Monthly Archives: February 2010

Missing The Big Game On The Lord’s Day

Leave a reply

I guess there is a big sporting match tomorrow.  And according to the news one of the players will be missing it because it falls on the Lord’s Day.

No, not that big game.  Heck, if any of those players didn’t play on Sunday they would never collect a pay check.  But I digress…

A major news item this week in Scotland is that Euan Murray, the tighthead prop on the Scottish National Rugby team, will not play in their opening match tomorrow in the Six Nations Championship.

The interview in The Guardian is a worthwhile read and really conveys Mr. Murray’s sense of the importance of this and his frustration with having to explain himself one more time.  And it is also worth sharing that he does not participate in any non-religious activities on Sunday, including watching the game and giving interviews.

Some excerpts from the interview:

Tired of explaining himself, he recently informed his club that he would no longer discuss the decision, and so as we approach the subject Murray sighs. He rearranges his feet on the coffee table in front of him, and sinks deeper into his coat, visibly retreating. “What do you want me to say about it? I don’t think I need to say much about it. It’s a decision, a difficult decision I had to make. And I’m happy with my decision.”

…

Does he sometimes wonder if he’s made the right decision? There is a very long pause. “I believe that biblically I’ve made the right decision.” And emotionally? Murray blows out his cheeks. “Well, when you really become a Christian, life’s a battle. You’re going against the tide. The crowd are going one way and you’re going another. It’s always going to be a battle to be different. The easy thing is to go along with the crowd, everybody’s doing it. You know? Try going the opposite direction to a crowd. It’s hard. You won’t get very far.”

…

And so, when his team-mates run out against France on Sunday, what will he be doing? “I’ll do the same thing I do every Sunday,” he says. “Relax, rest, and enjoy the day. I won’t watch the game. It’s a day where I can enjoy the Lord.” Will it be hard to not think about rugby? He laughs. “Yeah! I’ll pray for the team. We’ll see what happens. It’s challenging. But ultimately rugby’s not what fuels my happiness in life.”

He stops, and then smiles. “I just wish that games of rugby weren’t played on Sundays. Christ doesn’t want them to be played on Sundays.”

…

…now at Northampton he seems to have found his spiritual home, in more senses than one. “Have you ever been here for a match?” he asks, before embarking on a breathlessly excited description of matchday at Franklin’s Gardens. “These supporters have such respect for the game. Either team could be kicking and there is dead silence – you can hear a pin drop. If somebody shouts out to distract the kicker he gets told to shut up. You can hear them going, ‘Shh! Shut up!’ There’s nowhere else that happens. They’ve got manners, you know? It’s amazing.”

…

But at the first hurdle his side will be without him. Does that not conflict with the team ethos of the sport? Murray is philosophical. “You bring your individual assets to benefit the team,” he says, “and hopefully you’ll get synergy when you put all these different components together. I’m a Christian, I try to be hard working, honest and fair. That’s what I bring to the team.”

And there is an interesting symbolism, in a couple of ways, about his club team’s nickname being… wait for it… The Saints.

My compliments to Anna Kessel for the interview, the depth it brought to Euan’s faith and life, and for letting Euan tell the story.  For another take on Euan’s decision, particularly the support from those around him, check out the article in the Independent.

So best wishes to Euan Murray tomorrow and the best of luck to Scotland in their match against France without him on the pitch.

OK, back to that other game of American Football tomorrow.  First, my friend David Gambrell (and probably a bunch of others) beat me to the punch about all us Calvinists knowing that New Orleans will win tomorrow because of, yes you guessed it, the “perseverance of the saints.”  But all you Indianapolis fans don’t worry because David also has a confessional reference that the Colts could win it.

Second, you have to admire Darryl Hart’s Sixteen reasons not to watch the game.

So tomorrow…

And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. [Col. 3:17]

Leadership In Presbyterian Government — Do We Have A Name For That?

Leave a reply

Those of you who track “Presbyterian” on Twitter know that the twitterverse came alive yesterday afternoon with retweets of a message from @Presbyterian that said:

“Clergy” and “laity” are not Presbyterian terminology: http://www.pcusa.org/pcnews/2010/10108.htm

The URL links back to a Presbyterian News Service article titled “Collegial leadership: Joe Small says clergy and laity are not Presbyterian terminology“

There is much to like in this article and I agree with nearly all of it and I think anyone in any Presbyterian branch would agree as well.  The article is based on a talk that the Rev. Joseph Small, director of the PC(USA) Office of Theology and Worship,  gave in Minnesota at a Synod of Lakes and Prairies training event to presbyters serving on the Committees on Ministry and Preparation for Ministry.  I can only say that I am sorry we only got the summary and not the full text.

I would first emphasize that he highlights a problem with words that I commented on about a month ago.  In that case the narrative of the latest Presbyterian Panel report identified “elders” as “lay leaders.”  From the sound of Rev. Small’s comments he was clearly not involved in writing that paragraph.  I came at that issue from the point of view of pastors/clergy and elders sharing equally in the governance of the church and ruling elders, in my understanding, do not equate to laity.  In this article the Rev. Small seems to clearly agree, speaking of ordained officers (teaching elders, ruling elders, and deacons) being “genuine colleagues in ministry.”

This article highlights what should be our appropriate use of certain terms.  At this point I should probably confess my regular use of the term “clergy” in my writing.  I’ll keep pondering this to see if I want a style change.  My intent is not to use the term “clergy” in opposition to “lay” but to have a nice short word for that category.  In the PC(USA) the appropriate phrase is usually “Minister of Word and Sacrament” but both for length and variety I try to switch up the terms.  I try to avoid shortening that phrase to  “minister” since, as Rev. Small points out, all officers are involved in ministry and therefore are ministers.  The preferable shorter phrase is “teaching elder,” a phrase I like and use regularly.  And in other Presbyterian branches the initials TE are regularly used and understood for this making a nice shorthand.  Maybe I should use it more — and it comes endorsed by Rev. Small, the article saying that he favors the use of “ruling elder” and “teaching elder.”  Sometimes the logical term, and one that is used in this article, is “pastor.”  In my usage, I try to not use this term unless I am specifically referring to a teaching elder who is working in a congregational setting.  In the PC(USA) this is an important distinction because according to the 2008 breakdown of the “Active Ministers” [sic] of the 13,462 recorded as active I would count 9176 of them as being in a congregational setting leaving almost one-third (31.9%) in other ministries.  With that large a number not doing traditional pastoral work I tend to avoid using the word “pastor” unless I specifically mean someone working in a congregation.  (It also comes with the complexity of having Commissioned Lay Pastors who are not Ministers of Word and Sacrament but still doing pastoral work in congregations.)

So that is the collection of terms that we can use to refer to teaching elders depending on setting and space.  Now that TE Small has brought this to the attention of the PC(USA) I am looking forward to a standardization of usage across the denominational publications.

One additional comment in this article struck me and I would like to comment on it.  At one point in the article there is the line:

[Small] said, deacons are called to “leading the whole church in the ministry of compassion and justice.”

For those following the current discussions about the role of women in deacon ministry in the PCA you know that the discussion going on right this moment is about just that.  Is the role of deacon a ministry of service only or a ministry of leadership in service?  Specifically, can women served as commissioned assistants to the board of deacons?  On the one hand, the Bayly Blog brings us word of a proposed overture from Metro Atlanta Presbytery to the GA that would add the following line to the section on deacons [9-7] in the Book of Church Order:

These assistants to the deacons, selected by means determined by each Session, may be commissioned, but not ordained.

Within the rational section the writers of the overture say:

WHEREAS, the diaconal ministry is that of sympathy and service, not of spiritual and ecclesiastical governance, and any authority that may be attached to the office of deacon is a derivative authority, with plurality of elders serving as the final authority in a local church(BCO 9-1; 9-2; 9-6);

On the other side is an overture from Central Carolina Presbytery that wants to make it clear that “commissioned” deacons and deaconesses are not acceptable under the BCO by adding at the same place the line:

These assistants to the deacons shall not be referred to as deacons or deaconesses, nor are they to be elected by the congregation nor formally commissioned, ordained, or installed as though they were office bearers in the church.

I will consider the overtures to the GA at a later time but in light of this discussion it seems that TE Small’s comments seem to support the role of deacons as one of leadership as well as service.  You can check out the post on the Bayly Blog for their critique of the Metro Atlanta Presbytery proposed overture.  I have not yet seen a discussion of the Central Carolina overture, but if anyone is going to get to it before I have the time it will probably be the great polity wonks over at A Profitable Word.

It is interesting that while we complain about the mainstream media not understanding our system of polity, frequently we are not as clear and consistent ourselves and among ourselves using some of these terms.  Something to keep in mind.

The Bicentennial Of The Cumberland Presbyterian Church, February 4, 2010

3 Replies

Two hundred years ago today the Rev. Finis Ewing and the Rev. Samuel King met with the Rev. Samuel McAdow at Mr. McAdow’s cabin in Dixon County, Tennessee, and held the first meeting of the Cumberland Presbytery, the predecessor of the Cumberland Synod, the predecessor of the General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church.

(Update: Thanks to Mr. Knight for his comments below and correcting me on my original text of the formation of the presbytery.  I stopped reading the history too soon and in a less-complete source.  I have rewritten the next paragraph to (hopefully) provide a more accurate account of the formation.  I regret the error and gladly accept the correction.)

The Cumberland Presbytery was established by the PCUSA in 1802 along with the Synod of Kentucky but within four years disputes developed over confessional and educational requirements for ordination.  The Synod was petitioned to investigate ordination standards in the Cumberland Presbytery with the result that an investigating commission was formed, ministers were summoned to be examined at the next Synod meeting, and when the ministers declined the Kentucky Synod disbanded the presbytery.  In 1807 the complaint against the synod for requiring unconstitutional synod examinations and dissolving the presbytery was heard by the General Assembly which ruled that the synod had over-stepped its authority in controlling ordinations clearing the way for the Cumberland Presbytery to be reinstated.  However, the Synod did not act to reinstate the presbytery and additional requests to the GA for this remedy were unsuccessful, so these three pastors took the initiative to reestablish it.

While the Old Side/New Side split had been mended administratively in 1758 many of the tensions over education and confessional standards remained in the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.  (That would be the PCUSA, not to be confused with the PC(USA) ).  At this time the Second Great Awakening was causing tensions on the bonds of the church and not just the Cumberland Presbytery formed but Restoration Movement churches split off including the Cain Ridge/Stone-Campbell groups that included the Springfield Presbytery.  While the Cumberland Presbyterians had issues with Calvinism, as you can see in the document below, they were really the one group that remained in the Presbyterian stream, as evidenced by the partial reunion in 1906 and continued close relations with mainline American Presbyterians today.

The partial reunion of 1906 is an interesting study in church history itself because it comes during the “church union” or ecumenical movement of the early 20th century that saw other forms of interdenominational cooperation including the formation of the United Church of Canada from the Presbyterian, Methodist and Congregational churches.  It also comes at the beginning of the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy of the early 1900’s.  One catalyst to the reunion, and a step in the theological controversy that was developing, was the 1903 revision of the Westminster Confession of Faith.  As Hart and Muether describe the theological leanings of some in the northern church at that time

[Charles A. ] Briggs was tapping into a growing consensus in the church, which had begun to form no later than the reunion of 1869, that the harder Calvinistic edges of the Confession needed to be softened. In the words of Benjamin J. Lake, “Some of the time-honored rigidity in the Westminster Confession seemed obsolete to many Presbyterians.” Typically, Presbyterian rigidity was spelled p-r-e-d-e-s-t-i-n-a-t-i-o-n.

Asked to be on the committee to make the revision B. B. Warfield declined.  Hart and Muether record:

“It is an inexpressible grief,” [Warfield] wrote, to see the church “spending its energies in a vain attempt to lower its testimony to suit the ever changing sentiment of the world around it.” Warfield’s lament would persuade few. In an era when change was a sign of health, his dissent sounded, in the words of an opponent, as a call for the “harmony of standing still.”

In 1903 the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. approved the changes to the Westminster Confession that did indeed soften the edges enough that a majority of the Cumberland churches were comfortable reuniting with the mainstream church.

An interesting piece of information I once heard about the reunion (and I don’t remember the source so this might be urban legend) is that all Cumberland churches had the initials “CPC” on their communion ware.  Following joining with the UPCUSA many churches changed their names to Central Presbyterian Church, Christ Presbyterian Church, or another similar name so the “CPC” still applied.

But like the Presbyterians in the formation of the United Church in Canada, there was a sizable minority of those in the Cumberland Presbyterian Church who chose to continue as they were and that is the body that today celebrates its bicentennial.  (What is it about these Presbyterians?)

The Cumberland Presbyterian Church will celebrate this coming Sunday on Denomination Day 2010.  They have produced a resource to help with worship and their 2010 GA will hold a full-day event at Mr. McAdow’s reconstructed home in Tennessee.

So happy birthday to the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. Thanks to their wonderful on-line collection of historical resources, here is the circular letter that started it all:

February 4, 1810
[Information Contained in A Circular Letter, no actual minutes recorded]

   In Dixon county Tennessee State, at the Rev. Samuel M’adow’s this 4th day of February 1810.

   We Samuel M’adow, Finis Ewing, and Samuel King, regularly ordained ministers, in the presbyterian church against whom, no charge, either of imorality, or Heresey has ever been exhibited, before any of the church Judicatures. Having waited in vain more than four years, in the mean time, petitioning the general assembly for a redress of grievances, and a restoration of our violated rights, have, and do hereby agree, and determine, to constitute into a presbytery, known by the name of the Cumberland presbytery. On the following conditions (to wit) all candidates for the ministry, who may hereafter be licensed by this presbytery; and all the licentiates, or probationers who may hereafter be ordained by this presbytery; shall be required before such licensure, and ordination, to receive, and adopt the confession and discipline of the presbyterian church, except the idea of fatality, that seems to be taught under the misterious doctrine of predes
tination. It is to be understood, however, that such as can clearly receive the confession, without an exception,shall not be required to make any. Moreover, all licentiates,before they are set apart to the whole work of the ministry (or ordained) shall be required to undergo an examination, on English Grammer, Geography, Astronomy, natural, & moral philosophy, and church history. The presbytery may also require an examination on all, or any part, of the above branches of literature, before licensure if they deem it expedient.”

Steps In Ecclesiastical Discipline In Two PCA Presbyteries

4 Replies

Regular readers know that in spite of my great regard and agreement with the Westminster Confession of Faith I prefer the formulation of the Marks of the True Church in the Scots Confession and some other Reformed confessions.  The WCF [25:4] says “Churches… are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.” The Scots Confession puts it thus:

The notes of the true Kirk, therefore, we believe, confess, and avow to be: first, the true preaching of the word of God, in which God has revealed himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles declare; secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, to which must be joined the word and promise of God to seal and confirm them in our hearts; and lastly, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly ministered, as God’s word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished. [Chapter 18]

Many people have problems with the idea of invoking “ecclesiastical discipline” since it may conjure up images of heretic trials and draconian punishment.  Regarding this let me make two points.

  1. It is important to remember that “discipline” relates to the word “disciple,” as the root of the words suggests.  One online resources tells us that “discipline” derives from the meaning “instruction given to the disciple.” True discipline is instructional.
  2. Related to that the intent of ecclesiastical discipline is to be restorative and not punitive.  As the Confession says “whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished.”  We are not out to “get” someone but to restore them to right relationship with God and the Community.

Finally, I would also emphasize that discipline involves a process and in the Presbyterian sense it encompasses the Covenant Community and may impact on our “reformed and always being reformed” as the community tries to discern how God is calling us to be faithful to Scripture.

With that preface I wanted to summarize two recent events in Presbyterian Church of America presbyteries.  In both cases these are on-going issues and the recent news only represents the latest steps.

The first began as a bit of a “sleeper,” or at least was overshadowed by a higher profile case going on at the same time, but in the last two weeks it has really taken on a life of its own in one little corner of the blogosphere.  Let me say at the onset that much of the reporting on the web comes from one side of this controversy but in reading a lot of the articles the timeline and facts of this case do not appear to be in dispute.

This case began in the Spring of 2008 and involves the examination of a Teaching Elder in the Presbytery of Siouxlands specifically regarding views which are currently referred to as Federal Vision theology.  For a good detailed summary of this case I refer you to a piece last September that TE Brian Carpenter wrote for the Aquila Report.  In the interest of full disclosure I need to let you know that Mr. Carpenter is a complainant in one part of this case, now under investigation in another part, and also has a personal blog – The Happy T.R.   That will become important in a moment.

UPDATE: Wes White has now posted an all-in-one-place summary/timeline on this issue in Siouxlands.  Thanks.

Here is a summary so what follows will make more sense:  In April 2008 TE Wes White and TE Brian Carpenter asked the Presbytery of Siouxlands for an investigation of a member of the Presbytery and whether he was teaching federal vision theology contrary to the Standards of the PCA.  The Presbytery denied the request, White and Carpenter filed a complaint at the next Presbytery meeting and when that was denied a complaint was filed with the General Assembly.  A panel of the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) sustained the complaint and the Presbytery was ordered to conduct an investigation.  The investigating committee was created, worked over the Summer of 2009, and by a 4-2 vote brought a report to the September Presbytery meeting that there was a “strong presumption of guilt.”  On the floor of Presbytery one of the dissenting members of the committee, TE Joshua Moon, moved a substitute motion to not accept the report and recommendations and the substitute motion prevailed.  He then made the motion that there was no “strong presumption of guilt” that the views of the member who was investigated were outside the bounds of the Standards and that motion prevailed by a narrow 20-17-1 vote.  New complaints were filed with the Presbytery.  The first summary ends at that point but TE Carpenter writes on his personal blog that at a called meeting at the end of October the new complaint was sustained and a new investigating committee formed.  In addition, a church session sent an overture asking for an investigation of a second TE, that individual answered the charges on the floor of Presbytery, the Presbytery voted to accept that examination as fulfilling the examination and find no “strong presumption of guilt,” and TE Carpenter filed a complaint in that case that the investigation was not extensive enough to fulfill the requirements of the Book of Church Order. A January item from the Aquila Report informs us that one session in the Presbytery found the new overture and other writings and statements of TE Carpenter  to have misrepresented another TE to a strong degree and they overtured the Presbytery to “find a strong presumption of guilt that Mr. Carpenter has publicly sinned…by violating the ninth commandment.”  These writings include his pieces on The Aquila Report and The Happy TR.  That brings us to the stated meeting of January 22…

The Aquila Report brings us one summary of that presbytery meeting, written by the other original complainant TE Wes White.  In the original case the second investigating committee brought a unanimous recommendation that the Presbytery find a strong presumption of guilt that the member’s teachings were outside the bounds of the Standards.  The Presbytery chose to postpone action on the report until September and formed a committee to “instruct and advise that member.”  On the one hand see above abo
ut discipline being restorative, on the other hand confer TE White’s personal blog for his analysis of the make-up of the committee and conclusion that it lacks balance.

The Presbytery also denied the complaint from TE Carpenter that the October examination was not sufficient.  The Presbytery did accept the overture regarding TE Carpenter’s actions and has set up an investigating committee to make a recommendation whether he had broken the ninth commandment by misrepresenting another member.  Part of this accusation has to do with his writing about the previous Presbytery meeting on his blog and the Aquila Report.  In line with the concept of ecclesiastical discipline it is interesting to note that in a completely unrelated item of business “a teaching elder who had previously been indefinitely suspended for a public sin was restored to office and the Presbytery expressed thanksgiving to God for the exemplary repentance God had worked in his heart.”

Still with me?  So here is where this story took on a life of its own on the blogosphere.  Following the meeting TE White and TE Carpenter weighed in on the meeting on their blogs.  In fact, Mr. Carpenter expressed his frustration a number of times in the first few days following the meeting and then felt the conviction of the Spirit, repented of his more sarcastic writing and took down most of his initial postings.  (Yes, I am aware that there are cached copies but to honor Mr. Carpenter’s wishes I won’t link those, you will have to find them yourselves.)  I do wish that at least the original post were available because in spite of the sarcasm I believe it clearly conveys both the passion that TE Carpenter has for the issue as well as the frustration he feels in trying to get the Presbytery to adequately deal with it.  From my saved copy let me simply quote part of the two paragraphs related to the new investigating committee that will be examining his behavior:

Now, I am not in the least perturbed by all of this… I think judicial investigations are fine and good. I am not threatened by them in the least. I didn’t do anything wrong. I did some things that some don’t like. I did some things that some don’t think are right, but they are mistaken. My conscience is clear. And if a fair and competent investigation can convince me that I did do something wrong, I will repent.

I have some good hope that the committee appointed to investigate me can conduct a fair and competent investigation…  The PCA has a fine constitution and I have the right and ability to make use of the provisions afforded by it.

The summary by TE White, while maybe not as passionate, is strong, seems to lay out the facts with supporting quotations, and shows a similar level of frustration.

Others are weighing in online with less detailed posts about the meeting and the controversy.  This includes TE Lane Keister on Green Baggins, Jordan Harris at Sacramental Piety, and Steven Carr at Beholding the Beauty, all from Siouxlands Presbytery.  From elsewhere R. Scott Clark on the Heidelblog, Kevin Carrol at Reformed and Loving it, David Sarafolean at Joshua Judges Ruth, and Mark Horne.  I would also note that Wes White has continued to post so keep watching his blog Johannes Weslianus for news updates and detailed critiques from his perspective.  Brian Carpenter, in addition to his mea culpa and self-editing, has left a few things up at The Happy TR but is taking a step back from blogging for a while.

This particular case is interesting in a general sense because any Presbyterian blogger should be wrestling with the question of whether their work is contributing to or hindering the purity and peace of the whole body.  The lines are not always clearly drawn and each of us needs to decide where we draw the line and then be accountable to the rest of the body for our decisions and to be open to correction.

It is also worth pointing out that intertwined with the developments in this Presbytery are responses to the recent SJC proposed decision in the Pacific Northwest Presbytery case in the form of a Supplemental Brief by TE Robert S. Rayburn.  I will not go into any detail on this in part because Lane Keister has been analyzing and critiquing it at Green Baggins (as of today he is up to Part 6).  This case will be reviewed by the full SJC next month.

While it is tempting to announce “And now for something completely different…”, I turn to another presbytery’s action that may be different in content, but still represents a step in the process of ecclesiastical discipline.

About two weeks ago the Presbytery of South Florida ruled on a complaint filed by six members of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church who had been banned from the church grounds.  According to an article on the Sun Sentinel web site the Presbytery sustained the members’ complaint, ruled that the members had not been granted due process, and ordered the ban lifted.  (For the record, this article seems to be the only source for this news, the newspaper based some of it on “a document” they obtained, and the Presbytery did not comment for the story although a member of the Coral Ridge Session did speak on the record.  I would also note that their terminology is a bit off.  For example, they say “denominational officials” made the decision which is technically correct, since the presbytery is made up of ordained officers of the church, but to a reader not familiar with Presbyterian polity it would probably sound like one or two high-ranking national figures rather than the membership of the next-higher regional governin
g body.)

According to the document the Presbytery decided that the church “acted impulsively, improperly, prematurely, and without warrant.”  The representative of the Session expressed disappointment with the decision but said the session would comply and reopen the case at the March Session meeting.  Possible outcomes could be reconciliation or an ecclesiastical trial.  The representative of the break-away group indicated that the Presbytery decision does not directly impact their new worshiping community.

It should be pointed out that there are traditions and legacies in play here, as I have described before.  It is good to read that Coral Ridge does not consider itself an island unto itself but part of the Presbyterian connectional system.

As I said at the beginning both of these actions are just part of more extensive processes.  There will be more to come, possibly a lot more.

First Vote For Presbyterian Church In Ireland Moderator Designate Ends In A Tie

Leave a reply

Well, I guess William Crawley gets points for calling it Friday at Will and Testament. His closing line was

In other words: it’s too close to call. If I was a betting man (whichI’m not), I’d expect the election to continue into March.

The results were just released by the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, as reported by the BBC, and two nominees, the Rev.  Norman Hamilton of Ballysillan, Belfast, and the Rev. Norman McAuley of Greenwell Street, Newtownards, both received the votes of five presbyteries.  The other nine presbytery votes were not specifically reported but only described as “divided among three other candidates.”  And that means that one candidate received no votes.

When the voting is reported I’ll update it here.  However, the BBC article is suggestive by listing the Rev. Derek McKelvey, Rev. Ivan Patterson, and the Rev. Roy Mackey, but not the Rev. Ruth Patterson.

UPDATE: The Church press release is now out and breaks down the voting as:  Hamilton – 5, McAuley – 5, McKelvey – 4, I. Patterson – 4, and Mackey – 1.  They also note that this is the third tie vote in nine years.

So, as Mr. Crawley so presciently suggested, the presbyteries will vote again between these two nominees in March.

Selection Of The Moderator Designate For The Presbyterian Church In Ireland

Leave a reply

The month of January was a particularly busy one for me, as evidenced by the fact that I only posted eight times.  But having just finished up one service to the church (which is now available on-line) and having been part of a wonderful family celebration this past weekend, I now hope to return to blogging in earnest.

And none too soon since tomorrow, the first Tuesday in February, is one of my favorite of Presbyterian events – the selection of the Moderator Designate for the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.

In fine Presbyterian, “lets come together and discern this as the body of Christ” fashion, all the presbyteries meet on the same evening and each discusses who should be the next Moderator of the General Assembly.  Each votes and sends their result into the Clerk of Assembly.  For the last couple of years there has been a predetermined list to vote on, but I actually liked it better in the past when there was no slate and each presbytery proposed names that night and voted their choice from that local slate.

From the PCI press release this year’s nominees are:

Rev Norman Hamilton(Ballysillan)
Rev Derek McKelvey (Fisherwick)
Rev Norman McAuley (Greenwell Street,Newtownards)
Rev Roy Mackay (Second Comber)
Rev Ivan Patterson(Newcastle)
Rev Ruth Patterson (Restoration Ministries)

The press release also contains brief biographies of each nominee.  Revs. Hamilton, McKelvey, and Ruth Patterson have been nominees before.  And for the record, if Ms. Patterson were elected she would be not only the first woman ordained as clergy in the PCI but the first female moderator of the PCI as well.

If you are looking for a “favourite” to watch the Belfast Telegraph handicaps the nominees:

Informed church sources in Belfast believe that Ms Patterson would not be the bookies’ favourite.

The front-runners are the Reverend Norman Hamilton (64), minister of Ballysillan in north Belfast; and the Reverend Derek McKelvey (65), of the fashionable Fisherwick Church in south Belfast.

Insiders, however, have tipped the Reverend Norman McAuley (34), of Newtownards, to emerge as the winner.

[As an editorial comment, the Belfast Telegraph lists his age as 34 but the PCI press release lists the date of birth as 1956 so he would be 54, not 34.  I guess we will get a chance to check that if he is indeed elected.]

The Belfast Telegraph has a second article about the election which does a really great job of explaining the nature and role of the Moderator of the General Assembly as well as discussing the possible politics or the body’s sense of balance behind the voting.  And over at Will and Testament William Crawley also does the “what if” and decides this one is too close to call and may go to a run-off in March.

Stay tuned and we will find out the discernment of the church at about this time tomorrow.