Bruce, Candiate for Moderator, answers…
Here’s the answers of Bruce Reyes-Chow, candidate for Moderator of the PC(USA) General Assembly. I have to say, not only did he answer in record time–less than 24 hours–he did so wisely and graciously. 
BRUCE’S DISCLAIMER: These responses are done in a free-flow manner as if we were sitting at a cafe sharing a cup of coffee and are not edited or vetted in the same manner as with official publications.
1: In many circles within the PC(USA) there’s a deep antagonism towards all things denominational, but at my seminary there’s a vibrant hope for a vital future. What gives?
Bruce: This does NOT surprise me at all. If you remember, the Presbyterian Youth Connection was one of the strongest youth movements that we have seen in a while. My hunch is that those who where impacted by that time in our history are “coming of age” now are are fully committed to the way they have experienced the denomination. In many ways, I think that the youth and young adult program of the GA 10 years ago, was ahead of it’s time and we are now feeling the push from that constituency.
2. Folks have described you as the “young adult” candidate for moderator. Do you consider yourself a young adult, and depending on that answer, how does this identity jive with your stand for moderator?
Bruce: Context, context context. At the spry age of 39, in many clergy circles I am the youngest in the room, while at the church I serve I am constantly making cultural references that out me as an old guy. What I do think I offer in my youthfulness is a worldview that has often been forced into a box of “young adult” so that the institution can dismiss it. The postmodern worldview within which I live and serve may indeed have more younger people who embrace it, but by no means is it age-specific. Still, it is easier to label me a Young Adult and that is a reality I must confront with grace. How this connects to my stand for moderator is that even though I am perceived at the “youngster” I will not be defined by the negatives that folks may want to attach to that label. Instead, I heartily claim my experience and savviness within the denominational structures while embracing all that is good and right about a youthful spirit.
3. You and I are active bloggers while most/many folks in my wife’s small rural older congregation have never read a blog, let alone considered blogging themselves. How significant is this tech divide in our denomination, and what are its implications for ministry?
Bruce: I think that at some level we must be able to operate in a world that has this great divide. This does not only exist in the church but in the world. As technology and globalization advance – for better or worse – we must be able to walk with those for whom this way of being will never be the norm. While I believe the church should embrace and adapt to many of the changes, i think it is unfair and almost cruel to force these cultural shifts upon folks for whom this is just not in sync with life experience, worldview, etc. At the same time, I would gently nudge those in this demographic to be sure that they are open to “what may be” even if it is something that they themselves do not understand.
4. What’s the funniest thing you’ve been told since standing for moderator?
Bruce: Funny/Painful if not for my confidence of faith. From a comment, “And I’m not sure a denomination will survive (nor maybe should it) having yet another unfaithful and unbiblical moderator.” I am not sure who the previous ones were, but I couldn’t agree more.
Coffee with Bruce
Bruce Reyes-Chow, a candidate for Moderator of the PC(USA) General Assembly held later summer, is inviting bloggers to submit questions which he’ll answer quickly and electronically–see his invite here.
Here’s my few (if you don’t like them, ask your own). I’ll post Bruce’s answer in typed or audio form–his choice–when I get them.
1. In many circles within the PC(USA) there’s a deep antagonism towards all things denominational, but at my seminary there’s a vibrant hope for a vital future. What gives?
2. Folks have described you as the “young adult” candidate for moderator. Do you consider yourself a young adult, and depending on that answer, how does this identity jive with your stand for moderator?
3. You and I are active bloggers while most/many folks in my wife’s small rural older congregation have never read a blog, let alone considered blogging themselves. How significant is this tech divide in our denomination, and what are its implications for ministry?
Whew, ok, I feel like I need to lighten up a bit here. For fun…
4. What’s the funniest thing you’ve been told since standing for moderator?
Smackdown: Pastoral vs Pugilistic Presbyters
Ayr Presbytery’s meeting last week was the really difficult for me. Not only was parliamentary procedure thrown out to the window to detriment of everyone, but presbyters kept making the distinction between tackling a certain matter before presbytery in terms of discipline or pastorally.
Not once did anyone challenge the assertion that a complaint made to the clerk could either be taken up as a matter of church discipline, or as a matter of pastoral concern. It was a telling moment.
If I made that absolute distinction before my presbytery committee overseeing my ordination process, or if I argued that distinction on my polity ordination exams, I imagine I’d be in for some major challenges.
For those of us in the PC(USA), the discipline of the church is pastoral. Sure, discipline may not always seem so, but the beauty inherent to the Book of Order is that discipline is always delivered in a pastoral manner. More, the discipline process itself is seen as the height of pastoral concern, not as distinguished from it.
Read the preamble to the PC(USA) Book of Discipline, and marvel at its beauty:
D-1.0101 Church Discipline
Church discipline is the church’s exercise of authority given by
Christ, both in the direction of guidance, control, and nurture of its
members and in the direction of constructive criticism of offenders.
The church’s disciplinary process exists not as a substitute for
the secular judicial system, but to do what the secular judicial
system cannot do. The purpose of discipline is to honor God by
making clear the significance of membership in the body of Christ;
to preserve the purity of the church by nourishing the individual
within the life of the believing community; to achieve justice and
compassion for all participants involved; to correct or restrain
wrongdoing in order to bring members to repentance and restoration;
to uphold the dignity of those who have been harmed by
disciplinary offenses; to restore the unity of the church by removing
the causes of discord and division; and to secure the just,
speedy, and economical determination of proceedings. In all
respects, all participants are to be accorded procedural safeguards
and due process, and it is the intention of these rules so to provide.
Darn tootin.
image by stroinski
Presby Meme 5
It’s not that I like to be known as a Presbyterian nerd–really, I push inter-denominational conversations more than most (e.g. the whole Lutheran college thing and Lutheran seminarian spouse), but here I am participating in a Presby Meme made up by even a bigger Presbyterian nerd. “Thanks” to Shawn for the shout-out.
* in about 25 words each, answer the following five questions;
* tag five presbyterian bloggers and send them a note to let them know they were tagged;
* be sure to link or send a trackback to this post
1. What is your earliest memory of being distinctly Presbyterian?
Fuzzy, but probably having to do with Montreat Conference Center clubs. Though I later worked on summer staff, for some reason I hated going into the Kindies classroom oh those 20 years ago.
2. On what issue/question should the PC(USA) spend LESS energy and time?
Beating each other up–this could apply to Amendment B, or satisfaction theory of atonement, or on why we’re losing members (in demographically predictable ways), or inclusivism/exclusivism. Call me naive, but isn’t there something in the Bible about mutual support and encouragement?
3. On what issue/question should the PC(USA) spend MORE energy and time?
We’re a rich denomination in the richest country in the world. How do we justify our wealth in a world in which people are dying from preventable disease and starvation?
4. If you could have the PC(USA) focus on one passage of scripture for an entire year, what would it be?
1 Chronicles 26:18 “At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.” Nobody is certain what this verse means. Without context, it’s complete gibberish. In context, it’s still murky. 1 Chronicles 26:18 could pop some humility into denominational discussions and remind us that being certain one is right is less important than accomplishing God’s work together.
5. If the PC(USA) were an animal what would it be and why?
Owl (aka “W-O-L”), in Winnie the Pooh, who is plenty wise, but also not altogether following what’s going on around him.
I’ll tag the following, knowing that Presbyblogging is so incestuous that half of them have probably been tagged already: Pomomusings, Erin, Meg, Dwight, and John.
A "Celebration" of Life
Reading a London Times article today on a child’s tragic death, I noticed a profoundly theological use of quotation marks. The article mentioned the child’s funeral at her church, and the family’s description of the funeral service as a “celebration” of the child’s life.
The article said something like, “and family and friends gathered at the church to ‘celebrate’ her life.”
I take, by this use of quotations, that the writer considered celebration for a life prematurely cut short as abnormal, deciding it best to use quotation marks to make sure readers knew it was the family who had this crazy idea of “celebration” and not the writer.
I recognized the phrase, “a celebration of her life,” because I often use it myself. I do a lot of funerals. Meeting with families before I often say, “We’ll make the service a celebration of [loved one's] life.” I’m beginning to think, however, that this is a phrase that comforts but fails to communicate.
When I speak of the service as a celebration of the loved one’s life, I’m more fully hoping to convey that the service will be (1) worship of God during which, (2) we rejoice in the resurrection of Jesus who gives all lives hope, and (3) we shall give thanks for the life of the loved one, commend her/his body to God, and commit her/him to the elements.
If I’m honest, however, I think points 1 and 2 are often unclear, misunderstood, or completely absent. Funeral services all too quickly become overly focused on the life of the loved one and only on God as an afterthought. This is especially true when funerals are for and attended by non church-goers. The liturgy helps correct this emphasis on the deceased, but my impression is that most people come to the crematorium (where 90% of such services occur) to “pay their respects” to the deceased and the family rather than to worship God.
To counteract the popular notion of funerals as first about the deceased, I suppose I could explain to each family, carefully and fully, my understanding of the funeral service as first one of worship in light of Jesus’ resurrection, during which we will give thanks to God for the life of the loved one. But I’m afraid such a clear statement might make many families uneasy–some to the extent of preferring me not to lead the service–as a significant number of funerals I do are for non church-attending people who may or may not have anticipated such a service.
The Presbyterian Book of Common Worship titles such services, “The Funeral: A Service of Witness to the Resurrection,” clearly emphasizing Jesus’ resurrection rather than the death or life of the deceased.
Certainly, a funeral can include a celebration of one’s life. Or further, a funeral should include a celebration of one’s life. But at its core I understand a funeral to be a celebration in praise of God, remembering Jesus’ resurrection first and foremost.
I sense, in my current context, that my understanding is in the minority–certainly not the first time. Maybe the newspaper writer was right, the funeral service was a “celebration” of the child’s life.
photo by rameckers
Guest Blogger Series: Noah Carlson and the BIBLE
Guest Blogger Series: Part 3 
This is the third post in a guest blogger series on the Bible. Part 2, by Erika Funk, is here.
It has been an enlightening experience to transition from Princetonian theological theory to British parish praxis during my tenure in Scotland as a visiting seminarian. Most interesting perhaps has been the utilization, or lack thereof, of the Bible as I function as an assistant minister in a variety of roles—preacher, confidant, teacher, administrator, and disciple. For this series, however, I will discuss my use of the Bible proper in school assemblies.
I had prepared and certainly hoped to use the Bible more in Scotland than I have been and although it is a source that I readily and often utilize, it is not my primary source in my educational ministry by and large. For instance, my duties include speaking to high school-aged youth who have a strong opposition to the Church. Simply standing in front of two hundred youth during an assembly and using Scripture as a primary source of your message would not only not be received, but also, and sadly—mocked. Most importantly, nothing of substance and worth would reach these students if such a Scriptural tactic were employed.
Now, some may argue from ivory towers that it does not matter; the Word always triumphs and thus should be used nonetheless. To be sure, this is true, but there is also the reality of the context one is in when using or not using the Bible in ministry, at least directly, and that must be taken into account if one truly seeks to be effective in their overall corpus of ministry. And so, I have found my assemblies to be centered on basic moral concepts that are found in Scripture, but not pinpointed with chapter and verse—at least not to the students. And, I have found this route to be relatively successful, as it enables me to still use Scripture, but to translate it in such a way as to truly reach a skeptical and critical audience.
Conversely, during my assemblies for elementary school students, I use direct Bible stories quite frequently, as they are narrative, descriptive, and can be brought to life easily for children—Noah’s Ark, etc. This speaks for itself and it works 99.9% of the time. Thus, the paradox arises.
My use of the Bible is somewhat paradoxical in terms of Christian education of the young here in Scotland—using it directly with the young ones, and indirectly with the older youth. But, what is most interesting perhaps is how the Bible is so well-received with children, but as they grow older into their adolescent years, they become alienated from Scripture and in some cases, completely against it, even combative to it. Why is this? And what can be done? Should I and other ministers stand firm and use the Word despite the walls that would be built and throw modern contextual language out the door? Should a new hermeneutic be created and enacted? This problem is as paradoxical as my use of Scripture in C.E. and my mind and heart yearn for a sincere answer. Perhaps an answer will come. In the meantime, in the words of Saint Francis of Assisi, “Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.” When you look at it that way, perhaps an answer already has arrived.
Noah Carlson is a yearlong intern/assistant minister at the Scottish parishes of Old Cumnock and Lugar. He is pursing a M.Div from Princeton Theological Seminary. He blogs at Radical Seminarian.
PC(USA), Emergent, and a Savior
So I’m copying Shawn and will post my response to Adam WC as well.
For the context, Adam Walker Cleaveland’s post is here. In it he opines the fact that some mainliners are looking for emergent to save the mainline church. He argues that presbymergent is emergent, and should not be confused as a PC(USA) revitalization movement.
I appreciate how Shawn just muddied the waters in his post. His final question to Adam WC is a good one. “If you are not concerned about the dying PC(USA) then why be a part of it?” In fairness to Adam WC, I don’t think that’s what he was saying at all.
Perhaps there’s a theological way to ground this discussion. A few weeks ago I spoke at St. Columba on eschatology. After the talk, a retired minister came up to me and said, “I’ve been a minister for 50 years. I can’t recall one sermon I ever preached on eschatology. Nor do I remember hearing one.”
Eschatology is about hope–hope in Christ’s return, hope in Holy Spirit’s continuing work within and without the church, hope in God’s faithful love. Many mainliners don’t speak about hope much, but it’s exactly what we need in the PC(USA). (And, by the way preachers, it’s all over those Advent texts. Tom Long just wrote something on it, if I recall correctly.)
To confirm my church nerd status, I’m going to use an illustration from General Assembly a few years back. Then a small group of young people, but mainly a guy named Tyler Ward, led a campaign handing out buttons that said boldly, “I’m enthusiastic about the PC(USA)!” The campaign was a success and many hundreds of buttons were passed out. I think the Presbyterian News Service even did a story on it (props to someone who finds it.) Part of what Tyler aimed to visibly instill hope within and for the denomination. And for many commissioners, seeing young people handing out “I’m enthusiastic about the PC(USA)!” did the that.
So to strike a balance between Adam WC and Shawn, I think folks are discerning a strong hope attached to emergent. That’s great, and we can all pray that God is doing a new thing with emergent. We can also pray that a more palpable hope becomes established within the PC(USA). One should not cover the other. Part of the very nature of emergent, in fact, is that its difficult to confine and may very well help instill hope in the mainline denominations. Adam WC just doesn’t want denominational-recharing to be their focus, and I’m cool with that.
I might as well end with the Bible. Romans 5:1-5
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
Thoughts? I’m particularly interested in what folks outside the PC(USA) think about all this.
Connect Online
