Follow Up On The Presbyterian Church In Canada Moderator Election — Details And Discussion

Leave a reply


The recent twist in the process to elect the Moderator of the next General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada is still a developing story and polity discussion. Since my last post on the topic the Presbyterian Church in Canada has released the biographical sketches of the five candidates for Moderator of the 138th General Assembly. The discussion around “active campaigning” for the office has also continued — I will get to that in a moment, but first some polity details about the election.

The focus on the election got me asking questions about what the details of the process are.  As I noted in that last post, the Book of Forms (section 282) basically says that it will happen. Drilling down a bit more I find that the most recent minutes (page 11) indicate that the process is “In accordance with the method determined by the 95th General Assembly…” Well, with a lot of help I want to take a look at the method which I have found to be a bit unique in the Presbyterian system.

Now, to give fair warning, this first part is polity wonkish and you may find it interesting but there are not many significant take-aways. You can go ahead and jump to part two if you are primarily interested in the developments in the moderator’s election itself.

Also, as I will explain in a moment, this research can not be done online.  So I am indebted to Colin Carmichael, the Associate Secretary for Communications at the PCC and the Clerks Office for providing the relevant documents for this discussion.

This all started when I read the minutes of the last General Assembly and they say that the method of election of the Moderator was determined by the 95th General Assembly (1969). The problem is that the oldest records available online are the 118th General Assembly (1992). After contacting the office Colin and the Clerks graciously, and quickly, provided me with not only the relevant portion of the 95th’s Proceedings, but also related portions of the 98th’s and 99th’s Proceedings.  In addition, they included this year’s Clerk’s letter to the presbyteries that helps explain the process.  Again, my thanks for all the work.

So what is the process? Based on a recommendation from the Administrative Council concerning a suggestion from the Committee to Advise the Moderator, the 95th General Assembly (1969) established a five year trial of standing orders to have the church elect, or technically nominate, the Moderator of the General Assembly. The process begins with presbyteries nominating individuals for the position — each may nominate up to two and they can be from other presbyteries. Then, based on these nominations the Clerk’s office confirms each of those nominated is willing to serve and sends out ballots to the presbyteries.  Here is where it get’s unique – each individual with a vote in presbytery, ministers and the designated ruling elders, is eligible to vote. But the vote is not by presbytery but rather all ballots get returned to the national office and they get collectively counted.  The top vote-getter is the final nominee for the office.

Now, for the polity/parliamentary procedure specialists the instructions have as part of their Preamble: “That in the Regulations below where the phrase “nomination of Presbytery” or equivalent is used, this phrase be understood for convenience only. (The only true nomination for Moderator is from the floor of Assembly.)” You can breath easier now.

I have simplified the steps in the discussion above but those are the essential steps. What is interesting is that this is what is referenced in the current minutes since it was only a five-year trial. That is where the Acts and Proceedings from the 98th and 99th GA’s come in. The vast majority of the original process was retained but an important change was made: In the voting each presbytery member now ranks their choices for Moderator. If no nominee receives a majority, not plurality, based on the number 1 choices, then the lowest vote-getter is dropped and those ballots selecting that person first have their second choice votes distributed. The process continues until one nominee receives a majority.

Again, for the polity wonks, here are the usual contingencies:

10. That the nomination be made from the floor of the Assembly, and that the opportunity be given for another nomination or nominations.
11. That, if the foregoing fails to be effective, the election of the Moderator shall proceed in the manner of 1969, notice being given to the Presbyteries as early as possible.

Let me throw in two things here: 1) Somewhere there is a little bit more because these instructions don’t include the part that a nominee needs the endorsement of three Presbyteries to appear on the ballot. 2) Because the instructions are pieced together from a series of Acts and Proceedings it appears that while reference is made to Standing Orders, they exist only as parts of different acts recorded by year and not a unified reference book.

A great transition to the next topic is the Clerk’s Letter from last August soliciting nominations for Moderator of the General Assembly. With that letter the Clerk included an adopted overture from the 74th General Assembly (1948) [slightly edited for length]:

A&P 1948, page 160 (Appendix)
NO. 11 – PRESBYTERY OF GUELPH
Re: Undue Influence Among Presbyteries
 
To the Venerable, the General Assembly:
WHEREAS, circular letters have been received by this Presbytery each year for a number of years from one or more other Presbyteries giving notice as to whom they have nominated for General Assembly appointments, and
WHEREAS, these nominations are supposed to be reported only to the General assembly and to the Boards concerned, and
WHEREAS, it would appear that the Presbyteries responsible for this procedure have been seeking to influence other Presbyteries to support their candidates.
It is humbly overtured by the Presbytery of Guelph that the General Assembly taken some action to put an end to this practice which we deem undesirable.
Extracted from the Records of the Presbytery of Guelph by Morriston, Ontario
March 17th, 1948
T.G.M. Byran
Presbytery Clerk

A&P 1948, page 94 (minutes)
Overture No. 11, Presbytery of Guelph, Re Undue Influence Among Presbyteries

Mr. W.A Young was heard in support of the Overture of the Presbytery of Guelph Re Undue Influence Among Presbyteries, and moved, duly seconded, that the Assembly express disapproval of practice complained of, and it was so ordered.

The Clerk includes in the body of the letter the advice:

While the overture refers only to letters from presbyteries, I am of the opinion that if, in the overture, reference had been made to letters from individual ministers, Assembly’s attitude would have been the same – disapproval of the practice. Subsequent Assemblies have not changed the position taken by the 78th [sic?] Assembly, but it appears that some within our church are either not aware of the action or have chosen to disregard it. Your assistance in communicating this concern and your good example will be greatly appreciated.

So that is regarding the lobbying of presbyteries and individuals on behalf of a candidate. The current situation involves the candidate himself and the use of social media and not letters.

To recap the situation, one of the candidates for Moderator, the Rev. John Borthwick of Guelph (déjà vu?) has been active on social media to begin a discussion about the moderator election.  Is it “active campaigning” as I originally called it?  It could be interpreted that way and I will leave it to the reader and those in the presbyteries of the PCC to decide if it is.  What he has done is opened up a discussion about the role of the moderator and what else should go on around the process of election.

At this point Mr. Borthwick is taking full advantage of social media with his personal Twitter at @jborthwik, his moderator Twitter at @borthwick4mod, a Facebook page, and more recently a blog related to his Moderator campaign – borthwick4moderator. That blog is what I want to focus on.

Now, while I appreciate his reprinting my previous post on this topic in his second post on the blog, I want to focus on his writing as a whole, with some emphasis on a more recent post. I will quote extensively, but will edit almost all of them for length.

The blog does have a number of sections found on typical PC(USA) Moderator candidate sites including the obligatory Who Am I? and the Sense of Call. His sense of call is short and telling – here it is in total:

“I’m average.”  I discovered that fact while I was attending the October
2011 meeting of the Synod of Central and Northern Ontario and Bermuda. 
During The Rev. Jeff Crawford, our Synod Youth Consultant’s
presentation, it was noted that the average age of Canadians is 39 years
old.  I’m 39, really and not just holding.  For the last year or two,
I’ve felt called to the role of Moderator of The Presbyterian Church in
Canada.  I was originally inspired by the journey and witness of The
Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow as he became one of the youngest moderators of the
PCUSA [sic].  I believe it is time for the Canadian average to be represented
and apparently our young people do as well.  As a conclusion to Jeff’s
presentation, he noted that the members of the Synod’s Presbyterian
Young People’s Society had asked him to deliver a recommendation to the
upcoming Synod meeting: that we consider nominating a 39 year old to the
position of Moderator of General Assembly.  It was then that I said,
“Here I am!”

(I will leave comments about being inspired by Bruce and the PC(USA)-ification of the PCC for another time.)

 In addition, he has the usual Endorsements section and the Experience and Education list.  He also has a couple sections you don’t regularly see – a listing of his Growth Areas and the information on The Other Nominees.

As of today he has seven posts on his blog including a brief initial Welcome, a recent Christmas greeting, and the reprint of my article I have already mentioned. I will leave it to you to read the article about what a Moderator is and the one on “Ten, actually Nine, Questions Every Moderator Nominee Should Answer.” I want to finish this post focusing on the remaining two that focus on the Moderator campaign.

The second of the two is “Being the Change” where Mr. Borthwick responds to a couple of thoughtful comments posted on the Facebook page about his handling the campaign, with an eye not so much on the legalistic aspects but on a spirit of fairness.  Here are a few selected sections of Mr. Borthwick’s response:

I deeply appreciate these comments.  I would love for all of the
nominees ‘to be on the same page’… but recognize that we didn’t ‘sign up
with this in mind’.  I appreciate Andrew’s point in a previous post,
where he says let’s hear from all the nominees instead of just promoting
John Borthwick.

and

I respect my fellow nominees deeply and am honoured to be on a list with
them.  I also believe that any one of them would make an excellent
moderator… but most of all I’d love to hear more about their vision and
hopes for our denomination (beyond the 100 words) and would consider it a
privilege to spend the next 114 days discussing the issues with them.

and finally

I am attempting to ‘be the change’ as opposed to following a traditional
process.  That doesn’t always win you friends.  My goal in all this is
not about ‘winning’ though but about shaking our denominational tree a
little to see what fruit falls.

The other post is his extensive answer to the idea of “active campaigning.” Here are his arguments for his approach, extensively edited for length:

  1. The moderator of the PCC is just the chair of a really big meeting… but I
    believe that the office carries tremendous power to influence and even
    transform our denomination.  […] [W]e
    should hear more than 100 words from our candidates!  We should hear
    about their vision and the ways that they will attempt to implement that
    vision.  […] I’ve always wanted
    to know more about the candidates.  And so that is why I’m sharing with
    you.

  2. I believe that the process we have now diminishes the office.  I’ve
    talked with many over the years who see the role as insignificant.  A
    victory lap for some.  A final feather in the cap for others.  […] Most people tell
    me that they tend to vote for who they know and like (or by process of
    elimination, vote for who they don’t know but have no negative opinion
    of unlike the other candidates).  […] I’ve heard ruling
    elders say that either they don’t vote or they ask their minister who
    they should vote for… since they don’t know any of the candidates.  I
    wonder if we have ever looked at ‘voter turnout’ with regard to our
    Moderatorial race.  Some of my colleagues have told me that they haven’t
    voted in years.  […] I’d suggest that some kind
    of modest campaigning (at least one that outlines what kind of vision
    candidates have for our denomination and how they would go about
    executing it through their year as Moderator) would be helpful and
    appropriate.

  3. Maybe the way we have understood the role of moderator is a thing of
    the past.  […] It seems that one
    generation sees it as something that one ‘stands’ for while the other
    wants to know what one stands for!  I think it is time that we knew what our moderator candidates stand for.

  4. There seems to often be a disconnect between the office of the
    moderator and the overall direction of the Church and its vision,
    planning, and campaigns.  […] Wouldn’t it be great if our moderators worked in
    partnership with denominational directions, plans and campaigns.  [… W]hat I’m recommending is that
    the Church makes an informed decision on who they would like to see as
    giving ‘voice’ to those directions.

  5. Finally, I’ve been told that I’m being disrespectful to past
    moderators and my current fellow nominees.  I wish to convey no such
    disrespect.  I have appreciated and valued the work of our past
    moderators, and our current one.  I respect greatly how they chose to
    serve our beloved Church in the role of moderator and their richness of
    work and witness that raised them to being recognized by the Church.  I
    also respect my fellow nominees, Peter Bush, Gordon Haynes, Andrew
    Johnson, and John Vissers.  They are all men whom I have met personally
    and have greatly appreciated my interactions with them.  Any one of them
    would make an excellent moderator of the PCC.  I would love to hear
    more from them as to how they would lead our denomination into the
    future and what kind of vision they would desire to see implemented to
    strengthen our life and work together.

I would encourage you to look at the thoughtful responses in the comments section of that post.  Bryn MacPhail notes “In my 13 years in the PCC, I probably left something like 4 or 5 signed
ballots blank–not because I didn’t value the position, but because I
valued it so much that I refused to vote for someone I wasn’t well
acquainted with.” Andrew Reid has a particularly thoughtful and extensive response which includes the observation “However, the impression I took from your “campaigning” was that you are
not trying to change the process but simply sweeping it aside.” And finally, Colin Carmichael reminds everyone that if other candidates want to participate in the discussion the church has a resource in www.pccweb.ca that they can use and his office would be glad to help them get going with their own web sites.

An interesting discussion – and I will leave it up to you to determine its value. On the one hand, it is aimed at making the church more open, more  interactive, more appealing to the younger generation. On the other hand, it is a unilateral attempt to do this in a way that is inspired by a different Presbyterian branch and clashes with the ethos of the PCC. Is this a reasonable goal? Is this a good way to go about reaching that goal? What matters here is not just the destination but the journey – how it is done is just as important to involving members as what the final outcome is.

Still plenty more to come in this discussion I am sure. It will be interesting how both the wider church responds to this discussion as well as how the 138th General Assembly does. Stay tuned…

Passings — William H. “Bill” Hopper

1 Reply


Last week I lost a good friend when Bill Hopper transferred his membership from the Church Militant to the Church Triumphant.  Those that knew Bill know that he sure fit the description of a member of the Church Militant.

Bill had a long and distinguished career in the PC(USA) and its predecessor branches as a missionary in Iran and Pakistan and in his service to the church on every level from the congregation to the General Assembly. To the wider church he may be best known today for his co-authorship, with Clifton Kirkpatrick, of the book What Unites Presbyterians.

To me Bill was a coworker in our presbytery — we would regularly see each other at presbytery meetings and events and exchange greetings and briefly catch up.  But more than that Bill had the spiritual gift of encouragement. It seemed like every conversation we had, somewhere in it he slipped in some comment about how well I handled some report to presbytery or what a good job I did with a particular presentation. In the 15 years that I have been serving in various positions in middle governing bodies he was constantly encouraging me and supporting me in each new role.

But what I will remember Bill the most for was that he was a strong and vocal supporter of the joint governance by teaching and ruling elders. In a presbytery meeting if a ruling elder prefaced their remarks with something like “I am only a ruling elder but…”, he would soon be at the microphone encouraging them with something like “There is no such thing as ‘only an elder’ in the Presbyterian church,” and he would continue with a brief refresher on the nature of our joint governance.

Today would have been Bill’s 86th birthday. We will miss him but we rejoice that he has entered into his eternal reward.

There is another recollection of Bill by Sonnie Swenston-Forbes, and Sonnie has also posted a letter many of us got from Bill’s family.

The Airline Industry As A Model For The American Mainline Churches

Leave a reply


Last Friday on NPR‘s All Things Considered news show there was an interesting piece in their Planet Money segment on “Why Airlines Keep Going Bankrupt.” In that report the following lines got me thinking:

(Reporter) CAITLIN KENNEY: …[A]ll airlines face these challenges and only some file for bankruptcy. He says it’s usually a certain type.

(Interviewed expert) PROFESSOR SEVERIN BORENSTEIN: The legacy airlines.

So my thinking made the jump –

“All churches face challenges and only some are in steep decline: The mainline churches.”

Is there a parallel or model in here?  I am still not sure, but permit me to riff on this a bit.

The story discussed how the legacy airlines had price structures and business models that date from before 1978 when the airline industry was deregulated. After deregulation they could not change rapidly enough to compete with the new low-cost carriers that sprung up and the legacy airlines were driven into bankruptcy, sometimes twice. What did bankruptcy get them?

KENNEY: And that’s where bankruptcy comes in. When you see a
bankruptcy, think of it as an airline saying we want to renegotiate our
contracts so we can be more like newer airlines. James Sprayregen is a
partner at the law firm Kirkland and Ellis. He’s worked on the
bankruptcies of United Airlines and TWA.

JAMES
SPRAYREGEN: Those contracts, albeit amended, you know, dozens and
probably hundreds of times, they sort of grew on themselves almost like a
coral reef. And a lot of inefficiencies got built into those.

KENNEY: In bankruptcy, work rules change, vacation days go away, pensions and benefits get reduced.

SPRAYREGEN: Unfortunately, bankruptcy is all about breaking promises.

KENNEY: Breaking those promises means the legacy airlines are going to start to look a lot like the newer airlines.

So, let’s break this down a little bit…

The concept of deregulation is an interesting one to consider for denominational dynamics. When the mainline membership peaked in the 1960’s the mainline was pretty close to a de facto established church. Then society changed and the mainline church, and churches in general, lost their cultural and social status and the decline began. Norms were not the same regarding the mainline churches and more flexibility and variability were introduced into society’s church-going habits. As I pondered this change that might reflect a sort of “deregulation” in the American religious landscape two things came to mind that might be indicators and results of this change.

The first is the, shall we say, change in stability of the American Presbyterian mainline. Following the division in the 1930’s related to the Fundamentalist/Modernist debate, the branches of the Presbyterian mainline enjoyed a period of relative tranquility that was marked by unions and not by divisions. Following the 1960’s the controversies heated up again with the formation of the Presbyterian Church in America from the southern branch in 1973 and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church from the northern branch in 1981, and other rearrangements continuing to the present. (Check out the chart of the American Presbyterian branches.)

The second development I thought might be indicative of a denominational deregulation is the external influence of non-denominational churches and particularly megachurches. With the loss of influence, authority and loyalty to denominations in general, and the mainline in particular, independent or loosely affiliated churches grew. Note the similarities in timing discussed in this article by Scott Thumma (written around 1996):

 Nearly all current megachurches were founded after 1955. The explosive
growth experienced by these congregations, however, did not begin in
earnest until the decade of the eighties (Vaughan 1993:50-51). The 1990’s have not slowed this growth. Data collected in 1992 revealed over 350 such congregations (Thumma 1993b).
Vaughan estimates that the number of megachurches grows by 5 percent
each year (1993:40-41). Given this rate over two million persons will
be weekly attendees of megachurches in the United States by the start
of the new millennium. Anyone familiar with the American religious
scene cannot help but have noticed the rapid proliferation of these
massive congregations. In fact, it is precisely their size which
attracts so much attention.

OK, so in this model we have a societal change that results in a sort of deregulation of the denominational, and particularly the mainline, landscape. This deregulation resulted in both internal and interdenominational changes. And like the airlines the churches are in a position that they can not change fast enough to stay competitive. (old inefficient airplanes –> old inefficient buildings?)

In the story the thing really inhibiting the legacy airlines are the labor agreements. For the churches, what would be our “labor agreements” that have built up over time and keep us from being able to transform into the new reality?

  • Our polity? Does nFOG solve this for the PC(USA)?
  • Our structure? Will the MGB Comm be able to solve this? How about the Special Committee on the Nature of the Church for the 21st Century?
  • Our leadership? Not enough creative thinkers or not enough with a good perspective on youth?

I could go on naming elephants in the room and sacred cows and I’m sure you can think of things that I would not.  The point is that there are lots and lots of things which are being mentioned that are keeping a mainline church pointed in the same direction and there is usually someone that thinks that changing that thing will allow the church to, forgive me for using the business term, be more competitive.

Let me step back for a moment here and affirm that there are certain things that are needed for a business and likewise for a church. These can be modified and adapted but not all together dispensed with. To take the analogy to possibly an absurd level of detail, just as an airline needs planes a denomination needs congregations, and as a plane needs a pilot a church needs a pastor. The question is not do we need a plane, but what plane works best in a particular situation? A pilot needs to be trained, but how much and what kind of training for that plane and that situation? Similarly, the “business model” for a denomination does not require every congregation look the same and every pastor have identical training.

If you would permit me a short detour on this theme: Taking a cue from the airline industry, maybe churches need “type certification.” In the airline industry the basic educational requirement for pilots is very similar.  If all you want to do is train to be a air transport pilot you can do it in about 6 months for $60,000. But whenever you switch aircraft types you need to be trained and certified on that specific aircraft. Just because you fly a 737 does not mean you can sit down in a 747 and properly fly it. So, could the church have a basic fast-track training program for pastoral leadership and then a more customized extension for the specific situation the individual is going into? For the PC(USA) there is already an interim pastor training program that does something like this. (Although it is an extension, not a replacement, of the standard course of study.)  And yes, this is a very general proposal and actually off-topic for this post, but maybe something for continued contemplation.

Returning to the original riff – Let’s move on to the most loaded and divisive question in this model: What would the equivalent action be for a mainline church to reorganize like a company would reorganize in bankruptcy?

Let me put it a different way: What does the mainline church need to get out of to continue on as a viable entity? Or to use the language quoted above – What promises does the mainline church need to break to become the church for the 21st century?

Note carefully the model — this is not working around the edges or tweaking a few programs. This is noting one or two really big things that you then throw out and begin over again. This is the opportunity to deal with that one thing that is holding you back and replace it with something you can work with.  Yes it is radical, but in this model, that is what the legacy airlines have to do to remain viable.

So what is it? Maybe the polity? The structure? The ecclesialogy? The theology?  I don’t know and I’m not going to suggest anything specific here. The question for thought and discussion, if you accept this model, is what items are peripheral to our core business of being Presbyterian and Reformed, of “Glorifying God and Enjoying God Forever,” of preaching the Word, administering the Sacraments and upholding Discipline, that we can dispense with at whatever cost? If we said “no more Mr. Nice Guy,” what would you do to change the church?

Now, maybe I am completely off base with this – I am more than ready to accept that conclusion. I am simply extending the historical development of one industry to a completely different realm. I can easily be convinced that the model I have put forward here is way too superficial and general and that comparing the airline industry to the Christian Church is not fair to either. I am cautious that what I have done is forced the analogy, making something fit where no correspondence is deserved.

So there I end the thought experiment, at least for the moment in this form. I will say that enough of the analogies work in my own mind that I don’t plan on stopping to think about it – but I won’t promise any written follow up. However, in this time of rethinking everything about the mainline churches I thought it might be an interesting model to put out there.  Thanks for thinking it through with me.  Your mileage may vary.

Now, where did I put that court decision…

[After thinking about this over the past weekend I was interested to see that on Monday Pastor Questor reposted a similar sort of model, but comparing the mainline to the American auto industry.]

Musings On The FOP NRB Polity Document – 1. Can I Declare An Exception?

Leave a reply
Prologue
Regular readers have probably noted that my blogging productivity has decreased a bit the last few months. This is due to an increased number of personal, professional and Presbyterian commitments. While I always anticipate that I can find more time for blogging in the future, sometimes that does not come to pass.

I tell you that as an introduction to this particular post and probably a few to follow. (I won’t promise anything.) I have decided to classify these as “musings” – posts which are shorter, more spontaneous and less polished than what I consider my regular writing to be. I also consider musing about this particular topic appropriate since the Fellowship of Presbyterians’ New Reformed Body documents are also a work in progress and at a stage where a more informal discussion is probably most appropriate.

Well last weekend I “escaped” and backpacked to a campsite up in a canyon in the mountains above L.A. (picture right) It was a wonderful chance to get away and the weather was really great. (And then that campsite probably got a foot of snow in the storm that rolled through yesterday.) But being so close to the longest night of the year I brought plenty of reading material and had a chance to do a first read of the NRB Theology and Polity documents. (Anyone read them in a more unique location?) A couple of first impressions and thoughts from that reading…

 

The Fellowship of Presbyterians recently released their two organizational documents for discussion in advance of their Covenanting Conference in mid-January. To set the stage for anyone who has not reviewed the documents yet let me begin with a summary of the two pieces.

The Theology document is a three-part statement that begins by affirming that the confessional basis for the NRB will be the current Book of Confessions of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The second section then sets out what the NRB considers to be the Essential Tenets of the Reformed Faith. The third part is titled “Ideas & Questions for Immediate Consideration” and sets out a vision for the NRB as a group that actively does theology and has a “renewed commitment to sustained conversation.”

The Polity document is a Form of Government for the NRB modeled on the PC(USA)’s new Form of Government section.  There are no Foundations, Worship or Discipline sections yet.

One point that struck me as I read through the Polity was the reliance on the Essential Tenets section of the Theology.  I found nine references to it (numbers following are the FOG section number, italics as used in the original, text from the version posted now (expecting the obvious typo to be fixed soon)):

  1. (Regarding new congregations) …desire to be bound to Christ and one another as a part of the body of Christ according to the Essential Tenants [sic] and government of the NRB. [1.0200]
  2. (Regarding expectations of members) Those who are invited to take significant leadership roles in the congregation should ordinarily be members for at least a year, agree with the Essential Tenants [sic] of the NRB, be trained and/or mentored, and be supervised. [1.0305]
  3. (Regarding qualifications of officers) Ordaining bodies must ensure that all officers adhere to the Essential Tenets of the NRB. [2.0101]
  4. (Third ordination vow) Do you receive and adopt without hesitation the Essential Tenets of the NRB as a reliable exposition of what Scripture teaches us to do and to believe, and will you be guided by them in your life and ministry? [2.0103c]
  5. (Regarding the preparation of pastors) In addition to adherence to the Essential Tenets, presbyteries shall ensure that candidates for ministry are adequately trained for their task. [2.0400]
  6. (Regarding Affiliate Pastors) Affiliate pastors must adhere to the Essential Tenets of the NRB. [2.0401f]
  7. (Regarding the duties of the synod – note that in this FOG a General Synod is the highest governing body.) c. maintain the Constitution and Essential Tenets of the NRB. [3.0202c]
  8. (Regarding Union Congregations) Congregations, historically members of the PC(USA) or other Reformed denominations, who wish to maintain that membership while joining with the NRB and who recognize and teach the Essential Tenets may request to join a presbytery of the NRB… [5.0202]
  9. (Regarding other denominations) Out of our common Protestant heritage, partnership and joint congregational witness will be encouraged where mission, ministry, and collegiality can be coordinated and approved by the appropriate governing bodies, and where the Constitution and Essential Tenets of the NRB can be followed. [5.0300]

Clearly the Essential Tenets are put forward as the distillation of what is unique and special about the NRB. This is plainly presented as the litmus test of what it means to belong to this branch. For comparison there are only four uses of the term “scripture” or “scriptures,” three of them in the ordination vows, and two uses of “confessions,” one in the ordination vows.

In reading through this I did wonder about the variation in the language regarding the relationship to the Essential Tenets. The word most commonly used is “adhere,” so the intent is to stick to them. But the ordination vow preserves the current language of “receive and adopt” adding the “without hesitation” regarding the Essential Tenets. Are these the same or different? If my promise is to “receive and adopt” is asking me elsewhere to “adhere” to them asking more, less, or something different of me? Remember, I’m just musing about it here and don’t really have an answer at the moment.

I guess what really sticks out to me is that the language seems to be asking me to agree to 100% of what is in the Essential Tenets, even when I think it might conflict with my understanding of Scripture or the Book of Confessions. This is not an academic exercise.

A simple example:  For the sake of this example let’s say that I agree with everything the Essential Tenets say except that as I read them there is one little point that bothers me based on my theological framework. At the end of the document the Ten Commandments are used to summarize some of the points. This is a time-honored way of discussing theology and is used in many catechisms, along with the Lord’s Prayer, as a template for teaching the faith.  But the Essential Tenets summarize the fourth commandment like this:

4. observe Sunday as a day of worship and rest, being faithful in gathering with the people of God;

I honestly have a theological issue with simply taking this commandment and substituting “Sunday” or “Lord’s Day” for the term “Sabbath.” To explain briefly, I see the Sabbath as an Old Testament template or analogy for the celebration of the Lord’s Day in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. The theological connection is much more nuanced than can be expressed in a simple one-to-one substitution. The Westminster Confession of Faith [section 6.112ff in the Book of Confessions] takes a lot of words to expound on this analogy. Maybe the best brief discussion of the nuances is from the Heidelberg Catechism:

Q. 103. What does God require in the fourth commandment?
A. First, that the ministry of the gospel and Christian education be maintained, and that I diligently attend church, especially on the Lord’s day, to hear the Word of God, to participate in the holy Sacraments, to call publicly upon the Lord, and to give Christian service to those in need. Second, that I cease from my evil works all the days of my life, allow the Lord to work in me through his Spirit, and thus begin in this life the eternal Sabbath.

All this to say that on this point I have a small, but what I consider substantive, disagreement with the Essential Tenets. So what happens now? The Essential Tenets do not address how minor differences in theological understanding are to be treated. Taken on face value I guess I can not adhere to the standard as the Polity requires. (And please understand, I am not putting up a hypothetical disagreement here but one that I honestly and sincerely hold.)

Now, the polity wonks have surely figured out where I am going with this (even if they weren’t tipped off by the title). The American Presbyterian church has been struggling with how to handle these differences, big and little, throughout its entire history. We affirm in the Westminster Confession that “God alone is Lord of the conscience” and we understand that to a certain degree we can differ in belief but must be consistant in practice. That is what the Adopting Act of 1729 was basically about.

So how is the NRB going to approach this? At the present time I did not find a solution in the proposed Polity document.  One approach would be a highly structured method like the Presbyterian Church in America has where ordained officers are required to subscribe to the Westminster Standards and they must declare and explain exceptions like I have done above. As the Book of Church Order says [21-4f]

Therefore, in examining a candidate for ordination, the Presbytery shall inquire not only into the candidate’s knowledge and views in the areas specified above, but also shall require the candidate to state the specific instances in which he may differ with the Confession of Faith and Catechisms in any of their statements and/or propositions. The court may grant an exception to any difference of doctrine only if in the court’s judgment the candidate’s declared difference is not out of accord with any fundamental of our system of doctrine because the difference is neither hostile to the system nor strikes at the vitals of religion.

But this adds an additional layer of administration to a Form of Government which is intended to be simple and clean.  It also opens up the “slippery slope” or “camel’s nose under the tent” problem where a series of very small steps away from the Essential Tenets results in a cumulative substantial difference and heterogeneity in what is intended to be a fairly homogenous belief structure. As I pondered this it seemed to me that incorporating a way to relax a point in the Essential Tenets could be problematical for the NRB.

You can justly accuse me here of focusing too narrowly on minor details — Guilty as charged.  My particular point detailed above is pretty minor in the grand scheme of Christian doctrine. But let me ask these two questions: 1) If I have a tiny little difference of understanding can I still in good conscience adhere to the standard if no provision is made for variability? 2) If differences around tiny details are acceptable, where is the line between the tiny stuff and the big stuff?

Enough musing on this for now. As I continue musing to myself on other points in the Polity and Theology documents maybe a few more will find their way into this virtual space. So until next time I leave you with the sunset over The City of Angles that I watched last Saturday night.

An Interesting Development In The Presbyterian Church In Canada – Active Campaigning For Moderator

3 Replies

In my reading today I came across an interesting development — one of this year’s nominees for Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada has begun an active campaign for the office.

While this is now standard procedure in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), in no other branch (to my knowledge) does active campaigning take place. In most branches out-and-out campaigning by a nominee is considered inappropriate to the office. Many times subtle campaigning does take place, but it is in the form of word being spread through networks of supporters asking voting delegates to
support this candidate or that one.

Let us take a step back for a moment and consider the position and role of the Moderator. First, a person does not “run” for Moderator but “stands” for it. Someone does not so much seek the office as the office seeks them through the discernment of the community. The position is often considered an honor bestowed on an individual for service to the denomination but comes with the expectation that the person has the experience and character to preside over the meeting(s) of the governing body in a neutral way. The Moderator must control the flow and efficiency of the meeting while being fair to all making sure both sides get heard.  From experience I can tell you it is no small task and after a particular contentious meeting your head can be spinning. (And a good Moderator has a great Clerk covering their back.) In addition to presiding over the meeting the Moderator also acts as the visible face of the governing body for the term of office.  The office carries no power beyond that necessary to run the meeting and the powers accorded to the position for the work of the term of office. However, in the way that a person holds the office, the things they say and priorities they keep, they can have a significant impact on the life of a denomination.

I have written much more extensively on the role and selection Moderators but let me just finish by saying that there are three usual methods for a Presbyterian General Assembly or Synod to select their Moderator.  They can be elected from the commissioners to the Assembly at the beginning of the meeting (PC(USA), PCA). They can be selected by the presbyteries in the time leading up to the Assembly (PC Canada, PC Ireland). Or they can be selected by a nominating committee in advance of the meeting (Church of Scotland, Free Church of Scotland). As I mentioned above, the PC(USA) does have active campaigning for the position in the 6-9 months before the Assembly, and most of the nominees for the upcoming assembly have web sites (1,2,3) and Facebook pages (1,2,3).

In fact the PC(USA) has fairly strict rules for the election of the Moderator and campaigning in advance of the meeting.  These can be found in section H of the Standing Rules of the Assembly. They have a small limited budget, not counting travel.  They can not distribute campaign materials to commissioners except in the designated campaigning space and time and in the commissioners’ mailboxes. The nominees and their supporters can not actively contact commissioners before the meeting. As the Standing Rules say:

(b) In order to encourage reliance on the leading of the Holy Spirit in the selection of the Moderator, no candidate shall send a mailing of any campaign materials, print or electronic, to commissioners and/or advisory delegates or permit such a mailing to be sent, nor shall candidates or their advocates contact commissioners and/or advisory delegates by telephone.

I review all this as an introduction to the news that it appears PC(USA) style campaigning for the position has come to the Presbyterian Church in Canada.

The election of the Moderator as described in the Book of Forms is rather general:

282. At the time appointed for meeting, a diet of public worship is held when a sermon is preached by the moderator of the last Assembly, or, in his/her absence, by a former moderator. Immediately thereafter the Assembly is constituted with prayer, and a provisional roll, consisting of the names of commissioners appointed at least twenty-one days before, is submitted in printed form by the clerk. The General Assembly elects its moderator on nominations made immediately after the Assembly has been constituted, who then takes the chair.

The actual election procedure with the nominations and election by presbyteries in advance was set by the 95th General Assembly and then the election by the Assembly, while in theory it could be a contested race, is usually a pro forma vote.

Well, now that the nominations are out the Rev. John Borthwick has supplemented his regular Twitter account (@jborthwik) with a Moderator campaign account (@borthwick4mod) and he has created a Facebook page for his campaign.

Nothing says he can’t do this — But the usual custom is to have a more passive campaign. He has gotten one comment on the Facebook page indicating support, one saying “Sorry, but not a big fan of campaigning,” and one that says “Drag us into the 21st Century, screaming if necessary.” Mr. Borthwick does appear to be the youngest of the nominees and this could be interpreted as a clear statement of his youth and association with a younger demographic in the church.

Lots and lots of questions come to my mind with this development. Will others follow – this year or in coming years? Will the Assembly feel it necessary to prohibit, regulate or comment on this development? Will the active strategy turn out to be a positive or negative for his election? To put that another way, as the commenter on the web page says, will, or does, this change represent an approach to bringing denominations into the virtual age?

This is at least a development worth watching. Is it a development whose time has come or one that clashes too strongly with our Presbyterian ethos? It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Stay tuned…

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

Leave a reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Developments In The Church Of Scotland Related To The Ordination Trajectory

Leave a reply


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They go on to say

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

Passings — Tom Gillespie

Leave a reply

Over the weekend the Rev. Thomas Gillespie Ph.D., immediate past-President, of Princeton Theological Seminary passed away. If you want the formal notices and full biography you can read ones from Princeton and the Presbyterian News Service.  I knew President Gillespie only through the good fortune of meeting and working with him on two different, and very Presbyterian, occassions. I found him to be a most gracious and humble individual, full of life and good humor, and truly a pleasure to work with.  As you will see, both of these were formal occassions so he may have been on his best behavior. None the less, I came away from each with a very high regard for the gentleman.

In reading the Princeton news piece I did have to chuckle. Our Presbytery has a good-hearted standing joke about which is the best seminary – one of the two in our Presbytery, Fuller or Claremont, or Princeton. Well, Tom got his M.Div. from Princeton, his Ph.D. from Claremont, and then returned to Princeton as president.  He covered the bases.

The first time I met and worked with Rev. Gillespie was when I was a commissioner to the 209th General Assembly (1997) and on the Theological Institutions Committee. One afternoon our committee broke up into a number of groups to meet with the presidents and students from the PC(USA) seminaries.  It was a good discussion, lively and open, and a great chance to hear this informal reporting from our schools.  I have to admit that I don’t remember who the other seminary president in our group was but I do clearly remember Rev. Gillespie and his participation.

The presidents met with us for much of the committee time, particularly since we were dealing with the tricky question of denominational doctrine in tension with academic freedom. In no small part it was Tom Gillespie who helped us navigate that issue and use the presbytery overture as a starting point for compromise action by the Assembly.

The second time I worked with Rev. Gillespie was almost a decade later when I was the Moderator of Presbytery and he was the preacher for an installation. In my time as Moderator he was probably the best known pastor that I shared the pulpit with at an ordination or installation. As we were preparing for the worship service he and I had a brief but wonderful conversation about the presbytery, our mission programs and what else what happening.  He was not an “ivy tower” academic but showed a genuine concern for what was happening in the churches around the country. But the most enduring thing to me was his positive affirmation of my leadership position in the presbytery and his comments about the nature of shared leadership between teaching and ruling elders. It was clear from working with him that day that ruling elders are just as important in the Presbyterian system as the teaching elders and his affirmation of my work in the church is something I have carried with me since.

I give thanks for his life and the brief times that we have worked together in the life of the church.  My deepest sympathies to his family and prayers in this time of loss. If others have had the same experience as I have the PC(USA) is a better denomination because of how he has encouraged and contributed to it. Godspeed.

There Is A Higher Throne — Reflections On All Saints Day 2011

Leave a reply
There is a higher throne
Than all this world has known
Where faithful ones from every tongue
Will one day come

Today is All Saints Day 2011. Regular readers know that while I do not observe it in a “saints day” fashion, for a while now it has been my tradition to use the day to reflect on those I have known who joined the Church Triumphant in the last year and the impact they had on my own life.

For the last year I remember-

Leo – A talented and faithful teaching elder with many skills that were always used in a pastoral manner

Barbara – Who in spite of a stroke and the physical challenges it brought was so very faithful in attending worship and so positive in her outlook on life.  Yet, she was not afraid of asking for prayer when she needed it.

John – A long time friend who accomplished much in his life and did not believe there was anything he could not do, in spite of what our society would identify as a disability.

Elizabeth – Another faithful servant whose smile was infectious and who always had a cheerful and encouraging word to say, usually about my parenting.

I also remember Steven, a good friend that I lost this year who everyone described as a “good man.” I am struggling to trust him to the sovereign wisdom of our faithful, just and merciful God and keep telling myself that “In life and death we belong to God.”

And as I remember those who have gone to be with the Lord, I also take the time to rejoice that God has permitted two good friends to remain with us a bit longer. At one point this year each seemed to be close to joining the great cloud of faithful witnesses but God’s healing touch has preserved them in the Church Militant. (A very apt description for both of them.)

Finally, as I put together my list I was struck that although my list was short this year I know of many friends for whom their list includes at least one parent and the year has been a hard one.  In your mercy Lord, hear our prayer for them.

For we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses and on this day I give thanks for those that have touched my life.  To God Alone Be The Glory.

And there we’ll find our home
Our life before the throne
We’ll honour Him in perfect song
Where we belong

[Lyrics – excerpts from There is a Higher Throne by Keith Getty and Kristyn Lennox Getty. For a video rendition check this one out.]

A Kairos Moment? A Reflection For Reformation Day 2011

Leave a reply
31 October 1517

In a sense that date was a kairos moment for the Christian
Religion and maybe for the western world. A point in time that we can
point to when “everything changed.” A moment when a young monk nailed to a door a
document listing 95 theses
he wanted to debate – 95 ideas that challenged the practices, if not
the beliefs, of the religious hierarchy of his day and region. Ninety-five statements that would get him kicked out of the established church and establish not only a new religious order but precipitate changes in the old order.

For a bit more than a year now I have been tweeting “Today in Presbyterian History” on an almost daily basis. (Maybe a better term for it is “Today in Presbyterian History (with some other Reformed history now and then).”) As I have looked at Presbyterian and Reformed History I sometimes ponder why we don’t mark more of these other dates.

One of the earliest reformers was John Wycliffe, sometimes known as “The
Morning Star of the Reformation.” Unfortunatly, we don’t seem to have
an exact date in 1382 when the first English translation of the Bible
appeared from the efforts of Wycliffe and his associates, and it was
repeatedly revised over the next decade, even after his death on 31
December 1384. But Wycliffe’s teachings got him in trouble even after
death and he was officially declared a heretic on 4 May 1415 and his
body exhumed and burned several years later.

Maybe we should regularly remember something associated with Jan Hus, the Czech reformer, like 20 December 1409 when he
was excommunicated or 6 July 1415 when he refused to recant and was
burned at the stake.

Or what about the first Lutheran martyrs, Heinrich Voes and Johannes
Esch, who were burned at the stake in Brussels on 1 July 1523. Their
deaths inspired Martin Luther to write his first hymn, “Ein neues Lied wir heben an.”

Dates associated with John Calvin are not as initially dramatic as for
Luther, but a couple of them are 1 September 1536 when he began his Geneva
ministry, or March of 1536 when his first edition of the Institutes of
the Christian Religion was published. Or maybe 16 January 1537 when the
City of Geneva adopted Calvin and Farel’s Articles regarding the church
and worship in the city.

For Presbyterians there are a number of dates associated with the
Scottish Reformation to regard with attention, such as 17 August 1560
when the Scottish Parliament ratified the Scottish Confession of Faith,
although the Presbyterian Form of Church Government was not assured
until 1 May 1707 with the Act of Union. And there is 20 December 1560
when the first Presbyterian General Assembly met. But we should remember
that Reformation history precedes this, going be earlier in the century, including 29 February 1528
when Patrick Hamilton became the first Scottish Protestant Martyr when he was
burned at the stake for his following of Luther’s teaching.

And for a final example, there are the French Huguenots. They suffered
through the highs and lows of various permissive edicts (such as
Orleans in January 1561 and Nantes on 15 April 1598) and massacres
(Wassy on 1 March 1562 and St. Bartholomew’s Day beginning on 23 August
1572).

Having said all that, let me begin my conclusion by saying that the Commemoration of the Reformation on 31 October is probably a good choice — the actions of Martin Luther with a hammer and a debating document at the castle church door represents a single dramatic moment that captures our imagination and precipitated a chain of events that led to the first mostly successful reformation of the established church.  (We will leave the debate as to whether this actually happened to others. And Luther also sent a copy to his bishop that day.)

But my point today, is that while we remember that particular landmark – that kairos moment – we must also remember that it was neither the first nor final word on the subject. Much groundwork was laid before Dr. Luther’s actions and much struggle followed.

And so it still is now — while we may mark, remember or even celebrate some particular event as a milepost, it is almost always the case that much effort and history preceded it and much work is left to be done.

As Jodocus van Lodenstein from the Second Dutch Reformation wrote in 1674 (and I think it has been expanded a bit)

Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei

[All images from Wikimedia Commons except the 95 Theses from the University of Calgary and the woodcut of Voes and Esch from Augnet]