Seminaries Supporting The PC(USA) – Gathering Numbers

5 Replies

I spent my lunch hour today surfing seminary web sites.  It was enlightening.  A few of the things I learned were…

  • I don’t have the prerequisite background to pursue a D.Min. (no real surprise there)
  • The quality of seminary web sites varies widely
  • The information available on seminary web sites also varies widely – but it depends on what you are looking for and who they target as their primary audience — and it is probably not me.  (I have a hand in these things in my day job so evaluating that part was a bit of a “busman’s holiday.”)
  • Some detailed facts are easier to find on some sites than on other sites

What I actually started out doing was to gather numbers about various seminaries and their degree programs, specifically the total enrollment in their Masters of Divinity Program.  The ability to find these numbers varied widely between the PC(USA) seminaries.

First, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) lists total enrollment numbers for each of the ten PC(USA) seminaries — You can begin on the list page and navigate through to the specific detail page for each seminary.

To have a look at that size number I started visiting the different web sites and found the availability of that data highly variable — and from my search I can’t tell whether it is not present or just that it can not be reasonably found.  High marks for availability goes to Princeton who has their PTS Statistics clearly linked to the navigation bar on the front page.  For detail, you can not beat Louisville Seminary which under their About Us page you can drill down to a VERY detailed Annual Fact Book – a little harder to find but a statistics freak’s dream.  Austin was a shade harder to find but under their Media Relations they have a nice fact sheet.

On the other end of the spectrum it was difficult to find specific numbers for most of the other seminaries.  For Johnson C. Smith that is very understandable — as a 21 student section of ITC having a robust media unit is probably not a top priority.  But McCormick and Pittsburgh?  In both cases it took some doing to find total number of students and there was no breakdown by program.  And at Pittsburgh I actually found two different numbers — 337 versus “approximately 370.”  (And that is not even counting the fact that McCormick still thinks there are eleven Presbyterian Seminaries.) OK, maybe I’m the only one who really cares about these numbers.

What struck me as I was looking at these was that the PC(USA) web site numbers were consistently higher than the specific numbers reported by the seminary itself:

Seminary Seminary
Reported 		PC(USA)
Reported
 Austin  255  273
 Louisville  210  217
 Pittsburgh  337  370
 Princeton  615  703


So, are they counting different things or are they reporting different years and this is normal fluctuation?

I should say that for Union I could piece together total numbers adding the 300 at the Richmond Campus and the 90 at the Charlotte campus, which is actually higher than the 365 listed by the denomination.

For where I am headed with this what I really wanted was the number of students in the Master of Divinity program.  Searching through the web sites I was able to find the following numbers:

 Seminary Number of
M.Div. Students
 Austin  123
 Columbia  180
 Louisville  103
 McCormick  154 (All masters programs)
 Princeton  411


And as I was looking at these numbers where denominational affiliations were reported PC(USA) students seemed to number about 40-50% of both total students and M.Div. students.

Now looking at all these numbers one fact should stick out — Princeton Theological Seminary is the heavy weight in this system.  Just come to one of our presbytery meetings and that will be apparent.

And now we will let the other shoe drop…

For those who have been involved in preparation for ministry or the call process in the PC(USA) you know that ministers and candidates also come from non-PC(USA) schools, but there is one seminary in particular that trains more Presbyterians than all the other schools… Fuller Seminary.

(Before I go any further I need to put full disclosure in here:  While I have no association with Fuller, it is in my presbytery and I know a lot of people who were or are students, faculty or staff at Fuller.)

For those of you who are not familiar with seminaries in the PC(USA), Fuller Seminary is a multidenominational seminary which is often only half-jokingly referred to as “the largest Presbyterian seminary.”  This school, headed by a Presbyterian president, has a reported “Presbyterian Faculty” of  15 (and I know one that is no
t listed), a Presbyterian student body of around 300 (compared to Princeton’s 259), and Presbyterians are the largest denominational group on campus.

Is this important?  It is a good natured but running argument in our presbytery about whether you pastors are trained at Princeton or Fuller (or both).  But throughout the church we need to be aware that, for good or ill, there is an alternative to PC(USA) seminaries.  In addition, it is interesting to see how this is reflected in the denomination’s statistics.

So now that we have had a look at the seminaries, next time we move on to look at how they are represented “in the real world.”

A Little Levity — Mid-February Edition

1 Reply

You can’t make this stuff up…

With a hat tip to Deacon Tim at Sacraments Wholesale I bring you a Joint Resolution currently in the South Carolina Legislature:

H 4468

H 4468 Joint Resolution, By Thompson and H.B. Brown
A JOINT RESOLUTION TO CREATE THE “SOUTH CAROLINA STUDY COMMITTEE STUDY COMMITTEE” FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVALUATING THE STATE’S PAST AND FUTURE USES OF STUDY COMMITTEES FOR ASSESSING AND DEVELOPING STATE POLICIES AND RELATED LEGISLATION, AND TO PROVIDE FOR ITS MEMBERSHIP, POWERS, AND DUTIES.

Here is how the text of this legislation begins:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

SECTION    1.    (A)    The General Assembly finds that:

(1)    on a recurrent basis the General Assembly relies upon study committees to study issues before the General Assembly, both those previously studied and unstudied; and

(2)    no study committee has ever studied study committees to specifically study the effectiveness of study committees at resolving or solving the issue or problem that the study committees studied.

( B )  It is the goal of the General Assembly to ensure that:

(1)    study committees are studied to study the optimal use of study committees to ensure study committees are neither being formed needlessly nor studying issues already sufficiently studied; and

(2)    to ensure that study committees are actually studying when they say they are studying.

(C)    There is created a study committee on study committees to be known as the “South Carolina Study Committee Study Committee,” composed of the following nine members…

Now for those who see this as a serious issue I’m sorry but the use of the English language here strikes me as something straight out of a Gilbert and Sullivan patter song.  (Or maybe Donald Rumsfeld) Like if I broke up line 1( B )(1):

study committees are studied
to study the optimal use of study
committees to ensure study
committees are neither being formed needlessly
nor studying issues already sufficiently studied

So others might not see the humor in this, but maybe it helps to remember that the last PC(USA) General Assembly created more Special Committees and Task Forces than I can remember any other GA doing and I just came off one of those Special Committees.  Then again, I used to laugh at the redundancy implied in the former title of one of the research centers at a university – The Center for the Study of Evaluation.

Now in case you don’t share my sense of humor at governmental phraseology, I bring another humorous blog post from yesterday — You might be a Presbyterian If… by Joseph at A Higher Orthodoxy.  Yes, there is an older list floating around, but this one contains a couple of new gems:

2. Presbyterians like to sing, except when confronted with a new hymn or a hymn with more than four stanzas.

4. Presbyterians usually follow the printed liturgy and will feel it is their way of suffering for their sins.

6. Presbyterians feel that applauding for their children’s choirs would make the kids too proud and conceited.

7. Presbyterians drink coffee as if it were the Third Sacrament.

8. Some Presbyterians believe that a PCA bride and a PC(USA) groom make for a mixed marriage.

10d. *The communion cabinet is open to all, but the coffee cabinet is locked up tight;

And there are a bunch more.  Check it out.

News From The CCAP: Synods Become Flexible And An Ecumenical Alliance To Monitor Democracy

Leave a reply

Over the last couple of weeks one news item from Malawi is that the three synods of the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian in Malawi have agreed to an arrangement that would end their dispute over having churches in each others’ territory.  The synods have essentially agreed to become non-geographic or flexible synods.

The disagreement goes back a number of years.  I became aware of it when it hit the media in the late summer of 2006 when there were complaints that Tumbuka language congregations associated with Livingstonia Synod were established within the boundaries of Nkhoma Synod which is predominantly Chewa speaking.  However, the reverse of Chewa language congregations in Livingstonia had been the case for a substantial time before that.  Over the last three years there have been additional developments in this story but recently there has been news of an agreement to end the disagreement.

The solution – an agreement that all three Synods will have flexibility in membership.  Essentially, each will have a geographic component but will be non-geographic to the extent necessary to include churches based on their predominant language.  While the news broke at the beginning of the month (Nyasa Times Feb 2 article, Feb 4 op-ed) the Livingstonia Synod Moderator did a radio interview on Thursday with some more information.  The Nyasa Times writes:

CCAP’s Livingstonia Synod moderator, Rev. Mezuwa Banda has said the wrangle over border issue with the Nkhoma Synod has been settled with a “gentleman’s agreement” and is not legally binding.

and

“That’s no longer an issue. You will remember that Nkhoma recently has agreed with us to say there is no border not only with Livingstonia but with Blantyre as well.”

“Let Nkhoma go as far as they can go, Livingstonia can go as far they can go. The matter is over.”

However, the story does say that this agreement comes at a loss of connectionalism:

On membership, Nkhoma Synod said in a statement signed by moderator Vasco Kachipapa that any individual will have the right to belong to any congregation under a synod of their choice and not have allegiance to another synod.

“That there shall be no transfer of eldership or deaconship across synods and that church leadership shall only be attained through the expressed wishes of the local congregation, presided over by an ordained minister of the same Synod,” the statement reads.

While this interview was with the Livingstonia Moderator the two earlier articles both indicate that this ultimately came about by a unilateral decision of Nkhoma Synod.  The Feb 2 article begins:

Church of Central Africa Presbyterian (CCAP) Nkhoma synod has finally given up  over the boundary wrangle with Livingstonia synod and say the synods should operate on a no boarder basis.

Nkhoma Synod the made its position in a pastoral letter that was read in all its prayer houses signed by the moderator Vasco Kachipapa and senior clerk Rev Kamwendo.

…

In a statement the synod said, it has finally decided to stop pursuing the matter following the disturbing and worrisome developments that have taken place since the row started.

And the Feb 4 Op-ed includes:

Going by recent events, I am relieved to see that the hot air seems to be simmering away, what with the Nkhoma synod declaring unilaterally the new “no boundary policy”, not just with their erstwhile “enemy” but across the country and beyond, meanwhile bringing Blantyre and other international synods into the fray.

So where is the General Assembly in this?  The Feb. 2 article quotes the Nkhoma statement with a mixed assessment – “We acknowledge with gratitude the initiatives taken by the CCAP General Assembly in order to resolve the border conflict, which to say, have all been in vain.”  And the Christian Observer reports that Livingstonia Synod requested a postponement of the December 2009 meeting of the General Assembly as Nkhoma Synod worked out their current response to the situation.

From the viewpoint of being Presbyterian this would not be the end point.  Will this loss of connectionalism continue and the two or three synods essentially operate as independent denominations on the same territory? Or, over the next few years can the General Assembly work out an arrangement that will preserve the flexible nature of the synods while recognizing membership and ordinations across the boundaries?

In other news, and with a touch of irony, about a month ago it was reported that a faith-based alliance called Church Foundation for Integrity and Democracy (CFID) was launched in Malawi.  In an interesting commentary on the boundary dispute resolution the General Secretary of the new organization is the Reverend Andrew Kamponda from Blantyre Synod of the CCAP.   At the conference announcing the new group his comment was that it is time for the church to stand and speak with one voice against evil.  What is one of the particular evils named?  Tribalism, often cited as being at the root of the boundary dispute between the other two CCAP synods.

(Editorial note:  While this story talks about the launch of the group I do find it on an old list of organizations (#58) accredited to provide voter education for the 2009 elections.)

The group is chaired by the Reverend Malani Mtonga, a former adviser to Malawi’s president.  The Nyasa Times reports:

According to Mtonga the organization has been formed to restore human dignity and sustain moral responsibility in the country and was quick to tell the audience that came to witness the launching ceremony that the organization is purely apolitical.

“We are here to pursue a common goal of seeing to it that the country (Malawi) is fully enjoying the fruits of democracy attained in 1994,” Mtonga told Nyasa Times on the sidelines.

He said the grouping will not tolerate evils to take roots in Malawi.

Mtonga cited homosexuality, tribalism and intra-party divisions as some of the things the clergy need to stand up against.

Readers are probably aware that in many places in Africa homosexual practice is a topic of some debate and illgele.  While the proposed legislation making homosexual sex a capital offense is Uganda has been grabbing headlines, in Malawi the arrest of a gay couple has been lower profile but raising complaints and requests for release
of the couple from NGO’s.

Finally, I mentioned at the beginning of January how pastors from Livingstonia Synod were protesting against the University Council and government quota system for getting into the University.  That is ongoing with comments on both sides being disputed by the other, as evidenced by an article in the Feb. 14 Nyasa Times that quotes critics (not necessarily from the CCAP) of the Education Minister, and another from Feb. 18 where the Moderator of the Livingstonia Synod has critical comments of the President and the government about this.

We will see how all of these situations develop.

Upcoming 38th General Assembly Of The PCA — Mid-February Update: Intro and Overtures 1-5

Leave a reply

The 38th General Assembly (2010) of the Presbyterian Church in America will convene in Nashville, Tenn., on June 29th.  The PCA is getting ready with the announcement of their 50 Days of Prayer for the General Assembly devotional, this year to focus on the Sermon on the Mount.  The web page for the Assembly is up (although sized a bit larger than I usually keep my monitors) with a link for registration and the overtures page.  There is no docket yet but the schedule is posted.

The theme for the Assembly is “Love, Sing, Wonder.” As the Organizing Committee web site explains, this is taken from the first line of a hymn written in 1774 by John Newton, “Let us love and sing and wonder.”  And these are words which have found a new audience in a contemporary musical arrangement.

There are currently five overtures posted:

Overture 1: “Ministry to Seniors” from New Jersey Presbytery.  This overture seeks to affirm and encourage both ministry to seniors as well as ministry by seniors.  It asks for five things: 1) Commending the Christian Education and Publications Committee (CEPC) for their good and ongoing work in this area. 2) And while commending them request their continued work in the area and this work be included in their reports to future GA’s and (3) that it be sure to include the Biblical importance of ministry by seniors as well as ministry to them.  4) That the Sunday following Labor Day be designated “Seniors’ Sunday” and (5) that the CEPC help promote the special Sunday and consider a week-long special event, as appropriate.

On the one hand the second Sunday in September has now become “Grandparents’ Day” in our secular society and this presents a way to turn that to the Lord’s purposes and recognize the wide variety of contributions made by seniors, not just their being grandparents.  On the other hand, how often are we to find special purposes for the Lord’s Day beyond the regular worship of God.  Are other Sundays throughout the year held up by the PCA for special recognitions like this?  For a strong argument against the hybridization of Sundays for purposes like this I suggest reading Andrew’s comments on Overture 1 at A Profitable Word. 

Overture 2:  “Amend BCO 9-7 to Prohibit Deaconesses” from Central Carolina Presbytery.  This overture asks the Assembly to send to the presbyteries an amendment to the Book of Church Order section 9-7 which would append to the end of that section about deacons’ assistants the following line for clarification:

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

I don’t think it is news to any of my readers that this is currently a hotly-debated subject in the PCA and this is probably only the first of several overtures on both sides of this discussion.  Once all the overtures are in and we know the lay of the land I may have more to say.  In the mean time you can check out my comments about this overture (as part of a related discussion) from earlier this month and Kevin’s exhaustive analysis of the overture and broader situation over at A Profitable Word.

Overture 3:  “Expand Boundaries of Pacific Northwest Presbytery” from the Pacific Northwest Presbytery.  This overture asks the Assembly to approve the expansion of the Pacific Northwest Presbytery to encompass all areas of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska where there are PCA churches not yet within the bounds of a presbytery.  Specifically,

Therefore, the Presbytery of the Pacific Northwest overtures the 38th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America to expand the borders of the Presbytery to include the entirety of the states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.

First, where is the Presbytery now?  The Presbyteries web page tells us “All of Washington west of and including the counties of Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, Lewis and Skamania.”  According to the church directory page there are 24 PCA churches in the State of Washington, 19 in Pacific Northwest, three in Korean Northwest, and two in Korean Southwest Presbytery.  The directory also tells us that there is one church in Alaska, seven in Oregon (one of those in Korean Northwest), and one in Idaho.  Interestingly the directory associates all those churches with Pacific Northwest, if not already with Korean Northwest, even though this overture asks to formally expand the borders to include them.

In order to fully appreciate this overture it is also helpful to have a look at the Guidelines for Dividing Presbyteries since certain of the language in the overture’s whereases is referential to that document.  This document not only concerns dividing presbyteries but presents what are considered preferred parameters for a presbytery.  The first nine of the twelve considerations are:

  1. A radius of 2 1/2 hours maximum driving distance
  2. A minimum of 10 churches
  3. A total communicant membership of at least 1000
  4. Presbytery boundaries should not partition metropolitan areas
  5. A presbytery should have regional cohesiveness
  6. A presbytery should have at least three churches each having a membership of at least 125 communicant members
  7. Presbytery boundaries should be such that its member churches have a potential for shared ministries
  8. Presbytery boundaries should be such that its member churches have a common commitment to the region within the boundaries and sense their shared responsibility to cover the region with the Gospel
  9. When a presbytery reaches 30 churches it should consider whether subdivision would lead to more effective ministry

So where does this put the expanded Pacific Northwest?  It will clearly be larger than ideal in driving distance but with on
ly one church in Alaska there is not much that can be done there.  Yet even the Washington/Oregon/Idaho churches will be too far apart for that to be reasonable.  The expanded presbytery will have 27 churches, well more than the minimum and approaching the suggested upper limit.  Beyond that, without some more research I can not speak for the membership or church sizes but the expanded presbytery would probably still have the regional cohesiveness and potential for shared ministries.

In short, because of the distances involved and the potential situation of lots of churches in sparsely populated areas I can understand the objective of one large presbytery with many congregations.  However, under the established guidelines I would hope some study would be done to see if two presbyteries would provide a better arrangement “to cover the region with the Gospel.”

Overture 4: “Revise Boundary of Central Georgia Presbytery” from Central Georgia Presbytery.  This one is short and sweet – Central Georgia and Savannah River Presbyteries both agree that two counties now in Savannah River would be better served for spreading the Gospel if they were in Central Georgia.  A concurring overture from Savannah River Presbytery would be expected.

Overture 5:  “Amend BCO 26-2 to Clarify How Non-binding Sections of the BCO May Be Amended.” from Covenant Presbytery.  The requested change to the Book of Church Order reads:

Therefore be it resolved that BCO 26-2 be amended as follows (new text in bold and underlined):
26-2. Amendments to any portion of the Book of Church Order, whether constitutionally binding or not, may be made only in the following manner:

  1. Approval of the proposed amendment by majority of those present and voting in the General Assembly, and its recommendation to the Presbyteries.
  2. The advice and consent of two-thirds (2/3) of the Presbyteries.
  3. The approval and enactment by a subsequent General Assembly by a majority of those present and voting.

This seems straight forward, but let’s unpack this a little bit — The PCA Book of Church Order has binding and non-binding parts, as this overture recognizes.  The problem that arose was that the previous GA interpreted the BCO such that they went ahead and amended non-binding parts by themselves without sending the changes to the presbyteries for their concurrence.

So now we have this overture which provides a catalyst for interesting thought and discussion among polity wonks.  The issues involved touch on the intersection of two parts of Presbyterian polity: 1) When does a General Assembly action requires concurrence of the presbyteries, and 2) in what cases and to what degree the constitutional language is binding.

On the first question there are two general models.  The first are branches that require presbytery concurrence any time the constitutional language is to be changed.  This would include most American Presbyterian branches that have a Book of Church Order or Book of Order that has constitutional authority.  In this case for the PCA this overture requests to make it clear that this is the case for their BCO.

The other approach to requiring presbytery concurrence is usually referred to as a Barrier Act and is seen throughout much of the rest of the world including Scotland, Canada and New Zealand.  Part of the Church of Scotland Barrier Act says:

…that General Assemblies be very deliberate in making of the [Acts of Assembly], and that the whole Church have a previous knowledge thereof, and their opinion be had therein, and for preventing any sudden alteration or innovation, or other prejudice to the Church, in either doctrine or worship, or discipline, or government thereof, now happily established;

So the areas that an Assembly must seek the concurrence of the “whole Church” are “doctrine or worship, or discipline,” or ecclesiastical government.  In general, these branches have a collection of Acts of Assembly instead of a Book of Order and the Barrier Act is applied in an Assembly to specific acts that involve the four “core” areas.  But rules here are not hard and fast — the Presbyterian Church in Canada has the whole collection with the Barrier Act, Acts of Assembly, and the Book of Forms. And the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand has a Book of Order but has marked those sections subject to the “special legislative procedure,” which is their term for needing the concurrence of the presbyteries.

The second question that this overture touches on are what parts of our Presbyterian polity are binding and which are not.  For the PCA BCO this is clearly stated in the head note to the Directory for Worship:

Temporary statement adopted by the Third General Assembly to preface the Directory for Worship: The Directory for Worship is an approved guide and should be taken seriously as the mind of the Church agreeable to the Standards. However, it does not have the force of law and is not to be considered obligatory in all its parts. BCO 56, 57 and 58 have been given full constitutional authority by the Eleventh General Assembly after being submitted to the Presbyteries and receiving the necessary two-thirds (2/3) approval of the Presbyteries.

Those three specified sections that have full constitutional authority are ones dealing with the sacraments.

(This raises three slightly-related, and possibly frivolous, questions — 1) This preface uses “obligatory” and the overture uses “binding.” Should they be harmonized? 2) Is a “temporary statement” from 35 GA’s ago still truly a temporary statement.  (I have to laugh because my church got away with a building with a temporary use permit for about that long.) 3) Since this preface is in the Directory for Worship but not in one of the specified sections, is it not obligatory itself?  (I told you this was going to get frivolous.))

One of the reasons I do bring up that last frivolous statement is because there is a case on appeal in the PC(USA) regarding the binding nature of their Directory for Worship.  The PC(USA) uses terminology rather than itemization to determine what is obligatory and the preface to the whole Book of Order lays this out:

In this Book of Order
(1) SHALL and IS TO BE/ARE TO BE signify practice that is mandated,
(2) SHOULD signifies practice that is strongly recommended,
(3) IS APPROPRIATE signifies practice that is commended as suitable,
(4) MAY signifies practice that is permissible but not required.
(5) ADVISORY HANDBOOK signifies a handbo
ok produced by agencies of the General Assembly to guide synods and presbyteries in procedures related to the oversight of ministry. Such handbooks suggest procedures that are commended, but not required.

And as we saw in the Presbytery PJC decision in the Southard case there is disagreement over the role of the Directory for Worship and the authority of any specific paragraph if it does not contain one of these prescriptive words.  That will be settled by further judicial review.

So, getting back to the overture at hand — In the model of Presbyterians who operate with a Barrier Act, there is a tradition and logic to the interpretation last year that changing sections that are not “core” and obligatory need not have the concurrence of the presbyteries.  However, this overture would make the language clear, and hold it in line with American Presbyterian tradition, that if language in a constitutional document is to be changed it must be sent to the presbyteries for approval.

Now, I have used this overture as a platform to launch into a discussion of a couple related, but not necessarily germane, topics.  For a more focused discussion I again point you to A Profitable Word where Andrew has a post mostly discussing Overture 5, but touching on 3 and 4 as well.

(And I should say, in case you have not figured it out by now, that the blog A Profitable Word is a relatively new blog written by a team of four polity-knowledgeable elders from the PCA who know the PCA history, nuance and back-story to their polity better than I do.  A good blog for polity wonks to keep an eye on.)

So there is the start to this General Assembly business.  We know that more waits in the wings and I will return to that in a future post.  Stay tuned.

What Is Distinctive About Our Worship?

1 Reply

On my commute home from work today there was an interesting story on NPR about one faith tradition revitalizing the church and renewing their worship for the next generation.  Some of you probably heard it too.  What really caught my attention was the part towards the end of the piece where they were talking about the changes made to the worship service:

On a recent Sunday morning, 1,200 [worshipers] fill the cavernous ballroom at the Manhattan Center in New York City. They leap to their feet and wave their arms as a rock band plays a mix of Fleetwood Mac and worship music with a thumping beat. They fall silent as the lights dim, and burst into applause when, theatrically, a single light comes up to reveal a woman behind a podium.

…

She speaks without notes for 40 minutes, weaving personal anecdotes with references to the Bible, Aristotle and Christian leaders. She is the 44-year-old daughter of [the founding pastor], and a graduate of Harvard Divinity School. When her father appointed her to head the U.S. church 18 months ago, she focused on one simple goal: to win back young people.

…

[She] replaced the old holy songs with rock ‘n’ roll, and florescent lighting with concert lighting and a giant video screen.

…

She… faced a problem that plagues even established churches: How do you transmit the passion of a convert to a child who merely inherits the faith?

…

So [she] did what the evangelicals do: She used music and technology to spark spiritual experiences. She says it is working.

“Some have called it ‘electricity running through my body, feeling of warmth — just feeling as if they’re engulfed in love,'” she says. “For those kids who come and have that conversion experience, then their belief system becomes theirs.”

Since [she] took over, weekly attendance has nearly doubled.

Yes, this is one of my set-ups.  For those that heard this piece you know that it is not about some generic evangelical church, but rather the Unification Church and “the leader” is In Jin Moon, daughter of the founder and church messiah, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

Check it out.  I eliminated a bunch of identifying information and talk about the church establishment’s response to her leadership and change in worship style.  But I think I give you all the relevant quotes regarding the worship service.

Obviously what struck me was that beyond the identifying information about the church this discussion could have been describing a great number of contemporary Christian worship services.  In style, at least as described, there are no obvious differences.

In fact, what information the story gives about the substance of worship could easily be contemporary Christian worship:  Preaching using “personal anecdotes with references to the Bible, Aristotle and Christian leaders.”  Music with rock replacing “holy songs.” (OK, so I would hope not to hear Fleetwood Mac songs in worship, but I know that Beetles music has been used in contemporary Christian worship.)

And what are they looking for?  The experience — “electricity running through my body, feeling of warmth — just feeling as if they’re engulfed in love.”

But it gets results — if you count the doubling of attendance as a measure of success.

It does bother me when the description of contemporary Unificationist worship is practically indistinguishable from contemporary Christian worship.  I will admit that we don’t have the words of the songs and the text of the message, but the substance and focus of the worship should make them distinctive from one another.  Yes, Ms. Moon admits to borrowing from evangelical services, but when a style is so generic that it is “platform independent” I do have to wonder what we are doing.

I will admit that I am painting with a broad brush here.  And I know that I don’t have all the details about the content of the worship music and message.  But in a way, that is the point.  What is catching the media attention and what is drawing people in sure is presented as the style and not the substance.

Yes, I am a broken record about this, but without apology I say again that the marks of the substance of our worship should be:

[F]irst, the true preaching of the word of God, in which God has revealed himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles declare; secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, to which must be joined the word and promise of God to seal and confirm them in our hearts; [Scots Confession, 1560]

Free Church Of Scotland (Continuing) General Assembly 2010 Moderator Designate

Leave a reply

The Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) (FCC) today announced their Moderator Designate for the upcoming General Assembly.  As reported by the Stornoway Gazette the Rev. David Fraser will lead the church’s highest governing body beginning at their meeting in May.  He was trained at the Royal College of Science and Technology in
Glasgow (now part of the University of Strathclyde), the University of Aberdeen, the Free Church of Scotland College and
the University of Transkei (now part of Walter Sisulu University), inducted into parish ministry at Mull in 1970, and seven years later began his 23 years of service as a missionary in South Africa.  At the division of the Free Church in 2000 he moved to Zambia to work with Frontline Fellowship and while there helped establish Covenant College.  Upon his “retirement” he returned to Scotland and now pastors Shettleston Free Church (Continuing) (Church History).

Congratulations to Rev. Fraser and best wishes for his moderatorial year.

Presbyterian Statistics Going Viral

3 Replies

I have found it interesting that more than a month after the release of statistics about the viewpoints of members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) one particular statistic out of that report has “gone viral” on Twitter and in the blogosphere.

The report is the latest Presbyterian Panel profile that I mentioned last month when I commented not on the numbers themselves but on the use of terminology in the introductory material.

The 54 page report is full of interesting stuff that I am still digesting but the numbers that caught someone’s attention, and has now been retweeted a million times, is this one as listed in the narrative section of the report:

Members are divided about the necessity of belief in Christ for salvation… Two in five members (39%) “agree” or “strongly agree” and 36% “disagree” or “strongly disagree” that “only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.” More elders “agree” or “strongly agree” (45%) than “disagree” or “strongly disagree” (31%) with the statement. More pastors disagree (45%) than agree (35%). A majority of specialized clergy (60%) disagree.

Let’s take this apart.  First, it is important to know the question that was asked (see page A-14 of the report):

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with…the following statement: only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.

Now, in looking at the responses it is important to realize that there is the terminology problem with their categories that I noted in the previous posts: When the survey uses the term “elders” it means those in the church who are ruling elders currently serving on session.  When the report uses the term “member” it means all the rest, that is everyone else who is not a teaching elder or ruling elder serving on session.  In other words, when the term “member” is used it means a mix of ruling elders not currently on session, deacons, and church members not ordained to a church office.  It is interesting to note that according to the report 21% of “members” have been ordained as elders only, 19% as deacons only, and 16% have been ordained as both an elder and deacon.  That means that there is a category for “elder” and then 37% of the “members” category are also ruling elders.  (And while the numbers would probably be fairly small, I would also be curious how many of the “members” have been released from the exercise of ordained office or had given up their ordinations all together.)  It also means that a minority (43%) of the “members” are not officers of the church.  And it is interesting to note that “elders” were the best at returning the survey (79%), “ministers” next at 70%, and “members” only returned 59%.  So within the mixed category of “member” were any of the different components (ruling elders, deacons, non-ordained) more or less likely to return the survey?

(Three quick points of commentary on these numbers:  1) I won’t discuss it further now, but there seem to be some important implications for a church when a majority of the members are ordained officers in the church.  2) Does breaking out the opinions of only the ruling elders currently serving on session reinforce the too common belief that our ordination as an elder only really matters when we are serving on session?  3) What I would really like to see is the panel profile break out the opinions of the non-ordained members, or am I missing that in the report?)

So getting back to the question asked in the survey, here is how respondents agreed with “only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.”

Response Members  Members
(non-elders)		  Elders Pastors Specialized
Clergy
 strongly agree  25%  24%  27%  21%  12%
 agree  14%  12%  18%  14%  10%
 neutral or not sure  25%  26%  23%  20%  18%
 disagree  19%  19%  19%  24%  24%
 strongly disagree  17%  20%  12%  21%  36%

 
A couple of notes: 1) The “Members (non-elders)” category is my adjustment of the members number based on the (possibly risky) assumption that the ruling elders mixed in with the members have the same opinions as the “elders” category.  While tempting to extrapolate that deacons think like ruling elders, I won’t take the correction that far. 2) In the survey of the 1453 “ministers” that responded there were 982 pastors (67.6%) and 471 in specialized ministry (32.4%). This is a very close match to the 31.9% of “Active Ministers” that are not in parish ministry according to the 2008 Membership Statistics.  3) Finally, the margin of error is reported as +4% so that differences of less than 8% are not statistically significant.

What does all this mean?  First, with one exception, members, members (non-elders), elders and pastors all responded the same within the margin of error.  The one exception is that the 21% of pastors that strongly disagreed was statistically meaningfully above the 12% of elders with that response.  The other important difference is that on the extremes the specialized clergy were statistically different from every other category with less strongly agreeing (9 to 15% less) and more strongly disagreeing (15 to 24% more).

If we now consider the “orthodox” answer to this question to be that there is “salvation in Christ alone” (cf. Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 60) the most interesting thing is that the most orthodox category is the ruling elders with 45% of respondents either agreeing or strongly agreeing.  To be fair, combining boxes like that raises the uncertainty of the combined values to +5.6% so now an 11% spread between results is necessary making the only statistically distinct difference between the specialized ministry category and all the other ones.  On the other end, the first four groups disagree or strongly disagree with the statement from about 31% to 45% so pastors are distinguishable from elders.  Those in specialized ministry expressed 60% disagreement.

Clearly, if subscription to the Westminster Standards were still a requirement for ordination in the mainline American Presbyterian church a sizable group would be declaring a departure.  Here is where I would be interested in what the non-ordained members believe because all that is required for membership is affirmation of Jesus Christ as savior.  It is when we become ordained that we agree to be “instructed and led” by the confessions.

Looking at the preceding question in the survey does raise some questions about how the respondents interpreted the statement “only followers of Jesus can be saved.”  The question before it was “the only absolute truth for humankind is in Jesus Christ.”  For this statement there was significantly more agreement with that statemen
t.

Response Members  Members
(non-elders)		  Elders Pastors Specialized
Clergy
 strongly agree  38%  34%  44%  42%  25%
 agree  21%  19%  24%  24%  19%
 neutral or not sure  20%  22%  17%  12%  15%
 disagree  13%  14%  11%  17%  25%
 strongly disagree  7%  9%  4%  5%  15%


So there is a significant shift to agreement with the statement that Jesus is absolute truth.  In fact, now 20%, 23%, 15%, 22%, and 40% disagree or strongly disagree with the statement.  The drop is 15% to 20% in all categories.  This is more reassuring about the strength of the orthodox viewpoints in the PC(USA) and seems to point to a natural human reaction that it is more comfortable to talk about the relatively impersonal idea of Jesus as absolute truth but being less comfortable when it gets to the personal by saying that my neighbor is not saved if they don’t believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.  Or, I could be over-explaining this because the responses to the statement “all the world’s different religions are equally good ways of helping a person find ultimate truth” look more like the responses, actually the reversed responses, to “only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.”

Besides the tweets there has been response on blogs as well — I will highlight two of those.  First, the blog that has probably been the most heavily linked to is the comment on all this by the Rev. Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY.  He looks at the results of the survey in the context of the overall decline and his perceived liberalization of the PC(USA).  There is also an interesting article on Stand Firm that takes issue with the design and reporting of the survey which in their opinion was poor on both counts and hides some of the results.

That is enough drilling into these statistics for today, but I want to turn to another set of statistics that was just released, the denominational membership statistics in the National Council of Churches yearbook.  (For one take on the relationship of information in the panel survey to the NCC membership changes see my search for a correlation last year.)

First, a quick review of the source of the NCC data:  The data is self-reported by the denominations.  Some are not as into statistics as the PC(USA) so their data should be viewed as round numbers.  For example, the National Baptist Convention reports an even 5 million members with no update reported.  In fact 12 of the 25 largest churches did not report updates.  Additionally, the number of members reported here is not necessarily the same category of members reported elsewhere.  The PC(USA) reports 2,844,952 in the NCC report but only 2,140,165 in the statistical report.  Clearly the NCC number is a broader measure of membership including baptized children and maybe inactive members while the in-house statistical report is only active communicant members on which per capita is collected.

So what did the NCC say?  Five of the 25 largest denominations reported gains: Jehovah’s Witnesses (+2.00%), Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), (+1.76%), Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (+1.71%), Roman Catholic (+1.49%), and the Assemblies of God (+1.27%).  As mentioned, twelve did not report and the remaining eight declined: Southern Baptist Convention (-0.24%), United Methodist Church (-0.98%), Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (-1.62), Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (-1.92%), American Baptist Churches (-2.00%), The Episcopal Church (-2.81%), United Church of Christ (-2.93%), Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (-3.28%).

While some numbers look close to last year (e.g. SBC, ELCA) some have changed a bit (e.g. AOG from 0.96% to 1.27%, PC(USA) from -2.79% to -3.28%) and the UCC has significantly changed (from -6.01% to -2.93%).  I won’t redo the correlation chart from last year and instead leave any interpretation of the numbers as an exercise for the reader.  Have fun.

Historical Realignments In The Scottish Presbyterian Church And Parallels In Other Branches

6 Replies

I ran across an article today that had some interesting historical details about the Presbyterian churches in Scotland, details that seem to mesh with what I have previously commented on for North American Branches.

The article is on the blog Holdfast and is titled “the Free Church in its current form is finished.”  The article looks ahead to the Free Church of Scotland General Assembly, something which would be of interest to a GA Junkie from the start.  Related to the focus of the piece is the editorial in the July ’09 issue of the Monthly Record, the Free Church’s official publication, something I had commented on at the time.  The point of the editorial was what the controversy in the Church of Scotland over ordination standards means for the Free Church — Including possibly making worship standards more flexible to allow CofS churches to comfortably realign with the Free Church. 

What the author mentions, which I am interested to find out, is that was not the first time the editor, Mr. David Robertson, had made comments about worship style.  The blog post informs us that he made a statement a year before at the 2008 General Assembly:

The current editor of the Monthly Record told the Assembly in 2008 that he could no longer ‘assert, maintain and defend’ the current practice on worship. That is that he desires hymns, instrumental music and women deacons too. He has said ‘the Free Church is going to change’, ‘the Free Church in its current form is finished’.

The 2008 General Assembly comments are covered in the July 08 issue of the Monthly Record (p. 27) and were preceded by editorial comments on “Worship Wars” in the May 08 issue (p. 4-5).

The specifics of the current debate I will hold for a while and try to return to them before the Assembly meets in May.  The information indicates that the Trustees will be bringing a recommendation to the Assembly concerning the current “Worship Wars.”

But all that is introduction to what really caught my attention in this article.  In my contemplation of the complexity of American Presbyterianism I have seen that Scottish Presbyterians are not far behind in their splits and unions.  But some of the parallels in dates are intriguing, such as a major Scottish split in 1732 and an American mainline split in 1741.  While the Americans reunited shortly after the Scottish branches did not.  The big Scottish split was the “Disruption of 1843” which produced the Free Church, while the American mainline suffered its Old School/New School split in 1837.  Maybe something related in all of this, maybe not.

Last week I mentioned the 1906 reunion of a majority of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church with the mainline American Presbyterians and how that was immediately preceded by revision of the Westminster Standards and occurred during the Ecumenical Movement of the early 20th Century.  Note what the author of the Holdfast piece says about the Free Church in that same time period:

The interesting thing for those who have a knowledge of the history of the Free Church is that the proponents of change are appealing to the historical precedent of the late-victorian Free Church where hymns and organs were permitted in order to make way for union with the United Presbyterian Church. Union with Church of Scotland evangelicals unable to accept psalms without organs is the great rallying cry now behind the movement for change. History is evidently repeating itself, it has to because few are really listening. An astute article looks at the historical arguments used by contemporary proponents of change. It notes that the changes in Victorian times came hand in hand with theological declension. The attempts to form a superchurch in those times culminated in the United Free Church declining further until it merged into the Church of Scotland in 1929. Only a very basic theological standard is going to suit most evangelicals in the Church of Scotland.

To clarify the timing here, in 1900 some from the Free Church joined with the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland to form the United Free Church.  Then a majority from that body joined the Church of Scotland in 1929.  Like the CPC/mainline American union, this is in the same time period and, as the article states, involves a modernizing/modification/compromise/weakening of standards (depending on your viewpoint) to accommodate the merger between two bodies with a vision of greater ecumenical unity through organic union.  Similarly, the United Church of Canada effected its union in exactly the same time period, joining in 1925 after 20 years of discussion.  The central argument among the Presbyterians was whether to have organic union to unite three denominational bodies as one, with the necessary compromises in doctrine and polity, or whether to have federation to more closely work together in locations where three separate church bodies were duplicating their efforts but preserving denominational identity.  The unionists formed the United Church but the large minority of Presbyterians who opposed union, and mostly supported federation, continued as the Presbyterian Church in Canada.  (It is also an interesting parallel that one of the figures in that debate, but on the anti-union side, was the editor of the official Presbyterian publication.)

For me one of the take-aways is that I may not be focusing as much on the ecumenical movement as I should, instead focusing on the fundamentalist/modernist debate that followed, and was probably influenced if not precipitated by the ecumenical movement.  And I will have to look more closely at the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and the merger in 1901 that formed the present denomination.  I am curious if any of these dynamics seen elsewhere were a part of that merger.

And we will see how this specific issue develops both before and during the General Assembly of the Free Church which will convene on May 17, if my calendar is correct.

Missing The Big Game On The Lord’s Day

Leave a reply

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

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

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

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

Some excerpts from the interview:

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

…

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

…

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

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

…

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

So tomorrow…

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

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

Leave a reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Within the rational section the writers of the overture say:

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

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

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

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

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