Presbyterian Congregations And Presbyterian Government — A Point Of Tension?

Leave a reply

As Presbyterians we have a unique system of government that holds the Session of the church and the Congregation in a tension that sometimes is not readily grasped or easily explained.  And in my years on the Committee on Ministry I have found that often the session and congregation each thinks it has more authority than it actually does.  I have also found that a Session, intentionally or unintentionally, has led a congregation to believe that the congregation has virtually no power.  In reality the congregation has significant power and authority but in a narrow range.

If you want a clear demonstration of the tensions around congregational powers  you need look no further than the recent decisions from the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) of the PC(USA).  The case of Yun v. Korean United Presbyterian Church had to do with election of officers and procedures at congregational meetings.  In Sundquist v. Heartland the GAPJC ruled, in part, that it is not a right of a congregation to be able to vote to be dismissed from the denomination.  This ruling upheld an authoritative interpretation (AI) from the 218th General Assembly specifying this.  But this AI also reinforced the congregation’s authority to specify the quorum for a congregational meeting and that this was not something the session or the presbytery could not alter.

It is interesting that with these cases concerning what a congregation can and can not do, if you look at the “What Presbyterians Believe” section of the PC(USA) web site you will find articles concerning what they believe about elders, deacons, how Presbyterians make decisions, the priesthood of all believers, and many more topics, but nothing clearly about congregations, covenant community, or the body of Christ.

So, as I was working on another piece about polity and Presbyterian congregations I figured that I should tackle the role of the congregation in Presbyterian government first.  However, in this post I will review the powers and responsibilities of the congregation without the full development of the congregation as the “Body of Christ” and the “Covenant Community.”  That will come later.

There is a short answer to the question about what the roll of the congregation is in governance: Across most, but not all, Presbyterian branches it is the right and responsibility of the congregation to decide almost all matters related to the officers of their church.  As the PC(USA) Book of Order puts it:

The government of this church is representative, and the right of God’s people to elect their officers is inalienable. Therefore, no person can be placed in any permanent office in a congregation or governing body of the church except by election of that body. [G-6.0107]

The Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand puts is another way in the Background section of Chapter 7:

In the Presbyterian tradition, a congregation calls a minister and elects elders to undertake spiritual oversight, leadership in mission, and pastoral care. A congregation may elect either a deacons’ court or a board of managers to manage the property and finances of the congregation.

And this understanding goes back to the Reformation.  The 1556 Genevan Book of Order, used by the English speaking congregation in that city (you can’t say the immigrant fellowships are a new phenomenon), begins with this sentence about selecting ministers, and the elder and deacon selection sections refer back here to do it in the same way:

The
ministers and elders at such time as there wants a minister, assemble
the whole congregation, exhorting them to advise and consider who may
best serve in that room and office.

And in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin concludes a section arguing from scripture and the writing of Cyprian with

We see then, that ministers are legitimately called according to the
word of God, when those who may have seemed fit are elected on the
consent and approbation of the people. Other pastors, however, ought to
preside over the election, lest any error should be committed by the
general body either through levity, or bad passion, or tumult. [Book IV, Chapter 3, Section 15]

As I said, this is not completely universal and An Introduction to Practice and Procedure in the Church of Scotland tells us:

Elders are chosen in one of three ways, but it is important to note that, whichever method is followed, the final decision, both as regards the method to be followed and the persons to be appointed, rests with the Kirk Session. Elders may be chosen (a) by the Kirk Session itself; (b) by a congregational meeting; or (c) by means of signed lists.

While the Church of Scotland can have elders appointed by the Session, they join the majority of Presbyterian branches in making it the right and responsibility of the congregation to search for and call a pastor.  In most branches the congregation elects the search committee from among its members and when the search committee has a nominee they bring it back to the congregation for approval.  There are some branches, like the Presbyterian Church in Ghana, where their tradition is to appointed ministers to parish positions.

It was in the pastor search process where I have had to deal with tensions with the session.  Sometimes the session wants a hand in the selection — they may want veto authority or they may want to direct the selection either by being the search committee or by guiding the search committee.  In a few circumstances related to calling temporary or interim pastors I have seen the session empowered as the search committee.  But when it comes to searching for a regular installed pastor or associate pastor the session can have input and make suggestions, but the selection process is up to the committee and the approval up to the congregation as a whole.  This does not mean that session members can not serve on the search committee, but like regular nominating committees in the PC(USA) the majority of the membership should be from the congregation at-large.

I have seen this lack of control confuse, irritate, and annoy session members.  Some have the understanding that they run the church and that should apply to the leadership as well.  When they find out they do not have a deciding voice in the selection process for the next pastor they sometimes are very surprised.

Now, as they say, “with great power comes great responsibility.”  Since the congregation selects and calls the pastor, the congregation also has the full responsibility to support the pastor, including the prayer and financial support.  The congregation approves the compensation package for the pastor.  And in the installation questions the congregation must promise their support.  The Presbyterian Church in America Book of Church Order asks these questions in section 21-10

3. Do you promise to encourage him in his labors, and to assist his endeavors for your instruction and spiritual edification?

4. Do you engage to continue to him while he is your pastor that competent worldly maintenance which you have promised, and to furnish him with whatever you may see needful for the honor of religion and for his comfort among you?

And the PC(USA) wording is similar in W-4.006b

(2) Do we agree to encourage him (her), to respect his (her) decisions, and to follow as he (she) guides us, serving Jesus Christ, who alone is Head of the Church?

(3) Do we promise to pay him (her) fairly and provide for his (her) welfare as he (she) works among us; to stand by him (her) in trouble and share his (her) joys? Will we listen to the word he (she) preaches, welcome his (her) pastoral care, and honor his (her) authority as he (she) seeks to honor and obey Jesus Christ our Lord?

In my experience, the congregation has a great and important power and responsibility in selecting its ordained officers and for all of the officers this task should be approached with prayer and discernment.  It is not a responsibility to be taken lightly.

The other powers lodged in the congregation are more of a temporal nature, to use the Church of Scotland terminology, and vary across state and national boundaries.  But since these items do affect the ability of the church to carry out its mission they should not be viewed as being entirely non-spiritual or secular in nature.

The PC(USA) explicitly lists matters related to real property as another area that the congregation must make the decisions.  The theory here is both a corporate one, that the members of the church are members of the civil corporation, as well as the pragmatic view that since the members of the congregation have paid for the building or will have to pay off the loan, they should be making the decision on property matters such as these.  In some branches, like the Church of Scotland and the PC(USA), certain of these property matters must be reviewed and approved by a higher governing body.

Other items of congregational business typically include the decision to have a board of deacons or a board of trustees, since those are officer related, and approval of church bylaws, since that is a corporation decision.

There can be one more congregational power that It is not as well defined.  In the case of the PC(USA) this is found in G-7.0304a(5) where it says what business may be conducted at a congregational meeting:

(5) matters related to the permissive powers of a congregation, such as the desire to lodge all administrative responsibility in the session, or the request to presbytery for exemption from one or more requirements because of limited size.

The question is what are the “permissive powers” of the congregation.  A few observations about this:

1 – In what may be a rarity, this paragraph has no associated comments in the Annotated Version of the Book of Order

2 – It is a concept regarding government powers and “permissive powers” are like common law powers.  They are contrasted with statutory powers, enabling powers, and prescriptive powers.  (The examples given in the following links are not definitive but give examples via usage within government reports.)  This seems to be used much more in Britain where it is frequently used in the context of town or city regulation and management of land.  (Used in the first line of this UK Parliament publication)  It is also found in reference to restructuring government, including a Task Force Report for Toronto, Ontario, Canada and a PowerPoint presentation for Spring Lake, Michigan, USA.  And thanks to the magic of Google Books I found a couple of useful paragraphs in Social Welfare Alive! by Stephen Moore and Peter Scourfield and in The Law Of Public Officers by Ruben E. Agpalo.

3 – If you refer to a template for a manual for stated clerks (here is Seattle Presbytery’s version, excerpt from page 11) it says of the business of a congregational meeting:

“permissive powers” relates to adopting congregational bylaws, establishment of a unicameral board, waivers from election of officers, raising of the quorum, and buying, selling, and mortgaging of real property

This seems to take the “such as” items listed in G-7.0304a(5) and make them “limited to.”

4 – For an extensive discussion of the concept of “permissive powers” that follows the governmental-based concept that they are the opposite of “prescriptive powers” you need to check out Michael McCarty’s discussion a year ago on his blog Around the Scuttlebutt.  He tackles the concept of permissive powers head-on with some preliminaries in parts 1, 2 and 3, a detailed discussion in parts 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, and wraps it up in part 9.  Mr. McCarty looks at the Presbyterian tradition and the ambiguities in the Book of Order around this and other issues of polity, and concludes that the congregation has a significant say in its relationship to the higher governing bodies and that in the ambiguities deference should be given to the congregation.

5 – It is the general tradition in American Presbyterianism that the “central governmental unit” is the presbytery.  This is reflected in the presbytery’s responsibility to organize, unite, receive, divide, dismiss and dissolve churches.  (G-11.0103h-i PC(USA) Book of Order)  It is also seen in the presbytery’s oversight of pastors and the pastoral call process.  And for the PC(USA) [from G-9.0103] “The jurisdiction of each governing body is limited by the express provisions of the Constitution, with powers not mentioned being reserved to the presbyteries, and with the acts of each subject to review by the next higher governing body.”  In the PC(USA)’s revision of the Form of Government the mandate stipulates that the presbytery is to remain the central governmental unit and the version presented to the last General Assembly eliminated the permissive powers of the congregation.  This latter change did draw some criticism.

6 – Not all Presbyterian branches lodge the fundamental power with the presbytery.  Some, like the Bible Presbyterian Church, place it with the congregation.  As their Form of Government says in Chapter 1 on Preliminary Principles:

9. All powers not in this Constitution specifically granted to the
courts of the Church are reserved to the congregations respectively, or
to the people.

Typical of the Presbyterian form of government, the relationship of the congregation to the governing bodies is one that holds the power and responsibility in tension so that there is accountability and shared responsibility within the Covenant Community.  But when there are misunderstandings or ambiguities the working out of the shared responsibility can lead to tensions between different entities in the system.

Having now laid the fundamental foundation of the role of congregations in Presbyterian polity I, at some future point, will post some thoughts about building on this foundation and tweaking it a bit.

A Long View Of Membership Changes

Leave a reply

Much has been made over the last few months about the decline, or potential decline, of various Protestant subgroups.  The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) singled out the Mainline churches, there was the op-ed piece by Michael Spencer on “The Coming Evangelical Collapse“, and last week Newsweek had one of their famous, or is that infamous, C&E (Christmas and Easter) articles on “The End of Christian America.”  And that does not count the current debate about whether the United States is now or was a Christian nation to begin with (some say yes, others say no, and some say that it depends on the context and what you mean), a debate sparked by the President’s recent comments in Turkey.  There is also an NPR piece today about the secularization of Britain.

I’m working on some of the membership stories and will post more detailed commentaries on that at a later date.  But in the midst of all this I found an op-ed piece from the Wall Street Journal that takes the long view and is a must-read if you are interested in the church membership trends.  Check out “God Still Isn’t Dead” by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge.

They point out that with the Constitutional separation of church and state, the lack of a state church forced American churches to be “market driven,” free enterprise if you will, in order to have the members to be viable.

America has long stood out among developed countries for its
religiosity. This has less to do with innate godliness than with the
free market created by the First Amendment. Pre-Revolutionary America
was not that religious, because the original Puritans were swamped by
less wholesome adventurers — in Salem, Mass., the setting for “The
Crucible,” 83% of taxpayers by 1683 confessed to no religious
identification.

America became religious after the Constitution separated church
from state, thus ensuring that religious denominations could only
survive if they got souls into pews. While state-sponsored religion
withered in Europe, American faith has been a hive of activity: from
the Methodists, who converted close to an eighth of the country in the
half century after the Revolution, to the modern megachurches.

Yes, from the founding of the nation right up to the present you need those people in the pews to put their pennies in the plate to keep the lights on.  But while I agree that American Christianity is consumer driven, we use the term “church shopping” in a positive way after all, I do think a later paragraph is a bit short-sighted:

Meanwhile, the supply seems as plentiful as ever. Religion, no less
than software or politics, is a competitive business, where
organization and entrepreneurship count. Religious America is led by a
series of highly inventive “pastorpreneurs” — men like Bill Hybels of
Willow Creek or Rick Warren of Saddleback. These are far more sober,
thoughtful characters than the schlock-and-scandal televangelists of
the 1970s, but they are not afraid to use modern business methods to
get God’s message across.

Yes, there are some who base churches on more secular business methods.  And yes, I think many of us have “issues” with churches that promote “positive thinking” or “prosperity gospel” Christianity (if that isn’t an oxymoron).  But I also believe there are many faithful Christians who are drawn to churches because what the church offers is “the true preaching of the Word, the right administration of the sacraments, and discipline uprightly ministered.”  That people are drawn to a church because it fulfills the “notes of the true church” does not mean it is lead by a “pastorpreneur,” to use their term.  A good, faithful, vital product will succeed in the marketplace.

And the authors do consider the spiritual side in the article.  Towards the beginning they say:

Has this model really run out of steam? Betting against American
religion has always proved to be a fool’s game. In 1880, Robert
Ingersoll, the leading atheist of his day, claimed that “the churches
are dying out all over the land.” In its Easter issue in 1966, Time
asked “Is God Dead?” on its cover. East Coast intellectuals have
repeatedly assumed that the European model of progress, where modernity
equals secularization, would come to the U.S. They have always been
wrong.

And towards the end they observe:

Looked at from a celestial perspective, the American model of religion,
far from retreating, is going global. Pastorpreneurs are taking their
message around the world. In Latin America, Pentecostalism has
disrupted the Catholic Church’s monopoly. Already five of the world’s
10 biggest churches are in South Korea: Yoido Full Gospel Church, which
has 800,000 members, is a rival in terms of organization for anything
Messrs. Warren and Hybels can offer. China is the latest great convert.
There are probably close to 100 million Christians in China, most of
them following a very individualistic American-style faith. Already
more people attend church each Sunday than are members of the Communist
Party. China will soon be the world’s biggest Christian country and
also possibly its biggest Muslim one.

In the long view, no theological branch is monolithic in space and time.  If I may narrow down the perspective a bit and just comment on American Presbyterianism:  Almost from its inception the American Presbyterian church has been a dynamic entity.  The first presbytery was founded in 1706 and the first division occurred in 1741.  While the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) counts its General Assemblies from the first one in 1789 so that there have now been 218 of them, really the PC(USA) came into being in a merger in 1983.  And while the PC(USA) can legitimately trace its history as the main branch of American Presbyterianism from 1706, it is important to note that the history is shared with other branches.  The Presbyterian Church in America, formed in 1973, also traces his history and polity back through the southern church, the Presbyterian Church in the United States.  One diagram of American Presbyterian history shows nine different American Presbyterian churches at the present time, and I am aware of a few more that have spread into the country rather than branching off of the historical trunk. (For example the Free Presbyterian Church of North America)

Anyway, as much as we might like to think there is, and always has been, a single branch of American Presbyterianism, in the long view that is not the case.  While American Presbyterianism as a whole can legitimately claim a solid 300 year history, the individual denominations show an ebb and flow.  There is no reason to think that should end now.

Latest News And Some Local Commentary On The Presbyterian Church Of Ghana

Leave a reply

Many of you have probably noticed that one of the global Presbyterian branches I try to follow closely is the Presbyterian Church of Ghana (PCG).  What makes this possible, and in itself is one of the aspects that I find interesting, is the amount of media coverage that the church receives.  Based on the amount and nature of the media coverage this Presbyterian denomination is a recognized entity in the life of that nation.  So today I will bring a few short notes on that church in the media, and finish with something unusual — a published local criticism of the church.

A couple of weeks ago the Moderator of the General Assembly of the PCG, the Rt. Rev. Dr. Dr Yaw Frimpong-Manso raised many eyebrows when he commented on several recent fatal traffic accidents.  In addition to human factors he raised the issue of “forces of darkness” being involved.  Joy Online writes

“The spiritual dimensions of the recent spate of fatal accidents,
therefore, call for spiritual solutions”, Rev Frimpong-Manso told The Ghanaian Times in Accra on Monday in sharing his thoughts about the carnage on the roads.

It should not be a surprise that those writing on the comments page for this story mostly criticize the Moderator for invoking “superstition.”  And while this criticism takes on some cultural aspects, it also has parallels in the just released Barna survey that most U.S. Christians don’t believe Satan or the Holy Spirit exist.

There have also been a couple of recent words from the church leaders addressed to the people of Ghana.  At a chapel dedication on Easter Sunday the Rt. Rev. Dr. Frimpong-Manso “urged political leaders to mobilize the country’s human and material
resources… to
enhance the living standard of the people” and “appealed to Ghanaians to use the resurrection of Christ to transform
the nation and avoid negative tendencies such as corruption, armed
robbery and laziness but should work hard to increase productivity in
the country,” according to an article in Modern Ghana.  In another appearance he “advised the youth to avoid indecent dressing and other immoral activities during festive occasions,” also from Modern Ghana.  The Rev. Abraham Nana Opare Kwakye, a District Minister in the church, in a report from AllAfrica.com, warned his listeners about “the increasing spate of ethnicity and tribalism in the
country.”  The article goes on to say that “He warned that if the practice was not checked with the
urgency that it deserves, it could ruin the development of the country.”  Finally, Modern Ghana reports a speech by the Rev. Otuo Acheampong at another dedication (this a public sanitary complex) where he encouraged virtue and moral behavior by the young people.  The article quotes him as saying “The act of going to church regularly is good in itself however, we
must be more conscious of putting into practice what the Holy Book says
if we are to achieve our aims and objectives to be sons of God”.  And this is just a sampling of the many public comments by PCG clergy to the citizenry as reported by the media over the last couple of weeks.

But, there has also been a rare published piece of criticism of the church this past weekend as well.  In an op-ed piece in Modern Ghana Mr. Yaw Opare-Asamoa writes about “The Reformed Tradition and the Presbyterian Church.”  Beginning with the motto “The Church reformed and always to be reformed” (as he phrases it) he complains that the church should have a “dissatisfaction with the status quo” and then asks “Why does the church today seem to be so satisfied with the status quo?”

He raises three issues that, in his opinion, need to be dealt with.  The first issue is “postings,” where a minister is assigned to work, especially new ministers.  While the “field” areas outside the cities need good ministers those ministers who are well connected can get more desirable and comfortable assignments in the cities.  He suggests that the process is political

Ministers go to the head office to lobby for placement to
congregations/stations they consider favourable. If you are not
‘connected’ at the head office, then your chances of being posted to
any of the ‘plush’ congregations are virtually nil.

And he holds up the Methodists’ system as an alternative

They (the Methodists) have a laid down structure where new ministers
join the ‘queue’ and wait their time. You start your ministry from the
village/town and work your way to the city.

He points out that one effect of the political nature of the process is that new ministers don’t immediately take parish work but continue in school to earn more academic qualifications in an attempt to avoid the country churches.

The second issue is that some ministers don’t want to be posted outside the main city of Accra.  For those that speak Ga they avoid serving the country churches since many of those speak Twi.  Yet, Mr. Opare-Asamoa points out that they don’t seem to have a problem serving a Twi church in Accra.

Finally, he takes issue with the quality and editorial bias of the church’s monthly newspaper, Christian Messenger.

Third issue has to do with the ‘Christian Messenger’ (Ghana’s oldest
Christian monthly newspaper). I have never seen any Christian newspaper
that is as unchristian as the Christian Messenger. If you pick up this
newspaper expecting to be edified or spiritually exhorted forget it!
You would be lucky to find a page of biblical/spiritual content. The
rest of the pages are reserved for obituaries and announcements. There
are pages devoted to activities that various congregations have
embarked upon. For years the former editor had a stranglehold over the
paper. Nobody could say anything to him. The quality got from worse to
worst. During private conversations with some ministers, they
acknowledged the sorry state of the newspaper but were not ready to
cross the editor. I wondered why. He eventually went on pension only to
be contracted back as a consultant, for what I don’t know.

Unfortunately Christian Messenger does not appear to have a web presence, as far as I could tell, so checking out the content and editorial bent for ourselves is not easily done.

Based upon the Modern Ghana page Mr. Opare-Asamoa is a regular contributor of op-ed pieces to the web site.  He usually deals with the politics in Ghana and from looking through his other pieces this appears to be the only one that addresses the PCG.  Also, his style and level of criticism of his other targets seem to be similar to this article.  None the less, as he points out churches in the Reformed tradition are to be “always reforming” so a voice pointing out potential problems and holding the church accountable has a place.

As I said at the beginning, this style of criticism is unique in the numerous articles I have read about the PCG.  The church generally seems well regarded by the media and the people and the PCG is an active and supportive part of many communities.  As such, I have not found either corroboration or contradictory evidence of Mr. Opare-Asamoa accusations.  Particularly regarding the “posting” system, the potential for abuse is clearly understandable.  This is one advantage of the “call” system in many Presbyterian branches, that the congregations select the pastor rather than receiving a pastor by appointment.  However, even in the PC(USA) there is a preference among ministers for urban over rural parishes.  Some things are constant in the church no matter where you are on the globe.

The Day Of Resurrection

Leave a reply

Happy Resurrection Sunday for those readers who observe it.  And for those for who do not follow a liturgical calendar but celebrate Christ’s resurrection every Lord’s Day, I hope yesterday was as meaningful as always.

I am liturgical.  I do find spiritual meaning in the annual rhythm of the church calendar.  (If it was good enough for St. Augustine it’s good enough for me. )  My family sometimes jokes that we are C&E (Christmas and Easter) Christians — while we are active in the church and attend worship weekly the Holy Days are a big deal for us with more activities and multiple services per day.  In case you wonder where my blogging has been, I sometimes wonder  what I’m doing at six worship services in the last four days when I’m not clergy.

The penultimate service was our church’s sunrise service early yesterday.  We have to warn the neighbors that there will be a brass quartet outside on the back lawn.  For one day a year they are very understanding.  And for me there is something very deep and meaningful about worshiping the risen Christ as the sun rises on Resurrection Sunday.  Some years when I could not find a sunrise service that fit my theological leanings I have simply had my personal devotions out in the desert (wilderness?) as the sun came up.  And while I make it a point on Easter morning to be in worship at the sunrise, I am a morning person and I very frequently have my devotions  around the time of sunrise anyway.

Another meaningful part of worship yesterday was having both the sunrise service and the regular worship service close with the hymn “The Day of Resurrection.”  Outside of the metrical Psalms this is one of the oldest texts in our hymnal written by John of Damascus in the eighth century.  I appreciate and find symbolism in the link across the history of the Church.  What comes down to Protestant churches is usually John M. Neale’s 1860’s translation and versification

The day of resurrection,
Earth, tell it out abroad,
The Passover of gladness.
The Passover of God.
From death to life eternal,
From this world to the sky,
Our Christ hath brought us over
With hymns of victory.

It is also used within the Eastern Church and is known as the opening verses of John of Damascus’s Paschal Canon

The day of Resurrection, let us be radiant, O peoples! Pascha, the Lord’s Pascha; for Christ God has brought us over from death to life, and from earth to heaven, as we sing the triumphal song.
[Translation copyright to Archimandrite Ephrem ©]

[It is interesting to note that in Islam there is an eschatological concept of “The Day of Resurrection” similar to the Judeo-Christian concept of the “Day of the Lord” or final judgment, not a “first fruits” resurrection.  St. John of Damascus also wrote a Critique of Islam. I have to wonder if his Paschal Canon, with some of this wording, may be a related apologetic work to some small degree.]

So Easter Sunday has come and gone.  Is anything different today?  This C&E Christian is going back to his regular routine.  This coming Sunday will be just another Lord’s Day.  I do sometimes wonder if my Reformed brethren that celebrate the resurrection not just once a year but every Sunday may have a better perspective when this coming Sunday rolls around.  I will try to maintain that perspective myself.

The Future Of Mainline Protestant Churches — I Am Trying To Decide If A Recent News Story Says Anything About It

Leave a reply

In skimming through my blog feeds I came upon this story from Christianity Today about President Obama expanding his White House Faith-Based Advisory Council. While I normally don’t pay much attention to a political story like this and would have just moved on to the next story, something about the list caught my eye and I have re-read it several times now.  I am trying to decide if there is any significance in this list or if I am just over-interpreting the data (not an unusual thing for me).

The members of the council as now constituted are listed below.  Those that were added yesterday have the asterisk next to their names.  I have split them into two groups.  Group 1 – Those with listed associations not clearly denominational:

  • *Anju Bhargava, Founder, Asian Indian Women of America
    New Jersey
  • *Harry Knox, Director, Religion and Faith Program, Human Rights Campaign
    Washington, DC
  • Diane Baillargeon, President & CEO, Seedco
    New York , NY
  • Noel Castellanos, CEO, Christian Community Development Association
    Chicago, IL
  • Fred Davie, Senior Adviser, Public/Private Ventures
    New York , NY
  • Eboo S. Patel, Founder & Executive Director, Interfaith Youth Core
    Chicago, IL
  • Melissa Rogers, Director, Wake Forest School of Divinity Center for Religion and Public Affairs
    Winston-Salem , NC
  • Richard Stearns, President, World Vision
    Bellevue , WA
  • Judith N. Vredenburgh, President and Chief Executive Officer, Big Brothers / Big Sisters of America
    Philadelphia , PA
  • Rev. Jim Wallis, President & Executive Director, Sojourners
    Washington , DC

Group 2 – Those with denominational or specific religious affiliations listed

  • *Dalia Mogahed, Executive Director, Gallup Center for Muslim Studies
    Washington, DC
  • *Dr. Sharon Watkins, General Minister and President, Disciples of Christ (Christian Church)
    Indianapolis, IN
  • *The Rev. Peg Chemberlin, President-Elect, National Council of Churches USA
    Minneapolis, MN
  • *Bishop Charles Blake, Presiding Bishop, Church of God in Christ
    Los Angeles, CA
  • *Nathan Diament, Director of Public Policy, Orthodox Jewish Union
    Washington, DC
  • *Anthony Picarello, General Counsel , United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
    Washington, DC
  • *Nancy Ratzan, Board Chair, National Council of Jewish Women
    Miami, FL
  • Dr. Arturo Chavez, President & CEO, Mexican American Catholic College
    San Antonio , TX
  • Pastor Joel C. Hunter, Senior Pastor, Northland, a Church Distributed
    Longwood, FL
  • Bishop Vashti M. McKenzie, Presiding Bishop, 13th Episcopal District, African Methodist Episcopal Church
    Knoxville, TN
  • Rev. Otis Moss, Jr., Pastor emeritus, Olivet Institutional Baptist Church
    Cleveland, OH
  • Dr. Frank S. Page, President emeritus, Southern Baptist Convention
    Taylors, SC
  • Rabbi David N. Saperstein, Director & Counsel, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
    Washington , DC
  • Dr. William J. Shaw, President, National Baptist Convention, USA
    Philadelphia , PA
  • Father Larry J. Snyder, President, Catholic Charities USA
    Alexandria , VA

Yes, It is a little rough, and I have kept the NCC person with the denominational members since that is representative of “Mainline” churches.

Since my focus is church affiliation I will ignore Group 1 and boil down Group 2 to the denominations.  (Having said that, I realize that those in Group 1 probably have denominational ties, but I’ll just go with their reported identification for now.  I also realize that in Group 2 I may be attributing a group’s affiliation to an individual.  But my concern here is the public perception of the denomination so I’ll go with that as well.)

In the non-Christian affiliations there is one Muslim and three from different branches of Judaism.  On the Christian side there are three Roman Catholic and no Eastern Orthodox.  Of the remaining eight Protestant individuals, three are different Baptist branches.  One of the other five I included as a generic “Mainline” representative (Rev. Chemberline from the NCC) and one is (as best as I can figure out) non-denominational.  The remaining three Protestant representatives are from the Disciples of Christ, Church of God in Christ, and the AME Church.  There are no members with listed affiliations in two of the top five churches in the NCC — the United Methodist Church or the LDS (Mormon) Church.  The other three, Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist Convention, and Church of God in Christ, are represented.  I was struck by the uneven distribution across all the religious groups and the fact that many of the “usual suspects” of the Mainline Protestant churches, the Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians, were not represented.

We could look at this representation in a number of ways:
1)  The White House rolled the dice and this is what came up.  Not a likely interpretation in a political setting.
2)  The selections are purely political, those chosen represent a political agenda, and no broader cultural implications for the American religious landscape should be drawn.  Being a big-time cynic regarding secular politics I could live with this interpretation.
3)  The choices reflect some cultural perspective and so there is useful information in this distribution about the American religious landscape and developing trends.

Well, if you subscribe to #1 or #2 you can stop reading now.  I’ll follow #3 a bit further and reflect on what it might have to say.

One possible view is a pragmatic one — that the denominations represented have something to “bring to the table” in the way of social work.  A couple of those listed have programmatic ties, such as Catholic Charities USA and Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.  While the PC(USA) is known for advocating at the national level, the structural changes in the denomination have pushed mission and outreach programs down to the local level so there is not a recognized national social program to highlight.  This could be true for the other “missing” denominations.

Another viewpoint could be the semi-political approach.  Instead of the pure political motives I suggest in #2, there could be a blend of thinking about “what groups should we reach out to so as to advance out political agenda” with “what groups represent a coherent enough body that we can work with.”  Put another way, if a “key leader” were at the table would that person bring enough members of the denomination with them for both practical and political advantage.  Short of Beau Weston’s “Presbyterian Establishment” that is not something many Mainline churches can do at present.

Finally, maybe the selection says something about the perceived importance or sustainability of the denomination now or in the future.  It strikes me as possibly more than coincidence that the NCC denominations reporting growth or only slight declines are at the table while those with larger declines are not.  Does the selection suggest a vote of confidence by the White House staffers or a judgment on which groups will be viable to work with going forward?  Or does it have a relationship to perceptions about groups that don’t have internal struggles and divisions and so are freer to focus energy on this external initiative.

As I thought about this it does seem to me that a certain degree of political motivation is present in the choices.  For example: Three individuals broadly representing Jewish views when ARIS reports that self-identified Jews are only 1.2% of the adult population.  And if Jews are well represented, the LDS Church, with only slightly greater representation in the population, has no identifiable representation.

For each individual on the committee the particular reasons they were invited would probably be a mix of political and functional characteristics.  And maybe the “missing” representatives were too busy doing ministry, much like Tony Dungy was too busy to join.  But it does seem there is a message in the lack of individual representation from, for lack of a better term, the “liberal Mainline churches.”  This sector of society apparently brought no political or functional advantages to the table.  Whether it is an indication of perceived impotence, irrelevance, or lack of cohesiveness I’m not sure.  But for a group of Mainline churches to be sidelined seems to suggest a lack of faith in their present or future role.

I Rise To A Point Of Personal Privilege

3 Replies

OK, I don’t do this very often but I could not let this milestone go unheralded…

Today marks the three-year anniversary of this blog.  Over the last three years I have commented on roughly 25 different Assembly meetings around the world, publishing over a quarter-million words in 495 posts.  And there are still 14 drafts in my queue that are waiting to be finished up and shared with other G.A. Junkies.

While I started out, and continue, writing this just because it interests me, I appreciate all of you who read this blog that fills a unique, and in some ways weird, little niche in the world of religion.  Thank you for being there and for your kind, encouraging, and resource-filled comments.

So now the moderator will rule me out of order for using a point of personal privilege to make an announcement and we can return to our regularly scheduled programming.

New Official Blogging And Blogging Officials

3 Replies

There have been a couple of notable additions to the world of Presbyterian Blogging in the last month or two that I wanted to pass on to you.

First, it appears that we will have another blogging Moderator:  The Rev. Stafford Carson of First Presbyterian Church of Portadown, Northern Ireland, has begun a pastor’s blog.  (h/t Sean Michael Lucas)  For a G.A. Junkie, this will become more interesting in early June when Rev. Carson will be installed as the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.  We will have to see the balance that he strikes between the parish and the denominational work.  If nothing else, I am curious if the work of the Moderator of the PC Ireland takes as much time as the Moderator of the GA of the PCUSA who has broken his moderatorial blogging out from his personal and parish blogging.

(And we are still waiting for an RSS feed from the Church of Scotland for their Moderator’s Blog.)

Second, for a while now we have had the entertaining and enlightening blog Being Presbyterian by Colin Carmichael from the main office of the Presbyterian Church in Canada.  Now, while more of a news feed than a blog, there is PC-Connect Daily to which you can subscribe by either e-mail or RSS.  Interesting stuff from a Presbyterian branch that is taking new technology seriously.

Finally, a blog that is not new itself but is new to me…  I have been doing some research to try to get myself up to speed on the Presbyterian Church in Australia.  I’ll get that packaged up at some point, but in looking through the various sites I have found very little in the way of RSS feeds and e-mail updates available.  To some extent this may be due to an interesting de-centralization of that branch to the state level.  But one interesting RSS feed I did find was for Presbyterian Youth in Victoria.  It is pretty much a news feed with upcoming events but some are interesting, like the Fuelled Training Day and the Short Course on Youth Ministry.  My youngest was interested in their summer camp since that is our winter, such as winter is in Southern California anyway.

Speaking of Youth, I see that the announcement for the 2009 National Youth Assembly of the Church of Scotland has been posted.  Since this event is Web 2.0 intensive I would expect an official blog for it like the NYA 2008 blog, but I can’t locate it yet. But keep watching because I am sure it will appear soon.

Reflections On The Amendment 08-B Voting — Preliminary Musings On The Text

6 Replies

While not quite finished, at this time the voting on Amendment 08-B to modify the “fidelity and chastity” section (G-6.0106b) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Book of Order is closing in on the conclusion.  Yesterday there was a split vote, San Jose Presbytery voting “Yes” and the Presbytery of South Louisiana voting “No.”  This brings the unofficial tally to 65 Yes and 82 No. (Presbyterian Coalition, PresbyWeb)

If you look at the remaining 26 presbyteries, there are five that have solidly voted against “fidelity and chastity,”  and another six that have split votes in the last two votes (i.e. voted once for it and once against it).  In addition, Boise tied on 01-A and Pacific was one vote away from a tie.  Of the remaining 13 that voted no on the last two votes, five presbyteries did overwhelmingly in near or total unanimity.  Those five, if they again vote “No”, should give the necessary 87 votes to defeat 08-B.  So after yesterday’s results I, and some others (e.g. John Shuck), consider the passage of 08-B somewhere between highly unlikely and miraculous.  I won’t say “impossible” because that word is not in God’s vocabulary.

This vote was much closer than I and many of those I talk with initially felt it would be.  At the present time 25 presbyteries have changed their votes from 01-A.  Why?  This question has been rolling around in my head for almost two months now and I’ll give some numerical analysis when the voting concludes.  Related to what I talked about a couple of weeks ago, and what I see in the numbers, there is probably no single explanation.  Where there is truly a swing in votes why did the votes change?  One explanation is a greater “pro-equality” sentiment — that is that commissioners have switched views from “pro-fidelity and chastity” to “pro-equality.”  But I want to have a detailed look at something else first:  The text of the Amendment.

Looking back at the history of G-6.0106b, and it is laid out in the Annotated Book of Order and Constitutional Musings note 8, you can see that attempts to add fidelity-like wording date back to 1986.  The current wording was added from the 208th General Assembly, approved by the presbyteries 97-74.  The next year the 209th GA sent out to the presbyteries an “improved” wording that would have left “fidelity and chastity” but removed the “which the confessions call sin” line.  At that GA the Advisory Committee on the Constitution advised against making the change.  The Assembly approved the change and sent it out to the presbyteries who did not concur by a 57-114 vote.  The 213th GA sent out Amendment 01-A to strike G-6.0106b and add a line to the remaining G-6.0106a about suitability for office and the Lordship of Jesus Christ, but that too was not affirmed by the presbyteries, this time 46-127.

So here is my hypothesis:  I wonder if Amendment 08-B is having more success because it is more of a compromise text.  The previous two attempts to amend dealt with removing all or part of G-6.0106b.  Amendment 08-B would replace G-6.0106b with new language:

Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.

The new language does have a number of theological points that make it attractive and that are being used by those advocating for 08-B as benefits.  These include a pledge to “live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church,” and stating the hierarchy of Jesus, scripture and confessions, in that order.  While the opposition argues that this now leaves important standards up for interpretation and heterogeneous application across the denomination, I can see how this would be a more palatable form of standards for many in the church.

So I do have to wonder whether comparing 08-B to 01-A or 97-A is comparing apples to oranges.  While it is frequently viewed or portrayed as a battle of “good versus evil” (you define the sides for yourself), when it comes down to the vote by a particular commissioner in a given presbytery if the decision and vote is much more nuanced.  How many commissioners have not changed their opinions but have changed their vote because the language has changed?  Because the wording changes from one vote to the next do these black and white decisions have many more shades of gray than we want to admit.

Something to think over until my next post on this topic when I’ll put numbers on these shades of gray.

Presbytery Voting In The PC(USA) — All But B And I Have Passed

2 Replies

The Presbytery voting on amendments to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Book of Order and ecumenical statements continues.  And while Amendment 08-B has gotten all the attention, there are actually 14 different items that need to be voted on — ten amendments and four ecumenical statements.

Well, the latest official vote count from the Office of the General Assembly shows that 12 of those 14 items have now been officially adopted.  And while most proposals passed overwhelmingly, Amendment 08-A on membership vows and 08-F on Presbytery membership of Certified Christian Educators have 50 no votes each to about 88 yes votes on them, a sizable objection.  For the ecumenical statements, while they all had strong support it is interesting to note that the statement with the Episcopal Church did garner 10 No votes to the 124 yes.  A not overwhelming but noticeable objection.  I have to wonder how much is a polity objection to their having an episcopal structure with bishops and how much is a dissatisfaction with their aggressive pursuit of property cases against congregations that leave to join other Anglican Provinces.  Remember, this is nothing near a full communion document but a statement of mutually agreed principles.

Finally, while many think that the closely watched 08-B to modify the “fidelity and chastity” section will ultimately be a very close vote (currently 55 to 79 official and 64 to 81 unofficial), on the official tally 08-I on Certified Christian Educators is actually closer with only 17 votes separating the 77 yes and 60 no votes.  In both cases, it could be until the very end of voting before the outcome is certain.  Stay tuned…

Presbyterian Mission On The Go — At Least As Fast As It Can On The L.A. Freeways On Friday Afternoon

Leave a reply

On my way home from work today I passed the Mexico Outreach mission trip by First Presbyterian Church of Roseville, CA.  How do I know?  Their pickup trucks carrying the cargo, at least six of them, were pretty clearly labeled.  Considering the amount of gear in those trucks there must have been several more unmarked cars around them carrying the workers.  Welcome to the 210-Freeway through Pasadena on a “get away Friday” and best wishes and prayers for your work in Mexico.

If you want to follow their work, I found that they will have a twice-a-day update on their Mexico Outreach blog.