|
After a two day break we now turn our attention to the other side of the North Channel and the activities in Belfast. At 7:00 PM tomorrow evening, Monday 28 May, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland will convene in the Assembly Hall. If you are interested, here is some helpful information: |
The terms of the 2009 General Assembly remit to the Doctrine Committee were as follows: ‘That the Westminster Confession, chapter 24, paragraph 3, states: “It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry who are able with judgement to give their consent; yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord”. Within the Church, there is a variety of interpretations held concerning what is meant by “to marry only in the Lord”. Such confusion arising from a variety of interpretations is unhelpful and is giving rise to pastoral difficulties and clarification is therefore required’.A draft was presented last year and has been commented upon by the presbyteries and in response to that significant rewriting and restructuring occurred. In particular at the end of the introductory material the Panel says
In the present report, we have altered the order in which we present the material. The report presented in 2009 was divided into three sections: (a) the Confession; (b) Scripture and (c) pastoral issues. It began with the Confession not because we regarded it as having priority over Scripture, but because the remit referred specifically to the Confession. However, Presbytery responses revealed that perceived deviation from the Confession was a cause of concern only to the extent and on the assumption that this was also a deviation from Scripture, a principle which, we assume, is shared by both the Doctrine Committee and the General Assembly. We have therefore judged it advisable to begin this revised report with biblical materials and proceed to make brief remarks on the Confession after that.After considering these issues the Panel states a general principle based on the Apostle Paul's writings that "those who truly seek to follow Jesus Christ should marry only those who also truly seek to follow Jesus Christ." In their conclusion they state three things:
![]() |
Just down the street and around the corner from where one General Assembly has begun meeting you will find a second one convening tomorrow - the 2012 General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland. The Assembly will begin at 6 PM on Monday 21 May at St. Columba's Free Church and conclude its business on Friday 25 May. (Note, unless there is a time warp somewhere in there and the 25th of May is missing like the Order of Business says. |
The Committee decided to draw up a list of hymns which, in its judgement, are “consistent with the Word of God and the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith”. After examining a wide variety of praise material, including hymnals and web-based resources, the Committee has produced, in the first instance, a list of hymns from the hymnbook Praise!, published by Praise Trust in 2000.This list is not attached to the report but I am hoping it might be published elsewhere during the Assembly. The Committee does emphasize in their report the need for following copyright law noting that only 11 congregations have so far obtained a CCLI license. The Committee has also been selecting and editing Scripture passages for singing and a booklet will be circulated to commissioners.
![]() |
Coming up this Saturday the first large General Assembly of the 2012 season begins as the 2012 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland is convened in the Assembly Hall in Edinburgh. The Assembly will begin at 10 AM on Saturday 19 May and adjourn a bit after 3 PM on Friday 25 May. On Sunday afternoon 20 May there will be a large public festival in Prince Street Gardens called Heart and Soul 2012, inspired by the similar and successful Roll Away the Stone program last year. |
Be it RESOLVED that the Presbytery of the Redwoods opposes imposition of the rebuke set forth in the decision dated August 27, 2010, as inconsistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the faithful life of ministry lived out in this Presbytery.The full text of the resolution is available from the Presbytery (with a follow-up letter from the Stated Clerk), MLP web site or Mary Holder Naegeli's blog.
“Perhaps the majority, perhaps all of them, thought they had removed the rebuke but I don’t see how it is in the power of the presbytery to do that,” Conover said, adding that he had about 30 minutes notice on the Clark motion before the beginning of the meeting.The article goes on to say that Laurie Griffith, manager of judicial process in the Office of the General Assembly affirms this as well with the article saying that "The rebuke stands, whether Redwoods Presbytery reads it publicly or not."
Laurie Griffith, manager of judicial process in the Office of the General Assembly said there “are two possible options for redress if anyone wanted to raise the issue” of the presbytery’s refusal.My only comments on the remedial complaint is that 1) while they are not usually used to challenge disciplinary processes this resolution appears to be without precedent so "usually" is the operative word and 2) it strikes me that this is not so much an issue with the disciplinary process itself as with the Presbytery's response to it and enforcement of it.
“Each presbytery submits a ‘compliance report’ to the GAPJC, which is reported for information to each General Assembly,” she told the Presbyterian News Service, but it’s always been just pro forma.”
The other option, Griffith said, “could be a remedial complaint against the presbytery, but remedial complaints are not usually used to challenge disciplinary processes.”
Enough for now — This will have reverberations for a while to come in many forms and on many levels. We will see where this leads. Stay tuned...
Affirming that 'The gospel leads members to extend the fellowship of Christ to all persons.' (G-1.0302) The Presbytery of Los Ranchos, meeting on September 15, 2011, affirms that the Bible, The Book of Confessions and the Book of Order (including G-2.0104b and G- 2.0105.1 & 2) set forth the scriptural and constitutional standards for ordination and installation. Los Ranchos Presbytery believes the manner of life of ordained Ministers should be a demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and in the world, including living either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness and will so notify candidates for ordination/installation and/or membership in the presbytery. In obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture and guided by our confessions, this presbytery will prayerfully and pastorally examine each candidate's calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office, including a commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions of ordination and installation.A remedial complaint was filed with the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii PJC - Gerald J . Larson, Gary L. Collins, Rebecca B. Prichard , R. Winston Presnall, Margery Mcintosh, Michal Vaughn, Lucy Stafford-Lewis, July Richwine, Jerry Elliott, Sara McCurdy, Gregory Vacca, Gail Stearns, Steve Wirth, Suzanne Darweesh, Jane Parker , Darlene Elliott, Frances Bucklin, Deborah Mayhew, James McCurdy, Judith Anderson, and Susan Currie, Complainants, vs . Presbytery of Los Ranchos, Respondent (with thanks to the Layman for making the decision available on-line). The complainants had three Specifications of Error which the SPJC wrote "can be disposed of by the following specification: Whether a presbytery has the right to pass a resolution concerning the manner of life for its teaching elders as part of the proper exercise of the presbytery's authority within the powers reserved to presbyteries . (F-3.0209)" And the decision says - "This specification is answered in the affirmative."
It does not restate the Constitution in that it explicitly affirms the various documents without offering an interpretation of those documents.They go on to first note that prior GAPJC decisions are based upon a prior Book of Order, although it is worth mentioning that the Report of the Special Committee on Existing Authoritative Interpretations of the Book of Order is recommending that all the cited Interpretations be retained. The decision then discusses these standards in light of the Bush and Buescher GAPJC decisions. Relative to Bush v Pittsburgh (218-10) they note that the Los Ranchos statement is in compliance with that decision as the "Resolution does not seek to offer an interpretation, paraphrase or restatement of any constitutional provisions." Regarding the Buescher v Olympia decision (218-09) the Los Ranchos resolution specifically says that each candidate will be individually examined and so it does not have essentials that are mandated in advance.
The Resolution does not obstruct any on-going interpretation or implementation of the constitution. It does not alter or interpret the standards for ordination and installation. The Resolution does not seek to define any tenet as an 'essential' doctrine of the P.C. (U.S.A.).But the SPJC has more to say in the order, and while lifting the Stay of Enforcement the Presbytery was also, under order, admonished for the language that they chose:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Presbytery of Los Ranchos be admonished that while this PJC considers the resolution constitutional, the use of specific language known to be divisive and inflammatory flies in the face of the responsibility to seek the peace, unity, and purity of the church.Now, the polity wonks probably picked up two items in the decision that seem a bit of an issue, one being the use of F-3.0102 that I just mentioned. Two commissioners dissented from the decision and highlighted these two items in their opinion. Their first point is this:
1. In using the statement, "living either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or in singleness" the Presbytery is using a direct restating of the previous Book of Order requirement which was replaced by the General Assembly action and the presbyteries' vote. Therefore, it has no constitutional standing and cannot be used to determine a candidate's ordination eligibility. Such a policy preempts the vote of presbyters meeting in the future for the examination of candidates who have met the current constitutional requirements.They later write:
This language is purposefully taken out of the standards for ordained service (G-2.0l04b) by the action of the General Assembly and vote of the presbyteries. This renders the statement of the Presbytery of Los Ranchos unconstitutional in form and intent.Their second point is what they consider the misapplication of F-3.0102 by the majority. Expressing the same understanding of the section I mention above they write, in part:
In F-3.0102 the Book of Order continues to speak of the Christian church [in all its denominations] by saying, "Every Christian Church or union or association of particular churches"[referring to denominations, not presbyteries] is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion, and the qualifications of its ministers and members. [Again, referring Reformed Tradition churches, not presbyteries.]Let me make two brief points in conclusion:
In fact, the Presbyterian Church (USA) specifically stresses in diversity as it states in the Book of Order: (F-1.0403)The unity of believers in Christ is reflected in the rich diversity of the Church's membership...