Monthly Archives: September 2009

Developments At Coral Ridge — What Does It Say About Confessional Standards?

If you have not been following this story…

A few months back Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Florida, a member of the Presbyterian Church in America, called a pastor to fill their vacant senior pastor position. There were some concerns about how the vote of the congregation was presented and conducted so a couple of weeks ago the congregation voted again on the new pastor. The call was reaffirmed by a 69-31% vote. At the same time there have been some dissidents in the congregation who have been calling for the removal of the new pastor and disciplinary proceedings were begun against some of them. That may be moot based on current developments.

Well the dissident group has now left and is starting their own worshiping fellowship at a local auditorium, having held one worship service on their own so far.

Something like this does not usually make the national news but in this case it helps that Coral Ridge was founded by the late TE D. James Kennedy, the new pastor is a grandson of Billy Graham, and some of the leaders of the splinter group are the children of Rev. Kennedy. It is, as we sometimes say, “As The Pulpit Turns.”

That is the background information. Now a few comments related to church polity, confessional standards, and church reorganizations.

Beginning at reorganizations: As I have been working on the nature of church reorganizations I commented that the recent reaffirmation vote is close to the 2:1 ratio I have seen in multiple circumstances elsewhere. Being only one church vote I am not inclined to put a lot of weight on it by itself. A recent article on the dissident group says that attendance at the first worship service was about 400 people. While it would be better to consider the number at some point in the future after the attendance stabilizes, or we at least have more than one data point, that number does fall very close to the 422 “no” votes in the recent vote. Now, it could be a stretch to say that only congregation members that voted are now attending worship with the new group, but the number is still in the region of the 2:1 split. It will be interesting to see what the ratios are in about a month.

Regarding polity — the article twice mentions a meeting of an organizational committee and that the meeting was “closed.” I am going to make a jump here, but from the article this is sounding like the leadership of the new church, a proto-session if you will. I would be curious to know the make-up of this body: Are they ordained elders of the PCA? Do they follow PCA leadership standards and so all the members of this organizational committee are male? And while session meetings need not be open, are these leaders willing to discuss issues with the members of this developing congregation or is all the business being kept under wraps?

This brings me to a couple of lines in the news story that really drew my attention:

Denominational outlines of the embryonic congregation haven’t been
determined yet. However, one of the leaders, Jim Filosa, said they plan
to pattern it on the Westminster Confession of Faith, the backbone of
Presbyterian belief.

“We’ll do everything we did at Coral Ridge,” Filosa said. “What happens down the road depends on what denomination contacts us.”

This opens up all sorts of questions. First, if they are patterning it on the Westminster Confessional Standards and doing what they did at Coral Ridge I would expect the leadership group to be exclusively male and conform to the PCA Book of Church Order. And when they say “pattern” it on the WCF what does that mean? Is it truly a confessional standard, or just a pattern or template that will provide guidance but not a subscription standard?

But, the line that sent a chill down my spine, as a confessional Presbyterian, was the comment that “What happens down the road depends on what denomination contacts us.”

Is this to say that their confessional standards are flexible or fluid enough to accommodate a range of interested suiters? Would it not be more doctrinally sound to decide what exactly their standards are and then find the denomination that fits them best? And I may be completely off the mark, but the way this quote comes across in the article it sounds like what they are saying is “Look, we are the true Coral Ridge. You make us an offer.”

Anyway, I am curious to see how this develops in the coming weeks.

Patterns Of Proportionality In Presbyterian Partition — Or — Are Fractures Fractal?

9 Replies

With mild apologies for the alliteration in the title, I wanted to take a look at a couple of patterns I have seen as I looked at Presbyterian history.

One of the concepts that I have been studying is the “reorganization” of denominations. As I have commented before, this is more than just the divisions and schisms that probably first come to mind, but also a couple merger-related reorganizations that formed whole new denominations as well as reorganizations that merged multiple branches together. I find it instructive that the “family trees” for American Presbyterianism and Scottish Presbyterianism are equally convoluted and the Presbyterian branch of the United Church of Canada is almost as full. (And the Canada chart does not even include the continuing Presbyterian Church in Canada.)

But as I have been studying the partitioning a couple of patterns have jumped out at me:

The first are splits that are about two-to-one. There are a few famous ones that are described as 30% or one-third (33%). Maybe the most famous is the Scottish Disruption of 1843 where 450 ministers walked out of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and formed the Free Church of Scotland. As with most of these splits the number in the minority are easy to find, but the number remaining is more difficult. The departing group is widely described as one-third of the ministers, but thanks to Iain Campbell we know that 752 ministers remained, so the departing minority was close to, but slightly more than, one-third at 37.4%.

In that same ball park are the proportion of Presbyterian churches that chose not to join the United Church of Canada or the Uniting Church in Australia. In both cases these are reported as about 30% for Canada and one-third for Australia. (Canada, Australia)

Finally, while this is a single data point for a whole category, and it does represent a fairly unusual occurrence, it did catch my attention that last week’s vote on a pastor in a high-profile call ended up 69%-31%, a repeat of the 2:1 general proportions.

In American Presbyterianism the pattern seems to be either about 1:1 or a very small minority.

The two most famous breaks, the Old Side/New Side and Old School/New School, were closer to even breaks but when you dissect the numbers they are very complicated and some numbers are uncertain. In addition, they were not so much departures as expulsions.

The date for the Old Side/New Side break is set at 1741, although the following year is interesting as well. Charles Hodge gives us a very detailed account of the events leading up to the Synod (first GA was in 1786) and the commotion at the meeting. For 1741 Hodge names the 25 clergy present from five of the six presbyteries (p. 176). Hodge also lists those who met later to reform their excluded presbytery (p. 195) giving the names of the 11 clergy who were at the meeting, of which one was not on the Synod list. If you use the 10-15 split of the Synod it would be a 40% minority or 2:3 split. But the overall situation is more complicated.

One of the interesting aspects of this rupture is the dynamics related to the missing New York ministers. While absent in 1741 they represented seven of the 25 clergy present at the 1742 Synod (28%). Over the next several years, and throughout the 17 years of separation, several of the New York ministers were integral in healing the division. While theologically with the Old Side, they felt that justice was not done to their New Side brethren and so in 1745 they left the Old Side to help form the New Side Synod of New York.

In all, Hodge tells us (p. 253) that there were a total of 40-45 ministers before the schism of which nine (20.0-22.5%) were excluded in 1741 and 11 or 12 more withdrew in 1745 ( about 50% total).

The 18th Century split can be viewed as a 50-50 division looking at the totals, but let me take the analysis a step further. (And this is preliminary, based mainly on Hodge, so a true church historian may have better information.) I find it interesting that at the 1742 Synod the ratio of Old School to moderate (previously absent) New York ministers was not quite, but approached, 2-to-1.

I am not going to do a detailed analysis of the Old School/New School split of 1837 and 1838 at this time except to note a few things: 1) It was an exclusion more than a parting of ways, 2) The NY Times reported that the original expulsion of Western Reserve was by a vote of 138-107 (56.3-43.7%) 3) But in the end the division was close to a 50-50 split based not on the Assembly vote but on the wider church that followed Western Reserve in the division.

The final pattern that I see is the very small minority. I mentioned before the vote for a pastor that was about a 70-30 split. In my experience working with several congregations there are always 1-2% of the members of the congregation that dissent on any vote to call a pastor. Denomination-wide dynamics seem similar. For example:

In 1846 when the Scottish Relief Churches merged with the Seceder Churches 14% did not agree. (This is an exception since it is more than the “small minority.”)

In 1875 when four streams of Canadian Presbyterians merged 21 of 623 ministers (3.3%) did not agree and withdrew from the new denomination.

In 1936 there were 34 ministers out of almost 10,000 that left the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America to form what would become the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

In 1973 260 churches, out of 4230 churches, (6.1%) left the Presbyterian Church in the United States to form the Presbyterian Church in America.

In 1981 67 churches formed the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, out of almost 9000 churches in the United Presbyterian Church.

One thing that happens when many groups split off is that there is a small group that initially forms but others may later join them when they see how things are working out. One example of this is the Seceders in Scotland in 1733. While they began small the Associate Presbyterians grew in number over the next few decades, and suffered their own divisions until by 1820 they had split into four groups giving a total of seven Presbyterian branches in Scotland. By 1875 the membership breakdown in Scotland is recorded as:

Church of Scotland – 460,464
Free Church of Scotland – 256,554
United Presbyterian Church – 187,761

I find it interesting that the ration of the Established Church to the other two major branches is almost 50-50.&nb
sp; I would like to make the case that the membership pattern is fractal at 2:1, but with ratios of 1.79 and 1.37 there is a suggestion of semi-fractal nature in the 1.5 area. (Or maybe I’m just making the data fit my theory.)

For the five branches coming off the mainline of American Presbyterianism in the 20th century the membership and congregation numbers are:

PC(USA) – 2,140,165 in 10751 congregations
PCA – 340,852 in 1693 congregations
EPC – 82,884 in 247 congregations
OPC – 27,990 in 255 congregations
BPC – 3000 est. in <30 congregations

This gives ratios of:

PC(USA)/PCA – 6.28 members, 6.35 churches
PCA/EPC – 4.11 members, 6.85 churches
EPC/OPC – 2.96 members, 0.96 churches
OPC/BPC – 9.33 members, 8.5 churches

Numbers are suggestive but not really close enough to declare it as fractal. (But I am interested by those ratios a bit over 6.) And for a set of Presbyterian churches in major flux at the moment (although looking at history are Presbyterian churches ever not in flux?) ratios are changing so this may not be a good comparison of “stable” population.

So, all this comes with the usual disclaimers: I put this together with a variety of data with varying quality. It is intended to be an overview and summary and present areas for future exploration. This discussion is by no means comprehensive of all the events that could be considered. And finally, there is no statistical control on any of this so I could just be finding patterns in what is actually random numbers, a common human behavior.

None the less, I do wonder if there is something to certain of these patterns. If these numbers are real does it represent something about the Presbyterian system of government? Does it represent something about human nature in general? Does it reflect something about how humans structure or organize themselves?

Questions to ponder.

PC(USA) Committees And Task Forces Getting Ready For GA

A Great Summary Of Church Property Law

A First Look At A Uniting Church

1 Reply

One of the areas that I have been trying to explore, as my time permits, is how to characterize the United/Uniting churches around the world. These are denominations generally formed by the uniting or merging of a few Protestant, although not necessarily Reformed, denominations into one Christian witness. I have had multiple people suggest that they are essentially Presbyterian in nature and therefore should be on my radar. So I am starting to ask the question “How Presbyterian are they?”

To answer this questions I have started to chip away at reading the Constitution and Regulations of the Uniting Church in Australia. The Uniting Church was formed in 1977 by the gathering of Congregational, Methodist and Presbyterian churches. The union did not bring all the congregations into the merger and 44 Congregationalist congregations formed the Fellowship of Congregational Churches, some Methodist congregations not happy with the union switched to the Wesleyan Methodist Church of Australia, and about one-third of the Presbyterians chose not to join the Uniting Church and continue as the Presbyterian Church of Australia. (Interesting note: That is about the same proportion of Presbyterians that chose not to join the United Church of Canada in 1925 and continue there as the Presbyterian Church in Canada.)

As I said, I have been chipping away at the basic constitutional document of the UCA, the Constitution and Regulations, and have finished studying the first three chapters. The first section is the Basis of Union, which is also available as a free-standing HTML page. This section, as the name implies, outlines in broad sweep the structure of the church and the basic components and understandings on which the church is structured. It was first written in 1971 and the notes and various versions available indicate that it has been updated a few times since then. It appears that most of the changes have been in the use of inclusive language or of an editorial and formatting nature.

The next two chapters are the first two parts of the constitution proper, the Preamble and Division 1 on Membership.

Reading through all this a Presbyterian very quickly gets the idea that the church is Presbyterian in structure. (I would be curious if the language is such that a Congregationalist or Methodist, reading through their filter, would also perceive their structure in the language that is used.) All the typical governing bodies – church councils, presbyteries, synods and the assembly – are included by those names and described as a “series of inter-related councils.” The officers of the church are likewise what a Presbyterian would expect: minister, elder, deacon and deaconess. There are clear references to the other polities because deacon and deaconess are split out as separate classifications and elder is always used in the phrase “elder or leader.” In addition, there is the category of Lay Preacher. While Presbyterians have lay preachers, sometimes under other names like licentiate or commissioned lay pastor, of the three churches that joined it has been my experience that the position of lay preacher is more often associated with the Methodist tradition. I don’t know what place it may hold in the Congregationalist tradition.

These sections are fairly broad and general in nature setting down the larger framework. Looking ahead, but not having studied it in detail, it is clear that the fine points of the polity are set out in the remainder of the document, the Regulations. For reference, the Basis of Union is just over eight pages long, the Constitution is 17 pages long, and the Regulations are 168 pages long. And, while there are clearly sections dealing with Government and Discipline, I don’t see as part of this document any sections that describe Worship.

While the structure may be Presbyterian the real test will be in studying the details of the polity, which I have not really gotten to yet. An update when I have had a chance to reflect on those. However, two interesting details do jump out at me so far.

In the Preamble to the Constitution the last section is called Purposes and it reads in full:

The purposes of the Church are to provide for the worship of God, to proclaim the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, to promote Christian fellowship, to nurture believers in the Christian faith, to engage in mission, to assist in human development and toward the improvement of human relationships, to meet human need through charitable and other services and to do such other things as may be required in obedience to the Holy Spirit.

Now I don’t know if anything jumps out to other readers, but to me this has significant parallels to a formula that is part of American Presbyterianism – The Great Ends of the Church. Here is a side-by-side comparison with the Great Ends reordered to match the Purposes:

The purposes of the Church are

to provide for the worship of God,

to proclaim the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ,

to promote Christian fellowship,
to nurture believers in the Christian faith,

to engage in mission,

to assist in human development and toward the improvement of human relationships,

to meet human need through charitable and other services

and to do such other things as may be required in obedience to the Holy Spirit.

The great ends of the church are

3) the maintenance of divine worship;

1)the proclamation of the gospel for the salvation of humankind;

2)the shelter, nurture, and spiritual fellowship of the children of God;

5) the promotion of social righteousness;

6) and the exhibition of the Kingdom of Heaven to the world.

4) the preservation of the truth;

While the UCA “mission” clause is a one-to-many match and the PCUSA “truth” clause is not a one-to-one match either, most of the rest have fairly, if not very, close matches between the two constitutions. And yes, these are probably general enough all the way around that almost any Christian church’s “purpose” could be made to fit the parallels.

The second detail of interest is not actually something I read first in the Constitution and Regulations but in a news article. Thanks to the Illawarra Mercury we find out that the Rev. Gordon Bradbery was not granted an extension of his call by his synod and presbytery. So, after 23 years in the ministry and 15 at the Wesley Uniting Church on the Mall his tenure at the church will conclude at the end of 2010.

If the above description left other G.A. junkies scratching your heads, here is the interesting polity behind it. Under the UCA Regulations, beginning at section 2.7.6, it has an interesting phrase that says “The placement of a Minister in a pastoral charge shall normally be made for an undefined term but shall not continue beyond ten years except as provided in Reg. 2.7.10.” So does this mean even though the term is undefined, there is an expectation that it will last no longer than ten year
s?

Now, jumping down to Reg. 2.7.10, it says that a placement may be extended beyond ten years if everyone – pastor, congregation and presbytery – agree. If further says: “Any extension shall require a two-thirds majority by secret ballot of those present in each of the meetings of the Church Council, the Congregation and the Presbytery.” And, an extension is normally for five years according to this section.

On the details of this, if the Regs. say five years and the news article says three I’m not sure where the answer lies. The news article numbers actually add up for a ten year placement with two three-year extensions.

Now, before I proceed further, let me acknowledge that these are the regulations of that denomination. I am not being critical and I’m not out to change them or make them Presbyterian. My only questions here is “How Presbyterian is this?”

My reaction at this point is that while the UCA seems to broadly have the marks of a Presbyterian style structure, this whole thing about placement, initial terms and extensions where the governing bodies have such a significant hand strikes me more like the control in a hierarchical appointment system. While the presbytery has an approval and review role in typical Presbyterian pastoral calls, usually the session has no say in the final selection, while in this case the church council also approves. It is typically a given of a Presbyterian system that the full body of people chose their officers, including the teaching elder. The presbytery only reviews the decision and if everything is going well the presbytery has no hand in deciding how long the pastor stays.

Reading through this polity I keep asking myself “Why is it like this?” With these precise controls I get the distinct impression that there is a story behind why this section of the Regs. was written like this or how it developed. Can anyone point me to an historical profile of the Regs. or the equivalent of the annotated version that might answer this question? (In my own research this does not appear to be a feature brought from the Presbyterian side. The Code of Regulations for the Presbyterian Church of Australia does not deal with the call process, but rather it is detailed at the state level. For the Presbyterian Church of Australia in the State of New South Wales the call process in the Code of Regulations is very much what I would describe as typical Presbyterian with a search committee, congregational vote, and presbytery approval. It does have some very interesting nuances but that is material for another time. But in it there is no sign I can find of the term length or extension to be approved by the three different bodies. Interestingly, it is specified that the minimum expectation of the time in a call will be three years.)

So my initial opinion? The Uniting Church in Australia has a broadly Presbyterian-like structure, but in examining this particular detail there are typical elements of Presbyterianism lacking and the upper governing bodies wield a lot of influence in pastoral calls. And I repeat, this is not a criticism of that system, only an analysis of the system by a Presbyterian G.A. Junkie. So I currently have some questions about classifying the UCA as Presbyterian in polity, but that is not a final conclusion but I’ll have more to say after I’ve read more of the Regs.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — The Build-up Begins

5 Replies

Yes, you read that title correctly. I hope you have caught your breath from the last General Assembly and all the amendment voting because the cycle for the next GA begins… NOW!

The 219th General Assembly (2010) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) will meet from July 3-10, 2010. It will be hosted by the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area at the Minneapolis Convention Center and the Committee on Local Arrangements (COLA) has put out the call for volunteers. (I have not found the COLA web site yet.) And as we found out from the ELCA this past summer, watch out for the tornadoes.

The sure sign that GA was coming was the change in the default setting on the electronic business tracker, PC-Biz, from the 218th to the 219th GA. No business, including overtures, has been posted to the system yet.

However, there are overtures waiting in the wings to be posted and one, two, maybe three of them, are floating around on web sites. And it would probably surprise no one that the visible ones are all related to ordination standards in general and G-6.0106b in particular.

While the Office of the General Assembly has no GA 219 web page yet, at least that I can find, if they keep naming conventions consistent I would expect to find it here. They have however announced the scriptural theme, “Rivers of Living Water” based on John 7:38, and have presented the logo.

I know that entities are working hard to get their assigned tasks completed and the one that has now released its product is the New Revised Form of Government Task Force. Remember that their report came to the last Assembly and raised so many questions and concerns that the Assembly decided a more extensive input process was needed and so continued the process for another two years while adding a few of the Assembly commissioners to the nFOG Task Force. Well, the new report was released last week and the church is invited to study it. In fact, there is a letter from Task Force member Elder Carol Hunley specifically addressed to fellow elders explaining some of the motivation for the revision and encouraging them to study the new report and to take it seriously. I have too much on my plate at the moment to digest that report but I’ll study it myself in the next month or two. You can have a look at the full report or each of the new sections, Foundations of Presbyterian Polity and Form of Government, separately. For comparison, the report to the previous GA is still available on-line, or should that disappear it will be available in a less-readable form on PC-Biz.

I think that covers all the signs of the next GA that I have found. As I have time and more overtures and reports appear we will begin again the analysis of the upcoming business.

Presbytery Judicial Decision In A Same-sex Marriage Case

Leave a reply

Two weeks ago, on August 22, the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbytery of Boston Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) heard the disciplinary case of Presbytery of Boston versus Jean K. Southard. The Rev. Southard was charged with 1) conducting a public worship service that was effectively a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple and 2) by doing so violating her ordination vows.

The decision of the PJC was that the charges were not sustained and the Rev. Southard was found not guilty. (Thanks to Church and World, aka PresbyWeb, for publishing the decision.)

The reasoning of the majority was expressed as follows:

The Prosecuting Committee has not proven beyond reasonable doubt that W-4.9000 contains mandatory language that would prohibit a Minister of Word and Sacrament from performing a same-gender marriage.
Since the Preface to the Directory of Worship (clause b) states that the Directory uses language that is “simply descriptive”, this Commission takes this to mean that the definition of Christian marriage in W-4.9001 is merely descriptive; there is no mandatory language in this article.

And continues

In addition, there is no mandatory language in the Constitution, nor in any Authoritative Interpretation, prohibiting Ministers of Word and Sacrament from performing same-gender marriages in states where this is allowed by law.

Note carefully the wording — The decision was not about whether a same-sex marriage was preformed, but given that it was preformed is that prohibited by the constitution and therefore cause for discipline?

There is a Dissenting Dpinion that begins:

In rendering this decision, the majority has taken the liberty of legislating change in the Constitution through the judicial process. W-4.9001 definitely does define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Later says

Because of this changed legal state in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (The General Laws of Massachusetts, Chapter 207), the importance of the definitions within the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) become more important, not less so. Further, the argument that the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman is only descriptive and reflects the ideals and mores of a bygone age cannot be sustained. The claim stands without proof, and can only be maintained through dependence on the argument from silence. This sets a dangerous precedent, that any part of the Constitution that has not recently been sustained by legislative action can be assumed to have lost validity. In the absence of that legislative action, the commission has substituted its judgment for the clear words of definition. This makes a mockery of the prescriptive language of W-4.9004, wherein the Directory for Worship orders that “The man and the woman shall declare their intention to enter into Christian marriage and shall exchange vows of love and faithfulness.”; and “In the name of the triune God the minister shall declare publicly that the woman and the man are now joined in marriage.”

And concludes:

We disagree with the commission decision and do not join in it. While we find that Rev. Southard found herself in a difficult position given the request of two valued elders of her church, we do not find that tension to be sufficient reason to grant release from the strictures of the discipline of the Constitution. Her action of social justice came at the cost of her obedience to her ordination vows, (W-4.4003e), and created a situation that worked against the peace, unity and purity of the Church.

Three other important points in this case: 1) According to the Dissenting Opinion the facts of the case were not contested. Both sides stipulated and “provided and accepted evidence that this was intentionally a Christian marriage.” 2) Note that the participants in this ceremony are both described as elders in that church, leading to… 3) This was a disciplinary case against the pastor. While there is no indication that additional cases are contemplated, disciplinary cases against the two elders who were married and a remedial case against the session would be possible, but unlikely, especially in light of the decision in this case.

OK, that presents a summary of what I see as the key points of the decision. If you are not a GA Junkie, you can probably stop reading now. However, as a GA Junkie, I want to dissect this decision a bit and make some comments.

There seem to be two distinctives to this case that distinguish it from previous cases. One of these is that the worship service was held in the church sanctuary and, as the charge implies, had all the distinctions of a wedding ceremony. The second is that this is the first case brought to trial where a same-sex marriage was preformed in a state that allows civil same-sex marriage. (But I would point out that one of the withdrawn charges in the Spahr case (218-12) was a same-sex marriage preformed in Ontario, Canada, where civil marriage is legal.)

Now I will acknowledge from the onset that the PC(USA) has a problem right now with its definition of marriage. This case hinged on that section of the Directory for Worship (W-4.9001):

Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family. Marriage is a civil contract between a woman and a man. For Christians marriage is a covenant through which a man and a woman are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship. In a service of Christian marriage a lifelong commitment is made by a woman and a man to each other, publicly witnessed and acknowledged by the community of faith.

Clearly now with a few states permitting civil same-sex marriages the part that reads “a civil contract between a woman and a man” has certain problems. That will have to be addressed by the next General Assembly.

That problematic phrase was the main point that the PJC appears to have focused on, and they did so in two ways.

Their first argument was that unless the Directory for Worship uses language making something mandatory, like the wording of vows or formulae for sacraments, then the Directory is “descriptive.”

That the Directory is in a sense descriptive is certainly true, and as they point out it says so in the Preface. Section b reads:

b. In addition to the terms defined in the Preface to the Book of Order, this directory also uses language about worship which is simply descriptive.

But what does it mean to be descriptive? Look at the preceding section a, which says in part:

A Directory for Worship is not a service book with fixed orders of worship, a collection of prayers and rituals, or a program guide. Rather it describes the theology that underlies Reformed worship and outlines appropriate forms for that worship. This directory suggests possibilities for worship, invites development in worship, and encourages continuing reform of worship. It sets standards and presents norms for the conduct of worship in the life of congregations and the governing bodies of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). As the constitutional document ordering the worship of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), this Directory for Worship shall be authoritative for this church.

Note some of the things that the Directory does: “describes the theology that underlies Reformed worship,” “sets standards,” “presents norms,” and “shall be authoritative for thi
s church.” The majority decision seems to equate “descriptive” with “optional.” The first few lines I quoted would seem to equate “descriptive” with “not a service book with fixed orders of worship, a collection of prayers and rituals, or a program guide.” In fact, a widely used book on Presbyterian polity co-authored by Joan Gray (former GA Moderator) and Joyce Tucker says “The Directory for Worship contains our standards relating to worship…” (Presbyterian Polity for Church Officers, p. 7) and later “…it has now become part of the standards of our church.” (p. 172) I read and understand the Directory for Worship to be “flexible” not “optional.” And that flexibility would be in form but not in function.

In the Dissenting Opinion section I quote above there is also a clear argument for the applicability and mandatory nature of W-4.9001 when the refer to W-4.9004 and the prescriptive nature of that section which does use the “shall” language and refers to “the man and the woman.”

Finally, the prescriptive nature of W-4.9001 is reinforce by the Spahr decision which regularly, including in the Headnotes, says that “Marriage is defined” by this section. As this present decision points out there are certain procedural issues with leaning on the Spahr decision too heavily, but the Spahr decision presents this definition not as their conclusion, but as a given, the accepted starting point from which they draw the conclusion that in light of this definition there can be no such thing as same-sex Christian marriage.

The second part of the majority’s argument was that not only was it not mandatory to begin with, but since conditions in the civil sphere were not in alignment with one part of the section then the whole section could be safely ignored. Furthermore, they argued that the situation in this case was different enough that the conclusion in the Spahr decision was not applicable. This strikes me as saying that civil law will determine theology and doctrine.

The signatories to the dissenting opinion strongly disagreed with this assertion. However, I think they overlook an important additional argument. In response to the majority argument that the laws of the State of Massachusetts have rendered this section of the Directory for Worship moot, they say:

This sets a dangerous precedent, that any part of the Constitution that has not recently been sustained by legislative action can be assumed to have lost validity. In the absence of that legislative action, the commission has substituted its judgment for the clear words of definition. (emphasis mine)

I would argue that the definition of Christian marriage being between a man and a women was upheld twice by the most recent General Assembly, even after Massachusetts had adopted civil marriage. In response to an overture from the Presbytery of Baltimore the assembly voted 540-161 not to change “a man and a woman” in W-4.9001 to “two people.” And again, in the action that created the Special Committee on Civil Unions and Christian Marriage the Assembly added the sentence “This overtures advocates for equal rights and does not seek to redefine the nature of Christian marriage.” To me this is strong evidence that even with the presence of same-sex civil marriage there was Assembly endorsement of the man and woman language for Christian marriage. In light of that I have trouble accepting the argument that if one clause does not apply then none of it applies.

Regarding the Spahr decision, it is clear that in a legal sense it can not serve as precedent in this present case. In the present case the alleged actions took place on March 1, 2008, which was almost two months before the GAPJC ruled in the Spahr case. In addition, as both the majority and minority decisions point out, application of the Benton decision (212-11) to this case is tricky because this is a disciplinary case and Benton was remedial.

In my mind there are clear grounds for appeal on the basis of an error in constitutional interpretation. However, I also recognize that the circumstances of civil marriages make the Directory definition a problem that the next General Assembly will have to address. Therefore it may be advisable to simply let this constitutional issue be addressed legislatively rather than have a legislative and judicial interpretation proceeding in parallel.

I think that does it. Those are my thoughts on this case. Your mileage may vary.

Sorting Out What The Actions Of The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland Mean

3 Replies

The General Assembly (2009) of the Church of Scotland dealt with a protest to a Presbytery approval of a church’s call to a partnered gay man to serve as pastor of the church. For more details you can check out a couple of my previous posts, but to greatly summarize the actions of the Assembly on the specific case the policy of the CofS going forward they:

Sustained the call and the Presbytery approval
Formed a Special Commission to report back to the 2011 General Assembly with recommendations about such actions in the future.
Placed a moratorium on ordination and induction (installation) of partnered same-sex individuals while the Commission is working
Placed a gag order on all officers of the church urging them not to talk publicly about this whole issue while the commission is working

There has been much made about the gag order since the Assembly, including my comments in May and August. Up to this point that has been getting most of the publicity.

But this week brings news of some disagreement over the nature of the moratorium on ordination of partnered gay candidates. Thanks to the Rev. Ian Watson for bringing this to our attention and all the important details are laid out in a post on his blog, with a brief follow-up.

His first post is extensive and complete enough that a GA Junkie can get a good idea of what the issues are. I will summarize the recent action and then comment on the polity implications and the parallel to the PC(USA) working through this same question.

Rev. Watson reports that on September 1 the Presbytery of Hamilton “voted to nominate for training for the ministry of a man who is in a civil partnership.”

The question that arises is what is the scope of the Assembly’s action. The specific deliverance says:

Instruct Presbyteries to observe a moratorium on ordinations and
inductions which might appear to prejudice the Special Commission before it reports.

Rev. Watson reports that as part of this decision the Presbytery received advice from the national CofS Ministries Council pertaining to the moratorium. The complete advice is in his post, but it reads in part:

The decisions recently made should ensure that no applicant will be prejudiced, between now and the General Assembly of 2011, in the decision of their Presbytery whether to nominate them. That Assembly will determine the Church’s position, on receipt of the report of the Special Commission that has been established under the convenership of a Scottish judge. No-one can predict at this stage what implications that might have for those who are applicants, candidates, or serving in the ministries of the Church at that point.

So it is unclear if the moratorium applies only to the final step in ordination and induction, or applies to the whole ordination process. This is a question that the Church of Scotland will have to wrestle with.

One of the reasons that I bring this up is because the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has had to deal with exactly the same issue, and the changes that the Report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity (PUP) brought.

Since adoption of G-6.0106b into the PC(USA) Book of Order there has been a discussion about at what point in the ordination process the “fidelity and chastity” clause needed to be applied. The decisions of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, especially Sheldon v. West Virginia and Stewart v. Mission, set the pattern for handling these cases during the ordination process not at the point of the final examination for ordination by the Presbytery.

The Authoritative Interpretation adopted with the PUP Report allowed for declaring exceptions to the standards of the church but it does so in the context of examination for ordination, not entry into or during the preparation process. Suddenly the ground shifted so that the review was no longer during the preparation process but at the time of examination. This was the process affirmed by the PJC of the Synod of the Pacific in the case of Naegeli v. San Francisco, but has not been tested by the GAPJC yet.

So there you have some of the subtleties of this type of case. Where is the appropriate point in the process to enforce standards or policy? It is not clear that the Church of Scotland case will go any further, that would require a protest from members of the Presbytery of Hamilton and Rev. Watson does not suggest that is coming. There does appear to be a need for a formal clarification from the Ministries Council to the whole church, not just on a case-by-case basis to Presbyteries. But this would then start to drift into the realm of the prohibition on publicly discussing the topic.

And what is the spirit of the actions that were taken by the CofS General Assembly? The sense I got from listening to the debate was that they wanted to provide a level and neutral space for the Commission to work. A space that was not biased or prejudiced by specific actions and statements within the church. I must agree with Rev. Watson that this action by the Presbytery of Hamilton does seem to encroach on the spirit, if not the letter, of the Assembly action. Time will tell how this develops.

The GA Junkie

The Politics of Presbyterianism