Monthly Archives: November 2006

Updated Resource from the Covenant Network on “Guidelines for Examination”

Leave a reply

The Covenant Network of Presbyterians has recently released an updated version of their resource “Guidelines for Examination.” (alert: it is 2.6 MB in size so be careful clicking this link to down load it)  I am not familiar with any previous version(s) of this document so I can’t speak to the revisions other than to say that it does include the results of the 217th GA in 2006.  But I found this to be an interesting read (at least for a GA Junkie).  It is 64 pages long, well written and footnoted (six pages of them) and presents their side of the debate well.  I probably could have done without the abundance of stock photos illustrating it, but it would make it more appealing to more casual readers.

On the one hand this document contains nothing new.  If you have followed the debate in the PC(USA) for any length of time now you will find all the usual material on the pro-ordination side:  Sessions and presbyteries can neither add nor ignore standards; the question of essentials, subscription, and scruples; the “chastity” versus “celibacy” question; what practices the confessions call sin; whether homosexual orientation is “natural”; what was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah; is the PC(USA) version of the Heidelberg Catechism accurately translated.  Their viewpoint is clearly discussed and documented.  (If you are a casual reader remember there are opposing arguments on all of these, which is why the PC(USA) and its predecessor denominations have been discussing this for 30 years without a mutually satisfactory resolution.)

I would commend to anyone active in this debate chapter 6 which has a series of case studies covering a variety of interesting examples and asks whether the individual described is involved in a “self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin”  and whether or not they should be  ordained as an officer in the church.  These cases are well developed and cover a variety of modern situations which do raise questions about our behavior and how it is, or is not, informed by scripture and confessions.  Only two of the cases specifically relate to ordination of GLBT persons but also include environmental responsibility, recreational gambling, active military service, literal interpretation of scripture, and divorce to name a few.

I did find these case studies thought provoking and challenging to think about although I did feel that at times I wanted more information or to engage the fictional individual being examined for ordination in conversation about their position.  These case studies are a good reminder that while we have some generality in our ordination standards we tend to focus on one standard: sexual orientation.

However, as much as I found the case studies interesting and thought provoking, as I read through them I could not help but wonder if these presented a red-herring distracting the reader from the real controversy being addressed.  The book contains a whole chapter on “GLBT Disclosures” and another on “Considering Sexual Practice” as well as the chapter on “Putting it Together.”  There are no chapters on divorce, military service, or recreational gambling.  No one can say that this resource is not about ordination standards relating to sexual practice.  And while several of the study cases do present situations with scriptural basis for discussion (divorce, observing the sabbath), most are more confession oriented and/or deal with scripture in much more general terms (environmental responsibility, scriptural literal interpretation).  This is not to say that they are not important theological and ethical questions that have been dealt with for centuries, like military service.  But I felt that in a direct comparison few if any of the cases really had the gravity and relevance of the present debate.  (Yes, I do realize that there will be arguments with me on this one.)

So, here is a resource that presents one viewpoint well, that contains some challanging information, and that can generate good discussion.  But keep it in perspective.  For an alternative view the Presbyterian Coalition has prepared a response to a 2003 document from the Covenant Network.

New Constitutional Musing on “Responding Pastorally to Troubled Churches”

Leave a reply

The PC(USA) Office of the General Assembly has issued a new “Constitutional Musing” titled “Responding Pastorally to Troubled Churches.”  It deals specifically with churches that are “troubled” by recent General Assembly actions.  Maybe it should be titled “Responding Pastorally to Churches Considering Leaving the Denomination.”

The document is, on balance, a pretty moderate document.  It advises beginning with a response team to engage in conversation with the congregation and session so each side clearly understands the other side.  The next step, if the church still wishes to leave, is to form a team to study the situation and recommend a course of action and try for reconciliation.  The process could then go to an administrative commission.

The musing does say that presbyteries can not have a “quick exit” policy but that the presbytery does have the authority to release a congregation to another reformed body after extensive evaluation.  And that is where the musing ends.  It is either dismiss the congregation “or to decide that another course of action is most appropriate to
advance the mission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in that
geographic area.”  The other major component to this musing is that it encourages the “troubled” church to cooperate with the presbytery in all the steps.

While I have no problem with what the musing says it is probably more interesting on what the musing does not say.  There is no mention of the word “property” anywhere in this memo.  Is the implication that the congregation can be dismissed/transfered but you can’t take the property with you?  Also, the musing stops there and is silent on what “another course of action” might mean.

The memo commends policies on this matter that have been adopted by the Presbytery of New Covenant and the Presbytery of Wabash Valley.

Also, the Layman Online has their analysis of this musing.

Score one for the trust clause

Leave a reply

A PC(USA) press release is reporting that the judge in the case of Torrance First Presbyterian Church vs Presbytery of Hanmi has granted summary judgment to the presbytery giving it title to the church property.  (I previously wrote on this and other SoCal cases on Aug. 18) Checking the web site for the Los Angeles Superior Court (click “Case Summary on the left and then you can go to the bottom of the page and type in the case number BC332180) it indicates that a “Motion Hearing” was completed on Monday, Nov. 27, but the status of the case is still pending with a final status conference on 4/27/07 and trial set for 4/30/07.  It could be the web site has not been updated or they are waiting for the full decision to be issued in a couple of weeks or the summary judgment is preliminary and it can be challenged.  The related case (YC052718) does not show any activity since September.

OK, those are the facts as the PC(USA) and the court web site are reporting them.  I am looking for an alternate source to see if there is more to it.  However, I still stand by my comments from the previous post:  The Torrance case, and the others in SoCal, are very much the result of divided congregations that have internal disputes and are not really about the present atmosphere of (mostly) unified congregations wanting to leave the denomination over decisions by the GA.  What the present cases do show is the strategy and tactics that the PC(USA) higher governing bodies will probably be taking against churches that try to leave with their property.

But at what cost?  The monetary cost of this and the three other cases has been significant and the Synod of Southern California and Hawai’i, already financially challenged, is needing to find creative ways to pay for this.  (More on that later.  I have a commentary on Synods in process that might see the light of day in the next week.)  And I am personally disturbed by the tone of the PC(USA) press release.  It strikes me as having a very triumphalist attitude making reference to the “break-away faction” and the “loyalist Presbyterian Church (USA) faction.” 

I will keep watching this story.  The press release says the full decision will be issued by the judge in a few weeks.

The new indulgences

Leave a reply

There was an interesting piece on NPR’s radio program Morning Edition today done by Martin Kaste about consumer “carbon offsets.”  This established business practice in industry allows a company to put out more green house gases by buying some of the unused gas allotment from another company.  Now there is a consumer market for these so if you are feeling guilty about causing global warming by driving your SUV or heating your house you can pay Ford or The Climate Trust or other organizations.  However, you are not buying a carbon offset like industries do.  Rather, your donation will be used to support projects that are environmentally friendly and usually help reduce green house gases, such as buying up old cars or helping with reforestation projects.  The suggested payment is $10/ton of greenhouse gases produced or with Ford $80/year for an SUV.

OK, that’s interesting you say, but what does this have to do with reformed theology and Presbyterianism?  Well, one of the people interviewed in the piece is George Monbiot who likens the new carbon offset business to modern indulgences where you can live as you like, pay your money, and your sins are forgiven.  However, Mr. Monbiot also says that these consumer offsets are doing nothing to reverse global warming because what is needed is massive systemic change right away.  All the offsets do is ease people’s conscience.  You can read more of his view point in an October 18, 2006, article in The Guardian titled “Paying for our Sins” that promotes his new book Heat:  How to stop the planet burning.

Church of Scotland Moderator Designate Enters Debate

Leave a reply

I don’t know how I missed this the first time but I caught this in a recent follow-up:

In an article in the November 5 Sunday Times the Church of Scotland Moderator Designate, the Rev. Sheilagh Kesting, stated that “the time is right” for the church to permit the blessing of same-sex partnerships.  This past May the General Assembly voted to provisionally allow it but also voted to send it to the presbyteries for their approval.  The article also says that an informal survey of the presbyteries indicate that ten of thirteen presbyteries are against it.

Today’s article in Christian Today mentions the moderator designate’s comments but was occasioned by the unanimous vote in the Presbytery of Lewis against giving permission for the blessings.  This is the first presbytery to vote unanimously against it.

Moderator Designate for United Free Church of Scotland

Leave a reply

The United Free Church of Scotland put out a press release last Tuesday, Nov. 14 which was the basis for a story Nov. 16 on the web site Christian Today announcing the Rev. David Cartledge as the moderator designate for the United Free Church of Scotland.  Rev. Cartledge is recently retired but most recently served 21 years as the pastor at Milngavie Free Church.

Rev. Cartledge’s back ground is interesting.  It says that he came to Christ at the Billy Graham Crusade in 1955 and originally served as a Methodist and Wesleyan minister until 1982 when he transfered to the United Free Church.

The General Assembly will meet June 7-9, 2007 in Edinburgh.

New GAC Deputy Executive Director For Mission in the PC(USA)

1 Reply

It is exciting to see today’s announcement/press release from the PC(USA) news service about the hiring of Rev. Tom Taylor to be the new General Assembly Council Deputy Executive Director for Mission.  Tom is a Louisville outsider who will come from the “tall-ish” steeple Glenkirk Presbyterian Church (1400 members) in Glendora, CA, San Gabriel Presbytery.

This hiring of a pastor from a large, prominent, generally “conservative” congregation to a major visible role in the national administration is comparable to the hiring of Gary Demarest to head up the General Assembly office of Evangelism in 1988.  Interestingly, Gary is quoted in the press release promoting Tom’s talents.

No one says that this will be an easy task.  Tom is quoted as saying:

“Anyone would be either crazy or arrogant to assume that this will be
an easy task,” Taylor noted. “This can only be done with God’s
direction and a Holy Spirit-driven energy and creativity, but I am
still more excited than daunted by the challenge,” he said. “I see it
as an opportunity for hope, growth and healing in our denomination.”

I look forward to Tom’s leadership in this position.

Decision in the Pittsburgh Presbytery Same-sex marriage PJC case: Dismissed on technicality

2 Replies

The Permanent Judicial Commission of Pittsburgh Presbytery heard the disciplinary case of the Rev. Janet Edwards today.  This evening’s news stories report that in a unanimous decision the charges were dismissed because the investigating committee filed the charges four days after the one year deadline.  The vote by the commission came after 1 1/2 hours of deliberation.  The Rev. Edwards had been promoting the trial and sending out invitations to attend the trial and a celebration worship service afterwards.  The dismissial means that while Rev. Edwards is not guilty, the issue is still open.

You can see my original discussion of the case earlier in my blog.

Early news reports on the decision come from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the PC(USA) news service.

Ordination standards – with a twist

1 Reply

The Layman Online is reporting that there will be a candidate coming to the stated meeting of John Knox Presbytery next week to be admitted to the candidacy process as an inquirer. The individual is a self-avowed practicing homosexual and understands that his present life style is in conflict with the ordination standards in the Book of Order, G-6.0106b.  The letter to the presbytery from the Committee on Preparation for Ministry, included in the Layman article, takes the polity view that the candidacy process is a time for the presbytery and candidate to investigate and discern the call and that the ordination standards in the Book of Order apply to the final ordination.  This is the same view that San Gabriel Presbytery took several years ago and Mission Presbytery took earlier this year, and that has so far been upheld by the Synod PJC.

The twist:
(Actually two of them.)

1)  The CPM letter also makes it clear that this request to be admitted to inquirer status will also include the new authoritative interpretation.  This is the first direct challenge to the ordination standards by a candidate for minister since the PUP report and it is clear that this candidate will declare “scruples” about whether the ordination standards are “essentials.”

2)  The big one!  The candidate in question is Mr. Scott D. Anderson, the same Scott Anderson who was the only openly homosexual member of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity.  Mr. Anderson was previously an ordained minister of word and sacrament in the PC(USA) but renounced jurisdiction in 1990 when he acknowledged his present life style.

Commentary:  So much of this commentary seems to write itself, especially since the CPM does make a point of the fact that Mr. Anderson will be challenging what is essential.  I want to leave it at the point that if “nothing has changed,” as we are constantly being told, why is a member of the PUP Task Force the first to challenge the ordination standards?

Rewriting the PC(USA) Form of Government

Leave a reply

One of the actions of the 217th General Assembly of the PC(USA) was the formation of a task force to rewrite the Form of Government section of the Book of Order.  This was attempted a few years back when Chapter 14, the longest section of the current Form of Government covering Ordination, Certification, and Commissioning, was rewritten, simplified and sent by the General Assembly to the presbyteries for approval.  It was rejected.  (Personal note: one item that bothered me was that the ordination questions for ministers were changed so that the first eight questions were not the same as for the other officers.  This is a feature that I always point out when I ask ordination questions.)

So, with that rejection behind them, the plan is to now completely rewrite and simplify the section.  The Task Force has now met twice and has started to release documents.  Maybe the most interesting change is that their draft proposal includes creating a fourth section of the Book of Order titled “The Foundations of Presbyterian Polity.”  Their draft for this brief section contains a simplified form of the current chapters I to IV.  A quick reading shows that most of the key phrases are there:  “Jesus Christ is the head of the church” (but this is no longer the opening words), The Great Ends of the Church, “God alone is Lord of the conscience”  and “the Church is further called to undertake its mission even at the risk of its own life.”  (Although this last phrase is now buried a bit and tougher to find.)

The Task Force has also released an outline of a new Form of Government as well as a draft of a new Chapter I.  The PCUSA news service has also issued a news item.