77th General Assembly Of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Leave a reply

The 77th General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church will convene tomorrow, July 7, at 7:00 PM on the campus of Trinity Christian College, Palos Heights, Illinois.

For those of us used to live feeds and high drama we can probably expect not much of either.  This gathering of 150 commissioners sent by the presbyteries will take up the business of the church with their focused deliberations.  As one person tweeted during the PCA GA, “an OPC rep once said: ‘In the OPC we debate finepoints of doctrine. In the PCA you debate fine points of procedure.'”

At the moment I find little information available on-line about the business of the Assembly.  I expect, if past years are an indication, that links to daily updates and some business documents will be posted to the Assembly page as the meeting gets under way. (Will update here as posted.)  Documents of general importance include

Stay tuned and I’ll update the page as other resources become available.

Presbyterian Government And American Government — The Same Only Different

2 Replies

It is common among American Presbyterians, when trying to explain our system of Presbyterian Government, to appeal to the structure of our Federal government to help explain how we do things.  This is for good reason because the two governmental systems have strong similarities in their elected representative forms, the presence of checks and balances, and the appearance of different branches of government.  The parallels are not coincidental — while it is often said that the U.S. Government was patterned on the Presbyterian system, several authorities I have consulted prefer to say that the two systems developed at the same time in the same cultural and philosophical climate.

It can not be denied that there is a strong tie between the two.  James Madison was one of the most influential members of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, possibly the individual having the greatest single influence on the government structure in the Constitution.  He was also a graduate of the Presbyterian College of New Jersey, now Princeton University, and following his graduation in 1771 he remained there for another year or two as he studied with the college president, the Rev. John Witherspoon, who had recently arrived from Scotland to serve as the college’s sixth president.  While Madison himself seems to have affiliated with the Episcopal Church, his education clearly included heavy influence by Presbyterians.  (For reference regarding timing, the Presbyterians instituted multiple synods and brought them together in the first General Assembly in 1789 in Philadelphia.)

However, while I have used the analogy between the Presbyterian and American systems of government in the past I have moved away from that because the differences between them are just as important to our polity as the similarities.

One of the big differences is that Presbyterianism is a different sort of representative government.  When a teaching or ruling elder participates in the deliberations of a governing body they may be there as the representatives of the members that elected them to that position, but they are not there to represent the views of those people.  The Presbyterian church is not a democracy or a republic, it is a theocracy.  The very first thing the PC(USA) Book of Order says is:

All power in heaven and earth is given to Jesus Christ by Almighty God, who raised Christ from the dead and set him above all rule and authority, all power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. God has put all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and has made Christ Head of the Church, which is his body. [G-1.0100a]

And lest you think they are alone the PCA Book of Church Order begins in a very similar way.  Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church and those in governing bodies are there to seek God’s will and do it, not to follow the opinion of the people.  I would first note that this Book of Order section is a constant reminder to me of what the purpose of church government is and this probably explains why I really don’t like that the new revised PC(USA) Form of Government has moved this away from the opening lines of the Foundations section.  My second note here is to clarify that I am not saying that the opinions and views of those we represent are not important — they are very important.  But they need to be considered as part of the discernment process and possibly held in tension with the leading of the Holy Spirit.  As the Book of Order says “Presbyters are not simply to reflect the will of the people, but rather to seek together to find and represent the will of Christ.” [G-4.0301d]

Maybe the most serious error frequently made in trying to explain Presbyterian government is to describe it as having three branches like the Federal system.  It is tempting to equate the full Assembly as a legislative branch, the judicial commission as the judicial branch, and an executive as the executive branch.  The truth is that a Presbyterian governing body has only one branch and that is the body itself.  We have single bodies which are mostly legislative, or deliberative, and the executive or judicial functions exist not to be branches in their own right but as parts of the governing body to assist the body in carrying out its mission.  Not to put too fine a point on this, but remember that judicial commissions are just that – commissions.  They are empowered or commissioned to act on behalf of the governing body with the full authority of the governing body, within the limits specificed by the governing body.  A commission is an extension of the body to do a particular job, not a separate body.

And this brings me to a third difference, the system of checks and balances.  In the Federal system the primary system of checks and balances is between the three coequal branches of the U.S. government.  Another system of checks and balances exists between the Federal government and the state governments but how strong a system of checks that should be is a matter of discussion by constitutional scholars.  In the connectional Presbyterian system the checks and balances are in “governing bodies (traditionally called judicatories or courts) in regular gradation.” [G-4.0301c]  Our governing bodies are not independent but each sends representatives to the higher one and each higher one has the responsibility of review on the lower ones.  Governing bodies are not independent and autonomous but have come together to be the Body of Christ together in this time and place.

And so, on this 234th anniversary of the Rev. Witherspoon and his fellow delegates to the Continental Congress affixing their signatures to the Declaration of Independence, with a Presbyterian General Assembly underway, we acknowledge the deep connections in history and philosophy the two systems of government share. But we also recognize that these two governments have two different purposes and serve two different ends and so there are also structural and philosophical differences between the two reflecting how their purposes diverge.

So where every American Presbyterians find themselves today, be it in Minneapolis or somewhere else, have a very good Fourth of July.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — Election Of The Moderator

1 Reply

Congratulations to Ruling Elder Cynthia Bolbach and Teaching Elder Landon Whitsitt who were just elected the Moderator and Vice-Moderator respectively, of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) .  (OK, technically Cynthia was elected Moderator and Landon will be brought up as the nominee for Vice-Moderator at the plenary later in the week but that is a formality.) They were elected on the fourth ballot with 325 votes.  As Ms. Bolbach said at one point in the Q and A — “Elders rule!”

Now, before I continue let me say that I was at a great family event among other Presbyterians this evening so I was not following much of the live streaming.  Comments on the election process are compiled from the plethora of individuals providing details on Twitter as the event progressed.  Also, you will probably want to check out the accounts from other blogs from people who were present.

Having said that let me comment on what I could follow of the election process.  For both the speeches and the Q and A session the Assembly suspended the standing rules and extended the time for each by 30 minutes because of the large number of candidates so they all had reasonable time to present themselves.

I did see some of the nominating speeches and have the accounts of the candidate speeches and they all seemed to be well delivered and touched on traditional topics.  And from the accounts multiple candidates sang parts of their speeches.

From the Twitter coverage the questions to the candidates all seemed like good ones.  They were: 1) Why is it important to have educated clergy? 2) How do both parts of the PC(USA) constitution relate to each other in decision making? 3) What is at stake in the church if you are not elected Moderator? 4) How would you address mission and evangelism? 5) How do you feel about youth involvement in the life of the church and GA? 6) What do you think about civil union and marriage?

As you can see in the table below the vote went to a fourth ballot.  After two ballots there was a motion to suspend the standing rules and change the procedure to drop the lowest vote-getter.  It would have required a 2/3’s vote and the motion failed.  In the Twitterverse Rock-paper-scissors or a penalty kick shootout were also suggested to speed things up.

 Votes 1  2 3  4
 Belle  71  60  73  51
 Bolbach  149  220  272  325
 Kim  57  52  44  25
 Lauterer  76  78  74  49
 Leeth  73  93  111  148
 Nielson  71  53  64  37
 Total  497  556  638  635


I am normally into reading tea leaves and trying to find something in these numbers.  However, I am reluctant to do that this evening for a couple of reasons.  The first is that from reading the candidates’ statements and from their answers this evening these are individuals who do not nicely fit the boxes we sometimes put them in.  Therefore, I am avoiding the usual descriptive terms and will say that I see certain affinities between Lauterer’s views and Bolbach’s views and would think that the drop Lauterer had on the last ballot went to Bolbach putting her over the top.  Similarly, there seemed to be an affinity between Nielson and Leeth and Leeth’s strengthening appears to be at Nielson’s expense.  Those two shifts don’t completely describe what is going on so there are other shifts as well.  I will say that with Kim’s name recognition in the denomination and his home-town advantage I was surprised that he was consistently last in the voting.

(Update: Jim Stochl, one of our presbytery commissioners and a friend of mine, posted his interesting observations about the election last night.  His take was that Jin Kim was too negative in his speech and answers and came across as too radical about how the PC(USA) needed to change.  Having heard Rev. Kim speak at the last GA that sounds like what he said then so he probably came across as not hopeful enough to many of the commissioners.  Thanks Jim.)

The other reason I’m hesitant to say much is because there may be bad data.  If you look at the total numbers of votes in each round you will see that round one and two are significantly lower than three and four.  There was a long interval between ballot two and ballot three as the tech staff checked the commissioners’ wireless voting devices, the commissioners voted in a few rounds of test or practice voting on whether they had dinner, and they trained the Moderator on how to call for the vote.  The consistency in the totals for the last two votes give me confidence that they got the system working.  We will see if these issues continue to be a problem when the Assembly returns to plenary session in a few days.  These problems led to a number of snarky Twitter comments which included such gems as “Lesson 1: Never do layoffs before a General Assembly” (originated with @revkirby I think) and “wireless voting at #ga219 #FAIL” (originated with @ajc123 as far as I can tell).

So, if you want to follow the new leadership on Twitter you can add @cbolbach and @landonw to your list.  (And people are lobbying hard to get Cyndie Bolbach to actually tweet — Landon Whitsitt will probably see to that himself.)  UPDATE: At the later news conference Cyndie Bolbach is quoted on Twitter by Leslie Scanlon (@lscanlon) of the Outlook as saying “I’m no @breyeschow or @bawade. But @landonw is.”

And thanks to Bruce and Byron for your faithful service over the past two years.  I don’t know if other past-Moderators worked as hard as you two did and we just did not know about it because we did not have blogs and Twitter.  But your on-line updates gave all of us a real appreciation for what goes into holding those offices and how much you do for the other 103 weeks of your term.  Thanks to both of you and God’s blessings as your live return to “normal.” (And Bruce, is your life ever anything like most people would consider normal?)  God Speed!

219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

2 Replies

In just over 12 hours the 219th General Assembly (2010) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) will convene in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  Here are resources to help you follow all the action.

This is shaping up to be a major Twitter event.   The major hashtag is #ga219 but the more light-hearted but less efficient hashtag #presbynerdfest10 is in play as well.  The official twitter users are led by the Moderator of the 218th GA Bruce Reyes-Chow at both @breyeschow and @brc_live.  In addition, the outgoing Vice-Moderator Byron Wade can be followed at @bawade.  There are official or semi-official twitter names for @yaads219, @ga219tracker, @gacola2010, @presbyGA, and @DirofOp (Director of Operations – Thomas Hay).  There is of course also the official main Twitter name @Presbyterian but I am not sure that will be used much for GA related tweets.

There are numerous other individuals and groups who will be tweeting, and those are probably best followed by the hashtag or the GA219 Twub.  (A twub is a means of consolidating and having a Twitter community.)  Also, I have previously listed the Twitter handles of Moderator and Vice-Moderator candidates and will add those of the successful candidate to the official list above upon the selection by the Assembly.  UPDATE: With the election of Cynthia Bolbach and Landon Whitsitt as Moderator and Vice-Moderator you can follow them on Twitter at @cbolbach and @landonw.

OK, now the unofficial blog coverage.  There is a lot of coverage out that and I am sure to miss someone but here is what I have right now.  I would start with two individuals who have put together a tremendous amount of information.  Robert Austell has put up a very comprehensive and complete site at GAhelp.net and is there at GA updating and tracking information.  Also, Bob Davis has put together a set of reviews of the business before the Assembly at Presbyblog.  Also, the news sites Presbyterian Outlook and The Layman will be posting their takes on the Assembly.  Each also has a blogger commenting on the action, Carmen Fowler for the Layman and Adam J. Copeland for the Outlook.  (And there is word that Toby Brown will also be blogging for the Layman.) For other coverage:

There are also individuals who will be blogging live and remotely.  I am in the latter group and will contributing my comments as my schedule permits.

So we have one week ahead of us of polity, parliamentary procedure, and discussion and debate.  There will be a live feed but I don’t see that link for that yet.  I’ll add that link in the list above when the GA starts.  So hang on and have fun.

New Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Web Site

1 Reply

Well, as promised the new web site design for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has been rolled out late today just in time for the start of the General Assembly meeting beginning on Saturday.

My first impression is very positive.  It has interactive media on the front page, a nice clean feel at the top, and good navigation links.  It is a bit more cluttered at the bottom of the front page.  A little checking shows that the front page style is not propagated throughout the site — There is a new style that differs from the front for the GAMC, and the OGA pages still retain the same look and feel as they did yesterday.

As for URL’s there is a new system that seems logical as far as I have explored it.  Previously a web page was a subdirectory of the pcusa.org address.  Now it is a subdomain of the site.  For example, the General Assembly page was www.pcusa.org/ga219 and it is now ga219.pcusa.org and the OGA was www.pcusa.org/oga and it similarly is now oga.pcusa.org.  For simple cases like these two the old addresses forward.  However, more complicated cases do not follow this rule:  www.pcusa.org/research does forward, but not to research.pcusa.org but to gamc.pcusa.org/ministries/research.  And not everything forwards — a lot of my previous links are now broken.  For example, the documents I linked to earlier today are still generally valid links, although one is now broken, and the nice index page for comparative statistics is gone!  There is now a resource page that lists each table seperatly.  That may take some time to get through.  And one other inconsistancy — if you want to get to the current GA it is ga219.pcusa.org as I mentioned above.  All the previous GA’s are oga.pcusa.org/ga216 , or whatever GA you want.

The one other feature of the web site is the quick and easy access to the store.  (And while advertised as a ministry of the GAMC it has its own subdomain and is not under the GAMC domain.)  I would also note that the other arms, like the Presbyterian Foundation, PILP, and Publishing appear to retain their old styles. (And when I typed “investment and loan program” in the search it returned a very plain page with the styles stripped out or invalid.)  Also the new search is not nearly as useful.  The previous one returned a ministry arm, committee or office link at the top if it matched your search above the usual list of documents.  Now you just get the documents listed out.

I’ll keep looking but it will take a little getting used to.  And I don’t know how many of the items I mention above are bugs and how many are features.  I’m sure there is more testing and patching to do so I look forward to the continued work.  And I’ll start looking to fix all my broken links…

Annual Statistical Report Of The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

2 Replies

Earlier today the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) released their annual statistics in the form of the comparative statistics summary, a statement from the Office of the General Assembly, and the miscellaneous information which gives some demographic breakdowns.  On the one hand it is temping to say “there it is – nothing new” and move on to other business.  The magnitude of the numbers and the trends seen are generally in line with the trends over the previous decade.  But there are a couple of interesting numbers in the statistics I would like to bring out.

First, for the geeks in the crowd here are the background details.  I will look at the numbers from the statistical summaries for 2001 to 2009.  These can be compiled from the 2004, 2006 and 2009 reports.  (Warning: The PC(USA) has said they will roll out a new web site at the GA next week and I don’t know how many of these links will break.)  More complete statistics covering a greater time period can be found with the full Comparative Statistics but the 2009 report will not be available until the Fall and certain numbers don’t correspond between the two reports so I have limited myself to the summaries.  My compilation and calculations are available from a sheet on Google Docs .

The first number everyone looks at is the total membership of the PC(USA).  That has declined from 2,140,165 in 2008 to 2,077,138 in 2009, a loss of 63,027 members or 2.9%.  On a percentage basis, this is on the high side, only a bit lower than the 3.14% decline seen last year and well above the smallest decline of 1.68% in 2002.  Looking at the gains in membership over the last eight years, the number of youth under 18 has been a very steady percentage of the total at about 20%.  Interestingly, the number joining by certificate has declined from 31% in 2001 to 26% in 2009.  Most of this is offset by the “other” and adult profession of faith categories.

Looking at the losses, it is fairly impressive how steady each of those categories is on a percentage basis over the last eight years – by certificate 17-18% of the loss, transfer to the Church Triumphant (death) 20-21% of the loss, and the remainder, about 62%, in the “other” category which means they resigned their membership without transfer or stopped coming and were dropped from the rolls.

Considering the congregations, on a percentage basis the decline this past year marks a new high with the net loss of 94 churches translating into a 0.87% decline.  However, as you would expect, with the rate of decline of churches being less than one third the rate of decline of membership, the ratio of members per church has steadily dropped from 224/church in 2001 to 195 in 2009.  Another new high was the number of churches dissolved at 88, the previous high being 71 in 2007.

One of the numbers to keep in mind is the number of churches dismissed, 15 this year down from last year’s high of 25.  The conventional wisdom is that these churches are going to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and in fact their Stated Clerk’s report lists 22 churches received from the PC(USA).  This is not an exact comparison since the clerk’s report is for the year since the last GA and the statistical report is for calendar year 2009.  Of those 22 congregations, the EPC report lists two new mission churches, or church plants, that were “constituted” in 2009 and “came from the PCUSA [sic]” not being “received.”  These churches probably fall into the category of dissolved on the PC(USA) books.  It would be nice to know how many of the dissolved churches were due to the presbytery closing down the church for low membership numbers, and how many were churches that ceased to be viable after a group left en mass to realign between branches without being formally dismissed by the presbytery.  I think the churches dissolved category has some more stories to tell.

We now come to one of my favorite, and maybe most enigmatic, categories, the Ministers.  First let me say that I wish we had a breakdown here between active and honorably retired ministers.  I do realize that the some honorably retired ministers are serving churches.  That breakdown will be contained in the full comparative statistics in the Fall.  Overall, the number of ministers continued the downward trend begun last year — in 2008 the church had a net loss of 82 ministers and in 2009 the net loss was 51.  But with 21,235 ministers at the end of 2009 that decline represents a small one-quarter of one percent.  The PC(USA) has just about two ministers for every church.  The numbers have gone from 1.90 ministers/church and 118 members/minister in 2001 to 1.99 ministers/church and 98 members/minister in 2009.  Lest you think this will change any time soon, the number of candidates for ministry has increased substantially from 892 in 2001 to 1182 in 2009.  That is now more than one candidate for every ten churches in the denomination.  For reference, there were only 351 ordinations in 2009, about one-third of the number of candidates.  Is it a paradox that the PC(USA) is good at developing and retaining pastoral leadership but has been loosing members for years?  (For reference, the 2008 full report listed 13,462 activeministers of which 8457 were in parish ministry.  That means that in 2008 there was less than one parish clergy per church, and that includes the associate ministers, and slightly more than one-third of the active ministers were doing something else.)

Finally, the giving.  For the first time both the total contributions and the per member contributions declined in 2009.  Total contributions were down $37 million or 3.4% while on a per member basis giving declined slightly by $4.42 to $1011.35, which is 0.4%.

Having crunched the numbers let me comment briefly on two comments the Rev. Gradye Parsons, Stated Clerk of the PC(USA) General Assembly, is quoted as making in the OGA statement.  The first is his encouragement at the increase in the number of adult baptisms in 2009.  This is clearly a cause for celebration and I in no way want to negate the importance of this number climbing from 6296 in 2008 to 6820 in 2009.  But allow me to put this in perspective over the last eight years.  Back in 2001 and 2002 there were reported 3.9 adult baptisms per 1000 members.  The ratio peaked in 2004 with 4.4 adult baptisms per 1000 members and has generally declined since then.  The ratio of 3.3 adult baptisms per 1000 members for 2009 is an improvement over both 2008 and 2007, but is still below the numbers of 6-8 years ago.

The other point the Rev. Parsons made was “the overall number in membership losses was the lowest it has been inthe last decade.”  Please allow me to go into mathematician mode and point out that this is not necessarily the good news it may appear.  Consider the PC(USA) with a steady decline, let us say 3% annually.  If it begins at some point in time with 2.1 million members this rate of decline means that in the first year it will have a net loss of 63,000 members.  In the next year the starting number is 3% smaller so the net loss is 3% smaller — 61110 members.  Similarly, the next year the net loss is 59,277 members.  In other words, with a constant rate of decline in total membership there will also be a corresponding decrease in the net loss of members when considering the actual numbers.  Even though you are losing less members on a net basis the rate of decrease remains constant.  Hopefully that makes sense.

So statistically the PC(USA) remains where it has been.  Most numbers continue the trends of the past few years and are in the ranges we have seen most of the last decade.  What this means for the future of the denomination is left as an exercise for the reader… And the GA commissioners next week.

38th General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In America

Leave a reply

The 38th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America will convene in Nashville, Tennessee, at 7:30 pm today, Tuesday June 29.  The committees of commissioners began their meetings yesterday.

For more official information on the meeting of the Assembly here are the appropriate documents:

An important resource will be the byFaith site with posted updates, live streaming, and Twitter updates from @PCAbyFaith .

Speaking of Twitter, the hashtag will be #pcaga and there looks like a large crew of folks entering into the conversation.  I’ll pass on highlighting any specifically right now but as the week progresses if I find any particularly helpful I’ll update here.  But have a look because they appear to be a great bunch of G.A. Junkies.

There are no posted reports coming to the Assembly (please correct me if I missed them) but the headline item is the new Strategic Plan put forward by the Cooperative Ministries Committee.  For all the official materials and interpretation refer to the page from the Administrative Committee.  There has been official promotion of the plan at byFaith Online including the latest article from a couple of days ago with links to earlier pieces.  There has been a tremendous amount of analysis, discussion, critique, and criticism of the Plan and I will not even attempt to review it here.  The best compilation of all that has been written (101 total links- see why I don’t want to summarize) is over at Johannes Weslianus but being the geek and statistics freak that I am I must point you to an excellent article by Martin Hedman who points out the substantial problems in the data that underlie the conclusion and recommendations of the report.

Some of the business items are the old perennial ones. There are once again overtures (7 of the 28 total) that deal with the role of women in ordained office or a position that could be seen as similar to ordained office.  The other on-going discussion regarding Federal Vision theology can be expected to arise in the review of presbytery minutes.

Finally, for today, I would highlight an overture that seeks to clarify the polity of the PCA for church planting and mission churches and make it more flexible.  If you are not aware the EPC and the PC(USA) are also taking a hard look at their polity to decide if it can be streamlined and made more flexible for mission.

While those branches are interested in broad revisions of the constitutional documents, Overture 15 from Potomac Presbytery focuses only on one chapter of the Book of Church Order, Chapter 5 on Mission Churches and Organization of a Particular Church.  As the overture says at the beginning:

Whereas, the Presbyterian Church in America has been faithfully committed to church planting since its inception and should only deepen that commitment, and

Whereas, church planting in the Presbyterian Church in America will be served by a process that is clear where necessary and flexible where possible, and

Whereas, certain phrasing in the Book of Church Order has caused various degrees of confusion, inconsistency and even frustration among those involved in church planting

To this end this overture provides a nearly complete rewrite of the chapter. (Don’t let the official title “Revise BCO 5-2; 5-3; 5-4; 5-8; 5-9; 5-10; 5-11; add new 5-5; and Renumber Thereafter” fool you.)  As the rational contained in the extensive footnotes explains, when Emmanuel Presbyterian Church of Arlington, Virginia, organized they found the process confusing.  This is a “Blood on Every Page” overture that proposes changes based on their hard experience.  They say of their experience:

While the organization was relatively smooth, BCO 5 was found to be confusing in many parts, open to various interpretations, and in some places, contradictory to the practices of a particular church. Hearing similar reactions from church planters and others familiar with the organization process led to a consensus that mission churches would benefit from a revision of BCO 5.

From their experience they talk about the basis for some of the revisions:

A guiding principle for the overture is that mission churches should mirror the practices of particular churches as nearly as possible. Not only would doing so thereby adopt the reasoning behind such practices, it also helps establish in the minds of the mission church the correct procedures they will be using after organization.

From both a comparative reading of the overture with the current BCO language as well as spot-checking detailed portions there are only minor adjustments in pure polity in this new language.  There is, as the introduction suggests, significant simplification of the process language.  One example of an point where the language was heavily modified is regarding the selection of officers.

 Current wording Proposed wording
 5-9. The following procedures shall be used in nominating and training ruling elders prior to organization and the election of a Session:

1. All men of the mission church (unless they decline) shall receive instruction in the qualifications and work of the office of ruling elder by the organizing commission or the evangelist.

2. These men shall be examined by the organizing commission or the evangelist concerning their Christian experience, their knowledge and acceptance of the constitutional standards of the church, and their willingness to assume the responsibility of the office of ruling elder according to the qualifications set forth in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. The organizing commission or the evangelist shall present a list of all who are found qualified to be nominated.

3. Not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date of election, petitioners shall submit, from the list of all those found qualified, nominations of members for the office of ruling elder to the Presbytery-designated organizing commission or evangelist. (Compare BCO 24-1)

4. The congregation will determine the number of ruling elders following procedures outlined in BCO 24-3 and 24-1.

5. At the organizing meeting ordination and installation shall follow the procedure set forth in BCO 24-6.

6. Those elected, ordained and installed ruling elders should meet as soon as is practicable to elect a moderator and a clerk. The moderator may be one of their own number or any teaching elder of the Presbytery with Presbytery’s approval.

5-10. If deacons are elected, follow the procedures of (1) through (5) above. If deacons are not elected, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the ruling elders.

  5-9. c. When the temporary government determines that among the members of the mission congregation there are men who appear qualified as officers, the nomination process shall begin and the election conclude following the procedures of BCO 24 so far as they may be applicable.

d. The election of officers shall normally take place at least two weeks prior to the date of the organization service. However, the effective date of service for the newly elected officers shall be upon the completion of the organization service.

e. If deacons are not elected, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the session, until deacons can be secured.



That should give a good idea of the simplifications proposed.  The question now is whether that is too simplified or whether the references to other section of the BCO cover the requirements for PCA officers.

So, get ready for a great week of GA watching, tweeting and discussion.  For those in Nashville — enjoy. For the rest of us polity wonks, we look forward to absorbing the wisdom of the “fathers and brothers.”

30th General Assembly Of The Evangelical Presbyterian Church

Next Wednesday, June 23, the 30th General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church will convene in Englewood, Colorado.  Plenary business will commence with worship at 8:30 AM on Thursday morning.  For those following along at home here is what you need to know:

Business
One more thing I did not include in the above list is the notice of a commissioner resolution.  It appears that this was submitted today by the commissioner(s) from the Presbytery of Mid-America asking to divide the presbytery into two different presbyteries with specified “exchange” of certain churches to align congregations with the ordination standards of each new presbytery.  This resolution was submitted because the Stated Clerk ruled that a nearly identical overture, Overture 10-B (p. 8-10), was ruled out of order.  The resolution is a parliamentary move to put the question on the floor provided that 2/3 of the commissioners agree with allowing the resolution. (I have my doubts it will get the necessary super-majority.)

While the rational behind the ruling that the Overture is “not properly before the Assembly” is not listed on the web page and I have not found it in a report yet, it is almost certainly because this overture puts the cart before the horse and a presbytery with the ability to bring neighboring congregations into membership is not yet possible.  That accommodation is included in the report of the Interim Committee on the Ordination of Women Teaching Elders and until the Assembly acts on their recommendations and it is sent to the presbyteries for concurrence the exchange of congregations can not happen.  Yes, sometimes being decently and in order can be slow.  But we will see whether the Assembly agrees to consider the commissioner resolution.  The recommendations from the Interim Committee include one to have the Moderator appoint a Study Group to make recommendations on presbytery boundaries across the whole denomination.

I have discussed the work of the Interim Committee previously and this will likely be a major point of discussion for the EPC since these provisions will help guide the church into the future as they live into their motto of  “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things charity.”  The commissioners will have an opportunity to discuss the report with the Committee at an information/discussion session on Thursday afternoon. 

The two commissions and one other interim committee have submitted reports but there are no action items contained in them.  It was interesting to note the report of the Interim Committee on Constitutional Revision which will report at a future Assembly.  However, as they set to work they began by establishing the following seven points to guide them:

1. “No bloating”: we will continually ask, “Does this belong in the constitution or should it go elsewhere in a supporting document?”

2. Language and stylistic elements are to be governed by the “KISS” principle: seek straightforward language as much as possible for clarity, readability.

3. Standardize nomenclature: identify significant titles and terms uniformly and avoid synonymous descriptions.

4. Keep in mind, Jesus’ commands is not burdensome: maintain a clear delineation between the authority delegated to each level of our governance and the responsibilities incumbent upon officers and members as part of Christ’s Body.

5. Allow the Westminster Confession of Faith and its fundamental principles to guide our work.

6. Recognize and preserve those rights reserved in perpetuity by our standards.

7. Scripture is our law; the Westminster Confession is our interpretation of Scripture; the Book of Order is our application of both.

It will be interesting to see what ultimately comes of their work and how it is received.

The second overture (pg. 7) before the Assembly will be a boundary change to the Presbytery of Florida to now include the Bahamas.  This change will allow two churches in the Bahamas that were dismissed by the Church of Scotland last month to join the EPC as a step towards the goal of creating the Presbyterian Church of the Bahamas in the future.

Finally, I would anticipate some discussion by the EPC of the PC(USA) task force report going to their GA which examined the accusation that the EPC was recruiting from the PC(USA) and found that the denomination had not done that.  This will only come up in the report of the Fraternal Relations Committee and not as an action item because the Committee has chosen to not respond until the PC(USA) GA has acted upon the task force’s report and recommendations.  I’m still digesting the EPC account of the EPC/PC(USA) meeting, details which were absent from the PC(USA) task force report, as well as the Transitional Presbytery Commission report and the membership statistics in the Stated Clerk’s report .  I’ll post more on all that next week after I’ve crunched some numbers.

So lots going on at the EPC meeting next week that will have an impact in several different areas of their mission.  I am looking forward to the discussion.

It Is Never Easy, And Sometimes Ugly

Leave a reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — Candidates For Moderator And… (1) Social Media

As I have been analyzing the nominees standing for Moderator of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I have noticed a number of interesting things.  I’ll do an analysis of their statements and positions in the next post, but in compiling this information I noticed a wide range of approaches to their use of social media in connecting with the church.

Before I begin, let me acknowledge that in addition to the usual search engines, including Facebook search and Twitter search, I have to thank Robert Austell and his GAhelp.net Moderators page as well as the information from the “In their own words” feature published by the Layman.  And for comments on the role of the Moderator and the election of the Moderator you can check out my GA 101 article “The Moderator — All Things In Moderation.”

Before I launch into this let me answer the legitimate question “Why does this matter?”  I would say that it matters because individuals on the national level of the PC(USA) have now bought into the idea that the world has changed and that new technology is the way to go.  After all, the 219th is supposed to be the first paper-free Assembly.  At the 218th GA the election of Bruce Reyes-Chow as the Moderator was supposed to herald a new day and the church was now adopting technology and moving into the 20th 21st Century.  Now I think that we can all agree on two things: 1) Bruce’s use of social media is exceptional and 2) Vice-Moderator Byron Wade did an admirable job trying to keep up with Bruce.  For the record you can follow Bruce on his personal blog, Moderator’s blog, church blog, Facebook , Twitter, and podcast , to name only some of his social media connections.  And in my opinion, Byron has really held his own to Bruce by writing a really excellent blog (think quality not quantity), as well as his Facebook and Twitter presence.

The other thing I am trying to figure out for this analysis is what are typical “Moderator campaign” numbers for social media followers.  At the present time Bruce has 4996 Facebook friends (there is a limit of 5000) and 2688 Twitter followers.  Byron has 1881 Facebook friends and  519 Twitter followers.  But their numbers increased dramatically after they were elected and I don’t know what their stats were during the campaign.  Maybe a good comparison would be the Rev. Bill Teng, who I would judge as the second-most social media savvy nominee for the 218th.  He currently has 531 Facebook friends.  Interestingly, the current nominee I would judge most social media connected in the pool for the 219th GA is Vice-Mod nominee Landon Whitsitt who has 596 Facebook friends and 184 Twitter followers.  So about the 500-600 range for a well-connected nominee before election? What about the rest of this year’s pool…

Web page
This is technically old-school Web 1.0 and even Bruce has not had one of these.  These are sites with static web pages that do not include interaction through comments.

Moderator nominee Rev. James Belle/ Vice-Mod nominee Rev. Wonjae Choi – No Moderator specific site I could find.

Moderator nominee Elder Cynthia Bolbach/ Vice-Mod nominee Rev. Landon Whitsitt – No Moderator specific site I could find.

Moderator nominee Rev. Jin S. Kim/ Vice-Mod nominee Rev. Matt Johnson – No Moderator specific site I could find.

Moderator nominee Rev. Maggie Lauterer/ Vice-Mod nominee Rev. Theresa Cho – Moderator specific site

Moderator nominee Rev. Julia Leeth/ Vice-Mod nominee Rev. Hector Reynoso – Dynamic (music, scripting) site but no interaction

Moderator nominee Rev. Eric Nielsen/Vice-Mod nominee Rev. Marilyn Gamm – Moderator specific site

Blog/Web 2.0 Site
This is like a traditional web site but new articles are easily posted in sequence, there is interaction through comments and the content can be tracked through a “feed” using RSS or Atom.

Belle/ Choi -No blog I could find.

Bolbach/ Whitsitt – Food for Thought (11 entries, all posts closed for commenting) (Landon also has a personal blog with occasional Mod comments.)

Kim/ Johnson –New Church Rising/GA Moderatorial (The main blog has been active as the church blog since October 2009.  The GA Moderatorial specific section has two posts.)

Lauterer/ Cho – Finding Our Voice (Brand new this week, one post)

Leeth/ Reynoso- None I could find

Nielsen/Gamm -The website has a blog page but it appears to only be used to comment to the Rev. Nielsen.  No postings

Facebook
It appears that most nominees have personal Facebook pages but since they are not Moderator related and have privacy set to keep the general public out I won’t link to them.  Here are the Moderator-related pages I found:

Bolbach/Whitsitt
Lauterer/Cho
Nielson/Gamm

Twitter
Most of the nominees have Twitter accounts.  While Cynthia Bolbach has one listed in the Mod lists, it is private so not Moderator related and not listed here.  Here are the others I know of and their statistics:

   Twitter name Followers  Following Tweets
 Theresa Cho  @theresaecho  73  103  132
 Maggie Lauterer  @maggielauterer  16  13  9
 Julia Leeth  @julia_leeth  10  0  10
 Hector Reynoso  @elvicemoderator  5  16  7
 Landon Whitsitt   @landonw  184  171  7155


Other
I was very impressed that two of the nominees also have items up on YouTube:

Bolbach
Lauterer
Nielsen

That is what I and other web sites know about. If I have missed anything or something new is launched let me know and I’ll update the article.

Analysis and Conclusion
As I look at these statistics I have a hard time seeing any of these candidates stepping up to anywhere near the social media connectedness that Bruce and Byron established right from the start, with the obvious exception of Landon.  For the other candidates the level of connectedness so far gives the impression that they are either just getting their feet wet in this sphere or are not placing a major emphasis upon it.

So the question is, does it matter?  If you are of the opinion that the world has not changed then all this is probably interesting but not important.  Or, with the stereotype of the typical Presbyterian being of the “greatest” or “boomer” generation that does not heavily invest their connectedness in social media, this lower penetration into Web 2.0 may be perfectly reasonable since few of the commissioners, whose votes count, would be influenced.

But I think that this does make a difference at two levels.  The first is that the YADs, now YAADs, have traditionally predicted the outcome of the Moderator election on their first advisory vote.  One has to ask if their enthusiasm for a nominee has a conscious or unconscious influence on the commissioners in their voting.  If so, connecting with the YAADs in their native media would be helpful to a nominee.

The second place that I think it makes a difference is connecting with the larger church.  While I don’t know for certain, I have to think that a Moderator nominee who shows they can connect with the younger members, and potential members, of the denomination would be viewed favorably by commissioners when they make their decisions, especially if they are thinking about the graying of the church.  But the other half of the battle is for the successful nominee to actually be connected after they are elected.

As I look through all these media statistics I have trouble seeing any of the Moderator nominees with a strong social media presence or potential.  Conventional wisdom is that a Vice-Moderator choice has little, if any, affect on the Moderator voting so I don’t know if Landon’s strong on-line presence would be any substantial support to Cynthia Bolbach.  But looking through this data that is the only real strength I see at the moment.

Finally, this post is not intended to pressure any of the nominees into redesigning their campaigns to have a more substantial Web 2.0 component.  On the one hand I think it is a little too late for that and on the other I think what is more dangerous than not having a social media connection is one that is forced and unauthentic.  Web 2.0 is, after all, about being yourself and being transparent, right?  My advice is to be yourself, but try to have your on-line presence reflect who you are.

With 17 days left before the election I would not expect a change in presentation now to make a difference in the Moderator election.  So maybe this is more an argument for the successful nominee to figure out how to integrate more social media into their time as Moderator.  Do we expect a repeat of Bruce and Byron’s presence — probably not.  But by the same token we would expect the Moderatorial term to reflect that the world has changed, at least if we believe that it has.  Stay tuned to see how they do.