Monthly Archives: April 2008

PC(USA) GA PJC Decision in Spahr v. Redwoods Presbytery: Reaction and Analysis

Leave a reply

The publication Tuesday of the decision in the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission case 218-12, Jane Adams Spahr v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) through the Presbytery of Redwoods has had a variety of reactions.  Early popular media articles, like this Reuters article or this WHAM-TV piece, basically picked up the story that the Rev. Spahr was cleared of the charges against her.

However, as the day went on the sophistication of the popular media reporting increased and is catching up with the discerning comments of Presbyterians familiar with the issues.  Among the first out with a story was the Presbyterian News Service whose article referred to the decision as “complicated.”  In a statement about the decision the Acting Executive Presbyter/Stated Clerk of Redwood Presbytery, the Rev. Robert Conover, refers to the decision as “nuanced and lengthy.”  In her own statement, the Rev. Spahr expresses her gratitude for the GA PJC upholding the original decision by the Presbytery PJC.  Later articles, such as one by the San Francisco Chronicle, began to recognize that Rev. Spahr’s acquittal is only the easy part of the story and there is still more there. The Chronicle writes “The ambivalent ruling –
affirming the rights of gays and lesbians to have their relationships
sanctioned by the church but not considering them equal to those of
heterosexual couples – is likely to disappoint both sides in the debate.”  And on the KGO-TV web site they write “Tuesday’s ruling is a complicated, split decision. It essentially
clears Reverend Spahr of disciplinary charges, saying she can’t be
found guilty of doing that, which by definition, cannot be done — the
marriage of gay couples. However, they say no one should try it again.”

As for official reaction, the Office of the Stated Clerk on Tuesday updated the Advisory Opinion 7 on Ceremonies Blessing Same-Sex Relationships to reflect this new decision.

Reaction from the web and blogosphere is still developing.  Most progressive web sites that have posted something, like That All May Freely Serve and JustPresbys, are pretty much linking to or quoting other statements or reports.  In the next few days we are likely to see more official statements from these groups.  On his blog the Rev. Ray Bagnuolo recognizes this as a victory, but only a beginning for the cause of equality for LGBT individuals.  Finally, the Rev. John Shuck and the Rev. David Fischler on each of their respective blogs from very different ends of the theological spectrum call this an “odd” and “bazaar” decision.

After reading it through a few times I must agree with them.  After putting together the available pieces, it seems to me that this was a divided PJC and they made the effort to put together a central kernel that they could all affirm and then five of the twelve commission members put together a dissent to the other significant part of the decision.  In addition, there are three other concurring decisions that comment on other parts of the decision.

The real focal point of this decision is Specification of Error No. 1 and No. 2.  Error 1 is that the Synod PJC should not have concluded that same sex marriages are prohibited by Presbyterian polity and Error 2 is that Rev. Spahr committed a disciplinary offense.  The GA PJC recognized that the Book of Order in W-4.9001 and the 1991 Authoritative Interpretation (see Advisory Opinion 7) prohibit ceremonies that represent marriages between persons of the same sex but other commitment or blessing ceremonies are not prohibited.  They also cited that marriage is between a man and a women as stated in W-4.9001.  It would then appear that all of the members of the PJC agreed on the following statements:

The ceremonies that are the subject of this case were not marriages as the term is defined by W-4.9001. These were ceremonies between women, not between a man and a woman. Both parties acknowledged the ceremonies in question were not marriages as defined by the Book of Order.

The SPJC found Spahr guilty of doing that which by definition cannot be done. One cannot characterize same sex ceremonies as marriages for the purpose of disciplining a minister of the Word and Sacrament and at the same time declare that such ceremonies are not marriages for legal or ecclesiastical purposes.

The PPJC was correct in finding that by performing the two ceremonies at issue, Spahr did not commit an offense as charged. Therefore, the SPJC erred in determining that Spahr was guilty of violating W-4.9001 or the 1991 AI.

And at the end of the section the decision says:

In summary, Specification of Error No. 1 is not sustained because by definition, “marriage is . . . between a man and a woman.” (W-4.9001) Specification of Error No. 1 and Specification of Error No. 2 are sustained because W-4.9001 does not state a mandatory prohibition on performing a same sex ceremony. The charge was for performing a marriage ceremony, which by definition cannot be performed.

So, if I read this correctly the question is not whether you intend to conduct a ceremony that you are calling a marriage or view as being equivalent.  The question is whether you did conduct a marriage ceremony.  Since same-sex couples, by definition of W-4.9001, can not be in a relationship called marriage, it is impossible to conduct such a ceremony and therefor no charges can be filed.  (And it appears that by this logic can never be filed.) So “poof,” under PC(USA) polity there is now no such thing as same-sex marriage.

As I look at this decision, this seems to be the mental gymnastics that were necessary to get a unanimous decision.  In addition, the sentence “Both parties acknowledged the ceremonies in question were not marriages as defined by the Book of Order” appears to be carefully constructed to be conditional on the Book of Order definition because it is made clear in the history of the case that Rev. Spahr intended these to be marriages and the evidence includes the fact that she signed a “Certificate of Marriage” in each case.  Even now, in her statement following the decision, she consistently uses the term “marriage” to describe her ministry.

But if you look at the substantive parts quoted above the real emphasis is on Book of Order W-4.9001.  The dissenting opinion by five of the members of the commission takes issue with the additional verbiage in this section that tries to expand on W-4.9001 using the 1991 AI or a previous PJC decision.  W-4.9001 talks about marriage and always refers to it being between a man and a woman.  There is no reference to the ceremony itself in this section or to any other ceremonies that may be for same-sex couples.  Strictly the constitution does not prohibit or regulate same-sex ceremonies except to say they are not marriages.   The 1991 AI and the previous Benton decision do make reference to the ceremony, that it should not be the same as a marriage ceremony and that it would be improper to use the church for such a ceremony.  This decision in the Spahr case extends this by saying:

In holding that Spahr was not guilty as charged, this Commission does not hold that there are no differences between same sex ceremonies and marriage ceremonies. We do hold that the liturgy should be kept distinct for the two types of services. We further hold that officers of the PCUSA authorized to perform marriages shall not state, imply, or represent that a same sex ceremony is a marriage. Under W-4.9001, a same sex ceremony is not and cannot be a marriage.

The five members of the commission who signed the dissent take issue with this extension.  They argue:

In rendering its decision, the majority has taken the liberty of legislating in the guise of interpreting inconsistencies between W-4.9001 on the one hand, and the 1991 Al and this Commission’s decision in Benton v. Presbytery of Hudson River, Remedial Case 212-11 (2000), on the other hand. For the reasons stated herein, we respectfully concur in the result of the majority, but disagree with the decision of the majority to the extent that it rests on the 1991 AI or Benton.

This seems to hearken back to the recent GA PJC decisions on the 2006 AI concerning declarations of exceptions in ordinations.  The idea is that the constitution is primary and AI’s and PJC decisions should not be used to extend the reach of the constitution.

On the other side, three commissioners in a concurring opinion write, in total:

We join in the foregoing Decision and Order (Decision). We understand the Decision to be an authoritative interpretation of W-4.9001, to mea
n that officers of the PCUSA who are authorized to perform marriages shall not hereafter perform a same sex union ceremony in which or with respect to which such officer states, implies or represents to be a marriage or the equivalent thereof. While the Commission did not find Spahr guilty as charged herein, in part because her conduct occurred under prior authoritative interpretations, we understand that future noncompliance with the authoritative interpretation of the Decision will be considered to be a disciplinable offense.

So, now that it is in the books, you have been warned and don’t do it again.

For the polity wonks, an interesting polity point is that the GA PJC dismissed arguments base on Benton right from the start of the decision in the Preliminary Statement pointing out that Benton resulted from a remedial case and this was a disciplinary case so it was not relevant case law.  With the exception of reference to it in the dissent I have not found other reference to Benton in the rest of the decision section.

In the reasoning on Errors 1 and 2 the main opinion continues on for roughly another page discussing Rev. Spahr’s ministry and the part of marriage ceremonies in it.  It acknowledges her sense of call to “participate in a caring and compassionate ministry to persons who have been marginalized, who are faithful Christians, and who wish to be accepted in every way as full members of the body of Christ.”  It also says that the Rev. Spahr may consider herself acting in the role of a prophet to the church, and points out that the role of a prophet contains risks and carries consequences.  The decision goes on to say “It is the burden of a church officer to accept the consequences of his or her actions that are the ecclesiastical equivalent of civil disobedience.”  The third of the concurring opinions expands on this and the Book of Order basis for it, even further.

The rest of the decision is fairly routine, procedural, and straight-forward.  Most errors were rendered irrelevant once Rev. Spahr was cleared in the first section.  It was noted that for Error 3 there was no disciplinary action to be taken, but originally the Synod PJC was out of place imposing a punishment and it should have remanded the case back to the Presbytery PJC for the consequences.  And it noted that while Rev. Spahr on appeal had referred to the 2006 AI, that was irrelevant because that applied only to conscience issues related to ordination standards.  Error 6 also refers back to conscience but the decision replys “Submission to the current standards of the church may not always be comfortable, but it is not optional.”  Finally, Error 7 was about a member of the Presbytery PJC and whether they should have been disqualified from serving on the case.  The decision says it was correct to let them go ahead and serve but a concurring opinion says that while it may be procedurally correct, for the appearance of a fair decision disqualification would have been wise.

So that is the decision, but where does that leave us?  As one statement said, this seems to imply a “separate but equal” structure in the PC(USA).  The ceremonies just can not look the same.  Rev. Spahr says that she will continue conducting “marriages.”  It also seems like muddled case law that neither side in the debate will be comfortable with.  It seems ripe for clarification and expansion by a future GA PJC.  And the similar case of the Rev. Janet Edwards in Pittsburgh Presbytery is awaiting a trial date.  It will be interesting to see how this as case law influences that decision.

Breaking news: PC(USA) GA PJC finds for Spahr in Same-sex Unions Case

Leave a reply

The decision in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission case 218-12, Spahr v. Presbytery of the Redwoods was issued shortly after noon Pacific Time.  The decision is posted.

Bottom line:  Rev. Jane Spahr was found not guilty of conducting “same-sex marriages.”

Quick and dirty summary of the legal reasoning:  The Book of Order prohibits same-sex weddings but permits blessing same-sex unions.  These were not weddings, there for Rev. Spahr should not be disciplined.  Here is a quote from the decision:

The ceremonies that are the subject of this case were not marriages as the term is defined by W-4.9001. These were ceremonies between women, not between a man and a woman. Both parties acknowledged the ceremonies in question were not marriages as defined by the Book of Order. It is not improper for ministers of the Word and Sacrament to perform same sex ceremonies. At least four times, the larger church has rejected overtures that would prohibit blessing the unions of same sex couples. By the definition in W-4.9001, a same sex ceremony can never be a marriage. The SPJC found Spahr guilty of doing that which by definition cannot be done. One cannot characterize same sex ceremonies as marriages for the purpose of disciplining a minister of the Word and Sacrament and at the same time declare that such ceremonies are not marriages for legal or ecclesiastical purposes.

Later in that section the PJC seems to reason their way out by saying “The charge was for preforming a marriage ceremony, which by definition cannot be preformed.”  It sounds like they are saying that no one can ever be found guilty of preforming a “same-sex marriage ceremony” because there is no such thing in Presbyterian polity.

Where does this leave us?  In my quick reading it appears that this decision has maintained the status quo:  no weddings but there may be blessings.

Reaction:  I have seen none yet but I suspect in the next couple of hours there will be a reasonable amount.  I would also guess that while there will be some approval on the progressive side that Rev. Spahr was acquitted, I also suspect that neither progressive nor conservative side will be satisfied because it appears that this decision dodges the issue of breaking ground and brings no additional clarity or precedent to what a “wedding” is.

My initial take:  The GA PJC seems to be operating in the same mode it has in other decisions by crafting a central body that the whole commission can sign on to.  This one appears a bit more frayed at the edges than the others because there are four minority reports, one of which dissents with regard to certain parts of the main decision.

Now, I’ll get back to work and analyze this decision in more detail on my commute home.  More later.

Synod of the Sun (PC(USA)) Establishes Administrative Commission for Presbytery of South Louisiania Property Cases

3 Replies

The big news over the weekend in the Politics of Presbyterianism was that the Synod of the Sun established an administrative commission to work with the Presbytery of South Louisiana regarding the Presbytery’s handling of church property cases.

Background
Back on October 28, 2007, the membership of First Presbyterian Church of Baton Rouge, LA, voted 422-60 to leave the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and transfer to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC).  It is interesting to note that the pastor of the church is the Rev. Gerrit Dawson, who is co-moderator of the New Wineskins Association of Churches along with the Rev. Dean Weaver.  Rev. Weaver’s church, Memorial Park Presbyterian Church in Allison Park, PA, just came to terms with Pittsburgh Presbytery concerning its release to the EPC.

The total number voting at the meeting, 482, represents only one-quarter of the membership of the church according to the article published by the Presbyterian News Service.

The significant piece of background noted in that article is that the Presbytery of South Louisiana had granted to First Presbyterian clear title to their property roughly a year before the vote so the church was free to take their property with them without further legal action or negotiation.

Synod Meeting
The published facts in this action are from a single source, a Synod of the Sun news story about the matter on the Presbyterian Neighbor News.  The action appears to have been taken at a twice-annual stated meeting of the Synod of the Sun but the packet for the meeting does not contain any advanced information about this business.

The news story says that in a letter to the Synod Executive dated April 8 presbytery pastors and elders “expressed a concern regarding our presbytery’s leadership,
particularly pertaining to the presbytery’s response to churches
seeking title to their properties.”  The letter “further stated that presbytery leaders gave insufficient
consideration to denominational protocols on such matters and gave
insufficient consultation with other churches.”  Finally, the letter is said to ask for an administrative commission to look into this.

According to the article the next step was a meeting:

Synod Executive Judy Fletcher met with members of the presbytery
council of South Louisiana, April 22, and said they concurred that
outside consultation would be helpful. The council sent a letter to
synod supporting an administrative commission but asking that the power
of original jurisdiction not be given.

The news story says that this past weekend those at the Synod meeting unanimously approved the administrative commission:

Synod commissioners established an administrative commission charged
with determining the “validity of the presbytery’s procedures and
decisions (past, pending, and future) regarding various congregations
and their properties.”

The synod document further stated that
“All pending and future decisions regarding property in the Presbytery
of South Louisiana shall require the approval of the commission.” The
commission shall also listen to expressions of concern regarding the
presbytery’s leadership and suggest ways the presbytery can move toward
a fuller expression of the ministry of Christ’s Church.

Reaction
I probably don’t need to tell you that from the conservative quarters of the PC(USA) the reaction has been swift and strong.  With the past history of the “Louisville Papers” and the perception of the Office of the General Assembly wanting to hold onto the property at all costs this appears as top-down punitive and corrective action on the Presbytery for being gracious and pastoral with churches that wanted to depart the denomination.  In particular Bill Crawford at Bayou Christian, Toby Brown at A Classical Presbyterian, David Fischler at The Reformed Pastor, and Michael McCarty at Around the Scuttlebutt have particularly negative views of this action and the possible conspiracy with Louisville it represents.

Comments
On one level this action can just be viewed as the way that our connectional system operates.  When there is a disagreement on one level we move up to the next-higher governing body to get help and direction from the collective wisdom of that body to help us get around a disagreement or rough patch.  Not knowing any facts from other sources, and ignoring that a controversial topic is in play here, the sequence of events, steps taken, and the unanimous vote, all would make it appear that this is our Presbyterian system working properly, decently, and in order.

But as the reaction in the blogosphere demonstrates this is a loaded topic.  It is my view that there has been a disconnect between the national structure of the PC(USA) and the “people in the pews” which makes an action like this, even if innocent, appear disciplinary and controlling.  And with the Louisville Papers in circulation this can also be interpreted as conspiratory.  The press release is carefully crafted and with no other sources to go on it appears that a concerted effort was made to put a controlled positive public relations spin on this.  The two areas of concern for me are the short lead time which prevented information from being in the advanced packet, and that the only governing body to speak on this is the Synod of the Sun and there is no comment from the Presbytery of South Louisiana.

But related to both the “innocent” and the “conspiratory” interpretations of this action is a question I always ask:  Is an administrative commission the best option?  I always keep in mind that an administrative commission like this one is the second most powerful action a governing body can take regarding a lower governing body.  It is only out-done by an administrative commission that is granted the power of “original jurisdiction.”  In a real sense this can be the “Ecclesiastical Nuke” that Rev. Fischler refers to it as.

For those readers who may not understand the full implications, in Presbyterian lingo a “commission” is a group elected and given certain powers and responsibilities to act on behalf of and with the authority of the governing body that created it.  When granted original jurisdiction, the commission can take full control of the lower governing body.  When a presbytery establishes an administrative commission to work with a church, if that commission has original jurisdiction they can set themselves up as the session of the church if they decide it is necessary.  In general Presbyterians have two types of commissions, administrative and judicial.

So, was an administrative commission the best option?  Not being there and having all the facts I can not say.  I will say that when I was working with my presbytery, particularly as the moderator of the Committee on Ministry, it was my view and experience that an administrative commission was a last resort.  Creating one to work with a church was often viewed as a power play by the presbytery much as this is viewed in some quarters as a power play by the synod.  Yes, there are cases were a body with the authority was needed and yes there are cases where an administrative commission is welcomed.  But I have found that beginning with task forces, listening teams, or discussion groups was at least a “kinder and gentler” way to begin the process.  Showing up at the door as an administrative commission, however well intentioned, was not always viewed as a friendly gesture.  “Hi.  We’re from the presbytery and we are here to help you.”

I was aware that in other presbyteries and other synods some of my counterparts felt that administrative commissions were the way to go.  The idea was to send in the big guns, get things cleaned up quickly, and get out.  (Commando Presbyterian governance?) 

Maybe they are right but it never sat well with me both from a connectional and pastoral perspective.  This is a view reaffirmed by a friend of mine at a recent presbytery meeting where the administrative commission he was chairing made their final report and was dismissed.  After delivering the final report he was allowed some personal comments in which he said that administrative commissions are a painful solution in many situations and while they sometimes may be necessary they should only be used as a last resort.

Preach it brother!

Upcoming PC(USA) General Assembly — Late April Update

Leave a reply

There have been enough events happening this week that I thought it worthwhile updating the preparations for the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

Probably the biggest single news item, one worthy of a Presbyterian News Service article, is that at least one individual, the Rev. Edward Koster, Stated Clerk of Detroit Presbytery, will challenge the search committee nominee, Rev. Gradye Parsons, for the job of Stated Clerk of the General Assembly.  Rev. Koster has served 13 years as a Presbytery stated clerk and in addition to his theological training he is also a lawyer.  The News Service article quotes Rev. Koster from a prepared statement as saying “I believe that while our leadership has been faithful and competent, it
has increasingly strayed from the core of the church. If I am called to
serve, I believe I can make a difference.”

The blogosphere has had some response to this challenge.  In particular the Rev. Bob Davis of San Diego Presbytery has an analysis of the process from his perspective and concludes that the process as it currently stands limits the commissioners’ exposure to the challengers and favors the committee nominee.  The Rev. Davis has some experience with this, having been one of the challengers to Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick when he was last re-elected by the 216th General Assembly in 2004.  In a follow-up post today Rev. Davis suggests some changes to the Standing Rules to improve the process.  Specifically, he wants more time for conversation between the candidates and the commissioners and delegates and so suggests establishing a commissioner committee to interview the candidates.  While I don’t have my materials in front of me, it is my memory that was the process at the preceding election at the 212th General Assembly (2000).  I would also note that the Rev. Davis appears to be a commissioner to General Assembly from San Diego presbytery so he may be in a position to do something about his suggestion.

There are some additional reactions on blogs to the Stated Clerk election, including Quotidian Grace and Spoiled Dinner Party that express concern about the choice of an insider as the committee nominee at this point in time and they welcome the challengers.  The other 12 applicants who were not selected by the nominating committee have until May 7 to declare if they also wish to challenge.

Another place there has been activity is on the business system PC-biz.  The big news is that overnight the members of the committees were added to the system.  In scanning through the lists I recognize a bunch of names, like the Rev. Davis who will be on Committee 8, Mission Coordination and Budgets.  For the candidates for Moderator and Vice-Moderator, Rev. Carl Mazza is on Committee 4, Church Polity; Rev. Byron Wade is on Committee 5, Church Orders and Ministry; Rev. Tamara Letts, Committee 13, Theological Issues and Institutions; Rev. Peter deVries, Committee 14, Review of GA Permanent Committees; Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow and Rev. William Teng, Committee 16, Worship and Spiritual Renewal (note: these are supposed to be random assignments so someone from Presbyterians for Renewal on the Spiritual Renewal Committee is coincidence); and Elder Roger Shoemaker on Committee 17, Youth.  Those that are elected Moderator and Vice-moderator will not serve on their committee so they may moderate the committee report impartially.

As far as the business is concerned, almost all overtures and recommendations have been assigned to committees at this point.  There is one new overture, 99, also known as business item 11-23, from the Presbytery of San Francisco.  The title is “On Divestment from Caterpillar, Inc., and Motorola, Inc., for Profiting from the Israeli Military Occupation of Palestine Territories” which pretty much says it all.  It is also interesting to note that two more overtures have been withdrawn:  Overture 4 on clarifying the Rules of Discipline about pronouncing censure and Overture 75 on temporary suspension of military aid to the State of Israel.  No reasons for withdrawal given.

In other news related to the Moderator election, the Candidates Forum at First Presbyterian Church of Lawrenceville, NJ, is tomorrow night and I look forward to comments and impressions from any of the candidates, from Mark Smith on his blog Mark Time. or from any other blogger who makes it to the event.  And thanks to Mark for putting this event together.  Being on the left coast I don’t think I’ll be making it myself.  Also, I continue to watch but have not seen word yet on Rev. Mazza’s nominee for Vice-Moderator.

Finally, the denomination has announced the prayer emphasis for the week before GA highlighted by a road trip by Tammy Wiens-Sorge, Associate for Spiritual Formation and Stephany Jackson, Coordinator for Congregational Leadership, traveling from Louisville to San Jose.  For six months now I have been steeling myself for all the upcoming references to that old song about San Jose and the title of this effort, Praying Our Way To San Jose, comes pretty close to the first authentic reference I have heard.  But I have to agree with Joan Gray, Moderator of the 217th General Assembly, when she says in her message on the web page “If you haven’t already, start praying now!”  I could not agree more.

Upcoming PC(USA) General Assembly — Mid-April Update

Leave a reply

The process continues as we move towards the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) which begins on June 21, 2008, in San Jose, California.  This week the big event was the release of the Moderator Booklet with the statements by each candidate and responses to questions from the four Moderator candidates.  Just to remind you, the four candidates are (in order of their inclusion in the booklet) Rev. Carl Mazza, Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, Elder Roger Shoemaker, and Rev. William “Bill” Teng.

I will have to take some more time to review the answers and see if I want to make any comments on the answers, but it is interesting to note which questions the candidates chose to answer.  The Office of the General Assembly provided a list of ten questions and the candidates were to chose five questions to answer in 500 words or less for each question.  What I found interesting was which questions the candidates answered and which they did not.  For example, all four candidates chose to answer the first question:

1. Our church’s Ecumenical Vision Statement reminds us that, “The unity of the Church is both God’s real gift and God’s effective calling.” How would you work for unity within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and how would this contribute to the unity we seek with other churches and Christian communities?

Three of the four answered thee questions:

5. What suggestions do you have for identifying new directions for partnership between congregations, presbyteries, seminaries, and the General Assembly in preparation for ordained ministry?

6. In what new ways can the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and its congregations place a focus on ministry to and with youth and young adults to ensure a church for future generations?

7. What is your sense of where God is leading the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) at this time in its history?

Carl and Bruce answered all three of these, Roger answered 5 and 7, and Bill answered number 6.

Three questions were answered by two of the candidates.  Roger and Bill answered both

2. The 208th General Assembly (1996) affirmed the goal of increasing racial ethnic membership to 10 percent by the year 2005, and to 20 percent by the year 2010. How do you assess the Presbyterian Church’s progress toward the fulfillment of this goal and what would you do during your moderatorial term to move the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) closer to realizing or exceeding this goal?

8. What should be the role of the Moderator during times of deep disagreements in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) about matters of faith and practice?

While Bruce and Bill answered the Form of Government question:

10. The Form of Government Task Force was created by the 217th General Assembly (2006) to propose a revised polity that would be more flexible, more foundational, and more appropriate for a missional Reformed Church in the 21st century. What do you think about these proposals?

There was only one solo answer and that was for Carl for

9. We are living in a war-torn world. What might the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and its congregations do to strengthen its ministry of peacemaking at this time?

Finally two questions went unanswered:

3. The General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical Relations held a Consultation on the Ecumenical Stance of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and identified ten priorities for our ecumenical commitment in the next ten years. What do you understand to be the greatest ecumenical challenge and ecumenical resource before the church in the next decade?

4. The General Assembly will be asked to act on a proposal to take the first step toward adding the Belhar Confession to The Book of Confessions. How do you think this addition to The Book of Confessions would impact the confessional and spiritual life of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)?

So, a quick conclusion is that all the candidates place a high priority on Christian Unity (question 1) and lower priority on ecumenical relations (question 3) and adding to the Book of Confessions (question 4).  As I have talked with commissioners and delegates to the GA these are themes that I have been hearing from them.  Also, the interest in partnerships between governing bodies and institutions as well as reaching out to youth and young adults is a pretty strong theme.  So it is not surprising that these four individuals have matched their priorities to the major themes in the PC(USA) today.  (Quick and dirty probability says that there is one chance in sixteen of all four choosing the same question and of nobody choosing a question if the choices are random so it appears that their selections are not random.)  I would also point out that Bruce was the only candidate to not answer the questions in the same order they are numbered.  And Bruce and Carl used one page per question, pretty much filling up the page, while Roger and Bill’s answers to any single question generally did not fill up a page.

Well, that is enough reading tea leaves for now.  I’ll probably have more comments about the individual responses later this weekend.  I’m taking my class on a field trip to the San Andreas fault and I’ll have a bus ride home to do some reading.  (Happy California Earthquake Day by the way. (102nd anniversary of the 1906 San Francisco quake and fire))

The other item of note in the candidates’ booklet is the announcement that the Rev. Teng has selected the Rev. Tamara Letts as his nominee for Vice-moderator.  Rev. Letts is an Associate Pastor at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Anchorage, Alaska and from her bio in the booklet appears to have worked with Rev. Teng on the board of Presbyterians for Renewal.  She has also worked with the Network of Presbyterian Women in Leadership (NPWL) and is listed in their speakers bureau.

Tamara joins the Rev. Byron Wade and the Rev. Peter C. deVries as the Vice-moderator nominees.  I searched the booklet several times and I hope that I am not missing it, but I don’t see the Vice-moderator nominee for Rev. Mazza.  And of these seven individuals, I would point out that Roger Shoemaker remains the only Elder in the group and Tamara Letts is the only women.  (Is there a COR in the house?)

With the processing of business on PC-biz following overtures has become a moving target since they get changed to committee items and lose their clear overture label.  The last time I addressed overtures we were at 86.  The numbering is now up to at least 98.

Since we are beyond the constitutional changes deadline most of the overtures deal with social justice issues.  These include Overture 87 from the Denver Presbytery “On Equal Rights for Families of Same-Gender Partners” which appears to be about the same as Overture 83.  There are a couple that address the Middle East.  These include 88 from National Capital Presbytery on  “Being a Voice for the Victims of Violence in Israel and Palestine,” and 93 from Newark Presbytery “On Supporting Israel’s Right to Exist, But Calling for Temporary Suspension of Military Aid to the State of Israel” that address the Israel/Palestine situation.  There is also 96 from Heartland Presbytery “On Ending the War in Iraq.”  Regarding Iraq overtures, Toby Brown has commented on the Mission Presbytery debate of a similar overture in his Classical Presbyterian blog.

Some of the more local social witness issues include overture 89 from National Capital Presbytery “On Addressing the Tragedy of America’s Gun Violence,” overture 95 “On Peaceful Relations Between the Christian and Muslim Communities” from Chicago Presbytery, and 98 “On Supporting Those Who Feel Called to Seek Status as Conscientious Objectors” from San Francisco Presbytery.  And there are a couple of other overtures like 91 from Scioto Valley Presbytery titled “Overture on War, Mercenaries, and Profiteering” and 94 “On Peacemaking in Columbia” from Chicago Presbytery.  I will generalize that these all call for some combination of raising awareness in the church, maybe studying the issue, and the Stated Clerk writing letters to politicians advocating on behalf of the church.

The remaining three overtures have more direct implications for the PC(USA).  Overture 90, from Beaver-Butler Presbytery, is titled “On Advocating and Funding Either Both Sides of the Abortion Issue or Neither.”  The title pretty much says it all and it would direct GA agencies to do one or the other in compliance with the 1992 abortion policy.  There are two related and some-what similar overtures from its neighbor Pittsburgh Presbytery (Mister Rodgers pun intended):  Overture 55 about the “Relief of Conscience Plan” and Overture 63 also about advocating both sides.

San Francisco Presbytery proposes an added office or agency in Overture 97 “On Creating a Presbyterian Office for the Prevention and Healing of Minister of Word and Sacrament Mis-conduct and Abuse.”  The overture asks for an ongoing presence that would be in the Office of the Stated Clerk and the General Assembly Council (GAC).  These are two different branches of the national structure and so it would be a rather unique presence if it does indeed cross between the two.  In addition, how does this fit into the reorganization of the GAC?  The overture specifies that oversight would be by the GAC.

And finally, there is overture 92 which is another call, this time from Newark Presbytery, for a “corrected” translation of the Heidelberg Catechism.  This joins overtures 36 from North Kansas Presbytery and 45 from Boston Presbytery which also request “Restoring the Heidelberg Catechism to its Historic Form.”

Well, that is plenty for now and I’m putting in way to many off-topic side comments.  This probably should have been two posts but I was on a roll so I just plowed through.  And there are a couple things hanging out there so I expect to be posting another update early next week with those items.  Have a good weekend.

Upcoming PCA General Assembly — Mid-April Update

Leave a reply

Heads up GA Junkies, Presbyterian polity wonks, and stated clerk wanna-be’s:  First thing last Monday morning the Presbyterian Church in America filled out its Overtures Page for the upcoming 36th General Assembly and there are some items in there that only a polity wonk and parliamentarian can fully appreciate.

In my first Assembly preview I mentioned that there were three overtures that we only had the titles for, and shortly after that post three new overtures were posted, of which only one had text provided.  Well, now the full text of the five title-only overtures is posted so now there is some interesting stuff to dissect.  If your eyes glaze over easily at the pure polity business, you can jump a bit further down for church membership overtures, or all the way to the end for the latest in the discussion of deaconesses.

There are two overtures from Potomac Presbytery that address changes to the PCA Rules of Assembly Operations (RAO).  If you want the current version you can find it bundled with the Book of Church Order, starting on page 246, towards the back before the Standing Judicial Commission Manual.

Overture 13 is simply titled: Revise RAO 14-6 k.; 14-9 g.; 15-8 e.; 14-9 e.; 15-8 c.  The overture begins with the observation that the revised RAO has basically been successful, but a few “minor adjustments” are needed.  If you look at the proposed changes it involves some pretty specific and subtle changes in the rules.  The first change, adding 14-6.k, would permit commissioner committees of Assembly to adopt resolutions commending persons or agencies.  This is a power the committees traditionally have had and was omitted in the new rules as an oversight according to the rational.  The second change, adding 14-9.g, makes explicit that the Assembly answers Presbytery overtures.  The first part declares that if the Assembly fails to adopt a recommended response to an overture then “the overture shall be considered to have been answered in the negative”  The second part says that if the commissioner committee proposal is a negative answer to the overture and the full Assembly does not adopt it, then a no to a no does not make a yes so the proposal is sent back to the commissioner committee.  And the next, 15-8.e, makes the same change in another place.

OK, that was warm up.  The other two changes deal with consequences of particular parliamentary motions.  Specifically, the changes to 14-9.e and 15-8.c clarify what the full Assembly can do with a committee recommendation.  The section specifies that the subsidiary motions the full Assembly can not use are postpone indefinitely, amend, and commit, as well as some incidental motions.  It does say that the Assembly can recommit, also know as refer, back to the commissioner committee that dealt with it.  This overture would specify that “recommit with instructions” would not be permitted since this could be a undesirable exercise for the full Assembly and possibly provide an end-run on the prohibited amending.  (If you want a good write up on these subsidiary motions from a slightly different venue there is one from the U.S. House of Representatives.)  The reasons for recommitting the recommendation would be implicitly known according to the rational for the change:

A motion to recommit with instructions would open the floor to the emendation process the new rules were designed to prohibit. The overtures committee will have sufficient information to address a recommendation recommitted from the debate on the motion to recommit.

As I said, language only a polity wonk could love.  Have you ever used or heard “emendation” in a sentence?  (Essentially changing the document trying to correct the mistakes.)  The last item in the overture would make the same change in a parallel section, 15-8.c.

There is also the closely related Overture 14, also from Potomac Presbytery, which addresses the RAO, connectionalism and the constitution of the church.  The overture points out that the RAO, adopted by the Assembly, has a section, 16-3.e.5, that has instructions for Presbyteries.  (In an interesting twist, or maybe what brought this to everyone’s attention, this is the section dealing with recording in Presbytery minutes the examination of elders and their departures from the Confessional Standards that was cited in one of the indictments against Louisiana Presbytery in the recent Federal Vision Controversy trial. (If you want to follow that thread check my last post on that))  The polity issue here is why are requirements that Assembly places on the Presbyteries contained in the Rules of Assembly Operations when they should be in the Book of Church Order since the RAO is adopted by the Assembly for its own procedures.  Procedures for Presbyteries must either be adopted by the Presbytery itself or adopted by the whole church through the process of amending the Book of Church Order.  This overture asks for the appointment of an ad interim committee to review the RAO and get rid of or move to the BCO any parts that place requirements on other governing bodies.  As a GA Junkie and polity wonk I think they are absolutely right.  Just open up the overture and check out the Where As sections.  For the PC(USA) folks, heads up on this for the Form of Government revision.

Now I will jump back to Overtures 1, 2, and 3 from Southeast Alabama Presbytery.  These all deal with sections related to membership in the church.  Overture 1 proposes changes to BCO Chapter 6 to more clearly define how individuals join the church, especially by letter of transfer or reaffirmation of faith.  The overture would add, among other language, two sections that define each of those.  It is interesting to note that there is also a line added to BCO 6-2, the section that addresses “children of believers.”  The added language says “It is [the children’s] duty and privilege personally to receive and rest upon Christ, to confess Him before men, and seek admission to the Lord’s Table.”  I won’t elaborate at this time but I could read this addition as a clarification of the covenant community in a way that opposes the Federal Vision Theology.

Overture 2 would make some changes to the “membership vows” in BCO 57-5.  To the current five questions it would add three more at the beginning that have the new members affirm the three sections of the Apostles Creed, one section per question.  But it would also completely rewrite qu
estion 6 from relying in the grace of the Holy Spirit to promising to “make diligent use the means of grace” to live peacefully in the community and with the aid of the Holy Spirit to be a faithful disciple to the end of your life.  A last question is added for those who are joining by affirmation of faith and baptism for them to explicitly declare their intent.  Finally, in an interesting touch this overture would add “I do” as the required response to each question.  Note that this is the same section that overture 4 proposes to change the line about the pastor asking these questions from a “may” to a “shall.”

And overture 3 appears to play clean-up in other sections of the BCO where the changes from 1 and 2 would need to be reconciled with current language.  It makes corresponding changes to parts about letters of transfer and the membership vows in other places and moves some sections, including the membership vows in 57-5, to chapter 46.

Finally, there is Overture 15 from Western Canada Presbytery which concurs with Overture 9 asking for study and clarification of the scriptural guidance concerning women serving as deacons, or a position very similar to a deacon.  This is the high-profile issue of the Assembly and the PCA web magazine byFaith has a note about it as well as continued low-level interest in the blogosphere, like recent posts on Post Tenebras Lux and Omnia ad Dei Gloriam.

And on a technical note, if anyone who works on the PCA web site sees this, you might want to do a check on your title meta-tags.  The overtures page says “Exhibitors” and many of the pages for this year’s GA still say 35th General Assembly.

So stay tuned.  Of the large-church GA’s this one comes before the PC(USA) but after the Church of Scotland.  We are getting closer.

Upcoming PC(USA) General Assembly — Another Early April Update

Leave a reply

Coming so close to my previous update I won’t update the business coming before GA, except to say that more items are being assigned to committees on PC-biz and to note that Kay Moore, the Manager of General Assembly Business at General Assembly Meeting Services, has been added as the sole committee member to all the committees.

The news today is the announcement that GA Moderator candidate Elder Roger Shoemaker has chosen the Rev. Peter C. deVries as his Vice-moderator nominee.  My hat tip to Bruce Reyes-Chow on this since none of my other feeds or alerts have picked this up yet, and in fact Roger Shoemaker’s web site, which I watch closely, does not have it there either.  But Rev. deVries does have his blog up and going so this is more of announcement by the selectee than by the selector.  I suspect that Bruce just got the word out faster than anticipated and that Roger’s site will be updated with the official news shortly and they just wanted all their ducks in a row first. 

Peter has put up a nice blog with four posts last Thursday on his background, mission, the Bible, and conflict.  There is a general overseas mission theme going here because Rev. deVries is the convener of the Ghana Mission Network; remember that Elder Shoemaker has been  in leadership in the Czech Mission Network.  Peter is the pastor of Old Union Presbyterian Church in Mars, Pennsylvania, in Beaver-Butler Presbytery.  He is working on a Ph.D. at the University of Pittsburgh Department of Religious Studies (note not Pittsburgh Seminary).  He describes his research as “His dissertation uses the hermeneutic theory of Paul Ricoeur to advance
an understanding of Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse of Mark 13.”  I did find it interesting, as you can tell from that quote, that his about post is written in the third person.  The other posts nicely outline his view of the other three areas.  In particular, he writes in the conflict post that:

The PC(USA) is not in a crisis. Christianity has experienced discord and conflict from its very inception. While
the intensity of our disagreements and the things we disagree about may
distress us, God calls us to persevere in our struggle together to
discern his way forward.

These posts also reflect his mission emphasis and academic perspective.  And the motorcycle picture is a nice touch.  Now wonder it got Bruce’s attention.

So, we await the remaining two Vice-moderator nominees.

Upcoming PC(USA) General Assembly — Early-April Update

Leave a reply

I was targeting my next update on the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly for about April 15, but within the last couple of days there have been two interesting developments worth mentioning.

The first is that the workers on the back side of PC-biz, the GA business web site, are now assigning action items to committees.  But in the on-line system there is an up-side and a down-side to this.  The positive is that we now see which committees will be dealing with what business, barring changes by Committee 2 – Bills and Overtures.  In particular, the “man behind the curtain” has been moving several items over to Committee 3 – General Assembly Procedures, and Committee 4 – Church Polity.  The problem is that in the assignment, while the back-end ID number seems to remain the same, the more user-friendly overture number or recommendation number gets removed and replaced with a committee item number.  For instance, Overture 86 on creating the Truckee Lutheran Presbyterian Church is now Committee item 04-10.  If you do the digging to look at the sponsor, it is then clear it came from a Presbytery, therefore it must be an Overture.  But there appears to be no reference kept to its overture number. C’est la vie

The second item of news is that Moderator candidate Bruce Reyes-Chow has announced that his Vice-moderator nominee is Dr. Rev. Bryon Wade.  Rev. Wade is the pastor of Davie Street Memorial Church (CitySearch calls it Davie Street Presbyterian Church as does the Presbytery congregations page) in Raleigh, NC, New Hope Presbytery.  While Bryon does not appear to match Bruce in “on-line presence,” (I’m now sure how many of us could) Bruce does list a Facebook page for him.  Rev. Wade is originally from Los Angeles and has served the denomination in a number of positions, including service on General Assembly Council.  Bruce comments that they have been friends for a couple of decades and share not only a history with the denomination but similar visions for it.

We can expect more Vice-Moderator information coming from the other candidates in the next few weeks.  At the latest, the Vice-Moderator nominees and the official bio and statements book will be out no later than May 7, the 45 day deadline before GA begins.

A few other developments:

Over on Presbyblog Bob Davies has his comments on many of the issues faced by General Assembly this year.  And Rev. Davies is taking these item by item so there is significent detail on several of them.  With so many significant pieces of business coming up we will see how many he gets through before GA begins.  However, one of the items he has commented on is the proposed General Assembly Council Mission Work Plan, currently knows as Recommendation 31.  Another fellow blogger, Michael Kruse, is on the GAC and is one of the authors of that work plan and has some comments on Bob’s discussion.

Finally, the PC(USA) General Assembly site has posted a Prayer for the General Assembly from the Book of Common Prayer on the GA Worship page.  Usually a couple of other organizations prepare prayer guides leading up to GA so we will keep watching for those.

News from the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Sudan

Leave a reply

About a month ago I had an update that included news from the Presbyterian church in northern Sudan, the Sudan Presbyterian Evangelical Church.  There is now news from a General Assembly of the southern branch, the Presbyterian Church of Sudan.  As a brief background, these two branches derive from different histories of establishment, not directly from theological or political differences.  However, each of these branches has split and has had to develop its own complex structure to continue ministry in areas that are on each side of the Sudan civil war.

Now an article from the Sudan Tribune brings us news that the southern Presbyterian Church of Sudan, at their 32nd General Assembly, took action to reunite the church and the church structure of their branch.  With the help of Dr. Riek Machar Teny, a member of the church and the Vice-President of the Government of Southern Sudan, the Assembly reconciled, united, and passed a new constitution decentralizing the church government to the ten presbyteries and establishing a General Headquarters lead by a new Moderator General.  The article makes it clear that additional presbyteries can be added as the church expands into areas of the country currently without a Presbyterian church.  And each presbytery will have equal representation of 34 commissioners each to the General Assembly.  (The article does not say if they will be evenly split between elders and clergy.)

But it is interesting to note that in the election for the four national officers, Moderator General, Deputy Moderator General, Secretary, and Treasurer, each of the two candidates for each office were clergy.  In addition, each election was close and they had almost identical vote counts:  179-161, 175-164, 175-165, and 172-168 respectively.  I don’t know if these are just coincidence, or if these similar numbers represent  particular groups.  The article says that the leaders pledged to work for unity and encouraged the church to do so as well.  They have my prayers for a united witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ for Sudan.

Update (4/9/08):  The Los Angeles Times has published an interesting article about the decision to not ask about religion or ethnicity in the upcoming census in Sudan.  The dynamics are complicated, as you might expect in a country with the civil war so recently halted and so many refugees.  But one dynamic that relates to the PCOS is that the non-Muslim southern part of the country is growing faster than the Muslim north.  It is an interesting article for more detailed background on the current situation in Sudan and implications for the church.

Official PC(USA) Blogs

Leave a reply

I have previously mentioned a couple of the official Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) blogs.  These are hosted on Typepad.  I have stumbled upon a list of several more blogs on the sight, one of them fairly new.  Here is a rundown:

Main blog:
http://presbyterian.typepad.com/
When I first saw this it struck me as a “proof of concept” because it only had a couple of posts all from September, 2006.  Checking again, I find that it is still sort of a trial, or minimal site, but it now has two videos about the work of General Assembly Council and the church mission structure posted back in February.  They are several minutes each, but well done and a good intro to the national church.  However, with a name like “Test Video” it still appears “not ready for prime-time.”

Linda Valentine
http://www.presbyterian.typepad.com/lindavalentine/
Since the debut of this blog for Ms. Valentine’s trip to Asia last fall she has continued to post to it about once a week.  It provides a nice connection to the Executive Director of the General Assembly Council.

A more expansive view — Encounters with Presbyterians and our Seminaries
http://presbyterian.typepad.com/seminaries/
This blog, written by Lee Hinson-Hasty, Coordinator of Theological Education and Seminary Relations, appears to have been started at the beginning of November 2007 shortly after Linda started her blog.  As the blog title, and Mr. Hinson-Hasty job title, suggest, it is about the interface of PC(USA) seminaries with the wider church.  It is from his side-bar that I found a couple of the new blogs.  And Lee got tagged and participated in the recent Presbyterian meme that went around, including an intellectual discussion of its origin.

Food and Faith
http://presbyterian.typepad.com/foodandfaith/
This appears to be the first regular blog on this site.  It is maintained by the Presbyterian Hunger Program and has entries dating back to March 2007.  It also is the only one with widgets in the side bars.

Swords into Plowshares
http://presbyterian.typepad.com/peacemaking/
This is a blog that I have previously referred to as well and has been written by representatives of the Presbyterian Peacemaking Program since February 2008.

Reclaiming the Gospel
http://presbyterian.typepad.com/erichoey
This is one of the blogs I had not found before.  It is written by Eric Hoey, the Director of Evangelism and Church Growth for the General Assembly Council and I wish I had found it earlier because I appreciate Eric’s candor, freshness, and insights.  It also has entries back to February, 2008.

Vital Signs — Changing Churches for Changing Times
http://presbyterian.typepad.com/vitalsigns
This is a brand new blog with one entry dated March 24.  The author is Phil Tom is the associate for the Small Church and Community Ministry Office.  I look forward to reading more from this timely blog.

So, what next?  Will we start to see most of the program areas represented by blogs?  Will the next Moderator of General Assembly have an “official” blog?  Stay tuned.