Monthly Archives: July 2008

The Continuing Saga of the Anglican Communion

Leave a reply

While the Presbyterians have been occupying my attention the past few months I have been keeping an eye on developments in the Anglican Communion worldwide.  Part of this is the mirroring of the discussions and disagreements different Presbyterian branches are having.  Another point of contact is that there is significant overlap and cooperation, on both sides of the issue, in the property litigation.  (The test cases in the California Supreme Court which multiple Presbyterian governing bodies and groups have filed amicus briefs on, is dealing with Episcopal churches.)  But maybe at the heart of it the goings on in the Anglican Communion right now make a great soap opera or high global drama.  While physical conflict is not involved, there is still the air of a great global battle with leaders on one continent allying themselves with groups on another continent.  Like in chess, Risk, or Diplomacy there are strategic positions, blocking moves, and alliances.

Well at the moment the Anglican Communion is in the middle of their major decennial meeting to which all (or almost all) the bishops world wide are invited, the Lambeth Conference.  (FYI: It is named for Lambeth Palace, the official residence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, although the conference is being held at the University of Kent.) While not a legislative meeting with such a great attendance from across the Communion is a major “Instrument of Communion” and carries some consensus and institutional weight.

For a brief review of where the Anglican Communion is at the moment, and a not very optimistic view of where it is headed, Christianity Today just posted a good summary on their web site.

To briefly review:  In the United States, Episcopal churches, and even dioceses, that are not happy with The Episcopal Church’s permissive stand on ordaining and elevating to bishop practicing homosexuals, exemplified in New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson, are looking elsewhere in the world for church oversight.  These groups came together with similarly oriented representatives worldwide before the Lambeth conference as the Global Anglican Future Conference, being referred to as GAFCON.  This meeting itself was a mini-soap opera because it was supposed to start in Jordan at a Dead Sea conference center, but there were permitting and visa issues and the meeting was prematurely moved to Jerusalem.  Any way, the Jerusalem conference issued a final statement,  the Archbishop of Canterbury responded, and an additional GAFCON statement followed that.

Now, as if that were not enough, on July 7 the General Synod of the Church of England voted to permit the elevation of women to bishops without safeguards, or ways to opt out, for those opposed to the women bishops.  This was greeted by an expression of concern from the Vatican about breaking with apostolic tradition and a caution to Anglican clergy that although they may be dissatisfied with their current church’s positions, they would not be roundly welcomed into the Roman Catholic Church.  The Russian Orthodox Church also criticized the action, but left open the avenue for Anglican priests to switch to that church. (Note that The Episcopal Church has permitted women to serve as bishops for a while now and the Presiding Bishop is female.)  Further votes, including one requiring a 2/3 majority, are needed and it will be a couple of years at the earliest that this could happen.

So, where does this leave the Lambeth Conference?  We will have to see.  It is interesting to note who was not invited to this event that is supposed to include all the bishops:  Prominent on the not-invited list was Gene Robinson.  In addition, a bishop with close ties to the ruling regime in Zimbabwe as well as U.S. bishops who had been elevated by overseas archbishops over the objections of The Episcopal Church.  Who did not come?  Many of the no-shows are bishops who would have liked to have seen the supporters of Bishop Robinson on the not-invited list.  In addition to these divisions over doctrine, there are reports that the conference is heavily in debt and does not have the funds to pay the final bill.

While it is tempting to draw one-to-one comparisons of the Anglican situation with the PC(USA) situation, such as GAFCON = New Wineskins, I will leave that as an exercise for the reader.  However, I will leave you with one other item about Lambeth, and that is the presence of religious cartoonist Dave Walker, invited as the “cartoonist in residence” for the event.  I would point you to this contribution in particular.

News from the Presbyterian Church of Ghana

Leave a reply

Well, I’ve gotten a little preoccupied with North American Presbyterianism in the last couple of months and the PC(USA) in particular.  So, looking globally there have been a series of interesting news items from the Presbyterian Church of Ghana over the last few weeks.

It is worth noting that the PC Ghana can be described as being, at the least, “well connected” in Ghana’s society and government, and it is probably fair to say that in some areas, including education, it is a significant contributor to society.  This fact was recently recognized when the Moderator of the General Assembly, the Rt. Rev. Dr. Yaw Frimpong – Manso, was recognized with a State Award from the President of Ghana.  The Rt. Rev. Frimpong-Manso was one of 147 individuals to be recognized this year and his specific award was the ORDER OF VOLTA – OFFICER (RELIGION) distinction for his contribution to the Christian community and national development.

The Rt. Rev. Frimpong-Manso has been an outspoken leader for moral values in society and earlier this month at two ordination services for new clergy, some of his comments were picked up separately in the news media.  From two of these services were reports on his exhortations to clergy about showing humility in their work and being faithful and responsible in their obligations.  The story on ModernGhana.com about the first service says:

He expressed regret that some clergymen praised and advertised
themselves instead of preaching the word of God to address the
challenges and vices in society.

and

He
said: “The constant changes and decay in the world today, are always
calling the church to its mandate of transformation based on the
imperatives to the great commission of Our Lord to go into the world to
make disciples of all nations”.

He entreated clergymen to at
all times strive to work within the principles and tenets of the Bible
in the discharge of their duties to sustain and enhance the image of
the priesthood institution.

He picked up a similar theme at the second service according to the article on GhanaWeb.com:

[He] urged ministers of God to be humble and patient with the institution of the church in which they had been called to work.



Rev Frimpong-Manso said some pastors had neglected to fulfill their
obligations concerning visitations to the sick, the poor and vulnerable
and payment of assessments.



He said those same pastors did not attend meetings nor did they submit
statistical data about their activities.


In the first service reported on, Rev. Frimpong-Manso led the way in addressing the “challenges and vices in society” by criticizing advertising of alcoholic beverages and calling for a ban on advertising.  An article on JoyOnline picked this up as a story with an different emphasis on the same sermon.  That article says:

The Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of
Ghana (PCG), Right Reverend Dr Yaw Frimpong-Manso, has appealed to the
government to ban all advertisements on alcoholic beverages as it has
done with tobacco.

According to him the widespread intake of
alcoholic beverages in the country did not give any revenue to the
government or individuals.

“Alcohol has only succeeded
immensely in contributing to increase in diseases, immorality and crime
in the country, he observed.

and

“The earlier we became concerned about this canker and arrested it
before it succeeds in destroying our dear nation, the better it would
be for us all,” he said.

The moderator, therefore, urged the
public not to be lured and pressured by advertisements to take to
drinking alcoholic beverages, because there was nothing to be gained
from their intake, but would only give huge revenue to producers.

While in town for one of these ordination services, the Rt. Rev. Frimpong-Manso helped open an Information and Communications Technology centre built by the Northern Presbytery.  This is a training facility mostly funded by European partners to benefit the PCG educational programs as well as those of “other sister church members and the public.”  (Ghana Broadcasting Corp. article)

Finally, there was also news this past month about the Moderator helping to lay the foundation stone for a new Presbyterian Conference Centre.  The vision for the conference center is multi-fold, providing not just a location for Presbyterian meetings, but to be state of the art so that it will provide a revenue stream from corporate meetings and employment of Presbyterians in the area.  The Moderator also made an appeal for church members to give towards this project with a suggested regular monthly donation of one Gahanian cedi (currently worth about $0.90) per member.

Reflections On The Church Virtual #1

13 Replies

In a couple of previous posts I began my “out loud” reflections on The Church Virtual, the concept of Christians gathered in Covenant Community not face-to-face in a specific geographic location, but in virtual communities like those now developing in a Web 2.0 world.  I opened this line of thought back in early March and posted some preliminary development of it about a month later.  Since April I have been doing some serious theological reading and thinking on this idea, but then I went to General Assembly…

I’ll return to that in a minute.  But since April I have been trying to form a framework or grid to help me think about, or “measure” or “test” how the church as virtual community would exist or function.  I am trying to be careful not to unduly constrain thinking about the Church Virtual, while still trying to have something solid on which to hang the thinking.

So let me throw out there the basic outline for thinking about this.  For me one of the most basic measures of the church is from Chapter 18 of the Scots Confession, the “notes of the true kirk (church):”

The notes of the true Kirk, therefore, we believe, confess, and avow to
be:

  • first, the true preaching of the word of God, in which God has
    revealed himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles
    declare;
  • secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ
    Jesus, to which must be joined the word and promise of God to seal and
    confirm them in our hearts;
  • and lastly, ecclesiastical discipline
    uprightly ministered, as God’s word prescribes, whereby vice is
    repressed and virtue nourished.

This is a start, but as the following lines in the confession indicate it applies to specific or particular churches.  The virtual community usually does not pretend to take on the role of a particular church, but rather a fellowship or community of believers that guides and supports across geographical boundaries.

My second guide for the Church is the six “Great Ends of the Church:”

  • the proclamation of the gospel for the salvation of humankind;
  • the shelter, nurture, and spiritual fellowship of the children of God;
  • the maintenance of divine worship;
  • the preservation of the truth;
  • the promotion of social righteousness;
  • and the exhibition of the Kingdom of Heaven to the world

Not that the notes of the true church should be disregarded, but this gives a little more to work with for on-line community.

Now, I am going to try to tackle, or at least poke on, all nine of these points in one post or another as I get time to convert my random musings into coherent, or at least less random, reflections.  But even as I put this one together I struggled with some overlap between various of these concepts.  And I decided “live with it.”  So here it goes…

Maybe the most obvious and natural way that the on-line community relates to these various points is in the category of “shelter, nurture, and spiritual fellowship of the children of God.”  For example, different blogs fill different niches in cyberspace and many do not have the explicit intent of fostering “fellowship.”  I know that I personally don’t write this blog to be “warm and fuzzy” and there are a bunch that I read which are the same way.  But even while reading more scholarly posts about the emergent church, or global economics, or ecclesiology, if you read the blog regularly you get a sense of the person behind the blog and do develop an emotional connection.

Getting a sense of the person behind the blog is easier when the blog author does mix in the personal news and comments with the other items and for those bloggers who post almost exclusively their personal journeys the connection is easier.

OK, so there is a one-way connection there?  Does that make it part of the virtual covenant community?  I think it is in a qualified sense.

Anytime we care about, and especially pray for, another Christian, whether they know it or not, that interaction is mediated by the Holy Spirit which formed the covenant community to begin with.  Because God is involved we were linked as Christian brothers and sisters to begin with even before we began reading each others blogs.  The sharing in the virtual community did not establish the connection, it “realized” it.  But while the implicit connection is present in the existing relationship established by divine facilities, to live into that community we need to have some two-way interaction.  While the obvious source of interaction in these cases is the comments section at the end of the blog (one of the reasons that I and others have noted the inability to comment on the blog of the Moderator of the Church of Scotland), I would argue that since God is the creator of the covenant community and the Holy Spirit empowers it, that responding back with prayer is another valid response to blog posts that establishes us in the two-way divinely-mediated relationship.

And there are cases where it seems the authors are, by design, trying to facilitate Christian community on the web.  In my reading through blogs I have found a few of these that have really touched me and in which I have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit.  One is a blog by Kristin called “Barefoot and Laughing” where she is chronicling her journey with cancer and treatment.  There are other blogs and web sites where people are sharing this journey, but something about Kristin’s writing, her transparency and honesty in this journey reached out and grabbed me.  Check out the posts I’m Scared and Crucible.  Your mileage may vary.  But I hold this up as an example of very real and intimate writing that draws us into community with one another, even if our only response is to lift the person up in prayer.

Another blog that I regularly read is “journalling” by Liz, a minister in Scotland.  In each of these brief posts, all illustrated with a single photograph, she shares with us a little bit of each day and a spiritual insight.  Again, you may prefer something different, but I look forward to reading each installment and following the twists and turns of her call and ministry.

A final example is “Our Table Must Be Full” by Carl Mazza.  As one of the candidates for Moderator of the General Assembly Carl was writing blog posts about his ministry as his time and circumstances permitted.  What was most touching about these entries was that they were usually not about him but were wonderful stories about individuals he met in his ministry to the homeless.  Once I got a chance to meet and hear him at GA it was very quickly clear that the blog entries were just as much about who Carl is and his enormous heart for those people in difficult circumstances that he ministers to.  With the conclusion of GA I do hope that Carl continues sharing these stories with us.

I hold these up as examples of blogs through which I find myself much more connected with the Christian community around the world, ones where we do participate in the “shelter, nurture, and spiritual fellowship of the children of God.”  I would guess that if you are a regular blog reader you have your own. (And note the overlap here because these blogs can sometimes include “proclamation of the Gospel” and “exhibition of the Kingdom of Heaven.”)

The question is frequently raised as to whether there are limits to how open, transparent, and honest one should be in their blogging.  In an ideal world there would be no limits, but in this fallen world not everyone is part of the covenant community, and even those of us who are can take things the wrong way sometimes and the blogging can impede the spiritual fellowship.  This is probably more often the case when you are blogging about others rather than just about yourself.

In my reading, Mark Smith over at Mark Time is at the forefront of thinking this through.  Through his hard experience of trying to be open and honest in the virtual community he has offended and hurt some in his particular church.  As a result of that, and in consultation with his pastor, he is leading the charge on a scripturally-based foundation for what is and is not appropriate sharing in the virtual community.  Thanks Mark for taking that on.  It is interesting to note that this has overlaps with other of my nine thinking points, maybe particularly “ecclesiastical discipline
uprightly ministered.”  And as you can probably surmise by how he got in trouble, he is another blogger who shares the twists, turns, joys, and disappointments of his life with us regular readers of his blog.

So this brings me to General Assembly and my experience there.  Having established certain relationships in the virtual community I was amazed by the added dimension to the relationship when there was the opportunity to meet my “imaginary friends” (as we were calling each other) in a face-to-face setting.  My EP has as a constant theme the vision of gathering at the table, with the various sacrament, meal, and discussion implications.  This was truly the case for me in meeting several of those that I had known only through their blogs and podcasts.  Having known them from their virtual persona the element of in-person contact seemed considerably more significant.

As Christians this should not surprise us.  In his earthly ministry Jesus was about human contact:  Touching those he healed, taking time for the less important in society, sharing a meal with outcasts and sinners.  In fact, while I believe that Jesus was capable of doing most, if not all, healings from a remote location he almost always did them in contact or close proximity to the individual.  Only in the case of the centurion’s servant can I think of “action at a distance” when the centurion tells Jesus he understands orders given and obeyed. [Matt. 8:5-13]

So while the advent of Web 2.0 has enhanced ministry and fellowship opportunities in the virtual community, I have so far come to the conclusion that it is a tool that can initiate, enhance, and maintain our spiritual fellowship, but I don’t see the Church Virtual as a total replacement for “the shelter, nurture, and spiritual fellowship of the children of God” within the particular church.

The 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — Organizational Reactions

6 Replies

To say that there has been a lot of reaction, positive and negative, to the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) would be a major understatement.  With the web casts and various live blogs during the meetings there was immediate coverage, analysis, and commentary on the developments.  One number published by the PC(USA) was that there were 13,000 connections to the web cast.  They don’t say if that was unique IP numbers or peak number of simultaneous connections, but either way that is a number far greater than I would have estimated.  But is a significant fraction of the 20,000 “polity wonks” that I estimated in an earlier back of the envelop calculation.  So Presbyterians were out there watching, reading and reacting.

[Update: Thanks for the very rapid comment below from Dianna Ott, Director of Creative Services for the PC(USA).  She clarifies that the 13,000 is the peak number of connections to the live streaming.]

This instantaneous coverage led the PC(USA) to issue the first pastoral letter from our top three office holders (Moderator, GAMC Executive Director, Stated Clerk) within hours of the Assembly adjourning.  For the 217th GA the one and only letter was released three days later.  This first letter reported on the most controversial items of business, the ordination standards and the definition of marriage, that were causing all the stir across the denomination.  A second letter, just issued this week, is more of the usual letter with a summary of a wide variety of topics the Assembly dealt with, particularly the items adopted by a wide margin.

The initial letter began with a paragraph briefly describing some of the other actions taken by the GA:

The assembly dealt with well over 400 business items. Some items
had undivided agreement, including a covenant to join together to carry
out mission together and a churchwide commitment to “Grow God’s Church
Deep and Wide.” There was an action to continue to study a revised Form
of Government, and one committee devoted its time entirely to youth
issues. In addition, we continued our longstanding work toward peace in
the Middle East. More information on these and other actions will be
coming soon.

It then continues with the four highest-profile items set out in a very formal and factual manner.  (I have edited out the full Book of Order language changes for brevity.)

Perhaps the subject that will make the most
headlines has to do with the ordination standards of our church. It is
a subject with which Presbyterians are familiar and one that tends to
evoke great debates and deep emotions. With that in mind, we want you
to know what the assembly did—in the actual wording—in regard to
ordination standards, and what will happen next.

  • By
    a 54% to 46% margin, the assembly voted to propose an amendment to our
    Book of Order to change one of our current ordination standards. The
    change is to replace the current language that says officers of the
    church must live by “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a
    man and a woman or chastity in singleness” (G-6.0106b) to this new
    language: Those who are called to ordained service in the church…
  • By
    a 53% to 47% vote, the assembly adopted a new Authoritative
    Interpretation (AI) on G-6.0106b: Interpretive statements concerning
    ordained service of homosexual church members by the 190th General
    Assembly (1978) of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States
    of America, and the 119th General Assembly (1979) of the Presbyterian
    Church in the United States and all subsequent affirmations thereof,
    have no further force or effect.
  • By
    a 54% to 46% vote, the assembly adopted a new AI on G-6.0108 which
    restores the intent of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and
    Purity of the Church report (2006) to allow someone who is being
    considered for ordination or installation as a deacon, elder, or
    minister to register a conscientious objection to the standards or
    beliefs of the church and ask the ordaining body to enter into a
    conversation with them to determine the seriousness of the departure.
  • The
    assembly left unchanged the definition of marriage found in the
    Directory for Worship (W-4.9000)—”a civil contract between a woman and
    a man.”

By
its actions, the assembly has initiated a new opportunity to focus
ordination on primary allegiance and obedience to Jesus Christ, as well
as to Scripture and the church’s confessions. The assembly places the
responsibility onto sessions and presbyteries for discerning a
candidate’s fitness for ordination.

In
all of this, it is important to note that the assembly has not removed
the church’s standard of “fidelity in marriage and chastity in
singleness.” For the proposed change—making obedience to Christ the
ordination standard—to become part of the Book of Order, a majority of
presbyteries will need to ratify it over the next year.

We
know the assembly actions may do little to ease the anxiety that seems
to permeate our life together as a denomination. The debate isn’t new
and the future holds difficult challenges. As the Rev. Dan Holloway,
moderator of the committee that took up the items on ordination
standards, said, “As we move forward, it is essential that we have
conversations that are gracious and loving and welcoming, since we are
not all of one mind.” Our hope is that none of us will act or react
immediately to the decisions, choosing instead to pray and talk with
one another about these issues.

The new letter picks up where the first left off:

In that first letter, we outlined the assembly’s actions and our church’s next steps in a continuing story, the outcome of which
is known only to God. Most importantly, we infused our letter with our
strong and abiding hope for the future ministry and witness of our
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), because we are a Good News people.

We
hope that you will share with us a bold and unabashed hope, firmly
grounded in the solid foundation of our faith, that is daily confirmed
for us in seeing how God is at work in and through our
PC(USA).  Every day, we hear story after story of new churches and
fellowships, of immigrant and multicultural ministries, of large
churches joining with smaller ones to support and encourage
each other.  Everywhere there is a new and growing hunger to hear and
to tell the Good News.  The commitment to “Grow
Christ’s Church Deep and Wide” — overwhelmingly approved by the
assembly — grew out of that very hunger to say “no” to a climate of
decline and say “yes” to declaring a church wide commitment to participate in God’s activity in transforming the PC(USA).

With
this letter, we invite you to continue to celebrate with us good news
of our General Assembly and of our Presbyterian Church.  We ask you to
join us in giving collective voice to the hope, the passion, and the future that has the power to unite us as Presbyterian Christians:

The letter then goes on to discuss church growth in the “Grow Christ’s Church Deep and Wide” initiative, approval of the strategy for growth of African American congregations, he “Invitation to Expanding Partnership in God’s Mission,” a document which emerged from the Worldwide Mission Consultation in Dallas earlier this year, an approval of an increase in mission personal, the first in 50 years, a call for “Solemn Assemblies” around the church, and reaffirmed:

Called by Jesus Christ to be peacemakers, the assembly continued to
boldly affirm that stance around the world. The assembly called for
“responsibly” bringing the troops home from Iraq, continuing
peacemaking with Israelis and Palestinians, and supporting human rights in Zimbabwe, the Philippines, North Korea and Colombia.

The letter calls on PC(USA) members and governing bodies to respond by recommending people to serve as mission co-workers, hold Solemn Assemblies, participate in the “Grow Christ’s Church Deep and Wide” program, and support the work of mission around the world.

In reading through the two letters we seem to get the good in the second, the bad in the first, and the ugly is not covered.  I do realize that space is limited, even if two letters were needed, but membership decline is only briefly implied, the legal fights and funding are not mentioned, the GAC reorganization to the GAMC is pretty much missing as is the disagreement over designations with the Foundation, and the commissioner resolution on graceful departures is not touched on.  Yes, the letters, and the second one in particular, are trying to be uplifting and hopeful, but there is also a need for realism and honesty.  And in a very polity wonk comment, I would note that the votes listed in the first letter are the final votes on these items.  When a minority report was involved the other, not recorded vote, was whether the substitute motion should become the main motion and that vote was sometimes narrower and with about 1% abstentions.  Also the vote on definition of marriage is not listed.

Well, that is the official line from the PC(USA), but various affiliated organizations have their own take on the situation.

On the progressive side the web site for That All May Freely Serve opens with

TAMFS Thanks GA

That All May Freely Serve Thanks the General Assembly for its Prophetic Witness

With gratitude to God, the board, staff, and community of That All May
Freely Serve rejoice in the vote by the 218th General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church (USA) to open the door to the gifts and callings of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer members by removing its
institutional barriers to ordination.

The news at More Light Presbyterians is

Today, the 218th General Assembly of the PCUSA voted 54% to 46% to
end discrimination against LGBT members of our Church; and to provide
spiritual and ordination equality for LGBT Presbyterians.

And at the Covenant Network says

The 218th General Assembly fully lived into its theme, “Do Justice,
Love Kindness, Walk Humbly with your God.”  It took important and
historic steps toward a more welcoming church and spoke prophetically
on many issues.

It is interesting that the need for presbytery approval of the new language of G-6.0106b is mentioned in a secondary position, so the implication of all three is that systemic change has been achieved with just the new Authoritative Interpretations.  (With a GAPJC decision that will be proved right or wrong.)  It is interesting to note that in contrast to the 217th GA I have not heard anyone claim “Nothing has changed.”

On the evangelical side there are also predictable reactions. Presbyterians for Renewal has several articles on “the way forward.”  One begins:

Contending for the Faith: The Way Forward After the 218th General Assembly

The
218th General Assembly (GA) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
recently took numerous actions on important and controversial issues.
This article will outline several deeply troubling actions that require
the prayerful and active response of those concerned for biblical faith
and life in the PC(USA).

And another laments

A New Way into the Future

by James Harper, PFR Board President, July 11, 2008

The
General Assembly last month certainly changed the conversation around
the PFR table. For the last two years, we have been busy with the
process of redefining our mission and vision. You may have already seen
that we are about the mission of “mobilizing the leaders of
congregations within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to be biblically
faithful and missionally minded in their service to Jesus Christ.”
Delving into the political issues of the General Assembly may seem
incongruent with our new mission statement. To the contrary, we have
discovered that it is difficult to mobilize leaders and congregations
for the service of Christ when the denomination is fractured and
conflicted by the actions of a General Assembly. Nothing at this
General Assembly has changed PFR’s commitment to its mission, and to
preserving a denominational context conducive to church renewal.

The Presbyterian Coalition web site posted a Friday press release from member organization The Presbyterian Renewal Network that began:

Today the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) lies gravely wounded, by the hand of its
own General Assembly. This Assembly has struck multiple blows,
threatening to sever the sinews that hold us together as a Christian
body and as a part of the larger body of Christ. This is a day for
grieving.

And from the New Wineskins Association of Churches, the leadership team writes:

Theologically unhinged – The 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church (USA) has become theologically unhinged from our Biblical and
Reformation foundation. The actions of this Assembly are schismatic.
They foster division within our denomination and threaten the sundering
of the denomination from the world Church of Jesus Christ.

Finally, the article from byFaith, the official publication of the Presbyterian Church in America, says:

PCUSA Eliminates Restrictions on Homosexuality

The 218th Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly met in San Jose,
Calif., June 21-28, and made sweeping changes eliminating prohibitions
to homosexual behavior.

The
commissioners deleted the requirement that church officers and ministry
candidates adhere to “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between
and a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness” and struck a phrase
condemning “homosexual perversion” from the Heidelberg catechism.

And my compliments to “Harvey” for his commenting on this article and pointing out that some things require presbytery approval, even if some of the subsequent people commenting consider that a foregone conclusion (which few in the PC(USA) are willing to concede).

Well that is probably enough info for one post.  But as I noted earlier, we came out of the 217th General Assembly with the claims that the PUP report had not changed anything, and to some of our amazement the GAPJC decisions actually made that so.  Now we have a series of actions that nobody is claiming “nothing has changed,” not even the AI that is supposed to restore the intent of the PUP report.  In the next two years the Presbyteries and the GAPJC will put their mark on all of this.  Stay tuned.

Collecting Confessions in the PC(USA)

2 Replies

At some point when I was a kid I began collecting stamps as a hobby. I
started with this big, 3-inch-thick album and a determination to fill
it up, at least with the common stamps I could find or afford.

As
I got older I came to the realization that I would
not be able to get every stamp in the world to put in the album so I
became more selective in the stamps that I collected. Finally, by the end of high school, I was specializing in stamps in a very specific
theme (geology, surprise?) that meant something to me.

This
is how I have come to view the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Book of Confessions. In a sense
we are collectors of confessions.

Every other Presbyterian branch that
I regularly follow has adopted the Westminster Standards as their sole subordinate standard.
Even the Church of Scotland has left their Scots Confession for
Westminster.  In fact, the Westminster Standards were the only confessional standard for the Presbyterian Church in the United States before reunion in 1983.  (The introductory Confessional Nature of the Church Report in the Book of Confessions states that historically multiple confessional standards are the norm, not the exception, outside of North America.  However, in the contemporary Presbyterian churches that does not seem to be the case.  While I have not done an exhaustive search I give as examples Article II of the Constitution of the Church of Scotland that says “The principle subordinate standard… is the Westminster Confession of Faith” and there is similar verbiage in the Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand.) 

The PC(USA), on the other hand, has a Book of Confessions with eleven different documents, but arranged so that the Westminster Shorter and Longer Catechisms are a single chapter for numbering.  There are two ancient creeds (Nicene and Apostles’), several Reformation confessions and catechisms (Scots, Heidelberg, Second Helvetic, and Westminster), and the three modern documents (Barmen, 1967, and the Brief Statement).

So, is the PC(USA) trying to collect everything out there
that looks interesting or are we being selective and discerning in our
collection?  I would hope the latter and that is why there is a higher bar to cross to change the Book of Confessions than to change the Book of Order.

I will “confess” that I like
the collection that we have. I regularly include the first question of
the Heidelberg Catechism in my personal devotions. “To glorify God and
enjoy Him forever,” answer 1 from the Westminster shorter, is a guiding principle for me. The three marks of the church
in the Scots confession are a reminder as I work on my church duties. And I stand in awe of
the boldness and audacity of the Barmen Declaration every time I read
it. Yes, I could still have all this if they were not in the Book of
Confessions, but their presence there identified them to me initially
and gave them a certain authority for my life.

The
problem with the collection is that we have no single standard to guide
us. With eleven documents
it can take time and effort to figure out how the confessions guide us
and sometimes the answer between two of them is different or a confession differs from our modern understanding. The introductory section to the Book of Confessions lists many of these specific difficulties (III.C.2).

So, if we are collectors, what
we put in the collection needs to be worthy of being added, otherwise
we end up with a book of documents with no system, coherence, or
meaning. In the most recent developments there is a proposal to adjust the Heidelberg Catechism and add the Confession of Belhar. In the next
three to four years the church will have to decide if they make a meaningful
addition to the Book of Confessions.

Concerning
the Heidelberg catechism there is a strong argument for restoring the
accuracy of the translation. There is also an argument that while Question 87 may not specifically translate the original German text of the Catechism, it does reflect the underlying scriptural passage to which the original author was making reference. I guess my primary disappointment
in the recent GA actions is that five specific questions were singled
out for adjustment rather than an assessment of the whole document.
Adjustments to documents are not unheard of: In 1997 the church replaced the Nicene Creed with the Ecumenical version of the
Nicene Creed updating the language to modern English. But this also
opens up the question of whether other documents, like the Westminster
Confession should be “perfected” to their true form, as was pointed out in a comment on a previous post.  In fact, the Book of Confessions carries, in parallel, both of the pre-reunion versions of the Westminster Confession from the PCUS and the UPCUSA.

As for
including additional documents how do we decide what should be added?
This GA the decision was made to add the 1986 Confession of Belhar. But why that one?
Interestingly the recommendation was made by the Advocacy Committee on Racial-Ethnic Concerns,
not by overture from a presbytery like the Heidelberg adjustments. So why this
one and not others? In past years I have heard suggestions that the
Belgic Confession of 1618 or something associated with John Calvin like the French Confession of 1559 or the Geneva Confession and Catechism should be included.  (Wouldn’t that make sense for the Calvin 500 year anniversary?) Other suggestions floating around include the Accra Confession.  In addition, the Athanasian Creed is referenced as a
standard in the Second Helvetic Confession [5.078]. And the PC(USA) also has Belonging to God: A First Catechism
and The Study Catechism. Start including all of these and the Book of
Confessions begins to look like one of the three volumes of Philip
Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom.

I do not argue for, or against, any one of these documents.  I do raise the question of what is our perspective on which documents should find inclusion in our subordinate standards.  Yes, we are collectors.  Do we have an understanding and focus of what we are collecting?
Is there a system more than “this looks interesting” or “this one is
unique?” In our ordination vows we agree to be “instructed and led” by the confessions.  As
we study which confessions to make constitutional documents we should
make sure that our ultimate authority, Scripture, guides our
confessional standards, not that our desire to “collect” another confession is our prime motivation.

IV. All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general
or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to
be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in
both.
[Westminster Confession, Chapter XXXI, Section 4]

PC(USA) Process for Amending the Consitution

6 Replies

In case it is not obvious yet, I have slipped into a “low level” blogging mode and will continue this for the month of July.  Still a lot to post, but after the “high energy” GA stuff I need some slower time to think more and write less.

Having said that, an important question was raised about amending the PC(USA) constitution.  This can be found in Chapter 18 of the Book of Order, but to summarize:

The two sections of the Constitution have different processes with Part One, the Book of Confessions, having a much higher standard.

To Amend Part 2, the Book of Order, requires the General Assembly to send out to the presbyteries any proposed changes.  The presbyteries vote in the nine months following the GA and if approved by a simple majority of the presbyteries it becomes part of the next edition of the Book of Order.  With 173 presbyteries approval needs 87 affirmative votes and then it becomes part of the 2009-2011 edition of the Book of Order.

With the higher standard for Confessions, the GA authorizes the process and a special study committee is created to study the confession, decide on translation issues, and prepare the official text.  Then the next GA must approve the confession.  In the following year the presbyteries vote and if 2/3 agree then the following GA must agree again.  So, for the PC(USA) at the moment, the 2008 GA approved the process and the study committee(s) begin work, the 2010 GA must approve of the confessions’ text, in 2010-2011 the presbyteries vote and if at least 116 agree then the 2012 GA would vote again.  With approval a new edition of the Book of Confessions is published.