth century.  I appreciate and find symbolism in the link across the history of the Church.  What comes down to Protestant churches is usually John M. Neale’s 1860’s translation and versification

The day of resurrection,
Earth, tell it out abroad,
The Passover of gladness.
The Passover of God.
From death to life eternal,
From this world to the sky,
Our Christ hath brought us over
With hymns of victory.

It is also used within the Eastern Church and is known as the opening verses of John of Damascus’s Paschal Canon

The day of Resurrection, let us be radiant, O peoples! Pascha, the Lord’s Pascha; for Christ God has brought us over from death to life, and from earth to heaven, as we sing the triumphal song.
[Translation copyright to Archimandrite Ephrem ©]

[It is interesting to note that in Islam there is an eschatological concept of “The Day of Resurrection” similar to the Judeo-Christian concept of the “Day of the Lord” or final judgment, not a “first fruits” resurrection.  St. John of Damascus also wrote a Critique of Islam. I have to wonder if his Paschal Canon, with some of this wording, may be a related apologetic work to some small degree.]

So Easter Sunday has come and gone.  Is anything different today?  This C&E Christian is going back to his regular routine.  This coming Sunday will be just another Lord’s Day.  I do sometimes wonder if my Reformed brethren that celebrate the resurrection not just once a year but every Sunday may have a better perspective when this coming Sunday rolls around.  I will try to maintain that perspective myself.

The Future Of Mainline Protestant Churches — I Am Trying To Decide If A Recent News Story Says Anything About It

Leave a reply

In skimming through my blog feeds I came upon this story from Christianity Today about President Obama expanding his White House Faith-Based Advisory Council. While I normally don’t pay much attention to a political story like this and would have just moved on to the next story, something about the list caught my eye and I have re-read it several times now.  I am trying to decide if there is any significance in this list or if I am just over-interpreting the data (not an unusual thing for me).

The members of the council as now constituted are listed below.  Those that were added yesterday have the asterisk next to their names.  I have split them into two groups.  Group 1 – Those with listed associations not clearly denominational:

  • *Anju Bhargava, Founder, Asian Indian Women of America
    New Jersey
  • *Harry Knox, Director, Religion and Faith Program, Human Rights Campaign
    Washington, DC
  • Diane Baillargeon, President & CEO, Seedco
    New York , NY
  • Noel Castellanos, CEO, Christian Community Development Association
    Chicago, IL
  • Fred Davie, Senior Adviser, Public/Private Ventures
    New York , NY
  • Eboo S. Patel, Founder & Executive Director, Interfaith Youth Core
    Chicago, IL
  • Melissa Rogers, Director, Wake Forest School of Divinity Center for Religion and Public Affairs
    Winston-Salem , NC
  • Richard Stearns, President, World Vision
    Bellevue , WA
  • Judith N. Vredenburgh, President and Chief Executive Officer, Big Brothers / Big Sisters of America
    Philadelphia , PA
  • Rev. Jim Wallis, President & Executive Director, Sojourners
    Washington , DC

Group 2 – Those with denominational or specific religious affiliations listed

  • *Dalia Mogahed, Executive Director, Gallup Center for Muslim Studies
    Washington, DC
  • *Dr. Sharon Watkins, General Minister and President, Disciples of Christ (Christian Church)
    Indianapolis, IN
  • *The Rev. Peg Chemberlin, President-Elect, National Council of Churches USA
    Minneapolis, MN
  • *Bishop Charles Blake, Presiding Bishop, Church of God in Christ
    Los Angeles, CA
  • *Nathan Diament, Director of Public Policy, Orthodox Jewish Union
    Washington, DC
  • *Anthony Picarello, General Counsel , United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
    Washington, DC
  • *Nancy Ratzan, Board Chair, National Council of Jewish Women
    Miami, FL
  • Dr. Arturo Chavez, President & CEO, Mexican American Catholic College
    San Antonio , TX
  • Pastor Joel C. Hunter, Senior Pastor, Northland, a Church Distributed
    Longwood, FL
  • Bishop Vashti M. McKenzie, Presiding Bishop, 13th Episcopal District, African Methodist Episcopal Church
    Knoxville, TN
  • Rev. Otis Moss, Jr., Pastor emeritus, Olivet Institutional Baptist Church
    Cleveland, OH
  • Dr. Frank S. Page, President emeritus, Southern Baptist Convention
    Taylors, SC
  • Rabbi David N. Saperstein, Director & Counsel, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
    Washington , DC
  • Dr. William J. Shaw, President, National Baptist Convention, USA
    Philadelphia , PA
  • Father Larry J. Snyder, President, Catholic Charities USA
    Alexandria , VA

Yes, It is a little rough, and I have kept the NCC person with the denominational members since that is representative of “Mainline” churches.

Since my focus is church affiliation I will ignore Group 1 and boil down Group 2 to the denominations.  (Having said that, I realize that those in Group 1 probably have denominational ties, but I’ll just go with their reported identification for now.  I also realize that in Group 2 I may be attributing a group’s affiliation to an individual.  But my concern here is the public perception of the denomination so I’ll go with that as well.)

In the non-Christian affiliations there is one Muslim and three from different branches of Judaism.  On the Christian side there are three Roman Catholic and no Eastern Orthodox.  Of the remaining eight Protestant individuals, three are different Baptist branches.  One of the other five I included as a generic “Mainline” representative (Rev. Chemberline from the NCC) and one is (as best as I can figure out) non-denominational.  The remaining three Protestant representatives are from the Disciples of Christ, Church of God in Christ, and the AME Church.  There are no members with listed affiliations in two of the top five churches in the NCC — the United Methodist Church or the LDS (Mormon) Church.  The other three, Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist Convention, and Church of God in Christ, are represented.  I was struck by the uneven distribution across all the religious groups and the fact that many of the “usual suspects” of the Mainline Protestant churches, the Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians, were not represented.

We could look at this representation in a number of ways:
1)  The White House rolled the dice and this is what came up.  Not a likely interpretation in a political setting.
2)  The selections are purely political, those chosen represent a political agenda, and no broader cultural implications for the American religious landscape should be drawn.  Being a big-time cynic regarding secular politics I could live with this interpretation.
3)  The choices reflect some cultural perspective and so there is useful information in this distribution about the American religious landscape and developing trends.

Well, if you subscribe to #1 or #2 you can stop reading now.  I’ll follow #3 a bit further and reflect on what it might have to say.

One possible view is a pragmatic one — that the denominations represented have something to “bring to the table” in the way of social work.  A couple of those listed have programmatic ties, such as Catholic Charities USA and Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.  While the PC(USA) is known for advocating at the national level, the structural changes in the denomination have pushed mission and outreach programs down to the local level so there is not a recognized national social program to highlight.  This could be true for the other “missing” denominations.

Another viewpoint could be the semi-political approach.  Instead of the pure political motives I suggest in #2, there could be a blend of thinking about “what groups should we reach out to so as to advance out political agenda” with “what groups represent a coherent enough body that we can work with.”  Put another way, if a “key leader” were at the table would that person bring enough members of the denomination with them for both practical and political advantage.  Short of Beau Weston’s “Presbyterian Establishment” that is not something many Mainline churches can do at present.

Finally, maybe the selection says something about the perceived importance or sustainability of the denomination now or in the future.  It strikes me as possibly more than coincidence that the NCC denominations reporting growth or only slight declines are at the table while those with larger declines are not.  Does the selection suggest a vote of confidence by the White House staffers or a judgment on which groups will be viable to work with going forward?  Or does it have a relationship to perceptions about groups that don’t have internal struggles and divisions and so are freer to focus energy on this external initiative.

As I thought about this it does seem to me that a certain degree of political motivation is present in the choices.  For example: Three individuals broadly representing Jewish views when ARIS reports that self-identified Jews are only 1.2% of the adult population.  And if Jews are well represented, the LDS Church, with only slightly greater representation in the population, has no identifiable representation.

For each individual on the committee the particular reasons they were invited would probably be a mix of political and functional characteristics.  And maybe the “missing” representatives were too busy doing ministry, much like Tony Dungy was too busy to join.  But it does seem there is a message in the lack of individual representation from, for lack of a better term, the “liberal Mainline churches.”  This sector of society apparently brought no political or functional advantages to the table.  Whether it is an indication of perceived impotence, irrelevance, or lack of cohesiveness I’m not sure.  But for a group of Mainline churches to be sidelined seems to suggest a lack of faith in their present or future role.

I Rise To A Point Of Personal Privilege

3 Replies

OK, I don’t do this very often but I could not let this milestone go unheralded…

Today marks the three-year anniversary of this blog.  Over the last three years I have commented on roughly 25 different Assembly meetings around the world, publishing over a quarter-million words in 495 posts.  And there are still 14 drafts in my queue that are waiting to be finished up and shared with other G.A. Junkies.

While I started out, and continue, writing this just because it interests me, I appreciate all of you who read this blog that fills a unique, and in some ways weird, little niche in the world of religion.  Thank you for being there and for your kind, encouraging, and resource-filled comments.

So now the moderator will rule me out of order for using a point of personal privilege to make an announcement and we can return to our regularly scheduled programming.

New Official Blogging And Blogging Officials

3 Replies

There have been a couple of notable additions to the world of Presbyterian Blogging in the last month or two that I wanted to pass on to you.

First, it appears that we will have another blogging Moderator:  The Rev. Stafford Carson of First Presbyterian Church of Portadown, Northern Ireland, has begun a pastor’s blog.  (h/t Sean Michael Lucas)  For a G.A. Junkie, this will become more interesting in early June when Rev. Carson will be installed as the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.  We will have to see the balance that he strikes between the parish and the denominational work.  If nothing else, I am curious if the work of the Moderator of the PC Ireland takes as much time as the Moderator of the GA of the PCUSA who has broken his moderatorial blogging out from his personal and parish blogging.

(And we are still waiting for an RSS feed from the Church of Scotland for their Moderator’s Blog.)

Second, for a while now we have had the entertaining and enlightening blog Being Presbyterian by Colin Carmichael from the main office of the Presbyterian Church in Canada.  Now, while more of a news feed than a blog, there is PC-Connect Daily to which you can subscribe by either e-mail or RSS.  Interesting stuff from a Presbyterian branch that is taking new technology seriously.

Finally, a blog that is not new itself but is new to me…  I have been doing some research to try to get myself up to speed on the Presbyterian Church in Australia.  I’ll get that packaged up at some point, but in looking through the various sites I have found very little in the way of RSS feeds and e-mail updates available.  To some extent this may be due to an interesting de-centralization of that branch to the state level.  But one interesting RSS feed I did find was for Presbyterian Youth in Victoria.  It is pretty much a news feed with upcoming events but some are interesting, like the Fuelled Training Day and the Short Course on Youth Ministry.  My youngest was interested in their summer camp since that is our winter, such as winter is in Southern California anyway.

Speaking of Youth, I see that the announcement for the 2009 National Youth Assembly of the Church of Scotland has been posted.  Since this event is Web 2.0 intensive I would expect an official blog for it like the NYA 2008 blog, but I can’t locate it yet. But keep watching because I am sure it will appear soon.

Reflections On The Amendment 08-B Voting — Preliminary Musings On The Text

6 Replies

While not quite finished, at this time the voting on Amendment 08-B to modify the “fidelity and chastity” section (G-6.0106b) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Book of Order is closing in on the conclusion.  Yesterday there was a split vote, San Jose Presbytery voting “Yes” and the Presbytery of South Louisiana voting “No.”  This brings the unofficial tally to 65 Yes and 82 No. (Presbyterian Coalition, PresbyWeb)

If you look at the remaining 26 presbyteries, there are five that have solidly voted against “fidelity and chastity,”  and another six that have split votes in the last two votes (i.e. voted once for it and once against it).  In addition, Boise tied on 01-A and Pacific was one vote away from a tie.  Of the remaining 13 that voted no on the last two votes, five presbyteries did overwhelmingly in near or total unanimity.  Those five, if they again vote “No”, should give the necessary 87 votes to defeat 08-B.  So after yesterday’s results I, and some others (e.g. John Shuck), consider the passage of 08-B somewhere between highly unlikely and miraculous.  I won’t say “impossible” because that word is not in God’s vocabulary.

This vote was much closer than I and many of those I talk with initially felt it would be.  At the present time 25 presbyteries have changed their votes from 01-A.  Why?  This question has been rolling around in my head for almost two months now and I’ll give some numerical analysis when the voting concludes.  Related to what I talked about a couple of weeks ago, and what I see in the numbers, there is probably no single explanation.  Where there is truly a swing in votes why did the votes change?  One explanation is a greater “pro-equality” sentiment — that is that commissioners have switched views from “pro-fidelity and chastity” to “pro-equality.”  But I want to have a detailed look at something else first:  The text of the Amendment.

Looking back at the history of G-6.0106b, and it is laid out in the Annotated Book of Order and Constitutional Musings note 8, you can see that attempts to add fidelity-like wording date back to 1986.  The current wording was added from the 208th General Assembly, approved by the presbyteries 97-74.  The next year the 209th GA sent out to the presbyteries an “improved” wording that would have left “fidelity and chastity” but removed the “which the confessions call sin” line.  At that GA the Advisory Committee on the Constitution advised against making the change.  The Assembly approved the change and sent it out to the presbyteries who did not concur by a 57-114 vote.  The 213th GA sent out Amendment 01-A to strike G-6.0106b and add a line to the remaining G-6.0106a about suitability for office and the Lordship of Jesus Christ, but that too was not affirmed by the presbyteries, this time 46-127.

So here is my hypothesis:  I wonder if Amendment 08-B is having more success because it is more of a compromise text.  The previous two attempts to amend dealt with removing all or part of G-6.0106b.  Amendment 08-B would replace G-6.0106b with new language:

Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.

The new language does have a number of theological points that make it attractive and that are being used by those advocating for 08-B as benefits.  These include a pledge to “live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church,” and stating the hierarchy of Jesus, scripture and confessions, in that order.  While the opposition argues that this now leaves important standards up for interpretation and heterogeneous application across the denomination, I can see how this would be a more palatable form of standards for many in the church.

So I do have to wonder whether comparing 08-B to 01-A or 97-A is comparing apples to oranges.  While it is frequently viewed or portrayed as a battle of “good versus evil” (you define the sides for yourself), when it comes down to the vote by a particular commissioner in a given presbytery if the decision and vote is much more nuanced.  How many commissioners have not changed their opinions but have changed their vote because the language has changed?  Because the wording changes from one vote to the next do these black and white decisions have many more shades of gray than we want to admit.

Something to think over until my next post on this topic when I’ll put numbers on these shades of gray.

Presbytery Voting In The PC(USA) — All But B And I Have Passed

2 Replies

The Presbytery voting on amendments to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Book of Order and ecumenical statements continues.  And while Amendment 08-B has gotten all the attention, there are actually 14 different items that need to be voted on — ten amendments and four ecumenical statements.

Well, the latest official vote count from the Office of the General Assembly shows that 12 of those 14 items have now been officially adopted.  And while most proposals passed overwhelmingly, Amendment 08-A on membership vows and 08-F on Presbytery membership of Certified Christian Educators have 50 no votes each to about 88 yes votes on them, a sizable objection.  For the ecumenical statements, while they all had strong support it is interesting to note that the statement with the Episcopal Church did garner 10 No votes to the 124 yes.  A not overwhelming but noticeable objection.  I have to wonder how much is a polity objection to their having an episcopal structure with bishops and how much is a dissatisfaction with their aggressive pursuit of property cases against congregations that leave to join other Anglican Provinces.  Remember, this is nothing near a full communion document but a statement of mutually agreed principles.

Finally, while many think that the closely watched 08-B to modify the “fidelity and chastity” section will ultimately be a very close vote (currently 55 to 79 official and 64 to 81 unofficial), on the official tally 08-I on Certified Christian Educators is actually closer with only 17 votes separating the 77 yes and 60 no votes.  In both cases, it could be until the very end of voting before the outcome is certain.  Stay tuned…

Presbyterian Mission On The Go — At Least As Fast As It Can On The L.A. Freeways On Friday Afternoon

Leave a reply

On my way home from work today I passed the Mexico Outreach mission trip by First Presbyterian Church of Roseville, CA.  How do I know?  Their pickup trucks carrying the cargo, at least six of them, were pretty clearly labeled.  Considering the amount of gear in those trucks there must have been several more unmarked cars around them carrying the workers.  Welcome to the 210-Freeway through Pasadena on a “get away Friday” and best wishes and prayers for your work in Mexico.

If you want to follow their work, I found that they will have a twice-a-day update on their Mexico Outreach blog.

Appointments To PC(USA) Special Committees And Task Forces

Leave a reply

This morning we finished a process that I expected to begin three months ago and take two weeks.  Instead, it began two months ago and finished today.  That is the appointment and announcement of all the committees and task forces created by the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to be named, at least in part, by the Moderator of the Assembly, the Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow.

Below I provide a bit of an annotated summary of the appointments.  More official versions of the complete list can be found on Bruce’s web site or from the PC(USA) Special Committees page.

So here are the links to the info on the groups.  I will not provide commentary on the specific membership but will link to a few places where comments are made.  At the end, I’ll make some general, and personal, comments on the composition.

While I expected the announcements to begin shortly after the first of the year, Bruce began this process on February 3, 2009 with an intro video about the process.

Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage (Feb. 4 announcement)

Moderator Announcement
OGA Press Release
PNS Article
Committee Members’ Biographical Sketches
Committee member resignation and replacement
Assembly Action Item 04-13

This committee has met (March 16-19) and there is an OGA Article and an Outlook Article on the meeting.

Being the first committee named and one of the more controversial there was significant and spirited discussion of the composition.  Check out the comments section of Bruce’s announcement.  It has also ricocheted around the religious and GLBT news world. (e.g. BaptistPlanet and 365Gay)

Special Committee on Correcting Translation Problems of the Heidelberg Catechism (Feb. 6 announcement)

Moderator Announcement
OGA Press Release
Committee Members’ Biographical Sketches
Assembly Action Item 13-06

According to an OGA Press Release this committee met last week.

Committee to Prepare a Comprehensive Study Focused on Israel/Palestine (Feb. 6 announcement)

Moderator Announcement
OGA Press Release
Committee Members’ Biographical Sketches

Assembly Action Item 11-28

According to an OGA Press Release this committee met this week.

At the time of appointment The Reformed Pastor, David Fischler, shared his anaylsis of the committee composition.

Climate for Change Task Force (Feb. 25 announcement)

Moderator Announcement
OGA Press Release
PNS Article
Task Force Members’ Biographical Sketches
Assembly Action Item 09-16

There was a bit of a discussion in the comments about the balance of this task force.

Special Committee to Consider Amending the Confessional Documents of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to Include the Belhar Confession in The Book of Confessions (Mar. 10 announcement)

Moderator Announcement
OGA Press Release
Committee Members’ Biographical Sketches
Assembly Action Item 13-07

Following the naming of the committee Viola Larson, in her blog Naming His Grace, had some comments about the composition.

Youth Ministries Task Force (Announced today, April 3)

Moderator Announcement
OGA Press Release
Task Force Members’ Biographical Sketches (I will link when it becomes available)
Assembly Action Item 17-3NB and referral of business in Item 17-4NB

Finally, Bruce included a wrap up of the appointment process on his March 10 ModCast.  I was in a Presbytery meeting during the ModCast and unfortunately it appears that the archived version is corrupt (I can’t get past 3:07) so I don’t know what he said.

A Few Comments:

I think a lot has been said publicly and privately about the membership of these committees.  While I won’t comment on any of the particular individuals named to the committees, I do have a few comments about the balance of the groups.

On the one hand, it is tempting to be a “bean counter” and look to see that all the labels are covered.  Civil Unions had good clergy/elder mix and nice male/female balance, but lacked some geographical representation from the northeast (as originally announced) and mid-continent.  Heidelberg is 10 clergy versus 5 elders and no southwesterners.  Israel/Palestine has two from SoCal, and most of the rest from the Atlantic seaboard, with six clergy and three elders.  Climate for Change is mostly easterners with two elders and six clergy.  Belhar is eleven clergy and four elders and again dominated by the eastern regions with no one from the northwest.  And similar things can be said of the Youth Task force, lacking the inter-mountain west and the northwest.

But at this point I would like to defend Bruce and his work:
1)  Having done appointments myself for Presbytery and Synod bodies it is not easy balancing all the different factors.  I can’t imagine the task for GA appointments.  When I did it I went to work with a preference for certain factors, I’m sure Bruce placed an emphasis on certain things as well so other factors, maybe like geography, suffer.

2)  It is tough to get the elder/clergy to balance on these committees because of the time involved.  For example, the Civil Unions Committee will require four meetings for a total of 16 days away from home for its members in the next 12 months.  In general, clergy are usually in a better position to be away to “do the work of the church” than us elders in secular employment.  You have to admire the fact that the Civil Unions committee is balanced clergy versus non-clergy.  (7 vs. 6 at the moment)

3)  While I know only two or three tales, take my word for it that there must be a lot of “back stories” to these appointments.  What Bruce has presented us in the announcements has a lot of twists and turns behind it.  Alert readers may realize that I had a good reason for expecting the announcements to begin in early January.  I suspect that the one month delay from what I expected has something to do with these twists and turns.

4)  Trust the Holy Spirit.
You may have spotted my name on the Special Committee on Civil Unions.  I am honored to be asked and fortunately I am in a position in my life that I have the vacation to use and the understanding family to accept the diversion of my time.  At the committee’s first meeting I had the wonderful experience of getting to know the twelve other amazing people who are on the committee, as well as the great staff we have.  I can assure you that we do not all think alike, but we all are taking this assignment seriously and devoted to working on it together.  We all agree that this is a journey where none of us really knows the end point.  But we are trusting the Holy Spirit to lead us.  Bruce, thanks for the opportunity to be on this journey.

Along these lines, let me conclude with a version of a paragraph that I wrote recently about my journey in Presbyterian leadership and serving on the Civil Unions committee:

I am continually struck that in my journey in the Presbyterian church the service that I have rendered to the church, including serving on this committee, has almost always found me rather than being something that I have gone looking for myself. On the one hand, when I look back and see where God has called me my usual reaction has been “what a long, strange trip it’s been.” On the other hand, I marvel at how God has worked through other people to identify my God-given gifts and where they may be used for the building of the Kingdom. This was brought home to me after I had served two years as the chair of the Committee on Ministry. I had been asked to serve a third year but was resisting because, being Presbyterian, I have an aversion to people becoming too entrenched in a leadership position. Two other members of Presbytery sat down with me for a long talk and laid out who was on the committee and the gifts that God had given them. It was not that my serving as chair was a position of prestige or power, it was just that when you fit all the different people together each had a task on the committee based on how God had gifted each one of them, and with the set of jigsaw puzzle pieces that the committee had that year the best use of my talents was to continue as chair. It is my prayer, and expectation, that God, through Bruce and others in the denominational community, has done the same to bring the range of gifts and talents together for this committee.

Thank you for your work Bruce and may God indeed work through the covenant community of our church in each of these appointed bodies.