Passings — Rev. Louis Evans Jr.

Leave a reply

The Rev. Louis H. Evans Jr. joined the Church Triumphant on October 28 after an earthly struggle with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, aka Lou Gehrig’s Disease.  As you can see from the L.A. Time article, he had an impressive lineage and resume.  He was the organizing pastor of Bel Air Presbyterian Church here in L.A. and was the senior pastor at National Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C.  He provided great service to the Lord Jesus Christ through his work in the church and there are numerous articles testifying to that effort.  And Ken Malloy, one of the TV news anchors in Fresno where the Evans’ lived, has a tribute to Rev. Evans on his blog.

But I want to share my one experience with Rev. Evans.  Several years ago our church invited Louie and Coke, as Pastor Evans and his wife Colleen were know, to lead a couples retreat for the church.  It was a wonderful weekend, they were warm, charming, entertaining, informative and challenging.  They did not have a hint of pretense but were “down to earth” people and meshed with the folks from our church right from the start.  They did have stories, mostly told on themselves, and that just added to their charm and familiarity.

I got to sit next to Louie at one of the meals and discovered we were both “GA Junkies” of another type.  That would be G.A. as in “General Aviation,” the technical term for private pilots and non-commercial aviation.  I am not a pilot but have a great interest and follow the field.  He had his private pilot’s license and once he found that he had an interested party to listen to more of his stories he was more than eager to swap tales.

It was a delightful weekend and I thank God for the two of them and their ministry which was continuing even at that point in their lives.  May God comfort his family with the knowledge that he is surely in God’s presence.  “Well done good and faithful servant.”

Prayers For the Moderator’s Extended Family

1 Reply

Yesterday, at a Synod committee meeting we closed with intercessory prayer.  We prayed for all those affected by the fires burning in the Los Angeles area, for one of our members who needed healing, for a leader of our Synod who received miraculous healing and is recovering well.  And we prayed for the economic circumstances in our world today.

We also received word of, and prayed for, the loss of Brian Pugh.  Brian is the brother of PC(USA) GA Moderator Bruce Reyes-Chow’s wife Robin.  He was killed in a workplace shooting in Santa Clara.  Bruce has a brief post, a remembrance web site has been established, and there is a PC(USA) press release (thanks to Michael Kruse) with a statement from Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons.

All of these things will be in the prayers of our church community this morning.  Please join us in praying hard.

The Peace Of Christ Be With You!

Financial Crisis Has Varing Impact On Presbyterian Investment Funds

Leave a reply

The morning news brought word that there was a “run on the bank” at the Presbyterian Mutual Society of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.  The main page of the society now has a statement from the Directors of the Society indicating that cash levels have fallen low enough that they are forced to stop accepting withdraws.  It also indicates that they have contacted the government about financial assistance, a point echoed on William Crawley’s BBC blog “Will and Testament.”  From reading through the material it is clear that the Presbyterian Mutual Society is a separate legal entity from the Presbyterian Church in Ireland while still being associated with it and restricting Society membership to PCI members.  Unlike the PC(USA)’s Presbyterian Investment and Loan Program (PILP) the Society holds some of its assets in real estate, not just loans to churches, so the market downturn has had an impact on the net value of the assets.  Being its own legal entity the assets of the PCI are not at risk, but being a Mutual Society there is no government insurance of the deposits.  This just broke today so we will have to see how this develops.

I have been keeping an eye out for statements about financial investments at various Presbyterian branches.  I am not referring to giving, that is a story all to itself, but rather the investments held by governing bodies including pension funds.  So far there has been very little reported, as least that I have found.  In the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) the Board of Pensions has reported, both in their publication and the PNS article, that while the investments are down, benefits are safe.  I have seen no similar report from the Foundation, although I would expect that in their annual report.  I will offer that from our Synod there is one program that will probably not be able to access any of their designated Foundation funds because the value has fallen beneath the “floor,” but providentially a large chunk of the general assets were in short-term interest bearing investments and we have ridden through it with little loss of principle.  Likewise, PILP is, to my understanding, in cash instruments and deposits are in CD-like instruments so redemptions can be forecast more easily.  Whether churches will be able to make their loan payments is another questions.  As for other Presbyterian branches, I’ve been keeping an eye out but have not spotted news yet.

While these are recent developments there is a much longer term story out there as well.  A while back the Presbyterian Church in America established the PCA Investor’s Fund that appears like it operated much like PILP at its founding in 1985.  Interested persons or groups would invest in the fund and the money would be loaned out for church planting, expansion, or redeveloperment.  It is interesting that a news note in the Winter 1999/2000 Multiply Magazine lists 3-year deposits paying the substantially above-market rate of 8.00%.  (Current PILP rates are 3.20% for the same term.)  A Christianity Today article (July 2008 print, August 2008 on-line) describes the decline and fall of the investment company.  It was divested from the PCA in 1994 but kept its Presbyterian ties, even with its merger with Cornerstone Ministries Investments in 2000.  Shortly after the merger the company began diversifying its portfolio of assets into riskier non-church real estate, principally second mortgages.  With the real estate downturn the company ran into trouble and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy February 10, 2008.  There are more details, an active comment section, and a link to the actual bankruptcy form on the Georgia Bankruptcy Blog. (And I thought I had a niche blog.)  Those proceedings are ongoing but the situation does not look good for churches and individuals that invested with Cornerstone thinking the money was going for church growth projects.

So, along with the Presbyterian Mutual Society, we will see how this one develops.

And finally, a great Biblical take on this from that great lectionary cartoon Agnus Day.

Passings — Evan Silverstein, PNS Reporter

Leave a reply

It was with a heavy heart that I read the news today from the Presbyterian News Service that Senior Reporter Evan Silverstein passed away yesterday at his Louisville home.

While the news article gives details on his life and work, I will say that I enjoyed his articles for the tone, balance, and insight of his stories.  Maybe it does take an “outsider” to really show us what a “peculiar people” we are.  He covered a lot of the news from the field, not so much about our polity discussion, but about the people on the front lines and the people we, as a denomination, touched.  Evan, thanks for your work.

Magnified and sanctified be G-d’s great name in the world which He created according to His will.

New PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions — Administrative Commissions In The Spotlight

1 Reply

(If any of you just started reading my blog thanks to Bruce’s gracious endorsement
I appreciate you checking it out.  This particular post will probably
give you a feel for what he calls “painfully balanced and
excruciatingly thorough.”  It definitely falls into the thorough part.)

Almost two weeks ago on October 27 the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (PC(USA)) issued three substantive decisions and one procedural decision.

In reading through the documents the two that the GAPJC wrote lengthy decisions about both focused on issues regarding the operations of an Administrative Commission (AC).  Now I realize that one of these decisions, Sundquist, et al., was in regards to churches departing the PC(USA) and contains additional related language.  That got the headlines.  But in my reading of the decision it seems that the majority of it, the parts dealing with the power of an AC, would apply to almost any AC regardless of the reason for creation.  In the same way, the Lee, et al. decision, while occasioned by a dispute within a congregation, was also at the heart of it about the AC that was created for dealing with the situation.

219-03 – Robert Sundquist, et al. v. Heartland Presbytery
This case results from the Presbytery‘s handling of the request by two churches (First Presbyterian, Paola, (new EPC Lighthouse congregation, continuing congregation) and Hillsdale Presbyterian) to be transferred to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.  When the first congregation started talking about the request for transfer the Presbytery established an Administrative Commission to handle the situation. 

Coming to the GAPJC were five specifications of error:  1) The AC was given original jurisdiction before the facts established that it was needed.  2) The AC was empowered to dissolve pastoral relationships before they determined it would further the mission of the Word.  3) That certain powers could not be delegated to Presbytery committees.  4) That the AC was empowered to take the “full power and jurisdiction” of the Session if the Session were to call a congregational meeting for the purpose of requesting dismissal.  And 5) making the powers of the AC effective when “when it should become evident to the Commission that minister(s) or congregation member(s) are moving toward expressing a desire for separation and that reconciliation is not likely.”  (These are my summaries, read the decision for the full specifications with Book of Order citations.)

The GAPJC did not sustain any of the specifications of error effectively siding with the Presbytery.  But note that four of the five specifications essentially deal with the powers of an Administrative Commission.

The decision section is extensive, stretching seven pages, but contains some significant writing on AC’s that I suspect will become standard citations for the power and operations of Commissions.  This is already evident in the GAPJC citing this case in the simultaneously released Lee, et al. decision.

The decision begins by pointing out several principles of AC’s including that “The functions of an administrative commission are limited by the appointing body, and may include any function that the appointing body wishes to delegate (with few exceptions expressly provided for in the Book of Order).”  The decision goes on to say:

Powers delegated to administrative commissions must be specifically described (G-9.0502). This is consistent with the principle that the jurisdiction of each governing body within the church is limited by the express provisions of the Constitution, and that powers not expressly mentioned in the Book of Order are reserved to the presbyteries (G-9.0103).

Based on the principles of AC’s the GAPJC found that “The argument of Sundquist, et al. that, the Presbytery must take all the steps to dissolve a pastoral relationship or assume original jurisdiction over a session, including investigation, notice and an opportunity to be heard, before appointing an administrative commission or delegating power to it, has no Constitutional basis and is in error.” (emphasis in original)  But the decision reiterates that the AC must follow of the Book of Order requirements in its actions.  The decision agrees with Sundquist, et al., that an AC may not automatically assume original jurisdiction “when a session calls a meeting for the purpose of considering actions that may lead to separation from the PC(USA),” but it finds that the Synod PJC correctly held that the AC fulfilled the requirements of the Book of Order.  (Interesting footnote here that the parties agree that the action of the AC is not being challenged, only the Presbytery Resolution empowering the AC.)  The decision says:

Appointing an administrative commission with the power to assume original jurisdiction or dissolve or dismiss a congregation or dissolve a pastoral relationship does not mean that the commission will inevitably exercise this power. In this case, the Resolution provided a process that insured that granting of such powers was separated from the exercise of the powers by the requirement that the AC must first determine that it is “evident to the commission that minister(s) or congregation member(s) are moving toward expressing a desire for separation, and that reconciliation is not likely” (Resolution, section 3 (emphasis added)). This determination is an important buffer between the grant of authority and exercise of that authority by the AC.

and

The Resolution reflected the Presbytery‟s desire and intent to give broad powers to an administrative commission that may be faced with particularly fluid and difficult circumstances, but conditioned the exercise of those powers on appropriate pastoral considerations for reconciliation in addition to the procedural safeguards imposed by G-9.0505b and G-11.0103i, o and s.

The Appellants claimed that the full Presbytery needed to act upon certain items before an AC could get involved.  The GAPJC says:

Without an administrative commission in place, the alternative would have required the Presbytery to call the session and pastor to the next plenary meeting of the Presbytery to air the differences in front of the entire Presbytery. Such a process would be unwieldy, use an undue amount time and resources, result in poor stewardship of Presbytery resources, and would in all likelihood not afford the best opportunity for a full hearing or reconciliation. There is greater potential to act pastorally, build trust and seek reconciliation in smaller groups.

This discussion answers the first two specifications of error.  Basically, an AC is given specific powers to exercise on behalf of the presbytery and in the place of the full presbytery.  The conclusion is that in this case the power and authority was granted and the AC exercised them properly.

The decision related to specification of error 4 was interesting because while it was related to the power of an AC, it hinged on the claim that giving the AC the “full power and jurisdicti
on of the Session” when “a Session calls a congregational meeting for the purpose of considering actions leading to separation from the PCUSA” restricts the right of a Session to call a congregational meeting to request dismissal to another Reformed congregation.  The applicable section of the Book of Order, G-15.0203, reads:

a. When a particular church of another denomination requests that it be received by a presbytery of this denomination, the presbytery shall verify that the church has been regularly dismissed by the governing body of jurisdiction, and the advice of the highest governing body of that denomination dealing with relations between denominations has been received, and shall then receive the church in accord with its responsibilities and powers.(G-11.0103h.)

b. Similar procedures shall be followed in dismissing a particular church from this denomination to another. (G-11.0103i)

The GAPJC decision says:

Sundquist, et al. assert that a session has an “implicit” or “implied right” to call a congregational meeting to consider requesting dismissal to another denomination, but at oral argument to this Commission suggested that it was a “privilege,” not a “right.” Any such privilege exists only within a covenantal relationship between a church and the presbytery. On the contrary, G-7.0302 and G-7.0304 limit the business of congregational meetings and do not include the topic of seeking dismissal. In 2008, the 218th General Assembly adopted Item 04-20 (Minutes, 2008, p. 48), which refers to G-7.0304 and states, “Withdrawal from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is not a matter that can be considered at a congregational meeting.”

[Side note to GA commissioners, polity wonks, and other GA Junkies:  Congratulations if you knew that was in Item 04-20.  I missed that one.  And it shows how much business GA has to deal with resulting in a lot of stuff going through “under the radar,” particularly when it goes through on the consent agenda like this did.] 

They continue on to say that it does not mean that a congregation can not request dismissal, but as the Book of Order section quoted above says, the management of the process lies with the presbytery.  This section then goes on at length to discuss the “Gracious, Pastoral Response” resolution from the last GA (04-28) and says in part:

Presbyteries and congregations have a reciprocal obligation for this process (G-4.0302). Whether the presbytery‟s power “to divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches in consultation with their members” (G-11.0103i) is retained or delegated to an administrative commission, it is to be exercised in a pastoral manner, with litigation seen as a last resort, “deadly to the cause of Christ” (Item 04-28, section 2). (emphasis in original)

Any privilege to seek dismissal is conditioned on the cooperation of the congregation, the session and the pastor(s) with the presbytery in a process that operates in the manner set forth in Item 04-28. There shall not be any secret or secretive acts by sessions, pastors or congregations; bylaw changes or transfers of assets effectively negating the Book of Order or diminishing a church’s connection to the PC(USA); or curtailment of communications with the presbytery as a prelude to dismissal. Congregational meetings called or conducted by sessions for the purpose of voting on dismissal without the involvement of the presbytery are improper and have no binding effect.

This section of the decision closes:

Thus congregations, sessions, and pastors who fail to abide by the principles of the Resolution for a Gracious, Pastoral Response or presbytery policies (such as the Heartland Resolution) that embody these principles shall have breached important responsibilities and duties. As Presbyterians, the church at every level must visibly demonstrate the covenantal ties that bind us as the one church of Jesus Christ.

[Robert, did you every think your Commissioner Resolution would figure so prominently in a GAPJC decision?]
Update:  At about the same time I finished this post up Rev. Robert Austell, the primary author of Item 04-28 posted his own comments about the decision, particularly Part II.  While I see some of the language here as positive he was troubled by how this GAPJC decision “turned around” the Resolution relative to the original rational. Unfortunately, the rational section of an overture or resolution does not get published with the final item.  Check out his new comments on “Power and Trust.”

The third part of the decision is also very interesting because the claim is made in specification of error 5 that empowering the AC when it is likely a resolution will not be possible binds the conscience of pastors, elders, and members.  The decision points out: “However, the record is clear that the Paola and Hillsdale pastors and sessions had done much more than express their views about a desire for separation, but had taken action to withdraw their congregations from the denomination.”

The decision cites five previous GAPJC decisions that differentiate between thought and action, including the recent Spahr v. Redwoods decision.  The GAPJC concludes:

In this case, there is no evidence that Presbytery, either by adopting or following the Resolution, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, has, or necessarily would, improperly bind the conscience of church officers. The mere creation of an administrative commission is not an act of discipline. Free expression of conscience is limited for officers and pastors under G-6.0108b, and does not encompass the calling of congregational meetings, moving churches to seek dismissal from the denomination or obstructing constitutional governance of the church.

[Polity note:  To me this is a very significant finding by this GAPJC as we go forward.  While Bush v. Pittsburgh was not one of the cases cited, probably because it deals with ordination, this decision clearly parallels Bush and the decision that “scrupling” is related to belief and not action.  This may signal that a challenge to the new GA Authoritative Interpretation on scrupling behavior would be successful.]

Finally, regarding the empowerment of committees of presbytery to add additional churches to the list that the AC was responsible for the GAPJC says:

Here the Presbytery acted to make every church in the Presbytery potentially subject to the AC, conditioned upon action by the COM or the Presbytery Council (or their designated subcommittees) to name a particular church to be actively subject to specified powers of the AC. Although not prohibited by any specific provision of the Book of Order, a better practice would be for the Presbytery itself to name any additional specific churches to come under the authority of the AC.

Four commissioners signed a concurring opinion that rem
inds everyone of the historic principles regarding schism that date back to the Plan of Union, 1758, and basically say that once a majority has decided an issue every member shall “actively concur”, “passively submit”, or “peaceably withdraw.”

There has been some reaction to this decision.  The team from Heartland Presbytery that successfully defended the Presbytery is pleased with the result and the moderator of that team, the Rev. Chad Herring, has written a summary for the Presbytery that is posted on their web site.

On the other side, Elder Michael McCarty in his blog Around the Scuttlebutt takes particular issue with Part II of the decision.  He is on record that historical Presbyterian principles permit congregations to affiliate and disaffiliate unilaterally but the principle is not reflected in our present Constitution.  It then follows that the need for consultation and management by the presbytery is not necessary and is in fact an impediment.

As we have seen through this process, much depends on the presbytery and the tone it sets.  I can not speak for these cases but there has been some harsh criticism by others in the past about how this process went forward.  This was all before the Gracious, Pastoral Response Resolution and there is news this week that in another presbytery the process worked and a church was dismissed to the EPC.  While the GAPJC decision now applies denomination-wide to AC’s, it does not necessarily affect presbytery policies on how they implement a Gracious, Pastoral Response.

219-05 – Jae G. Lee, et al. v. Presbytery of Midwest Hanmi
This case also deals with the power and authority of administrative commissions and how it is exercised.  The situation was that the church “was severely affected with disorder, and its Session became unwilling or unable to manage [it’s] affairs.”  The AC created by the Presbytery was given the authority of the session from Book of Order Chapter 10 and the authority of the presbytery from Book of Order Chapter 11.  I won’t rehash the history of the church and AC over the course of the six months involved, but it takes up half of the report and it indicates sketchy or non-existent records of AC actions and a Presbytery meeting that broke down into a “physical mêlée.”  The GAPJC decision summary at the start of the decision section says:

This case is tragic. It involves issues of culture and language, power and stubbornness. It also reflects misunderstandings on the part of individuals and governing bodies as to processes and procedures set forth in the Book of Order. Because the facts in this case reflect extraordinary and egregious conduct and unique cultural circumstances, the application of this Decision to other circumstances is limited.

There were six specifications of error and the GAPJC sustained three and did not sustain three.  Those errors that were sustained were because of procedural flaws on the part of the Presbytery.  If you note the authority given to the AC above, it was not have any authority in regards to Chapter 6 covering church officers, so it acted improperly when it dismissed them.  That should have been done by the full Presbytery under the Resolution creating the AC.  In an interesting polity maneuver, the GAPJC does point out that elders could have been dismissed by removing them from the membership rolls since that is covered in Chapter 10.  And in discussing the AC’s power being limited to that granted by the presbytery it cites the Sundquist decision.

Regarding the specifications of error that were not sustained, the GAPJC is brief in its decision that those points were either done correctly, or in one case stating that a witness at trial can act as both a factual and expert witness if they have the proper knowledge.

There were two other decisions also reported:

219-02 – PC(USA) v. Ranson
While the decision in this disciplinary case was pretty straight forward, sustaining the findings of the Synod PJC, there was a preliminary decision regarding the “late” arrival of the petition for appeal.  While the request was mailed in a timely manner it was not received within the 45 day window.  The GAPJC said that an appellant should not be penalized for the unpredictability of the delivery process and allowed the appeal to go forward.

219-04 – Wolfe v. Presbytery of Winnebago
In this case the Rev. Wolfe H.R. began to seek employment as a minster but was advised by the Presbytery COM that she could not do that and should seek secular employment instead.  While there are a couple of twists and turns, the remedial complaint filed by Rev. Wolfe with the Synod PJC was that she was being restricted without having a disciplinary hearing or due process.  The Synod PJC, both on executive hearing and again the full PJC when Rev. Wolfe challenged the decision, ruled that there was no claim on which relief could be granted.  The GAPJC decided that the COM overstepped its authority and that a decision like this should be made by the presbytery.  Therefore there is a claim on which relief could be granted and it was ordered back to the Synod PJC for trial.

Well, that is clearly enough for now.  That is my take on this round of GAPJC decisions.  Have fun reading the decisions and deciding for yourself if you are so inclined.

Women Clergy Controversy Continues In Ireland

Leave a reply

A quiet controversy in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland became headline news last Christmas when a sixty-year-old tradition broke down over the new female minister at a church.  The two churches in Portadown, First Presbyterian Portadown and Armagh Road, traditionally joined together for a Christmas service, alternating locations and having the visiting clergy preach.  However, in 2007 the invitation from the Rev. Stafford Carson at First Portadown specifically excluded the invitation for the Rev. Christina Bradley, pastor of Armagh Road, to deliver the message.  The church declined the invitation and the two congregations had separate services.  Under PC Ireland polity, when the ordination of women to be clergy was adopted an “opt-out” clause was also adopted so that ministers who believe women should not be ordained as clergy could prohibit women from preaching at their churches.

The Portadown Times now reports that negotiations to have the joint service this year have broken down.  According to the article Armagh Road suggested a pre-Christmas service of carols while First Presbyterian Portadown suggested the Christmas service with the message delivered by the host pastor.  Each church turned down the other’s offer so at the present time there is no common service planned this year.

In an interesting side-bar, the current Moderator of the General Assembly, the Right Rev. Dr. Donald Patton, grew up at Armagh Road Church.  I have seen no comment from him on this situation.  Last year then Moderator, the Rev. Dr. John Finlay, met with the ministers but was unable to work out a resolution.

Semi-Random Thoughts On Election 2008

Leave a reply

While I tend to stay away from secular politics, I will wade is a short way here but try to provide a connection back to how the events of yesterday resonate with me spiritually and polity-wise.

First, congratulations to President-elect Obama.  Your position on my daily prayer list has moved up a few notches.  (Bruce, Byron, and my pastor are still ahead of you however.)  It was an interesting campaign to watch and marks a milestone in American history — we as a people have taken one more step to being a color-blind nation.  In a couple of respects it was a troubling campaign to follow, but more on that in a minute.  But in spite of its failings, our democratic system does work, for the most part.

To Senator McCain, I highly respect your graciousness in defeat.  The speech you gave last night showed the depth of your character and why you are a great man, even if you will never hold the highest office in the land.  Regarding your moral failings, which all of us have, I always felt that you were direct and forthright about them.  I have the feeling that others in the political arena try to deny, spin, or minimize their own past mistakes.  And I greatly respect and appreciate the fact that you took the public funding route, still recognizing that there are other paths to raising and spending money in these campaigns.

That brings me to one major issue that disturbed me in this long, and sometimes bitter, multi-year run.  I always hope that our better nature will prevail, but when campaigns turn negative I remind myself that as a Reformed Christian I know of the pervasiveness of our sinful nature.

The other major issue is the money spent — the cost of these elections, particularly for Senator Obama who did not take the public funding and so could fund raise and spend at will.  How many dollars per vote were spent in this election?  Is it worth the cost?  What other uses could the money be spent on?  I won’t go into details but I would love to see the presidential campaign boil down to a couple of debates, a few televised speeches, and a published piece where each candidate could lay out their policy proposals in a form that was substantive but concise and then it also contained a critique by the other candidates.  This probably comes from my academic perspective.  The attack ads, sound bites, and infomercials drive me crazy and leave me basically cynical and feeling it is not worth my time.

Now, to be a real fatalist I refer you to the work of a colleague of mine who turned his earthquake prediction research to predicting presidential elections.  The method, published 27 years ago, has correctly predicted every U.S. Presidential election since then.  I asked him months ago who they predicted and he called it for the Democrat by a large margin.  This was before the specific candidate was even known.  It turns out the economy and the individual in office are the important factors, not the personalities, money spent, or campaign promises.  Now if it would only work as well for earthquakes.

Here on the Left Coast the state presidential outcome was not in question, but the fight over same-sex marriage was (and still is since the outcome is still too close to call this morning) the hot-button issue.  Much money was spent on Proposition 8, about $70 million total, almost equally divided between the two sides.  In the neighborhood I live in I know of no one with a Yes on 8 sign or bumper sticker that did not lose at least one to theft or vandalism.  There was a report the police tracked down a man who was paying teenagers $2 a sign to steal them.  The reverse was true in the neighborhood where I work where yesterday morning on election day No on 8 signs that were there the day before had been replaced with Yes on 8.  By the afternoon the No on 8 were back.  And in multiple locations in the state fist fights have broken out between supporters and opponents of the measure.  Again, it was not always civil discourse.

At least the PC(USA) has been a bit more restrained in the advocacy on each side, even if this and related issues still deeply divides us.  Currently the vote count is leaning in the direction that the PC(USA) General Assembly decided by a wide margin this past summer.  But everyone agrees that no matter the outcome on this vote it is by no means the end of the controversy, again, just like the PC(USA).

In an interesting linkage between the presidential vote and the Prop 8 vote there is the cautionary tale of not viewing all people as the same, and the law of unintended consequences.  In an unusual twist one reason that Proposition 8 may pass is because Senator Obama was on the ballot.  While the white democrat vote pretty reliably was against Prop 8, many of the black and Hispanic supporters of Mr. Obama are socially conservative and the potential margin of victory may lie in the record turn-out from those groups.  (There is a Wall Street Journal article that mentions this and by some accounts black voters supported Prop 8 by 70% to 30% and Hispanic voters by a small majority.)  Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

So my concluding thought is the reminder that in the church, as in the population at large, we are not a homogeneous group and the issues of one part of the demographic are not necessarily those of another part.  We need to ready to listen to all viewpoints and not paint with too wide a brush.

All Saints Day 2008

1 Reply

For all the saints who from their labors rest,
Who thee by faith before the world confessed,
Thy name O Jesus, be forever blest.
Alleluia!  Alleluia!

If you have begun reading my blog in the last year I need to introduce you to one of my spiritual disciplines.  I use a few of the “feast days” in the traditional liturgical calendar as a way of reminding myself of the faithful lives that saints, those officially canonized and others not so formally declared, lived and displayed to the world.  But for me, the most significant is today, the Feast of All Saints, when I remember the saints I have known and that have been an inspiration to me in my spiritual journey, especially those who have joined the Church Triumphant in the past year.

This year I especially remember:

  • Dorothy — who though restricted in movement still attended worship and fellowship events at church with a smile that showed how much she loved the Lord and being part of the covenant community
  • Sonny — a dear friend and a wonderful, cheerful, faithful, and dedicated worker as long as he was able
  • Jean — who for years I saw working for the church doing little acts of hospitality and concern
  • Rose — someone who understood the wider church and cared about it more than most
  • Jack — how do I describe a saint like Jack?  While he would never accord himself the title, he was a “street” theologian who understood Reformed theology as well as anyone around here and would share his insights enthusiastically.  And as much as Jack understood what lay on the other side, he fought mightily to stay with the Church Militant
  • Robert — He demonstrated the essence of what it meant to be a Christian in the public arena
  • Bill — He always had a smile on his face and had good reason to, including a marriage that was in its seventh decade

These and others now praise God around the throne with the Church Triumphant.  Well done good and faithful servants.  And thanks for inspiring me.  May I run the race as well.

O blest communion, fellowship divine
We feebly struggle, they in glory shine;
Yet all are one in Thee, for all are Thine.
Alleluia!  Alleluia!

The Rev. William Hewitt Selected Moderator Designate for Church of Scotland General Assembly (2009)

Leave a reply

This past Monday the nominating committee selected the Rev. William Hewitt, minister of Westburn Church, Greenock, as the Moderator Designate for the next General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

Rev. Hewitt is a career pastor who was ordained in 1977 and served at Elderslie Kirk for sixteen years before his present call.  His resume is extensive with a lot of community involvement and chaplaincy as well as service to the wider church including serving as convener of presbytery and general assembly committees.  He has served as a Presbytery Moderator twice, first for Greenock Presbytery, and then as the first Moderator of the Greenock and Paisley Presbytery.

This Moderator selection is also distinctive not just for the individual selected, but for other connections in the Web 2.0 world.  Rev. Hewitt is a friend and colleague of Liz who writes the blog journalling.  Check out her brief comments on his selection.

But this year there is also some interesting discussion about the process:
Louis, who served on the selection committee but did not make the final meeting because of illness, asks “Does the Church of Scotland select the Moderator of its General Assembly fairly?”  While he considers Rev. Hewitt a worthy selection, he notes that the process favors those who have served on General Assembly committees and have received the wider visibility.  He suggests the process needs to be changed:

But what about the minister, for instance, who has served
in congregational ministry for 30-40 years, who has proved to be an
excellent pastor, who has faithfully preached God’s Word, who has
discipled many believers to spiritual maturity, who bears the scars of
long service and who has come through the lean years as well as the
fat?  What about such a minister?  Such a minister may not have
written books or articles or letters, may not have much of a record of
service in the central committees and councils of the Kirk, and as a
consequence, will not be sufficiently well-known to be nominated at
meetings of the Committee to Nominate the Moderator.  Our system needs
to be changed to give such ministers a better chance.  Their worth
would be inestimable in the pastoral visitation that is the most
important task of the Moderator once the General Assembly is done and
dusted.

Another interesting bit of commentary come from scotsman.com in their story headlined “Kirk stalwarts passed over for Moderator.”  The article is very brief and really does not develop this critique or add anything new, but the headline is interesting.

So, congratulations and best wishes to Rev. Hewitt and we look forward to hearing from you on the Moderators blog.  (And please consider doing the blog with RSS feed and comments.)

Reformaion Day 2008

1 Reply

A little over twenty years ago my wife and I had the wonderful opportunity to travel on a church “study tour” to Germany and Switzerland.  It was great to see several of the architectural landmarks of the Reformation.  But a more important observation was how history is read, or presented, through various lenses.  The examples were numerous, both on my part and on the part of the places we visited and people we talked to.  A couple of examples:

At the time we visited Germany was still a divided country and visiting Erfort and Eisenach required crossing into East Germany, the DDR.  It was very interesting visiting the Wartburg Castle in Eisenach and seeing and hearing the official presentations about the castle under “godless communism.”  If you are not familiar with the Wartburg, it is the castle in which Martin Luther hid out and finished his translation of the Bible into German.  It is an impressive structure with a long history and wonderful architecture.  But when we visited, the information on Dr. Luther was almost devoid of religious significance.  It acknowledged the historical facts and the context of the Reformation, but the official view was that his pastoral and professorial duties were just his occupation.  The great achievement of translating the Bible into German was not getting Holy Scripture into the common tongue for all to read, but rather by translating an important work into German he established a linguistic and grammatical standard for the German language.  Oficially, what was translated was not important in itself, just that there was now a recognized and widely distributed book that would set the standard for the written language.  If you don’t need God, you don’t need God’s Word for its own sake.

On the other end of the spectrum was visiting with local pastors from both East and West Germany.  In West Germany, the Evangelish (Lutheran) Church was effectively a national church and we saw school children, as part of their classes, coming to church.  A parish did not need to directly support their pastor since support came through their taxes.  The church was a pivotal point in the community.  In the East, we were told it was a rare exception to be the pastor of a single church.  The general trend was to minister to three congregations: “To serve less would be an offense to the people and to serve more would be an offense to God.”  But you could tell that the pastor we spent the evening talking to was dedicated to his work serving God and he loved the people.

A friend of mine had a similar experience when he visited the communist bloc with a church youth group a few years before our visit.  At one stop a local came up to him and quietly introduced himself as another Christian.  My friend expressed concern for the man because it must be hard to be a Christian in that country.  The man reversed the comment to my friend, expressing his concern for the Americans because being a Christian was too easy, before slipping away into the crowd.

A lot is being said right now about how we have entered a Post-Christendom era (for example the recent  Trinity University Consultation on Post-Christendom Spiritualities) and people are concerned about the decline of the U.S.A. as a “Christian nation.”  Elsewhere, the British Parliment is considering the disestablishment of the Anglican Church and the Church of Scotland is discussing if it should be a national church.  And from many sides people are suggesting that we may be in the midst of a “New Reformation.”

I am not convinced that this is a totally negative turn of events.  As products of Christendom how do we live our lives?  Do we remember that one of the earliest names for the Covenant Community was “The People of The Way?”  Our faith is not just an hour and some coffee on Sunday morning but a lifestyle choice.  Are we too embarresed by our churches to invite our friends and neighbors to join us on Sunday morning?  Do we take our faith too lightly?  Do we recognize and give thanks for the freedom we have to practice our religion?  Maybe, like Christians throughout history, including those I met in the communist bloc, some challange, rejection, or even oppression would help to focus our faith on living according to “The Way.”  Is there a cost of discipleship?  In the face of conflict do we need to stand up and announce what we believe?  Sometimes we do need to declare “Here I stand.  I can do no other. May God help me. Amen!”

Happy Reformation Day!