RSSRE: No more discussion
Caleb Stegall
What delicious irony … traditionalists squelched by clerical heavy-handedness in favor of modernizing language … where’s the priesthood of all believers when you need it? The wheels on the bus go round and round …
I say we go back to Latin scriptures AND priesthood of all believers rather than gutter English and the priesthood of clerics.
Set the bar high and let anyone in who can reach it! This is the only answer for mass democritized institutions which can no longer negotiate the tensions between the pressures of order and the pressures of truth.
C Brown
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:51 am
Thanks, Caleb. Sounds like you would make for a great defense attorney.
RPWitness
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:55 am
My friend, you’re assuming a lot in this post. It saddens me that this blog would be a place to discuss what is “delicious” rather than what is true and winsome, to fashion caricatures rather than to handle conflicts biblically. As far as I know, you have both church courts AND the priesthood of all believers in your denomination as well. They have biblical roles to fulfilll, and should not be subject to this sort of conjecture.
Caleb Stegall
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Drew, what am I assuming? My bona fides for defending strong institutions are, I think, well established. And part of that defense is to resist the terminal earnestness and fear endemic in times of collapse.
Church courts!? What do they have to do with it? This is a blog fer cryin out loud.
RPWitness
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Assumption:
“traditionalists squelched by heavy-handedness in favor of modernizing language”
The fact is that the psalter revision, by action of Synod, is under review by the Synod. It’s not a public document at this time any more than your session or firm’s in-progress, confidential documents are up for public scrutiny. Would you mind if those were discussed on this blog, as long as someone felt it was relevant?
Standing up for confidentiality and propriety is neither heavy handed nor done with a motivation for modernizing language. Why assume that it is? How does that honor Christ and His church?
Caleb Stegall
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Drew, as you have very helpfully pointed out, it ain’t my denomination, so all I am going on is Chellis’s description of his ecclesial bettors telling him not to allow discussion of the review committee. The proposed document is published on the web. What is proper about silencing its critics? Does that “honor Christ”? I’m afraid I don’t have much stomach for moralizing in the midst of power plays. Can we just call things by their proper name? And I’m the one who has by and large been a lonely voice defending power plays for the sake of institutional health! Sometimes enjoying the irony is the only way to stay sane.
Caleb Stegall
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:38 pm
What happened to the previous discussion? Down the memory hole I suppose.
Admin
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:04 pm
The discussion was removed because, as Drew pointed out, it contained a link to an online version of the new psalter. As this document was to remain privately accessible to members of Reformed Presbyterian Sessions per the instructions of Synod, the post was removed.
C Brown
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Admin,
Why was the whole discussion removed and not just the one comment that contained the link?
Admin
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
For some reason, the portion of the discussion that contained the link was not accessible by me and I couldn’t delete it without disabling the post. Perhaps you were able to remove it Charles, because now it is gone.
W.H. Chellis
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I am not sure what Admin is talking about it. I believe I took down the discussion when I removed my original post from Synod about the Psalter Revision. Today’s events have been confusing but I believe what I am saying is true.
I talked to the chairman of the E&P Board today. He called to ask that the Psalm Revision material be taken down for two reasons:
1. The material is copyrighted and E&P is worried that Psalm Singing copyright infringers will pirate our Psalms.
2. The second is an issue of propriety. I disagree with there is improper to have a discussion of the big issues as they relate to the revision. I further disagree that there is any Synod discussion left to have. The committee is empowered to do what they want when they want to do so.
I would fight on point 2 but point 1 is a reasonable request. The Psalter is a done deal. We fought. We lost. Now our dissent will be erased from history. So let it be written, so let it be done.
We will fight it out again in another 25 years.
Caleb Stegall
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Who is “Admin”? The comment comes from the same computer as the computer Drew is using to post his comments.
I found this description of what happened on Drew’s Synod blog:
“Following a brief report of the Trustees of Synod in the afternoon, a lengthy report by the Psalter Revision Committee was taken up. The committee reported that it had completed its work of revision on May 10 of this year. The proposed revised psalter would have over 400 selections (similar to The Book of Psalms for Singing) and would be titled The Book of Psalms for Worship. Synod was given a detailed report of the revised psalter’s history and content. Past Synods had given the committee the commission to ‘prepare and publish’ the psalter, but many delegates were uncomfortable with moving forward with the new book until further review could be done by experts outside the committee. Past Synods had debated the principles to be used for the psalter revision and the types of wording changes; but many of the finished revisions have not been seen by the Synod. In a motion that gave shape to the debate, Pastor Bill Chellis (Rochester, NY RPC) moved that work be continued another year so that Synod could review and approve the work as a whole. At the end of the night, that motion failed, though it was close enough to require a standing vote. Prof. Dean Smith proposed that Synod encourage the committee to present all the revised texts to Synod members for a 30-day review–a task the committee chairman welcomed–and that motion passed easily.”
Was there any mention at all that the document had to be kept confidential? (If so, that raises a whole nother set of questions) Drew and now “Admin” say so, but obviously neither Chellis nor Brown believed it did. From what I can see, the committee is still charged with Session’s prior directive to “prepare and publish” and therefore the 30 day review is pro forma only, especially considering the failure of Chellis’s motion requiring approval of whole Synod. So it looks to me like the revisions are final and not subject to Synod’s approval or disapproval at this point.
Given this, the whole ham-handed attempt to censor discussion appears to be yet another clumsy attempt to stifle dissent–regardless of what quarter from which it arises. And it’s looking more and more like something even worse than priesthood of the clerics—priesthood of the bureaucrats!
RPWitness
July 7th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Guess I should know better than to try to win a discussion with lawyers–especially good lawyers. Yes, a little levity and flattery there.
Just so Mr. Stegall gets an answer, though, the Synod’s moderator announced, with Synod in session, that the document was confidential. The committee announced it, and it’s on page 1 of the document itself. That doesn’t impugn anyone who missed those notices or didn’t get the document on the first transmission, but they are facts.
The identity of the Admin is no secret and is explained in other posts.
If the 30-day review is pro forma and the committee really isn’t concerned about the review of Synod, then we won’t see any substantive changes forthcoming. But I suppose if the committee has wise and godly membership that really want to serve Christ’s church and the Synod, then more might be done. I guess we will see, won’t we?
It’s ironic that criticisms of a denomination and a committee are made on a blog site that is owned and operated by that denomination and yet STILL that denomination falls victim to charges of stifling discussion and other gross generalizations. I suggest you go try that sort of discussion on sites of other denominations (or institutions, or law firms) and see if those posts stay up, as they have here.
W.H. Chellis
July 7th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I am not sure what confidential implies? For several years congregations and groups at retreats have been singing these songs. I believe the White Lake congregation is using them weekly.
No one on this blog broke any confidentiality ruling. That was done by whoever posted the contents of the new Psalter to the internet. Mr. Brown simply linked to what others had put on the internet. Once on the internet it is hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Still, it was easy enough to remove the link.
Lets be frank. Crown and Covenant is worried about copyright concerns. Others are working on new Psalters and our committee was jealous to exclude them from participation. Now that the product is finished we need to preserve what we hope will be a cash crop. I get it. And I am comfortable with it. That is why I agree to the rule- no more commenting on the Psalter.
Now, whether the new Psalter will be of such a quality that anyone would want to pirate it remains a question that history must judge. Ok, ok, that was an editorial comment on the Psalter revision. My last in this venue.
Caleb Stegall
July 7th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Drew, fair enough. I don’t have a bone in this fight, I just dislike command and control operations, as any good Scotsman would! If it’s legal copyright concerns in play, then “fair use” goes along with that which certainly includes discussion, praise, and criticism.
I approach these things from within a deeply protestant tradition which is a constant balancing between institutional authority and the priesthood of all believers. This is the nub of so many theological issues in the late modern protestant church, from sola scriptura to simpler power struggles over who gets to say what. There are some really good and strong critiques of these reformational impulses from the traditionalists, critiques I and others on this blog have voiced (which gets to my initial relish of the irony involved).
But given the strange historical development of the protestant tradition, those institutional strengths must be embedded, and rarely (if ever) made explicit, or the whole house of cards comes down. It is a microcosm of the crisis of modern authority which is lost if exercised, and especially if exercised routinely and without great care and caution.
The traditionalists in our anti-tradition tradition must be ever mindful of this. This is my primary concern.
C Brown
July 7th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Last week exposed the major problem with a site like DRC. It’s just a blog, and a blog should be a place for people to share their personal opinions about whatever suits their fancy. Yet, this blog is “owned and operated” by a denomination. I’m not aware of any other church that has tried such a thing. Seems to me that if this site is to remain interesting at all, it must be privatized.
C Brown
July 7th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Also, I did a quick search of “Admin” on this site, and I could not find the posts to which Drew referred. Perhaps his identity was revealed in a previous comment, but it’s hard to keep track of comments here. Along with Caleb, I was also wondering about his identity last week. Knowing now who the “Admin” is, I find it funny that the administrator of this website “owned and operated” by the RPCNA is (last I heard) not a member of the RPCNA.
RPWitness
July 9th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Perhaps you’re thinking that the Admin has some sort of authority for making decisions about the DRC site, but that’s not the case. He is, concisely put, the site administrator, in internet parlance. He’s the one who has worked with Mr. Chellis and I to improve the look and feel of the site and make sure everything operates smoothly. He’s the one who had the site up and running again just minutes after we learned that it had been hacked. I don’t see anything odd about having a site administrator who’s not an RP, any more than I see it as odd to have official contributors who aren’t RP.
Actually, a lot of church denominations (or their publishing houses) have blogs–and you can expect to see a whole lot more coming to a server near you. There are certainly pros and cons.
I’m in agreement with Mr. Chellis–let’s move on to another topic now.