The Bicentennial Of The Cumberland Presbyterian Church, February 4, 2010

3 Replies

Two hundred years ago today the Rev. Finis Ewing and the Rev. Samuel King met with the Rev. Samuel McAdow at Mr. McAdow’s cabin in Dixon County, Tennessee, and held the first meeting of the Cumberland Presbytery, the predecessor of the Cumberland Synod, the predecessor of the General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church.

(Update: Thanks to Mr. Knight for his comments below and correcting me on my original text of the formation of the presbytery.  I stopped reading the history too soon and in a less-complete source.  I have rewritten the next paragraph to (hopefully) provide a more accurate account of the formation.  I regret the error and gladly accept the correction.)

The Cumberland Presbytery was established by the PCUSA in 1802 along with the Synod of Kentucky but within four years disputes developed over confessional and educational requirements for ordination.  The Synod was petitioned to investigate ordination standards in the Cumberland Presbytery with the result that an investigating commission was formed, ministers were summoned to be examined at the next Synod meeting, and when the ministers declined the Kentucky Synod disbanded the presbytery.  In 1807 the complaint against the synod for requiring unconstitutional synod examinations and dissolving the presbytery was heard by the General Assembly which ruled that the synod had over-stepped its authority in controlling ordinations clearing the way for the Cumberland Presbytery to be reinstated.  However, the Synod did not act to reinstate the presbytery and additional requests to the GA for this remedy were unsuccessful, so these three pastors took the initiative to reestablish it.

While the Old Side/New Side split had been mended administratively in 1758 many of the tensions over education and confessional standards remained in the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.  (That would be the PCUSA, not to be confused with the PC(USA) ).  At this time the Second Great Awakening was causing tensions on the bonds of the church and not just the Cumberland Presbytery formed but Restoration Movement churches split off including the Cain Ridge/Stone-Campbell groups that included the Springfield Presbytery.  While the Cumberland Presbyterians had issues with Calvinism, as you can see in the document below, they were really the one group that remained in the Presbyterian stream, as evidenced by the partial reunion in 1906 and continued close relations with mainline American Presbyterians today.

The partial reunion of 1906 is an interesting study in church history itself because it comes during the “church union” or ecumenical movement of the early 20th century that saw other forms of interdenominational cooperation including the formation of the United Church of Canada from the Presbyterian, Methodist and Congregational churches.  It also comes at the beginning of the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy of the early 1900’s.  One catalyst to the reunion, and a step in the theological controversy that was developing, was the 1903 revision of the Westminster Confession of Faith.  As Hart and Muether describe the theological leanings of some in the northern church at that time

[Charles A. ] Briggs was tapping into a growing consensus in the church, which had begun to form no later than the reunion of 1869, that the harder Calvinistic edges of the Confession needed to be softened. In the words of Benjamin J. Lake, “Some of the time-honored rigidity in the Westminster Confession seemed obsolete to many Presbyterians.” Typically, Presbyterian rigidity was spelled p-r-e-d-e-s-t-i-n-a-t-i-o-n.

Asked to be on the committee to make the revision B. B. Warfield declined.  Hart and Muether record:

“It is an inexpressible grief,” [Warfield] wrote, to see the church “spending its energies in a vain attempt to lower its testimony to suit the ever changing sentiment of the world around it.” Warfield’s lament would persuade few. In an era when change was a sign of health, his dissent sounded, in the words of an opponent, as a call for the “harmony of standing still.”

In 1903 the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. approved the changes to the Westminster Confession that did indeed soften the edges enough that a majority of the Cumberland churches were comfortable reuniting with the mainstream church.

An interesting piece of information I once heard about the reunion (and I don’t remember the source so this might be urban legend) is that all Cumberland churches had the initials “CPC” on their communion ware.  Following joining with the UPCUSA many churches changed their names to Central Presbyterian Church, Christ Presbyterian Church, or another similar name so the “CPC” still applied.

But like the Presbyterians in the formation of the United Church in Canada, there was a sizable minority of those in the Cumberland Presbyterian Church who chose to continue as they were and that is the body that today celebrates its bicentennial.  (What is it about these Presbyterians?)

The Cumberland Presbyterian Church will celebrate this coming Sunday on Denomination Day 2010.  They have produced a resource to help with worship and their 2010 GA will hold a full-day event at Mr. McAdow’s reconstructed home in Tennessee.

So happy birthday to the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. Thanks to their wonderful on-line collection of historical resources, here is the circular letter that started it all:

February 4, 1810
[Information Contained in A Circular Letter, no actual minutes recorded]

   In Dixon county Tennessee State, at the Rev. Samuel M’adow’s this 4th day of February 1810.

   We Samuel M’adow, Finis Ewing, and Samuel King, regularly ordained ministers, in the presbyterian church against whom, no charge, either of imorality, or Heresey has ever been exhibited, before any of the church Judicatures. Having waited in vain more than four years, in the mean time, petitioning the general assembly for a redress of grievances, and a restoration of our violated rights, have, and do hereby agree, and determine, to constitute into a presbytery, known by the name of the Cumberland presbytery. On the following conditions (to wit) all candidates for the ministry, who may hereafter be licensed by this presbytery; and all the licentiates, or probationers who may hereafter be ordained by this presbytery; shall be required before such licensure, and ordination, to receive, and adopt the confession and discipline of the presbyterian church, except the idea of fatality, that seems to be taught under the misterious doctrine of predes
tination. It is to be understood, however, that such as can clearly receive the confession, without an exception,shall not be required to make any. Moreover, all licentiates,before they are set apart to the whole work of the ministry (or ordained) shall be required to undergo an examination, on English Grammer, Geography, Astronomy, natural, & moral philosophy, and church history. The presbytery may also require an examination on all, or any part, of the above branches of literature, before licensure if they deem it expedient.”

Steps In Ecclesiastical Discipline In Two PCA Presbyteries

4 Replies

Regular readers know that in spite of my great regard and agreement with the Westminster Confession of Faith I prefer the formulation of the Marks of the True Church in the Scots Confession and some other Reformed confessions.  The WCF [25:4] says “Churches… are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.” The Scots Confession puts it thus:

The notes of the true Kirk, therefore, we believe, confess, and avow to be: first, the true preaching of the word of God, in which God has revealed himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles declare; secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, to which must be joined the word and promise of God to seal and confirm them in our hearts; and lastly, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly ministered, as God’s word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished. [Chapter 18]

Many people have problems with the idea of invoking “ecclesiastical discipline” since it may conjure up images of heretic trials and draconian punishment.  Regarding this let me make two points.

  1. It is important to remember that “discipline” relates to the word “disciple,” as the root of the words suggests.  One online resources tells us that “discipline” derives from the meaning “instruction given to the disciple.” True discipline is instructional.
  2. Related to that the intent of ecclesiastical discipline is to be restorative and not punitive.  As the Confession says “whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished.”  We are not out to “get” someone but to restore them to right relationship with God and the Community.

Finally, I would also emphasize that discipline involves a process and in the Presbyterian sense it encompasses the Covenant Community and may impact on our “reformed and always being reformed” as the community tries to discern how God is calling us to be faithful to Scripture.

With that preface I wanted to summarize two recent events in Presbyterian Church of America presbyteries.  In both cases these are on-going issues and the recent news only represents the latest steps.

The first began as a bit of a “sleeper,” or at least was overshadowed by a higher profile case going on at the same time, but in the last two weeks it has really taken on a life of its own in one little corner of the blogosphere.  Let me say at the onset that much of the reporting on the web comes from one side of this controversy but in reading a lot of the articles the timeline and facts of this case do not appear to be in dispute.

This case began in the Spring of 2008 and involves the examination of a Teaching Elder in the Presbytery of Siouxlands specifically regarding views which are currently referred to as Federal Vision theology.  For a good detailed summary of this case I refer you to a piece last September that TE Brian Carpenter wrote for the Aquila Report.  In the interest of full disclosure I need to let you know that Mr. Carpenter is a complainant in one part of this case, now under investigation in another part, and also has a personal blog – The Happy T.R.   That will become important in a moment.

UPDATE: Wes White has now posted an all-in-one-place summary/timeline on this issue in Siouxlands.  Thanks.

Here is a summary so what follows will make more sense:  In April 2008 TE Wes White and TE Brian Carpenter asked the Presbytery of Siouxlands for an investigation of a member of the Presbytery and whether he was teaching federal vision theology contrary to the Standards of the PCA.  The Presbytery denied the request, White and Carpenter filed a complaint at the next Presbytery meeting and when that was denied a complaint was filed with the General Assembly.  A panel of the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) sustained the complaint and the Presbytery was ordered to conduct an investigation.  The investigating committee was created, worked over the Summer of 2009, and by a 4-2 vote brought a report to the September Presbytery meeting that there was a “strong presumption of guilt.”  On the floor of Presbytery one of the dissenting members of the committee, TE Joshua Moon, moved a substitute motion to not accept the report and recommendations and the substitute motion prevailed.  He then made the motion that there was no “strong presumption of guilt” that the views of the member who was investigated were outside the bounds of the Standards and that motion prevailed by a narrow 20-17-1 vote.  New complaints were filed with the Presbytery.  The first summary ends at that point but TE Carpenter writes on his personal blog that at a called meeting at the end of October the new complaint was sustained and a new investigating committee formed.  In addition, a church session sent an overture asking for an investigation of a second TE, that individual answered the charges on the floor of Presbytery, the Presbytery voted to accept that examination as fulfilling the examination and find no “strong presumption of guilt,” and TE Carpenter filed a complaint in that case that the investigation was not extensive enough to fulfill the requirements of the Book of Church Order. A January item from the Aquila Report informs us that one session in the Presbytery found the new overture and other writings and statements of TE Carpenter  to have misrepresented another TE to a strong degree and they overtured the Presbytery to “find a strong presumption of guilt that Mr. Carpenter has publicly sinned…by violating the ninth commandment.”  These writings include his pieces on The Aquila Report and The Happy TR.  That brings us to the stated meeting of January 22…

The Aquila Report brings us one summary of that presbytery meeting, written by the other original complainant TE Wes White.  In the original case the second investigating committee brought a unanimous recommendation that the Presbytery find a strong presumption of guilt that the member’s teachings were outside the bounds of the Standards.  The Presbytery chose to postpone action on the report until September and formed a committee to “instruct and advise that member.”  On the one hand see above abo
ut discipline being restorative, on the other hand confer TE White’s personal blog for his analysis of the make-up of the committee and conclusion that it lacks balance.

The Presbytery also denied the complaint from TE Carpenter that the October examination was not sufficient.  The Presbytery did accept the overture regarding TE Carpenter’s actions and has set up an investigating committee to make a recommendation whether he had broken the ninth commandment by misrepresenting another member.  Part of this accusation has to do with his writing about the previous Presbytery meeting on his blog and the Aquila Report.  In line with the concept of ecclesiastical discipline it is interesting to note that in a completely unrelated item of business “a teaching elder who had previously been indefinitely suspended for a public sin was restored to office and the Presbytery expressed thanksgiving to God for the exemplary repentance God had worked in his heart.”

Still with me?  So here is where this story took on a life of its own on the blogosphere.  Following the meeting TE White and TE Carpenter weighed in on the meeting on their blogs.  In fact, Mr. Carpenter expressed his frustration a number of times in the first few days following the meeting and then felt the conviction of the Spirit, repented of his more sarcastic writing and took down most of his initial postings.  (Yes, I am aware that there are cached copies but to honor Mr. Carpenter’s wishes I won’t link those, you will have to find them yourselves.)  I do wish that at least the original post were available because in spite of the sarcasm I believe it clearly conveys both the passion that TE Carpenter has for the issue as well as the frustration he feels in trying to get the Presbytery to adequately deal with it.  From my saved copy let me simply quote part of the two paragraphs related to the new investigating committee that will be examining his behavior:

Now, I am not in the least perturbed by all of this… I think judicial investigations are fine and good. I am not threatened by them in the least. I didn’t do anything wrong. I did some things that some don’t like. I did some things that some don’t think are right, but they are mistaken. My conscience is clear. And if a fair and competent investigation can convince me that I did do something wrong, I will repent.

I have some good hope that the committee appointed to investigate me can conduct a fair and competent investigation…  The PCA has a fine constitution and I have the right and ability to make use of the provisions afforded by it.

The summary by TE White, while maybe not as passionate, is strong, seems to lay out the facts with supporting quotations, and shows a similar level of frustration.

Others are weighing in online with less detailed posts about the meeting and the controversy.  This includes TE Lane Keister on Green Baggins, Jordan Harris at Sacramental Piety, and Steven Carr at Beholding the Beauty, all from Siouxlands Presbytery.  From elsewhere R. Scott Clark on the Heidelblog, Kevin Carrol at Reformed and Loving it, David Sarafolean at Joshua Judges Ruth, and Mark Horne.  I would also note that Wes White has continued to post so keep watching his blog Johannes Weslianus for news updates and detailed critiques from his perspective.  Brian Carpenter, in addition to his mea culpa and self-editing, has left a few things up at The Happy TR but is taking a step back from blogging for a while.

This particular case is interesting in a general sense because any Presbyterian blogger should be wrestling with the question of whether their work is contributing to or hindering the purity and peace of the whole body.  The lines are not always clearly drawn and each of us needs to decide where we draw the line and then be accountable to the rest of the body for our decisions and to be open to correction.

It is also worth pointing out that intertwined with the developments in this Presbytery are responses to the recent SJC proposed decision in the Pacific Northwest Presbytery case in the form of a Supplemental Brief by TE Robert S. Rayburn.  I will not go into any detail on this in part because Lane Keister has been analyzing and critiquing it at Green Baggins (as of today he is up to Part 6).  This case will be reviewed by the full SJC next month.

While it is tempting to announce “And now for something completely different…”, I turn to another presbytery’s action that may be different in content, but still represents a step in the process of ecclesiastical discipline.

About two weeks ago the Presbytery of South Florida ruled on a complaint filed by six members of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church who had been banned from the church grounds.  According to an article on the Sun Sentinel web site the Presbytery sustained the members’ complaint, ruled that the members had not been granted due process, and ordered the ban lifted.  (For the record, this article seems to be the only source for this news, the newspaper based some of it on “a document” they obtained, and the Presbytery did not comment for the story although a member of the Coral Ridge Session did speak on the record.  I would also note that their terminology is a bit off.  For example, they say “denominational officials” made the decision which is technically correct, since the presbytery is made up of ordained officers of the church, but to a reader not familiar with Presbyterian polity it would probably sound like one or two high-ranking national figures rather than the membership of the next-higher regional governin
g body.)

According to the document the Presbytery decided that the church “acted impulsively, improperly, prematurely, and without warrant.”  The representative of the Session expressed disappointment with the decision but said the session would comply and reopen the case at the March Session meeting.  Possible outcomes could be reconciliation or an ecclesiastical trial.  The representative of the break-away group indicated that the Presbytery decision does not directly impact their new worshiping community.

It should be pointed out that there are traditions and legacies in play here, as I have described before.  It is good to read that Coral Ridge does not consider itself an island unto itself but part of the Presbyterian connectional system.

As I said at the beginning both of these actions are just part of more extensive processes.  There will be more to come, possibly a lot more.

First Vote For Presbyterian Church In Ireland Moderator Designate Ends In A Tie

Leave a reply

Well, I guess William Crawley gets points for calling it Friday at Will and Testament. His closing line was

In other words: it’s too close to call. If I was a betting man (whichI’m not), I’d expect the election to continue into March.

The results were just released by the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, as reported by the BBC, and two nominees, the Rev.  Norman Hamilton of Ballysillan, Belfast, and the Rev. Norman McAuley of Greenwell Street, Newtownards, both received the votes of five presbyteries.  The other nine presbytery votes were not specifically reported but only described as “divided among three other candidates.”  And that means that one candidate received no votes.

When the voting is reported I’ll update it here.  However, the BBC article is suggestive by listing the Rev. Derek McKelvey, Rev. Ivan Patterson, and the Rev. Roy Mackey, but not the Rev. Ruth Patterson.

UPDATE: The Church press release is now out and breaks down the voting as:  Hamilton – 5, McAuley – 5, McKelvey – 4, I. Patterson – 4, and Mackey – 1.  They also note that this is the third tie vote in nine years.

So, as Mr. Crawley so presciently suggested, the presbyteries will vote again between these two nominees in March.

Selection Of The Moderator Designate For The Presbyterian Church In Ireland

Leave a reply

The month of January was a particularly busy one for me, as evidenced by the fact that I only posted eight times.  But having just finished up one service to the church (which is now available on-line) and having been part of a wonderful family celebration this past weekend, I now hope to return to blogging in earnest.

And none too soon since tomorrow, the first Tuesday in February, is one of my favorite of Presbyterian events – the selection of the Moderator Designate for the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.

In fine Presbyterian, “lets come together and discern this as the body of Christ” fashion, all the presbyteries meet on the same evening and each discusses who should be the next Moderator of the General Assembly.  Each votes and sends their result into the Clerk of Assembly.  For the last couple of years there has been a predetermined list to vote on, but I actually liked it better in the past when there was no slate and each presbytery proposed names that night and voted their choice from that local slate.

From the PCI press release this year’s nominees are:

Rev Norman Hamilton(Ballysillan)
Rev Derek McKelvey (Fisherwick)
Rev Norman McAuley (Greenwell Street,Newtownards)
Rev Roy Mackay (Second Comber)
Rev Ivan Patterson(Newcastle)
Rev Ruth Patterson (Restoration Ministries)

The press release also contains brief biographies of each nominee.  Revs. Hamilton, McKelvey, and Ruth Patterson have been nominees before.  And for the record, if Ms. Patterson were elected she would be not only the first woman ordained as clergy in the PCI but the first female moderator of the PCI as well.

If you are looking for a “favourite” to watch the Belfast Telegraph handicaps the nominees:

Informed church sources in Belfast believe that Ms Patterson would not be the bookies’ favourite.

The front-runners are the Reverend Norman Hamilton (64), minister of Ballysillan in north Belfast; and the Reverend Derek McKelvey (65), of the fashionable Fisherwick Church in south Belfast.

Insiders, however, have tipped the Reverend Norman McAuley (34), of Newtownards, to emerge as the winner.

[As an editorial comment, the Belfast Telegraph lists his age as 34 but the PCI press release lists the date of birth as 1956 so he would be 54, not 34.  I guess we will get a chance to check that if he is indeed elected.]

The Belfast Telegraph has a second article about the election which does a really great job of explaining the nature and role of the Moderator of the General Assembly as well as discussing the possible politics or the body’s sense of balance behind the voting.  And over at Will and Testament William Crawley also does the “what if” and decides this one is too close to call and may go to a run-off in March.

Stay tuned and we will find out the discernment of the church at about this time tomorrow.

Presbyterian Mutual Society Gets Its Hearing

Leave a reply

First, I apologize for the silence the last week.  A lot going on in my life at the moment and my relaxation time blogging has been severely cut back.  The next two weekends I have a big meeting and a big family event and I suspect I’ll get back to my regular rhythm in about eleven days.  I hope so because I have a lot of material piling up in draft and note form.

Having said that, I just sent off a major “deliverable” so I have a very short break to look at the latest events this week related to the Presbyterian Mutual Society in Northern Ireland.  I gave an update about three weeks ago and want to thank “Anonymous” for the pointer to a current forum for discussion of the situation.

Unfortunately this week’s news about the situation is not confirmation of the rumored deal to bail out the savers and investors.  (And as noted in the comments from last time I have been sloppy with my use of the terms “savers” and “investors,” lumping them together.  I will try to be more precise.)  But the Society was in the news this week as a select committee of the U.K. Treasury met in Belfast to inquire into the collapse of the Society.  For Northern Ireland this was front page news being covered by the Irish Times, Derry Journal, Belfast News Letter, and Belfast Telegraph, among other.  It was also a topic among the blogs including Alan in Belfast and William Crawley: Will and Testament.

And then we have the reports from the Rt. Rev. Dr. Stafford Carson, the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.  More than an outside observer, he was a focal point at the inquiry as he led the delegation from the Church.  The Irish Times article includes a brief report on a question asked of him by the committee chair, Mr. John McFall, former Northern Ireland Minister:

Mr McFall also demanded to know from the moderator of the PresbyterianChurch, Dr Stafford Carson, if it felt any responsibility to the 10,000savers left unable to access their funds by the sudden failure of thescheme. Dr Carson said the church was very aware of the plight of itscongregation who had invested in the society.

Since the collapse of the Society this has been a sticky point for the Presbyterian Church.  While the Society was a free-standing financial entity, it had very close ties to the Presbyterian Church in Ireland which promoted saving and investing in the Society, had several congregations that were heavily invested, and savers had to be members of the church to put their money there.  However, the Presbyterian Church has made it clear that it does not have financial resources to even begin compensating savers and investors and the collapse was part of the greater global financial crisis so the government should help the mutual societies the same way it helped other financial institutions.

It is important to note that Rev. Carson mentioned this meeting twice in his own blog.  He posted the day before the meeting with a brief description of what this was about and the text of his prepared remarks.  He then posted again after the meeting and among his thoughts he says:

The Treasury Select Committee asked some hard and good questions. Theeffect of that was to re-focus and re-energise the efforts we have madeto get the situation resolved, and for that we are very thankful. Muchof the discussion was taken up with the question as to how this crisiswas allowed to develop, and the failures of the registration andregulation process. The Committee report will make for interestingreading.

This seems to be as close as he gets to mentioning the question to him reported by the Irish Times.  He goes on to say…

All through this crisis, however, we have sought to stay focused on theresolution of the problem. When other financial institutions in the UKgot into trouble, they were bailed out without any inquiry into thecause of their collapse and without regard to the culpability of theinstitution. What became clear yesterday was that no one is reallytaking ownership of the drive towards a resolution, and, as John McFallsaid, the “pass the parcel” game needs to stop and a new political willneeds to be found. We hope that the visit of the committee will helpcreate that will and purpose.

So, we will see if this brings any government action, specifically a bail out like the other financial institutions had.  And without news soon this could become a very hot topic at the upcoming General Assembly.

Finally, it is important to note another piece of news about the Society and that is a further delay in the Administrator making the first payment to investors and savers.  This is where the distinction between the two groups may become important because under the bankruptcy laws the investors, who technically loaned the Society large sums of money, would be due payment before the savers who had lesser quantities on deposit with the Society.  A first payment was initially anticipated last month but clarifying the legal issues, and maybe accumulating more available cash, are holding up the payments until at least March. (Belfast News Letter, statement on PMS web site)  Next week the High Court is scheduled to rule on this as well as hear the request from the Administrator to extend the administration of the Society for five years.

Stay tuned – this has a long way yet to go.

Destructive Haitian Earthquake

Leave a reply

It has been a while since I have drifted from my usual theological and polity discussions into my area of professional work.  Yesterday’s Mw=7.0 earthquake in Haiti has prompted me to now digress to the natural world for this discussion.

I am sure that most of you are aware of the major earthquake on the west end of the island of Hispaniola in the Caribbean.  The epicenter of the earthquake was about 10 miles west of Port-au-Prince, the capital of Haiti which is on the western part of the island.

I should begin by saying that while the occurrence of the earthquake was not a surprise I was a bit surprised by the size.  While magnitude 5 and 6 earthquakes occur regularly around the Caribbean we don’t see magnitude 7 earthquakes that often – this is one of six in the last 10 years around the Caribbean basin.  In this area there was another magnitude 6.5 to 7 earthquake off the northeast side of the island in 2003.  Of these Caribbean earthquakes this one was a bit unique in that it occurred on land and not in the ocean.  And there was a Mw=8 earthquake centered on the east end of the island in 1946.

One of the big questions when an earthquake gets this large is where the fault broke.  Up to magnitude 5 the length of fault that breaks is relatively small so the epicenter does a good job of describing the location of the earthquake.  For larger earthquakes the epicenter is nothing more than the point it starts at and major fault slip can occur some distance away.  In this case the good news, if you want to call it that, is that all the major aftershocks are to the west of the epicenter giving strong evidence that the fault broke to the west away from Port-au-Prince.  So not only was the strongest shaking not in the capital but the energy was directed away from it.  Yes, little consolation considering the scale of the damage that we are seeing.

The presence of this earthquake, and in fact the presence of the island of Hispaniola itself, can be attributed to this area being on a sliver being pushed up on the boundary between the Caribbean and North American plates.  There is a major fault zone just off the north shore of the island and then this one that cuts across and through the south side.


Having knowledge of the tectonic setting of Haiti and the presence of these faults it is not surprising that there is a moderate seismic hazard for the region.  However, don’t let the colors fool you – the highest hazard areas in this region are still an order of magnitude lower than most of the “low hazard” areas here in Southern California.  (And no, I’m not even going to attempt to explain what the numbers mean other than to say that it is related to the probably of experiencing damaging shaking in 50 years.)

There is one more very interesting (at least to me) behavior we see in earthquakes and that is a ten-to-one ratio of number of earthquakes as the magnitude increases.  This holds for the whole world, regions of the world, and aftershock sequences like this one.  So far the numbers are right on as demonstrated by the fact that as of now there are reported 35 earthquakes greater than, or equal to, magnitude 4.5.  If we increase one magnitude point to earthquakes greater than or equal to 5.5 there are four, including the main shock.  The magnitude-frequency ratio is holding.  (For the real geeks and seismologists I come up with a b-value of 1.05 currently but that presumes completeness of the IRIS catalog down to 4.5.)

If you want more maps and technical details on this earthquake you can check out the USGS information page for it.

Let me return to Presbyterianism to conclude.  I know that mission boards are trying to get information and status reports from workers in the country — my brother-in-law has not been able to reach his contacts there yet.  From the reports there is extensive damage to an already weak infrastructure so news may be slow getting out.  There were mission trips from New Jersey and Wisconsin churches in the country and news just appeared that the both groups are safe.  And disaster aid is being collected by PWS&D (PC Canada), PDA (PC(USA)). (I’ll add others as I see them.)  UPDATES: The PC(USA) now has a press release about mission workers, mission teams, and disaster assistance.  There is now an update from the OPC.  The PCA Mission to North America is evaluating the situation and taking contributions.  And there is an announcement that the Canadian Government will match donations to PWS&D. The Cumberland Presbyterian Church has made a donation, and encourages more, through Church World Service.

Finally, a couple of years ago I wrote about a “theology of earthquakes,” if you will.  If you want more on how I fit my professional work into my theological framework check that out.

And keep praying, not just for the devastation in Haiti but in areas all around the world that need help recovering from whatever disasters have struck them.

Looking Ahead: 219th General Assembly Of The PC(USA) – The Second Moderator Candidate

2 Replies

With thanks to the Presbyterian Outlook for confirming the news, we now know that the Rev. Jin S. Kim has been unanimously endorsed by the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area as a candidate to stand for election to be the Moderator of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

The Rev. Kim is the founding and senior pastor of the Church of All Nations in Columbia Heights, Minnesota.  Much as we joked about Bruce being the hometown boy with a home-field advantage at the 218th, it looks like Jin will have that distinction at the 219th.  Yet to see if that is an actual advantage.

At the present time the Rev. Kim has a single Moderator web page as a part of his personal blog New Church Rising.  On that Moderator page, in addition to his stock bio (it is essentially the same as the church bio, except he dropped the ice fishing reference, and his bio for the Belhar Special Committee is a condensed version) the page has his “Reflections on our life together as a Presbyterian family…”  That reflection begins with:

In a post-modern, post-ideological, post-denominational, multicultural age often marked by uprootedness and loss of meaning, how do we “do church” in a way that testifies to the reconciling gospel of Jesus Christ?  In an individualistic culture that tends toward alienation and isolation, how do we lead our congregations, ministries and presbyteries to become high-risk, low-anxiety places, to lead God’s people to confess who they are, to experience healing in intimate community, and to be a witness to the liberating power of the Spirit?

He goes on to talk about how this age requires a new “conceptualizing” of leadership, how we need to transition from the institutional model to something daring, prophetic and countercultural.

The Rev. Kim is widely known in the PC(USA), speaking regularly at conferences and according to his blog he is a speaker at the Institute for Multicultural Ministries going on right now at Princeton Theological Seminary.  He preached for worship services for the 216th (2004) and 218th (2008) General Assemblies, and as I mentioned above he is a member of the Special Committee to study the adoption of the Belhar Confession.  I look forward to his future writings on his blog and his view of the present situation in the PC(USA) and where the church should be headed.  (And you have to respect someone who gives their kids middle names based on ancient creeds – check the last sentence of his bio.)

I can not conclude this post without mentioning that in doing the research for this story I came across the blogs of two pastors that discussed some confusion in the process on Saturday when the presbytery elected their GA commissioners.  While the specific details are not fully covered there seems to be some misunderstanding and disagreement about voting on the slate of alternate commissioners the Nominating Committee put forward and the presbytery voting to do it differently.  Pastor Paul Moore titled his post “That didn’t go well” and draws two conclusions: 1- “We need to learn how to disagree better.” 2- “We have to value the process less.”  The second blog, by Pastor Stephanie Anthony, pretty much sums up her point in the title “Where’s the trust?”  This is a follow-on to Rev. Moore’s writing and makes the point that we have the process for a reason, but within the process the presbytery needs to put some trust in the committees, in this case the Nominating Committee, that they elect to do the work.

UPDATE:  1. The Presbyterian News Service released their article about Rev. Kim this afternoon. 2. Blogger Viola Larson has read through Rev. Kim’s blog and weighs in with some criticism and concern about what she reads there.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — Re-envisioning The Process

2 Replies

As I continue my exploration and commentary on the overtures being sent up to the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I want to focus today on three that deal with the operations of the Assembly.

But before I get down to the nitty-gritty of the overtures let me make some observations about the business and operations of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

If ask anyone who has been a commissioner to the General Assembly about the experience they will probably tell you that it was generally good and interesting but also an intense and tiring experience.  You begin on Saturday with some preliminaries and the election of the Moderator. You worship Sunday morning, socialize (or network) Sunday afternoon.  There might be a brief plenary business meeting and then the committees begin meeting.  The committee work begins in earnest on Monday morning and goes until whatever hour on Tuesday the committee gets it done — it might be at noon, it might be the wee hours of Wednesday morning.  The first part of Wednesday is devoted to reading committee reports, and then the marathon begins as the full Assembly starts working through the 15 or so committee reports.  On Friday night the Assembly goes until it is done because on Saturday everyone just shows up to formally adopt the budgets that resulted from their work over the last week, gets a pep talk about what a nice place the next Assembly will be held at, and then they are dismissed with a prayer.  They then get on their planes and collapse in exhaustion and it really doesn’t matter where the next Assembly will be held because the commissioners seldom see the light of day for that week.

Well, maybe I exaggerate a little bit because there is sunlight when you walk between the hotel and the convention center in the morning and again out to the restaurants for lunch.  Sunday usually provides an opportunity to see some of the neighborhood. And of course the YADs (now YAADs) need a nice place for their mid-week get-together.

But if you think I am being too sarcastic here I would argue that I am not.  If you have been a commissioner, or have had a long talk with someone who was, you will probably think or hear something like “Is this any way to run a church?”  When it gets to plenary there are just over two days to deal with the business from 15 committees, some of these items having great significance.  “Back in the day” when the material was all printed the business easily filled two three-inch binders.  And the reports you got before the Assembly convened were all in small print.  Any wonder the full Assembly usually trusts the work of the business committees.

Let me finish my commentary, more like a rant, with some hard numbers:  For the 218th GA of the PC(USA) there were 109 overtures from presbyteries and synods, not counting concurring overtures that got folded in, that the Assembly had to deal with.  On top of that there was business from the committees and entities of the national office.  For comparison, last year the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which also meets for one week, had two overtures and one ascending complaint.  The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, again a one week meeting, last year had nine overtures.  The Bible Presbyterian Church had seven overtures and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church last year had four.  The Presbyterian branch with the next closest number of overtures that I am aware of, and please let me know if you know of another with more, is the Presbyterian Church in America with 22 overtures, and eight of those were related to creating new presbyteries and redrawing presbytery borders — the remaining 14 dealt with polity, doctrine and discipline.  This is not to say that other GA’s have no controversy — far from it.  But from what I have seen most GA’s have no more than one or two spirited debates in the course of the whole GA.  The PC(USA) seems to have one or two per day.

All this to say that as I observe other GA’s around the globe and see how they operate it strikes me that something is significantly different about the way the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) operates.  And based on some of the overtures that are being submitted to the 219th General Assembly I am apparently not the only one who thinks so.

Let me begin with Overture 9 from Foothills Presbytery which proposes that the church get together annually in a convocation but only do business at the meeting every sixth year.  (Had to smile at the thought that this is almost a “reversed sabbatical year” – rest for six and work for one.)  With this overture they provide an extensive rational which includes:

  1. We believe the following:
    • The vast majority of Presbyterians are happy with their congregations, their presbyteries, their synods, and the ongoing work of General Assembly staff to ensure the smooth day-by-day running of the mission of the denomination.
    • On the other hand, we believe that Presbyterians of all theological perspectives find themselves frustrated with the manner in which discussions occur and decisions are made by the General Assembly, and that General Assembly in its present functioning, presents a significant threat in our beloved church and to its peace, unity, and purity.
  2. Further, based on our experience, and reports of General Assembly commissioners, we believe that
    • the volume of information presented to commissioners at the assembly, including, but not limited to annual reports, denominational positions on particular issues, repeated actions to amend the constitution, etc.,
    • the committee structure and process employed to introduce business to the floor of the assembly,
    • the lack of relationships between commissioners,
    • the lack of time to process issues that are often enormously complicated and multifaceted,
    • the consequent pressure to give in to the emotion of the moment,
    • the disparity of knowledge about specific subjects between commissioners, General Assembly staff, special interest groups;
  3. all often
    • lead to confrontation without reconciliation, (2 Cor. 5:18–19),
    • contribute to a heightened emphasis on winners and losers, rather than winners and winners (see 1 Cor. 6:7–8),
    • lead to a tendency for our national body to act legislatively rather than pastorally (see Paul’s approach to meat offered to idols in 1 Cor. 10:23–33),
    • promote stagnation rather than growth in our common life together (Eph. 4:15–16),
    • lead to the predominance of single-issue thinking (party-spirit, see Gal. 5:20)
    • reinforce a growing sense of anxiety in a significant number of our congregations every time assembly meets, (see John 14:27)
    • and erode denominational pride, loyalty, and commitment.

So the basic intent is to be relational and missional five years and based on that common foundation to address the detailed work of the denomination in the sixth year.  I have to commend them for identifying issues and providing a possible restructuring.  The overture does not give specific recommendations f
or the restructuring — Clearly a system such as they propose would shift a lot more authority and responsibility for operational details like budget and ministry to the GAMC and the OGA.  It would also be interesting to know if the Big Tent event this past summer would be a possible model for the convocations or if they are thinking about a more focused meeting.  This overture will definitely give this year’s commissioners something to think about and discuss.

The other operational overtures to date are not nearly as sweeping and only address specific operational points.

Overture 7 from New Harmony Presbytery asks for a specific change to the Standing Rules of the Assembly, a change that does not need presbytery approval but could be undone or suspended by a subsequent Assembly.  The proposal is to reduce the recurrence of similar Book of Order changes being sent to the presbyteries for vote by adding operational language that says:

b. Should an overture require an amendment to the Constitution that proposes substantially the same action as that which was approved by one of the two previous sessions of the General Assembly and subsequently failed to receive the necessary number of affirmative votes for enactment when transmitted to the presbyteries, it shall not be considered as an item of business unless and until 75 percent of the commissioners present and voting vote to do so,

The parliamentary point on this is that under the standing rules amending or suspending the rules (Section L) requires only a two-thirds vote, so if this is adopted it would be easier to suspend this rule than affirm a constitutional amendment under it.  In terms of how business would be dealt with under this rule, would an overture subject to this rule be automatically sent to the business committee for recommendation and then come back at the end of the week for the full Assembly vote to proceed, or would the rule be taken up at the beginning of the week so if the request is denied the business committee has one less item to deal with?  Probably just put on the consent agenda of the first Bills and Overtures Committee report.

It is worth noting however that this overture does address a comment/complaint that is regularly heard in some presbyteries about the fact that similar amendments keep getting sent down from the Assembly and keep getting defeated by the presbyteries.

(And a very picky polity wonk comment on the wording:  It speaks of the previous “sessions of the General Assembly.”  In Presbyterian polity the General Assembly is both a meeting and a group of people forming a governing body.  A given General Assembly, such as the 218th, has a stated meeting and may have called meetings. (I won’t go near that at this time.) Technically, the 218th General Assembly is still in existence but simply in adjournment and then will dissolve upon convening the 219th GA.  So more appropriate wording would be “one of the two previous General Assemblies.”  As I said, picky, wonkish, and I even catch myself not being strict using these terms.  But this is a difference with Reformed Church polity where their higher governing bodies, such as the class (=presbytery), do not “exist” between meetings.)

Finally, Overture 6 from Mid-South Presbytery sort of falls into this general theme of overtures because it would amend the Book of Order regarding the Assembly’s ability to make Authoritative Interpretations.  The overture asks that the Assembly send to the presbyteries a constitutional amendment that would add to the end of G-13.0103r the line:

No authoritative interpretation shall be issued by a General Assembly which amends or alters a clear mandate contained in any provision of the Book of Order.

While this seems pretty straight-forward, as we have seen in the Southard Decision from the Boston Presbytery PJC even the majority and dissenting members of the PJC differed on what the minority would consider “a clear mandate” in the Directory for Worship.

Well, that takes care of these three overtures.  At the present time there are 13 overtures posted on PC-Biz and I have now commented on eight of them.  It looks like the next batch to talk about are related to peacemaking and social witness polity.  For reference, looking back at my notes from two years ago there were 23 overtures posted by this time so if business processing by the OGA is running at the same pace there appears to be noticeably fewer overtures submitted so far.  (As a technical note, overture processing has gone from a dedicated web page to the PC-Biz system and so I could imagine that the efficiency of processing could be either higher or lower than last time depending on the complexity of the back-end technology involved.)  The number posted could also be lower because of the staff reductions we have seen or because the 120 day deadline is later this year.  We will just wait and see what the total comes to. Stay tuned.

The New Presbyterian Panel Survey From The PC(USA) — An Interesting Editorial Addition

Leave a reply

Thanks to Michael Kruse we know that the new Presbyterian Panel survey of the Religious and Demographic Profile of Presbyterians, 2008, has been released.  (And of course, technically their sample set is not all Presbyterians but only the largest American Presbyterian body, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).) If you don’t want to wade through all 54 pages of the full report a three page “Snapshot” is available.

Now at the moment I am swamped with research and writing on a couple of other projects, and as we ramp up to GA season crunching these numbers is not the first place I want to spend my time. So, what I will do over the next few weeks is look at parts of this report in smaller, bite-size pieces.  (I heard that collective sigh that I won’t be inundating all of you with a massive statistical dissection and reanalysis.)

But in the first paragraph of the text an item of polity, not population or probability, caught my attention that I would like to comment on first.

The first section of the text, titled “Overview” is mostly boiler plate that describes the report and methodology and shows only minor changes from one report to the next.  You can compare it to the 2005 report if you want.  In this report the second sentence reads:

Using scientific sampling, small but representative numbers of elders (lay leaders) currently serving on session, other members, and ordained ministers were contacted by mail and asked to respond to a set of questions about themselves and their congregations.

For comparison the 2005 report read:

Using scientific sampling, small but representative numbers of members, elders, and ordained ministers were contacted by mail and asked to answer a set of questions about themselves and their congregations.

You probably guessed that what caught my attention was the added parenthetical comment describing elders as “lay leaders.”

This raises the question of whether Presbyterian ruling elders are properly described as laity.  There is usage in the Book of Order, such as the term Commissioned Lay Pastor, that does suggest the most traditional and strictest usage of “laity” as other members of the church besides the clergy.  There are however definitions floating around the web that seem to be more appropriate to Presbyterian government such as one that describes the laity as “not members of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.”  And of course we have an organization called the “Presbyterian Lay Committee” whose Objectives and Mission regularly talks about how they “inform and equip congregations and leaders,” implying that ruling elders are included in the lay members.

In my experience and research there is no clear consensus in the use of the term, but I do have a couple of friends who are more than ready at presbytery meetings when someone says “I am only a layman/laywoman/layperson” to let them know that “no, you are an elder, an ordained officer of the church and you help govern in parity and equality with the clergy.”

I personally do not consider an elder a member of the laity for two reasons.  First, we talk about the shared leadership of the church between teaching elders and ruling elders, each holding equal weight in higher governing bodies.  To distinguish between the different elders as “clergy” and “lay” in the governance of the church strikes me as setting up a false dichotomy.

The second reason gets back to the usage of the original Greek in the Bible and the distinction between elder, presbyteros, and people, laos.  I am not aware of an instance of their use in close proximity in the text regarding the early church, but in one of my favorite passages about ecclesiastical leadership, Acts 20:17-38, the text tells us that Paul is talking to the elders, presbyteros, of Ephesus.  In this conversation he refers to them as “overseers” of the “flock.”  No, Paul does not say that the elders take care of the people, laos, but rather they oversee the flock, poimnion.  If “people” and “flock” are interchangeable here, than the elders are distinct from the laity and therefore if the teaching elders, that is the clergy, are not laity then ruling elders are not either.  (Now, I’m sure someone would have problems with my exegesis here, but I’ve got some other, parallel examples I can point to as well.  As a counter example I am aware that in reference to the Jewish authorities the Gospel of Matthew uses the term “elders of the people” which can be read that the elders are part of the laos while still being their leaders.  But is that as much a secular leadership as a religious leadership in a theocracy?)

Anyway, as I said earlier, there are opinions about usage on both sides here so this is not a settled issue.  There is the usage of laity as an ecclesiastical term that may not fit the Presbyterian model too well but is understood to have a specific meaning in other traditions.  Welcome to the complexities of language.

I’ve got more in the works on elders but that will have to wait a couple of weeks.  I may have a chance to crunch a few numbers on elders this weekend and have something to say about the numbers in the new report then. And as for the usage in this sentence from the report that only distinguishes ministers as “ordained,” I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to ponder the why and wherefore of that one.

Hope For Presbyterian Mutual Society Investors In Ireland?

2 Replies

Yes, the collapse of the Presbyterian Mutual Society in Ireland is still an on-going issue, and no, there is still no definite word of a more favorable outcome… But there is some news to provide hope of a possible positive resolution.

As a reminder, the Presbyterian Mutual Society was a free-standing financial institution in which individuals and congregations in Northern Ireland could deposit funds and the Society used them for loans to churches to help with building and renovation.  While not a part of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland there were very strong ties.  (e.g. It was open only to Presbyterian investors and the original web site was within the PCI web site.) Well, it turns out that the Society also invested in some commercial real estate and when the global economy turned down their balance sheet turned negative, there was a “run on the bank,” and the Society was unable to cover their deposits.  The Society is now “In Administration” and the Administrator is trying to “wind down” the Society in an orderly manner such that as they liquidate real estate they can recover as much of the property value as possible as the economy recovers. For more of the background I wrote about this in November 2008, January 2009, February 2009, another February 2009, and March 2009.  Over the last nine months the issue has not gone away but firm developments have been hard to come by.

One of the things which has drawn a lot of criticism from church leaders, Society investors, and Northern Ireland politicians is that in the financial crisis the British government bailed out virtually every financial institution… except mutual societies.  Over the last nine months there has been work by many people to try to restore the investments in the Society either with government help or with a “white knight.” 

The former has not been too successful yet. The Moderator of the General Assembly of the PCI, the Rt. Rev. Stafford Carson mentions in his blog last June about setting up a working group with the British government on this matter – As of 10 December this Working Group has still not reported, the report being expected last September.  And politicians, some in their end of year messages, are saying that they want to see some progress in 2010.  (The PMS/PCI blog run by investors has been quiet for over a year now.)  UPDATE: Thanks to the comment below for the pointer to the on-going discussion board thread about the situation with the Society.  And thanks for the link back here – but from reading through the board they are way ahead of me.  That seems to be the place for the most up-to-date information.

But the Christmas season did bring hope for a financial resolution and while nothing has been announced, there is recent word that one may be at hand.  Back in November, officials in the PCI offices did confirm that there were three financial institutions that had shown an interest in taking over the Society.  Just before Christmas it was announced by MP Jeffrey Donaldson that talks with one bank were at an “advanced stage.”  He also says that coming to terms for the take-over would depend in part on “the level of government support.”

It is no surprise that this drawn-out resolution has tried the patience of many investors – As one headline says “PMS ‘taking longer than Falklands War.'”  This impatience is not helped by the fact that the Administrator did not get an interim payment out to investors before Christmas as he had hoped (Irish Times), and in fact the payment may be further delayed if High Court approval is necessary.  This results from the manner in which the Society structured deposits with depositors having less than £20,000 being shareholders and those over that amount formally loaning that money to the Society.  While the Society’s rules and the investor adopted wind-down plan would treat everyone equally, under the insolvency laws those who loaned the money would get preferential treatment.  The Administrator has suggested that some loan holders now might try to invoke this preferential repayment.

Finally, possible financial mismanagement that got the Society to this point is still being looked at as well.  The Financial Services Authority looked at their operations last Spring and concluded the Society was “conducting regulated activities without the necessary authorisation or exemption” but they decided they did not have enough information for a successful prosecution.  The Belfast News Letter now reports that “The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Industry (DETI) is stillconsidering action regarding the conduct of directors of thePresbyterian Mutual Society after five months, it has confirmed.”

So while there is clear hope on the horizon for the Society investors it appears that this journey still has several twists and turns to make before they arrive at a clear resolution.  Stay tuned.