“Why are some people so afraid to let pastors have public views on politics or controversial church issues?”

And out of this a Twitter discussion has started as well as a Facebook discussion with lots of great thoughts and insight.  What is even cooler is that it is a mix of folks, Presbyterians, pastors, World of Warcraft players, people I went to high school with and a few other random folk that somehow find it worth their time to follow my twitters or friend me on Facebook.

My intial question was basically expressing a frustration I have that as a minister I am supposed to keep any controversial views to myself - at all times.  Of course, I certainly understand why people feel this way.  The basic argument is that as a minister I hold a certain sort of power and people will view what I say as more of a “word from God” then they would a non-minister.  So when I express an opinion there is the unsaid notion that “this is what a faithful Christian would believe.”

Here are my problems with this:

1) That’s a very un-Presbyterian thing to believe.  The whole notion of the Reformation was that each and every person has the same access to God and the Bible, and that the priest/minister is no more holy or in touch with God than anyone else.

2) Does this rule apply to other people with power?  Certain people in other roles have other sorts of power - police officers, soldiers, doctors, political pundits, top-level corporate executives, actors, media personalities, internet personalities, etc.  There are people who will listen more closely to any number of the above roles and believe what they say for various non-logical reasons.  So should all of these people have no public opinions either?

3) Jesus held some pretty public and unpopular views.  He was killed by the government for speaking out against the government.  I know I’m not Jesus, but like all Christians I’m called to follow him and try to do what he did.

4) What would have happened if Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. (and countless other ministers at the time) had kept their views to themselves?  There are times for the church to stand up to the culture around them.  In the Presbyterian Book of Confessions we have the Barmen Declaration.  This was a statement from churches in Germany that refused to align themselves with the Hitler’s government.

I’m certainly not advocating a scenario where I preach or teach who to vote for or whether or not God wants the Congress to pass a bailout plan.  But I think it is sad if people are afraid (and it is fear we are talking about) of me revealing who I might vote for.

And have you ever noticed that it often isn’t the fact that a pastor has expressed an opinion that is the problem, but rather that the pastor expressed an opinion with which someone disagreed?

People are using social networks (like Facebook and Twitter) to connect, share, inspire, and inform. Social networks are woven into the daily lives of millions of people. Jesus went to where the people were, and so should we. In this workshop we will explore what it means to be a Christian and a church in a Web 2.0 society.

Here are links talked about in the workshop as well as a few more that are helpful.

• A Vision of Students Today
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Twitter in Plain English
• Goodreads (for book-lovers)
• Yelp (local reviews of businesses)
• last.fm (music)
• Three Ways to Stay Connected by Bruce Reyes-Chow
• Your Own Personal Gutenberg by Shawn Coons and Neal Locke

As far as I’ve been able to gather there was no serious loss of life.  Although given that 40% of Galveston chose not to evacuate, maybe their should have been to clear up the gene pool of all the people who don’t care about survival.  Our house came through pretty good.  We lost a bunch of tree limbs, and it remains to be seen if one of our largest trees will remain strong.  We lost a whole side of our backyard fence as well, but that’s it.  Other than being without power, we are fine.  We have food, water and each other.

Thanks to all the folks who sent me good wishes through Twitter and Facebook.  Especially to those who follow me on twitter and helped get me information about the drinking water in Houston or how to board windows.  Yet another strike against those who still want to dismiss social networks and online friends as a waste of time and not “real.”

We have power, internet and air conditioning at the church so I’ll be able to charge the IPhone (which gets no signal at home), check email and Twitter, and keep food cool.

I feel like I had a bunch more to blog, but it escapes me now.

What is Twitter?

At its simplest Twitter is a website at www.twitter.com.  You can do two things with this website.

1) Create an account and periodically answer the question “What are you doing?” in 140 characters or less.

2) See how other people have periodically answered the question “What are you doing?” in 140 characters or less.

But before you can really start using Twitter you need to sign up for an account.  Do this from the main page by clicking the link that says, “Get Started - Join!”  After entering a screenname, password and email you will be asked if you want Twitter to search your email address book to find people you know who are already on Twitter.  This only works with certain webmail services and not all email addresses.  This is a safe and easy option for connecting with others through Twitter.  You can skip this option by clicking on the “skip” link.

Now you are ready to write your first Twitter entry (this is sometimes called “Tweeting”).  Just type whatever you are doing in the blank box and hit update.  Congratulations on your first Twitter!  The other thing you’ll want to do is find some people to “follow”.  Following someone simply means that their Twitters will automatically show up on your Twitter home page.  You can search for people by name using the search box at the top of the page.

For example, if you want to follow me type my name, Shawn Coons, in the search box and click the search button.  You should arrive at the profile for my Twitter account.  In the upper right hand corner there is a smaller box that says “Follow,” if you click it then you are now following my updates.  If you click on my account name “shawncoons” you will go to my Twitter page and see all my recent updates.  You can also see all the people I follow on the right hand side.  If you put your mouse cursor over one of the little pictures of the people I follow (don’t click yet) then a little box will pop up and tell you who they are.  It is possible they may be people you want to follow as well.  If that’s the case then you can click on them to go to their page and follow them.

So why should anyone care what you or others Twitter?

Here is why I follow the people that I do.

1) Because I know them and I am interested in what they do.  I’m interested in their tweets.  Following someone is just like seeing them face to face and asking, “So? What’d you do today?”

2) Other people I may not know personally, but they have interesting, funny or informative tweets.  I get links to great videos, new IPhone apps, breaking news, and pictures from other planets.  Some of these folks are: Darth Vader, CNN Breaking News, or the Mars Rovers.

3) It’s also a great way to interact with people quickly and briefly.  You can reply to anyone simply be including @ followed by their user name.  For example, I could tweet “Tell me your favorite color,”  and you could tweet “@shawncoons blue.”  Others also use it for recommendations or questions.  “What movie should I see tonight?”  “What is a good IPhone app for keeping track of receipts?”  “Anyone want to go to dinner tonight at General Assembly?”

If you still don’t get it then take a look at the video below, and if Twitter still doesn’t interest you then it may not be for you.  But if you are interested, then head on over and create an account.  Follow me and find some others to follow.  Breathe in Twitterspace for a little while and see if you start enjoying learning more about the people around you.

Dear Pastors,
We are a group of evangelical, Presbyterian students from Fuller Theological Seminary deeply committed to following God’s call on our lives to ministry within the Presbyterian Church (USA). We are aware of many important conversations taking place, among groups such as yours, about the future of evangelicals within PCUSA.

Two major concerns have prompted this letter: First, as young evangelical Presbyterians, we comprise a fair representation of future evangelical pastors in PCUSA, and as such we earnestly desire to have a voice in important decisions about the future of our denomination.  Second, we have heard about the possible establishment of an evangelical synod within PCUSA. While the purpose of this letter is not to explicitly oppose or affirm such a synod, we do seek a venue in which to ask questions, voice our concerns, and participate in the decision-making process.

We have heard that, for evangelical Presbyterians seeking to be faithful to God’s word, the most immediate options under consideration are: remaining in the current structure and moving forward in uncomfortable unity, establishing a separate synod which would be theological rather than geographic in orientation, or leaving the PCUSA denomination altogether.

Speaking for a number of Fuller PCUSA students concerned about the unity of the church, we are very much opposed to the splintering of our denomination. Yet we are concerned that one proposed compromise – namely the establishment of an evangelical synod – appears to be either a “split without a split” or the first step towards a split within PCUSA.

We deeply desire to engage in dialogue with pastors such as yourselves looking to move our denomination forward. We wish to understand more about the biblical and constitutional precepts on which a non-geographic synod would be founded. We especially seek to understand the practical implications of this synod for the future unity of PCUSA.

Please consider ways to engage us in conversation, such as invitations to meetings where pastors are already convening to discuss such issues, hosting events for seminary students and other young leaders in your own churches, or visiting Fuller where we would be honored to host a discussion forum. We think you will discover in these conversations that evangelical

Presbyterians of our generation are less likely to think of the sexuality question as a fault line in the denomination, and more likely to consider issues like witnessing to a just society and restoring creation as defining points in the church. Consequently, a statement or action by pastors without input from our generation might alienate the very people who represent the future of the church.

We recognize that many of you bring years of experience, perspectives informed by history, and prayerful consideration to these important decisions about the future unity of our denomination. It is our hope that this letter is the beginning of future conversations; the start of an opportunity to learn from each other as we seek, together, to be faithful servants of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Here’s a question that’s been nagging me since then:  Imagine there is a gay youth in your church (most churches don’t need to imagine it because it’s true whether you know it or not).  What is that youth’s perception of how their church is going to accept them if it was known that they are gay?

Many Presbyterian churches are somewhere between tolerant to unoffocially welcoming.  In many of these churches a lot of the adults know that gay people are welcome in the church, but if it’s never publicly said  then I wonder how many of the youth know?  And given that gay youth are more at risk for suicide I wonder if it is a gross sin for quietly welcoming churches to remain quiet about their welcome?

First, go to the following address:

http://www.reddit.com/r/churchvisions/

If you are not already a member of Reddit, you will have to create a username and password. After that, just check out the stories that are listed. Click the “up” arrow for stories you like and the “down” arrow for ones you don’t. If you’re feeling bold, add a story or two of your own that offers some sort of vision for the future of the church - whether it’s something that is already happening or that is a distant dream.

If this test is successful, a more expanded version will be created!

Here is some of what Vic Pentz wrote on the PGF blog:

“The options now remaining seem to be: 1) to live with the new ascendant ideology; 2) to enter into the legal complexities of trying to get permission for one’s congregation to be dismissed to another denomination; or 3) to find a way to be “in the denomination but not of the denomination.” This third option is the one Presbyterian Global Fellowship affirms.”

“…The Presbyterian Global Fellowship seeks to be a parallel society living a new vision for the church within the PC(USA).”

and from the PFR website:

“It is clear that the PC(USA)’s confession of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and commitment to our Reformed confessions has weakened to the point that we can no longer assume a common framework of conversation….For the sake of our witness to the Gospel, we believe it is necessary for the different visions of Christian faith and life in the PC(USA) to be expressed in formally distinct bodies without a formal split in the denomination. Such possibilities have been discussed hypothetically under the rubrics of non-geographical or “missional” presbyteries and synods.”

Did I read that right? Are they proposing a system that would officially create the dreaded “local option” they have been up in arms about ever since the PUP report supposedly instituted it? Now that the larger denomination’s discernment of God’s will is not their own, is it OK to have local option on such a scale as we’ve never seen it before?

This is a disastrous proposal.

I wonder what Vic Pentz would think if a group of folks walked into his office at Peachtree and said,

“Pastor, we are very displeased with your leadership and the recent decisions of the Session. We think you have led Peachtree into a state of unfaithfulness to our Lord and that you have abandoned Biblical principles. So we declare that Peachtree is in a state of apostasy.

But we love this church and we are committed to transforming it from within. To that end we will be in Peachtree Presbyterian Church, but not of it. We will be forming a parallell society of certain members within this church.

We will shortly be requesting the Session to reorganize the existing worship services so they are no longer organized around time or style, but by membership - one service for those who are faithful to Jesus, and one service for you and the rest of the Session. We will also be directing our financial giving away from the annual operating budget and specifically towards funds and ministries that we deem faithful to the Gospel.

Thank you for understanding, Pastor. We will be actively working to replace you and the members of Session, and we will be actively seeking to overturn all your decisions. We will also be separating ourselves from the larger body of Peachtree members throughout the entire life of the church. I am sure that you can see how we are being faithful members of this church and living up to our membership vows.”

Like most other mainline denominations, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has been losing members since the 1960s. We are down to about half the size that we once were. And this decline logically comes from many (most likely a majority) of churches losing members on a near-yearly basis.

But the average Presbyterian church seems indifferent to this reality. Sure, there is nervousness and some small lament of the declining number of “nickels and noses,” but how many churches actually acknowledge this reality and really wish to do the hard work of trying to reverse the decline? Acknowledging churches: few. Really working to reverse it: even fewer.

So here comes my question. Let’s put aside the notion that members and numbers may not be the best indicator of a faithful or successful church (duh). Doesn’t the average Presbyterian with kids/grandkids want the church to be around for their grown kids/grandkids? The writing is on the wall but most people seem interested in preserving the church they are used to, rather than helping to create one that will be there in the future.

I think we can certainly disagree about what changes need to be made, but I think it should be pretty obvious that if we make no changes the denomination will continue to shrink and individual churches will continue to die.

So do today’s Presbyterians care about leaving a church for their children? Or are we merely concerned with making sure it lasts just as long as we do?

In some small ways it feels like our denomination might be at the beginning of a turning point.  It feels like there are enough people with voice and power who are beginning to have conversations about the fact that church as we do it is not working.  Sure, it’s working for a good portion of the people sitting in the pews to some degree (arguably), but the church does not exist for its members.

I have a million and five thoughts swimming in my head about what the church should be.  And I am brought back to a question I have had before.  Can the typical PC(USA) church change enough to be church for the younger generations?  Let me rephrase that.  Can the typical PC(USA) church change enough to be church for the younger generations while they are still young?  Or is the primary way to reach people who aren’t in church today with New Church Developments?

What do you think?  If our churches today can change enough to reach people not in church then why haven’t we done it already and why do you think we can do it now?  If we can’t do it with existing churches then how are we going to do it?