Coming: A New Hymnal

A couple of days ago I attended an informational meeting, here at the General Assembly, about the Presbyterian Church's new hymnal project.

To some of us, it's hard to believe the church is putting a new hymnal together already. Some of us remember all too well the skepticism we had to address concerning the last new hymnal project - in 1990. We Presbyterians have been developing new hymnals every 20-25 years on the average, so the timing is about right.

Here are some things I learned about this exciting new project:

About 37% of the hymns in the 1955 hymnal made it into the 1990 hymnal. This is the classic core of our hymnody. Just over 50% of the 1970 Worshipbook hymns made it into the 1990 book.

Based on polling of the committee to date, it's estimated that 90% of the hymns in that classic group that survived the 1955 cut will be in the new book as well, and somewhere around 40% of the hymns that were new in the 1990 book will likewise make it in.

Think of a hymnal, one of the speakers told us, as being like a family album. You'd never say, "We've already got enough wedding photos, we don't need yours." No, you just keep adding the new photos. If you run out of room, you may remove and store some of those older-generation snapshots.

Another analogy is to say it's like moving to a new house. The longer we've lived in a single place, the more accumulated stuff we need to get rid of. Some of the stuff we simply trash, other stuff we put into storage. Some of the stuff in storage will later be reclaimed and cherished later, by the next generation. There will be some hymns like that in the new hymnal. The committee hasn't released any list of hymns yet, but they're sure there will be at least a few rediscovered older hymns in the book.

They anticipate having a small, promotional sampler collection available at the Big Tent Conference next summer, and a larger sampler collection available at the 2012 General Assembly. These samplers will be free.

In the not-so-distant future, we may all be holding something like iPads in worship, although it's too early just now to say what that format will be.

It Happened Last Night

A good, thorough summary of what went on last night, as the Assembly acted on its collective wish not to deal with the same-gender marriage issue this year:

Rumor has it that there may be a motion this morning to reconsider. Historically speaking, such motions have been difficult to get approved.

We'll see...

Not This Year

To me, one of the surprising developments of this Assembly was how easily the Civil Unions and Marriage Issues Committee moved, on Tuesday, to recommend amending the Directory of Worship to allow for same-sex marriage.

Anyone who sat in the committee room for all those hours – as I did – knew it took a long time and much hard work to get there. Yet, when everything was said and done, the committee voted more than two-to-one to recommend the change.

It wasn’t so in the plenary session. The debate surged in earnest around a substitute motion to replace the majority report of the Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage with a minority report that had been authored by the three most conservative members of the Special Committee. When it came time to perfect each side of the substitute motion in turn, the Assembly voted to attach one report to the other – even though they disagreed on the same-sex marriage issue. At one point, Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons admitted that, because of the way those amendments were worded, there was no longer any significant difference between the main motion and the substitute. Either one would have resulted in the two reports being circulated throughout the church for study.

Perhaps it was because of this almost accidental unity of purpose that, when a commissioner made a motion to answer all remaining items of business in the committee’s report with the earlier motion to circulate both reports, the Assembly approved it with little debate. The margin of passage was not large – just over 50% – but it was enough. Having once again recommended to the presbyteries that they authorize the ordination of gays and lesbians, the Assembly was clearly not ready to circulate a set of amendments that would have scrubbed the Directory for Worship of all references to marriage as exclusively male-female.

Not this year – although one thing is certain. It will be back.

A Line in the Sand

A commissioner rises to speak of his great love for the Presbyterian church, and of the joy he feels as he watches his young daughter grow up in the church. But then he promises that, if the motion currently on the floor passes, he and his family will leave the church - and, whether those in other parts of the church will be able to tolerate it.

It’s a line in the sand.

Anyone familiar with the actions of recent General Assemblies can predict what the issue is: whether or not sessions or presbyteries in some parts of the church are permitted to approve the ordination of those living faithfully in gay or lesbian relationships.

Specifically, the action before the Assembly is to remove the present text of G-6.0106b...

“Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.”

...and replace it with:

“Standards for ordained service reflect the church's desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate's calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate's ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”

After extended discussion – including two failed motions to end debate – the Assembly voted to approve the change, sending the amendment to the presbyteries for yet another attempt at ratification: 53% yes, 46% no, 1% abstentions.

Earlier in the afternoon, the Assembly rejected a move to reinstate the earlier authoritative interpretations of the Constitution that had been removed by the 2008 Assembly. These former interpretations declared “self-avowed, practicing homosexuals” ineligible for ordination as ministers, elders or deacons.

If a majority of the presbyteries concur with the amendment that replaces G-6.0106b with the new language, there will no longer be any constitutional impediment to the ordination of those in same-sex relationships.

Past experience has demonstrated that presbytery approval of this change is no foregone conclusion. Last time around, though, it failed by the smallest of margins. Surprisingly, a significant number of presbyteries long considered to be reliable “no” votes switched over to the “yes” column. Given the fact that an overwhelming majority of the church’s younger members favor the change, it’s only a matter of time before it’s enacted. Sheer demographics make it inevitable. If not this year, then maybe two years from now, after the 2012 Assembly.

What about the poor commissioner with his line in the sand? I feel a little sorry for him. Did he seriously think that putting his own future out there in such a public way would sway the voting of hundreds?

It’s never a good idea to make a promise you aren’t prepared to keep – although maybe he is prepared to follow through on it, for all I know. Whatever the case, I hope he will change his mind, coming to a new understanding of the church as a big tent that can accommodate believers with a wide range of views. That requires a certain amount of humility, which for some of us is not so easy to come by.

There was another personal testimony that was part of this afternoon’s debate. Jane Plantinga Pauw witnessed to a powerful, Spirit-led “transformation” in the Assembly Committee on Church Orders and Ministry, as people of vastly differing viewpoints and experiences risked sharing their faith with one another and experienced a deep sense of unity. “It is not only possible to be united in Jesus Christ,” she reported, “but it has happened here.” In her view, the new G-6.0106b language actually gives the church its best hope for unity in the midst of diversity.

That, in fact, has been the experience of every General Assembly working group in recent years that has sought to find a broadly-accepted solution to the thorny sexuality issue. After much research, conversation, debate and prayer, the members of these groups came to a place where they agreed to disagree. Along the way, they discovered a rare sense of community, arising not so much out of their mutual agreement as out of the pain of their differences.

This they considered a sort of miracle, one they could attribute only to the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps this unexpected gift of unity, this surprising serendipity, will prove to be their most lasting gift to the church. Long after the words of their heavily-redacted reports will have been forgotten, it just may be the example of their stubborn love for one another that will endure.

Should this amendment pass a majority of the presbyteries, will those who suddenly find themselves in an unaccustomed minority respond by drawing their own, individual lines in the sand? Or, will they risk exploring, along with those on the other side of the proverbial aisle, what the Holy Spirit may be doing in our midst?

Only God knows.

Only God can make it happen.

A Little GA Humor

If you haven't run across the fictional Frances Wolverton's blog from the General Assembly yet, get over there right away.

Today, of all days, we're all going to need a little comic relief.

Eleventh-Hour Amendments to nFOG

As I mentioned in my last post, the General Assembly passed about 30 amendments to the draft of the new Form of Government. Many of these changes are trivial, but some are significant. Here are the ones I think are significant:

1) Footnote added to G-2.0105, “Freedom of Conscience”: “Very early in the history of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, even before the General Assembly was established, the plan of reunion of the Synod of New York and Philadelphia contained the following sentences: ‘That when any matter is determined by a majority vote, every member shall either actively concur with or passively submit to such determination; or if his conscience permit him to do neither, he shall, after sufficient liberty modestly to reason and remonstrate, peaceable withdraw from our communion without attempting to make any schism. Provided always that this shall be understood to extend only to such determination as the body shall judge indispensable in doctrine or Presbyterian government.’” (Hist. Dig. (P) p. 1310.) (Plan of Union of 1758, par. II.)”

This footnote is an important corrective to a common misinterpretation of the famous “God alone is Lord of the conscience” principle that’s foundational to Presbyterian polity. The uninformed sometimes assume this principle means that Presbyterians can believe anything they want. What it really means is that the State cannot coerce the conscience of a believer through the use of force. Many of the original Thirteen Colonies had an established church, and used the civil law to punish those who sought to worship in other than officially-sanctioned ways. “God alone is Lord of the conscience” has more to do with the separation of church and state than it does with the right of the church to define the boundaries around orthodox belief.

Yes, Presbyterians are free to believe anything they want. Yet, if that belief has to do with a doctrine the church judges to be central to the faith, the church reserves the right to ask unorthodox believers to leave the church and practice their faith in another religious community.

What’s more, the church expects them to withdraw “peaceably...without attempting to make any schism.” It would be a good thing if more of those smug pastors who have taken churches out of the denomination, making narcissistic statements like, “I haven’t left the church, the church has left me” – to join groups like the New Wineskins Association of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church – paid attention to this centuries-old principle. “If you have a serious conflict of conscience with the church’s teaching,” says this principle, “you are perfectly free to leave. But don’t even think of taking your congregation with you as you do so, for that sort of assault on the church’s unity is a deep affront to God.”

2) Add the word “ordinarily” to this sentence in G-G-2.0504a: “An associate pastor is ordinarily not eligible to be the next installed pastor of that congregation.”

It’s been said that “the word ‘ordinarily’ is a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.” When the pastor of a larger church moves on or retires, there is often strong pressure to make the associate pastor the pastor. It’s understandable that a congregation should feel this way. Leadership abhors a vacuum, and the folks in the pews naturally dread the prospect of an extended interim period. Yet, as uncertain as churches may feel during an interim time, important things can happen during those months, as lay leadership shifts and the presbytery charges the congregation with seeking a renewed sense of mission. The vast body of practical experience demonstrates that even the possibility of an associate’s becoming pastor can put a congregation on the road to devastating conflict. The people tend to lay on their new pastor’s shoulders the impossible assignment of becoming the beloved predecessor. When that expectation remains unfulfilled – as it inevitably must – they often turn and blame the new pastor.

Even so, I know the task force wasn’t 100% in agreement that the nFOG should contain this level of specificity about associate-pastor succession. I can understand how some may think the addition of “ordinarily” gives presbyteries the flexibility to seek out those rare situations when associate-pastor succession may be a good idea.

I think presbyteries would do well to draft their policies manuals in such a way as to close this loophole.

3) Add the word “ordinarily” to this sentence in G-G-2.0504b: “A teaching elder employed in a temporary pastoral relationship is ordinarily not eligible to serve as the next installed pastor, co-pastor, or associate pastor.”

Unlike the associate-pastor situation, I think this change is helpful. While it’s generally true that temporary-pastor succession is not a good thing, there are more situations than there are in the case of associate pastors where this may actually be the best thing for the congregation.

4) In G-2.0803, replace “obtain approval” with “receive and consider the presbytery’s counsel,” so the new sentence reads: “...prior to making its report to the congregation, the pastor nominating committee shall receive and consider the presbytery’s counsel on the merits, suitability, and availability of those considered for the call...”

There’s a huge difference between “receiving and considering counsel” and “obtaining approval.” This change eliminates the Committee on Ministry’s ability to quietly head off what they consider to be a train wreck of a call process – perhaps based on confidential reference information they have received from the pastor’s present presbytery of membership. The presbytery still has power to block a disastrous call, but with this change, that power would have to be exercised at the very end of the process, after a congregation (and especially its PNC) has fallen in love with an inappropriate candidate.

5) Amend G-2.0901 by deleting this qualifying phrase, “unless the presbytery expressly finds that the church’s mission under the Word imperatively demands dissolution of the relationship without such a meeting” from the end of this section: “An installed pastoral relationship may be dissolved only by the presbytery. Whether the teaching elder, the congregation, or the presbytery initiates proceedings for dissolution of the relationship, there shall always be a meeting of the congregation to consider the matter and to consent, or decline to consent, to dissolution.”

This rarely-exercised provision is very much needed in uncommon situations of extreme conflict or personal misconduct on the part of a pastor. When a presbytery declares the words, “the church’s mission under the Word imperatively demands it,” it’s declaring a state of emergency and assuming extraordinary powers. A little scary, to be sure, but sometimes that’s the only way out of a bad situation.

6) Amend G-2.0905, replacing “offer” with “provide,” so the new sentence reads: “After the dissolution of the pastoral relationship, former pastors and associate pastors shall not provide their pastoral services to members of their former congregations without the invitation of the moderator of session.” This is a helpful change, in my opinion. Long-tenured former ministers – retired, or simply living nearby – often have trouble maintaining appropriate boundaries. Without those boundaries, they can create havoc in the life of their successor. This change closes the loophole by which a sly retired minister could smile innocently and say: “I’m not seeking out former parishioners to so I can perform their baptisms, weddings and funerals. The families are coming to me.” (Yeah, right.)

7) Amend Paragraph 2 of G-3.0103, so as to restore Committees on Representation. This was a high priority of the racial-ethnic caucuses and of women’s organizations. The original draft simply said presbyteries need to fulfill the function, somehow, of insuring that equal-opportunity provisions are being followed. The amendment insists that this can only be done through a mandatory committee that only has that responsibility and none other. Probably a little too much detail, I think (though some will disagree).

A New FOG

A historic vote this evening: the Assembly voted to approve the new Form of Government, sending it to the presbyteries for ratification. A majority of the presbyteries must approve, in order for it to become the new law of the church.

I said upstream that the nFOG is a true insider issue. It’s of little interest to anyone outside the Presbyterian Church. To us, though, it’s of very great importance.

I like the nFOG. I don’t agree with everything that’s in it (I’m especially uncomfortable with its replacement of “minister of the word and sacrament” with “teaching elder”– a triumph of Melville’s ecclesiology over Calvin’s for no good reason I can see, other than that some people who grew up with the “teaching elder” moniker want it back). Yet, I can live with the things I don’t like about the nFOG because I’m convinced its simplicity and flexibility will help the church become more nimble in ministering to a rapidly changing world.

The Form of Government has steadily grown in size over the latter half of the 20th century. Time and again, as presbyteries got into tough spots and had a hard time making a decision – particularly, saying “no” to a powerful congregation or pastor – they overtured the General Assembly to insert a new rule into the Constitution, so they would never have to take that sort of heat again.

“We never want any presbytery to have to face the sort of situation we just faced,” would be the usual explanation. Well, sorry – sometimes the presbytery just has to be the presbytery, claiming the authority it already has and staring down the ecclesiastical bullies.

The book became needlessly complex. It also became inflexible. A detailed rule that worked out well for Presbyterians in the urbanized Northeast proved disastrous for Presbyterians in, say, sparsely-populated Nevada. The bigger the book got, the less anyone could even pretend that one size fit all.

So – if a majority of the presbyteries concur – in a year’s time we’ll have a new Constitution that’s a lean, mean mission machine. We’ll have to get to work, in every “council” of the church – the new name for governing bodies – to adopt administrative policies manuals that will restore as much of the former detail as we feel we still need. Yet, those manuals will be local-option items. Their regulations will be subject to suspension by a simple motion, or even dropped altogether by a simple amendment. The regulations at the policies-manual level will be a continual work in progress – which is as it should be, in a missional church.

The Assembly Committee that handled the nFOG added about 30 amendments to the document the nFOG task force had labored mightily to put together over the past 4 years. I’m told that most of these changes were agreeable to the task force. Not one, but two different committee members told me they think the nFOG is stronger for these changes.

I don't believe it. I doubt the task force members really believe that's true, in the case of all these eleventh-hour amendments – although I fully understand why they think they needed to present a united front and proclaim the party line. The task force members believe – quite rightly – that, with the stakes so high, a slightly imperfect document is better than none at all.

The opportunity to write a new Constitution doesn't come along every day. It’s not to be wasted.

In a subsequent blog post, I’ll list what I think are the most important of the changes the Assembly made to the draft document.