Catholics, PCUSA and Two Other Churches Mutually Recognize Baptisms

From the National Council of Churches:

Catholic Church and four Reformed churches recognize validity of one another's baptism

New York, July 14, 2011 – The general secretary of the National Council of Churches today celebrated an historic agreement among the Roman Catholic Church and four historic Protestant reformed churches to recognize the validity of one another's baptism.

The Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, staff head of the nation’s leading ecumenical body, said, "these five churches have taken a significant step on this road to unity."

The United Church of Christ was the most recent church to adopt the “Common Agreement on Mutual Recognition of Baptism” during its synod earlier this month in Tampa, Fla.

The agreement was approved by the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. in 2008, the United States Council of Catholic Bishops in November of last year, and the Reformed Church of America and the Christian Reformed Church at their denominational meetings last month.

Check out the full article.

New Book of Order Available for Free, Online

The new Book of Order, 2011-2013, including the new Form of Government (nFOG), is now available in PDF format as a free download from The Church Store, part of the PCUSA web page.

If you don't have an account with The Church Store already, they're going to make you go through the process of registering with your contact information and submitting a credit card number, but don't worry, the bill will come out to "0.00" in the end, so you won't be charged anything.

Print copies are of course still available, for $10 plus shipping, but this electronic version (searchable through Adobe Reader or whatever other software you use to read pdf files) is a convenience.

Please spread the word.

Where to Get the New Book of Order

This information arrived today from the PC(USA) Office of the General Assembly:

The Book of Order (2011-2013) is available in print. Item #OGA-11-001. Price: $10 for 1-9 copies, 10% discount for 10-24 copies; 15% discount for 25-49 copies; 20% discount for 50+ copies. Order from the Church Store or call (800) 524-2612.

Here are the many electronic formats of the Book of Order (2011-2013) that are or will be available:

· Available now: A downloadable PDF version of Foundations of Presbyterian Polity, the new first section of the Book of Order.

· By July 20: a CD-ROM with both the Book of Confessions and the Book of Order (2011-2013) in PDF formats. Item #OGA-11-007. Price: $15. Order from the Church Store or call (800) 524-2612.

· By August 1: the Book of Order (2011-2013) will be in the Kindle bookstore (for Kindle and PC users) and in the iBookstore (for Mac and iPad users). Price: $9.99.

· This fall (date subject to the work of the Special Committee on Authoritative Interpretations): A free annotated, online, searchable version of the Book of Order (2011-2013) will be added to the PC(USA) Document Library. The library currently contains the most recent version of the Book of Order, the Book of Confessions, General Assembly Minutes (1986-2008), Social Policy Compilation, and Selected Theological Statements.

What's a Church's Economic Worth?

From time to time, we all hear complaints about certain benefits churches receive from the government - most notably, our exemption from property taxes and the income-tax deductions our members can receive for their contributions. Critics of these benefits tend to see churches as freeloaders, living high on the hog at the public's expense.

A recently-published research study, if its results are generally accepted, will go a long way towards putting such objections to rest.

The "Halo Effect" Study conducted by the non-profit group, Partners for Sacred Places, examined historic churches in Philadelphia. As reported in a February 1, 2011 story in the Philadelphia Inquirer, the positive economic impact of churches on their surrounding community - both in terms of direct spending and services provided cheaply or at no cost to their recipients - is massive:

"They added up the money generated by weddings and funerals, festivals, counseling programs, preschools, elder care. They tallied the salaries of staff and the wages of roofers, plumbers, even snow shovelers. They put dollar signs on intangibles, too, such as helping people find work and teaching children to be socially responsible.

They even measured the diameter of trees on church campuses.

The grand total for the 12 congregations: $50,577,098 in annual economic benefits.

The valuation for 300-member Gloria Dei (Old Swedes') Episcopal Church in Queen Village, for instance, was a middle-of-the-road $1.65 million. By contrast, the figure for Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary Roman Catholic parish in Kensington, with 7,000 congregants, a parochial school, and a community center, was $22.44 million.

The numbers, culled from clergy and staff interviews, 'just blew us away,' said Robert Jaeger, executive director of the research group Partners for Sacred Places."

The report has also been mentioned in a May 20, 2011 BBC News story.

As the article makes clear, there will certainly be challenges to some of the calculations included in the report. Pricing intangibles is always a tricky business, in some respects more of an art than a science.

Still and all, the Halo Effect report is a telling reminder that our communities would be poorer places without their churches.

A final note: the photo of the church steeple with the blue-neon halo hanging from it is not Photoshopped. It's the Oran Mor bar and nightclub in Glasgow, Scotland. It's located in a former Church of Scotland sanctuary that once belonged to the now-defunct Kelvinside Church.

Sometimes the message of a church's intangible positive benefits to the community just doesn't get out in time.

The Easily-Forgotten Lessons of History

I posted the following text as an online comment to an article on the Presbyterian Outlook website. The editor chose to run it in the July 11, 2011 print edition as a letter to the editor.

(PHOTO: Distinguished Presbyterian William Jennings Bryan: U.S. Senator and frequent Presidential candidate, Moderator of the General Assembly and guest prosecutor at the Scopes Trial, where he promoted a fundamentalist, anti-evolution interpretation of scripture)

I'm dismayed to think that Frank Frieberg's assessment of the reason why some are considering leaving the denomination could be accurate: "What bothers them the most is the departure from viewing scripture as authoritative and instead viewing scripture as merely guidelines."

I hear this a lot. It sounds very satisfying to say, I'm sure. But it's not based on fact.

If it WERE as simple as that, then why are these people still in the PC(USA) after any one of a number of serious, careful reinterpretations of scripture that took place in the 20th Century:
- ordination of women as deacons, elders and ministers;
- toleration of remarriage after divorce; and
- acceptance of miscegenation, or interracial marriage?

(PHOTO: Margaret Towner, ordained in 1956 as the first constitutionally-approved woman minister in the UPCUSA or the PCUS)

At the beginning of the 20th Century, any one of these practices would have horrified most Presbyterians. They would have seen ample biblical reasons for proscribing them.

At the dawn of the 21st Century, few considered them to be any big deal.



(PHOTO: Richard and Mildred Loving, legally married in Washington, D.C. in 1958, but arrested after they moved to Virginia, where miscegenation, or inter-racial marriage, was still considered a crime. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1967 landmark case of Loving v. Virginia, unanimously ruled the Virginia state law unconstitutional.)

What happened in the meantime? Did the church cease "viewing scripture as authoritative and instead [start] viewing scripture as merely guidelines"?

No. The church prayed and agonized over the texts. Presbyterians engaged in protracted, strenuous debates, using all the the scholarly gifts and persuasive powers God had given them. Decorum was preserved, for the most part (we ARE Presbyterians, after all), but there were awkward periods of years when believers in the same city or even the same congregation feared they had little in common, and little to say, to one another.

In the end, the Holy Spirit had its way with the church. Presbyterians eventually came to believe God was doing a new thing in their midst. Change came - at first by only the barest majority, but eventually by much larger margins.

Change has never happened any other way, since the Day of Pentecost. Together we struggle to discern God's will in the scriptures. It's a slow, messy, agonizing process that takes a generation or more. Each time there's a major change, some Presbyterians split from the main body, seeking a more holy community, but inevitably most end up deeply disappointed. The wisest among them return, eventually - faithful to Christ's prayer "that they all be one." Many more, in time, give thanks that they didn't heed the call to schism when they were sorely tempted to do so.

I'd love to hear one of these aggrieved parties make a convincing argument why this historical change in biblical interpretation is different from any of the others that have preceded it. So far, I haven't heard any argument that has convinced me.

The argument that this change has been foisted on the church by unbiblical people, who care more for what society thinks than what the scriptures say, is as old as the hills. It has been trotted out, in turn, for each of the 20th Century changes mentioned above. The charge was false then, and it is false now.

Having said that, I can also say I understand how it happens. Change is hard. Very hard. I can sympathize with those who fear they no longer recognize the church of their youth.

This is a tender and vulnerable time for the Body of Christ. The faithful way to live through it is to try extra hard to think well of those on the opposite end of the theological spectrum from ourselves - not to demonize them as either libertine or prejudiced.

We can get through this, folks, if we just take a deep breath, try listening more than speaking, and practice the fine Christian art of mutual forbearance.

That's what's worked for us in the past. It will work for us again, if we but continue to trust Jesus Christ, the one head of the church, to be our guide.

"A High Moral Obligation"

Per capita is under discussion in our Presbytery these days, and will be a special topic of interest for the upcoming Presbytery meeting, which will take place on Tuesday, June 28 at 7:00 pm, at the Point Pleasant Presbyterian Church.

Per capita is of course the apportionment plan the Presbyterian Church has used, since the very beginning of our denominational history, to cover administrative expenses. Originally, it was a way of collecting money to cover the expenses of the annual General Assembly - particularly, for reimbursing travel expenses of commissioners. It has since expanded to cover most of the routine administrative expenses of presbyteries, synods and the General Assembly.

In 2011, Monmouth Presbytery’s per capita amount is $35.00 per member. The $35.00 figure is broken down as follows:
● General Assembly - $ 6.50 per member
● Synod of the Northeast - $3.95 per member
● Monmouth Presbytery - $24.55 per member

Per capita is NOT a tax. Although many Sessions ask their members to contribute the cost of their per capita through a special offering, this is neither required nor expected. Sessions are expected to fulfill their church’s entire per capita obligation regardless of the amount of any designated per capita contributions their members may make.

Rather than thinking of per capita as a tax, it is more accurate to think of it as a sort of denominational utility payment. Our churches all make utility payments for electricity, water and the like. For those payments, they receive certain essential services. The essential services provided by per capita are the things that make us Presbyterian – our denominational connectedness.

Now, should a church fall behind on its per capita payments, it's not going to suffer the same consequences as if it defaulted on its electric bill. We all know the electric company will run of patience eventually and disconnect the power supply, but the Presbytery can't throw a switch and de-Presbyterianize a congregation (nor would we ever want to!). Rather, we depend on mutual good will to make the per capita system work.

Essentially, it’s an honor system.

There have been times in the past when churches, facing unusual difficulties, have asked to be relieved of part of their per capita obligation for a time. The Presbytery has obligingly granted such requests. The system has been able to absorb that sort of hit from time to time. We’ve written it off as part of our mutual support for one another. When one weeps, we all weep together, as the scriptures say.

In recent years, though, the honor system seems to be systematically breaking down in some parts of the Presbytery. It will be reported at the upcoming meeting that about one-third of the churches are seriously behind on their per capita payments. A few churches have made no payments, or only minimal payments, for several years now. As a result, the overall amount of the Presbytery portion of per capita has had to be steadily raised (even as expenses have been slashed, by downsizing programs and staff). This means that, in effect, the churches who conscientiously fulfill their per capita obligation are made to pay for those who don’t.

It’s estimated that the Presbytery’s portion of the per capita asking – which is $24.55 – would be $8.00 less, or $16.55, if all the churches remitted their full per capita obligation. That means the total per member asking would be $27.00 instead of $35.00.

The Presbytery can't force Sessions to pay per capita. Officially, it's a voluntary contribution, a benevolence. That much is clear from decisions of the General Assembly’s Permanent Judicial Commission. The most recent of these decisions, Minihan v. Presbytery of Scioto Valley, 2003, was a complaint about a Presbytery policy that declared per capita payments by churches mandatory. The PJC agreed with the complainant and overturned the Presbytery’s policy.

Some pastors and elders, since then, have waved around copies of the Minihan decision, saying, “See! We don’t have to pay per capita. It’s voluntary!” Some have taken the decision as giving them permission to routinely divert money they once used for per capita to pay other bills – a tempting thing to do, in these tough financial times. Others have said, “We encourage our members to pay their own per capita, and will gladly pass along any designated contributions we receive, but we’ll pay nothing more out of our general church budget.”

Such actions are, technically, permissible under the Minihan decision. But, here’s the real question: Are they faithful?

Lots of people are familiar with what the Minihan decision says about the voluntary nature of per capita, which has been widely reported and discussed. Most people don’t realize, though, that the decision also includes a tightly-reasoned theological statement about the importance of per capita as “a high moral obligation.”

Here’s what Minihan says about the morality of paying per capita:

“Therefore, while our Constitution does not technically permit presbyteries to make per capita mandatory, we are necessarily bound together as a covenant community through our union to God Almighty in Jesus through the Holy Spirit (A Brief Statement of Faith, C-10.4, lines 52-57). Thus, there is a high moral obligation based on the grace and call of God to participate fully in the covenant community. Full participation includes time, talent, and treasure (G-10.0102h; W-5.5004). Moreover, all officers are obligated, by virtue of ordination vows [W-4.4003], to participate fully in the life of the Church. To participate partially or not at all and yet claim to be within the covenant community represents a grievous misunderstanding of our reciprocal covenantal obligations under the singular Lordship of Jesus (The Second Helvetic Confession, C-5.124-141). In other words, we are called to turn from the sin of individualism run rampant and embrace the covenantal community in which our Lord Jesus has called us to live as those who love as we have been loved (John 13:34). Therefore, withholding per capita as a means of protest or dissent evidences a serious breach of the trust and love with which our Lord Jesus intends the covenant community to function together (G-7.0103).”

I would love to see every Session who’s decided not to pay their full per capita engage in a careful study of this paragraph, looking up and discussing the biblical and Confessional references it cites, particularly the ordination vows they’ve all taken. How does the vow to “be a friend among your colleagues in ministry, working with them, subject to the ordering of God’s word and Spirit” square with the decision to stick those same colleagues with a portion of one’s own church’s per capita obligation (W-4.4003e)? How does an elder or a minister promise to “share in government and discipline,” while at the same time shrugging and saying, “Sorry, we don’t do per capita” - which for centuries has been the preferred means of paying the basic costs of Presbyterian governance (W-4.4003i)?

I’ve been having this same discussion with our own Session at Point Pleasant, the church I serve as pastor. Last year, I’m sorry to say, we reached the end of the budget year without paying our full per capita obligation. Yes, we defaulted on some of it. It wasn’t an act of protest. We just ran out of money. Knowing that other churches have done the same in recent years, the Session decided (disregarding my advice) that per capita was something they could just - regrettably - let slide, without suffering any adverse effects. Other churches were doing it, weren't they?

There is an adverse effect, though. If per capita is an honor system, and if payment of per capita a question of morality, then maybe we ought to stop talking so much about our budgets, and start talking instead about our souls.

We're going to be talking a lot more about that sort of thing around our Session table this year. Maybe you'll decide to do the same in your church, as well.

Parliamentary time bombs?

There's been some discussion, lately, about how local congregations ought to transition to the new Form of Government, that's due to take effect on July 10, 2011. I've been hearing, in particular, about one alarmist critique of the nFOG, that suggests there are a couple of hidden parliamentary time bombs in there that are all ready to blow local churches sky-high if somebody doesn't get in there like MacGyver and defuse them.

In particular, say the alarmists, there are two things local churches need to do, pronto:

1) Set the quorum for congregational meetings, and
2) Establish the most recent edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised as the parliamentary basis for congregational meetings

Everyone's agreed that, because the nFOG doesn't explicitly adopt these two standards in the case of local churches, congregations do need to vote on these two items at some point, if their By-Laws don't already address these issues. The question is whether this is a matter of such urgency that Sessions need to rush to call a congregational meeting prior to July 10, when the nFOG takes effect. The doomsday scenario - raised by partisans who are no friends of the nFOG and have been opposing it - is that if congregations allow July 10th to come and go without formally adopting the 10% quorum that was in the old book, then they will for all practical purposes be unable to ever meet again, because they'll need to roust out 50% of their membership in order to conduct any business.

The problem with that argument is that it's self-contradictory. If we accept that, after July 10th, the default 50% quorum from Robert's Rules applies to congregational meetings, but we also accept that Robert's has no constitutional basis for congregations after July 10th - unless and until congregations specifically act to adopt it as such - then, how can Robert's impose a 50% quorum from the get-go?

If a congregation can't, or doesn't want to, meet before July 10th, then all it has to do at its first meeting is to adopt a rule stating that, in accordance with former practice, the quorum for a congregational meeting is 10%. Then, it can go on to adopt a second rule, stating that Robert's Rules is the parliamentary authority for all matters not addressed by the Constitution of the PC(USA).

There's actually an easier way to handle this, though, with a single motion (as I describe below).

Furthermore, this is a classic case in which "Jenkins' Law" applies. The late Fred Jenkins was, at one time, our executive presbyter here in Monmouth Presbytery. Fred - who was both an attorney and a minister - left Monmouth to go on to fame and glory as Director of the Office of Constitutional Services in Louisville. Fred had a question he habitually asked, in certain situations in which a council (what we used to call a "governing body") was about to get itself tied up in knots. His question was: "Who's going to sue?"

Let's say a congregation's By-Laws make no mention of either quorum or Robert's Rules - or, worse yet, that a congregation doesn't have any By-Laws at all. Let's also say that congregation tarries, and doesn't hold a meeting until after July 10th. If it makes a good-faith effort at that time to set a reasonable quorum (especially the 10% quorum that, as years of minutes will show, they've been following since forever), and then goes on to establish Robert's as its parliamentary authority (which many successive Books of Order likewise show has historically been our steadfastly reliable guide), then there's not a court in this country, ecclesiastical or otherwise, who's likely to throw a wrench into the works because of such a technicality. And besides, as Fred would say: WHO'S GOING TO SUE, anyway? Who even cares about such a nit-picky point of procedure, when a congregation that takes the steps I've outlined above is doing the most reasonable thing, based on years of past precedent, in order to get through a transitional time?

Now, on to the solution...

Here's what I think all clerks of session ought to do, as we make the change:

1) Find the By-Laws, blow the dust off them, and see what they say about quorum and Robert's Rules. If they already address these matters, you're home free.

2) Failing that, at the next Congregational meeting, have someone propose this motion:

"With respect to any item that the new Form of Government leaves to be set as policy at the discretion of the Congregation, which was formerly included as part of the 2009-2011 Form of Government as amended by the 219th General Assembly (2010), that item is temporarily adopted as Congregational policy until superseded by further action of the Congregation."

Presto! You've just re-established everything that was in the old Book of Order with respect to how congregational meetings operate.

I wouldn't advise keeping that action in place forever, though. If you do, you'll eventually be carrying around a tattered, yellowed copy of the 2009-2011 Book of Order, with all the pages falling out, along with your latest copy of the nFOG. The intent of the change is that every council (formerly "governing body") of the church will go through a careful, deliberate process of writing a policies manual. (From the Presbytery, we'll be sending out guidelines and suggestions in the coming months to help you do so.) This enabling motion is just to buy some time to go through that process in a measured, unhurried way.

The Session ought to to adopt a similar version as well:

"With respect to any item that the new Form of Government leaves to be set as policy at the discretion of the Session, which was formerly included as part of the 2009-2011 Form of Government as amended by the 219th General Assembly (2010), that item is temporarily adopted as Session policy until superseded by further action of the Session."

If you want to, you can add a sunset clause to the end of the motion, saying that it remains in effect until, say, December 31, 2012. But, that's optional.

I think this is a reasonable way to proceed. If you're still concerned about it, of course, you could always suggest to the Session that they call a special congregational meeting before July 10. There's still plenty of time to do that.