New Churches, Renewed Churches

Last week, Presbyweb provided a link to a news article out of the United Methodist Church. Apparently, the Methodists want to start 650 new churches by 2012. I applaud the effort. New church development is essential to the life and vitality of a denomination. I have often been frustrated that the PCUSA doesn’t seem similarly interested. In Palo Duro Presbytery, for example, no one remembers the last time a new church was started. Granted, the overall population of the Texas plains peaked at the beginning of the Twentieth Century. Still, there is potential in some of the urban areas of the presbytery.

Although I was inclined to be sympathetic, I became quickly saddened. Rev. Thomas Butcher, the chair of congregational development in the United Methodist Church tried to explain his rationale for focusing on new churches.

…the common outcry among United Methodists, Mr. Butcher said, is for renewal, not new churches. His response? "It's easier to give birth than to raise Lazarus from the dead," he said in a report to the Council of Bishops.

New churches, he said, need to have a younger and more diverse membership to reach the changing demographics in the U.S. About 35 percent of the nation's population don't attend church.

I’m disappointed that Rev. Butcher seems so dismissive of existing congregations. Why do we have to choose between new church development and congregational renewal? Do only folks in growing suburban areas need churches that are vital and faithful?

Established congregations are less desirable because they are set in their ways. They are filled with curmudgeons who are unable to draw church members of an attractive demographic. Rather than call people to repentance and a deepening faith, it is easier to start with a self-selecting group who feel comfortable with the culture of the new church. Renewal is hard work. It requires leadership, sacrifice and love. It is not for the timid.

Thankfully, the majority of established churches have signs of life. There are men and women in those congregations earnestly seeking to be followers of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, some established churches can be stubborn, mean, and even faithless. Some have been dead for more than three days and “stinketh” (John 11:39, KJV). Jesus, however, is the resurrection. Even Lazarus can be raised from the dead.

"Louisville Papers" Revealed

Today in the Presbyterian Outlook, the Constitutional Services Department and the Office of Legal Services at the General Assembly respond to the infamous "Louisville Papers." Back in August of 2006, the Layman reported that the denominational lawyers circulated secret documents to presbytery executives about legal procedures relating to churches and their property. The Layman drawing upon the Watergate era nomenclature of the "Pentagon Papers" dubbed the legal advice, the "Louisville Papers."

I know that some have been hyperventilating over the documents. They suggest that the "Louisville Papers" recommend strong arm tactics to presbyteries to prevent property from leaving the denomination. Personally, I find the statements rather standard legal fair. They clearly have a vested interest in protecting the property of the denomination. Since unification of the United Presbyterian Church USA and the Presbyterian Church US in 1983 if not before, the property of the local congregation has been held in trust by the presbyteries. These documents suggest nothing new.

What I find troublesome is the handling of the situation by our denominational leadership. Clifton Kirkpatrick only contacted the powers-that-be to respond to the controversy a few weeks ago. You don't have to like what's written in the Layman, but please read the thing. After you read it, then make your defense (if there is one). The folks in Louisville need a few lessons in public relations.

More importantly, why did the denominational officials keep the papers "confidential"?

While some have focused only recently on these materials, they are not new. They were first prepared in 2001, in response to requests from presbyteries and their legal advisers. Moreover, they have never been "secret," as some have claimed. The OGA paper has never born any label indicating confidentiality. The Legal Services memo is a confidential attorney document. Like many attorney-written documents, it was handled in this way in order to avoid its misuse by others who might wish to start or pursue civil litigation. These documents were intended to provide background information and pastoral aid to presbyteries, not to be used as legal briefs.

I've made this observation before, but perhaps it needs repeating. If a document is provided to the presbyteries, why shouldn't the presbyteries know about it? A presbytery is made of elders and pastors. These legal documents were provided to presbytery executives and staff. They are not the same thing. Although executives play an important role in the ministry of the presbytery, they are essentially the "hired help." Granted, there are times in the life of the church where confidentiality is important. Some pastoral issues are delicate and require discretion, but general advice about legal process is not one of them.

Transparency is always the best policy. I have no problem with denominational lawyers offering advice. Such advice could have led to a general process relating to departing congregations and their property. If such a process existed, there can be no complaint of discrimination. It applies evenly, fairly to everyone who wishes to leave the denomination. If people don't like the process, presbytery-wide debate can lead to the adoption of an improved process. The "Louisville Papers" kerfuffle could have easily been avoided by the Office of the Stated Clerk and Legal Services.

UPDATE: I erroneously suggested that the Layman was origin of the name, "Louisville Papers." In fact, it was given by Classical Presbyterian.

Super Bowl Win

Sports and Christianity have had a long tradition together probably dating before the formation of the YMCA in 1844. Prayers before games and players who attribute their wins to Jesus have become part of the pop culture. In fact, the latter has been parodied again and again. I must admit that some declarations of faith on the field appear to suggest that God favors one team over another. The statements are usually innocent, but I still cringe at the mixture of religion and athletic rivalries. Perhaps, that is why I was so impressed by the words of Tony Dungy, the coach of the 2007 Super Bowl Champions, the Indianapolis Colts.

During the post game show on CBS, Dungy was asked about the “social significance” of the win.

Jim Nantz of CBS Sports: This is one of those moments, Tony, where there is also social significance in this victory, and to have your hands on the Vince Lombardi Trophy. Tell me what this means to you right now.

Tony Dungy: I'll tell you what. I'm proud to be representing African-American coaches, to be the first African-American to win this. It means an awful lot to our country. But again, more than anything, I've said it before, Lovie Smith and I, not only the first two African-Americans, but Christian coaches showing that you can win doing it the Lord's way. And we're more proud of that.

You can win doing it the Lord’s way. He is not saying that God chose the Indianapolis Colts. More importantly, he is saying, in the world of professional sports, you don’t have to give into temptation. You can play by God’s rules and still win.

Both Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith, the Chicago Bears’ coach, act differently than other coaches. One commentator speaking about Tony Dungy says…

He has always done what good men do, eschewing the tyrannical approach of some of his colleagues, proving you can succeed while treating people with decency and respect rather than terrorizing them.

A Boston Globe column talking about Lovie Smith says…

Lovie doesn't yell and Lovie doesn't swear. (The same is true of Lovie's friend, Tony Dungy.) Take both of those options away and at least half of America's professional and college coaches would not be able to function. So how does he make his points?

"We have a coach who isn't a yeller or a screamer," acknowledges cornerback Nathan Vasher. "What he always talks about is being a real man, and we have real men on this team. What he wants us to know is that it is not about you. It's about the team."

Character matters. For Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith, character has it’s source in their Christian faith.