New Presbygeek Toy…

I have way too many solid Presbyterian news items to get caught up on, but being the Presbygeek that I am, this was just too good to pass up…

Yesterday Google labs released the Google Books Ngram Viewer.  (OK, those of you who are not geeky, curious, or academically oriented may want to stop reading now.)

What Google has done is to provide an interface where you can count the number of times a word or phrase occurs in some subset of their digitized Google books.  For example, the use of the word “Presbyterian” in all English language books indexed with time:

As Google describes it:

Since 2004, Google has digitized more than 15 million books worldwide.
The datasets we’re making available today to further humanities research
are based on a subset of that corpus, weighing in at 500 billion words
from 5.2 million books in Chinese, English, French, German, Russian, and
Spanish. The datasets contain phrases of up to five words with counts
of how often they occurred in each year.

and

The Ngram Viewer lets you graph and compare phrases from these datasets
over time, showing how their usage has waxed and waned over the years.
One of the advantages of having data online is that it lowers the
barrier to serendipity: you can stumble across something in these 500
billion words and be the first person ever to make that discovery.

So here are a few of my favorites from the first day of play…

You can plot multiple searches on a single graph, and the search is case sensitive, so here is Presbyterian and presbyterian for all English language sources in the database:

Unfortunately, I have not found a way yet to plot parallel usage in different languages in their interface.

One graph I really like is the usage of the phrase “Westminster Confession” in American English.  Note the spikes corresponding to the Adopting Act in 1729, an increase beginning around the time of the Plan of Union in 1801 spiking between 1810-1819, and the second spike right at the time of the Old School/New School split in 1837.  There is the longer time period in the late 1800’s following the reunion from that split and the revision of the Confession and then the discussion drops off.

But is this unique?  We can compare it with references to other, more ecumenical creeds, in American English.

It is interesting how closely the spikes in the Westminster are also seen in the Nicene Creed and how the Nicene and Athanasian in general form, ignoring the spikes, track the Westminster fairly closely.  And what about that poor Apostles’ Creed.  (or did I search on the wrong thing?)

One last one: What about different denominations.  Here is the chart for references to major Protestant denominations in American English:

Have to admit that I’m not entirely sure what to say about it other than the fact that I’m intrigued by the very close curves for the three denominations from about 1800 to 1915 or so.  I’ll leave present interpretation as an exercise for the reader, but will say that Google makes the datasets available so I’ll see about using the average of the three as a baseline and then looking at each in terms of deviations from the baseline.  Fun, fun, fun!  (I sometimes joke I’ve never met a dataset I didn’t like, but that’s not entirely true.   )

So, for those of you who also drill into this data set, let me know what interesting features or correlations you find out about Presbyterian polity and history.

Have fun!

More Updates Regarding Blantyre Synod, CCAP

Well, things are not happening as quickly as they were a few weeks back, but since my last update there have been a couple of important developments in this story.

For those who need to have the details on the background, there is my original post on the story as well as one follow-up.  The short version is that the Moderator of Blantyre Synod of the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian spoke out against a pastoral letter by the Roman Catholic bishops and it soon became clear that while he claimed to speak for the Synod the members of the Synod let it be known that they did not agree.  In the aftermath the Synod removed Rev. Mangisa from his position as Moderator and Rev. Chimenya, the deputy general secretary who appeared with the moderator at the press conference, was removed as well.  The Synod also decided that there were problems with the management style of the general secretary, the Rev. Kadawati, and while not removed from office he was informed that he could not request another term.

The first thing that has happened since my last discussion was that the dispute has moved from the ecclesiastical realm to the civil courts with The Nation reporting that Revs. Mangisa and Chimenya have gotten a High Court injunction against the Synod halting their removal from office.  Not much on details supporting the request for an injunction and not much has been mentioned about it in the last two weeks.  The Nyasa Times reports that a group has met to plan a response to the injunction and civil action.  We will have to see where this goes.

It is interesting tracking the arguments at this point.  The original problem was that Rev. Mangisa spoke out unilaterally claiming to represent the Synod.  What he spoke out against was how the Roman Catholic bishops had very publicly inserted themselves in a political debate.  This was actually the 20th time the bishops had done something like this and I’m pretty sure my readers are aware that denominations all over the world do this all the time.  In fact, the Human Rights Consultative Committee of Malawi has issued a report supporting the bishops’ letter.  But this has started at least some discussion in Malawi about the place of religion in the political sphere.  Now with the injunction, the secular has become involved in the ecclesiastical.

The second development is related to the administrative issue, but with an interesting twist.  Coming up next week is a special service and ceremony to unveil and dedicate a mausoleum honoring a former first lady of Malawi, Ethel Mutharika.  The Rev. McDonald Kadawati, the embattled general secretary of the Synod, was to have been the lead minister and master of ceremonies.  Now the Office of the President and Cabinet (OPC) has asked him to step aside and replaced him with… wait for it… Rev. Mangisa.  The article about this in The Nation has a bit of analysis, but I won’t even attempt any kremlinology or reading the tea leaves on this one.  Probably best to accept the easy explanation that the Mutharika family was no longer comfortable with the Rev. Kadawati.

So the story continues in the Blantyre CCAP Synod.  We will see how it progresses and what additional items of polity is touches on for us to discuss.  Stay tuned…

New Leader Of NCCI From The Mizoram Presbyterian Church Synod

The new General Secretary of the National Council of Churches of India is the Rev. Dr. Roger Gaikwad, a member of the Mizoram Presbyterian Church Synod of northeastern India.  Rev. Gaikwad was installed in his new position on December 9.

Mr. Gaikwad has been serving in ordained ministry for 33 years, most recently as the Principal of the Aizawl Theological College. He is a noted preacher, teacher and writer and a frequent speaker at church events.  His service extends beyond the school and denomination to participation in ecumenical and international committees.  As principal of the college he also had the responsibility of editing and publishing the Mizoram Journal of Theology.  His wife, Pi Zomuani Gaikwad, is also active in church work and is the first woman in Mizoram to hold a B.D. degree.  Her work has included chairing the Synod Women’s Fellowship and as president of the Women’s Assembly of the North-East India Christian Council.

Mr. Gaikwad’s term of office will include the centennial anniversary of the NCCI in 2014 and he will have much of the responsibility for planning that event.

The best coverage of the event seems to be from the NCCI press release and a story from Mizoram Synod.  There are several media reports, most echoing the official press release, like the one from the South Asia Mail .

Congratulations to the Rev. Dr. Gaikwad and best wishes and prayers for his work.

Update On Issues In Blantyre Synod, CCAP

Speaking of Moderators…

In the Blantyre Synod of the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian there has been a developing situation where the Moderator of the Synod, with the deputy general secretary, held a press conference where they spoke out against a pastoral letter by the local Catholic bishops.  They claimed to be speaking for the church but an emergency special Synod meeting resulted in 1) a statement agreeing with the bishop’s letter, 2) an apology to the bishops, and 3) a committee to conduct an investigation.  Check out my previous post on the subject for a more detailed version.

The investigating committee has now reported and the giant headline on the front of the print edition of the newspaper The Nation says “SHAKE-UP AT BT CCAP SYNOD.”  The headline for the on-line story is slightly more descriptive with “Heads Roll At BT CCAP Synod.”  The lede has the details:

Heads have rolled at the Blantyre CCAP Synod where moderator Reverend
Reynold Mangisa and deputy general secretary Reverend Austin Chimenya
have been forced to step down.

Yesterday’s Synod meeting, where the committee reported, was closed so only commissioners were present. There is no report yet of a statement from the Synod office. The newspaper had a source at the meeting who added a few details.  The General Secretary, Rev. MacDonald Kadawati was also under investigation and was asked not to run for a new term when his current term concludes in August 2011.  This was apparently not related to this matter but a generally poor working relationship with his colleagues.  The source made no mention of any action regarding the fourth officer, deputy moderator Rev. Mercy Chilapula, who has never been included in any of the reporting of this issue.

The paper contacted Rev. Mangisa last night and he confirmed that he had stepped down and stated he did not regret making the initial statement.  (I would note that this appears to differs from his stance following the first emergency meeting where he signed the apology statement.)  The article also quotes him to say that the decision of the investigating committee was a foregone conclusion because “The composition of the committee and the method used were not right.
It’s like an opinion had already been formed.”  He did say that he appreciated that the committee cleared up some misconceptions.

Getting to the polity matter of who speaks for the Synod, the article says “The insider said the probe faulted the two for speaking without
authority and for claiming they never called for the press conference in
question.”

I will leave it at that for now.  We will see what other details come out about the meeting and if an official statement is released by the Synod.

New Moderators And Moderator Candidates

Over the last couple of days there has been an interesting collection of announcements about Moderators and Moderator Candidates. A very quick run-down:

Yesterday the Presbyterian Church of Ghana held the installation service for the Right Reverend Professor Emmanuel Martey, who becomes the 16th Moderator of the General Assembly.  The Rev. Martey was elected by the 2010 Assembly back in August and now begins a six year term of office.  It is reported that he expressed his optimism while acknowledging the task ahead.  The previous Moderator, the Very Reverend Dr. Frimpong-Manso, assured the new Moderator of his support.

Yesterday was also the day that the Principal Clerk of the Presbyterian Church in Canada announced the names of the nominees for Moderator of the next General Assembly. The nominees are:

Notable that all are ministers, no elders, and the westerner is from Hamilton (just slightly west of Barrie), so they reflect the church’s eastern concentration.  The vote of the presbyteries will be counted and announced on April 1, 2011.

Finally, not a GA Moderator, but the new Moderator of the National Youth Assembly of the Church of Scotland.  The Kirk has announced that Amanda Philip will lead NYA 2011 as well as serving as a youth delegate to the General Assembly in May.  The press release informs us that Amanda has attended every NYA since 2005 and has been a youth delegate to GA three times.  She also works in social care for the church at Morlich House. Other coverage of her appointment from the Edinburgh Guide.  Waiting for more info or response on the Church of Scotland Youth (COSY) Blog .

Best wishes and prayers for all of you.

One Day Of Giving Thanks?

I don’t do Thanksgiving well.

Don’t get me wrong.  On this day the American society sets aside to give thanks I can “do up” the day.  I spent much of it joyfully cooking up the feast for my family.  It is a day I can relax and do something I enjoy that I don’t normally have time to do.  (And Saturday I will defend my Dutch Oven cobbler championship, but that’s another story.)

But in the grand scheme of things I think I have problems with the complexity of the day.  I know it’s not supposed to be complex, its supposed to be simple – a day set aside to give thanks to God for His grace, mercy, provision and blessings. But every year it seems that some new layer of complexity is added to the day – usually in the form of something that has to do with the next season starting earlier and earlier.

So, among the complexities that I personally struggle with are:

  • Thanksgiving has become one of the high-holy days of American culture. (The good part here is that while commercialization for the next holiday season encroaches on, or even infringes on, the day, Thanksgiving has still mostly escaped commercial influences.)
  • By virtue of being part of our cultural narrative the holiday has been shaped by the culture.  With schools avoiding religion who do students think the Pilgrims were thankful to?  Only the indigenous people – the context of divine provision has been eliminated.
  • While one particular narrative is the one American culture celebrates today, my time living in New Mexico raised my awareness of other narratives, including earlier events.
  • Modern American culture has standardized on the one narrative, but earlier in American history a day of thanksgiving could be declared by civil governments at various times in response to some important event, including military victories.  (And likewise, days of prayer and fasting were declared in times of need.) While there was the tradition of Thanksgiving in the fall as a harvest festival, there was still a sense of cause and effect, or call and response rather than a date that could be placed on the calendar a decade in advance. (That is of course still acknowledging the Biblical parallel Feast of Sukkot which was part harvest festival which was also tied to a specific day on the calendar, Tishri 15.)
  • And finally, I probably dread and fear the sharp transition from a day of giving thanks to the mass celebration of materialism that the day following Thanksgiving has become.

So, since I don’t do Thanksgiving well I want to give you stories from two people who do.  These are both about thanksgiving when that seems like the last thing a person would be inclined to do.

The first is from pastor Mark D. Roberts who has a couple of very good Thanksgiving reflections on his blog.  But I want to highlight the story of pastor Martin Rinkart.  Rinkart ministered in Germany during the very difficult and devastating period of the Thirty Years War, but also wrote the hymn “Now Thank We All Our God,” a hymn that is now almost exclusively associated with Thanksgiving in our worship.

The second one if from elder Jody Harrington and her wonderful blog Quotidian Grace .  (And I take the time to plug hers since she has the job at Presbyterians Today of plugging everyone else’s blogs and should get some recognition as a blogger in her own right.)  As a nice antidote to Black Friday she has a post today about Bless Friday, but I wanted to highlight her previous post about “Thankfulness with a Heavy Heart.”

So I hope all my American readers had a good day of giving thanks and to all of you, wherever you may be, may we remember daily to whom we owe the greatest thanks.

Be filled with the Spirit, as you sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs among yourselves, singing and making melody to the Lord in your hearts, giving thanks to God the Father at all times and for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[Eph 5:18b-20]

The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.’
[Job 1:21]

Mixing Politics and Religion In The CCAP – Or – Who Speaks For The Church

In Presbyterian polity it is usually the understanding that when a leader (moderator or clerk) of a governing body makes a statement they speak for themselves unless that governing body has taken an on the record position and then the leader can officially convey the position of the body.

At the present time in the Blantyre Synod of the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian there is a complicated situation that not only raises the question of a leader speaking for a body when the body is not on the record, but also possibility taking action in consultation with the civil government.  Hold onto your hats as I unwind this, and hopefully I have a good enough handle on this to get it right and do it justice.

Just as background, the last time I looked at church and state in the CCAP it was with one of the other three Malawi synods, the Livingstonia Synod in the northern part of the country. This new controversy is with the synod in the southern part of the country.

This current controversy began at the very end of October when all eight of the Roman Catholic bishops and bishop elect from the Karonga diocese signed an open pastoral letter directed to Malawi’s President Bingu wa Mutharika and his government.  There are eight specific issues dealing with the workings of the government and the President’s party and they caution the President that he is heading towards becoming a dictator.  The article also notes that another pastoral letter from the bishops played an important role in moving the country from one-party rule to a multi-party system in 1992.

From a polity stand point it is helpful to note that this letter is coming from a unanimous group of bishops in an episcopal system to a political leader who an adherent with their church.  It is also worthwhile to know that this is the twentieth such pastoral letter the bishops have issued over a period of several years.

A bit over a week later, on November 11, the Moderator of the Blantyre Synod, the Rev. Reynold Mangisa, and the deputy general secretary of the Synod, the Rev. Austin Chimenya held a press conference where they criticized the bishops’ actions because “it did not follow protocol.”

Now, while I refer to the two leaders at the press conference, based on the reporting on the conference by The Nation, it would appear that Mr. Mangisa did most, if not all, the talking.  In one quote he does begin by saying “As officials of Blantyre Synod, we believe…”  But this article is very good from the perspective that it attributes the position to these officials only and, as I will discuss in a moment, it has a number of contrary quotes from other Presbyterian leaders, both in the Synod and around the country.  On the other hand, an article in Malawi Voice not only begins with the headline that says in part “CCAP attacks Catholic Bishops” but continues the point in the lede to the article where they say:

The Blantyre Synod of the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian (CCAP)
has attacked the Episcopal Conference of Malawi (ECM) of the Catholic
Church over its last month’s pastoral letter to President Bingu wa
Mutharika.

In this article the remarks are clearly reported as coming from the church, and not just the synod but the whole church, if you only read the headline.  And if you want another variation, an article from ENInews says in the headline that the criticism came from the leader, but the lede says it comes from the Synod.

As I said, the article in The Nation is good because, with out explicitly saying so, they make it very clear the opinions expressed come from those leaders, even if the leaders though they were representing the church.  Among the contrary voices in that article is that of the General Secretary of the Synod, the Rev. McDonald Kadawati, who is also the acting chair of the ecumenical Public Affairs Committee (PAC).  In fact, the PAC came out in support of the bishops’ letter.  When asked for comment he indicates that he is not aware of the new synod statement and is quoted as saying “I don’t think what you are
saying is true about my officers. They can’t say that.”

Well, “They can’t say that” pretty much sums up where it went from there.  The next step was a emergency special meeting of Synod.  In the Malawi Voice article about calling the meeting General Secretary Katawadi chooses his words carefully.  The article indicates he said that he was not around when Mr. Mangisa made his comments so he does not know if the rest of the Synod was behind them as well.  He is quoted as saying “It is not tension per say, [sic] but we are meeting this evening to hear from
our moderator first before we come out with a stand as Synod.”

The meeting was held on Monday and Tuesday of last week, November 15 and 16.  The first thing to come out of the meeting was an official apology to the Roman Catholic Bishops for the Moderator’s comments.  According to The Nation, the official statement from the meeting reads in part:

We withdraw the statement made on our behalf by the synod moderator, the
Reverend Reynold Mangisa. We apologise for the divisions and hatred
that may have been caused to both our Catholic brothers and sisters as
well as within our synod, other CCAP sister synods, the public at large
and development partners.

And it is reported that the statement includes support for the Bishops’ statement, that it was overwhelmingly approved and that Mr. Mangisa’s signature is found with the others on the document.  He is not responding to media questions other than to confirm that they see his signature on the statement.  However, in an article about the apology from Afrique en ligne, former General Secretary and designated spokesperson, the Very Rev. Silas Mcozana, says of the meeting and Mr. Mangisa “at first, there were differences but later Rev. Mangisa saw the point.” In addition, the article informs us that a five-member team was appointed to handle the apology and the statement and that the team, or some of its members, had met with the Roman Catholic Archbishop to personally apologize for the comments.

The second item to come from the meeting is an investigation into this whole incident.  A story from The Nation indicates that all four top officials of the Synod – Kadawati, Chimenya, Mangisa, and Vice-Moderator Rev. Mercy Chilapula – will be subject to this investigation.  But the twist in this matter came from a series of articles by the Nyasa Times that allege the involvement by the Presidential Adviser on Religious Affairs Rev. Billy Gama in the original statement.  The first article talks about how Gama and two other government officials tried to talk the bishops into recalling the letter and not reading it in the congregations.  A second article alleges that Gama had Mangisa call the press conference and Gama funded it.  A third article talks about how Gama is not a subject of the investigation by the Synod but a following article says other sources in the Synod claim that he is.  The most recent article from yesterday says that the paper has a source that says the Office of the President and Cabinet was directly involved and the Rev. Gama was the intermediary.  The problem, of course, is that there is as yet no corroboration or named sources so verification of the allegations is difficult.  We will see what, if any, of this is part of the Synod report next week.

But getting back to Presbyterian polity and Biblical instructions, an article from the Nyasa Times today is particularly interesting.  This article says that the Rev. Mangisa had substantial support in the Synod meeting.  His supporters are reported as saying that he was right to criticize the bishops for their openly criticizing one of their own rather than first rebuking the President privately.  Also, his supporters say that he does have the authority to speak, without prior instructions, for the Synod.  The article says “Those backing the Spiritual Father said as a sitting moderator, Rev
Mangisa is the official mouth piece of the Blantyre Synod and does not
need permission to speak.”  The article also claims that Rev. Mangisa agreed to the apology under pressure.

As I said, the next installment of this drama is scheduled to play out in a week when the six unnamed members of the investigating committee report.  That is, unless the Nyasa Times or someone else doesn’t come out with new claims or evidence before than.

But as I highlight throughout this post, aside from the charges of government influence, this episode raises questions of what a Presbyterian official can do apart from the governing body they have leadership in.  The General Secretary seems to think that speaking for the Synod requires the explicit backing of the Synod.  Some of the members of the Synod are reported to fell that having been selected by the body to be the moderator then endows him with the authority to speak for the church.  We will see how this develops within that branch.

Constitutional Voting In The PC(USA)

It will be a busy seven months for the presbyteries in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  The 219th General Assembly sent three high-profile constitutional changes down to the presbyteries for their concurrence and then there are all the rest of the amendments.

My first reaction was to take these as four different packages, each at a different presbytery meeting.  The problem of course is that while my presbytery has the meetings to do that most others do not.  So it looks like they will be doubling up on some of these debates.

It is still early in the voting on all the amendments so I’m not really ready to start drilling down into the data just yet.  But I will make some observations about the process so far.

First, where am I getting my data?  Well, with the proliferation of Twitter I think many of us are getting our own real-time updates on presbytery meetings.  But in terms of compiling the data for later reference, I know of two sources:  1) The Layman is publishing charts of voting on all three high-profile amendments:  Amendment 10-A, new Form of Government, and the Belhar Confession. 2) More Light Presbyterians is maintaining their own chart of presbytery voting at their Yes on Amendment A blog, but as the name suggests that is specific to that issue.  From these various sources I am compiling and posting my own spreadsheet for analysis with the emphasis on my preferred focus of correlations between the different issues and with no promise that the chart will be updated in a timely manner.  Finally, we can not forget the official voting report which does not have a break down by presbytery but which has been updated today to reflect that the Belhar Confession needs a 2/3 vote to pass.  (It was originally listed as simple majority.)

At this juncture it is interesting to note that with almost two months of voting behind us six presbyteries have voted on nFOG (4 yes, 2 no), fifteen have voted on 10-A (4 yes, 11 no), and nineteen have voted on Belhar (13 yes, 6 no).  While it is far too early to predict outcomes it is interesting to note that on 10-A no presbytery has switched votes yet from the last “fidelity and chastity” vote but for some presbyteries voting “no” the votes have been closer.  (Presbytery of the James had a 153-153 tie.)  It is also interesting to see that the Belhar is just barely making the 2/3 ratio it needs to pass.

In my mind it is easy to see why the nFOG has been tackled by the fewest presbyteries — It is the most complex and the longest and probably has the greatest long-term implications.  Extended time for study and discussion is warranted.  The Belhar being the furthest along?  I have to think that it is viewed as the last controversial of the three and a good one to begin with.  In a couple of presbyteries it has passed by an overwhelming margin, unanimously in Cimarron Presbytery .

It is also interesting to observe that two presbyteries, Alaska and Santa Barbara, each knocked out all three in one meeting and in both cases did not concur with all three.  No other presbytery has taken on more than one of these yet.

But with this many items in a time period in which we usually just track one high-profile amendment it will become very busy soon, probably just into the new year.  Stay tuned.

Historic Shift By The Plenary Assembly Of The Free Church Of Scotland

I hope that I am not resorting to hyperbole to refer to today’s action by the Free Church of Scotland as a “historic shift,” but in looking at the history of that branch I have seen few points where they have relaxed their standards like they did today.  If you look at their lineage, their strong standards are one of the reasons they still exist as a Presbyterian branch — This is the part of the church formed in the Disruption of 1843 that did not unite with the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland in 1900, a union that eventually led to that branch merging back into the national Church of Scotland.  But I at least thought it was important enough that I made it my “Today in Presbyterian History” post on Twitter today.

Well, in the Plenary Assembly today the commissioners adopted by a vote of 98-84 an amendment to the Trustees report on worship that relaxes the church’s standards on what music is sung in worship and whether instruments may be used.  One important section reads:

The General Assembly ordain that, with regard to the sung praise of congregations in worship, each Kirk Session shall have freedom, either to restrict the sung praise to the Psalms, or to include paraphrases of Scripture, and hymns and spiritual songs consistent with the doctrine of the Confession of Faith; that each Kirk Session shall have freedom whether to permit musical accompaniment to the sung praise in worship, or not.

Dare I use the phrase “local option?”  OK, maybe I’m being a bit too snarky here.  On Twitter @Tribonian expresses the view that “it was a momentous moment, and one which gives protection and liberty to each side of the discussion. Praise the Lord”

Anyway, I still am reading through the live updates for more of the nuances of the Assembly and to answer some questions I have.  As far as I can tell there were no further amendments to the amendment.  And thanks to @BryanInScotland on Twitter for confirming that the Assembly decided this does not need to be sent  down to the presbyteries under the Barrier Act.  Once I have better confirmation on the final text I’ll discuss it in detail.

I will conclude by saying that the live updates indicate a wide-ranging debate with commissioners of differing views both referring to scripture and desiring unity.  Interestingly, that unity included over-seas congregations and groups that were interested in partnering with them but found it difficult with the strict understanding of worship music.  It should also be pointed out that the flexibility applies only on the congregation level and the amendment makes clear that higher courts of the church are still bound to use unaccompanied inspired music.  Another provision is that public congregational worship must still include some singing of Psalms.

A very interesting development and I’ll have more to say when final details are published.

The “Worship Issue” And The Plenary Assembly Of The Free Church Of Scotland

Later today the Free Church of Scotland will gather in a special Plenary Assembly to consider the Report of the Board of Trustees concerning worship .  I think the best summary of the requested action comes from the brief news item on the Free Church web site and so I reproduce the core of it here:

The Free Church Board of Trustees have published their report with recommendations to come before the Plenary Assembly in Edinburgh on 18th and 19th November. The report recommends the following:

  • The rescinding of the 1932 Act, which requires our form of worship to be read out at inductions
  • The rescinding of the 1910 Act, which requires that ministers speak against “innovations”
  • The affirmation of our current practice, which is to avoid the use of uninspired materials of praise, as well as musical instruments.
  • The adjustment of the 1905 Act to stipulate that the form of worship in the Free Church of 1843 was as above.
  • That public worship occurs when a Kirk Session or superior court calls for worship.

So now that you have the basic information let’s start to unpack it.

First, a brief history of the recent developments related to this issue, taken mostly from the 2010 Assembly report and the Trustees report for this Plenary Assembly.  This began with the General Assembly meeting in 2009 when a proposal was brought to study whether the church should continue to restrict worship singing to unaccompanied “inspired materials of praise,” usually interpreted to mean Psalms.  The Assembly endorsed this proposal for the church to, as a whole, consider this topic and had the Trustees bring a proposal to the next Assembly and to send the request to the presbyteries under the Barrier Act.  The presbyteries approved the concept by a vote of 6-2.

One advocate of the introduction of more flexibility in worship music is the editor of the Free Church’s periodical The Monthly Record, the Rev. David Robertson, who wrote an editorial with comments in favor of the changes in the July 2009 edition (see point 3 at the end in the section “What about the Free Church?.”)

The Trustees returned to the 2010 Assembly with a proposal that included 1) “recognising the divisive nature of the worship issue and the desire on all sides not to be rushed prematurely into a conclusion” 2) that a special Plenary Assembly be called before the end of 2010, 3) that a Plenary Conference be called before the Assembly, and 4) “The General Assembly instruct Presbyteries to organise a day of prayer… focused on the issues pertaining to worship… and also on the necessity to maintain the unity of the Church.”

The Plenary Conference was held the last week of August and the church web site has a brief report that concludes with this:

The Conference was a risky venture. Many delegates feared that it may
have exposed, and indeed exacerbated, division. It turned out, however,
to be the opposite, providing a forum for discussion and fellowship. The
November Assembly will now have to make some kind of decision, which
will hopefully bring this to a conclusion (at least for the time being.)
We continue to pray that God will keep us together. If this week is
anything to go by, there is every indication that He will.

So that brings us to the Plenary Assembly that begins today.  The proposed deliverance has nine points, the one most focused on the issue being number three that says:

The General Assembly, recognising that the majority of Kirk Sessions have not been persuaded by the arguments presented for change and therefore either support the current worship practice or have no desire to move from this practice, affirm that the practice of the Free Church of Scotland in public worship shall be to avoid the use of uninspired materials of praise and of instrumental music.

The Trustees heard from many Kirk sessions with 57 in favour of the status quo, 25 favouring permitting flexibility, and 13 expressing no preference. But as the report describes, a number of issues came out of the Plenary Conference and some of the other points address those.  For example, there was some lack of clarity about what exactly the nature of the vows and instructions to ministers meant, so there is a proposal to strike relevant acts regarding those.  The conference also brought up questions about what the definition of public worship was, so point four clarifies this by stating “The General Assembly stipulate that public worship occurs when a Kirk Session or a superior court of the Church call God’s people to assemble to worship him, in contradistinction to meetings called for testimony, fellowship and other purposes.”

There are five amendments and addenda now listed on the Plenary Assembly web pageOne amendment requests the replacement of the main body of the deliverance with actions that would repeal restrictions and leave the ordering of worship as a matter for the Kirk session. Another amendment goes the opposite direction and strikes points three to seven replacing it with a single paragraph clarifying the action to be taken at Ordinations and Installations.  There is a third that rewrites these points, keeping the exclusive “inspired materials of praise,” but allowing instruments.

The addenda, by their nature, are more limited.  One requests a halt to the discussion, effectively maintaining the current state.  The other presents no action directly related to the discussion but instead requests more and updated material, saying:

The General Assembly instruct the Psalmody Committee to investigate, collect and, if necessary prepare from within the resources of the Church appropriate portions of Scripture, other than the 150 Psalms, in a form which accurately renders the thought of the original and is suitable for singing in public worship. The Committee is empowered to seek the cooperation of others with the requisite linguistic, theological, literary and musical skills and is required to report progress to the 2011 General Assembly.

There are a few bloggers weighing in as well.  David Robertson has a good pre-Assembly post that outlines the issues better than I can since it comes from someone in that branch.  It does have his perspective favouring change which can be seen in his closing:

The Key Question – is, or should be, what does the Scripture say?
And what has become abundantly clear over the past couple of years, as
we have looked at, and examined this subject, is that our current
practice is by no means the only mandated practice in the Bible – and
that few of our Free Church office bearers really believe that. We do
not have the right to bind the Church, or the consciences of Christians,
to that which cannot be clearly demonstrated from the Scriptures.

Given the above it is clear that that vows do not need to be changed,
the constitution does not need to be changed, and even the practice of
individual congregations does not need to be changed. But the Assembly
legislation should be changed to allow sung biblical truth and musical
accompaniment, in those congregations where it is appropriate.
However this must not be a free for all. Our legislation must make
clear that the Free Church is a Reformed church which holds to a
Reformed position of worship. We are not a ‘broadly evangelical’
church. We are The Free Church of Scotland – we will always be a psalm
singing church (though inclusive psalmody rather than exclusive) and a
church that is biblically reformed in doctrine, worship, evangelism,
discipline and government. The plenary assembly will show whether we
have the wisdom, maturity and foresight to ensure that that claim is not
a hollow one.

Hinting at having similar sympathies, but recognizing the current state of the Free Church, John Ross has an interesting article where he outlines a plan of study to go forward so as to preserve the unity of the Kirk. And I found the writing of Ethan Smith informative as he looks at the Free Church and praises their emphasis on unity and their “debating with charity.”

So as we go into the special session I have not seen any particular related activity on Twitter but the Free Church web site will be providing live updates. (And it looks like it might be echoed by David Robertson.)

On a personal note, I would mention that in the last six months I have several times heard Psalms sung in an unaccompanied manner in the context of public worship, usually in connection with the celebration of the 450th anniversary of the Scottish Reformation, and have found them deeply moving.  The Free Church of Scotland has several examples on their web site and I would also recommend examples from YouTube of  Psalm 33, Psalm 103, and Psalm 147 among others. (Or, for a change of pace check it out in Gaelic.)

Over the summer David Robertson issued “Psalms Please – A Plea ” that asked why more churches don’t sing Psalms.  One answer is that we do, but frequently in paraphrase form with no education of our congregations as to their origin.  Many of the songs of Isaac Watts are Psalm paraphrases including “O God, Our Help In Ages Past,” (Psalm 90 ) and “Joy to the World” (Psalm 98 – no it was not originally a Christmas song but a paraphrase, admittedly with Watt’s enhancement of messianic overtones.)  But most hymnals contain multiple pieces based on the Psalms, some more literal than others.  It is up to our biblical literacy and worship education to realize the ultimate source of what we are actually singing.

So with that editorial moment over I turn you over to the Plenary Assembly.  I look forward to their deliberations and appreciate that every deliverance related to the worship issue concludes with a call for the Kirk sessions to set aside a day of prayer for the church as it works through this.