Nominee For Moderator Of The 136th General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Canada Announced

Leave a reply

Today it was announced The Rev. Dr. Herbert Gale is the nominee for Moderator of the 136th General Assemblyof the PresbyterianChurch in Canada. The announcement was made by The Rev. Stephen Kendall, Principal Clerk of General Assembly, on behalfof the Committee to Advise the Moderator, The Rev. Gale being chosen from the three candidates announced in December.

The Rev. Gale currently serves as the Associate Secretary, Planned Giving, for the Presbyterian Church in Canada.  He is a native of North Carolina and was a member of Myers Park Presbyterian Church as well as serving that church as youth director after college.  He attended Union Theological Seminary (Richmond) and served as pastor of Shelby Presbyterian Church in Shelby, NC, after seminary.  He later earned an M.Th. from the Toronto School of Theology and began his service to the Presbyterian Church in Canada at St. James Presbyterian Church, Stouffville, Ontario.  In 1993 he and his wife Shirley were called to Westminster-St. Paul’s Presbyterian Church in Guelph to serve as co-pastors.  In 2004 the Rev. Gale moved to his current position with the denomination.

He has served multiple times on church advisory committees, including the Worship Advisory Committee when it produced the Book of Common Worship in 1991 as well as serving as a worship leader for various conferences.  The press release says of his ministry:

A pastor at heart and a Canadian Presbyterian by conviction, Herb isconvinced that an intentional focus on planned giving can help providean additional source of funding for the church at every level to realizeits dreams and to expand its ministry for generations to come.

The Church In The Current Culture — Insights From Other Areas

Leave a reply

As regular readers are well aware one of my interests is noting commentaries on the current culture and cultural indicators and “overlaying” that on the church to see what that means for our ecclesiology.

A couple of weeks ago I attended the Theology After Google conference at the Claremont School of Theology.  This conference, organized by Philip Clayton and Tripp Fuller, has drawn a bit of controversy for its emphasis on “progressive” and “emergent” theology.  Yes, that was clearly there but my interest was on the technology and the concept of “returning theological discussion to the people,” which in my view is “platform independent” and need not be automatically associated with a theological viewpoint.  Anyway, more on that another time.

But in the spirit of this concept of taking culture and holding it up against the Church I heard some fascinating bits on the radio program “This American Life” last Saturday (3/27). The program was about NUMMI (New United Motor Manufacturing Incorporated), a joint Toyota/GM venture in Fremont, California, which began in 1984.  GM pulled out of the venture in 2009 when it filed for bankruptcy and now Toyota is ending its part of the project with the last vehicle, a Corolla, rolling off the assembly line today (Today’s NPR story).  And there is a Presbyterian connection to this story:  The Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and pastor of Mission Bay Community Church in San Francisco was the religious representative on a California state commission that issued a report regarding the shut down and traveled to Japan to call attention to the closure and meet with Toyota officials.

The piece is interesting and tells the story with the voices of those at the center of the rise of the plant and the attempts to reproduce it elsewhere.  Here are some quotes from the story.  As you read them instead of thinking about a commercial enterprize or a manufacturing plant, substitute the mainline church in there:

“Why hasn’t GM got it yet?  It’s not like this reliability problem snuck up on them — It’s been fifty years since it started losing market share.  Fifty years since it began the slide from holding over half the U.S. car market in the 1960’s to just 22% today.”  (Ira Glass, program host)

“I think there was pride (pause) and defensiveness. ‘I’m proud because I’m the biggest auto maker in the world. I’ve been the best, I’ve dominated the market.  You can’t teach me anything you little Japanese company.’ ” (Jeffrey Liker, author of The Toyota Way, talking about why GM senior management was not completely accepting of the fact that Toyota was building better quality cars in the early 80’s.)

“The key to the Toyota production system was a principle so basic it sounds like an empty management slogan — ‘Team work.’  Back home in Fremont GM supervisors ordered around large groups of workers.  At the [Japanese] plant people were divided into teams of just four or five, switched jobs every few hours to relieve the monotony.  And a team leader would step in to help whenever anything went wrong.” (Frank Langfitt, reporter)

“There were too many people convinced that they didn’t need to have to change. (reporter asks why?) It’s not logical. They just didn’t.” (Larry Spiegel, GM mid-level management who tried to help implement the NUMMI model at another GM plant.)

“This was one of the biggest differences between Fremont and Van Nuys — Van Nuys hadn’t been shut down.  It turns out it’s a lot easier to get workers to change if they’ve lost their jobs and then you offer them back.  Without that many union members just saw the Toyota system as a threat.”  (Frank Langfitt, reporter)

“At Van Nuys it wasn’t just union members that resisted the Japanese system. Managers didn’t like it either — they had their own privileges to protect…. Their bonuses depended on the number of cars that rolled off [the assembly line], never mind how many defects they had.” (Frank Langfitt, reporter)

“Workers could only build cars as good as the parts they were given.  At NUMMI many of the parts came from Japan and were really good.  At Van Nuys it was totally different.” (Frank Langfitt, reporter)

“You had asked the question earlier ‘what’s different when you walk into the NUMMI plant?’ Well you can see a lot of things different, but the one thing you don’t see is the system that supports the NUMMI plant.” (Ernie Schaefer, Van Nuys plant manager)

“[Toyota] never prohibited us from walking through the plant, understanding, even asking questions of some of the key people.  I’ve often puzzled over that, why they did that.  And I think they recognized is that we were asking all the wrong questions.  We didn’t understand the bigger picture thing.  All of our questions were focused on the floor of the assembly plant, what’s happening on the line.  That’s not the real issue.  The real issue is ‘How do you support that system with all the other functions that take place in the organization?’ ” (Ernie Schaefer, Van Nuys plant manager)

“One reason car execs were in denial was Detroit’s insular culture… [E]veryone had settled into comfortable roles in this dysfunctional system and learned to live with it.  And in the late 1980’s, with their market share in free fall, Jeffrey Liker says they were more apt to blame others than themselves.”  (Frank Langfitt, reporter)

“Jeffrey Liker says the cultural gap between NUMMI and the rest of GM was so vast that even with clear marching orders to change some of the people running the company didn’t know where to begin.”  (Frank Langfitt, reporter)

“We had some tough goes in some of our facilities where we spent more time trying to convince the plant leadership versus going on and actually doing the implementation.  I was actually asked in one plant to leave because they were not interested in what I had to sell.” (Goeff Weller, GM manager in charge of converting plants to the Japanese system)

This is not to advocate for change for changes sake, or to say that implicitly “new is better.”  It is interesting to consider how we do things, how the organization – be it the congregation, presbytery, synod, or national level – can change and support other changes that are happening.  How do we work together – top down or bottom up?  Is our measure of success quality or quantity?  Do we view ourselves as “too big to fail?”  I love the quote about it being easier to get people to agree to change if the institution has been shut down and their are trying to begin again differently.

There is a lot to think about in there.  And this piece did get the attention of another Presbyterian commentator – Jan Edmiston at A Church for Starving Artists.

Let me finish with a much shorter piece that aired one week earlier (3/20) on NPR’s Weekend Edition about military recruiting and how the Millennial Generation differs from earlier ones.  This was an interview with Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, the commander in charge of basic training, and is titled “New Basic Training Hardens ‘Softer Generation’.”  He says this about today’s recruit:

We also have really found a new generation of soldiers, what some may call the millennial generation, who are advanced in terms of their use of technology, and maybe not as advanced in their physical capabilities or ability to go into a fight.

and

I think we are seeing a decline, across the board, in America. And in fact, it concerns many of us in the military, and we’re watching it very closely. This isn’t a decline in our recruits; this is a decline in our American society in terms of their physical capacity. It’s just a softer generation. But we can’t afford to accept that.

and

They’re different. They have a technology edge. I think they’re smarter than any generation we’ve ever had before.

They certainly ask a lot more difficult questions. They team differently. They have loyalty and – but I think the most important thing about this generation, this generation of millennials, as I said we call it, is the fact that they want to change the world. They want to contribute to something that’s bigger than themselves.

It sounds a lot like other assessments and descriptions of the millennial generation that we are hearing and experiencing in the church.  Now how do we adapt the church, like the military is working on adapting, without compromising our mission or message?

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — A Survey Of The Landscape

3 Replies

Over the last few days I have become refocused on the upcoming General Assemblies and trying to map out my strategy for blogging in advance of each one.  Needless to say, if I am going to blog about every overture submitted to the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) it will take some time.  Or maybe not…

At the present time there are 102 overtures, two committee reports, and 52 recommendations from standing committees of GA entities.  But of those 102 overtures, well over half fall into six predictable categories.  Here is the landscape we are looking at:

Ordination Standards:  It should be no surprise to anyone following the PC(USA) these days that the hottest topic for this GA, as measured by the number of overtures, is ordination standards.  There are seventeen overtures that directly address G-6.0106b or other sections of the Book of Order that deal with ordination standards.  In addition, there are a few more that address the way that the General Assembly does it’s business that could influence the ordination standards status as well.  And there is one, Overture 56, that proposes to change the Book of Order to require future changes to the Book of Order to have the concurrence of two-thirds of the presbyteries making it significantly harder to change the Constitution.  (For reference, there are other Presbyterian branches, such as the PCA, which do require a 2/3 vote.)

Marriage:  Second in the number of related overtures is the topic of Marriage.  Not counting the report of the Special Committee on Civil Unions and Christian Marriage and the minority report, which have not appeared on PC-Biz yet, there are eleven overtures asking for Book of Order changes or Interpretations related to this.

General Assembly operations and procedures:  This is the most “jello” category, a little hard to nail down, but I count about 15 overtures that address how the General Assembly does it’s business.  While a few ask for constitutional changes, like Overture 54 to reduce the number of commissioners that I mentioned yesterday, most are changes to the Standing Rules.  This assortment of overtures deals with who can speak, who can vote, what and when business can be transacted.  There are some interesting and attractive items in here, like Overture 38 to give priority to controversial items or Overture 74 which would have the standing rules require committee reports and votes on business items to all be placed ahead of dinner before commissioners get too tired.

But what is interesting about this category is that there are several additional items in the recommendations category.  One of these is Recommendation 38 from the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly which would add the requirement that when the Moderator is empowered to appoint a task force or special committee the Moderator consults with the Nominating Committee.  (Maybe Bruce was a bit too free wheeling and independent in his appointments and they don’t want that to happen again.  We just want to make sure it is done decently and in order.)

New Form of Government (nFOG): The three remaining categories are all close but this weighs in at number four with seven overtures.  Some try to perfect it while two, Overtures 44 and 95, ask for more time to consider it and one, Overture 98, wants to dismiss the task force and ask the presbyteries to roll back all the resent changes including the undoing of the Chapter 14 change made a couple of years ago.  And then Overture 95 invites more suggested changes from the church on the nFOG.  We could take one step beyond their suggestion, post it on a Wiki, and let the whole church work away at it for two years.  (And no, I am not being sarcastic but am seriously considering if it would be a worthwhile exercise.)  Overture 53 seems to say that the nFOG is only a starting point and after we approve it further revisions are still necessary to make it a manual of operations.

Middle East:  Again, this category is tied to both an ongoing discussion in the church and a just released task force report that is not on PC-Biz yet.  This is the area that seems to be receiving the most outside publicity and criticism from Jewish groups and the mainstream media.  There are six overtures in this area, most of which do not directly address the report since the report was so recently released.  In addition, there are three recommendations from GA permanent committees on this topic.

Middle Governing Bodies: Finally, there are five overtures and one recommendation to study or change the middle governing body structure.  These include two overtures to increase flexibility, one in presbytery membership (45) and one in synod membership (36), and the rest to decide if we need to cut some of them back.

Finally, across all the categories there are two overtures and four recommendations that request a task force, special commission, and even an Administrative Commission to get something done.  I am still trying to decide if the fact that twice as many of these recommendations come from the permanent committees means something significant, positive or negative, about the way the PC(USA) does business.

Those six categories cover 61 of the 102 overtures posted on PC-Biz.  So the landscape is dominated by these controversial issues.  But in between we find some interesting individual items.  There is Overture 12 “On designating May 1 every year as a Day of Prayer for Healing.”  (Interesting idea although I would have liked to hear the rational for that particular date since there are other things on May 1 as well.)  And Overture 48 which would add language about the Covenant Community to the section on membership.

At this point we are well past the 120 day deadline so no more overtures proposing changes to the Book of Order would be expected.  But there is plenty of time for other overtures before the 60 day (those with financial implications) and 45 day (all others) deadlines so the number should continue to grow.  At this point before the 218th GA there were only 75 overtures posted so we are well ahead of that pace this year and we can probably expect more than the 128 overtures there were for that meeting.  We shall see where it finally ends up.

Meetings Of A Presbyterian General Assembly — How Often?

2 Replies

How often should a Presbyterian General Assembly or General Synod meet?  For a couple of centuries now the answer has generally been annually, but in recent times that pattern has been up for discussion.  It is interesting to note that in the list of Moderators of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on Wikipedia in the early years there are multiple Moderators listed in a given year indicating not just multiple meetings, but multiple Assemblies per year.

The importance of the “how often” question is raised again today as the highlights of the meeting of the Assembly Council of the Presbyterian Church in Canada are released.  The Assembly action on an overture to the 133rd General Assembly (2007) asked the Council to consider biennial Assemblies and the Assembly created a task group to study the issue and consult with the other governing bodies.  The Council considered the report which included the responses to a model for biennial Assemblies that was sent to the church for comment.  In general, the church was narrowly in favor of biennial Assemblies with sessions favoring it 54 to 37, presbyteries opposed 11 to 13, and synods and committees were each 2 to 1 in favor.  But it is most interesting to see the commentary on this voting:

It was noted, for example, that there appeared to be a regional divide where courts in Quebec and the Maritimes were overwhelmingly opposed while support strengthened to west. It was also noted that those courts supporting the notion tended to not include reasons for their support while those opposed offered lengthy explanations for their decision.

The report recommended moving to biennial Assemblies but a motion to move that direction in principle failed in the Council vote.  The report tells us  “A new motion recommending that General Assembly ‘affirm the practice of annual assemblies’ was proposed and approved.”

So while the recommendation in response to this overture has been made, as the comment in the Minutes of the 133rd GA (p. 214) tells us, this matter has been before the church “many times in the past.”  As would be expected, the overture itself (p. 519-520) appeals to the time, effort and finances expended on annual Assemblies and the best use of those resources.

(A side note on a topic that I will be considering further in the future:  It is interesting to see that this matter was sent to the lower governing bodies for an advisory vote.  From what I have seen this is a practice that the PCC seems to do on a fairly regular basis but is much rarer in other Presbyterian branches.  One other place in the PCC history that this formal advisory vote is seen is in the early 20th century as the Presbyterians were considering their place in the Union movement and the presbyteries and sessions were consulted on multiple occasions about uniting with other Christian bodies.  In light of this, I find an overture to this year’s  General Assembly of the PC(USA) to require the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy to send proposed statements out to the presbyteries for “study, discussion, and comment” prior to the report to the General Assembly to be in a very similar spirit.)

There is another overture to a General Assembly to consider biennial Assemblies.  This one is to the 38th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America.  Overture 6, from Evangel Presbytery, asks the Assembly “to direct the Administrative Committee to conduct a study for the feasibility of conducting General Assemblies on a bi-annual basis.”

The Whereases do include the usual argument about the amount of time and financial resources it takes to make the Assemblies happen, but that is not the primary argument in this overture.  The principle argument is that with modern communications the Assembly no longer serves the purpose of getting reports out to the Assembly commissioners to take back to the lower governing bodies.  In that task the Assembly is now irrelevant.  But the overture goes on to say that efficient electronic communications has another impact:

Whereas, denominational issues that once were debated on the floor of GA are now resolved and presented in a refined and reasoned manner causing the floor process to lose much energy and interest with commissioners spending considerable time away from the meeting to visit the exhibitions during the presentations of Committees and Agencies; and

Whereas, in addition to declining interest in the conduct of business, travel and lodging expenses have affected GA and attendance during the last five years has declined annually while the ratio of Teaching Elders in attendance has increased and the number of Ruling Elders has declined;

Interesting rational — On the one hand very true but on the other hand this cuts right to the very essence of Presbyterianism.

Functionally, Presbyterian and Reformed polity is distinctive in two regards — joint rule of teaching elders and ruling elders and connectionalism of governing bodies.  This overture essentially says that modern electronic communication is at least changing, if not eroding, the way that both of these principles operate.  It has moved the governing of the church from face-to-face interaction to virtual interaction, reducing the importance of the meetings for the joint deliberations of elders in decision making and eliminating the need for meetings to facilitate the connectional flow of information.

The overture does request regional meetings in years that the Assembly does not meet that would involve…

…contiguous presbyteries to cooperate on an alternate years to join two or three day meetings that can be conducted in churches and smaller venues where travel and lodging are less expensive. During such regional meetings Committees and Agencies can participate with reports and ministries can present displays if so requested and approved by the Administrative Committee.

It will be interesting to see where this goes and the discussion it begins.

Finally, there are a couple of items related to biennial Assemblies coming to the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  The first is the fact that when biennial Assemblies were instituted it was specified that after this year’s Assembly meeting there would be a review of this practice.  The Presbytery of Giddings-Lovejoy has sent an overture (Overture 49) that would expand the review of the GA from not just the timing but to include…

…considering the form and function of our General Assembly meetings by expanding the action of the 214th General Assembly (2002)… instructing this study committee to consider the whole of the General Assembly meeting in its form and function.

This review is to include, but is not limited to, matters of financial stewardship, the use of alternative forms of discernment, the number of commissioners and advisory delegates as well as the role of advisory delegates, the schedule for moderatorial elections, the environmental impact of assemblies, the frequency of meetings, and models for governance for future generations.

Got all that?  The request is for a complete review, to put anything and everything about how General Assemblies operate on the table.

Another approach is taken by Overture 9 from Presbytery of Foothills.  I discussed this in more detail a while back, but this overture essentially states that the way the PC(USA) does business in the GA hinders our connectionalism and to promote our connectional nature the church should hold a General Convocation “for the purposes of worship, mission celebration, and building up relationships within the Body of Christ” for five years.  In the sixth year the General Assembly would meet to do business.

And in a final related overture, the Presbytery of San Diego notes that one reason for going to biennial Assemblies was to save money, but in changing the meeting pattern the number of commissioners to the Assembly was roughly doubled, not really saving that much money.  They have sent Overture 54 to the 219th General Assembly asking for a change to the Book of Order to restore the number of commissioners to their previous levels.

We are all well aware that in this age of Web 2.0 the technology and pressure is present to make face-to-face meetings unnecessary.  As we balance the use of technology and the stewardship of resources with the questions of how often and in what ways to meet, we also need to be mindful of the implications for our understanding of call, connectionalism, and discerning together in the Covenant Community brought together with Jesus Christ as its Head.

Changes In Theological Perspective Among PC(USA) Members

Leave a reply

Warning: This is another one of my posts where the analysis is going to get really geeky really fast.  So be it — just jump to the end for the bottom line if your eyes start to glaze over.

In working on a couple of other current issues I decided that for my own edification I needed to find a metric for the theological viewpoint of the membership, not the leadership, of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and how that might be changing with time.

One motivation for this is the contention that the PC(USA) is preferentially losing conservative members.  I have previously commented that 1) the total membership loss is much higher than what can be attributed to congregation level realignment out of the PC(USA) and that 2) change in presbytery level membership can not be correlated to leadership theological views.  I had been holding the position that membership loss in the PC(USA) is broadly across the theological perspectives.  I may be wrong about that.  Here is an analysis of a different data set…

I looked at the last five Presbyterian Panel surveys: 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2008.  These are the initial surveys of each new panel which serves as the “sample population” for the PC(USA) for the next three years.  That is, the 1996 survey was for the 1997-1999 panel.

In those surveys I found five questions that were asked the same way in all five surveys that pertain directly to doctrinal issues giving a direct measure of an individual’s theological viewpoint.  The five questions are:

  1. Which one of the following terms best describes your current stand on theological issues?
  2. All the world’s different religions are equally good ways of helping a person find ultimate truth
  3. The only absolute truth for humankind is in Jesus Christ
  4. Only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved
  5. There is a life beyond death

I really wish the question about the respondent’s view of the Bible had been asked the same way every time because that would also have given a good perspective on the individual’s viewpoint.  And there are a couple other questions that appear in every survey that could be considered theological indicators as well, such as “Have you ever tried to encourage someone to believe in Jesus Christ or to accept Him as a personal savior?” but these are more about spiritual practices and I thought the questions could be answered either way across the theological spectrum so were not as good of indicators..  (For the record, on this question of accepting Jesus Christ as personal savior it is very close to 60% “yes” and 40% “no” in all five surveys with no trend or statistical variation.)

Other technical details I need to mention:  The margin of error is reported as +4%.  I will only be looking at the “members” category but as I opined before 57% of “members” are ordained officers of the church and for elders they are those not currently serving on session.

Now, the first shall be last and the last shall be first so let me deal with the fifth one at the beginning.  This is easy – over the five surveys there is virtually no change with always 84-86% who agree or strongly agree, 12-14% who are not sure, and 1-3% who disagree or strongly disagree.  I would also note that there was a statement on four of the five surveys (missing in 1999) that “Jesus will return to earth some day.” The last three surveys are indistinguishable at 66-69% agree or strongly agree, 24-27% not sure, and 6-7% disagree or strongly disagree.  The first survey was a bit higher for the two agree categories (75%) with equal drops (3-4% each) in the not sure and combined disagree.  For these statements there is no indicator of change with time.

For the statement “all the world’s different religions are equally good ways of helping a person find ultimate truth” there is an interesting statistically significant variation, but not a trend.  (Note that on all these tables I have added the “combined agrees” and “combined disagrees” categories to simplify graphing and they show up as “all agrees” and “all disagrees” on the chart.)
 

 All the world’s different religions are
equally good ways of helping a person
find ultimate truth.		 1996 1999  2002 2005 2008
Strongly Agree  9  7  8  9  11
 Agree  31  28  27  23  26
 Combined Agrees  40  35  35  32  37
 Not Sure  18  18  19  25  19
 Disagree  25  29  28  24  24
 Strongly Disagree  18  18  18  20  19
 Combined Disagree
  43  47  46  44  43


It is not clear what happened here in the 2005 survey where the “agree” dropped and the “not sure” jumped up. Except for that point the responses to this question in the other surverys are all statistically indistinguishable with no clear suggestion of a trend.

When it comes to the statements about the significance of Jesus Christ, and that is not the significance in the statistical sense, there are clear trends of the sample populations moving away from the orthodox or conservative position.  The two statements are 1) “The only absolute truth for humankind is in Jesus Christ” and 2) “Only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.”  And yes, I am taking the two agree categories as reflecting the conservative position.  Here are the numbers…

 The only absolute truth for humankind
is in Jesus Christ.		 1996 1999  2002 2005 2008
Strongly Agree  43  46  41  39  38
 Agree  29  27  28  24  21
 Combined Agrees  72  73  69  63  59
 Not Sure  1
7		  15  17  20  20
 Disagree  8  9  10  12  13
 Strongly Disagree  3  2  3  5  7
 Combined Disagree
  11  11  13  17  20


 Only followers of Jesus Christ
can be saved.		 1996 1999  2002 2005 2008
Strongly Agree  27  26  23  26  25
 Agree  19  20  20  15  14
 Combined Agrees  46  46  43  41  39
 Not Sure  25  25  23  25  25
 Disagree  20  20  23  21  19
 Strongly Disagree  8  10  11  14  17
 Combined Disagree
  28  30  34  35  36


In graphical form (and yes, the first graph is the “absolute truth” question not the “ultimate truth” question above)

In each of these there is an apparent trend with the number of those in some agreement with the statement decreasing with time, the number disagreeing increasing, and those not sure mostly to very constant.

Finally, we have the survey question asking each respondent to self-identify their theological viewpoint.  I am not a big fan of the “conservative” and “liberal” labels but I have used it throughout this post because those were the options given in the survey for this question:

 Which term best describes your
current stand on theological issues?		 1996 1999  2002 2005 2008
 Very Conservative  8  5  5  6  6
 Conservative  31  33  33  35  28
 Combined Conservatives  39  38  38  41  34
 Moderate  48  47  43  40  41
 Liberal  11  12  14  14  18
 Very Liberal  3  3  4  5  7
 Combined Liberals
  14  15  18  19  25

And graphically

It is interesting that in the first four surveys the shift seems to be from the moderates to the liberals with the conservatives fairly constant and then in the last survey group the liberals increase and the conservatives drop.  While interesting, I am hesitant to put too much weight on that last point because we saw the 2005 “bump” on the different religions question was a one-survey event.  In three years we will see if it is a new trend.

Now having laid the data out there, what does all this mean?  First, and to my surprise, there was more of a shift than I expected in these indicators from conservative to liberal.  The view of the denomination that it is growing more liberal may hold up. But what is actually changing?

One interpretation is to say that the changes in the panels represents the changes in the members of the denomination as a whole and the changes in attitudes in the survey group is explained by those joining and leaving the PC(USA).  This is still a wildly under-determined problem (that is mathematical jargon) so many different distributions of those joining and those leaving would produce this result.  For instance, you could say that those leaving broadly represent the membership but those joining are more liberal.  Or you could explain it the other way, that those joining are broadly representative and those leaving are more conservative.  And of course many different combinations in between.

The other explanation of course is that people’s minds are changing about these statements.  Rather than members with fixed opinions moving in and out of the denomination we could say that there are people remaining in the denomination that are changing their viewpoint over time.

And these are two possible end-members and the best interpretation is probably some combination of the two and the precise balance between them would require tracking over time or questions specifically designed to test for time-variability of viewpoint.

We can narrow the possible range a little bit by looking at how this breaks down for the self-identified categories for each panel year.  I do realize that the total membership number includes Ministers of Word and Sacrament as well but they represent about 1% of the total membership and so I am going to consider the effect too minor to worry about correcting for this back of the envelope calculation.  Here is how the membership numbers would be split out based on the declared theological viewpoint of the sample population:

 Year Total
Membership 		 Conservative
Members		  Moderate
Members		 Liberal
Members
 1996  2,631,466  1,026,272  1,263,104  368,405
 1999  2,560,201  972,876  1,203,294  384,030
 2002  2,451,969  931,748  1,054,347  441,354
 2005  2,313,662  948,601  925,465  439,596
 2008  2,140,165  727,656  877,468  535,041

Looking at the numbers we can see that the conservative and moderate declines can, with one exception (con
servative 2005), be explained within the denominational membership loss.  The reverse is true for the liberal component — with the exception of 2005 all the other changes show an increase in the absolute, not just the relative, numbers.   But none of these changes can be attributed to just those leaving or joining the church.  The volume of the turnover is significantly larger than the actual net loss so each group must have members added and members lost and what is listed here is the net.  (For specifics consider the 2008 membership numbers – the church had 103,488 members join, and 138,768 leave (not counting deaths).  That represents a 5% annual turnover, or to put it another way, every 20 years the PC(USA) is a whole new church.  More on that another time.)

Finally, you could speculate that the results reflect the way the respondents thought they should answer, either because of what they think the research group wants or because of how they see themselves even if their basic theological perspective has not changed.

So whether by membership turnover or change in opinion there is evidence that over the last 14 years the PC(USA) is indeed becoming a more liberal denomination at the level of the total membership. 

Finally, a note about a paradox in this data:  “Conventional wisdom” says that younger generations are more liberal, more questioning, more tolerant of other viewpoints like those the “truth” and “only way to salvation” questions ask.  Does that mean that the changing viewpoints seen in the survey questions is due to an influx of younger members?  Unfortunately not — In the 12 years between the 1996 panel to the 2008 panel the median age of the panel members has crept up from 55 to 60 years old.  The interpretation is left as an exercise for the reader.

Update On The Presbyterian Mutual Society And The Presbyterian Church Of Ireland

1 Reply

Within the last week there have been some positive developments related to recovering from the Presbyterian Mutual Society collapse.  The Society, which failed almost two years ago now, was associated with, but legally distinct from, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.  Over the last two years the discussion has been both how to wind down the Society to get the best value from the assets is does have as well as the church having political discussions about a government rescue even this far after the collapse.

Some news this week…

The Presbyterian Mutual Society administrator has released an update regarding court decisions last week.  The most closely watched decision pertains to paying back depositors and the court granted permission for that to begin.  The situation is complicated by the fact that large depositors (more than £20,000) are regarded as creditors and small depositors as shareholders and in February the court did not grant permission for all members to be treated equally but upheld the law that creditors must be paid back first.  With that being the case and the court granting permission, the administrator has announced this week that at the end of the month he will make the first payment to creditors of 12p on the £.  The administrator is required to make public notice of this and the text of the notice that will appear in newspapers of record is available as a PDF document.

The administrator also reports that the court granted a one year renewable extension to the administration of the Society instead of the five year period he asked for.  In addition the court has given direction (reported but not described) concerning those depositors who were also borrowers from the society and it gave permission and guidance on forming a creditor’s committee on which the administrator plans to include a shareholder observer.  There is an Irish Times article and the  BBC has an article on this and William Crawley has more in his Will & Testament blog.  From the Irish Times piece it has the useful information that roughly £100 million is due shareholders and £204 million is due creditors.  The administrator has determined that probable loan recovery will be £102 million and the value of investment property is £97 million.

On the other front there is current action on the political rescue front as well. Yesterday First Minister Peter Robinson told the Northern Ireland Assembly that rescue of the Society by a commercial bank is still the preferred path forward and would do the most for the savers in the Society.  Today the situation is being debated in Parliament to remind the British Government of the seriousness of the situation.  The Londonderry Sentinel quotes one of their local MP’s, Gregory Campbell, as saying about the debate “This should ensure that the needs of savers with the PMS are heard in Parliament and the Government know exactly how important action is for these people.” And the Belfast News Letter quotes another MP, William McCrea, saying “The DUP will continue to work towards a resolution that will see money paid to all savers both large and small.”

In related political action Mr. Robinson in his comments also said that a government panel put together to consider the rescue alternatives should be reporting soon.  A recent UK Treasury committee investigation (Irish Times article) blamed a number of factors for the collapse including lack of tight Northern Ireland government oversight and regulation and the directors of the Society for the management.

It should be no surprise that with the slow pace of resolution, the inaction by the British Government when other financial institutions have been rescued, and the association of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland with the Society there are plenty of frustrated opinions being expressed.  Mr. McQuillan, a politician from East Londonderry, is quoted:

“The Westminster Government has failed the PMS savers.

“They protected various credit unions and sought compensation from Iceland for Britons who lost money abroad, but they have failed the savers within the PMS here in this loyal part of the United Kingdom.”

The Belfast News Letter article is titled “PMS payment ‘too little, too late’” and has corresponding quotes from Mr. Ian McGimpsey – “Whilst this payment may bring some financial comfort to many loan holders, for others with substantial debts to pay it will have
little or no impact,” – and from Mr. Jim Allister – “It is, however, also important to remember that the smallest investors who may have the greatest need – those who had under £20,000 invested in the society -have not even received this paltry sum (of 12p in the pound),” he said,adding that the delay in resolving the PMS “is appalling”.

A Belfast Telegraph article, “Reduced payout of cold comfort to PMS investors” focuses on the Rev. Dr. Stafford Carson, Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, and the stories he has heard from investors and how the church is working for a resolution.  And a piece in the Portadown Times by Dr. Carson details the involvement and investment by his own congregation in the Society.

So it looks like we hold on a little longer to see what government, probably combined with commercial, rescue might be put together.  And yes, this will certainly be a topic at the upcoming General Assembly.

UPDATE: Following the debate the Moderator, the Rev. Dr. Stafford Carson, posted his comments and general positive attitude about the hearing that the issues got in Parliament.  He also provides us the links to the transcript of the debate and the following answers to questions about the situation.

The Church Of Scotland National Youth Assembly — Looking Back And Looking Ahead

2 Replies

For the PC(USA)’ers who are going to GA this year, there is a joke about Minnesota (at least they tell me it is a joke) that Minnesota has two seasons: Winter’s coming and Winter’s here.

Right now I feel a bit like that with the National Youth Assembly of the Church of Scotland.  I still had my discussion of the last NYA sitting as a draft and I find the announcement of NYA2010 posted on the web.  So at this mid-point between NYA2009 and NYA2010 let me try to look back to get caught up and to look forward at what this year holds.

NYA2009 met back at the beginning of September last, and the final deliverances were posted about two months later.  As I say every time I discuss NYA, one of the things that impresses me about the National Youth Assembly is the fact that items from their deliverances move on to the General Assembly coming up in just about two months.

The NYA2009 deliverances were posted on the NYA Blog by Iain McLarty.  He includes this “cover letter“:

Hi everyone. Sorry it’s taken a while but you will now be able to find the final deliverance for each debate below. Both your General Assembly reps and I will try and make sure these are taken to the General Assembly and to its Councils and Committees but when you read through the statements you will find that a lot of them apply to local churches or to individuals and your involvement in these didn’t end on the Monday afternoon in Stirling. Remember that it’s up to everyone who was at the Youth Assembly to try and raise awareness of the deliverance and make changes happen, whether it’s just things you do yourself, your local church or your Presbytery. You could print them out and put them on your church notice board, or ask your minister to talk about a couple of points that your local church will take action on during a service. And if you have a blog you can copy them there and raise awareness of them.   Well done again on producing an excellent result to the long weekend of debates and if you have stories of your success in promoting the results during the year then come back and tell people here.

The NYA business addressed four specific topics:  Identity, Wealth, Spirituality, Inter-faith.  This is going to get long but I decided I could not do the deliverances justice by editing out what I thought were the most important points.  Therefore, I am going to give you the full text of each.

From the deliverance on Identity, here are the set of nine points that came out of the Assembly:

The National Youth Assembly…

1. Believes that we as a Church should seek to recognise and celebrate people as individuals with individual gifts and talents, and not to generalise.
We should:

(a) Seek to develop these gifts and talents
(b) Value building relationships over organising evangelistic events
(c) View people as works in progress and not the finished article

2. Would like the Church of Scotland to explore the emerging aspects of Positive Psychology as a way of forming relationships with people,particularly those on the edges of the church. We would encourage the church to develop resources and make these available to all groups and leaders working in the Church.

3. Believes that inappropriate responses by the Church of Scotland to the identity of individuals and groups has been a very real barrier to them feeling part of the church.

4. Urges the Church to explore ways of supporting growth in Christian identity for all ages, recognising the current work of COSY in this area.

5. Urges the Church of Scotland to continue supporting the young people of the church as they move through education and into the world of work.  We encourage the church to help with pastoral support,offering guidance both spiritually and generally, as young people develop their identity through these difficult challenges.

6. Believes that the Church of Scotland should respond positively to identity issues by providing opportunities for social interaction:

(a) Between young and old by creating ways for them to work together;
(b) By encouraging social and community events within churches to build relationships;
(c) By encouraging all local churches to engage with a partner church somewhere else in the world;
(d) By developing small group networks for folk to meet together, share their stories and build relationships.

7. Believes that the Church of Scotland should acknowledge that people within the church, despite the fact that they are Christians,experience identity problems.

8. Encourages churches to make spiritual support groups available for everyone in the parish regardless of whether or not they are a member.

9. Believes that the Church of Scotland should not make people conform to one identity. Instead it should embrace diversity, with its own identity being ‘Everyone is welcome’

The deliverance on Wealth made these points:

The National Youth Assembly…

1. Urges the Church of Scotland to take the lead in opening discussions on personal finance and to provide support in helping with issues of stewardship.

2. Recognise that while Western society encourages materialism, which is unacceptable, the Church should not condemn individuals but should work with them to combat materialism.

3. Would like the Church of Scotland to prioritise spending on people. Local churches should be encouraged to invite disadvantaged groups into their churches to use their resources in whatever way is appropriate.

4. Suggests greater discussion of collective tithing. There should be increased accountability and transparency from the Church as to where financial contributions go. Individual churches should have more of a voice in where their contributions go.

5. Urges the Church of Scotland to continue to work with people of other denominations and faiths in trying to eradicate poverty.

6. Believes that the Church of Scotland should continue to support the work of Christian Aid in its tax justice campaign and should build stronger links with projects tackling poverty.

7. Feels that the church should be at the forefront of tackling the structures that keep people poor and encourage people to see poverty as not being restricted to financial issues, with other factors including spirituality, health and education. Local issues should not be neglected in favour of international ones.

8. Would like to see the church make tackling poverty a priority and to see it as an act of worship. The use of biblical texts as a means of communicating the necessity and impetus for working to eradicate poverty should be encouraged.

9. Recognises that churches do a lot of good work in tackling poverty and encourage this to be fed back through stories about this.

10. Believes that the church should play a key part in tackling poverty through educating people and being active in the community. The local church should be key to identifying local needs in order to prioritise eradicating poverty in Scotland.

11. Would like churches to ensure that people in congregations who are struggling financially can be honest and receive help without having to feel they have to keep up a ‘respectable’ façade.

12. Encourage the Church of Scotland to be more involved in practi
cal work both at home and abroad (e.g. building projects) in charities and projects, other than just providing financial support.

13. Commend and encourage the continuation of ethical investment practices by the Church of Scotland.

14. Urge individual church members to review their giving with a view to giving more sacrificially in order that the good work of the Church may continue.

In this set I particularly admire that it calls the Kirk to action keeping the responsibility on the church and the individual members, not on secular institutions.

The deliverance on Spirituality says:

The National Youth Assembly…

1.    Affirms that spirituality is a crucial part of the Christian faith and believes that the Church of Scotland is not good at engaging with this. The Church should help people mature in their spirituality by openly confronting it and not hiding from it and by providing more accessible resources and pastoral care.

2.    Believes that every aspect of life has a spiritual dimension (e.g. use of money, relationships, values, suffering)

3.    Would like to see people in the church helped to develop a healthy relationship with silence, including during church services.Where practical, a dedicated space should be provided in churches for meditation and reflection, both in and out of “church hours” and open and advertised to the general public.

4.    Would like to see more emphasis placed on spirituality in preaching, possibly including questions for contemplation and discussion.

5.    Encourages the creative use of big posters/billboards in prominent public places, with messages to inspire people spiritually.

6.    Encourages church communities and individuals within those communities to share their stories and faith experiences, with the relevant support.

7.    Recognises that traditional services are of spiritual value,but would like to see more exploration of alternative worship both in and out of services for example, art exhibitions, film liturgies,poetry, i-pod reflections and labyrinths.

8.    Would like to see the promotion of opportunities for learning such as “Adult Sunday School” and programs like Alpha or Living the Questions.

9.    Thinks that spirituality should be spoken about and practised from Sunday school age so that children are aware of it, for example through “Godly Play.”

10.    Suggest that it is useful to look at spirituality in an Inter-Faith way.

11.    Would like to see an event exploring alternative worship and spiritual development, possibly on the theme of “Live faith and share life” [rather than live life and share faith]

Now I am viewing this through an “American lens” so I don’t know if some of the current tension in American religion over the general term “spirituality” is present in Scotland also.  If so this deliverance may be the most controversial or unconventional to some in the church, especially those that value orthodoxy.  It is interesting that the deliverance acknowledges this saying “the Church of Scotland is not good at engaging with this.”  In light of recent surveys that show that American “millennials” (those between the ages of 18-29) are “spiritual” but not “religious” this deliverance at times walks a fine line between the two, in places mixes them, and in other spots appears to advocate for what would be considered “new age” or “eastern” spiritual practices that some around here would argue should not be part of Christian worship or spiritual practices.  On the one hand, promoting Adult Sunday School, sharing faith experiences, and seeing a spiritual dimension to every aspect of life can be considered foundational Christian practices.  The large posters and billboards, healthy relationship with silence, and the alternative worship practices would be encouraged or discouraged depending on how they are focused.  But for some, looking at spirituality in an Inter-Faith way could be a concern.  This could be one of those issues where the details will be scrutinized.  But again, I don’t know if this is even the issue in Scotland it is in parts of the U.S.

The last deliverance was on Inter-Faith:

The National Youth Assembly…

1. Believes that the church should do more to combat stereo-typical views of what Christians are like and understand that all faiths have extremists, including Christianity. There is a need to extend education about all faiths to avoid stereo-typing based on biased media reporting.

2. Thinks that there should be more Inter-Faith gatherings and conferences at local, national and international levels, with better advertising to increase awareness of this work and its importance.

3. Consider consulting with local police forces and outside agencies to ascertain priority areas where Inter-Faith dialogue is required.

4. Encourages the use of Inter-Faith meals as a means of sharing faith and belief to build meaningful relationships while being sensitive to other customs.

5. Encourages the Church of Scotland to promote Inter-Faith Dialogue overseas in areas such as Israel/Palestine and Africa.

6. Challenges local churches to extend loving friendship and conversation to people of other denominations and faiths and to love their neighbours regardless of faith or absence of faith. We should accept people for who they are, treat them with respect, and never pity.  When talking with anyone we should have no agenda for converting them.

7. Encourages the Church of Scotland to offer more practical support to congregations engaging in Inter-Faith relationships. This could include an expansion of the role of Inter-Faith workers and the development of a volunteer network.

8. Encourages the Church of Scotland to recognise the values which we share with other faiths and which should inform and encourage practical work on issues such as poverty, conflict resolution and justice. Faith groups should work together for increased dialogue with all levels of government.

9. Are aware that ignorance breeds prejudice whereas knowledge breeds understanding.  It’s crucial to build lasting relationships before tackling religious issues. We need to be educated about other faiths and try to educate other faiths in what we believe and why we believe it, promoting mutual understanding.

10. Encourages the Church of Scotland to reach out to those who feel threatened and fearful of new cultures and religions in their area in the hope that such feelings won’t escalate.

11. Would like the church to consider ways in which communities can have dialogue with people of other faiths while being careful to avoid tokenism and condescension.

12. Encourage ongoing Religious Education programmes in schools with the involvement of churches and other faith groups, as part of commitment to promoting understanding about different faiths among wider society.

13. Encourage Inter-Faith dialogue at all levels of the church,including opportunities for people from other faith communities to speak to churches about their beliefs.

14. Want to encourage ecumenical discussions so that Christians of all denominations can work to improve inter-faith relationships.

Again, the church walks in a tension between supporting a pluralistic society where it is helpful to understand the cultural context of those around us of different faiths while not compromising, or appearing to compromise, the essential tenets of its own faith.  For the most part this deliverance does a good job walk
ing that line.

The next step is to see how these recommendations develop.  As the cover letter says, there is much in here that happens on an individual, congregational or presbytery basis.  But some of these items will come through to the General Assembly included in the deliverances from standing committees of the Assembly.  We will see these specifics shortly as the Assembly reports are posted.

Moving on, a short while ago the information for NYA2010 was posted on the COSY Blog.  Here is the lede:

Welcome to the National Youth Assembly 2010! Our theme for this year is To Boldly Go . . . and we’ll be thinking about mission – what does the word mission mean to you? How do we do mission in a 21st century Scotland and what might it look like?

The new Moderator of NYA is Kim Wood (note the spelling correction in the comment) and the discussion questions will be fashion, politics, and violence and peacemaking.  Those are three interesting, relevant and wide-ranging topics and I look forward to seeing where the debate goes on those.  Note also the emphasis on “mission in a 21st century Scotland” — not world mission, but local mission.

The event will be held at Stirling University, the same as last year, but apparently in a new venue on the campus.  It is the first weekend of September, Friday 3 Sept. to Monday 6 Sept. 2010.  And maybe the most important information: the conference is covered by the COSY Blog and will probably use the Twitter hashtag #nya2010.  If you need to register you can do so at MadStuff.biz.

Chris Hoskins over at What Is Freedom? has posted a brief note expressing his regret that he will be missing the Assembly this year and how meaningful the NYA has been in his life.  He says:

I will miss not being at the assembly, the 7 Youth Assemblies I have attended, as delegate or staff, over the last 10 years have been very important to me. I’ve made many good friends, been challenged, been inspired, at the assembly in 2000 I gave my life to Christ. Through my involvement in the Youth Assemblies, I’ve been opened to many other opportunities… I know this list seems a bit narcissistic, but I’m just realising how blessed I’ve been to be a part of all these things.

And he concludes with this advice:

If you’ve never been to the Youth assembly and you are eligible to go, I would recommend that you do, if you’ve been before, why do you share some memories with us? Those who are going this year – relish it, enjoy it, participate. Its the kind of event that is only as good as you make it, if you don’t put yourself into it and take part, it will never be as good as it could be – for you and for those around you.

I look forward to NYA2010, even if I will only attend in the virtual world.  My prayers for another meaningful Assembly.

An Interesting Tale Of Stewardship, Property, And The PC(USA) Trust Clause

5 Replies

A news item on Friday caught my attention and got me thinking.  This is a brief recounting and reflection on that news item.

The news, from the DailyNewsonline.com, is that Oakfield Community Bible Church (OCBC), a congregation that can be traced back to the First Presbyterian Church, Oakfield, NY, of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), purchased back its property from Genesee Valley Presbytery at public auction for $50,000.  This property contains both the 11,740 sq. ft. church structure and the manse.

This history is, with a twist or two, simple and predictable: First Presbyterian wanted to leave PC(USA) over doctrinal differences, the Presbytery would not let them just take the property with them, after a brief attempt at negotiations the congregation filed a lawsuit for the property, and at trial the property was awarded to the Presbytery under the trust clause.  Apparently the Presbytery decided not to continue using the property themselves and so auctioned it off.  The successor church, now the OCBC was the successful bidder for $50,000.  (There was a bit of bidding drama, check out the news story for more details.)

The one twist in here is that upon separating from the PC(USA) the congregation of First Pres. became the Oakfield Independent Presbyterian Church (OIPC) and a bit later the church split and the majority of the congregation followed the pastor to form OCBC. So, while no longer Presbyterian, OCBC in its membership represents the successor to First Pres.  The remaining members of OIPC decided it was not worth appealing the trial court’s ruling. (Layman article)

So what questions does this raise?

First, for $50,000 did the Presbytery get anywhere near what they should have for the property?  In scanning articles I have not seen the figures for what each side was talking in the brief negotiations.  However, an article in The
Layman a week ago values the property at $398,000 and a comment in the minutes of a special meeting of Presbytery says “No appraisal has been done, but the worth may be greater than $200,000. The property is a valuable asset in the middle of the village.”  The property
does not appear on the town’s 2005
tax rolls, but a residential property very close by had an assessed
valuation of $83,000.  Even if the number in the Layman is a bit high
and we consider the minimum number the Presbytery listed, clearly the selling price at auction was no more than 25% of the
property’s value.  It appears that other bidders at the auction were
only interested in the manse and were willing to bid $45,000-55,000 for
the whole property to get the house.

So, on the one hand the Presbytery appears happy to get the empty building off their hands so they don’t have to put money into maintaining a vacant property.  In a depressed real estate market in a small western New York town they were able to unload a unique parcel of property.  (And I am well aware of the current challenges related to selling a unique parcel.  As chair of the trustees of the Synod right now I have a couple of “interesting” properties that we would like to find buyers for, especially if the offer reflects the value of the property.  One city has offered us naming rights if we donate the property to them for a park.)

But on the other hand, we have to ask the question whether with some patience and work the Presbytery could have gotten more value out of the property.  Yes, it probably would have required carrying it on the books longer and if not used for religious purposes carries the risk of losing tax exempt status.  And I am sure that the Presbytery considered this.  In addition, in defending the litigation they incurred expenses, some of which may have been offset by higher governing bodies or insurance.

On the other side of the equation the congregation is now back in the facility they were using before for what is probably a good deal.  It has been vacant for a while and that carries concerns about the condition but basic upkeep seems to have been preformed.  The flip side of this is that the church has been unsettled with some uncertainty and other arrangements for a couple of years.  And in the auction process they did not have assurance that they would be the successful bidders.

So is this a win-win situation, at least as far as the property is concerned today?  Presbytery gets vacant property off their hands, church gets to use their old facility again for a price that is 25% of the property value.

One does have to wonder if the Presbytery could have gotten more of the value out of the property.  One also has to wonder if a negotiated settlement right at the very beginning may have gotten everyone a reasonable outcome without the expense, frustration and polarization of litigation.

I don’t know what the best answer is here but these are questions that come to mind as I read about the outcome of this property auction.

Ethno-religious Violence In Nigeria And The Presbyterian Response

1 Reply

Violence around the city of Jos in Plateau State of Nigeria has been moving in and out of the mainstream media headlines over the past week.  However, while this month’s attacks by Muslim Hausa speaking Funali herdsmen on Berom Christians has gotten some press it is also reported that this is a retaliation raid for Berom attacks on Funali settlements back in January.  And in the even bigger picture, as you can probably anticipate, this is part of a much longer and larger cycle of violence in the area.  I found a story from the BBC to be particularly helpful in providing the context for the conflict.  Here are some helpful excerpts:

A mosaic of distinct ethnic groups – Tiv, Jukun, Pyem, Kofyar, Berom, the Hausa-Fulani and many more – live along this dividing line between the Muslim north and mostly Christian south.
…
The fertile land and jobs were a powerful draw for migrants seeking work. People travelled to Jos from all over Nigeria.

Those patterns of migration are marked today by sharp divisions in the community.

People here are either classified as indigenes or settlers.

Indigenes are able to prove their ancestry in the state.

Settlers – whose grandparents and great-grandparents settled here – cannot.

Settlers find it difficult to get jobs in local government, or apply for educational scholarships.

Most indigenes are Berom Christians. Most settlers are Hausa Muslims.

Many Christians believe Hausa Muslim settlers seek to seize political control and impose Sharia law. They fear an extremist Islamist agenda and jihad.

Many Muslims believe the Plateau State government wishes to drive them out of certain areas.

The circle of violence, the emergence of vigilante groups and organised militia, the suspicion of the military within the Christian community and the lack of a political framework for talks worries those tasked with security.

There is a bit of coverage out there, some of it better than others.  From the admittedly incomplete reading that I have done I would recommend the BBC article, a New York Times piece, and an AP story from The Boston Globe.  General Christian voices include Christian Today and The Christian Post.  Local voices carried by AllAfrica.com include news stories, opinion pieces, and interviews.  In particular, there are some interesting comments in that interview with Barrister Yahaya Mahood who has previously represented Fulani settlers.  In the interview he says about earlier incidents:

They are not religious riots. They are ethnic clashes between those that are called indigenes and those called settlers. The dispute in the two communities is not over religion, its practice or right. It is purely economic. In both cases, people who settled 200 years who are purely traders and businessmen dominated the economy over those who say they are indigenes and who are public servants and farmers.

When asked for his solution to the current conflict he answered in part:

[I]f the ‘indigenes’ will not accept the ‘settlers’ as Nigerians with a right to stay anywhere in Nigeria and enjoy rights as Nigerians, then the federal government should move all the settlers out of Jos back to wherever and pay them adequate compensation. That is why I welcomed the Chief Solomon Lar Panel, made up of indigenes and settlers to sort out their differences. It is better than setting up Judicial Commissions of Inquiry.
…
We should allow Chief Solomon Lar panel to do its work. They know themselves. They know the problems and have the solution. The federal government must step in, be firm and rebuild the town as was done in Zango. Plateau State government should be neutral and fair to all, if the settlers are to remain in Jos. The leaders of the settlers should undertake to control their people and there should be mutual respect. Only that can guarantee peace.

That is a brief introduction to the situation.  Related to this I have seen both internal and external responses from the Presbyterian church.

From the Presbyterian Church of Nigeria the Moderator of the General Assembly, The Rt. Rev. Ubon Bassey Usung, has expressed views similar to those of Mr. Mahood.  According to the press report The Moderator “warned that the recurring ethno-religious crisis in Jos, Plateau State, if not checked immediately, might snowball into a full-blown war.”  The article goes on to say:

Usung  condemned the attack.  He advocated the setting up of a Conflict Resolution Committee  made up of Christian and Muslim leaders, government community chiefs and security agencies to check violence in the area.  “The committee should be able to preach peace among the members of the various communities and religions in the area and nip any crisis in the bud,” he added.

In solidarity with the Presbyterian Church of Nigeria the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, The Rev. Harvey Self, has issued a statement which echoes Mr. Usung’s call for peace, security, and community work to heal the divisions.  The statement concludes with:

We also call on state and federal authorities in Nigeria to put an end to the culture of impunity by making every effort to identify and punish to the full extent of the law all those responsible for instigating and for carrying out these murderous attacks. In addition, we call upon state and federal authorities to make a concerted and sustained effort to deal with the underlying causes of these repeated outbreaks of ethnic and religious violence; namely, discrimination between settlers and indigenes, endemic poverty, and the continuing unresolved disputes over land. Finally, we call on all people of faith, everywhere, to pray and to work together for peace, healing, reconciliation, and acceptance of all human rights for the people of Nigeria.

We will see how this develops and which other Presbyterian branches speak out on it.  For now, I echo these words for us to “pray and work together for peace…”

And You Think Robert’s Rules Are Confusing…

Leave a reply

In governing body meetings we usually start to get the eyes glazing over when a substitute motion is introduced and sometimes moving the previous question gets a bit frustrating when debate is closed, or not closed, and those on the losing side of the vote would rather have it their way.  But in general parliamentary procedure is a set of parameters for the decent and orderly functioning of a deliberative body that we live with so the minority gets their opinion heard and so that we are clear what the body has done when it has done something.

For those with a knowledge of Robert’s Rules who are following the current Congressional maneuvering on the health care bill we sometimes have trouble completely understanding what the Congress is up to with talk of a “self-executing rule” in the House and a “budget reconciliation bill” in the Senate.

As I was looking at this in a little more detail I was struck by the introduction to the first edition (1876) of Robert’s Rules of Order where the good Brig. Gen. Henry M. Robert says:

Parliamentary Law refers originally to the customs and rules of conducting business in the English Parliament; and thence to the customs and rules of our own legislative assemblies. In England these customs and usages of Parliament form a part of the unwritten law of the land, and in our own legislative bodies they are of authority in all cases where they do not conflict with existing rules or precedents. But as a people we have not the respect which the English have for customs and precedents, and are always ready for innovations which we think are improvements, and hence changes have been and are being constantly made in the written rules which our legislative bodies have found best to adopt. As each house adopts its own rules, it results that the two houses of the same legislature do not always agree in their practice; even in Congress the order of precedence of motions is not the same in both houses, and the Previous Question is admitted in the House of Representatives, but not in the Senate. As a consequence of this, the exact method of conducting business in any particular legislative body is to be obtained only from the Legislative Manual of that body.  

Brig. Gen. Henry Martyn Robert

Mr. Robert goes on to talk about how he based his rules for deliberative assemblies on the U.S. House of Representatives at that time.  A shock to me.  To look at the way that Congress works today I have some trouble matching it up with Robert’s Rules.  Maybe the difference between then and now are the “innovations which we think are improvements.”   (I have seen in person a Senate session with three senators in the chamber — the President Pro Tem, and the representatives of the majority and the minority — discussing the consent agenda and agreeing to the docket and rules of debate for a major bill the next day.  And from the C-Span camera you would never know the rest of the seats were empty. But I digress…)

So in case you are inclined to check out the Legislative Manuals for the House and the Senate, the Library of Congress has made it easy for you with the House and Senate resources at the top of their Government Resources page.  Drilling down a little bit you get the more detailed list of resources from the House Committee on Rules and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.  (And I can’t help but notice how the House web page has only the Committee Chair pictured while the Senate has equal sized pictures of both the Chair and the Ranking Member.  But I digress…)

In the current debate one parliamentary, or procedural, option being talked about is the “self-executing rule.” It turns out that the self-executing rule is a 20th century innovation and the Wilson Center has a good background piece on this innovation which was introduced in 1933 (that’s from another good article from the Washington Post).  For those of us familiar with Robert’s it is a bit like a “non-consent consent agenda,” I would say.  To put it a better way, it is a second motion which is not debatable but gets approved with the approval of the first debatable motion.  While technically separable, if you have the majority control you can keep it from being brought to the floor by itself.  And the Wilson piece is clear, and probably to no one’s surprise, while the use of this rule has become more common, throughout the last few decades the party in the minority is usually “shocked” to think that the majority would resort to such tactics.   (Reminds me of Captain Renault in Casablanca who says “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!” as pretense and in mock indignation as he is handed his roulette winnings.  But I digress…)

I am sure that most of my American readers have heard more about the “budget reconciliation process” to be used in the Senate since that has been in the headlines for almost two months now.  For almost everything you wanted to know about Budget Reconciliation the Congressional Research Service has a handy publication.  It is what Robert would consider an “innovation” coming from the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 which provides a process which is governed by “special procedures.” “These procedures serve to limit what may be included in reconciliation legislation, to prohibit certain amendments, and to encourage its completion in a timely fashion.”  The floor procedure to provide for timely consideration is described thus:

During floor action on reconciliation legislation, the Senate and House follow different procedures and practices. In the Senate, debate on a budget reconciliation bill, and on all amendments, debatable motions, and appeals, is limited to not more than 20 hours. After the 20 hours of debate has been reached, consideration of amendments, motions, and appeals may continue, but without debate. The Senate often will consider a substantial number of amendments in this situation. The Budget Act does not provide any debate limitations on a reconciliation bill in the House. The House, however, regularly adopts a special rule establishing the time allotted for debate and what amendments will be in order. The House special rule typically has allowed for consideration of only a few major amendments.

First, remember the Robert quote above about each chamber having their own rules.  And second, by specifying the 20 hours of debate the debate in the Senate is automatically cut off meaning that there is no need for the closure vote that has the infamous 60 vote super-majority provision.

And finally, if you think you have never really heard of the reconciliation process before consider the acronym C.O.B.R.A.  While most people think of the extension of medical benefits the acronym comes from the name of the larger bill itself, with the wonderfully oxymornic title of “The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.”  But you probably knew that al
ready.

Well, I have no intention of digging back in the Library of Congress to see how House and Senate rules have evolved over time, but I find Robert’s words about “innovations which we think are improvements” to be a bit prophetic.  I wonder if he would base his rules on those deliberative bodies today?

In general Presbyterian procedures seem less complicated, but we generally can not claim that they are purely Robert’s rules.  Every one has special procedures for changing doctrinal standards that involves voting by the presbyteries, some requiring majority and some super majority.  Many have their governing bodies hear and decide judicial cases so there are special standing rules for that.  And there is always the PC(USA) which has Advisory Delegates with voice and vote in committee but voice only in plenary.  Yes, we even have our own Legislative Manual beyond the basics of parliamentary procedure.