Randy Blacketer

I don't think it's a black and white issue, or that any genuinely caring and loving person will automatically insist on having only grape juice at the Lord's Supper. There are certain contexts (e.g. an inner-city ministry) where the choice might be more obvious. But how does this choice, consciously or not, reflect how we view God's gifts in creation, and the biblical symbolism of the elements, and the meaning of the sacrament? I think we need more reflection and dialogue on that matter, without quick judgements levelled at those who disagree. Exclusive use of grape juice has the benefit of not being a temptation, and of not requiring a choice, and of being the same for all. On the other hand, there might be things we lose, biblically, liturgically, spiritually, theologically, and formation-wise, in the process. Consider a few reflections by thoughtful Christian pastors and writers. First from Frederick Buechner:

"Unfermented grape juice is a bland and pleasant drink, especially on a warm afternoon mixed half-and-half with ginger ale. But it is a ghastly symbol of the life blood of Jesus Christ, especially when served in individual antiseptic, thimble-sized glasses.
Wine is booze, which means it is dangerous and drunk-making. It makes the timid brave, and the reserved amorous. It loosens the tongue and breaks the ice, especially when served in a loving cup. It kills germs. As symbols go, it is a rather splendid one."

Second, from William Willimon, "Communion as a Culinary Art":

"Wafers and pellets that look more like fish food than bread of the world will not do. Grape juice with too much water and too little spirit will not do. What is more basic and symbolic than bread? What is more joyous and sad than wine? And yet, bread and wine, like all human creations, are ambiguous gifts. In a world where one-third of humanity is starving or close to starving, do we Americans need to be reminded of the demonic nature of selfish, egocentric gluttony? (Christians have an age-old answer for the sin of overconsumption, and it is called fasting.) And do we pastors, who so frequently encounter the human ravages of alcohol, need to be lectured on the evils of drink in a lonely and desecrated world?

Against my own abstaining Methodist forebears I would argue (and I think John Wesley would back me up on this) that wine is necessary at the Lord’s Supper not only because it is obviously related to the full range of biblical imagery of the “fruit of the vine” and the “spirit” but also because it is a symbol of humanity’s creative and demonic potential. We sometimes use God’s gifts in a way that makes them humanity’s curses. What is more blessed than fine wine at a good meal? What is more destructive than addiction and Dionysian submission to wine when it is used in inhumane, unredeemed ways? For the Christian, all foods are good and clean, not only because they are gifts of God but also because these ambiguous human creations have meaning only under the name and blessing of Christ." (http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1186)

So, I think there are lots of issues swirling around under the surface that maybe we don't think about. I prefer to have both available, because of the rich symbolism of wine that just is not there or there to the same extent with the over-sweet breakfast drink: the antiseptic germ-killing, purifying nature of wine; the celebratory, banquet-evoking nature of wine; even the dangerousness, the non-safe nature of wine, and the amorous and social connotations that Buechner brings up, and which I think are definitely present in the biblical imagery of wine. There may also be a certain piety at play that looks at wine, consciously or slightly sub-consciously, as somewhat naughty or sinful. Add to that a de facto Zwinglianism that says "it's just a symbol so who cares?" Clearly there must always be an alternative for persons who cannot or choose not to drink alcoholic wine; hospitality and Christian charity make that abundantly clear and non-controversial. But even in that case, alcohol-free wine would be preferable in my book; I find grape juice sickeningly over-sweet and a less than satisfying substitute. But even discussing this in some quarters invites an attack on one's motives (which I know from personal experience), and that should not be the case. Hospitality also implies listening to different points of view.

Hi, Ken, thanks for the reponse.

I want a good resource so that I, too, know what good minutes are supposed to look like and what are some good principles and tips for taking minutes, from some "governance geeks," as Theresa styles herself. Just because I know what not-so-great minutes look like doesn't mean I know how they should be done; I also want to educate myself. I also want something written down for successive clerks to be able to use as a resource. I have found some (rather limited) resources on the web, including Roberts Rules of Order, which is helpful. But the dragon stuff I don't think will help, because first of all I don't speak Dragonese (sorry, I was just reading How to Train Your Dragon with my kids for bedtime), and more seriously, because minutes are specifically not a blow-by-blow account of everything everyone said. As I found on the robertsrules.com website FAQ:

Question 15

Isn't it necessary to summarize matters discussed at a meeting in the minutes of that meeting in order for the minutes to be complete?

Answer:

Not only is it not necessary to summarize matters discussed at a meeting in the minutes of that meeting, it is improper to do so. Minutes are a record of what was done at a meeting, not a record of what was said. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 451, l. 25-28; see also p. 146 of RONR In Brief.] {RONR = Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised}

But that's probably not what you had in mind anyway. I'm probably better at typing than I am talking to a computer, so the Dragon software probably wouldn't be that helpful. I do have a writer friend who uses it. I'm going to keep looking and asking.

Air marshalls randomly attending worship?

http://www.ehow.com/how_3815_minutes-business-meeting.html

Councils set their own rules about this based on their own discernment of what is best. In our council, we have had members complain that a motion did not pass by a 2/3 majority, and they thought that the issue was important enough to require such a majority, but the fact of the matter is that the council has to decide beforehand if a larger majority than 50% +1 is required to pass any particular motion. The complaint was invalid for that reason. In addition, abstentions do not count toward the total number of votes in a congregational meeting; abstentions by definition are non-votes. This should also be made clear, because persons can (invalidly) claim that an abstention really is a vote for (or against) a candidate. Council can set whatever percentage it deems best for the affirmation / approbation of candidates. Making council's policy clear and clearly communicating it are essential for avoiding or at least reducing grumblings and conflict over controversial votes.

The matter is quite debatable, and is not black and white. Unity is a key factor that is missing, I suggest, from George's suggestion that simple majorities should always be the norm. How much ownership of a confession, for example, would be reflected if it were adopted by 50.5% of the church, and rejected by 49.5%? I was just speaking with one of my colleagues in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, which adopted by just over 50% a report on human sexuality which, in the view of a number of leading North American Lutheran theogians, was seriously lacking in biblical-theological reflection, and which defines "family" in terms of whatever an individual chooses to call a family. Now that the door is opened to ordaining homosexual and bisexual couples, Lutherans are facing the painful prospect of leaving that denomination--which is already happening in their American counterpart, the ELCA. Requiring a two-thirds majority would have at least allowed the church to continue dialoging together, but now schism is inevitable, and a new denomination has come into being, the North American Lutheran Church. I am not at all convinced that insisting on a simple majority is wise, discerning, or pastoral, or that it is good leadership. But I don't think everything has to be 2/3 either. In matters of great import, such as confessions or major issues of change, it may be wise to go that route. Trying to build consensus among God's people is the route of wisdom, not power politics. On the other hand, if a Synod or council does not agree to the 2/3 majority, there is really no room to object to any vote that is made, though the results may be divisive and potentially alienating those those who may feel their voice is not being heard. Also, it should be pointed out that Synod does have something like this in place, in that certain decisions have to be ratified by a subsequent synod. It's good to have checks and balances.

You should consult with the church visitors of your classis before going the article 17 route. Article 17 is associated primarily with pastor-congregation relationships that don't work out. It might turn out to be the correct course of action, but despite efforts to remove the stigma of an article 17 release, the stigma is still there, both for the church and for the pastor who is so released; thus it is not a step to be taken lightly.  The congregation must be appropriately informed of the process, but it is primarily a matter of the council and the classis.

My meeting went quite well, by the way. The expectations in my post reflect what I have often felt, but I was heard and understood in this meeting, and while some measures were below what I expected, others were above the classical average, and I was satisfied that we were at the right place. The important thing for me is that there was some communication, and the respect and understanding that comes from that communication. Also, when I wrote this post rather quickly, I did not specify that what the finance committee thinks is actually my fear or my past perception of what they think, which thankfully did not turn out to be the case... so, if there's a way to edit that, I would like to do that.

That's a good question and an interesting topic. I find that most of the time, a sermon title is something I have to "come up with so that the church secretary has something to type in the bulletin." I have to plan my sermons some months in advance, and it's more than a bit backwards to give a sermon a title before one has studied the text and meditated on its meaning for one's congregation. I often find that the title I came up with doesn't really fit the sermon that I later write and deliver. But I don't have a problem with changing it at the last minute, even if it doesn't match the bulletin. That's just the nature of preaching Sunday to Sunday. There are a few sermons where the title was right on and intriguing, but the majority have just been serviceable. I'm not sure any were alluring enough to bring in someone from the neighborhood on the strength of the title alone.