Young People And The Church — Another Interesting And Informative Study

Leave a reply

As my regular readers are aware one of my interests and concerns is for the future of the church, especially as it relates to youth in the church and keeping them involved in the church.  Part of my interest of course is because my household is a bit of a focus group, research study, or test bed for youth in the church.  At the present time I have one who has left the mainline for an evangelical church, one who seems to be finding a home in the confessional leanings of the mainline, and one who is trying to find their way between those two.  I do however count myself fortunate that all three of my children are involved in active congregations.

So it was with much interest that I listened to the October 3rd edition of the White Horse Inn where host Michael Horton interviewed Kenda Creasy Dean, Methodist Elder and Princeton Theological Seminary professor, on her new book Almost Christian: What the faith of our teenagers is telling the American Church.  I have added this to my list of books to acquire (easy) and read (got to figure where in the queue to place it).  In the interview there was a ton of great information drawn from the National Study of Youth and Religion project and published in the book.  While a lot of the interview, and probably the book as well, was about the faith and beliefs of teenagers and “moralistic therapeutic deism”, what was of most interest to me was the discussion about the study’s findings related to what did, and did not, make youth stick with the church as they got older.  For all of the details on the nature of the teenagers’ faith, including the great description of it as “benign whateverism,” I encourage you to listen to all 33 minutes of the interview.

So, here are a couple of the quotes I found most informative, hopefully not too out of context  (listen to the interview for that), and cited statistics from Prof. Dean (not necessarily in order and somewhat edited from conversational language to written form):

[Talking about teens with highly devoted faiths] Four things stood out
for me: One was that they had what I call “a peculiar God story.” They
had a God story that was distinct to their community’s understanding of
the world. They were able to articulate that God story… The second
thing that they had was a community of faith that mattered to them
deeply and they felt like they belonged… The family sense was extended
to faith communities, and they also felt like they belonged spiritually
though. It wasn’t just a social connection, they really felt cosmically
connected to God in their congregations… The third thing was that
they had a sense of, I call it a sense of vocation, a sense of purpose, a
divinely inspired purpose maybe. A sense that God had put them here for
a reason and that reason was to help participate in God’s plan for the
world in some way. And the last thing, and this is really striking, is
that these particular kids, the highly devoted kids in the study, had
markedly higher levels of hope than anybody else.

The young people who have highly devoted faiths, that’s the 8% of the
kids in the study who actually did find faith as a pivot point around
which they organized their lives in explicit ways, had much stronger
connections to adults in their communities of faith, and to adults in
general, than their peers who did not have highly devoted faiths.  I
also think its true that we really tend to overestimate the amount of
time that young people are spending in congregations, even if they are
active in a congregation, they are likely to be around members of the
congregation an hour or two a week. And we overestimate the difference
that hour or two makes in their lives — they don’t actually have enough
time to form deep connections.  And over and over again studies show
that pastors think that people come to church because of the pastor or
because of their interest in deepening their faith or whatever.  Most
lay people say they come to church because of the relationships.

One of the interesting things about the longitudinal studies, one of the
findings was that the most significant factor in whether a young
person’s faith weathers the transition from high school to the young
adult years is the religiosity of parents while they were teenagers.

The interview has a great extended discussion about the use of the catechism and how it was intended for use within the household, even to the point of posting it on the dining room wall and discussing it around the dinner table.  Prof. Dean makes two interesting points about this beyond the value for teaching the faith.  The first is that it is being done in the household setting.  The second is that the catechism provides youth, and all of us for that matter, with a language to talk about our faith.  She points out that in the study most teenagers “have very, very few language resources when it comes to faith.”

Prof. Dean is an engaging speaker and produces a couple of good lines to make you smile:

What we haven’t been able to do very well is to tell the Christian story, or to teach the Christian story, in a way that it looks like it matters in this world of competing narratives…  [I]t means that young people need to be in contact with folks whose lives are demonstrably different because of their faith.  Because just hearing about it is like hearing Cinderella, and Cinderella doesn’t really make a difference about the way we live our lives — it’s a story we tell.  And for a lot of young people that’s the way they experience their encounter with the Christian story as well.

[Talking about parents letting children “chose for themselves”] Well the
way we let them chose for themselves for a couple of generations was to
just sort of assume that when they got old enough we might expose them
to religion but we wouldn’t actually teach them anything because we want
them to be free to chose for themselves.  And the interesting thing is
we don’t have that confidence when it comes to Algebra, but somehow when
it comes to faith we just sort of thought it would emerge when the time
is right.

And a finding that runs counter to many mainline churches I know and to Prof. Dean’s expectations:

[Talking about vocation and social justice and mainline youth being less likely to associate moral responsibility with following Jesus Christ.] There may be less living it out, but there is certainly less living it out and connecting it to your faith.  And as a mainline Protestant this finding horrified me — this is like “oh man, how have we missed this?” But I think one of the reasons is mainline Protestants… we tend to shy away from any kind of God language whatsoever. Well, the effect of that is, you might be the most socially active congregation in the world but if you never connected it to your faith young people obviously assume it’s because you are nice people.  We go on these mission trips where we never talk about God because we are nice people, not because we are Christian and this is how Christ called us to treat one another. In fact one of the findings in the longitudinal study is that when it comes down to it the practices that matter in helping faith endure past the high school years prayer and reading the Bible matter a lot.  Going on mission trips don’t make a bit of difference.

Kenda Creasy Dean has a lot to say about how youth and young adults get integrated into the church — in fact one of the chapters in her book is titled “Mormon Envy.”  This integration of young people is something I have also come to appreciate about the LDS church.  The LDS communities have several features that make them particularly good at passing on their faith.  For more on this I would point you to a Beliefnet blog Flunking Sainthood and their comments on Dean’s book.  Here are a couple of relevant quotes from the interview:

What Mormons have that other communities have not really looked at as intentionally is faithful parents.  It’s one of the most striking findings from the study is how closely young peoples’ faith mirrors their parents’ faith.  As you know, families are the most important faith community if you’re part of the Church of Latter Day Saints. But parents are hugely influential as conduits of faith in Mormon families.  That tends to be less true for example, I’m a mainline Protestant, for mainline Protestants a common scenario would be that parents will think faith is important but they don’t have enough faith formation themselves to have any confidence at handing it on to their children themselves.  So, they take their kids to church to “get them done” by the professionals who can hand on faith in their stead.  Well, that turns out not be be as effective as when it is passed on in the context of a family community.

I think a lot of Protestants tend to think, and I tend to think this way myself, “my kids didn’t get this while they were in high school, but there is plenty of time, they’ll get it eventually.” … Mormon urgency doesn’t allow for that.

Based on my experience and previous reading these are the quotes that really resonated with me from an interview that was full of interesting data and interpretation.  And one of the things that I very much appreciated was Prof. Dean’s acknowledgement of the number of times where the data surprised her.

What is the message for the church?  For me it is a validation that we need to invite the youth to be active members of the church, not just attending services and youth group on Sunday, but encouraging them to be active in some area of ministry in the congregation where they build relationships across generations, we can challenge them to do something, and through their activity they can not just hear, but participate in the God story of the congregation.  Secondly, we need to communicate to parents how important a role they play — that they can not leave the religious education of their kids to the church but they have to be the primary educators.  And then the church has to give them the tools to do that.

If you want more on-line there is an excerpt from the book available and another interview on Patheos.

To close, here is a quote Prof. Dean gave from Tony Campolo –

We are not going to lose this generation because we ask too much, we are going to lose them because we ask too little.

Addendum: Now, here is an interesting parallel that arose yesterday in our church’s education hour.  My friend Scott was teaching a class based on Albert Raboteau‘s book Slave Religion.  After discussing how slave owners used Christianity as a justification for having slaves but then kept the religion from them someone asked the obvious question, “why would a slave convert to Christianity if it justified their oppression?”  Scott summarized the answer from Raboteau (p. 244-246) as 1) The Bible provided a language to talk to God, 2) they saw the parallel of their situation to the story of Israel in bondage in Egypt and their liberation, and 3) it provided hope for the future, particularly regarding eternity.  I was struck by how these three paralleled Dean’s points about the highly devoted youth — How the Israel story for the slaves is part of their God story that is distinct to the community’s understanding of the world.  How they both find the distinctive of hope and eschatological vision.  And while there is not really a parallel in Dean’s four central characteristics of devoted teens to the language point, it does correspond to how the highly devoted teens have acquired the language to talk about God.  Another distinctive of later Slave Religion that was mentioned but not included in this list was the high-level community structure and participatory worship, especially regarding singing. I was struck by how these characteristics of, shall I say, devoted Christianity are similar across cultural contexts.

A “Glimmer Of Hope” For Presbyterian Mutual Society Savers

Leave a reply

The amount of “chatter” regarding a possible solution to the collapse of the Presbyterian Mutual Society in Northern Ireland (NI) has increased dramatically in the last few days and there are signs that an announcement could be just days away.

For more details on this continuing saga you should check out a previous post, but since last Spring and the Special Assembly meeting to consider the situation the biggest relevant development has probably been the change in the British Government.  In fact, in a post last week the Rev. Stafford Carson, the former Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland who has been staying close to the situation, talks about the visit of the Deputy Prime Minister and his comment “the new government is very mindful of the need to resolve the serious
hardship faced by members of the Presbyterian Mutual Society.”  Now in the past couple of days there have been very positive signs of a resolution.  While details are not known, Rev. Carson says

The Ministerial Working Group charged with resolving the PMS crisis met yesterday and the Secretary of State said that significant progress was made.

The Northern Ireland Members at Westminster continued to exert pressure at PMQs in the House today. It seems as though everyone is working towards an announcement being made next week. Could it be that the end is near for this long-running saga? We have had a number of false dawns before, and we hope and pray that a “just and fair resolution” will be forthcoming next week.

In addition to Rev. Carson this has been picked up by the NI media including the BBC, Belfast Newsletter, and the Irish Times.  But there are concerns about whether this will be a full rescue of savers or only partial restoration of their deposits, a sentiment expressed by an article from 4NI.

So we will have to wait for details to see how the promise and prospect of a “just and fair resolution” plays out.  But if nothing else, this is some of the best news that the savers have had since this two-year old saga began.  As usual, stay tuned… 

All Churches Great And Small — Congregation Size Distribution And Changes In The PC(USA)

2 Replies

I have been poking around with some data for a little bit now and I think it might be time for some of it to be discussed here…

One of the things that has interested me recently in the vast multitude of data that that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) office of Research Services puts out is the size distributions of congregations.  Undoubtedly, one of the reasons that I have been looking at it is because in my professional work with earthquakes there is a very well-established and useful relationship for magnitude distribution of quakes.  I have found that a similar, though proportionately different, relationship seems to hold for congregation size distribution in churches.  More on the details of that another time, but here I want to take a first look at congregation size in the PC(USA) over time.

As I said, Research Services puts out a whole bunch of information about the church every year and for this post I want to focus on two particular data sets — Table 2: Distribution of PC(USA) Congregations by Membership Size and Synod (2009 data ) and Table 6: Fifteen Largest PC(USA) Congregations Based on Membership Size (2009 data ).

Unfortunately, with the revamped PC(USA) web site it appears that a lot of this older data is no longer on-line from the church, but thanks to the Internet Archive and the Way Back Machine we can get data back to 1994. The equivalent of Table 6 is there, while Table 2 goes back to 1995.

First, as usual, a couple of technical notes about the data.  Concerning Table 2:  1) For my own purposes it would be helpful to have the distributions reported in equal size ranges (e.g. 0-50, 51-100,… 301-350, etc.) rather than the uneven ones in the table (0-50, 51-100, … 301-500…). (They are pretty evenly spaced on a logrithmic scale which does work well for some of my calculations.)  2) It is interesting that the largest range used is >1600 when going to >2000 would correspond to the usual definition of a megachurch.  But it is also important to note that the PC(USA) tables are based on membership while the megachurch definition is based on worship attendance.

Now, I have taken the sixteen available annual reports for Table 6 and put together a spreadsheet covering 1994-2009. For those years when a church was not one of the top fifteen there is no entry in the rank column for that year and the membership number is taken from the on-line statistical report for that church.  Since that is only a 10 year report numbers were directly reported for 1999-2009 and 1998 was calculated from the 1999 membership and the gains and losses reported that year.  Those numbers are not included before 1998.  And yes, I did graph up all the data but most of the lines are so tightly clustered that I did not think it added anything to include here.  At a future date I may present it as groups of churches and include graphs of the subsets then.

OK, I think that does it for the obligatory introduction and geeky details — on to the data.

Turning first to the large churches over the course of these 16 annual reports (1994 – 2009) nineteen different churches have appeared on the list of 15 largest.  Of those, nine have been on the list all 16 years, five were on the list at the beginning and have dropped off, one left the list and later returned, and four have been added.  A couple of the congregations have held fairly steady positions on the list, only moving up or down four places or less in 16 years, and Peachtree (Atlanta) has held the number one spot for all 16 reports.  All 19 churches were part of the PC(USA) in 2009.

Looking at membership numbers, five of the original 15 are larger than they were in 1996, a couple of them significantly larger.  For the other ten, one has a minimal (<5%) decrease, but looking at the churches whole histories over this time most show fluctuations and it is not unusual to see periods of several years with very stable membership numbers.  Over the whole time range one church, Fourth (Chicago) showed no declining years and two churches that joined the list had no declines in the time they were on the list – Second (Indianapolis, 99-09) and Christ (Edina, MN, 02-09).  While some of the churches showed significant declines from 1994 to 2009, no church had declines all 15 intervals.

One of the most interesting properties of this list over time is that for the 15 largest churches there is a fairly constant total membership.  The combined membership begins at 73,689, increases to a peak of 75,872 in 1998, generally decreases to 71,368 in 2004, and then moves up and down again until finishing at 71,722.  This represents a 2.7% decline over 15 years and a 5.9% total variation.

But when looking at this pattern it is clear that the variation is less a function of the general decline of the PC(USA) and more a reflection of significant membership changes in individual congregations occasioned by some event or transition in the congregation, usually a change in the senior pastor.  For instance, the 1998 peak marks the year just before changes at both Peachtree and Menlo Park.

In fact, maybe the thing I find most interesting in this analysis is the response of membership at these churches to changes, particularly in pastoral leadership.  While I won’t explore this in depth now, here is the graph of church membership for three churches, Peachtree, First (Orlando), and First (Nashville).  I have normalized the membership numbers to the peak just before the transition and placed that peak at Year 5 on the graph.  The similarity of the growth-transition/drop-growth pattern is strikingly similar and I’ll be looking at it in more detail in the future.

normalized church membership change

But for our purposes today, what this analysis does show is that for the largest churches in the denomination over the last 15 years the decline as a group is nowhere near what it was for the denomination as a whole and factors that are usually cited for decline in the denomination are subordinate to local influences when it comes to changes in the size of the membership at these churches.  It is not so much that the 15 largest churches at any given time are necessarily declining, but that there is rotation in the members of the list and the total size of the churches on the list remain relatively constant, or at least fluctuate within a certain narrow (+/- 3%) range.

Turning now to the other data set, it is important to note that for the largest churches in the denomination there has been a decline when viewed as the number of churches with membership >1600.  I have compiled the data for the whole PC(USA) from Table 2 from 1995 to 2009 into another spreadsheet and looking at the top category we can see that the number of large churches held fairly steady from 1995 to 2003 (in the range of 113 to 124 churches) and then from 2003 has steadily declined to 91 churches in 2009.

Looking at all the data ranges we see that only the lowest two ranges, churches with memberships of 0-50 and 51-100 have increased over the range of the chart.

Because of the large scale differences between the lower ranges and the largest ranges I also plotted the distributions normalized to their size in 1995.

Now it is easier to see that the number of churches with memberships of 50 or less increased almost 30% and the next higher range (51-100 members) increased slightly (5%).  All other ranges showed a decrease of between 13% and 36%.  And while the largest churches showed significant decrease in numbers, the greatest percentage decrease was with the slightly smaller churches in the range of 301-1200 members.

Clearly what is happening is that as members have left the PC(USA) individual congregations have remained active and the churches have been slipping from the larger size ranges to the smaller ranges.  This is not an unexpected conclusion since membership has declined 22.1% in this time period, but the number of churches has only declined 6.2%.  With this change the mean size of congregations has dropped from 235 to 195 and the median size has gone from 128 to 97.  This increasing concentration in the lower size ranges is a reflection of the Presbyterian tendency to let a congregation continue until the membership drops to a point where the members themselves realize that the church can no longer sustain itself.

That is probably enough data for today and by now you have probably come up with some of your own applications from this exercise.  Let me mention two of concern to me: 

1) Are we training our seminary students for this world of lots and lots of very small churches?  If more than one-quarter are 50 members or less and half have less than 100 members what should seminary students know about the world they will be stepping into.  Taking this a step further, what are the best models for a pastor in small churches?  Yoked ministry?  Tent-making? Commissioned Lay Pastor? House churches? Something else?  If the future is full of lots of very-small churches what should pastoral leadership look like?

2) Should the future be full of lots of very small churches?  Should presbyteries be considering what is the best model for congregations?  Should the number of congregations decrease in proportion to the decrease in total membership?  Should governing bodies at all levels be more aggressive about counseling and shepherding congregations into a new reality?  I don’t know, but these are questions Presbyterians around the world are asking.

So two ends of the size spectra – two differing behaviors in membership variation.  But what does each suggest to us about ministry at that end of the distribution?

Synod PJC Ruling In The Case Of Caledonia And Others v. Knox

Leave a reply

This past weekend the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of Lakes and Prairies heard and decided the complaint of The Session, Caledonia Presbyterian Church, Paula Bremer, James Gunn, Alan Crandall, Jerry Indermark, James F Scaife, The Presbytery of Central Florida, The Presbytery of Prospect Hill, and Stockton Presbytery v. John Knox Presbytery.  (And thanks to the Covenant Network for posting a PDF of the decision)

The case involves the examination for ordination and declaration of an exception by Mr. Scott Anderson approved by John Knox Presbytery last Spring. Not a lot of intro needed here because the background, context, and implications are nearly identical to the Parnell decision I commented on a week ago.  Check that post out for the relevant polity comments. In this case there were three specifications of error regarding the process and the application of ordination standards.  By a 7-2 vote the PJC found that the Presbytery had followed the correct procedure:

The John Knox Presbytery acted within its authority following G-13.0103(r) using the most recent Authoritative Interpretation (Al) (2008)…
…
The SPJC finds that John Knox Presbytery properly took responsibility for that decision. Therefore, permitting Anderson to declare a departure or exception from Section G-6.0106(b) was within the authority of the Presbytery.

There was a dissenting opinion which said, in part:

The majority finds that as the Presbytery followed the provisions of G-6.0108 and the PUP and Knox AIs, it could vote to ordain Scott Anderson as he declared a scruple to the application at least some of the ordination standards as outlined in Section G-0106(b) [sic] to his own life.

This interpretation of the Knox Al, as it applies to Section G-0106(b), [sic] cannot be sustained under our polity. In this case, such an application has effectively allowed a Presbytery to invalidate or amend Section G-0106(b). [sic] We do not believe that any governing body, including the General Assembly, through the authoritative interpretation process as provided under G-13.0103(r) can, directly or indirectly, amend an express provision of the Book or Order.

The ordination standards as provided in Section G-0106(b) [sic] have engendered continuing conflict in our denomination and we acknowledge that Presbyterians in good faith have deep disagreement as to the wisdom if these standards. However, the only forum for a change to this Section is by and through our presbyteries, not through the use of authoritative interpretations.

(And in case you did not figure it out, for that persistent typographical error in the dissent the reference should be G-6.0106(b))

Not much more to say in this case.  The decision and dissent are both direct and concise and the reasoning is very similar to the Parnell decision.   Considering the timing, similarities, and parallel natures of these cases it is reasonable to expect that if they are both appealed, and the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission accepts them, that they would be heard and decided in the same session, probably next Spring.  Stay tuned…

Two Moderator Designates For Next General Assemblies — Free Church Of Scotland And Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand

Leave a reply

No rest for the GA Junkie…

With the conclusion of this year’s GA cycle the circle of life general assemblies keeps on going and we start to look forward to the Assembly Season in 2011.  This week brought two announcements of moderator designates for their respective assemblies.

Today the press is reporting that the Free Church of Scotland has announced their Moderator Designate for the 2011 GA, the Rev. James Maciver, pastor of the Knock Free Church on the Island of Lewis.  According to the news story he has been the pastor there for thirteen years.  He served at East Kilbride for ten years before that after his induction in 1987.  Rev. Maciver has served as a committee, presbytery and synod clerk.  Since 2000 he has served as the Principle Clerk of the General Assembly.  UPDATE: The Free Church web site now has the news story.

With the conclusion of their General Assembly the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand announced that the Rev. Ray Coster is the Moderator Designate for the next Assembly in 2012 and will then serve in that position until the 2014 Assembly.  Rev. Coster has served the St. Andrew’s church in Mt. Maunganui for 25 years and in that time it has grown into a multi-congregation church with five pastoral leadership teams, one for each congregation.  Before his present position he served at Trinity Presbyterian in Timaru for nine years.

Following his being introduced to the Assembly he delivered a few comments to the commissioners, beginning with:

Assembly, I am sure that the one hundred people who have stood in this spot before me as Moderator designate have said that this is a great honour. And it is. I pray that when my time finishes I, like Graham will say, Church you have given me a great privilege. I really do appreciate the support you have given me, but even more the trust you have shown to me. It is a lot to live up to and I hope I can make a good contribution to the life of the Presbyterian Church as your next moderator. I have been in the arms of this church since infancy and I will die in her arms when my time comes to go home.

A bit later he talks about how he is not much for assembly politics and goes on to say of his gifts:

Never been a great assembly orator – sat through many assemblies and never said a word. But, give me a pulpit and one ear that will listen and you can’t shut me up. I love talking about Jesus. I love discussing the faith. I love encouraging others.

He concluded his remarks with his desires for the church, including this about elders:

As a parish minister I have been so strongly supported by good elders. I believe that elders are the hidden strength, underestimated and sometimes unappreciated wisdom of this church. In a parish they are like the keel of the ship. They are the story holders, the ethos carriers. I would love to encourage the elders and spend time with them.

(That’s a good quote — I will use that one again.)
And this is his closing remark about the church in general:

But if there is one thing more than anything else that lies deep in my heart it is to see the church living as a resurrection church; a church that has an intimacy, closeness with the risen Lord. A church that knows life and has life and gives life to all people. A resurrection church knows that it does not exist for itself, it exists for the world in which it lives. A church that is not concerned for its self-survival, but is always ready to sacrifice and suffer for the community around it. A church that is alive in the market-place as much as it is inside the church. It should never escape our attention that all of the miracles of the resurrection church in Acts occur in the Market-place, not the church setting. Only one occurs on the steps of the Temple. A church that has confidence in its Lord and a boldness in its mission. A church that moves in the power of the Holy Spirit. A church that lives the benediction – the good word. The empowering grace of Jesus, the overwhelming love of God, the joyful and happy fellowship of the Spirit. It’s a church of people who know that when they are in Jesus, God is not ticked off with them. They are the apple of his eye.

There has been a bit of reaction to this selection, not the least of which is Rev. Coster’s daughter who tweeted “So proud of my dad!”  There is media coverage from the Bay of Plenty Times and the press release on Scoop.

So my congratulations to both of these gentlemen and best wishes and prayers as they prepare to take up this office to which God has called them through the voice of the people.

Another Step In The Journey — Synod PJC Decision In Parnell And Others v. Presbytery Of San Francisco

1 Reply

It strikes many Presbyterians with surprise, that the General Assembly… should be largely occupied in discussing the question… They ask with displeasure, “Are fundamentals never to be settled among us? Is the church never to be relieved of these debates, which thus agitate the settled foundations of our theory?” We may answer to these indignant questions with an emphatic No. The good brethren who thus deplore these renewed discussions of first principles misconceive the nature of the human mind and of free institutions. While man remains the creature he is, such discussions are to be expected and desired. Each generation must do its own thinking, and learn for itself its own lessons in first truths and general principles. If we insist that this generation of Presbyterians shall hold our fathers’ principles on trust, and by mere prescription, the result will be that they will not hold them sincerely at all.

I will let you live with that quote for a few minutes.  (If the curiosity is killing you about who said it and when then jump to the end or do a web search for it.) In a sense this quote is timeless and maybe captures the unique nature of Presbyterianism better than any other I know.  And while there has been some recent discussion and lamenting about how slowly our polity can move, the truth is that for a church that is supposed to embody a covenant community we do move slowly because it is about discerning God’s will through the journey of the whole community.  You may remember that in the PC(USA)’s predecessors, women were not ordained as deacons until American Presbyterianism was into its third century (1906), it was another 24 years until women were ordained as ruling elders, and then an additional 26 for ordination as teaching elders.  Changes in ordination standards are slow in moving and as one widely-cited GAPJC ordination decision from 1975 testifies, these issues may still be unsettled decades later.

So, the decision from the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Pacific that was released last week should be viewed as one little step in the larger context of the community’s discernment that has been on-going and is not yet complete.

I ultimately want to comment on the decision, and while I hesitate to once again recite the background that this decision comes out of, let me at least briefly remind those that don’t follow this debate as closely as some of us polity wonks of a few of the important background points that are applicable here:

First, while there have been multiple amendments sent to the presbyteries to try to remove or modify the ordination standards section in the Book of Order, also know as the “fidelity and chastity” section, G-6.0106b still remains a constitutional standard for ordination.  Yes, another amendment is being sent to the presbyteries this year but to date the collective discernment of the denomination has been to keep the standard.

Second, with the adoption of the Report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity in 2006  the 217th General Assembly adopted an Authoritative Interpretation (AI) that included the following section on applying the standards to those seeking ordination:

c. Ordaining and installing bodies, acting as corporate expressions of the church, have the responsibility to determine their membership by applying these standards to those elected to office. These determinations include:

(1) Whether a candidate being examined for ordination and/or installation as elder, deacon, or minister of Word and Sacrament has departed from scriptural and constitutional standards for fitness for office,
(2) Whether any departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108 of the Book of Order, thus barring the candidate from ordination and/or installation.

The AI then goes on to say that one governing body’s application of the standards is reviewable by higher governing bodies.

In response to this AI some presbyteries passed policies about what are essentials, but in the Bush decision the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) ruled that there could not be blanket policies, but rather candidates must be considered on a case-by-case basis.  However, in that ruling the GAPJC also stated that:

“Under our polity, violations of behavioral standards are to be addressed through repentance and reconciliation, not by exception or exemption. The freedom of conscience granted in G-6.0108 allows candidates to express disagreement with the wording or meaning of provisions of the constitution, but does not permit disobedience to those behavioral standards.” The fidelity and chastity provision may only be changed by a constitutional amendment. Until that occurs, individual candidates, officers, examining and governing bodies must adhere to it.

The 218th General Assembly (2009) chose to issue a new Authoritative Interpretation that clarified the intent of the PUP Report as expressed in the rational, which was not binding.  This AI contradicted parts of the GAPJC Bush decision and rendered those sections void.  The AI said:

The 218th General Assembly (2008) affirms the authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 approved by the 217th General Assembly (2006). Further, the 218th General Assembly (2008), pursuant to G-13.0112, interprets the requirements of G-6.0108 to apply equally to all ordination standards of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Section G-6.0108 requires examining bodies to give prayerful and careful consideration, on an individual, case-by-case basis, to any departure from an ordination standard in matters of belief or practice that a candidate may declare during examination. However, the examining body is not required to accept a departure from standards, and cannot excuse a candidate’s inability to perform the constitutional functions unique to his or her office (such as administration of the sacraments).”

This AI was based upon an overture to the 218th GA from the Presbytery of John Knox and has acquired the informal title “Knox Authoritative Interpretation” or “Knox AI,” a title propagated in the decision we are about to look at to distinguish it from the earlier “PUP AI.”  The original overture from Knox carries the title “On Adopting an Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108 to Ensure Proper Application of Ordination Standards.”

The third perforatory point I want to make is that although there have been several GAPJC decisions related to ordination standards all of them have dealt with procedural matters and issues of timing.  Specifically, the earlier cases have clarified that a statement of departure must be made by the candidate and assessed by the presbytery at the time of their examination for ordination.  Specific to this case GAPJC decision 219-11 (Naegeli and others v. Presbytery of San Francisco) specified that examination on a departure must take place at the time of examination for ordination.

While the brief (yes, for this issue that is brief) review above may be familiar to many of my readers, I include it here because in my discussion that follows there are points that refer to these pieces of the past history.

It is important to remember that up to this point all of the case history of all of the judicial cases dealing with declaring exceptions to ordination standards are related to the process of doing so and rulings have not been rendered related to a specific candidate’s declared exceptions and how the presbytery has dealt with them.  That is what makes this new decision different.

This new case, Eric Parnell, Bruce McIntosh, Cordelia Shieh, Margaret Gelini, Greg Roth, Marsha Roth, Randy Young, and the Session of Walnut Creek Presbyterian Church, Complainants, v. The Presbytery of San Francisco, Respondent, is a remedial case brought by the complainants following the November 10, 2009, examination for ordination of candidate Lisa Larges.  This was the court of first impression and the Synod of the Pacific PJC heard testimony on the case and in a 5-4 decision did not sustain any of the five specifications of error.  The minority submitted an extensive dissent in which they disagree with the majority on four of the five specifications.

The ruling of the majority can actually be summed up very succinctly:  The presbytery’s actions were consistent with the current Authoritative Interpretation and the previous GAPJC rulings.

The dissenting opinion is a bit more complicated but I would summarize that as: While the facts in the case are not in dispute there are essentials of faith and polity here for which exceptions should not be granted.

Now, if all you wanted was the executive summary you can move on and I invite the polity wonks to stick around and see if you concur with my analysis of the decision.

Let me begin with the fourth specification of error, the one everyone agreed not to sustain.  That specification was that the presbytery erred in granting a departure to G-6.0106b “because departures can only be granted with regard to the interpretation of Scripture, not conduct.”  The relevant section of the Book of Order here is G-6.0108b:

b. It is to be recognized, however, that in becoming a candidate or officer of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) one chooses to exercise freedom of conscience within certain bounds. His or her conscience is captive to the Word of God as interpreted in the standards of the church so long as he or she continues to seek or hold office in that body. The decision as to whether a person has departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity is made initially by the individual concerned but ultimately becomes the responsibility of the governing body in which he or she serves. (G-1.0301; G-1.0302)

This looks like a good call on the part of the PJC because while the most recent AI addresses behavior this section does not place Scripture and conduct in this context.

Now considering the specifications of error which the PJC disagreed on – The first was that the candidate’s refusal to abide by G-6.0106b, a constitutional requirement, was equivalent to answering “No” to the fifth constitutional question for ordination about being “governed by our church’s polity.”  The second was that wishing to be exempted from G-6.0106b is “a serious departure from Reformed faith or polity.” The third specification of error was that the the presbytery was wrong to grant the exception because “such an act obstructs the constitutional governance of the church.”  Finally, the last error was that the exception that was granted “exceeds the bounds of freedom of conscience for one who seeks to hold office in the PC(USA).”

In answering all of these the prevailing decision references the most recent AI, the “Knox AI,” to argue that the process the presbytery followed complied with the current interpretations of the Book of Order.  Regarding whether the declared objection was “a serious departure” the decision says, in part:

In the absence of a preponderance of evidence showing that Presbytery erred in its decision to accept the candidate’s departure, this SPJC accepts the Presbytery’s decision that the candidate’s departure did not constitute a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity. (p. 4)

So, given the evidence at trial, and lacking strong evidence to the contrary, the SPJC finds no errors in the presbytery’s process and finds no reason to overturn their collective decision on the matter.

While the actual decision portion of the prevailing decision takes up about two pages, the dissenting opinion takes just over four pages.  The heart of the decision is the discussion of the second and third error specifications combined.  They begin their argument from the testimony of the expert witnesses for both sides:

From the testimony heard we conclude that the preponderance and emphasis of scripture supports the conclusion that the unanimous witness of both Old and New Testament is that fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness are Reformed mandates to be applied to those called to leadership in the Church. “Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable…” [I Timothy 3:2]. Many other texts, Old and New Testaments, confirm this conclusion, such as Genesis 2:24, Genesis 18:20ff, Mark 10:10, Romans 1:26-31, I Corinthians 6:9-10, Jude 7, to mention only a few. No texts suggest that fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness are in violation of Scripture or that infidelity in marriage or sexual activity in singleness are consistent and supported in Scripture.

For the Candidate to separate her actions from Biblical truth is a serious departure from Reformed faith. (p. 7)

They then go on to review the PUP AI and then discuss the examination process:

In this case, the facts are clear and undisputed. The Candidate for ordination to the office of Minister of Word and Sacrament appeared upon the floor of the Presbytery of San Francisco, and during her ordination examination, declared a departure pursuant to G-6.0108 using the process described in the PUP AI, specifically in section c(2).

In her Statement of Departure, the Candidate declared that she was bound by her conscience to reject the authority of G-6.0106b, with respect to the “requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between and man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness.” She expressly declared, “By my conscience, faith, and theology, I cannot and will not accept the terms of this standard”.

Each party to this matter urges divergent scriptural and constitutional interpretations but neither party contests the operative facts of this case. In a like manner, neither party asserts any deficiency in the process of the presbytery in arriving at its decision in this matter.

We are therefore squarely faced with the determination as a matter of law or polity whether the departure of the Candidate was a serious failure to adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith as expressed in the constitution.

We find that it was.

When it comes to the living of one’s life there may be considerable divergence of opinion of what it means to live one’s life “in obedience to scripture and conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church.” We may not have, nor may it be desirable to have, an exhaustive list of what those standards are. But we know one of them. The second sentence of G-6.0106b emphatically declares that it is the “requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” [italics added]. The language of the Constitution specifically and explicitly declares that requirement to be among the historic confessional standards of the church. (p. 8-9)

They finish this section by arguing for, and concluding, that the most recent AI and the Book of Order are at odds here.  “G-6.0106b and the Knox AI cannot both be honored in this case.” (p. 9)  Without citing the Bush decision they echo Bush where that decision says:

While the General Assembly and the GAPJC may interpret these standards, the Authoritative Interpretation did not (and constitutionally could not) change any ordination standard, including the requirements set forth in G-6.0106b. Similarly, no lower governing body can constitutionally define, diminish, augment or modify standards for ordination and installation of church officers. (p. 5)

and again from Bush:

The SPJC correctly stated that the fidelity and chastity provision of G-6.0106b is a mandatory standard that cannot be waived…. Presbyteries do not have the authority to restate or define such standards. (p. 7)

As I said, that is the heart of the dissent.  For error 1 the minority briefly argues that answering a constitutional question by saying “yes, except for…” is essentially saying no.  For error 5 the dissenting opinion appeals to the preceding argument about essential standards to say that if something is indeed essential, than rejecting it does exceed the bounds of conscience.

Finally, it is important to note the comment attached to the decision that, in part, says:

Given the importance of these issues to the instant parties, this Commission and the larger church body, we look forward to the GAPJC’s guidance and direction. This Commission joins with the parties of Bierschwale II in imploring the GAPJC to rule on the continued authority of Bush v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh (Minutes 218-10, p.319) in light of the 2008 Authoritative Interpretation on G-6.0108b.

Well, the complainants have stated that they intend to appeal so a stay is in place for 45 days to give the complainants time to file the appeal and the GAPJC time to accept it.  This raises an interesting question about the appeal timeline and the voting on the amendment to G-6.0106b — Might an appeal be rendered moot and denied when no remedy is necessary if the amendment were to pass?  On the other hand, are these issues important enough and general enough that a GAPJC decision would be useful regardless of any changes to the constitution because the section at issue is actually G-6.0108 and not the “fidelity and chastity” language?

If you are interested in other coverage of the decision you can find it in all the usual places: Presbyterian News, The Outlook, The Layman , and the Covenant Network.

And two brief additional comments: 1) The 5-4 vote by the SPJC was in very similar proportions as the 156 to 138 presbytery vote to sustain the candidate’s examination.  (56% to 44% compared to 53% to 47%)  2) Counsel representing the complainants included Mary Naegeli who was the lead complainant on the earlier case I mentioned in this sequence, Naegeli and others v. San Francisco Presbytery.

So that is my take on this decision and the status of declared departures in the PC(USA).  Of course, declared departures and “scruples” are nothing new being almost as old as American Presbyterianism itself.  But once again, even as the denomination looks at adding to its confessional standards, there is the necessary discussion about what is an acceptable departure from the essentials of the Reformed faith.

And that quote at the beginning of this piece?  It may or may not surprise you that it is 150 years old – a point in time almost exactly half-way between the beginnings of American Presbyterianism and today.  We keep on arguing, but we have been for 300 years.  Polity takes time, struggle, and a willingness to be in discussion, discernment and prayer as we seek the will of God together.

And so for completeness I leave you with the full, unedited, opening line from Robert Dabney in his essay “Theories of the Eldership.”

It strikes many Presbyterians with surprise, that the General Assembly and our leading periodicals in this year 1860, one hundred and fifty years after the beginning of our church in America, should be largely occupied in discussing the question, “What is Presbyterianism?”

General Assembly 2010 Of The Presbyterian Church Of Aotearoa New Zealand

Leave a reply

Spring is in the air and it is time for another General Assembly…

Of course, if it is Spring the Assembly would be in the Southern Hemisphere, and so we look forward to the convening of General Assembly 2010 of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand at St. Andrew’s College in Christchurch in just a few hours.  It will conclude this Sunday October 3.

The theme of the Assembly is “Making Disciple-Making Disciples,” a topic chosen by the incoming Moderator, the Rev. Peter Cheyne.  As Rev. Cheyne says in the press release announcing the theme “It is about making disciples who become sufficiently mature to then make another generation of disciples.”  There is a booklet available on-line that will be used at the Assembly for six small-group Bible study discussion sessions on the topic.  Rev. Cheyne has started blogging, including a reflection on this topic.  (From a technical perspective it appears that the RSS feed is for the whole church web site and there is not one specific to his blog.)

So, for those GA Junkies playing along at home here is what you need to know:

Two important items I have not found yet are the docket and an on-line news page.  I will update here when I do find them. But this is a note that there will be audio files available of certain events so keep an eye out for that. UPDATE: The News and Audio Page is now being updated.

Similarly, I have been searching but have not found anyone tweeting the GA, officially or unofficially, and no hashtag.  Again, will update if I find anything.

The back story to this GA is the September 4 magnitude 7 earthquake near Christchurch.  For those not familiar with earthquake behavior the aftershocks behaviour is very typical (GNS calls it “textbook“) and they continue with five in the magnitude 3 range in the last day reported by the GeoNet official agency information.

Since the earthquake there have been a number of information reports and updates from church-related sources.  Linked to the GA web page is an update related to the Assembly.  And thanks to notes from the Rev. Geoff King of Knox Church, Christchurch, as well as the Presbyterian Research blog for posting the accounts, we have Pastor King’s three updates about the situation after the earthquake with one that day, another the next day, and the last a week on.  (That is the ecclesiastical perspective, for the geological angle I really appreciated the great photos of faulting that GNS has up on their scientific response page.)

So in the same way that prophet Amos marks time with an earthquake in his day this GA will probably be remembered for its temporal and geographical proximity to the Darfield earthquake.

Stay tuned in the coming week and let us see what God does among his people as they meet on the South Island.  Prayers for the meeting.

Reorganization Of The National Office Of The Presbyterian Church In Canada

2 Replies

In these challenging economic times Presbyterian branches are wrestling with what it means to be connectional and then how do we pay for it.  Last Saturday I was part of a discussion at our Synod Council meeting where we weighed a number of financial issues with how we relate to each other and tried to discern what we should be doing.  Over the last couple of years many branches have been dealing with the cutting of costs and/or enhancing revenue.

Well, along these lines the Presbyterian Church in Canada yesterday released a plan to reorganize their national office. It calls for a combining of their congregational ministries resource unit, The Vine, with their national ministries unit Canada Ministries.  The reorganization will also have financial management for the Life and Mission Agency centrally administered.  The former will result in a reduction in workforce of one executive and one support staff position while the latter will not affect staffing levels but will free up staff for other work.  The press release also notes the reorganization of duties in other units that will result in a reduction of three full-time equivalent positions.  Of the total of five positions eliminated two will be through retirements.

UPDATE: Reaction from the Emmaus Project which is part of the combined ministries. Update to the Update: Not part of those agencies, see the note in the comments.

The press release closes with this –

The management team expresses its appreciation of all staff who have lived with the knowledge that a reorganization is underway at the national office. These changes have not been without pain and stress and we regret that several good colleagues will be leaving the national office. The ongoing dedication and commitment of the national office staff to serving our church is acknowledged with gratitude.

Presbyterians And The Pope — The Reactions Vary

Leave a reply

Well, the Pope begins his four day visit to the United Kingdom tomorrow and the news related to Presbyterian reaction continues to build up.  I have already commented on Head of the Church issues and the idea of having an actor portraying John Knox being in the group greeting the Pontiff.  But why stop there — the historic rejection of the papacy by the Presbyterians as well as concerns over the handling of the Irish child abuse allegations have arisen as issues that are also making news in advance of the visit.

Let me begin with the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.  The Rev. Norman Hamilton was initially quoted by the BBC as saying “Her Majesty will welcome the Pope and I am very content to go along with her welcome to the Pope to Scotland and England.”  In the same interview he is also said to have allowed that he would have no problem meeting the Pope in a “non-religious context.”

The recent news is that the Rev. Hamilton will attend an ecumenical worship service in Westminster Abbey but has declined an invitation to attend a reception afterward and shake hands with the Pontiff.  His announced issue is not the historical differences but the handling of the Irish abuse scandal.  A BBC article makes it clear that Mr. Hamilton wants to join his Catholic countrymen in showing respect for the Pope while still acknowledging that the issues related to the Catholic Church still require “substantive discussion back in Ireland”.  The individual in charge of overseeing the Pope’s visit from the British Government’s side, Lord Patten, has criticized the Moderator for his proposed action suggesting that he is living in the 16th and not the 21st century.

On the other hand we have the reaction of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster which is quite vocal in their opposition to the Pope’s visit on theological and historical grounds.  A while back they published a pamphlet titled Roman Catholicism Examined in the Light of Scripture.  On their web site they have a statement which begins “The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster views the state visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the United Kingdom with dismay and abhorrence.”  The statement goes on to say:

In light of this [the reception by the Queen] his visit can not be construed as simply pastoral. We therefore publicly disassociate ourselves from any welcome given to him and repudiate those protestant churchmen who will welcome the Pope, meet with him or refuse to publicly condemn his teaching or remainindifferent. By their actions they not only give credence to his spurious claims but are betraying the very creeds they once professed to believe teach and defend. Those historic creeds of the Protestant Churches have recognised that the Pope by his claims has placed himself in the place of Christ and therefore have termed him -‘The antichrist in the Church’ (‘anti’ means in place of).

and follows with the statement in the Westminster Confession of Faith, 25.VI, about Christ as the head of the Church.

Following along with this statement, in a BBC article the Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church criticises the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland for even attending the service.  The Rev. Ron Johnstone is quoted as saying:

I think it is very sad that he [Rev. Hamilton] would go to such a thing. The Pope claims that the Presbyterian Church in Ireland is a false church. He claims that we should recognise him as the head of all Christians. And surely the Westminster Confession that Mr Hamilton signed is totally opposed to the teachings of Rome. Both can’t be right: either Romanism is right or the New Testament is right.

In addition, statement on the web site announces a “solemn service” in Edinburgh on the day of the Pope’s arrival followed by a public protest.  This protest has received press coverage and it is interesting that in the BBC article the Rev. Ian Paisley, former Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church, indicates that protest is connected with both the present abuse concerns in Ireland as well as the historical aspects.

Among other Presbyterian branches, the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland has their own pamphlet, Pope Benedict XVI and the United Kingdom.  And an article from Slugger O’toole has excerpts from a resolution passed by their Synod critical of the visit.  These churches in association with many others have posted a Papal Visit Protest Site to help publicise and coordinate the different protests.

The visit begins a few hours from now with all this pomp and ceremony.  Stay turned to see how it all unfolds.

47th Session Of The General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church Of Australia

Leave a reply

The 47th Session of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Australia began this evening at the Chinese Presbyterian Church in the Surry Hills area of Sydney, N.S.W.  The GAA meets on a triennial basis with much of the governance of the church happening in the General Assemblies of the state churches (e.g. Presbyterian Church of Australia in the state of New South Wales ).

The incoming Moderator of the General Assembly is the Rev. David Jones of Hobart.  In honor of the 450th anniversary of the Scottish Reformation a special service will be held on Tuesday night with the message brought by the Rev. Dr. Sinclair Ferguson.

That is pretty much the extent of the official information I can find.  For the unofficial I recommend the Rev. Gary Ware.  His writing can be found on his blog mgpcpastor’s blog where he has already posted a GAA 101 with a great overview that will satisfy both the GA Junkies as well as the more casual observer.  He has also posted a two part entry about the opening session and worship service.  His writing includes nice details as well as pictures of the Assembly.  I should also say that the Rev. Ware is on Twitter at @gjware but it looks like his tweets are generated automatically when he updates his blog.  I’ll keep watching for other Twitter users or a hashtag and update if I find anything.

So my best wishes for a productive meeting from the PCA and I look forward to the news that will come out of it.