The PCA Strategic Plan — How Do You Grow Larger?

3 Replies

The 38th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America will be considering the new Strategic Plan for the PCA.  The church is putting significant effort into presenting and interpreting the Plan including the main report with the narrative of the Plan, an executive summary dealing mainly with the funding proposals contained in the Plan as well as a slightly longer detailed description of the funding formula, and a concise summary of the changes to the Book of Church Order that would be necessary to implement one part of the Plan.  On the interpretation side, there is a five part video on the Plan web page that I think does a good job explaining the situation and what the Plan includes to address those issues.  There is also an FAQ  and a page of comments about the Plan from “PCA leaders” (a note that all the comments are positive, a fact noted in the file name which contains the word “endorsements”).  The PCA publication byFaith has articles about the committee approving the Plan, reaction to the Plan (again positive) from pastors,  and responses to questions/criticisms that have been raised.  Speaking of criticisms, the PCA blogosphere has been buzzing about the Plan and from what I have read it has generally been doubtful or critical of the plan.  For a collected list of all these responses keep an eye on the blog Johannes Weslianus where Wes White has been keeping track of all this.  He posted his latest list yesterday where it is instructive to note that there are no unofficial positive responses to the Plan but 10 (some in multiple parts) “cautious/skeptical” responses and two “opposed” — But that is the nature of the blogosphere which, interestingly, is something the Plan comments on ( pg. 13 ).  Wes also includes his picks for “Best Concise Summary” of the Plan.

I have made selective general comments about the Plan twice now, but before I launch into my more detailed analysis I think it is important to remind you of the lens that I read the Plan through.  On the one hand I am a ruling elder in a denomination other than the PCA so as I read the report I can miss some of the history, nuances and subtleties that it contains, references, or includes implicitly from the ethos of the denomination.  On the other hand, I am an observer and student of “big picture” Presbyterianism and some of the conclusions I have drawn from the report are similarly big picture and I have not seen them mentioned in the comments on other blogs (although I have fallen behind in my reading so if this is bringing the observation to the party late I apologize).

Let me begin with my two general observations about the Strategic Plan.  The first is that it does a very good job of describing the situation and circumstances that the PCA finds itself in today.  In fact, the point of my first post was that the insight of the report is so good that their observations and isolation of the issues can be applied to not just the PCA but to may of the Presbyterian and Reformed branches at this time.  While I previously highlighted the opening section of Identifying Our Challenges (p. 7) I found the whole section, including the North American and European Challenges, Global Challenges, and Internal Challenges to be comprehensive and useful.  I also found the sections on Identifying Opportunities and Identifying Strengths to be good.  More on some of those specifics in a moment.

The other thing that struck me was that as I read through the report, and especially the recommendations, I kept thinking “that is something a ‘large denomination’ does.”  After thinking that enough times it struck me that what the report seems to be proposing, intentionally or not, are ways for the PCA to make the structural leap from a medium sized denomination to a large denomination.  Let me explain…

There are widely recognized and described styles of congregations based upon their size — one of the most widely used, the Rothauge system, has Family, Pastoral, Program, and Corporate churches from smallest to largest in size.  While the styles and boundaries between them are not hard and fast (I would say that my own congregation well into the Program size still has strong characteristics of the Pastoral style) it is a useful general scheme for understanding congregational dynamics.  A similar system could probably be developed based on denomination size although I am not aware of one.  And while the congregation size system has some variability, I would expect the denomination system to be even more variable depending on where a particular church falls in the congregational-hierarchical polity spectrum.  But having said that, the PCA is one of a few Presbyterian branches in the vicinity of 300,000 members and I have suspected that for Presbyterian branches there may be a transition point there.  One indication of this may be the slowing growth the PCA has seen recently (although there are numerous other possible explanations as well).

Why is there a transition point?  As the Report itself identifies (p. 13) “Our organizational cohesion has not primarily been achieved by shared mission goals, ministry practice, organizational support, worship style, ethnicity, political perspectives or economic status – but by doctrinal agreement.”  To go forward the Report describes the evolution of the denomination in this way:

Our values are well identified in the “motto” of the PCA: Faithful to Scripture, True to the Reformed Faith, and Obedient to the Great Commission.

The phrases of this motto also provide insight into the missional development of the PCA. It is fair to say that commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture was the driving force of our founding and that the churches who initially came into the PCA immediately united in this value. Determining what it meant to be true to the Reformed faith was not as unifying, and created significant debates among us for the next 30 years. These debates both clouded understanding of our mission and inhibited cooperative participation in it. While progress has been made in defining how we will hold each other accountable for being true to the Reformed faith, relational tensions wax and wane around this issue. Thus, the next stage of PCA development likely relates to the last phrase of our motto. How we do mission together, and whether we can do mission together, is the key to our future. If we are able to unite in missional purpose, we have much to contribute to the future of the Kingdom; if we cannot, then our future is likely incessant, inward-focused pettiness.

To put it into general terms – when small a branch can be held together by a strong common tie, probably historical or doctrinal, but as it grows the increase in size creates enough diversity that at a certain point a “critical mass” is reached where well-intentioned and sincerely held doctrinal differences threaten the cohesion of the group and unity needs to be found in something other than shared history or doctrinal conformity.  At least that is my perspective on denominational size and where I see the PCA as I read this report.

So as I read through the report I saw several items that I would identify with a “large denomination.”  These proposals include advisory delegates, representation/quotas/places at the table, pro rated and progressive assessments for Administrative work, and “safe places” to talk.  And when I say “large denomination” I’m sure that many in the PCA would rightly think PC(USA) , but I would also include the few other large Reformed branches, like the RCA and the Church of Scotland as well.  Therefore, to emphasize the generality of my argument I use the generic label rather than a specific denomination.

Now, let me also say that in a general sense the proposals for growth are in and of themselves neutral.  It will be how they are implemented and used that determines their usefulness and missional applicability and validity.

One final comment about the report in general:  As I read it I had to agree with many of the other commentators that when it got to the actual plan portion it got very specific and business-like and it was tough to tell that this had anything to do with a church.  Taking from one of Wes White’s Best Concise Summaries, David A. Booth says this:

Addressing specific details in the PCA’s proposed strategic plan that one Elder or another objects to still leaves the denomination approaching Christ’s Church like a non-profit organization that simply needs to be managed better. This is not to imply that the men involved in crafting the PCA’s proposed strategic plan have anything other than good motives. Furthermore, some of the problems that the report is wrestling with are very real problems for the PCA. What should be called into question is the very idea of grand strategic planning within the Church of Jesus Christ. We cannot manage-in the Kingdom of God.

There is a tension in how we use human means to organize ourselves to do God’s work.

As something of a counter argument I would recommend watching the five part video posted on the web page.  It not only adds substantial and much-needed theological depth that the printed report itself lacks, but provides an interesting commentary on the challenges the church in general faces and the changes in society.  Even non-PCA members might find the first three segments of this presentation interesting where the general challenges are discussed.  (It is about the first 30 minutes of this 49 minute presentation.)

Having now expended a substantial number of words on my general observations I will only briefly touch on just a few of the specifics of the report.

In the report it talks about “animating values” (what gets us interested) and “formal values” (stated standards of the church).  There is a list of 27 animating values of local churches (p. 5) and I did not see where those came from and whether there was a particular order to them.  I must admit that if ordered I would have “Right administration of the Sacraments” and “Good Bible preaching” higher than their respective 8 and 10 on the published list.  I was also a little surprised for a Reformed branch to include “Revival thru viral repentance and faith” in the list but maybe I’m not interpreting that correctly. (Or maybe I’m too T.R. for my own good.)

There is a great list on page 6 related to the animating values of groups that I think does an good job of classifying the various identities within the PCA and how they are viewed by others.  One thought that crossed my mind as I read the report, and that seems to be a sub-text in some of the discussions in the PCA, is how the churches from the former RPCES are, or are not, part of this group identity?  While “Southern Presbyterianism” seems to be a factor in places in the report, the RPCES heritage is not.

Another great list is that of Internal Challenges (p. 12-14) which, as I noted above, transcends the PCA.  I was particularly interested to see item 6 on the list:

6. Pervasive Disregard for Eph. 4:15 and Matthew 18 in Discussions of Differences
Our organizational cohesion has not primarily been achieved by shared mission goals, ministry practice, organizational support, worship style, ethnicity, political perspectives or economic status – but by doctrinal agreement. The downside of so valuing doctrine is that we have little tolerance within or without the church for theological variance. Our tendency is not simply to consider those who differ with us wrong – but to consider them bad (because they are obviously “compromisers” or “unbiblical”). It is easy for us to give moral status to our theological perspective – even on secondary issues, and thus rationalize uncharitable characterizations of those who differ (esp. on blogs)

I think this is an issue that has not been vocalized enough but will have to be in the future as more of our interaction goes into the virtual world.  A topic for another time and nice to see listed, but we must be careful not to uniformly demonize the web.

On that same list item 18 had me scratching my head a little bit: “Lack of Desire among Young Leaders to Assume Positions with PCA’s Most Significant Pulpits and Organizations (perception that they are moribund and dangerous for families)”  If read at face value this is interesting because the “clergy crunch” currently is typically described as small rural churches, not flagship or tall steeple.  But maybe with my lack of connection to the PCA I am missing something here.

Let me move on to the specific recommendations.

Theme 1. Safe Places – This would provide open forums for expressing any opinions regarding the selected topic at GA meetings and encourage similar forums in a presbytery context.  The goal is to provide a safe, non-judgmental environment for bringing up differing viewpoints on Biblical Belief, Ministry and Mission.

Theme 2. More Seats – These recommendations relate to getting representatives at the table from currently unrepresented groups: younger generation, women, ethnic leaders, global church representatives.  Some of this involves participation on committees, in forums, and mentoring.  This theme also includes identifying, credentialling, and encouraging non-ordained vocational ministries.

Theme 3. Global Mission – This is more of a mixed bag and more controversial.

Means 1 – I would describe this as being more intentional about working in Gospel outreach outside the PCA.

Means 2 – “Develop a unifying funding means” – This is the revision of the funding model for the Administrative Committee and the only part of the report that requires a change to the Book of Church Order.  For the details here see the Rules Changes document, but the change to BCO 14-1 would empower the GA to collect the mandatory assessment, and the change to 14-2 specifies that TE and RE commissioners to the Assembly are only in good standing if their congregations have paid the fees.  Otherwise they have voice but not vote.  The last action would change the Rules of Assembly Operations 14-11 to describe the fee, proposed to be capped at 0.4% “of local church Tithes and Offerings.”

Means 3 – To develop a method to evaluate GA level ministry to support only those “critical to our calling.”

Means 4 – “Partner with national & international ministries with whom we can most effectively participate in God’s global mission.”  This would have the church be selective in who they partner with and withdraw from organizations with whom they do not share “ministry priorities,” and NAPARC is mentioned by name to withdraw from.  In other words, put resources of gifts and talents towards ministry and not doctrine.

Well, that is a summary of the document.  There is plenty of reading there for you as well as in all the various responses. At great risk of being too selective I am going to highlight one particular response that seems to have gotten referenced around the blogosphere as much as any of them have…

On the Aquila Report William M. Schweitzer has a commentary titled “Thoughts on the PCA Strategic Plan: Is It Presbyterian?”  In this article he highlights three areas where the Strategic Plan would compromise ecclesiastical standards as Presbyterians understand them.  First, the provisions for future planning and implementation decision making shifts power from the presbyteries to the Cooperative Ministries Committee.  Second, the use of non-ordained vocational ministries would circumvent the process of call, exploration, and response understood in our process of certification and ordination and derived from the Pastoral Epistles.  And finally, the idea of more “seats at the table” compromises the role of “biblically qualified and ordained elders” and shifts power from elders to advisory delegates.

Well, as I said, the on-line response has been very concerned to negative but what will ultimately matter is the discernment of the body through the debate and vote on the floor of the Assembly.  Is the question whether the PCA has reached a point in their size where structural changes are needed to grow?  Or does the church go back to “being the church” and concentrate on spreading the Gospel. (Which is one of the theme of the Plan.)  There are well known names on both sides of this issue at the moment and it will be interesting to hear from the broad range of commissioners as they discuss this.  I’m sure there are a lot more viewpoints out there that have not been expressed yet.  Stay tuned.

Church Of Scotland/Roman Catholic Agreement On Baptism

3 Replies

In reading through materials for the Church of Scotland General Assembly that will convene its meeting in just over a week my attention was caught by an item contained in the report of the Committee on Ecumenical Relations.  It seems that although the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops did not sign off on an ecumenical statement on baptism with some American Reformed churches, a similar agreement is in place in Scotland.  The deliverance of the Committee on Ecumenical Relations asks the Assembly to “4. Encourage the use of the Liturgy for the Renewal of Baptismal vows on appropriate ecumenical occasions as part of the fruits of the Joint Commission on Doctrine’s study on Baptism.”

Within the body of the report they say this about the agreement and the liturgy:

5.3 The Joint Commission on Doctrine (Church of Scotland – Roman Catholic Church) published a joint report on baptism as a study guide for local congregations in 2008. This booklet could not have been written 20 years ago and harvests the fruits of decades of faith and order discussion within the World Council of Churches and between the WCC and the Vatican in the Joint Working Group. Though some may dismiss this important aspect of the ecumenical movement as “old fashioned”, the faith and order agenda continues to provide the platform on which local developments can grow. The Joint Commission has followed up its study on Baptism by producing a PowerPoint presentation that gives the framework out of which the study has come and by commissioning the production of a joint liturgy for the reaffirmation of baptismal vows. All three resources belong together as the fruit of the Joint Commission’ study on Baptism and it is hoped that they will be widely used. The liturgy has been drawn up by a small group that included representation from the Scottish Episcopal Church. This liturgy is now available for general use on appropriate ecumenical occasions.

Now, while the report says the “liturgy is now available” I have not found it in electronic form in the report, on the Committee’s web pages, including the resources page , or in their extranet area .  (If it is there and I missed it please let me know.)

The bottom line here is that while I am not currently in a position to see how the two forms of agreement differ, it is interesting that one Reformed/Roman Catholic dialogue was able to craft a mutually agreed statement while another has not been able to do so yet.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — Fifth Candidate For Moderator

Leave a reply

When I posted yesterday on the third and fourth nominees standing for the Moderator of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I thought that I would be waiting a couple more weeks to present the fifth candidate until his presbytery endorsed him.  But I changed my mind when I considered that 1) starting next Monday I want to devote as much time as possible to following the Assembly meetings that will be in progress and 2) a Presbytery endorsement this late brings up some interesting timing issues in the Standing Rules.

Let me briefly point out the timing described in Chapter H of the Standing Rules of the General Assembly.  First, section H.1.b.(1) gives a far limit for endorsing a Moderator candidate and that is not before the previous Assembly adjourns.  But note that there is no minimum time before the Assembly that a nominee must be announced and endorsed.  The implication is that at the time of the election of the Moderator at the Assembly a new name of a commissioner may be brought from the floor.

But there is a big advantage to being endorsed ahead of time and that is your inclusion in the document produced by the Office of the Stated Clerk described in section H.1.b.(3)(e).  This has specific deadlines for inclusion including submission of all materials not less than 45 days before the Assembly convenes and the Office of the Stated Clerk publishing the final “booklet” electronically 15 days before the Assembly.  It should also be pointed out that under section H.1.b.(2) “ordinarily” each Moderator nominee needs to submit the name of the commissioner they will put forward to be confirmed as their Vice-Moderator 45 days before the Assembly.  (But how does that work if they are nominated from the floor? I guess that gets by in the “ordinarily.”)

So what does that mean this year?  If I did the math correctly next Thursday, May 19, is the 45 day deadline for materials and Vice-moderator names.  The packets will be available no later than Friday June 18.  So, with this in mind consider the fifth nominee for Moderator of the 219th General Assembly…

The Rev. James A. Belle has been nominated to stand for election as Moderator with the anticipation he will be endorsed by the Presbytery of Philadelphia at their next stated meeting on May 25.  According to the Presbyterian News Service story, since 2005 he has been the pastor of Holy Trinity-Bethlehem Presbyterian Church.  The announcement is brand new and I have found no formal announcement, web presence, or social media site so there is not a lot more information.  I will update here when I find those.  There is an article from The Layman with a bit of research they have done.

The PNS article provides a bit of background telling us that Rev. Belle is a second career minister having his first degree in music and employment in the army for 10 years using his musical talents.  Training for his second career for the church included not only an M.Div. from Johnson C. Smith Theological Seminary but a master of church music from there as well.

He does make a statement quoted in the PNS article (and probably drawn from his Q&A for the info booklet) that – inserting my bias here – resonates with me:

“I see biblical and confessional ‘illiteracy’ as the major obstacles facing our church today,” Belle wrote in a statement on key theological issues. “I hold ministers of the Word and Sacrament directly responsible within the last 20 years for the lack of confessional and polity training to and for our laity. Without an understanding of the Scriptures and their historic linkage to the confessions, the Book of Confessions is difficult to understand.”

Based on that, I look forward to reading more.  And if the Assembly elects him as their Moderator, and if the Belhar Confession is sent to the presbyteries, with his expressed passion for the confessions it will be interesting to hear him interpret the Assembly’s actions.

Financial Implications — Decisions Coming To General Assemblies

Leave a reply

I am struck by the number of Presbyterian branches that have financial issues to deal with right at the moment.  I highlighted some of these a couple of weeks ago when I posted a large block of text from the new Strategic Plan from the Presbyterian Church in America .  A few brief excerpts that are relevant for today’s purpose say:

[D]espite our formal values of connectional polity and cooperative ministry, less than half of the churches of the PCA support any denominational agency or committee (less than 20 percent give at the Partnership Share level).
…
The cooperative efforts that do exist are often directed toward affinity gatherings or the ministries of large churches that have become missional expressions of the animating values of specific groups.
…
We remain an anti-denominational denomination – excusing individualistic ministry by re-telling the narratives of past abuses in former denominations, demonizing denominational leadership or movements to justify non-support of the larger church, or simply making self-survival or self-fulfillment the consuming goal of local church ministry.

I bring these up as a very good summary of where Presbyterian denominations find themselves today in these still-challenging economic times.  Compared to other branches the PCA finds itself in a relatively good financial position.  However, the GA will be considering this report and its recommendations for implementing a new formula for supporting the work of the Assembly.

A situation a bit more stressful is that of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland whose General Assembly held at special meeting at which they authorized raising £1 million for a special hardship fund for those impacted by the collapse of the Presbyterian Mutual Society.  While this is being raised through a special appeal and not general funds, the plan will be presented to next month’s GA for approval.

To the east across the North Channel the Church of Scotland General Assembly will be debating plans to reduce expenses by disposing of property, including church buildings, and reducing ministerial staffing, as measured by FTE’s, by 10%.  As the report of the Ministries Council says:

“Where there is no vision, the people perish”(Prov 28:19), declares the Wisdom writer. This was a sentiment most likely forged in crisis, addressed to people who found the pressures around too great to raise their heads and look around. These are words which speak into our current situation in the Church of Scotland, facing as we do a significant crisis in relation to ministries. A deficit budget of £5.7M is quite simply unsustainable. Given that the Ministries Council is responsible for 87% of the Church’s budget, this is a crisis for the whole Church, not just for the Ministries Council.

Which brings us to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and hard decisions that continue to be needed, right now by the General Assembly Mission Council but soon by the General Assembly itself.  As followers of the PC(USA) know this is not new — the Outlook Article reminds us that over the last eight years about 250 positions have already been eliminated.  Thirty of those were early retirement packages offered to staff following the February 2010 GAMC meeting.  At that meeting CFO Joey Bailey presented financial projections of 15 – 20% lower unrestricted funding for 2011.  The Council also approved a new set of Guiding Principles for Planning Decisions. Going into the GAMC meeting this week Leslie Scanlon of the Outlook writes:

This time, denominational leaders have warned that the cuts could mean the elimination of entire programs or areas of ministry. As council member Matt Schramm put it in February: “We may have to say goodbye to some long-treasured programs that no longer serve the needs of the church.”

Expect significant news to develop over the rest of this week as the GAMC wrestles with significant decisions.

But the 219th General Assembly will have review on some of these actions, responsibility for approving overtures with “financial implications” that will affect the GAMC’s proposed budgets, and setting per capita for the next two years.  In addition, there are overtures to the GA that not only have financial implications but address the financial practices directly.

One of these is Item 03-09 (overture 72) from Great Rivers Presbytery which would add a line to the section about special committees that says “Special committees and commissions should be appointed only in very rare and exceptional circumstances, i.e. national or denominational crisis.”  The rational makes clear that this is suggested for representational and procedural reasons, but knowing how the special committee I was on was constrained by budgetary considerations I know that carefully controlling the creation of special committees will put less strain on budgets.

Another more direct one is item 03-04 (overture 54) from San Diego Presbytery that would, for budgetary reasons, restore the number of GA commissioners to the lower levels before the switch to biennial Assembly meetings.

Finally, for today, there is item 09-02 (overture 34) from Sierra Blanca Presbytery requesting “the 219th General Assembly (2010) to consider that all undesignated funds flowing from the Presbyterian Foundation to the General Assembly Mission Council (GAMC), a Corporation, be allocated directly to individual presbyteries (by percentage of denominational membership) for direct dispersal to particular churches of that presbytery, as each presbytery determines.”  While this overture seeks to implement G-9.0402b (“The administration of mission should be performed by the governing body that can most effectively and efficiently accomplish it at the level of jurisdiction nearest the congregation.”) the rational acknowledges that it will impact the GAMC in unspecified ways.  (Although I am pretty certain someone in leadership on the GAMC has come up with at least some rough figures.)

So where does this take us?  It all depends on how you view and address the challenges.

In the PC(USA) there are two proposals, one from the Office of the General Assembly, the other overture 58 from Synod of the Southwest (with five presbyteries and one synod concurring), that would review the  middle governing bodies of the PC(USA) but neither of these would directly review the structure of the General Assembly and its agencies.

For the PCA the Strategic Plan suggests:

This Strategic Plan seeks to address these realities by helping the PCA identify its challenges, address them with strategies that are consistent with our biblical values, and build denominational support for implementing these strategies. The overall goal is to enable the church to work together to steward its blessings and resources to advance the cause of Christ according to the principles and priorities of his Word.

For the C of S Ministries Council they answer their opening statement that I quoted above with this statement:

Out of crisis, however, can come both vision and opportunity. The remit of the Council is: the enabling of ministries in every part of Scotland and elsewhere where appropriate, giving special priority to the poorest and most marginalized, through recruitment, training and support of recognised ministries of the Church and the assessment and monitoring of patterns of deployment of those ministries.  In fulfilling this, we want to take seriously the scale of work which needs to be done, initially to 2014, then beyond towards a revitalized ministry at the end of this new decade. 2020 Vision does not imply that we can wait until 2020 to sort things out! Far from it, change must begin now and continue as a full and natural part of life for the years ahead.

Now it is up to the Assemblies to each collectively discern God’s will and lead their respective branches in the mission that they decide on.  May the Lord bless them and guide them in this mission.

Update 5/24/10 – Corrected the spelling of Matt Schramm’s name.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — Third And Fourth Candidates For Moderator

Leave a reply

In the last two weeks two additional nominees have been endorsed by their presbyteries to stand for election as Moderator of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  So here are the third and fourth nominees for the post, listed in order of their endorsement, and there is now word of a fifth candidate awaiting endorsement as well.

On Tuesday April 27 the Presbytery of Western North Carolina endorsed the Rev. Maggie Palmer Lauterer to stand for Moderator of the 219th General Assembly.  She is the pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Burnsville, N.C.  In order to endorse her for Moderator it was first necessary to elect her as a substitute commissioner to the assembly to replace a clergy commissioner who relinquished his position to make way for her.

A well-produced flyer in PDF format is available from the presbytery web site introducing the Rev. Lauterer. In that flyer she says:

We are a denomination of many small churches and I believe that a passion for the small church is an imperative for PCUSA [sic] leadership. My recent experience has been in a 113-year-old small church, one that had suffered two splits in the ten years prior to my arrival.

And later adds

I believe that, as members of the PCUSA [sic], we are called to be members of a worldwide Presbyterian community. My experience guides me and, I feel, can guide our denomination as we pursue a deeper understanding of the world’s struggles. I have traveled with Presbyterian groups to many places. I have helped build a school in Recife, Brazil; I have studied church issues as I traveled across Central America to Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Guatemala. I have studied the complex issues of the Middle East, traveling in Jordan, Egypt, Palestine and Israel. In the sensitive era of Perestroika, I traveled to Russia seeking a sister city and commonality — a novel idea in those days — in what was then the Soviet Union.

For the last five years, I have traveled with other members of our church to Guatemala, establishing a strong and growing relationship with our sister church (Nueva Esperanza) in San Felipe, and learning more about the PCUSA’s role in Guatemala.

And she concludes with her third issue

And, lastly, but of no less importance, I do not believe that growth of the Church has as much to do with age and location as it does with our openness to the transformative powers of the Trinity as we are called toward new frontiers – the new front lines of being Christ’s Church, of  “doing Christ’s Church” in the light of the radical love Christ has taught us. As I stand for Moderator, that standard will be my standard.

The information sheet also tells us that she is a second-career pastor, having served her congregation since her ordination in 1999.  She previously worked in journalism and made an unsuccessful run for U.S. Congress.  She has served in several forms at the presbytery level, including as Moderator of presbytery.  She has also served on leadership for different workshops and conferences.  And she and her husband have two adult children and two grandchildren.  Finally, on a personal note, according to the bio she also plays the dulcimer, although it does not specify if it is the Appalachian or hammer variety.  (I play both so either is fine with me.)

For additional information you can check out articles from the Presbyterian News Service, The Layman, The Outlook.  I have not yet found a web or social network presence for her candidacy but will update here if I do.

On May 6 the Presbytery of Northern Waters endorsed the Rev. Eric Nielsen to stand for election as Moderator of the 219th General Assembly.  The Rev. Nielsen is the pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Eau Clair, WI. (Catchy church motto: “The perfect church for people who aren’t.”)

He has established a web presence at www.ericnielsen.org where he, or his team, have created a fairly basic and informative site.  The front page has a nice description of his faith journey and I appreciate the twists and turns his call to ministry took.  In particular, I like this description of how others helped him discern his call:

I was active in my church growing up, but never thought of serving God as a pastor. In college I studied Economics and planned to teach high school. I studied voice for several years, was a part of my university’s opera company, and even earned an audition with the Metropolitan Opera – music has always been a large part of my life. But during those college years God’s call came to me once again in a very unexpected way. One day while working with the choir of First Presbyterian Church in Waterloo, IA, their pastor, Jack Boelens handed me an envelope. Inside was an airline ticket. He said the Session of the church believed I had gifts and a calling for ministry, and so they were sending me to Louisville Seminary to attend an Exploratory Weekend. I didn’t know what to say. It just so happened that I had no classes the Friday of this event, removing any excuse not to go. Not convinced this is what I was supposed to be doing, I acknowledge that I was given a lot to pray about.

His forms of service to the denomination include a variety of presbytery work as well as some work on the synod level including Moderator of the Synod of Lakes and Prairies.  He has served churches in the Midwest as well as earlier work in the Louisville, KY, area.

He has posted his answers to the questions that the Office of the General Assembly asks.  In answering the question about what the Belhar Confession would bring to the denomination he writes:

Each of our confessions is context specific. Belhar could be seen as a natural progression of our 20th century statements. The Theological Declaration of Barmen addressed the challenge of idolatry in the community of faith. The Confession of 1967 narrowed the focus of such idolatry as it spoke to unique issues of the 1960s, of which racism and disunity were significant. Our last confession, The Brief Statement of Faith, sought to move us further toward the under-standing of justice and reconciliation. Belhar could now direct the action of the church –moving us from statements of belief to actions that reflect those beliefs – based upon the teachings of Scripture and our obedience to Jesus Christ.

Regarding “ministry to and with youth and young adults” he says:

In most congregations young adults are the missing generation. While we might be able to provide resources and encouragement as the national church, the fact is that this challenge will only be addressed at the congregational level.  While I want to affirm the importance of family ministry, I believe we need to simultaneously increase efforts toward singles ministry. Only 25% of all U.S. households are now married parents with children. We have many single parent households. Young adults are getting married and having children much later in life, yet often church programs and efforts are focused on the “traditional family.”

And regarding the new revised Form of Government he begins:

I believe that the proposed changes to our current Form of Government (FOG) is much needed and long overdue. Corporations and other institutional entities have been moving and adapting to a changing social context for the last several decades, trying to keep ahead of technologies and changing social realities. The Church, however, has remained entrenched in a 1950s corporate model (a model corporations themselves have long since abandoned). A one-size-fits-all approach no longer works in business; it doesn’t work for the Presbyterian Church either.

And stay tuned for his blog.  The tab is there but so far only a test message and I don’t see the RSS feed.  For more info there are also stories from the Presbyterian News Service and The Layman.

So that rounds out the field to four candidates, one elder and three ministers.  As I said at the beginning, it appears we can expect a another clergy candidate.  In addition, the question and answer book is in preparation so that will give us more background as well as the corresponding Vice-Moderator candidates.  Stay tuned because there is lots more to come.

Congratulations Are In Order

Leave a reply

I wish to add my own congratulations to the many already expressed to Mr. Rocco Palmo on the occasion of his receiving an honorary doctoral degree from Aquinas Institute of Theology of St. Louis where yesterday he served as the commencement speaker for the class of 2010.

If you are familiar with Dr. Palmo’s blog you can probably tell why I admire his work — He writes the influential Roman Catholic blog Whispers in the Loggia.  He is a trained journalist who writes like one while writing a blog tightly focused on one denomination and primarily on news from the U.S.  In a nice background piece on TMCnet.com (originally published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch) it says:

In awarding Palmo an honorary doctorate, the 84-year-old Dominican seminary is making a statement about the changing relationship between journalism and the Catholic church. The award for Palmo’s work on his blog Whispers in the Loggia is also an expression of how American Catholic leaders hope to encourage a younger generation to engage their faith through news.

And a colleague says of him writing:

Ann Rodgers, religion reporter for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, said that when Palmo started attending the annual meetings of the U.S.Conference of Catholic Bishops, an event traditional reporters have covered for years, “he was like a rock star. I had archbishops asking me to introduce them to Rocco.”

So, my congratulations on this honor and the honor it reflects on those that use new media.  And my personal admiration for the effort at running a quality blog focused on one niche in religious reporting.  Best wishes.

Liturgy — One Reason We Have It

Leave a reply

On Friday I was one of many bloggers that linked to a video that, in my opinion, provided a very insightful parody of contemporary worship and demonstrated so clearly the liturgy inherent in the worship style.

Last Sunday I had an experience that very clearly points out one of the reasons and values of a liturgy.

Last Sunday for the first time in quite a while I helped take communion to one of our members who has trouble making it to church on Sunday morning for medical reasons.  A while back I was regularly part of the team that took communion to them and then, with a change in their circumstances, they were able to attend regularly for a period.  Unfortunately, they have again had their mobility restricted.

During the earlier period of visitation I would regularly use the worship/communion liturgy from the Book of Common Worship and my preferred Great Thanksgiving that has as the core of its central portion the Sanctus.  As we were setting up for communion last Sunday our friend specifically referenced the earlier period and how meaningful it was to them to have the section with the “Holy, Holy, Holy” in the communion service.

Liturgy serves many purposes among which is the repetition that works its way into our memory to provide a sense of reverence, remembrance, and familiarity.  It really is a “Do this in Remembrance of Me” sort of thing.

Liturgy — Don’t Deny It, You Probably Have It

2 Replies

One of the things I regularly hear from people who attend contemporary worship services is that they like the fact that there is no liturgy.  Now, it may not be “high church,” it may not have a printed order of worship, it may not have unison prayers or much congregational participation beyond the singing of the contemporary Christian music.  But at the heart there is an unwritten order of worship that these services follow whether anyone wants to admit it or not.  I have been to enough of these services to know, there is a very specific order to them that in my understanding of worship qualifies as its own particular liturgy.

And now, the folks at North Point Media have NAILED IT!  Have a look at their video parody movie trailer “Sunday’s Coming.”

National Day Of Prayer — And A Tiny Bit Of History From The PC(USA)

Leave a reply

Today is one of those days when civil religion intersects with the church calendar in the National Day of Prayer.  This year the event is embraced in an official way in the PC(USA) by the Mission Yearbook and the Presbyterian Peacemaking Program.  Unofficially we have contributions from Presbyterian Devotions, Presbyterian Bloggers, and a word of caution in a commentary from the Aquila Report. Over on beliefnet Mark D. Roberts talks about it being viewed with different opinions. But there is a commentary on Religious Dispatches by Elizabeth Drescher that gave me a good chuckle.  The piece is titled “Forget Right of Wrong: Why the National Day of Prayer is Obsolete” and as you might be able to guess her point is that with the trend in demographics with segments of the population of the United States shifting from “religious” to “spiritual” the National Day of Prayer no longer is relevant.  She sums it up with this:

In this world, a government-sponsored National Day of Prayer may not be
appropriate or Constitutional, but it fails most because, as a civic and
as a spiritual event, it’s about as culturally relevant to the
developing mainstream of American believers and non-believers alike as a
National Day of Butter Churning.

Maybe she is right as this is viewed from the civic perspective, which it must be in part because of the government endorsement and participation.  But while cultural relevance may be a civic consideration it does not make sense as a spiritual one in this case — I could see it being argued that the event is even more important from a religious/spiritual perspective because it is not culturally relevant. And from a religious perspective the organizers would argue that she has the cause and effect reversed – it is not that we are religious there for we pray, it is that we are called to prayer to make the country more religious.  But I digress…

What caught my attention, and which I can speak authoritatively to, is her opening line:

The Constitutional
issues around a National Day of Prayer endorsed by the federal
government are significant, and the political stakes are high (or hyped,
depending on your perspective), but the controversy also reflects the
continuing failure of mainline religions to grasp a dramatic cultural
change in what constitutes religious or spiritual “practice.” (emphasis mine)

Now maybe what she means here by “mainline religions” is better expressed as “traditional western religions” or maybe even “evangelical Christians.”  I have trouble making it mean “mainline churches.”

In my experience, and the examples I cite at the beginning not withstanding, the mainline denominations have not been the driving force behind the National Day of Prayer.  I can’t speak for other denominations, but at least in 1997 it was not listed on the Presbyterian Planning Calendar of the PC(USA).  (And I can not tell you if at any point before that it was listed.)

In 1997 as an Elder Commissioner to the 209th General Assembly I was on the Theological Institutions and Issues Committee.  One of our “routine” tasks was the approval of the church calendar for 1998 and the tentative calendar for 1999.  In my usual way I started asking question about the calendar and why certain things were on there and some were not.  (It turns out that it really helps to have program materials ready to promote your “special Sunday” if you want to get it added to the calendar.)  Anyway, the commissioner a couple of seats down from me asked about the National Day of Prayer and then made the motion to include it in the calendar.  The committee approved the addition as did the full Assembly as part of our Consent Agenda.  Don’t believe me?  Here is  the applicable section of the minutes (p. 73) of our Consent Agenda report:

A.

31.0151


That the recommendation is approved with amendment:



Amend the “Special Days and Seasons 1998 Lectionary Year C”
calendar, in the “MAY 1998” section to read as follows: [Text to be
deleted is shown with a strike-through; text to be added or inserted is
shown as italic.]

“MAY 1998 


3
Fourth Sunday of Easter

7
National Day of Prayer

10
Fifth Sunday of Easter

17
Sixth Sunday of Easter

21
Ascension of the Lord*

24
Seventh Sunday of Easter

31
Day of Pentecost*+”

 So, the National Day of Prayer is now included in the PC(USA) calendar not because it came from the standing committee of the General Assembly on worship, but because some commissioners started asking questions of their report and the committee amended it.

The 55th General Assembly Meeting Of The Presbyterian Church In Taiwan

Leave a reply

The 55th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan convened at Chang Jung Girls High School in Tainan on April 6, 2010. The theme for the event and for the General Assembly for the coming year is “Let cultures flourish; Let God’s justice take root.”

The officers of the General Assembly were elected in the first evening session.  Congratulations and best wishes to the new officers: The Rev. Hsien-Chang Lai – Moderator of the 55th General Assembly; the Rev. Lyian-Syian Chiohh – Vice Moderator; the Rev. Dr. Pusin Tali – Clerk of Assembly; the Rev. Jong-Fong Hsu – Assistant Clerk of Assembly.

Business of the Assembly included the approval of the new Rukai Presbytery which includes a significant component of Rukai Aborigines, discussion and statements on gender equality, presentations and urging dialogue on global religious conflicts.

One high-profile issue that the GA addressed, and one that denominational officers have spoken out about, is the proposed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement with China (ECFA).  There are multiple stories about this, one talking of “speaking up for marginalized peoples,” another talking about the effects it will have on young people, a third about possible economic and environmental damage.  There was a presentation to GA and the Assembly endorsed a petition that calls for a public referendum on the ECFA.

Another high-profile issue was abolishing the death penalty in Taiwan.  There is an ecumenical coalition against the death penalty and the GA debated how to add their voice to the discussion.  The article says:

When this statement was first read in the recent 55th PCT General Assembly, some pastors were worried that it was adopted too hastily and they would have a hard time convincing their parishioners. They also feared that passing such a statement when the general population still viewed capital punishment as a sensitive issue might fuel controversy within churches. In response to their concerns, former PCT General Assembly Moderator Leonard Lin stressed that there are currently 44 inmates on death row that could be executed starting June – making the abolition of the death penalty a pressing life and death issue that everyone should be concerned about. Lin further noted that PCT had campaigned for the abolition of the death penalty for more than 15 years. With rising suspicions that there have been mishandled cases, wrong sentences, and instances of torture used to extract confessions, the integrity of the judiciary needs to be improved. More importantly, PCT must make a stand when debate on the death penalty keeps deviating from the real issues at stake.

In the end the Assembly agreed and…

…issued a statement… in support of abolishing capital punishment based on its religious convictions. According to this statement, human beings were created in God’s image, given immeasurable dignity and value, and that is why even murderers have human rights. The statement underscored that though offenders should be punished according to their crimes, the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment that is both irreversible and widely abused. It is also fraught with problems because Taiwan’s judicial system’s impartiality and fairness has been compromised. Furthermore, churches and organizations around the world have come to agree that death penalties don’t alleviate social problems or crime. The statement urged Taiwanese society to abide by their religious convictions instead of giving in to their feelings, by taking a step toward forgiveness and reconciliation. It said even murderers should be given the chance to live so that they might accept Christ, repent of their sins, and use the rest of their lives to reconcile with victims’ families and pay restitution.

A bit more on this in just a moment.

Finally, this GA, like its siblings around the world, is an opportunity for other activities and this includes two pastors who biked to the the Assembly and a hospital that offered free blood tests and check-ups to pastors.

Some of the most interesting accounts in English comes from two Canadian couples who attended in various capacities and mentioned it on their blogs.

Ted and Betty live in Taiwan and teach at Tainan Theological College and Seminary.  They each have brief accounts about their participation in the GA, Ted just mentioning his speaking to the Assembly and Betty giving a nice account of singing for the Assembly with the College Choir and traveling with the international representatives to the Assembly on their local tour.

Those international representatives included fellow Canadians Scott and Anne to were the official representatives to the Assembly from the Presbyterian Church in Canada .  They have put together a blog with a very nice account of their trip of which the GA was just a small part.  I will leave you read about their wider travels for yourself if you are interested, but they talk about a few very interesting details of the church and the Assembly.  Regarding the history of the church they mention that the first Protestant missionary arrived in 1865 from England and was soon followed, in 1872, by Rev. Dr. George L. Mackay of the Canadian Presbyterian Mission.  But what is most interesting is their account of the business of the Assembly that I have mentioned above:

This morning was an exposure to the business end of General Assembly of the PCT and I don’t think it differs much from the PCC. From what I could gather from Sidney’s translations the two most contentious issues were the terms of service on the Christian school boards and concern over a letter written to the government calling for a ban on capital punishment. A recent poll showed that 80% of Taiwanese are in favour of capital punishment. In both cases the agony was over procedure more than content.

We heard from an expert speaker concerning the implications of a proposed free trade agreement between Taiwan and China and it sounded so much like the NAFTA headache that I wanted to get up and speak to the issue. Never trust an elephant when you get into bed with it.

Any GA Junkie will appreciate that comment about the “agony was over procedure more than content.”

So that is what I know of the meeting of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan.