Synod Transitions

I've been serving on a group known as the Synod Transitions Working Group, that is drafting a proposal for the Synod Council (and ultimately the Synod Assembly) to envision what a synod ought to look like in these changing times. We're nearing the conclusion of our work, which will likely include a range of possibilities, from pretty much shutting down the Synod (making it a Minimum Function Synod, as described in the Form of Government) to business as usual.

I can't say much more than that publicly until our report is finalized and approved, but it's fair to say that our recommendation will fall somewhere in between those two extremes.

Updates on our progress are posted from time to time on the Synod of the Northeast web page.

We've just made a YouTube video, to introduce the presbyteries of the Synod to our group and what we're doing:

Why Confirmation Still Matters

There's been much hand-wringing for years about mainline Protestant membership decline. There's a tired old refrain that says it's all due to conservative outrage over liberal positions taken by the national church, but that's easily exposed as nonsense. Church history, in fact, proves just the opposite.  The greatest periods of growth have coincided with major change, particularly faith-based social movements that bettered the lives of people who were getting the short end of the stick, and that showed the world that the church has something to offer that goes beyond mere private belief.

There are convincing sociological arguments that say a significant part of the decline, for denominations like ours that have traditionally relied on Christian nurture of our own progeny, is due to demographic factors such as: (1) a sharply declining birth rate among our member families; (2) a historically unprecedented increase in the average age of marriage and mothers bearing their first child; and (3) the vast increase in two-paycheck households and in working hours in general, which has sapped our traditional pool of volunteers.

Check out Robert Wuthnow's landmark study, After the Baby Boomers, if you want to see those statistics.

But that doesn't explain all of it.  Here's a further explanation for the decline that, coupled with the sociological numbers,  makes sense to me:

"Kenda Creasy Dean, in her important book Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers is Telling the American Church, suggests that kids leave the church in their early adult years because the faith they received at home and church ends up being fairly superficial, unable to help them make sense of and navigate the challenges of adult life. I’d add that in a hyper-driven world with 24/7 opportunities and obligations, time has become the scarcest of commodities and therefore we will no longer give our time to things that don’t significantly inform and tangibly contribute to the rest of our life.

While Dean suggests that a major cause of the superficial faith of our kids is the failure of their parents to show them why their own faith matters, I’d point out that today’s parents – even committed church-going parents – never received this kind of instruction from their parents or pastors. Why? Because in a nominally Christian culture everyone knew enough of the faith to make sense of it while simultaneously not needing to employ that faith to navigate significant elements of their lives. After all, when most people went to church, what serious other options were there for how you would spend your Sunday mornings?

Which means that on one level confirmation should be more important than ever. If our kids, that is, don’t learn not just the content of their faith but it’s actual value to help them shape productive lives, they will undoubted find better things to do with their Sunday mornings."

- Blog post by David J. Lose, "Does Confirmation Still Matter?"

If our kids aren't coming back to church in adulthood, then without a doubt there's something wrong with the way we've been doing Confirmation. It's not that we don't have great Confirmation curriculum and media materials - some of the stuff out there now, like the re:form videos offered by sparkhouse.com - is truly inspired.  It's the larger question of whether we're equipping and inspiring parents to share their faith with their kids. Because, let's face it, when we're talking about young adolescents, it's still their parents who are the most significant adult examples of Christian faith in their lives. (Teenagers won't often admit it, but it's true.) If they can't see something real and authentic about their parents' faith, then the game is over before it even begins - even if the parents dutifully drive their sullen offspring over to the church for Confirmation classes ("Because that's just what we do in our family, kid, so you're going, and if you never go to church again after you get confirmed, that's your business.").

Yes, Confirmation does still matter.  It matters more than ever.

But it's got to be real.

Real people, witnessing about their real faith: not just dry theological lessons about what "the quick and the dead" and "he descended into Hell" mean.

Can we find a way to make that happen, for our kids' sake - and the future church's?

“No” to a Return to the Former Ordination Standards

The Church Orders and Ministry Committee brought this item to the floor, approving an overture sent from Sacramento Presbytery that calls for no constitutional change, but is rather a sort of resolution.  The last paragraph is as follows:

“The 220th General Assembly (2012) acknowledges that faithful Presbyterians earnestly seeking to follow Jesus Christ hold different views about what the Scriptures teach concerning the morality of committed, same-gender relationships. Therefore, while holding persons in ordered ministry to high standards of covenant fidelity in the exercise of their sexuality, as in all aspects of life, we acknowledge that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) does not have one interpretation of Scripture in this matter. We commit ourselves to continue respectful dialogue with those who hold differing convictions, to welcome one another for God’s glory, and not to vilify those whose convictions we believe to be in error. We call on all Presbyterians to join us in this commitment.”

There was an attempt by conservatives to replace this statement with one that would essentially have reversed the change in ordination standards.  The substitute motion failed, and the item itself subsequently passed by 63% to 36%.

Once again, the “Can’t Everyone Just Get Along?” Assembly proved true to its most deeply-felt value: avoiding conflict.

Can't Everyone Just Get Along?

Recently, there was a news story reporting on the death of Rodney King, the African-American man whose brutal beating at the hands of white Los Angeles police officers sparked a destructive round of rioting.  One quotation that went down in history as associated with Mr. King was this plaintive question: “Can’t everyone just get along?”

Based on what I’ve seen so far, this Assembly may go down in history as the “Can’t Everyone Just Get Along?” Assembly. After the ripples – no, rolling waves – of anxiety that have been crashing through the denomination ever since our change in ordination standards, this Assembly appears to be motivated from a deep-seated desire not to change anything.

One commissioner said it best: “This is not the season to have the church go through a long, arduous and divisive debate.” So far, the 220th General Assembly could well have adopted that statement as its motto.

Almost, But Not Quite, on Same-Gender Marriage

Committee on Civil Union and Marriage Issues chair the Rev. Aimee Moiso told the Assembly, as she began her report, how her committee has received urgent, impassioned entreaties from Presbyterians from every part of the theological spectrum.  Most of them, she said, told the committee the time is critical, so they need to act decisively – now – to settle the present uncertainty about the nature of marriage.

She said she believes her committee’s recommendation is the closest thing possible to a middle way, in this severely conflicted situation.

The Rev. Michael Wilson, from Donegal Presbytery, presenting a minority report, spoke of the value of listening to one another in “this tender time.” He declared that sending a constitutional amendment to the presbyteries does not constitute listening.

Opponents of the committee’s recommendation began by raising a point of order, asking the moderator to rule that the proposal is out of order, because it conflicts with several passages in the Book of Confessions on the nature of marriage. These opponents cited the fact that, in every situation in which the confessions speak on marriage, it is marriage between a man and a woman.

After receiving advice from the Advisory Committee on the Constitution and from the Stated Clerk, the moderator ruled that the committee’s proposal is indeed in order – based on the understanding expressed in the Introduction to the Book of Confessions and in the Confession of 1967 that the confessions represent a broad historical heritage and are not meant to be cited as a rulebook. The Form of Government, by contrast, is meant to be used in such a way.

I predict that the usual anguished voices from the conservative side of the church will decry this ruling, claiming that it holds the Book of Order up as a higher authority than the Book of Confessions, and demonstrating that the PC(USA) has strayed from confessional faithfulness into legalism.  I’m quite sure this is not what the Stated Clerk was saying.  In his comments, he made it clear that this is a matter of function.  In no way did he imply that this reverses the usual order of precedence that places the Scriptures first in authority, the Book of Confessions second, and the Book of Order third.

We Presbyterians, from the mid-20th Century onward, do not interpret either scripture or confessions in a literalistic fashion. Unfortunately, there are some among us who still believe that we do, and who believe that the highest form of authority is a literalistic interpretation.

There was a motion to appeal the moderator’s ruling.  It failed, but with only 70% support – a shockingly low percentage, given the fact that the church left a subscriptionist understanding of the Confessions behind more than a generation ago.

There is a human yearning for certainty in things spiritual, that sometimes finds idolatrous consolation in literalism, whether of scripture or confessions.

Then followed, for nearly an hour, a time of wrangling over various motions that would restrict debate on this issue. None of them succeeded, but collectively they all had the effect of burning up precious time, to little good effect.

When debate finally began in earnest, there were some moments of significant personal drama. A YAAD came out on the floor of the Assembly as a lesbian, speaking movingly for full inclusion of GLBTQ Christians who wish to have their committed relationships blessed by their church.  Another minister, a well-known activist, rose to admit that she is an “out lesbian,” and that she has performed a number of same-sex marriages and will continue to do so.

There was a question about the impact upon our relationships with our ecumenical partners, should we change our definition of marriage.  The Rev. Hunter Farrell of the General Assembly’s Mission Program spoke of the impact of our recent change in ordination standards on our relationship with the Presbyterian Church of Mexico.  That denomination responded by breaking relations with us. This led to the recall of nearly a dozen mission workers, and the closing or handing-off of numerous projects to ecumenical partners. This, too, put a personal face on the decision.

(Surprisingly, no one spoke up on the floor to point out that if, in fact, the universal acclamation of all our ecumenical partners is an essential criterion for every decision we make, nothing would change in the church, ever again. Someone has to be first.)

A woman minister spoke of her desire to perform the marriage of her gay son someday, and of her desire for an AI (Authoritative Interpretation) that would protect her from church disciplinary charges.  “I apologize in advance for costing the church tens of thousands in legal fees,” she said – not entirely tongue-in-cheek.

When it came time, at last, to vote on the minority report, it failed, but only barely: Yes, 323 (48%). No, 346 (51%).

Then there came a second minority report. Bill Thro, Ruling Elder from Eastern Virginia Presbytery, presented a report that was, if anything, slightly more conservative than the first.  Predictably, this one failed by an even larger margin: Yes, 266 (40%). No, 397 (60%).

Having survived those two energetic challenges, the committee’s recommendation at last came to a vote.  It failed: Yes, 308 (48%). No, 338 (52%).

Now, here’s the kicker: 75% of YAADs (Young Adult Advisory Delegates) voted yes. These young Presbyterians, ages 17-23, are heavily involved in their churches.  If three-quarters of these highly-churched young people want to see the definition of marriage expanded so as to include same-gender couples, then what about the legions of their contemporaries who presently have nothing to do with the church?  Polls by Gallup and other organizations reveal that approval of same-gender relationships is nearly universal among this age group. Will the Presbyterian Church have even the remotest chance of winning this generation without changing our definition of marriage?  And, since we’ve largely failed to attract the GenX and Millenial generations in significant numbers, there’s a real question about our long-term survival.

Not that this sort of demographic calculation ought to inform us, of course. We are Reformed Christians, people of the Book (Scripture) and the living confessional heritage that interprets it.  Yet, the theological progressives among us are by no means lacking in scriptural justification for their positions (although many conservatives would dispute that, believing not only that their interpretation is the only correct one, but denying that they themselves in fact do any interpreting at all). I fear that the conservatives’ dogged adherence to their interpretation to the exclusion of all others amounts to a scorched-earth tactic in the fields of the Lord, and that the next generations will have little interest in settling in such a barren landscape. They will go elsewhere.

After reconvening following dinner, the committee continued with an item of new business, that the church “enter into a season of serious study and discernment concerning its meaning of Christian marriage in the two-year period” between this Assembly and the next. This was approved.

A further proposal asked the Assembly to issue an authoritative interpretation that, while not changing the church’s definition of marriage, would allow for immunity from prosecution under the Rules of Discipline for teaching elders and churches that conduct same-gender marriages in states where that is legal.  That failed, 307-334.

There was one more attempt to bring the AI idea to the floor, but that failed by an even larger margin of 76% to 24%.

This Assembly, therefore, will be a disappointment to those Presbyterians who would like to see a broadening of marriage to include every sort of couple. Considering that this is the first time this has been before the General Assembly as a real possibility, it does, in fact, represent  an extraordinary shift.  The vote margins this year have been so close that it seems likely that there will be some sort of change in 2014.
Can’t Everyone Just Get Along?

Recently, there was a news story reporting on the death of Rodney King, the African-American man whose brutal beating at the hands of white Los Angeles police officers sparked a destructive round of rioting.  One quotation that went down in history ass associated with Mr. King was this plaintive question: “Can’t everyone just get along?”

Based on what I’ve seen so far, this Assembly may go down in history as the “Can’t Everyone Just Get Along?” Assembly. After the ripples – no, rolling waves – of anxiety that have been crashing through the denomination ever since our change in ordination standards, this Assembly appears to be motivated from a deep-seated desire not to change anything.

One commissioner said it best: “This is not the season to have the church go through a long, arduous and divisive debate.” So far, the 220th General Assembly could well have adopted that statement as its motto.

So, What Happened with Synods?

The ultimate “insider” issue at this Assembly – of interest to Presbyterians, and almost no one else – was the proposal by the Commission on Mid-Councils that synods as we know them be eliminated from our Form of Government.  In their place, we would have had regional administrative commissions of the General Assembly, as well as regional judicial bodies to handle appeals of Rules of Disicipline cases.

That didn’t fly.  The Assembly instead called for yet another committee. This one would be composed of a few leftover representatives from the Mid-Council Commission, plus some folks from the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly, rounded out by a few commissioners to this Assembly.

It’s a solution roughly parallel to what happened with the New Form of Government, the first time it came before a General Assembly. The plea, back then, was that the final nFOG text had been published so recently that the church hadn’t had time to digest it.  No similar reason was given this time – nor could it, because the elimination of legislative synods has been talked about for nearly a generation.

The charge to this new committee will be “to further discuss, refine, and bring to the 221st General Assembly (2014) recommendations that consider the composition and organization of the mid councils in ways that reinvigorate their capacity to support missional congregations, and advance the ecclesial nature and character of those presbyteries, within the unity of the church.”

In case you need a translation of that gobbledygook into plain language, it’s called “kicking the can further down the road.”

Some of the language in the Assembly’s referral seems to suggest that reducing the number of synods would be a good thing.  Many of us think that’s exactly opposite of the way we need to go – that the move to huge regional synods in the early 1970s was, in historical hindsight, a disastrous mistake.  With so many presbyteries having to downsize their staff for financial reasons, it may be that our future lies not with even larger regional synods, but with smaller clusters of 3 or 4 presbyteries, each one having minimal staff other than a stated clerk, with an executive coordinating the cluster activities – and no legislative body other than, perhaps, a small coordinating council.  This structure, as I understand it, is similar to the one in the Reformed Church in America.

I sat in on most of the sessions of the Assembly’s Mid-Councils Review Committee.  I was struck by how most members of the committee just didn’t seem to have the will to engage the question. Nor did the Assembly, as it turned out. It’s hard to imagine what sort of report this new working group will bring back that will in any way improve on the exhaustive report prepared by the Mid-Council Commission.  As with the nFOG, it may be just a matter of resubmitting essentially the same proposal, with the possible addition of some study materials.

This is one of those times when the old British schoolchild’s fractured lines from “Onward Christian Soldiers” apply:

“Like a mighty tortoise moves the church of God,

We are slowly treading where the saints have trod.”

To Divest or not to Divest?

A very emotional debate this evening, over the difficult issue of divestment from companies that support certain activities of the Israeli government in the occupied Palestinian territories. Although the Assembly's committee had previously voted to recommend divestment from three companies - Caterpillar, Motorola Solutions and Hewlett-Packard - the Assembly overturned that recommendation on a razor-thin vote of 333 to 331.

Brian Ellison, of the denomination's Mission Responsibility Through Investment Program, explained the reasons why his group had singled out these three companies, from the hundreds who do business with Israel in ways that support the Palestinian occupation.  Caterpillar makes military bulldozers the Israelis use to bulldoze Palestinian houses justs after the occupants have been evicted. Motorola Solutions provides electronic surveillance equipment. Hewlett-Packard manufactures body-scanning equipment the Israelis use at checkpoints.  Unlike the vast majority of other companies, Brian explained, these three have been almost completely unresponsive to church efforts to sit down with their management and discuss business ethics. The divestment recommendation comes at the end of a long series of less-sweeping actions on the part of the church, none of which has yielded any progress.

This is a large and complex issue that evokes strong feelings on both sides.  Presbyterians are of a divided mind about it, because we value both the safety and integrity of the state of Israel and the civil rights of our brothers and sisters in the Palestinian lands (some of whom are Christians with whom we have long-standing mission relationships). There's no doubt the Israelis have behaved badly in many aspects of their administration of the occupied territories, but there is also a very real concern for their national security, as some terrorist organizations operate out of the West Bank and Gaza.

There's of course incredible irony in the fact that a Jewish state born out of the horrors of the Holocaust has, in recent years, built a wall to confine an ethnic group different from their own, in a way that resembles the ghettos of Europe.

I'm not sure how I feel about it, personally.  I feel genuinely perplexed by the competing claims on both sides.

There are also very real questions about whether divestment is a merely symbolic action, anyway, since even the millions of dollars in investments in these companies held by our Board of Pensions and Presbyterian Foundation are but a drop in the bucket, when compared to the vast number of shares these companies have issued. Is it worth infuriating our Jewish neighbors here in this country, some ask, to pursue a course of action that could very well be quixotic?

With tonight's action, what the church is proposing to do, instead, is to pursue a positive strategy of investing in Palestinian businesses,  so as to alleviate just a little of the grinding poverty that makes life in the occupied territories so hopeless. As someone who knows the situation shared with me tonight, though, there's a real question as to whether the Israelis - who have a tight lock on everything that happens in the Palestinian territories - would allow such investment to take place.

Time will tell, I suppose.

I spent the evening assisting Young Adult Advisory Delegates and Theological School Advisory Delegates as they patiently waited in line at the microphone for an opportunity to speak. Even they were divided; some of them spoke in favor of one side, some the other.

Maybe it's just as well that, as divided as we Presbyterians are on the issue, we didn't end up in the position of taking such a concerted social-action stance with only the barest majority of the General Assembly behind it.

I wonder if, perhaps, we haven't done enough to enter into dialogue with our Jewish neighbors here in this country, to try to change some of their hearts and minds, so they take notice of the fact that atrocities have been committed on both sides in this dreadful cross-border confrontation. It's a sure thing that the Israeli government will pay a lot more attention to what American Jews are saying than American Presbyterians.

(Opinions expressed above are purely my own, and in no way reflect the views of presbytery management.)