General Assembly (2014) #5

As we begin our week together for the meeting of the General Assembly in Detroit it seems from my casual conversation with our commissioners and many friends around the Exhibit Hall here that the Israel and Palestinian issue is the hottest issue. A long news article about our General Assembly in the Detroit Free Press was headlined with this issue. (http://www.freep.com/article/20140613/NEWS05/306130023/presbyterians-convention-divest-israel.) Our Commissioners told me that they received more response on this issue in preparation for the Assembly than any other issue. Our debate about divestment from Israel is now also associated with recent divestment action by the United Methodist Church and the Gates Foundation. Also, as we have heard before, a number of Jewish organizations around the nation have already publicly criticized the Presbyterian Church for even considering divestment.

This is not a debate I want to join or about which I have a passionate commitment. In many ways, from my perspective, the Presbyterian Church is fragile. I fully understand the importance of public witness and social justice. But I also understand the stress that burdens many small congregations, and the stress that burdens many of our pastors and church leaders. The contentious heat, the divisiveness, and the polarizing debate around this intractable, international issue does not build us up. Most of all, I am very concerned that many people simply disengage from these church conversations cynical and apathetic. 

I know the importance of Presbyterian social and political engagement. I know the stellar history of our social witness. In this changed culture, in this fragile church how do we engage social  issues and witness publicly in ways that lifts us up and makes us proud to be Presbyterian? In my mind, these contentious debates which will be decided by extremely narrow voting margins are not the proper means of social witness for today's church. Certainly Presbyterians should consider and debate and engage the Israeli and Palestinian issue. But should this issue be the primary issue, the dominant issue and the headline issue for our General Assembly?

General Assembly (2014) #4

Constitutional Question:
An Amendment to the Book of Confessions:

Coming to the General Assembly this year is a recommendation to add the Confession of Belhar to our Book of Confessions. Since the Book of Confessions is part of our church's constitution this question is a constitutional issue. This means that if the question is approved by the General Assembly, it will then also be considered by the presbyteries. Thus if this question is approved, we will be considering and voting on this question at our presbytery. There is a good website prepared where the text of the Confession of Belhar may be reviewed along with a supportive and background information: www.pcusa.org/belhar.

General Assembly (2014) #3

This litany is suggested for the opening session of each General Assembly Standing Committee: 

Litany of Hope for the 221st General Assembly

Eternal and gracious God, as we gather for the 221st
General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church (USA), we offer you thanks and praise.

We give you thanks for
our faith in your sovereign love,
guiding and grounding our prayers and deliberations,
and this opportunity for new and renewed friendships,
confessing that we are the body of Christ together.
our out your Holy Spirit anew we pray, that
our common life this week reflects the mind of Christ,
seeking God’s guidance through our worship, prayer, discernment and action,
and our engagement with each other demonstrates the transforming love of God,
enabling us to discern God’s will together.

Lead us beyond our private concerns and petty perspectives,
that our experience together centers on
learning from Presbyterians and many others across the United States and around the world,
discovering God’s presence through worship, devotions, hallway prayers and Christ-centered conversations,
witnessing with joy and thanksgiving the emergence of new leaders for the church,
making decisions through contemplation, prayer and heartfelt sharing,
centered on the call of Christ,
and growing in our personal and church wide understanding of God’s will and ways.

In our life together during the days ahead, give us the courage
to participate in discussion, deliberation and discernment
in ways that are fair and honest and open,
to be quick to listen and not so quick to speak,
to engage with one another in love, humility and grace,
and to proclaim with clarity and determination
the great good news of the Gospel.

Through our time together this week, grant anew that
this meeting may represent the bond of union, community and mission
among all the congregations and councils of our church
to the end that the whole church becomes
a community of faith, hope, love and witness,  to the glory of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. Amen.

General Assembly (2014) #2

In this week before the meeting of General Assembly convenes, (the Assembly meets from June 14 to 21; I leave for Detroit this Friday), I am reviewing the action items that are coming forward:

Marriage: Of course, anyone paying attention to this conversation is aware of the proposals concerning the definition of marriage. This issue will be the focus of the secular media’s reporting from the Assembly. If you are following this debate, it is important that you understand the difference between a Constitutional Amendment and an Authoritative Interpretation. These are very different types of action. There are proposals coming forward in both forms.

Middle East: There are contentious action items coming forward concerning the church’s response to the Middle East and specifically the ongoing tension and conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. This debate is confounded by the larger question about the role and purpose of social justice ministry in the church today.

Synods: At the 2012 General Assembly a bold and innovative proposal, (which I appreciated and supported), came forward concerning the restructuring of our middle governing bodies. That proposal was defeated but the question itself was moved forward. Now a much smaller and less innovative proposal is coming forward to reduce, in two years, our current synods into eight new synods. But this proposal faces strong opposition from the Synod executives themselves who have a written response. This will be a contentious, internal issue for the church.

Gun Violence: There a social witness policy paper coming forward on gun violence. This is a topic I wish our presbytery would debate. This is a difficult and divisive national issue. Our presbytery, from urban Harrisburg to rural Juniata and Fulton Counties, includes the whole spectrum of convictions on this question. Should we not be discussing this?

In my mind, two important issues which may not be highlighted in the news media should also be discussed and considered in our presbytery:

1001 Worshipping Communities: There continues to be strong and growing support for this movement to create new worshipping communities. This is becoming a strategic focus of our church. Every presbytery is challenged to engage this conversation. I am seeking a congregation that will host this conversation in our presbytery.

The Mission Agency fundraisers: You should know the meeting of the General Assembly and all our constitutional concerns are the responsibility of the Office of the General Assembly (OGA). Nonetheless the other side of the General Assembly structure, the Mission Agency, reports to this meeting. In the report of the Mission Agency’s Special Offerings Taskforce there is a recommendation to continue the special fundraising efforts which have been initiated. This includes the hiring and expansion of the professional fundraising staff within the Mission Agency. A goal has been set to stop the decline in the One Great Hour of Sharing special offering and grow it to $20 million by 2020. For a Presbytery like ours, which has a strong commitment to Shared Mission Giving, this new emphasis on professional fundraising undermines our whole financial system and changes our traditional understanding of connectionalism. Our presbytery should be aware of and pondering a robust response to this new day of church finances. 

General Assembly (2014) #1

Introduction to the General Assembly

            The 221st General Assembly (2014) is scheduled for this June 14 to 21 in Detroit. We are grateful for our team of commissioners who are already preparing for this important service to our Church. Jim Speedy and I will also attend the gathering; please watch for my updates and reflections which will be regularly posted on my blog. 

            Already all the action items that will be coming forward to this General Assembly can be studied and reviewed electronically. The website, with lots of background information on the Assembly, is at https://www.pcusa.org/events/24273/221st-general-assembly-2014/ or simply Google on PC(USA) General Assembly. At the Assembly all the action is considered using a special program named PC-Biz. You may find this program at https://www.pc-biz.org/ or simply Google on PC-Biz. Within the PC-Biz program you may click on the “Resources” tab to find a list of all the “Business” and all the “Overtures” coming to this Assembly. You may click on the “Committees” tab to see all the fifteen committees of Assembly; clicking on any particular committee will bring up all the action items which are on that committee’s agenda.

            Action items to the General Assembly come forward in three distinct paths. There are, of course, many “Communications.” For example, the World Council of Churches brings their greetings. There are also “Recommendations” from other agencies within the Church to the Assembly. For example, there is a list of Recommendations coming to the Assembly from the General Assembly Mission Agency. But most important are the “Overtures.” Overtures are action items to be considered by the Assembly that have been approved by presbyteries. Overtures typically originate with an individual session, are approved by that session’s presbytery and sent forward to the Assembly. Almost all of the controversial issues facing the Assembly come forward as Overtures. This is very important. Thus the most important items coming before the Assembly originate with a particular session within a particular congregation. This reflects the connectional nature of our Church. Our Church is individual congregations connected together into a system of governance and mission. Our General Assembly, and the actions it considers, is driven from the grassroots of the Church. Overtures are initiated by particular sessions.

            Please pay attention to this year’s General Assembly. Let us engage together the many important issues facing us.

Introduction to Celtic Spirituality and Theology

Book Review: J. Philip Newell. Listening for the Heartbeat of God: A Celtic Spirituality. Paulist Press, 1997.

            I have recently immersed myself in some reading in the area of Celtic spirituality, theology and history. In the great sweep of history, it is remarkable that the Celtic worldview was so thoroughly crushed by the authority and control of Roman theology as early as the 7^th century. Thus the Celtic vision had, as far as I can tell, no influence on the Protestant Reformation in England, Scotland or Ireland. It is not until much, much later, in the 20^th century, that this quiet and gentle stream of Christian theology re-emerged and has been enjoying a grand renewal, now with a rebuilt Iona as a powerful spiritual location. How would our American Presbyterian Church history be different if the Scots, Irish and British Presbyterians who first immigrated here had a theological worldview that included some of the Celtic themes? In a larger sense, the utter crushing of the Celtic worldview by the powerful dominance of the Roman Church begs us to ponder the source and formation of Christian doctrine itself. There were some powerful forces in the realms of international relations and politics that allowed the ascendancy of the Roman perspective and the declaration that the Celtic perspective was heretical. Was this the work of the Holy Spirit? If so, how do we understand the re-emergence of these Celtic themes now, and their popularity today? Is it possible that we got it wrong in the first place? Is it possible that the intention of the Holy Spirit, as demonstrated by the recent, influential rebirth of the Celtic vision, is to help us in the Church realize that there are different viewpoints, perspectives, and worldviews? Maybe the Church is at its best when we learn to respect and hold on to all of them.    

Today J. Philip Newell is one of the leading voices for the reclaiming of the Celtic perspective. I highly recommend his small book as an easy introduction to these questions. The one paragraph copied here introduces many of the deep questions I believe we should ponder:

“The stream of Celtic spiritual, from Pelagius in the fourth century to George MacLeod in the twentieth, is characterized by the expectation of finding God within, of hearing the living voice of God speaking from the very heart of life, within creation and within ourselves. It is a spirituality that recognizes the authority of St. John and reflects his way of looking and listening for God. At the decisive Synod of Whitby in 664, where two distinct ways of seeing, represented by the Celtic and Roman missions, came into conflict, the former allied itself to John. Coleman of Lindisfarne argued that the Celtic tradition originated from St. John, the disciple who was, he said, ‘especially love by our Lord’. Wilfred, on the other hand, argued for the Roman mission, which, he claimed, was based on the authority of St. Peter, whom, he claimed, was based on the authority of the Apostles.’ The tragic outcome of the synod was not that it chose the Roman mission but that it neither made room within the Church for both ways of seeing or declared that both were firmly rooted in the gospel tradition.”

Other resources in Celtic thought:

Esther De Waal. The Celtic Way of Prayer. (Kindle edition).

Grace Clunie. Sacred Living: Practical Inspiration for Celtic Spirituality for the Contemporary Spiritual Journey. (Kindle edition, 2011). (The Rev. Grace Clunie is the Director of The Centre for Celtic Spirituality, Armagh, Northern Ireland.)

The Classics of Western Spirituality. Celtic Spirituality. (Kindle Edition).

Report to the Presbytery of Carlisle Feb. 25, 2014

Francis Makemie: The Calling to be Connected Together.

            Take a moment with me, please, to review some of the history of our church. To begin at the beginning we must ponder a small group of rugged, devout and irascible pastors who first gathered in Philadelphia in 1706 for the first organized meeting of the first Presbytery in the United States. Francis Makemie was the driving force; he called and organized the meeting. The pastors were all immigrants from England, Scotland or Ireland. An early history of that era describes them, “They were almost wholly destitute of property; and the people to whom they ministered, being like themselves in poverty, and struggling for subsistence in a wilderness land, could contribute but a pittance to the support of their pastors.”^[1] The bold tenacity of these first Presbyterian leaders and their faithful congregations are both remarkable. With strong ties to the theological, ecclesiastical and ethnic traditions of their native lands these Presbyterians, nonetheless, claimed a new freedom and planted a new church in this new land. Our new church was Presbyterian in its heart and American in its soul. It was a new thing.

            The great theological divisions within Protestantism which were now an intimate and centuries old aspect of the history of the England, Scotland and Ireland were all imported to America and our new church. The ethnic differences and the power of theological convictions became boundary lines and soon also, theological controversies in this new land. Henry Wood, in an early history of the Presbyterians, sees a constant wavering between, on one hand, “jealousies, alienations and strifes” and, on the other hand, “correspondence and union”.[2] From the first days of the new Presbyterian mission enterprise in America a new and unique church organization was created which was, nonetheless, inspired by its English, Scottish and Irish forbearers.[3]

The first Presbytery meeting included seven ministers representing both Presbyterians and Congregationalist Churches, and several churches where that distinction was blurred.[4] Francis Makemie was there under the sponsorship of the London Fund, a group of British Presbyterians sponsoring missionary work in America. The London Fund also sponsored two missionaries to accompany Makemie, John Hampton, an Irishman and George McNish, a Scotchman. These three missionaries joined Jedidiah Andrews, John Wilson, Nathaniel Taylor and Samuel Davies who were already at work in Pennsylvania and Delaware in the spring of 1706 when the first meeting of a Presbytery in America was called.[5] The Rev. Jedediah Andrews was the first pastor of the first church in Philadelphia.[6] These seven ministers who gathered voluntarily as the first Presbytery are themselves a metaphor for American Presbyterianism. American Presbyterianism has always been both encouraged and stressed by the mixing together of different flavors of Reformed heritage. Professor Charles Briggs, in historical reflection on this first gathering written much later in 1885, concluded about this first Presbytery: “It was a happy union of British Presbyterianism in its several types. It was an interesting combination. Makemie, the Scotch-Irishman; Hampton, the Irishman, and McNish, the Scotsman, sustained by funds provided by the Presbyterians in London; uniting with Puritan missionaries from New England in organic union in a classical Presbytery. (Here is my punchline, quoting Professor Briggs.) We have here in miniature the entire history of American Presbyterianism. It was a broad, generous, tolerant spirit which effected this union.”[7]

            Why did Francis Makemie and the other six ministers gather and create that first Presbytery? Certainly they each had a lot of other work to do with their congregations, and planting new congregations. The truth is that these pastors each had a powerful and spiritual calling in Christ to be connected together. I believe an essential question we each need to ponder today, in an era of stress and strain in our church, is whether or not you are called to be connected together. I would like to ask each session of each of our congregations to spend a few moments considering this question: Are we called to be connected? Are we called to be connected with other Presbyterian congregations who, in fact, will have practices and convictions very different than our own? Are we called to be connected in and through the Presbytery and what do we believe is the purpose and the benefit of those connections? This calling is where it must all begin.

            The presbytery cannot function and, I would say, cannot exist if the churches in our midst do not know themselves to be deeply and spiritually called to be connected together. We can deal with a vast diversity of practices and convictions, we can accept massive differences in style, and perspective and approach, we can manage our financial and demographic downsizing if we are called to be connected together. It is very important that your session be brutally honest about this question. If you are convinced that you truly are not called to be connected with other Presbyterians congregations through the presbytery then you need to be true to that. Or if you discern that there are behaviors, values, or convictions that you simply cannot be connected with then you need to true to that. Are we called to be connected? This calling is our starting point; it was so for Francis Makemie.   

---

[1] Ashbel Green, A Historical Sketch or Compendious View of Domestic and Foreign Missions, 14.

[2] Wood, Henry. The Presbyterian Controversy, with Early Sketches of Presbyterianism. Louisville: N.H. White, 1843, 25.

[3]Briggs, Charles Augustus, D.D. American Presbyterianism: Its Origins and Early History. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1885, 129. Briggs concludes: “At the opening of the eighteenth century there was no strife between the Scotch and Irish Presbyterians and the Puritans of England and America, but only the most hearty sympathy and co-operation.” See here also the text of a “letter of thanks from the Provincial Synod of Glasgow to the Rev. Dr. Mather in New England, dated 1700.”

[4]Briggs, Charles Augustus, D.D. American Presbyterianism: Its Origins and Early History. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1885, 127.

[5]Briggs, Charles Augustus, D.D. American Presbyterianism: Its Origins and Early History. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1885, 140.

[6] Wood, Henry. The Presbyterian Controversy, with Early Sketches of Presbyterianism. Louisville: N.H. White, 1843, 26. Rev. Andrews was a “Congregational Presbyterian. That church was sixty four years without any ruling elders, though under the care of the Presbytery.”

[7] Briggs, Charles Augustus, D.D. American Presbyterianism: Its Origins and Early History. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1885, 140.