Monthly Archives: November 2008

Being Synod-cal

1 Reply

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses,
let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely,
and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us,
looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith [Heb. 12:1,2a]

Or

“What a long, strange trip it’s been”

I
started this post just over two years ago and since that time have
returned to it and revised it three other times, not counting this final one.  Such is my faith journey and evolving
thinking on the place of synods in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). 
Well, my thinking is still not complete or fixed, but I figured that I
was at a milepost that probably needed an annotation.  So here it
goes…

Over a decade ago I had my first introduction to the
Synod of Southern California and Hawaii as a commissioner to its annual
Assembly.  At the time the Synod was working through some financial
challenges, especially with its camps and conferences program.  At that
meeting the Assembly concurred with the recommendation to sell a
conference center many considered the “crown jewel.”  (Think property
near Malibu.)  While that was clearly not the beginning of the decline,
since the program was becoming tight on cash and the objective was to raise some, in the Synod it is still
remembered as a major mile-marker in the history of the organization’s
slide.

Fast-forward to 2006 and I’m back at Assembly as a
commissioner.  The Synod is in the midst of a transition process and
there are concerns among many commissioners about the slow pace and nature
of the transition.  The office building is probably going to be put on
the market.  Mission giving has declined and per capita monies are dropping. 
The Synod is under stress and it is the view of many, correctly or
incorrectly, that the transition is simply reorganizing to do things
the way they have always been done.  (I stepped into this in progress
so do not personally have a good feel for what was actually happening in that transition work
but a couple of people I trust highly were not optimistic about the progress and direction.)  At the Assembly a substitute motion was adopted that
would hand the transition back to more direct input and control of the presbyteries for a series of
consultations and visioning meetings.  As the Moderator of my
Presbytery I was one of those to participate in the consultations.  All
of this is the background that got me thinking about the place and
future of synods as middle governing bodies of the PC(USA).  And based upon my past experience and the information I had received from others I entered the process with more than a little cynicism about the value of synods.

There are currently sixteen synods in the PC(USA) and as
many of you are probably aware, the place of synods in the denomination is
not just something that I am thinking about but is a topic of
discussion for the PC(USA) as a whole.  Over the last few years there
has been national activity to study, and possibly do away with synods. There was an overture to the 218th General Assembly.  Part of the national funding system for synod support will change, if not disappear.  And the Synod of the Southwest and two of its
presbyteries had serious issues resulting in a national consultation
in February 2007 about the nature and financial viability of the present Middle Governing
Body system.

It is interesting that in the midst of this there
are groups. principally Presbyterians for Renewal, that are looking at
a model for coexistence in the PC(USA) that would have like-minded groups move into a “Seventeenth Synod” that is national and parallel to
the present structure.  (Analysis by Pastor Lance at Full Court Presby)

On the one hand, there are several
strikes against synods in their traditional sense.  They are part of
the earliest structure of the American Presbyterian church, established
before the General Assembly.  But with the advent of faster
transportation and communications the need to have a regional governing
body to improve interaction and connectionalism has disappeared. 
Considering the number of observers that now attend General Assembly a
rough calculation would suggest that more people attend GA than all the
Synod Assemblies combined.  With the decrease in general mission giving
it seems that Synods are being squeezed out between the presbyteries’
and the national budgets.  In light of the lack of resources and
program, do synods still serve a purpose?

In thinking through
this question, working with the consultations, and closely watching our
Synod in operation, I have come to the following conclusion:  The Synod structure currently mandated in the PC(USA) Constitution is not specifically necessary, but there are desirable functions that should be done in “synod-like” entities.  Basically, I do see a need for certain things to be done on a scale above the presbytery but below the General Assembly.  If the synods were to go away these functions could be done by entities that are not individual middle governing bodies, but could be something like “super-presbyteries” or “General Assembly sub-regions.”  So what are these functions?

One group of functions is the ecclesiastical duties, specifically including judicial process and records review.  And this group is recognized in the New Form of Government where the draft includes synods, but allows for “reduced function” to cover only these duties. (3.0404)

I think that the argument for a division of labor in the review of records is fairly straight forward.  At the present time the 16 synods review the records of the 173 presbyteries.  Eliminate the synods and a GA committee would be responsible for the review of all 173.

The concern with the judicial process is partly the same argument.  Eliminate the synod and the GAPJC hears appeals from all 173 presbytery permanent judicial commissions.  But with judicial cases there are some added complexities when you start looking at appeals.  To have a remedial case against a presbytery be heard first by the GAPJC means that it is the court of first impression and the details of having the case reviewed on appeal would need to be worked out.  In addition, to have cases coming from the presbytery PJC’s reviewed twice as appeals, once by the synod PJC and again possibly by the GAPJC, I think helps crystallize the thinking of the final GAPJC decision which can stand as Constitutional interpretation for the denomination.

The other group of functions the synods have is in the area of mission and ministry.  In reviewing what our synod does it struck me that it was a point of collaboration or catalysis for the really big stuff and the really small stuff.  The former are ministry projects that are large enough that they cross presbytery boundaries and having a central point of contact has been helpful.  It is clear from coalitions that have developed on their own that synod involvement is by no means required.  But a case could be made that having the synod as a point of contact makes them more efficient.  (And I can think of a couple of people who might argue that getting the synod involved would make them less efficient.)

Maybe the more important function is working with ministries that are small, a few members from churches scattered throughout the synod.  No church or presbytery has enough involvement to sustain it, but across the whole synod there are enough individuals that they can gather in a meaningful and vital way.  A similar function that I have seen is in matching experience to needs across presbytery lines.  It provides a place for connecting knowledgeable people to more distant points where they can be helpful.  Again, neither of these activities requires the synod — the connections for ministry could be made across presbytery lines without the existence of the synod.  But the hope is that the synod could make the connection more efficient.

Finally, in our connectional system I wonder if we can feel connectional if the governing bodies immediately jump from the presbytery to the General Assembly.  I commented on this a little while back when I asked if the PC(USA) is too big.  In that post my thinking was not specifically that a synod was needed to foster a feeling and understanding of connectionalism on a regional level, but a synod could serve that purpose.

The question that is behind this and must be answered is whether these functions, if they do continue, must be done by a “governing body.”  Could they be done by other affiliated entities?  Under our theory of church government records review and judicial process needs to be conducted by a governing body.  But this could be satisfied by a change to the constitution that would allow ecclesiastical functions to shift from synods to GA to be conducted by regional commissions that are administered by the Office of the General Assembly.  This would approximate the synod system while reducing administrative levels and creating cost savings with economies of scale.  And while we presently understand there to be one court per governing body this cold be structured and viewed as one court with different branches.

Ministry and mission on the synod level is not as closely tied in our polity to being conducted by a governing body so it could be shifted in a number of ways including back to the presbyteries, up to GAC, or to networks, collaborations, or coalitions of presbyteries.  The problem is that without oversight or facilitation will the mission be done or die on the vine?  The flip side is that it would put pressure for the fulfilling of G-9.0402b:

b. The administration of mission should be performed by the governing body that can most effectively and efficiently accomplish it at the level of jurisdiction nearest the congregation.

This is partly just a though exercise in how the system could be stream-lined if that is what it needs financially, administratively, or practically.  At the present time the GA has chosen not to make changes to the system.  The question that I can not answer at this point is whether for the other 15 synods this is what will need to happen.  For the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii it is not something that is required at this time.  But the thinking is necessary, because going forward even five years there could be the need for radical restructuring in multiple synods, possibly including mine.

So where does that leave me?  After two years of participating in consultations, visioning and redesign of our synod I have become convinced that synods can play an important part in our connectional system.  By no means does this mean they are indispensable — I am also convinced that given the apparent realities of the future in a decade the PC(USA) middle governing body structure will look different than today.  It will be seen how radically different the structure looks and that different structure may or may not include synods.

My personal journey with my synod has taken many twists and turns, both in my thinking and my activity.  As I outline above, I have revised my thinking somewhat and think that there is a place for synods at the present time, although there will have to be some serious evaluation in the near future for some of the synods and the denomination as a whole.  And this thinking and activity on my part will continue:  The redesign work I helped with created a radically reorganized ministry unit which I was then asked to chair and “get off the ground” in 2008.  One of the implications of this service is that in 2009 it means that I will serve the synod as the Moderator, a job I am truly looking forward to.  So my “long strange trip” continues.

As a programming note, don’t expect much more about my synod Moderatorial work here.  As usual, if polity items arise or I want to revisit the nature and necessity of synods, that will appear here.  But to help facilitate the communication within the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii I will also have a moderators blog — Everything in Moderation.  In a sense, this blog will continue in chronos time w
hile the other will focus on the kairos time of the Moderatorial year.  The journey of faith continues and it will probably be as interesting as the journey that got me here.

An Interesting Trend In PC(USA) Amendment Voting

4 Replies

I was checking out the redesigned web site of The Layman.  It is a clean looking site that uses ASP and CSS and no longer uses the frames.  It is a nice design, navigation seems good, and I like the “Other Headlines” section where they have consolidated all their news together.  I’m not a big fan of having that top navigation bar big and black, but that is my opinion.

Anyway, I was checking out the web site and having a look at their chart on the voting for Amendment B and noticed an interesting trend.  No, it is not the fact that the vote currently stands at no presbyteries for and six against.  What I noticed, and have now crunched the numbers on, was the total number of votes cast and how it differs from the last go-round.

Briefly, if you compare the number of votes cast in each presbytery with the total number cast in 2001-02 you find that the numbers are all between 72% and 87% of the votes cast last time.  Why?

The two obvious culprits are the drop in PC(USA) membership and “issue fatigue.”  I think it is probably a combination of the two.

If you consider the statistics between the end of 2001 and the end of 2007 you find that in 2007 the number of churches was 97% of what it was in 2001 and the number of members was 89% of what it was in 2001.  The number of commissioners to presbytery will reflect both of these numbers since each church is assured of two, the pastor and an elder, but larger churches have extra commissioners.

[OK, this is a “back of the envelope” calculation and I am well aware of several other issues that make my description above not as simple as I have presented.  These include:  The fact that a church with an empty or shared pulpit may only have an elder commissioner.  That presbyteries may have “extra” clergy because of seminaries, retirement communities, larger numbers of ministers in validated ministries, that sort of thing.  That would be adjusted under the redress of imbalance.]

The drop is larger than the membership drop so that can’t be it alone.  To address the “issue fatigue” I looked at the changes in the numbers of Yes and No votes.  I consider it interesting that every count of No votes declined, and it falls in the same range as the total vote decline.  On the one hand, this is not surprising since each of these presbyteries voted “No” so the majority of no votes will have the greater influence on the total numbers.  But there is some variability with the drop in negative votes sometimes higher and sometimes lower than the drop in total.

This is in marked contrast to the affirmative votes where in some cases a small number of votes causes the percentages to swing wildly.  The votes range from 22% of the number from last time to 106%, but in the case of the 22% and a 44%, these are less than 10 votes so small changes can be amplified.  Two of the other four are in the range of the total decline, and one shows only minor decline (98% – one vote) and one showed a slight increase (106% – one vote).  In general, the affirmative votes are holding steadier than the negative votes.

To summarize, negative votes show a fairly consistent decline in excess of the membership decline, the more substantial yes votes show a change that is at worst in the range of the negative vote decline.

I do realize that there are numerous other explanations for the drop in voting.  It could be because these are early votes and “get out the vote” campaigns have not been active yet.  It could be because these presbyteries have implemented an “active participation” policy among the honorably retired ministers under G-11.0101b and so have a smaller “redress of imbalance.”  (You will probably see this in my presbytery.)  Anyway, membership decline and “issue fatigue” may not be the only reason numbers are down.

What does this mean?  I’m not really sure yet but I’ll keep an eye on the trend.  It at least reflects the decline in the membership of the denomination.  But since the numbers are in excess of the decline there appears to be something else going on here which I would attribute to “issue fatigue.”  It would make sense that both of these effects would show up more in the negative votes since those are the churches realigning or thinking about it.

Churches Leaving The PC(USA) And The Status Of Women’s Ordination

Leave a reply

One of the continuing challenges, and discussions, for churches that are considering departure from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is about the ordination of women as deacons, elders, and clergy.  The problem is that as churches look to leave the PC(USA) because of concerns symbolized by one debate over ordination standards, they by necessity step into another debate on ordination.  No Presbyterian branch in the United States, besides the PC(USA) and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, uniformly accepts women to ordination as officers of the church, and in all but one of these branches it is completely prohibited.

As I have discussed before, the branch with “local option” is the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, which probably helps explain why for departing PC(USA) churches this is the denomination of choice to realign with.  For churches who realign through the New Wineskins Presbytery of the EPC, associated with the New Wineskins Association of Churches, the ordinations are not a problem since that presbytery recognizes the ordination.  But this is to be a transitional presbytery which will disappear in five years and the churches in it are to transfer to standard geographic presbyteries.  (Then again, the PC(USA) has had several “transitional” Korean language presbyteries which were supposed to have a limited lifetime but don’t seem to be going anywhere yet.)

We now receive news, through an EPNews Special Edition news item, that a permanent non-geographic affinity presbytery may be considered by the 2009 EPC General Assembly.  The recommendation was made by the NW/EPC Transitional Presbytery Commission to the EPC Committee on Administration (COA).  The article has a nice run-down of the status Of EPC presbyteries at this time:

In its discussion about the proposal, the COA noted that much of the
energy driving it was the sensitive issue of the ordination of women as
teaching elders. In the EPC, we currently have two presbyteries that
prohibit women teaching elders, two that will not use gender as a
consideration in approving ministers and candidates, two others who
have a procedure in place that allows consideration of women ministers
and candidates without violating conscience, and two that are still
working on the issue and will have come to a conclusion by the second
week of February 2009. One of these, Mid-America Presbytery, will
consider an overture asking the 2009 General Assembly to approve an
affinity presbytery within its boundaries as a response to women
teaching elders.

Note that only teaching elders are discussed since the ordination of ruling elders and deacons is local option on the congregational level.

The article goes on to say:

In its written response to NW/EPC Transitional Presbytery Commission,
the COA declared, “We recognize that an affinity presbytery is one of a
number of possible solutions to the dilemma of women teaching elders in
the EPC. While we do not believe it is the ideal solution,
nevertheless, it may be the ultimate solution. In the EPC, it has been
more than a decade since we have engaged in serious discussions about
establishing an affinity presbytery. An affinity presbytery certainly
has attractive features. However, we believe there are significant
issues that need to be addressed and resolved before a proposal such as
this can be advanced to the General Assembly. We would like to work
with you to address those issues as we pursue this as a possible
solution for 2009 General Assembly consideration.”

So, in the EPC the possibility of an affinity presbytery is being discussed as a way to accommodate this disagreement between churches over ordination standards while in the PC(USA) the same accommodation has been rejected by the General Assembly multiple times (2006, 2008) but is still one of the options talked about for keeping churches in the PC(USA).

I would note that the concept of affinity presbyteries is almost as old as American Presbyterianism itself, and was a way that the Old Side and New Side branches of the church could facilitate a reunion in 1758.  (Yes, within the first fifty years of American Presbyterian history the church went through a split and a reunion.)

It is also interesting that there is news today from the Living Church News Service that Anglican dioceses that have realigned away from the Episcopal Church are beginning a planning process for a new North American Anglican Province.  While not a parallel structure within the Episcopal Church, it would be a parallel Province within the Anglican Communion.

Going forward we will have to see where this leads us.  But it is interesting how this conservative group within the PC(USA) is requiring both the PC(USA) and the EPC to wrestle with these ideas even if they are in slightly different forms.

Passings — Rev. Louis Evans Jr.

Leave a reply

The Rev. Louis H. Evans Jr. joined the Church Triumphant on October 28 after an earthly struggle with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, aka Lou Gehrig’s Disease.  As you can see from the L.A. Time article, he had an impressive lineage and resume.  He was the organizing pastor of Bel Air Presbyterian Church here in L.A. and was the senior pastor at National Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C.  He provided great service to the Lord Jesus Christ through his work in the church and there are numerous articles testifying to that effort.  And Ken Malloy, one of the TV news anchors in Fresno where the Evans’ lived, has a tribute to Rev. Evans on his blog.

But I want to share my one experience with Rev. Evans.  Several years ago our church invited Louie and Coke, as Pastor Evans and his wife Colleen were know, to lead a couples retreat for the church.  It was a wonderful weekend, they were warm, charming, entertaining, informative and challenging.  They did not have a hint of pretense but were “down to earth” people and meshed with the folks from our church right from the start.  They did have stories, mostly told on themselves, and that just added to their charm and familiarity.

I got to sit next to Louie at one of the meals and discovered we were both “GA Junkies” of another type.  That would be G.A. as in “General Aviation,” the technical term for private pilots and non-commercial aviation.  I am not a pilot but have a great interest and follow the field.  He had his private pilot’s license and once he found that he had an interested party to listen to more of his stories he was more than eager to swap tales.

It was a delightful weekend and I thank God for the two of them and their ministry which was continuing even at that point in their lives.  May God comfort his family with the knowledge that he is surely in God’s presence.  “Well done good and faithful servant.”

Prayers For the Moderator’s Extended Family

1 Reply

Yesterday, at a Synod committee meeting we closed with intercessory prayer.  We prayed for all those affected by the fires burning in the Los Angeles area, for one of our members who needed healing, for a leader of our Synod who received miraculous healing and is recovering well.  And we prayed for the economic circumstances in our world today.

We also received word of, and prayed for, the loss of Brian Pugh.  Brian is the brother of PC(USA) GA Moderator Bruce Reyes-Chow’s wife Robin.  He was killed in a workplace shooting in Santa Clara.  Bruce has a brief post, a remembrance web site has been established, and there is a PC(USA) press release (thanks to Michael Kruse) with a statement from Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons.

All of these things will be in the prayers of our church community this morning.  Please join us in praying hard.

The Peace Of Christ Be With You!

Financial Crisis Has Varing Impact On Presbyterian Investment Funds

Leave a reply

The morning news brought word that there was a “run on the bank” at the Presbyterian Mutual Society of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.  The main page of the society now has a statement from the Directors of the Society indicating that cash levels have fallen low enough that they are forced to stop accepting withdraws.  It also indicates that they have contacted the government about financial assistance, a point echoed on William Crawley’s BBC blog “Will and Testament.”  From reading through the material it is clear that the Presbyterian Mutual Society is a separate legal entity from the Presbyterian Church in Ireland while still being associated with it and restricting Society membership to PCI members.  Unlike the PC(USA)’s Presbyterian Investment and Loan Program (PILP) the Society holds some of its assets in real estate, not just loans to churches, so the market downturn has had an impact on the net value of the assets.  Being its own legal entity the assets of the PCI are not at risk, but being a Mutual Society there is no government insurance of the deposits.  This just broke today so we will have to see how this develops.

I have been keeping an eye out for statements about financial investments at various Presbyterian branches.  I am not referring to giving, that is a story all to itself, but rather the investments held by governing bodies including pension funds.  So far there has been very little reported, as least that I have found.  In the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) the Board of Pensions has reported, both in their publication and the PNS article, that while the investments are down, benefits are safe.  I have seen no similar report from the Foundation, although I would expect that in their annual report.  I will offer that from our Synod there is one program that will probably not be able to access any of their designated Foundation funds because the value has fallen beneath the “floor,” but providentially a large chunk of the general assets were in short-term interest bearing investments and we have ridden through it with little loss of principle.  Likewise, PILP is, to my understanding, in cash instruments and deposits are in CD-like instruments so redemptions can be forecast more easily.  Whether churches will be able to make their loan payments is another questions.  As for other Presbyterian branches, I’ve been keeping an eye out but have not spotted news yet.

While these are recent developments there is a much longer term story out there as well.  A while back the Presbyterian Church in America established the PCA Investor’s Fund that appears like it operated much like PILP at its founding in 1985.  Interested persons or groups would invest in the fund and the money would be loaned out for church planting, expansion, or redeveloperment.  It is interesting that a news note in the Winter 1999/2000 Multiply Magazine lists 3-year deposits paying the substantially above-market rate of 8.00%.  (Current PILP rates are 3.20% for the same term.)  A Christianity Today article (July 2008 print, August 2008 on-line) describes the decline and fall of the investment company.  It was divested from the PCA in 1994 but kept its Presbyterian ties, even with its merger with Cornerstone Ministries Investments in 2000.  Shortly after the merger the company began diversifying its portfolio of assets into riskier non-church real estate, principally second mortgages.  With the real estate downturn the company ran into trouble and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy February 10, 2008.  There are more details, an active comment section, and a link to the actual bankruptcy form on the Georgia Bankruptcy Blog. (And I thought I had a niche blog.)  Those proceedings are ongoing but the situation does not look good for churches and individuals that invested with Cornerstone thinking the money was going for church growth projects.

So, along with the Presbyterian Mutual Society, we will see how this one develops.

And finally, a great Biblical take on this from that great lectionary cartoon Agnus Day.

Passings — Evan Silverstein, PNS Reporter

Leave a reply

It was with a heavy heart that I read the news today from the Presbyterian News Service that Senior Reporter Evan Silverstein passed away yesterday at his Louisville home.

While the news article gives details on his life and work, I will say that I enjoyed his articles for the tone, balance, and insight of his stories.  Maybe it does take an “outsider” to really show us what a “peculiar people” we are.  He covered a lot of the news from the field, not so much about our polity discussion, but about the people on the front lines and the people we, as a denomination, touched.  Evan, thanks for your work.

Magnified and sanctified be G-d’s great name in the world which He created according to His will.

New PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions — Administrative Commissions In The Spotlight

1 Reply

(If any of you just started reading my blog thanks to Bruce’s gracious endorsement
I appreciate you checking it out.  This particular post will probably
give you a feel for what he calls “painfully balanced and
excruciatingly thorough.”  It definitely falls into the thorough part.)

Almost two weeks ago on October 27 the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (PC(USA)) issued three substantive decisions and one procedural decision.

In reading through the documents the two that the GAPJC wrote lengthy decisions about both focused on issues regarding the operations of an Administrative Commission (AC).  Now I realize that one of these decisions, Sundquist, et al., was in regards to churches departing the PC(USA) and contains additional related language.  That got the headlines.  But in my reading of the decision it seems that the majority of it, the parts dealing with the power of an AC, would apply to almost any AC regardless of the reason for creation.  In the same way, the Lee, et al. decision, while occasioned by a dispute within a congregation, was also at the heart of it about the AC that was created for dealing with the situation.

219-03 – Robert Sundquist, et al. v. Heartland Presbytery
This case results from the Presbytery‘s handling of the request by two churches (First Presbyterian, Paola, (new EPC Lighthouse congregation, continuing congregation) and Hillsdale Presbyterian) to be transferred to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.  When the first congregation started talking about the request for transfer the Presbytery established an Administrative Commission to handle the situation. 

Coming to the GAPJC were five specifications of error:  1) The AC was given original jurisdiction before the facts established that it was needed.  2) The AC was empowered to dissolve pastoral relationships before they determined it would further the mission of the Word.  3) That certain powers could not be delegated to Presbytery committees.  4) That the AC was empowered to take the “full power and jurisdiction” of the Session if the Session were to call a congregational meeting for the purpose of requesting dismissal.  And 5) making the powers of the AC effective when “when it should become evident to the Commission that minister(s) or congregation member(s) are moving toward expressing a desire for separation and that reconciliation is not likely.”  (These are my summaries, read the decision for the full specifications with Book of Order citations.)

The GAPJC did not sustain any of the specifications of error effectively siding with the Presbytery.  But note that four of the five specifications essentially deal with the powers of an Administrative Commission.

The decision section is extensive, stretching seven pages, but contains some significant writing on AC’s that I suspect will become standard citations for the power and operations of Commissions.  This is already evident in the GAPJC citing this case in the simultaneously released Lee, et al. decision.

The decision begins by pointing out several principles of AC’s including that “The functions of an administrative commission are limited by the appointing body, and may include any function that the appointing body wishes to delegate (with few exceptions expressly provided for in the Book of Order).”  The decision goes on to say:

Powers delegated to administrative commissions must be specifically described (G-9.0502). This is consistent with the principle that the jurisdiction of each governing body within the church is limited by the express provisions of the Constitution, and that powers not expressly mentioned in the Book of Order are reserved to the presbyteries (G-9.0103).

Based on the principles of AC’s the GAPJC found that “The argument of Sundquist, et al. that, the Presbytery must take all the steps to dissolve a pastoral relationship or assume original jurisdiction over a session, including investigation, notice and an opportunity to be heard, before appointing an administrative commission or delegating power to it, has no Constitutional basis and is in error.” (emphasis in original)  But the decision reiterates that the AC must follow of the Book of Order requirements in its actions.  The decision agrees with Sundquist, et al., that an AC may not automatically assume original jurisdiction “when a session calls a meeting for the purpose of considering actions that may lead to separation from the PC(USA),” but it finds that the Synod PJC correctly held that the AC fulfilled the requirements of the Book of Order.  (Interesting footnote here that the parties agree that the action of the AC is not being challenged, only the Presbytery Resolution empowering the AC.)  The decision says:

Appointing an administrative commission with the power to assume original jurisdiction or dissolve or dismiss a congregation or dissolve a pastoral relationship does not mean that the commission will inevitably exercise this power. In this case, the Resolution provided a process that insured that granting of such powers was separated from the exercise of the powers by the requirement that the AC must first determine that it is “evident to the commission that minister(s) or congregation member(s) are moving toward expressing a desire for separation, and that reconciliation is not likely” (Resolution, section 3 (emphasis added)). This determination is an important buffer between the grant of authority and exercise of that authority by the AC.

and

The Resolution reflected the Presbytery‟s desire and intent to give broad powers to an administrative commission that may be faced with particularly fluid and difficult circumstances, but conditioned the exercise of those powers on appropriate pastoral considerations for reconciliation in addition to the procedural safeguards imposed by G-9.0505b and G-11.0103i, o and s.

The Appellants claimed that the full Presbytery needed to act upon certain items before an AC could get involved.  The GAPJC says:

Without an administrative commission in place, the alternative would have required the Presbytery to call the session and pastor to the next plenary meeting of the Presbytery to air the differences in front of the entire Presbytery. Such a process would be unwieldy, use an undue amount time and resources, result in poor stewardship of Presbytery resources, and would in all likelihood not afford the best opportunity for a full hearing or reconciliation. There is greater potential to act pastorally, build trust and seek reconciliation in smaller groups.

This discussion answers the first two specifications of error.  Basically, an AC is given specific powers to exercise on behalf of the presbytery and in the place of the full presbytery.  The conclusion is that in this case the power and authority was granted and the AC exercised them properly.

The decision related to specification of error 4 was interesting because while it was related to the power of an AC, it hinged on the claim that giving the AC the “full power and jurisdicti
on of the Session” when “a Session calls a congregational meeting for the purpose of considering actions leading to separation from the PCUSA” restricts the right of a Session to call a congregational meeting to request dismissal to another Reformed congregation.  The applicable section of the Book of Order, G-15.0203, reads:

a. When a particular church of another denomination requests that it be received by a presbytery of this denomination, the presbytery shall verify that the church has been regularly dismissed by the governing body of jurisdiction, and the advice of the highest governing body of that denomination dealing with relations between denominations has been received, and shall then receive the church in accord with its responsibilities and powers.(G-11.0103h.)

b. Similar procedures shall be followed in dismissing a particular church from this denomination to another. (G-11.0103i)

The GAPJC decision says:

Sundquist, et al. assert that a session has an “implicit” or “implied right” to call a congregational meeting to consider requesting dismissal to another denomination, but at oral argument to this Commission suggested that it was a “privilege,” not a “right.” Any such privilege exists only within a covenantal relationship between a church and the presbytery. On the contrary, G-7.0302 and G-7.0304 limit the business of congregational meetings and do not include the topic of seeking dismissal. In 2008, the 218th General Assembly adopted Item 04-20 (Minutes, 2008, p. 48), which refers to G-7.0304 and states, “Withdrawal from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is not a matter that can be considered at a congregational meeting.”

[Side note to GA commissioners, polity wonks, and other GA Junkies:  Congratulations if you knew that was in Item 04-20.  I missed that one.  And it shows how much business GA has to deal with resulting in a lot of stuff going through “under the radar,” particularly when it goes through on the consent agenda like this did.] 

They continue on to say that it does not mean that a congregation can not request dismissal, but as the Book of Order section quoted above says, the management of the process lies with the presbytery.  This section then goes on at length to discuss the “Gracious, Pastoral Response” resolution from the last GA (04-28) and says in part:

Presbyteries and congregations have a reciprocal obligation for this process (G-4.0302). Whether the presbytery‟s power “to divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches in consultation with their members” (G-11.0103i) is retained or delegated to an administrative commission, it is to be exercised in a pastoral manner, with litigation seen as a last resort, “deadly to the cause of Christ” (Item 04-28, section 2). (emphasis in original)

Any privilege to seek dismissal is conditioned on the cooperation of the congregation, the session and the pastor(s) with the presbytery in a process that operates in the manner set forth in Item 04-28. There shall not be any secret or secretive acts by sessions, pastors or congregations; bylaw changes or transfers of assets effectively negating the Book of Order or diminishing a church’s connection to the PC(USA); or curtailment of communications with the presbytery as a prelude to dismissal. Congregational meetings called or conducted by sessions for the purpose of voting on dismissal without the involvement of the presbytery are improper and have no binding effect.

This section of the decision closes:

Thus congregations, sessions, and pastors who fail to abide by the principles of the Resolution for a Gracious, Pastoral Response or presbytery policies (such as the Heartland Resolution) that embody these principles shall have breached important responsibilities and duties. As Presbyterians, the church at every level must visibly demonstrate the covenantal ties that bind us as the one church of Jesus Christ.

[Robert, did you every think your Commissioner Resolution would figure so prominently in a GAPJC decision?]
Update:  At about the same time I finished this post up Rev. Robert Austell, the primary author of Item 04-28 posted his own comments about the decision, particularly Part II.  While I see some of the language here as positive he was troubled by how this GAPJC decision “turned around” the Resolution relative to the original rational. Unfortunately, the rational section of an overture or resolution does not get published with the final item.  Check out his new comments on “Power and Trust.”

The third part of the decision is also very interesting because the claim is made in specification of error 5 that empowering the AC when it is likely a resolution will not be possible binds the conscience of pastors, elders, and members.  The decision points out: “However, the record is clear that the Paola and Hillsdale pastors and sessions had done much more than express their views about a desire for separation, but had taken action to withdraw their congregations from the denomination.”

The decision cites five previous GAPJC decisions that differentiate between thought and action, including the recent Spahr v. Redwoods decision.  The GAPJC concludes:

In this case, there is no evidence that Presbytery, either by adopting or following the Resolution, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, has, or necessarily would, improperly bind the conscience of church officers. The mere creation of an administrative commission is not an act of discipline. Free expression of conscience is limited for officers and pastors under G-6.0108b, and does not encompass the calling of congregational meetings, moving churches to seek dismissal from the denomination or obstructing constitutional governance of the church.

[Polity note:  To me this is a very significant finding by this GAPJC as we go forward.  While Bush v. Pittsburgh was not one of the cases cited, probably because it deals with ordination, this decision clearly parallels Bush and the decision that “scrupling” is related to belief and not action.  This may signal that a challenge to the new GA Authoritative Interpretation on scrupling behavior would be successful.]

Finally, regarding the empowerment of committees of presbytery to add additional churches to the list that the AC was responsible for the GAPJC says:

Here the Presbytery acted to make every church in the Presbytery potentially subject to the AC, conditioned upon action by the COM or the Presbytery Council (or their designated subcommittees) to name a particular church to be actively subject to specified powers of the AC. Although not prohibited by any specific provision of the Book of Order, a better practice would be for the Presbytery itself to name any additional specific churches to come under the authority of the AC.

Four commissioners signed a concurring opinion that rem
inds everyone of the historic principles regarding schism that date back to the Plan of Union, 1758, and basically say that once a majority has decided an issue every member shall “actively concur”, “passively submit”, or “peaceably withdraw.”

There has been some reaction to this decision.  The team from Heartland Presbytery that successfully defended the Presbytery is pleased with the result and the moderator of that team, the Rev. Chad Herring, has written a summary for the Presbytery that is posted on their web site.

On the other side, Elder Michael McCarty in his blog Around the Scuttlebutt takes particular issue with Part II of the decision.  He is on record that historical Presbyterian principles permit congregations to affiliate and disaffiliate unilaterally but the principle is not reflected in our present Constitution.  It then follows that the need for consultation and management by the presbytery is not necessary and is in fact an impediment.

As we have seen through this process, much depends on the presbytery and the tone it sets.  I can not speak for these cases but there has been some harsh criticism by others in the past about how this process went forward.  This was all before the Gracious, Pastoral Response Resolution and there is news this week that in another presbytery the process worked and a church was dismissed to the EPC.  While the GAPJC decision now applies denomination-wide to AC’s, it does not necessarily affect presbytery policies on how they implement a Gracious, Pastoral Response.

219-05 – Jae G. Lee, et al. v. Presbytery of Midwest Hanmi
This case also deals with the power and authority of administrative commissions and how it is exercised.  The situation was that the church “was severely affected with disorder, and its Session became unwilling or unable to manage [it’s] affairs.”  The AC created by the Presbytery was given the authority of the session from Book of Order Chapter 10 and the authority of the presbytery from Book of Order Chapter 11.  I won’t rehash the history of the church and AC over the course of the six months involved, but it takes up half of the report and it indicates sketchy or non-existent records of AC actions and a Presbytery meeting that broke down into a “physical mêlée.”  The GAPJC decision summary at the start of the decision section says:

This case is tragic. It involves issues of culture and language, power and stubbornness. It also reflects misunderstandings on the part of individuals and governing bodies as to processes and procedures set forth in the Book of Order. Because the facts in this case reflect extraordinary and egregious conduct and unique cultural circumstances, the application of this Decision to other circumstances is limited.

There were six specifications of error and the GAPJC sustained three and did not sustain three.  Those errors that were sustained were because of procedural flaws on the part of the Presbytery.  If you note the authority given to the AC above, it was not have any authority in regards to Chapter 6 covering church officers, so it acted improperly when it dismissed them.  That should have been done by the full Presbytery under the Resolution creating the AC.  In an interesting polity maneuver, the GAPJC does point out that elders could have been dismissed by removing them from the membership rolls since that is covered in Chapter 10.  And in discussing the AC’s power being limited to that granted by the presbytery it cites the Sundquist decision.

Regarding the specifications of error that were not sustained, the GAPJC is brief in its decision that those points were either done correctly, or in one case stating that a witness at trial can act as both a factual and expert witness if they have the proper knowledge.

There were two other decisions also reported:

219-02 – PC(USA) v. Ranson
While the decision in this disciplinary case was pretty straight forward, sustaining the findings of the Synod PJC, there was a preliminary decision regarding the “late” arrival of the petition for appeal.  While the request was mailed in a timely manner it was not received within the 45 day window.  The GAPJC said that an appellant should not be penalized for the unpredictability of the delivery process and allowed the appeal to go forward.

219-04 – Wolfe v. Presbytery of Winnebago
In this case the Rev. Wolfe H.R. began to seek employment as a minster but was advised by the Presbytery COM that she could not do that and should seek secular employment instead.  While there are a couple of twists and turns, the remedial complaint filed by Rev. Wolfe with the Synod PJC was that she was being restricted without having a disciplinary hearing or due process.  The Synod PJC, both on executive hearing and again the full PJC when Rev. Wolfe challenged the decision, ruled that there was no claim on which relief could be granted.  The GAPJC decided that the COM overstepped its authority and that a decision like this should be made by the presbytery.  Therefore there is a claim on which relief could be granted and it was ordered back to the Synod PJC for trial.

Well, that is clearly enough for now.  That is my take on this round of GAPJC decisions.  Have fun reading the decisions and deciding for yourself if you are so inclined.

Women Clergy Controversy Continues In Ireland

Leave a reply

A quiet controversy in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland became headline news last Christmas when a sixty-year-old tradition broke down over the new female minister at a church.  The two churches in Portadown, First Presbyterian Portadown and Armagh Road, traditionally joined together for a Christmas service, alternating locations and having the visiting clergy preach.  However, in 2007 the invitation from the Rev. Stafford Carson at First Portadown specifically excluded the invitation for the Rev. Christina Bradley, pastor of Armagh Road, to deliver the message.  The church declined the invitation and the two congregations had separate services.  Under PC Ireland polity, when the ordination of women to be clergy was adopted an “opt-out” clause was also adopted so that ministers who believe women should not be ordained as clergy could prohibit women from preaching at their churches.

The Portadown Times now reports that negotiations to have the joint service this year have broken down.  According to the article Armagh Road suggested a pre-Christmas service of carols while First Presbyterian Portadown suggested the Christmas service with the message delivered by the host pastor.  Each church turned down the other’s offer so at the present time there is no common service planned this year.

In an interesting side-bar, the current Moderator of the General Assembly, the Right Rev. Dr. Donald Patton, grew up at Armagh Road Church.  I have seen no comment from him on this situation.  Last year then Moderator, the Rev. Dr. John Finlay, met with the ministers but was unable to work out a resolution.

Semi-Random Thoughts On Election 2008

Leave a reply

While I tend to stay away from secular politics, I will wade is a short way here but try to provide a connection back to how the events of yesterday resonate with me spiritually and polity-wise.

First, congratulations to President-elect Obama.  Your position on my daily prayer list has moved up a few notches.  (Bruce, Byron, and my pastor are still ahead of you however.)  It was an interesting campaign to watch and marks a milestone in American history — we as a people have taken one more step to being a color-blind nation.  In a couple of respects it was a troubling campaign to follow, but more on that in a minute.  But in spite of its failings, our democratic system does work, for the most part.

To Senator McCain, I highly respect your graciousness in defeat.  The speech you gave last night showed the depth of your character and why you are a great man, even if you will never hold the highest office in the land.  Regarding your moral failings, which all of us have, I always felt that you were direct and forthright about them.  I have the feeling that others in the political arena try to deny, spin, or minimize their own past mistakes.  And I greatly respect and appreciate the fact that you took the public funding route, still recognizing that there are other paths to raising and spending money in these campaigns.

That brings me to one major issue that disturbed me in this long, and sometimes bitter, multi-year run.  I always hope that our better nature will prevail, but when campaigns turn negative I remind myself that as a Reformed Christian I know of the pervasiveness of our sinful nature.

The other major issue is the money spent — the cost of these elections, particularly for Senator Obama who did not take the public funding and so could fund raise and spend at will.  How many dollars per vote were spent in this election?  Is it worth the cost?  What other uses could the money be spent on?  I won’t go into details but I would love to see the presidential campaign boil down to a couple of debates, a few televised speeches, and a published piece where each candidate could lay out their policy proposals in a form that was substantive but concise and then it also contained a critique by the other candidates.  This probably comes from my academic perspective.  The attack ads, sound bites, and infomercials drive me crazy and leave me basically cynical and feeling it is not worth my time.

Now, to be a real fatalist I refer you to the work of a colleague of mine who turned his earthquake prediction research to predicting presidential elections.  The method, published 27 years ago, has correctly predicted every U.S. Presidential election since then.  I asked him months ago who they predicted and he called it for the Democrat by a large margin.  This was before the specific candidate was even known.  It turns out the economy and the individual in office are the important factors, not the personalities, money spent, or campaign promises.  Now if it would only work as well for earthquakes.

Here on the Left Coast the state presidential outcome was not in question, but the fight over same-sex marriage was (and still is since the outcome is still too close to call this morning) the hot-button issue.  Much money was spent on Proposition 8, about $70 million total, almost equally divided between the two sides.  In the neighborhood I live in I know of no one with a Yes on 8 sign or bumper sticker that did not lose at least one to theft or vandalism.  There was a report the police tracked down a man who was paying teenagers $2 a sign to steal them.  The reverse was true in the neighborhood where I work where yesterday morning on election day No on 8 signs that were there the day before had been replaced with Yes on 8.  By the afternoon the No on 8 were back.  And in multiple locations in the state fist fights have broken out between supporters and opponents of the measure.  Again, it was not always civil discourse.

At least the PC(USA) has been a bit more restrained in the advocacy on each side, even if this and related issues still deeply divides us.  Currently the vote count is leaning in the direction that the PC(USA) General Assembly decided by a wide margin this past summer.  But everyone agrees that no matter the outcome on this vote it is by no means the end of the controversy, again, just like the PC(USA).

In an interesting linkage between the presidential vote and the Prop 8 vote there is the cautionary tale of not viewing all people as the same, and the law of unintended consequences.  In an unusual twist one reason that Proposition 8 may pass is because Senator Obama was on the ballot.  While the white democrat vote pretty reliably was against Prop 8, many of the black and Hispanic supporters of Mr. Obama are socially conservative and the potential margin of victory may lie in the record turn-out from those groups.  (There is a Wall Street Journal article that mentions this and by some accounts black voters supported Prop 8 by 70% to 30% and Hispanic voters by a small majority.)  Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

So my concluding thought is the reminder that in the church, as in the population at large, we are not a homogeneous group and the issues of one part of the demographic are not necessarily those of another part.  We need to ready to listen to all viewpoints and not paint with too wide a brush.