I had the opportunity to spend a Sunday morning with the Falling Spring Presbyterian Church. Brad Hill, their full time youth minister, was the preacher for the day. He preached an excellent sermon about the importance of paying deep, spiritual and emotional attention to one person at a time. Too often in the church we are overly concerned with efficiency and attracting large numbers of people to our carefully planned programs, that we forget the gift of the one, individual person who may be standing in front of us. This sermon was a nice interpretation of the parable of the lost sheep. The word that really spoke to me was the short conclusion to Brad’s sermon in which he defined a clear and precise method of doing personal evangelism.
This may be the most clear and beautiful expression of the task of personal evangelism that I have ever heard. It is simple in its clarity but very sophisticated in its understanding of the dynamics of personal evangelism. So here it is: my retelling of Brad Hill’s formula for personal evangelism
Imagine yourself one-on-one in a spiritual conversation with a friend or neighbor. It is a friendly, cordial conversation and you sense a real opportunity to share the good news of Jesus Christ with this friend, and, moreover, you sense that your friend is really open to hearing a new word about Christian faith and Jesus Christ. What do you do? How do you act? What do you say?
Be Silent: Before you rush to express a bunch of words, take a moment to be silent within yourself. Try to move beyond a concern with your own thoughts, feelings and words and open yourself to what God is doing and saying in the moment. Be still and be silent within yourself in order to open your heart and mind to the work of God’s Holy Spirit.
Stand on Holy Ground: If you are feeling that this time with your friend is a special moment in which you may be able to talk about Jesus, realize that this place is holy ground. This special, spiritual openness that you and your friend are sharing is, in itself, a gift from God. This place or moment when you may be able to share deep spiritual conversation is a place itself created and given to you by God. Like Moses taking off his shoes before the burning bush, recognize the gift of holy ground. How do you act when you are standing on holy ground?
Be the Gospel: Before you can talk about the Gospel or share any words about the Gospel you must be committed to being the Gospel. Of course, we are always growing and maturing in our spiritual commitment, but we need to live authentic lives in Christ which truly struggle with the calling toward Christian discipleship and obedience. Only if we are being the Gospel will we be in a place to truly speak a word about the Gospel.
Invite with Words: And the moment arrives when you truly sense a desire to share a spiritual word about Christ with your friend. What should you say? Invite your friend to join you in wanting to learn more about Jesus by gathering regularly, preferably weekly, to read together one of the New Testament Gospels. We do not need to be Bible scholars or prepared to communicate sophisticated theological doctrines. Rather we need to be willing and prepared to invite our friends to join us on a journey toward Jesus. The words you share need not be brilliant or sophisticated; they need to be invitational. Invite your friend to join you on the fabulous journey of Christian faithfulness.
Throw better parties: This short scheme of personal evangelism could end at this point. But Brad added a marvelous final point, “Throw better parties.” This was his way of saying that we in the church need to have more fun. Too often there is an austere coldness about our faith. Too often we do not fully grasp or communicate the profound joy which we have as believers. ‘Throw better parties’ means that we need to have fun in Christ, with Christ and with one another in the church.
Imagine what a church we would become if we each practiced, in serious and committed ways, these patterns of personal evangelism one person at a time; one lost sheep at a time. May it be so in Christ.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Form of Government task force
Although it is still too early to be certain, nonetheless, it is quite possible that the report of the Form of Government task force will be one of the most important topics to be decided by next year’s (2008) General Assembly. This task force was created by the 2006 General Assembly for the purpose of proposing viable revisions to our Form of Government. The Form of Government is, of course, that large part of our Book of Order (indicated by the letter “G”) which defines much of the polity of our Presbyterian Church. Our Book of Order also includes the Rules of Discipline (marked by the letter “D”) and the Directory for Worship (marked by the letter “W”). You may find the webpage of the Form of Government task force at http://www.pcusa.org/formofgovernment/.
The task force has now drafted a full revision of Chapters one through four of our Book of Order. These are foundational, theologically oriented chapters which claim and articulate many of the sacred aspects of Presbyterian belief and practice. The proposed revision of chapters one through four maintains this foundational quality, and reiterates many of our cherished, political ideals. But the revision is reorganized and written in fresh, direct new prose.
The task force’s proposed, new opening chapters of the Form of Government are titled Foundations of Presbyterian Polity and is available for review at: http://www.pcusa.org/formofgovernment/pdfs/foundations-of-polity.pdf.
For example, compare the opening sentences of the current Book of Order with this proposed revision titled “God’s Activity”:
"The Church bears witness to the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We bear witness to this one God’s sovereign activity in the world as told in the Bible and received by faith. The Church proclaims that in the one God’s three-fold work it finds blessing and hope for itself and for the world."
For example, consider this proposed revision of our classic affirmation of the Lordship of Jesus Christ:
"JESUS CHRIST IS HEAD OF THE CHURCH
1.0201 The Authority of Christ
God has given to Jesus Christ all authority in heaven and on earth, not only in this age but also in the age to come. God has put all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and has made Christ Head of the Church, which is his body.
1.0202 Christ Calls and Equips the Church
Christ calls the Church into being, giving it all that is necessary for its mission to the world, for its strength, and for its service to God. Christ is present with the Church in both Spirit and Word. Christ alone rules, teaches, calls, and uses the Church as he wills, exercising his authority by the ministry of women and men for the establishment and extension of God’s new reality.
1.0203 Christ Gives the Church Its Life
Christ gives to the Church its faith and life, its unity and mission, its officers and ordinances. Insofar as Christ’s will for the Church is set forth in Scripture, it is to be obeyed. In the worship and service of God and the government of the church, matters are to be ordered according to the Word by reason and sound judgment, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit."
For example, consider the new proposal discussing the marks of the true church under four headings: "the apostolicity of the church, the universality of the church, the holiness of the church and the unity of the church".
For example, consider this rewriting of our famous and foundational theological commitment that truth is in order to goodness:
"Truth and goodness cannot be separated, and that which is holy springs from that which is true. It is for this reason that we seek to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and for this reason also what we believe is no less important than what we do. Indeed, there is a direct and inseparable connection between faith and action, truth and duty."
The Form of Government task force is approaching this task in a very creative way. Although they have written a full revision of Book of Order chapters one through four, they are not simply recommending the revisions to the General Assembly. Instead the task force is asking the General Assembly to decide between their proposed revision of chapters one through four or simply keeping our existing chapters one through four. The General Assembly will decide. How would you vote?
This whole discussion presents us with a wonderful educational moment. We can use this question to open up conversation and learning around our foundational, theological principles. Please read again chapters one through four of our Book of Order and please read the newly proposed Foundations of Presbyterian Polity. In either the current form or in the revised form, the rich and sacred convictions of our Presbyterian Church shine forth. We have received a good and faithful heritage. Thanks be to God.
A news report on the Form of Government task force may be found in the Presbyterian Outlook (Vol. 189 No. 16; May 7, 2007; page 6).
The task force has now drafted a full revision of Chapters one through four of our Book of Order. These are foundational, theologically oriented chapters which claim and articulate many of the sacred aspects of Presbyterian belief and practice. The proposed revision of chapters one through four maintains this foundational quality, and reiterates many of our cherished, political ideals. But the revision is reorganized and written in fresh, direct new prose.
The task force’s proposed, new opening chapters of the Form of Government are titled Foundations of Presbyterian Polity and is available for review at: http://www.pcusa.org/formofgovernment/pdfs/foundations-of-polity.pdf.
For example, compare the opening sentences of the current Book of Order with this proposed revision titled “God’s Activity”:
"The Church bears witness to the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We bear witness to this one God’s sovereign activity in the world as told in the Bible and received by faith. The Church proclaims that in the one God’s three-fold work it finds blessing and hope for itself and for the world."
For example, consider this proposed revision of our classic affirmation of the Lordship of Jesus Christ:
"JESUS CHRIST IS HEAD OF THE CHURCH
1.0201 The Authority of Christ
God has given to Jesus Christ all authority in heaven and on earth, not only in this age but also in the age to come. God has put all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and has made Christ Head of the Church, which is his body.
1.0202 Christ Calls and Equips the Church
Christ calls the Church into being, giving it all that is necessary for its mission to the world, for its strength, and for its service to God. Christ is present with the Church in both Spirit and Word. Christ alone rules, teaches, calls, and uses the Church as he wills, exercising his authority by the ministry of women and men for the establishment and extension of God’s new reality.
1.0203 Christ Gives the Church Its Life
Christ gives to the Church its faith and life, its unity and mission, its officers and ordinances. Insofar as Christ’s will for the Church is set forth in Scripture, it is to be obeyed. In the worship and service of God and the government of the church, matters are to be ordered according to the Word by reason and sound judgment, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit."
For example, consider the new proposal discussing the marks of the true church under four headings: "the apostolicity of the church, the universality of the church, the holiness of the church and the unity of the church".
For example, consider this rewriting of our famous and foundational theological commitment that truth is in order to goodness:
"Truth and goodness cannot be separated, and that which is holy springs from that which is true. It is for this reason that we seek to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and for this reason also what we believe is no less important than what we do. Indeed, there is a direct and inseparable connection between faith and action, truth and duty."
The Form of Government task force is approaching this task in a very creative way. Although they have written a full revision of Book of Order chapters one through four, they are not simply recommending the revisions to the General Assembly. Instead the task force is asking the General Assembly to decide between their proposed revision of chapters one through four or simply keeping our existing chapters one through four. The General Assembly will decide. How would you vote?
This whole discussion presents us with a wonderful educational moment. We can use this question to open up conversation and learning around our foundational, theological principles. Please read again chapters one through four of our Book of Order and please read the newly proposed Foundations of Presbyterian Polity. In either the current form or in the revised form, the rich and sacred convictions of our Presbyterian Church shine forth. We have received a good and faithful heritage. Thanks be to God.
A news report on the Form of Government task force may be found in the Presbyterian Outlook (Vol. 189 No. 16; May 7, 2007; page 6).
Church Discipline
I would like in this space to bring to your attention an important, little theological essay provided to the church by our Office of Theology and Worship. Paul K. Hooker, Executive Presbyter of the Presbytery of St. Augustine, has written a short paper, Identity – Polity – Praxis: Ecclesiology and the Presbytery (Occasional Paper Series No. 2; Re-Forming Ministry; Office of Theology and Worship; Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). You may find more information about the Re-forming Ministry program, including copies of this paper in .pdf format, at http://www.pcusa.org/re-formingministry/.
How do we do church discipline? Many Presbyterians are aware that a deep commitment to moral and righteous living has always been an expectation for our church members. In our tradition this expectation has a dominant, and at times, oppressive place. Theologically, Presbyterians have always believed that we are called to live holy and righteous lives in response to the abundant grace which God has given us in Jesus Christ. But in recent years, this high concern for church discipline and moral order has fallen into the quagmire of judicial process.
Paul Hooker has precisely articulated what may be one of the truly pressing concerns in our church. How can we reclaim proper church discipline, out of our rich tradition, while avoiding the temptations of creating a punitive and vindictive judicial process out to prosecute wrongdoers? I quote here from Hooker’s paper:
“The practice of ecclesiastical discipline has come to be synonymous with judicial process. In truth, the equation of the two is at the heart of the problem. Ecclesiastical discipline actually has a quite different purpose, as the Preamble to the Rules of Discipline in the Book of Order makes clear.
The intention behind the exercise of ecclesiastical discipline is the desire to strengthen the membership of the church, to reconcile disputing parties, and to restore the peace, harmony, and concerted witness of the church. In practice in too many situations, however, the exercise of ecclesiastical discipline has led to an atmosphere of mistrust, anxiety, and apprehension in the church; hardly the sort of system likely to bring members to repentance and restoration.
If we are to be true to the vision of the church as the provisional demonstration of the new reality of God, this situation simply has to change. If it does not change, we will lose altogether the distinction between an ecclesiastical discipline motivated by the eschatological virtue of reconciliation and a secular judicial system dedicated to the adjudication of guilt and the assessment of punishment.” (Paul K. Hooker, Identity – Polity – Praxis: Ecclesiology and the Presbytery, pages 28-29).
How do we do church discipline? Many Presbyterians are aware that a deep commitment to moral and righteous living has always been an expectation for our church members. In our tradition this expectation has a dominant, and at times, oppressive place. Theologically, Presbyterians have always believed that we are called to live holy and righteous lives in response to the abundant grace which God has given us in Jesus Christ. But in recent years, this high concern for church discipline and moral order has fallen into the quagmire of judicial process.
Paul Hooker has precisely articulated what may be one of the truly pressing concerns in our church. How can we reclaim proper church discipline, out of our rich tradition, while avoiding the temptations of creating a punitive and vindictive judicial process out to prosecute wrongdoers? I quote here from Hooker’s paper:
“The practice of ecclesiastical discipline has come to be synonymous with judicial process. In truth, the equation of the two is at the heart of the problem. Ecclesiastical discipline actually has a quite different purpose, as the Preamble to the Rules of Discipline in the Book of Order makes clear.
The intention behind the exercise of ecclesiastical discipline is the desire to strengthen the membership of the church, to reconcile disputing parties, and to restore the peace, harmony, and concerted witness of the church. In practice in too many situations, however, the exercise of ecclesiastical discipline has led to an atmosphere of mistrust, anxiety, and apprehension in the church; hardly the sort of system likely to bring members to repentance and restoration.
If we are to be true to the vision of the church as the provisional demonstration of the new reality of God, this situation simply has to change. If it does not change, we will lose altogether the distinction between an ecclesiastical discipline motivated by the eschatological virtue of reconciliation and a secular judicial system dedicated to the adjudication of guilt and the assessment of punishment.” (Paul K. Hooker, Identity – Polity – Praxis: Ecclesiology and the Presbytery, pages 28-29).
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Virginia Tech
I stood at the microphone in front of the congregation watching the screen. As each new face flashed up from the PowerPoint projector onto the screen, I leaned closer to the microphone and slowly read the name. I read the names clear and loud, not hesitating and not pausing to correct what was probably a wrong pronunciation of some of the difficult names. I simply read each name as clear and correct as possible; the PowerPoint program creating long pauses between each one. The congregation was silent in the candle light of this memorial service. Many of the pictures were obviously, posed, professional senior pictures from high school. Some of the pictures were spontaneous and funny, one girl with a giggling smile and her tongue sticking out, one of a young man in his band uniform hamming it up for the camera, another a casual photograph with a baseball cap and bright smile, another of a man in a military uniform probably from a high school prep school showing a broad, wide smile. Name after name after name; the instructors and faculty were gathered at the end, a gifted group of talented, educated people whose different names reflect our world community. Names, names and names, all different, all unique, all bright and beautiful faces, all Virginia Tech, and now all dead. I pray to the Lord.
My wife, Kris, carried the phone out to me in the yard where I was cutting the grass, encouraging me to take this call. I let the lawnmower shut down, and chatted for a moment with the Rev. Song Kang. I was very pleased and honored to be invited to the Memorial Service for the Virginia Tech shooting victims that very evening at our Harrisburg Korean Presbyterian Church. I had heard that there were some incidents of harassment against their community since the shooter was Korean American. Kris and I quickly decided that we would go to this service as a family. We prepared ourselves for the argument we knew we would get from our sons, when they got home from school on a sunny Friday afternoon, and were immediately told that we were going to church together on Friday evening. But we spent our dinner time talking about Virginia Tech. We talked about the fact that our son Kyle had been accepted into the honors program at VT, and Kyle and I had visited and toured there last year. Kyle could be a student at VT. I described the beautiful campus and the gorgeous mountains of Virginia which nestle the little university town of Blacksburg. So Kris and I insisted that we had to pay our respect, to pray for these families, and we were going together to this memorial service at the Korean Harrisburg Presbyterian Church that Friday evening; (and as a concession to our boys we agreed to go out for ice cream after the service.)
I preached at the service. My message was a brief, heartfelt reflection on Psalm 46:1, “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.” The congregation then all lit candles, the PowerPoint of photographs was started, and there was an extended time of prayer. These Korean American Presbyterians pray deeply and fervently and at great length. I was blessed by the depth of their prayers. Their perseverance in prayer was much longer than mine.
One particular prayer concern that came from a member of the congregation touched me. Prayers were being requested for the shooter’s family and also for all our children. The children of immigrants to the United States live with unique burdens and stress. They live between two cultures, wanting in some ways to remember and claim their heritage from Korea but also wanting to become full and complete members of America. Living in these two different worlds creates terrible pressure for these children. Combine that pressure with serious mental illness and an incomprehensible tragedy results.
In the midst of an awful, evil tragedy a very small touch of grace happened for our family. As we pulled into the parking lot at the Harrisburg Korean Church, another family pulled into the parking spot next to us only a moment later, so that we were all getting out of our cars and walking to the church building together. This other family included a mother, father and a teenage son. Our son Michael, who is in ninth grade, immediately called out to the other boy. They are classmates together in Derry High School and sit next to one another in one of their classes. I know how high school boys behave at school. My son and this Korean American young man may have been close school friends, and may have talked about many different subjects and topics together, and may have worked on school work together. But in the context of their high school time together they would probably never have shared the fact that they are each very devout Christians and very active in Presbyterian Churches. But this evening, walking across the parking lot at the Harrisburg Korean Church, these two high school boys shared a new bond and a new relationship created by a shared worship experience in memory of Virginia Tech. I pray these two young men moved a bit closer to each as friends across the cultural barriers and closer to the church which calls us all together in the name of Jesus Christ.
I pray to the Lord.
My wife, Kris, carried the phone out to me in the yard where I was cutting the grass, encouraging me to take this call. I let the lawnmower shut down, and chatted for a moment with the Rev. Song Kang. I was very pleased and honored to be invited to the Memorial Service for the Virginia Tech shooting victims that very evening at our Harrisburg Korean Presbyterian Church. I had heard that there were some incidents of harassment against their community since the shooter was Korean American. Kris and I quickly decided that we would go to this service as a family. We prepared ourselves for the argument we knew we would get from our sons, when they got home from school on a sunny Friday afternoon, and were immediately told that we were going to church together on Friday evening. But we spent our dinner time talking about Virginia Tech. We talked about the fact that our son Kyle had been accepted into the honors program at VT, and Kyle and I had visited and toured there last year. Kyle could be a student at VT. I described the beautiful campus and the gorgeous mountains of Virginia which nestle the little university town of Blacksburg. So Kris and I insisted that we had to pay our respect, to pray for these families, and we were going together to this memorial service at the Korean Harrisburg Presbyterian Church that Friday evening; (and as a concession to our boys we agreed to go out for ice cream after the service.)
I preached at the service. My message was a brief, heartfelt reflection on Psalm 46:1, “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.” The congregation then all lit candles, the PowerPoint of photographs was started, and there was an extended time of prayer. These Korean American Presbyterians pray deeply and fervently and at great length. I was blessed by the depth of their prayers. Their perseverance in prayer was much longer than mine.
One particular prayer concern that came from a member of the congregation touched me. Prayers were being requested for the shooter’s family and also for all our children. The children of immigrants to the United States live with unique burdens and stress. They live between two cultures, wanting in some ways to remember and claim their heritage from Korea but also wanting to become full and complete members of America. Living in these two different worlds creates terrible pressure for these children. Combine that pressure with serious mental illness and an incomprehensible tragedy results.
In the midst of an awful, evil tragedy a very small touch of grace happened for our family. As we pulled into the parking lot at the Harrisburg Korean Church, another family pulled into the parking spot next to us only a moment later, so that we were all getting out of our cars and walking to the church building together. This other family included a mother, father and a teenage son. Our son Michael, who is in ninth grade, immediately called out to the other boy. They are classmates together in Derry High School and sit next to one another in one of their classes. I know how high school boys behave at school. My son and this Korean American young man may have been close school friends, and may have talked about many different subjects and topics together, and may have worked on school work together. But in the context of their high school time together they would probably never have shared the fact that they are each very devout Christians and very active in Presbyterian Churches. But this evening, walking across the parking lot at the Harrisburg Korean Church, these two high school boys shared a new bond and a new relationship created by a shared worship experience in memory of Virginia Tech. I pray these two young men moved a bit closer to each as friends across the cultural barriers and closer to the church which calls us all together in the name of Jesus Christ.
I pray to the Lord.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Scots-Irish and Honduran Presbyterians: Fighting the Established Church.
We have in the Presbytery office a beautiful, first printing, edition of the Centennial Memorial of the Presbytery of Carlisle which was published in Harrisburg in 1889. This work, published in two volumes, offers a fascinating glimpse at both the early history of our Presbytery and our congregations. I was especially drawn to an essay by Rev. W. A. West which discussed the political and religious landscape in Scotland, Ireland and England. What first motivated the Presbyterian migration across the ocean to the wilderness of Penn’s Land in the early 1700s? If one summary statement is possible to capture such a complex and rich history it may be this: The Presbyterians who left Scotland and Ireland for this new world were seeking to escape from the established church with a vision of creating a truly disestablished church. For example, consider this history which reflects the oppressive power of the established church in Scotland and Ireland.
“In 1661, at the re-establishment of Episcopacy in Ireland, the newly appointed bishops, with Jeremy Taylor as their leader, turned all the Presbyterian ministers out of their charges upon the ground that they had never been ordained. This ignoring of Presbyterian ordination carried with it a denial of the validity of any official act performed by a Presbyterian minister. For instance, the validity of marriage, involving the questions of legitimacy and inheritance. This wrong was not corrected until 1782. Second, In 1704 the Sacramental Test Act was passed, which required all persons holding any office, civil or military, or receiving any pay from the sovereign to take sacraments in the established church within three months after their appointment. This, of course, excluded all Presbyterians from civil and military offices of every kind.” (Centennial Memorial of the Presbytery of Carlisle, (Harrisburg: Meyers Printing and Publishing House, 1889), Vol. I, pages 49 and 50.)
The Presbyterians in Scotland and Ireland, our infamous Scots-Irish, responded to an oppressive, established church by moving to a new world, starting new lives and building new churches. Our American Presbyterian tradition was created by their vision and faithfulness, and their adamant rejection of establishment Christianity.
I was recently on a mission trip in Honduras visiting the congregations of the Presbytery of Honduras. As you may know, Honduras is a dominantly Roman Catholic nation. Statistics report that over 90% of the population is Roman Catholic, although there is serious debate about the value and meaning of that statistic. The Roman Catholic Church is a very established Church in Honduras. Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church still today has enormous political and economic power. The Moderator of the Presbytery of Honduras told me a fascinating story. In the 1990s the Presbyterian Churches wanted to formally and legally consolidate their connection to one another by creating the Presbytery of Honduras. This required an application to the government for the Presbytery to acquire official standing as a church body within the nation of Honduras. (This is similar to our Presbytery’s legal standing as a religious organization in the eyes of the United States’ government.) But this application was held up for many years within the bureaucracy of the government. The Presbyterian minister who told me this story is convinced that the Roman Catholic archbishop in Honduras intentionally prevented the legal recognition of the Presbytery of Honduras. Over time, government officials changed, the Presbytery continually reapplied for recognition, some American Presbyterians advocated with the government on their behalf and now, indeed, the Presbytery of Honduras is officially and legally recognized as a church body in Honduras. But the Presbyterians in Honduras have an adamant disdain for establishment Christianity, not unlike our Scots-Irish ancestors. (Presbyterian leaders in Honduras were quite aghast when I described the often cordial and cooperative relationship between Presbyterians and Roman Catholics in America. The Protestant and Roman Catholic divide in Honduras continues to be very wide and deep.)
Both the story of the Scots-Irish rebellion against the established church in their day and the story of the Presbytery of Honduras’ fight for recognition against the established church in their nation encourage an important theological thesis which I have been pondering and researching: (1) The political, social or economic establishment of the church in any society compromises the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Establishment is a very slippery slope. (2) We in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are living through a traumatic era during which our church is being radically disestablished. (3) This may be the best thing that can happen to our church if; indeed, our goal is to be faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I believe this may be one of the most important theological discussions we can have in our church. Consider these questions: In what ways do you believe our church has acted as if we are an established church in American society? In what ways has our establishment functioned to compromise the truth of the Gospel? In what ways is our church now being actively disestablished from American society? Are there ways in which this is good for the church?
“In 1661, at the re-establishment of Episcopacy in Ireland, the newly appointed bishops, with Jeremy Taylor as their leader, turned all the Presbyterian ministers out of their charges upon the ground that they had never been ordained. This ignoring of Presbyterian ordination carried with it a denial of the validity of any official act performed by a Presbyterian minister. For instance, the validity of marriage, involving the questions of legitimacy and inheritance. This wrong was not corrected until 1782. Second, In 1704 the Sacramental Test Act was passed, which required all persons holding any office, civil or military, or receiving any pay from the sovereign to take sacraments in the established church within three months after their appointment. This, of course, excluded all Presbyterians from civil and military offices of every kind.” (Centennial Memorial of the Presbytery of Carlisle, (Harrisburg: Meyers Printing and Publishing House, 1889), Vol. I, pages 49 and 50.)
The Presbyterians in Scotland and Ireland, our infamous Scots-Irish, responded to an oppressive, established church by moving to a new world, starting new lives and building new churches. Our American Presbyterian tradition was created by their vision and faithfulness, and their adamant rejection of establishment Christianity.
I was recently on a mission trip in Honduras visiting the congregations of the Presbytery of Honduras. As you may know, Honduras is a dominantly Roman Catholic nation. Statistics report that over 90% of the population is Roman Catholic, although there is serious debate about the value and meaning of that statistic. The Roman Catholic Church is a very established Church in Honduras. Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church still today has enormous political and economic power. The Moderator of the Presbytery of Honduras told me a fascinating story. In the 1990s the Presbyterian Churches wanted to formally and legally consolidate their connection to one another by creating the Presbytery of Honduras. This required an application to the government for the Presbytery to acquire official standing as a church body within the nation of Honduras. (This is similar to our Presbytery’s legal standing as a religious organization in the eyes of the United States’ government.) But this application was held up for many years within the bureaucracy of the government. The Presbyterian minister who told me this story is convinced that the Roman Catholic archbishop in Honduras intentionally prevented the legal recognition of the Presbytery of Honduras. Over time, government officials changed, the Presbytery continually reapplied for recognition, some American Presbyterians advocated with the government on their behalf and now, indeed, the Presbytery of Honduras is officially and legally recognized as a church body in Honduras. But the Presbyterians in Honduras have an adamant disdain for establishment Christianity, not unlike our Scots-Irish ancestors. (Presbyterian leaders in Honduras were quite aghast when I described the often cordial and cooperative relationship between Presbyterians and Roman Catholics in America. The Protestant and Roman Catholic divide in Honduras continues to be very wide and deep.)
Both the story of the Scots-Irish rebellion against the established church in their day and the story of the Presbytery of Honduras’ fight for recognition against the established church in their nation encourage an important theological thesis which I have been pondering and researching: (1) The political, social or economic establishment of the church in any society compromises the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Establishment is a very slippery slope. (2) We in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are living through a traumatic era during which our church is being radically disestablished. (3) This may be the best thing that can happen to our church if; indeed, our goal is to be faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I believe this may be one of the most important theological discussions we can have in our church. Consider these questions: In what ways do you believe our church has acted as if we are an established church in American society? In what ways has our establishment functioned to compromise the truth of the Gospel? In what ways is our church now being actively disestablished from American society? Are there ways in which this is good for the church?
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Transformations in Worship
Transformations in Worship
St. Andrews Presbyterian Church: Pastors Steve Gribble and Kristal Smith
Shippensburg Presbyterian Church: Pastor Denny Finnegan
I had the opportunity in recent weeks to worship at both our St. Andrews and Shippensburg Churches, and on reflection, it amazes me how these two churches reflect some of the creative energy that is happening in our worship today. The worship services in these congregations are very different, and in comparing them, we see some of the vital and sweeping changes that have been blowing through our Church.
St. Andrews had adopted a model of two very different worship experiences. It requires a very gifted pastor and preacher in Steve Gribble to pull this off every week. The St. Andrews early service is fully contemporary with a praise band, and a very informal kind of ethos. An excellent PowerPoint display helps guide the congregation for the whole service. Their large screen hangs prominently above the choir loft. The sermon is preached informally from the aisle of the sanctuary with a more relaxed and engaging presentation which Steve delivers with convincing power and warmth. This service also includes a drama team was presented a beautiful enacted-parable of the Bible text for the day. With their full praise band, and drama team St. Andrews does an excellent job of contemporary worship.
And then it all is transformed for their later service. The screen disappears, and a full, robed choir uses the choir loft, the organist leads the service, and the pastors wear their formal clerical robes. Steve preaches from the pulpit with a more serious but still very engaging style. This is classic, traditional worship and it is done very well.
The thinking behind all of this is, of course, to offer different options and styles of worship for different people. It is a common model but St Andrews does it particularly well since their two services are truly unique and different. The contemporary service is unabashedly contemporary in every detail; the traditional service is fully traditional without apology or hesitation. Both services are very well done, well planned, and carefully expressed. The worship services are very strong at St. Andrews.
Now the St. Andrews model came to mind when I worshiped at Shippensburg which has adopted a very different model for worship. Their one service is truly blended. There are many touches of a contemporary style blended into a traditional order of worship and ethos. There is a full choir in robes but their offering was a contemporary praise song accompanied by guitars. The sermon is traditional, from the pulpit, and very biblical. Denny’s preaching was biblical in a classic, traditional sense which is almost rare today. This was almost a verse by verse commentary on the Bible passage. I found this to be a refreshing and very spiritually fulfilling, deep encounter with the scriptures. I found myself during the sermon reaching for the pew Bible to check out this or that verse which was being preached. In my mind, the best preaching always pushes me back into the scripture for study and prayer. This was preaching as it should be in a classic sense; this deep engagement with the scriptures.
But after this traditional biblical sermon, the Shippensburg congregation moved together into one of most creative expressions of worship that I have experienced in any of our churches. This was an extended time of shared prayer. But this was very different. Members of the congregation shared their prayer concerns at great length, much more than simply shouting out a name and a disease. And Pastor Denny, instead of waiting until everyone was finished sharing, prayed after each person shared. Moreover, as he prayed for each prayer concern, he encouraged the congregation to physically and spiritually turn and reach out to the person being prayed for. This was one of the most powerful expressions of public prayer that I have ever shared. It was truly beautiful. Because each prayer concern was shared at length and then prayed for at length, this time of prayer went on for many minutes. But it was obvious to me that this was an expected and important expression of their worship. The Shippensburg Church is a praying church!
Given all the changes and transformations which are happening in our Church, and indeed within the whole culture of religion in modern America, I believe these transformations in worship are most vital. On one hand there are exciting new expressions of creativity and imagination in our worship services. On the other hand our services of worship are becoming incredibly diverse and different. The good old days when worship in one Presbyterian Church was pretty much like worship in every Presbyterian Church are gone. Worship is the heart and soul of the Church. We need to think, pray and ponder about these transformations. There are exciting things happening in our congregations.
St. Andrews Presbyterian Church: Pastors Steve Gribble and Kristal Smith
Shippensburg Presbyterian Church: Pastor Denny Finnegan
I had the opportunity in recent weeks to worship at both our St. Andrews and Shippensburg Churches, and on reflection, it amazes me how these two churches reflect some of the creative energy that is happening in our worship today. The worship services in these congregations are very different, and in comparing them, we see some of the vital and sweeping changes that have been blowing through our Church.
St. Andrews had adopted a model of two very different worship experiences. It requires a very gifted pastor and preacher in Steve Gribble to pull this off every week. The St. Andrews early service is fully contemporary with a praise band, and a very informal kind of ethos. An excellent PowerPoint display helps guide the congregation for the whole service. Their large screen hangs prominently above the choir loft. The sermon is preached informally from the aisle of the sanctuary with a more relaxed and engaging presentation which Steve delivers with convincing power and warmth. This service also includes a drama team was presented a beautiful enacted-parable of the Bible text for the day. With their full praise band, and drama team St. Andrews does an excellent job of contemporary worship.
And then it all is transformed for their later service. The screen disappears, and a full, robed choir uses the choir loft, the organist leads the service, and the pastors wear their formal clerical robes. Steve preaches from the pulpit with a more serious but still very engaging style. This is classic, traditional worship and it is done very well.
The thinking behind all of this is, of course, to offer different options and styles of worship for different people. It is a common model but St Andrews does it particularly well since their two services are truly unique and different. The contemporary service is unabashedly contemporary in every detail; the traditional service is fully traditional without apology or hesitation. Both services are very well done, well planned, and carefully expressed. The worship services are very strong at St. Andrews.
Now the St. Andrews model came to mind when I worshiped at Shippensburg which has adopted a very different model for worship. Their one service is truly blended. There are many touches of a contemporary style blended into a traditional order of worship and ethos. There is a full choir in robes but their offering was a contemporary praise song accompanied by guitars. The sermon is traditional, from the pulpit, and very biblical. Denny’s preaching was biblical in a classic, traditional sense which is almost rare today. This was almost a verse by verse commentary on the Bible passage. I found this to be a refreshing and very spiritually fulfilling, deep encounter with the scriptures. I found myself during the sermon reaching for the pew Bible to check out this or that verse which was being preached. In my mind, the best preaching always pushes me back into the scripture for study and prayer. This was preaching as it should be in a classic sense; this deep engagement with the scriptures.
But after this traditional biblical sermon, the Shippensburg congregation moved together into one of most creative expressions of worship that I have experienced in any of our churches. This was an extended time of shared prayer. But this was very different. Members of the congregation shared their prayer concerns at great length, much more than simply shouting out a name and a disease. And Pastor Denny, instead of waiting until everyone was finished sharing, prayed after each person shared. Moreover, as he prayed for each prayer concern, he encouraged the congregation to physically and spiritually turn and reach out to the person being prayed for. This was one of the most powerful expressions of public prayer that I have ever shared. It was truly beautiful. Because each prayer concern was shared at length and then prayed for at length, this time of prayer went on for many minutes. But it was obvious to me that this was an expected and important expression of their worship. The Shippensburg Church is a praying church!
Given all the changes and transformations which are happening in our Church, and indeed within the whole culture of religion in modern America, I believe these transformations in worship are most vital. On one hand there are exciting new expressions of creativity and imagination in our worship services. On the other hand our services of worship are becoming incredibly diverse and different. The good old days when worship in one Presbyterian Church was pretty much like worship in every Presbyterian Church are gone. Worship is the heart and soul of the Church. We need to think, pray and ponder about these transformations. There are exciting things happening in our congregations.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Statistical Interpretation
Statistics are very interesting. It seems as if statistics prove facts. But actually statistics can be used selectively in different ways in support of many different kinds of conclusions. Statistics in some form or another can be brought to bear on whatever conviction we would like to argue. So what do we do with our denomination’s statistics? We are a church that keeps very precise statistics. These are published annually, or more easily are available online at the Office of Research Services of the General Assembly. I have studied and pondered the most recent statistical report, from the year 2005, which has recently been published. To confess my ignorance in this matter, I am not at all sure what all these numbers tell us. I see two very important statistical measurements that truly support opposite conclusions. So what do all these numbers mean? This question is a wonderful discussion starter.
Statistic 1, Total Membership: For the past forty consecutive years the total membership of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has decreased. Statistically, the year 2005 saw one of the largest membership decreases. In 2005 our total active membership decreased by 2.1%. Thus in 2005, we lost 48,474 active members bringing our total active membership as of December 31, 2005 down to 2,313,662. This means that in the ten year period from 1995 to 2005 the Presbyterian Church’s total active membership decreased from 2,665,276 to 2,313,662.
As is very common throughout our church, particularly in the Presbyterian Layman, this statistic is often used to argue that our Church is in wholesale decline. Moreover, this statistic is cited as evidence that there is something wrong with our church, that we headed in the wrong direction. This statistic is regularly cited as evidence for the conclusion that there is something theologically wrong with the church.
Statistic 2, Per Member Giving: For every one of the last forty consecutive years there has been an adjusted-for-inflation increase in per member giving. This is a remarkable statistic; giving per member has increased every year for the past forty years, even when the rate of inflation is factored in. In the year 2005 our statistics report giving per member of $900.37. This is a noteworthy 5.59% increase from 2004 when the giving per member was $852.72.
It seems to me that, particularly in America where money has enormous cultural power, this statistic may be used to argue for the health and vitality of our church. Certainly there are sweeping changes in the way this money is being used in the church. Much more of it is kept at home for work within the local congregation; and less of it is forwarded to the higher governing bodies of the church. This changing pattern of allocation is also evidenced in the statistics. But, it seems to me, the changing patterns allocating our money and the continuing increase in total giving are different issues all together. The annual increase in per member giving is remarkable good news which may indeed support an argument about the continuing health and vitality of our church, even as we get smaller. In our consumer, money dominated society is there not a significant theological interpretation possible here which is exactly the opposite of that which is often associated with our membership numbers? Increased per member giving indicates a deeper and growing commitment to the work of the church and, thus, a theological conviction that the church is healthy. If our members are moving into deeper levels of stewardship commitment, does it not follow that we must be doing something right for the Kingdom?
Finally, which statistic and which conclusion do you want to hold on to? I am not sure what the numbers tell us.
Statistic 1, Total Membership: For the past forty consecutive years the total membership of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has decreased. Statistically, the year 2005 saw one of the largest membership decreases. In 2005 our total active membership decreased by 2.1%. Thus in 2005, we lost 48,474 active members bringing our total active membership as of December 31, 2005 down to 2,313,662. This means that in the ten year period from 1995 to 2005 the Presbyterian Church’s total active membership decreased from 2,665,276 to 2,313,662.
As is very common throughout our church, particularly in the Presbyterian Layman, this statistic is often used to argue that our Church is in wholesale decline. Moreover, this statistic is cited as evidence that there is something wrong with our church, that we headed in the wrong direction. This statistic is regularly cited as evidence for the conclusion that there is something theologically wrong with the church.
Statistic 2, Per Member Giving: For every one of the last forty consecutive years there has been an adjusted-for-inflation increase in per member giving. This is a remarkable statistic; giving per member has increased every year for the past forty years, even when the rate of inflation is factored in. In the year 2005 our statistics report giving per member of $900.37. This is a noteworthy 5.59% increase from 2004 when the giving per member was $852.72.
It seems to me that, particularly in America where money has enormous cultural power, this statistic may be used to argue for the health and vitality of our church. Certainly there are sweeping changes in the way this money is being used in the church. Much more of it is kept at home for work within the local congregation; and less of it is forwarded to the higher governing bodies of the church. This changing pattern of allocation is also evidenced in the statistics. But, it seems to me, the changing patterns allocating our money and the continuing increase in total giving are different issues all together. The annual increase in per member giving is remarkable good news which may indeed support an argument about the continuing health and vitality of our church, even as we get smaller. In our consumer, money dominated society is there not a significant theological interpretation possible here which is exactly the opposite of that which is often associated with our membership numbers? Increased per member giving indicates a deeper and growing commitment to the work of the church and, thus, a theological conviction that the church is healthy. If our members are moving into deeper levels of stewardship commitment, does it not follow that we must be doing something right for the Kingdom?
Finally, which statistic and which conclusion do you want to hold on to? I am not sure what the numbers tell us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)