The 218th General Assembly (2008) reflections part 10
Christian and Muslim relations: “Same” versus “One”
The Assembly approved, after long debate and several significant amendments, a resolution on the relations between Christians and Muslims titled, “On Calling for Tolerance and Peaceful Relations Between the Christian and Muslim Communities.” As part of this impassioned debate on the floor of the Assembly, the important distinction between believing in “one” God and believing in the “same” God was discussed. It is very correct to say that each of the world’s three great, monotheistic religions – Christianity, Islam, and Judaism- each believe in one God. But these religious convictions placed in one God does not necessarily mean that these religions all believe in the same God. As we ponder the relations between the different religions of the world, especially since adherents of all these religions are increasingly present in our neighborhoods, it is a very important theological discussion to consider whether or not these different religions worship the same God.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
General Assembly reflections part 9
The 218th General Asssembly (2008) reflections part 9
The Assembly approved a resolution to study the Belhar Confession, and consider whether or not this Confession should be added to our Book of Confessions. The text and a study guide are available at this websites (or search on Belhar at pcusa.org.)
http://www.pcusa.org/theologyandworship/confession/belhar.pdf
http://www.pcusa.org/theologyandworship/confession/belharstudyguide.pdf
The Assembly approved a resolution to study the Belhar Confession, and consider whether or not this Confession should be added to our Book of Confessions. The text and a study guide are available at this websites (or search on Belhar at pcusa.org.)
http://www.pcusa.org/theologyandworship/confession/belhar.pdf
http://www.pcusa.org/theologyandworship/confession/belharstudyguide.pdf
General Assembly reflections part 8
The 218th General Assembly (2008) reflections part 8
The Presbytery of Carlisle team:
I lift up grateful appreciation for the Commissioners from the Presbytery of Carlisle serving the 218th General Assembly.
Rev. John Green, pastor of our Paxton Church, serving on the Board of Pensions, Presbyterian Foundation and Presbyterian Publishing Corporation Committee.
Elder Margaret Mielke, clerk of session of our Pine Street Church, serving on the Review of the General Assembly Permanent Committees
Rev. John Barlow, pastor of our Warfordsburg Church, serving on the Worship and Spiritual Renewal Committee.
Elder Bud Marshall, from our Greencastle Church, serving on the Youth Committee.
Youth Advisory Delegate, Sarah Flint, from our Camp Hill Church, serving on our General Assembly Procedures Committee.
The Presbytery of Carlisle team:
I lift up grateful appreciation for the Commissioners from the Presbytery of Carlisle serving the 218th General Assembly.
Rev. John Green, pastor of our Paxton Church, serving on the Board of Pensions, Presbyterian Foundation and Presbyterian Publishing Corporation Committee.
Elder Margaret Mielke, clerk of session of our Pine Street Church, serving on the Review of the General Assembly Permanent Committees
Rev. John Barlow, pastor of our Warfordsburg Church, serving on the Worship and Spiritual Renewal Committee.
Elder Bud Marshall, from our Greencastle Church, serving on the Youth Committee.
Youth Advisory Delegate, Sarah Flint, from our Camp Hill Church, serving on our General Assembly Procedures Committee.
General Assembly reflections part 7
The 218th General Assembly (2008) reflections part 7
San Jose, California: Being an ethnic minority today.
This year the General Assembly is meeting in San Jose, California. I never visited this beautiful, northern California city before. I have enjoyed spending some time running each morning and using the break times during the day to walk around downtown San Jose. The convention center where our General Assembly meets is only a short walk from San Jose State University. The vicinity around the convention center and university community in downtown San Jose is a gorgeous area, highly developed but with beautiful green space and parks. I especially love the huge, majestic palm trees which are very common here and do not grow in Pennsylvania.
For lunch today, a gorgeous, sunny day in San Jose, I found a light sandwich and sat at a sidewalk table outside the restaurant. As I watched the lunchtime rush of people up and down the sidewalk, a fascinating thought entered my mind. As a white, middle-aged, male in San Jose I was an “ethnic minority”. A rich and fascinating rainbow of different kinds of people walked up and down the sidewalk past me. Only a few of them looked like me. Although I do not experience this kind of diversity on the sidewalk in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania or anyplace in the Presbytery of Carlisle, I know it is coming. What does it mean to be an “ethnic minority”? What does it feel like? The increasing ethnic diversity in our nation is a wonderful thing, in my opinion. America is a land with all kinds of difference and diversity. Whether we like it or not, whether we encourage it or not, our church is quickly becoming an ethnically diverse community as well. Although white people like me are still a vast majority group in our Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), we will soon be an ethnic minority in our nation? How do you feel about that fact? How should the Church respond?
San Jose, California: Being an ethnic minority today.
This year the General Assembly is meeting in San Jose, California. I never visited this beautiful, northern California city before. I have enjoyed spending some time running each morning and using the break times during the day to walk around downtown San Jose. The convention center where our General Assembly meets is only a short walk from San Jose State University. The vicinity around the convention center and university community in downtown San Jose is a gorgeous area, highly developed but with beautiful green space and parks. I especially love the huge, majestic palm trees which are very common here and do not grow in Pennsylvania.
For lunch today, a gorgeous, sunny day in San Jose, I found a light sandwich and sat at a sidewalk table outside the restaurant. As I watched the lunchtime rush of people up and down the sidewalk, a fascinating thought entered my mind. As a white, middle-aged, male in San Jose I was an “ethnic minority”. A rich and fascinating rainbow of different kinds of people walked up and down the sidewalk past me. Only a few of them looked like me. Although I do not experience this kind of diversity on the sidewalk in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania or anyplace in the Presbytery of Carlisle, I know it is coming. What does it mean to be an “ethnic minority”? What does it feel like? The increasing ethnic diversity in our nation is a wonderful thing, in my opinion. America is a land with all kinds of difference and diversity. Whether we like it or not, whether we encourage it or not, our church is quickly becoming an ethnically diverse community as well. Although white people like me are still a vast majority group in our Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), we will soon be an ethnic minority in our nation? How do you feel about that fact? How should the Church respond?
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
General Assembly reflections part 6
The 218th General Assembly (2008): Reflections part 6
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
TOP TEN
“For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” – Matthew 6:21
“Giving has always been a mark of Christian commitment and discipleship. The ways in which a believer uses God’s gifts of material goods, personal abilities, and time should reflect response to God’s self-giving in Jesus Christ and Christ’s call to minister to and share with others in the world. Tithing is a primary expression of the Christian discipline of stewardship.” – Book of Order, W-5.5004.
The Presbytery of Carlisle is being recognized and thanked at this meeting of the General Assembly for our phenomenal commitment to Presbyterian mission giving. It is an honor and great privilege for me to receive the kind remarks, congratulations and acknowledgement of different people every day here at the Assembly. Numerous times when I either introduce myself as from the Presbytery of Carlisle or people read my name tag, some sort of grateful comment about our place on the top ten list usually follows.
The General Assembly recognizes the Presbytery of Carlisle for:
Total Giving: Basic Mission Support (#6)
Per Member Giving: Basic Mission Support (#1)
Per Member Giving: Special Offerings (#6)
Per Member: Total Giving (#2)
The Presbytery of Carlisle is a mission-shaped, mission-driven and mission-giving presbytery. As I reflect on this good news in conversations with people around the General Assembly, several reflections easily come to mind. There is, by the grace of God, a remarkable, high level of trust in the Presbytery of Carlisle. That high level of trust is especially true within our Presbytery where there is wonderful collegiality among our church leaders, and a deep commitment to being connected together as Presbyterians. That high level of trust is, of course, also reflected in the deep and generous commitment many of our churches continue to have for Presbyterian mission work.
In the light of these accolades, the questions I ponder and pray are these: How can we enhance and multiply the high level of trust which already exists in our presbytery? How can we, as a healthy and trusting presbytery, raise trust and enhance connectionalism across the whole church? We have a number of congregations who do not participate in Presbyterian mission giving and are only weakly connected within our presbytery? What can we do to listen to their concerns, build trust, and join together in mutual mission and ministry? In a presbytery with such a high commitment to mission giving, what is the next step in our journey of faithfulness and service in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ?
With Linda Valentine, the executive director of the General Assembly Council;
with Hunter Farrell, the director of world mission;
with Stan deVoogd, the regional liaison for Mexico and Central America, (with whom I work closely in our Honduras mission work);
I say “Thank you” to the pastors and church professionals, elders and church members of the Presbytery of Carlisle who give generously to Presbyterian mission work, and are truly leading the way forward in our great Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
TOP TEN
“For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” – Matthew 6:21
“Giving has always been a mark of Christian commitment and discipleship. The ways in which a believer uses God’s gifts of material goods, personal abilities, and time should reflect response to God’s self-giving in Jesus Christ and Christ’s call to minister to and share with others in the world. Tithing is a primary expression of the Christian discipline of stewardship.” – Book of Order, W-5.5004.
The Presbytery of Carlisle is being recognized and thanked at this meeting of the General Assembly for our phenomenal commitment to Presbyterian mission giving. It is an honor and great privilege for me to receive the kind remarks, congratulations and acknowledgement of different people every day here at the Assembly. Numerous times when I either introduce myself as from the Presbytery of Carlisle or people read my name tag, some sort of grateful comment about our place on the top ten list usually follows.
The General Assembly recognizes the Presbytery of Carlisle for:
Total Giving: Basic Mission Support (#6)
Per Member Giving: Basic Mission Support (#1)
Per Member Giving: Special Offerings (#6)
Per Member: Total Giving (#2)
The Presbytery of Carlisle is a mission-shaped, mission-driven and mission-giving presbytery. As I reflect on this good news in conversations with people around the General Assembly, several reflections easily come to mind. There is, by the grace of God, a remarkable, high level of trust in the Presbytery of Carlisle. That high level of trust is especially true within our Presbytery where there is wonderful collegiality among our church leaders, and a deep commitment to being connected together as Presbyterians. That high level of trust is, of course, also reflected in the deep and generous commitment many of our churches continue to have for Presbyterian mission work.
In the light of these accolades, the questions I ponder and pray are these: How can we enhance and multiply the high level of trust which already exists in our presbytery? How can we, as a healthy and trusting presbytery, raise trust and enhance connectionalism across the whole church? We have a number of congregations who do not participate in Presbyterian mission giving and are only weakly connected within our presbytery? What can we do to listen to their concerns, build trust, and join together in mutual mission and ministry? In a presbytery with such a high commitment to mission giving, what is the next step in our journey of faithfulness and service in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ?
With Linda Valentine, the executive director of the General Assembly Council;
with Hunter Farrell, the director of world mission;
with Stan deVoogd, the regional liaison for Mexico and Central America, (with whom I work closely in our Honduras mission work);
I say “Thank you” to the pastors and church professionals, elders and church members of the Presbytery of Carlisle who give generously to Presbyterian mission work, and are truly leading the way forward in our great Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
General Assembly reflections part 5
The 218th General Assembly (2008): Reflections part 5
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Reflections on the Form of Government taskforce proposal:
I listened to some of the testimony of the Form of Government taskforce members to the General Assembly committee responsible for bringing their proposal forward. There was a lot of conversation about the Taskforce’s intention in dropping out all the specific tasks for the work of the Committee on Ministry and the Committee on the Preparation for Ministry. The work of these committees, which is precisely delineated in the current Form of Government, is revised into broad categories and expectations in the proposed Form of Government. The theory behind this proposal is that each Presbytery should be empowered, given their particular context and ministry needs, to implement the broad expectations as necessary.
In explaining this point to the Assembly Committee, a member of the Form of Government taskforce told a story from his home, Grace Presbytery in Texas. His Presbytery, of course, has a huge number of Spanish speaking people, and their presbytery is trying in various ways to reach out to them. One of the ways the presbytery has done this is by building relationships with pastors and church leaders from the Presbyterian Church in Mexico. They have identified pastors from Mexico who may, with the help of our Grace Presbytery, come into America to serve with Spanish speaking congregations here. But there is a huge obstacle preventing these Mexican Presbyterian pastors from expressing full pastoral responsibilities within our Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). These pastors cannot be received as minister members of our church because they do not satisfy all the ordination requirements which are currently defined and listed in the Book of Order.
This particular situation raises a huge question for our church. Should Grace Presbytery, which is actively trying to reach out to the Spanish speaking people in their midst, be allowed to receive pastors from the Presbyterian Church of Mexico as Ministers of the Word and Sacrament in our church? Currently the moment a Minister of the Word and Sacrament in the Presbyterian Church of Mexico steps across the border into our church they cannot serve as a Minister of the Word and Sacrament because they have not satisfied all of our ordination requirements. Should Grace Presbytery, which needs these pastors from Mexico to support their ministry and mission to Spanish speaking people in Texas, be allowed and encouraged to receive these pastors as full and active members here? This is exactly the kind of flexibility in process and procedures which the Form of Government taskforce is proposing with their revised Form of Government.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Reflections on the Form of Government taskforce proposal:
I listened to some of the testimony of the Form of Government taskforce members to the General Assembly committee responsible for bringing their proposal forward. There was a lot of conversation about the Taskforce’s intention in dropping out all the specific tasks for the work of the Committee on Ministry and the Committee on the Preparation for Ministry. The work of these committees, which is precisely delineated in the current Form of Government, is revised into broad categories and expectations in the proposed Form of Government. The theory behind this proposal is that each Presbytery should be empowered, given their particular context and ministry needs, to implement the broad expectations as necessary.
In explaining this point to the Assembly Committee, a member of the Form of Government taskforce told a story from his home, Grace Presbytery in Texas. His Presbytery, of course, has a huge number of Spanish speaking people, and their presbytery is trying in various ways to reach out to them. One of the ways the presbytery has done this is by building relationships with pastors and church leaders from the Presbyterian Church in Mexico. They have identified pastors from Mexico who may, with the help of our Grace Presbytery, come into America to serve with Spanish speaking congregations here. But there is a huge obstacle preventing these Mexican Presbyterian pastors from expressing full pastoral responsibilities within our Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). These pastors cannot be received as minister members of our church because they do not satisfy all the ordination requirements which are currently defined and listed in the Book of Order.
This particular situation raises a huge question for our church. Should Grace Presbytery, which is actively trying to reach out to the Spanish speaking people in their midst, be allowed to receive pastors from the Presbyterian Church of Mexico as Ministers of the Word and Sacrament in our church? Currently the moment a Minister of the Word and Sacrament in the Presbyterian Church of Mexico steps across the border into our church they cannot serve as a Minister of the Word and Sacrament because they have not satisfied all of our ordination requirements. Should Grace Presbytery, which needs these pastors from Mexico to support their ministry and mission to Spanish speaking people in Texas, be allowed and encouraged to receive these pastors as full and active members here? This is exactly the kind of flexibility in process and procedures which the Form of Government taskforce is proposing with their revised Form of Government.
Monday, June 23, 2008
General Assembly reflections part 4
The 218th General Assembly (2008) reflections part 4
Reflections on our World Mission
One of the highlights for me of this week’s General Assembly meeting thus far was the World Mission luncheon on Sunday. (NOTE: We have scheduled the director of World Mission, Hunter Farrell, to be with us in our Presbytery for our April Presbytery meeting.) There is completely new national staff in place in our World Mission office, and I am very supportive of our effort in the church to grow our international mission work. It was very meaningful and moving to sit together at the World Mission luncheon with Christian brothers and sisters from our partner churches all over the world, all of whom express deep gratitude for the mission and ministry of our Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). There are stories upon stories from all around the world of churches that were initially planted, and conversions to Christ that were originally sparked, sometimes several generations ago, by the work of Presbyterian missionaries from the United States.
Hunter Farrell, in a very compelling address, spoke in broad terms of the history of Presbyterian world mission work and offered his vision of this new era. The Presbyterian Church made a massive commitment to world mission more than 150 years. This began the great era of mission work during which we sent our missionaries around the world. Many of our international partners today are churches that were planted and formed in that great era of world mission emphasis. Presbyterian Churches in Korea, Kenya, Brazil, Mexico, Thailand, and many others were planted by American Presbyterians. Because that era was also a time of limited communication and difficult international travel, our mission strategy was necessarily a “dependent” strategy. That is to say our congregations depended on our General Assembly to do this mission work. The congregations provided the funding, massive amounts of funding, and the General Assembly functioned as a mission sending agency. This was a profoundly successful strategy for doing world mission work.
Everything shifted and changed in our culture through the 1960s. Thus from the 1970s through the 1990s our world mission work shifted to an “independent” strategy. For many reasons, including the breakdown of trust in the church and the flattening of the world with our now easy communication and travel, individual congregations started doing world mission with a local and personal involvement. This is the era when the concept of mission trips started and has become an established part of our mission work. In this era the world mission work of the General Assembly floundered and downsized because congregations were no longer dependent on the General Assembly to engage in world mission. We are now learning the downside of this completely independent strategy for world mission work. I have seen this in the Presbytery of Honduras which simply does not have the resources or leadership to constantly host the vast numbers of American mission trips that are arriving. I have heard, for example, of one Presbyterian mission hospital in Kenya that was completely overwhelmed by the requests of three different American Presbyterian congregations that wanted to bring medical mission teams, each of more than 20 people, in the same month this summer. I have heard the terrible story of a small Presbyterian church in Mexico who organized the painting of the same wall in their town’s park six weeks in row by six different American mission teams because they do not have the resources or leadership to host this annual onslaught of American teams. The real tragedy of this independent, congregational based world mission work is that we have had to cut back on our financial commitment to full-time, fluent in the local language, professional mission workers because our money has shifted to short-term, usually week-long, mission trips.
Are we poised for a new era of world mission commitment? A new era which, obviously, will never return to a strategy in which our congregations are fully dependent on the General Assembly to do mission. A new era which, I hope, with a higher level of trust. A new era which may move us beyond the excesses of a completely independent strategy of world mission in which each congregation does their own thing with little coordination with others who may be working in the same nation. Are we ready to move into a collaborative era of world mission in which congregations, presbyteries and the General Assembly work together with our international church partners. This is clearly the direction in which Hunter Farrell would like to lead our world mission efforts. This is clearly the direction that is being proposed in the concept of mission networks. (I am very involved in the Honduras mission network). There are now 35 mission networks in our church.
Each congregation needs to be directly and personally connected with world mission. Each congregation needs to do mission trips, including international trips. But we also need communication and collaboration with our international church partners so we do not overwhelm them with our arrogant American audacity. We also need to make a serious commitment to the calling and equipping of full-time, professional mission workers serving with long term commitment all around the world. We also need the General Assembly, through the concept of mission networks and the regional liaisons staff people, to help congregations and presbyteries coordinate our world mission efforts so we are not paying thousands of dollars to travel to a foreign nation to paint the same wall six weeks in a row.
It is new day for the church. In the name of Jesus Christ let us make a commitment to world mission.
Reflections on our World Mission
One of the highlights for me of this week’s General Assembly meeting thus far was the World Mission luncheon on Sunday. (NOTE: We have scheduled the director of World Mission, Hunter Farrell, to be with us in our Presbytery for our April Presbytery meeting.) There is completely new national staff in place in our World Mission office, and I am very supportive of our effort in the church to grow our international mission work. It was very meaningful and moving to sit together at the World Mission luncheon with Christian brothers and sisters from our partner churches all over the world, all of whom express deep gratitude for the mission and ministry of our Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). There are stories upon stories from all around the world of churches that were initially planted, and conversions to Christ that were originally sparked, sometimes several generations ago, by the work of Presbyterian missionaries from the United States.
Hunter Farrell, in a very compelling address, spoke in broad terms of the history of Presbyterian world mission work and offered his vision of this new era. The Presbyterian Church made a massive commitment to world mission more than 150 years. This began the great era of mission work during which we sent our missionaries around the world. Many of our international partners today are churches that were planted and formed in that great era of world mission emphasis. Presbyterian Churches in Korea, Kenya, Brazil, Mexico, Thailand, and many others were planted by American Presbyterians. Because that era was also a time of limited communication and difficult international travel, our mission strategy was necessarily a “dependent” strategy. That is to say our congregations depended on our General Assembly to do this mission work. The congregations provided the funding, massive amounts of funding, and the General Assembly functioned as a mission sending agency. This was a profoundly successful strategy for doing world mission work.
Everything shifted and changed in our culture through the 1960s. Thus from the 1970s through the 1990s our world mission work shifted to an “independent” strategy. For many reasons, including the breakdown of trust in the church and the flattening of the world with our now easy communication and travel, individual congregations started doing world mission with a local and personal involvement. This is the era when the concept of mission trips started and has become an established part of our mission work. In this era the world mission work of the General Assembly floundered and downsized because congregations were no longer dependent on the General Assembly to engage in world mission. We are now learning the downside of this completely independent strategy for world mission work. I have seen this in the Presbytery of Honduras which simply does not have the resources or leadership to constantly host the vast numbers of American mission trips that are arriving. I have heard, for example, of one Presbyterian mission hospital in Kenya that was completely overwhelmed by the requests of three different American Presbyterian congregations that wanted to bring medical mission teams, each of more than 20 people, in the same month this summer. I have heard the terrible story of a small Presbyterian church in Mexico who organized the painting of the same wall in their town’s park six weeks in row by six different American mission teams because they do not have the resources or leadership to host this annual onslaught of American teams. The real tragedy of this independent, congregational based world mission work is that we have had to cut back on our financial commitment to full-time, fluent in the local language, professional mission workers because our money has shifted to short-term, usually week-long, mission trips.
Are we poised for a new era of world mission commitment? A new era which, obviously, will never return to a strategy in which our congregations are fully dependent on the General Assembly to do mission. A new era which, I hope, with a higher level of trust. A new era which may move us beyond the excesses of a completely independent strategy of world mission in which each congregation does their own thing with little coordination with others who may be working in the same nation. Are we ready to move into a collaborative era of world mission in which congregations, presbyteries and the General Assembly work together with our international church partners. This is clearly the direction in which Hunter Farrell would like to lead our world mission efforts. This is clearly the direction that is being proposed in the concept of mission networks. (I am very involved in the Honduras mission network). There are now 35 mission networks in our church.
Each congregation needs to be directly and personally connected with world mission. Each congregation needs to do mission trips, including international trips. But we also need communication and collaboration with our international church partners so we do not overwhelm them with our arrogant American audacity. We also need to make a serious commitment to the calling and equipping of full-time, professional mission workers serving with long term commitment all around the world. We also need the General Assembly, through the concept of mission networks and the regional liaisons staff people, to help congregations and presbyteries coordinate our world mission efforts so we are not paying thousands of dollars to travel to a foreign nation to paint the same wall six weeks in a row.
It is new day for the church. In the name of Jesus Christ let us make a commitment to world mission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)