Monthly Archives: March 2010

Meetings Of A Presbyterian General Assembly — How Often?

How often should a Presbyterian General Assembly or General Synod meet? For a couple of centuries now the answer has generally been annually, but in recent times that pattern has been up for discussion. It is interesting to note that in the list of Moderators of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on Wikipedia in the early years there are multiple Moderators listed in a given year indicating not just multiple meetings, but multiple Assemblies per year.

The importance of the “how often” question is raised again today as the highlights of the meeting of the Assembly Council of the Presbyterian Church in Canada are released. The Assembly action on an overture to the 133rd General Assembly (2007) asked the Council to consider biennial Assemblies and the Assembly created a task group to study the issue and consult with the other governing bodies. The Council considered the report which included the responses to a model for biennial Assemblies that was sent to the church for comment. In general, the church was narrowly in favor of biennial Assemblies with sessions favoring it 54 to 37, presbyteries opposed 11 to 13, and synods and committees were each 2 to 1 in favor. But it is most interesting to see the commentary on this voting:

It was noted, for example, that there appeared to be a regional divide where courts in Quebec and the Maritimes were overwhelmingly opposed while support strengthened to west. It was also noted that those courts supporting the notion tended to not include reasons for their support while those opposed offered lengthy explanations for their decision.

The report recommended moving to biennial Assemblies but a motion to move that direction in principle failed in the Council vote. The report tells us “A new motion recommending that General Assembly ‘affirm the practice of annual assemblies’ was proposed and approved.”

So while the recommendation in response to this overture has been made, as the comment in the Minutes of the 133rd GA (p. 214) tells us, this matter has been before the church “many times in the past.” As would be expected, the overture itself (p. 519-520) appeals to the time, effort and finances expended on annual Assemblies and the best use of those resources.

(A side note on a topic that I will be considering further in the future: It is interesting to see that this matter was sent to the lower governing bodies for an advisory vote. From what I have seen this is a practice that the PCC seems to do on a fairly regular basis but is much rarer in other Presbyterian branches. One other place in the PCC history that this formal advisory vote is seen is in the early 20th century as the Presbyterians were considering their place in the Union movement and the presbyteries and sessions were consulted on multiple occasions about uniting with other Christian bodies. In light of this, I find an overture to this year’s General Assembly of the PC(USA) to require the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy to send proposed statements out to the presbyteries for “study, discussion, and comment” prior to the report to the General Assembly to be in a very similar spirit.)

There is another overture to a General Assembly to consider biennial Assemblies. This one is to the 38th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America. Overture 6, from Evangel Presbytery, asks the Assembly “to direct the Administrative Committee to conduct a study for the feasibility of conducting General Assemblies on a bi-annual basis.”

The Whereases do include the usual argument about the amount of time and financial resources it takes to make the Assemblies happen, but that is not the primary argument in this overture. The principle argument is that with modern communications the Assembly no longer serves the purpose of getting reports out to the Assembly commissioners to take back to the lower governing bodies. In that task the Assembly is now irrelevant. But the overture goes on to say that efficient electronic communications has another impact:

Whereas, denominational issues that once were debated on the floor of GA are now resolved and presented in a refined and reasoned manner causing the floor process to lose much energy and interest with commissioners spending considerable time away from the meeting to visit the exhibitions during the presentations of Committees and Agencies; and

Whereas, in addition to declining interest in the conduct of business, travel and lodging expenses have affected GA and attendance during the last five years has declined annually while the ratio of Teaching Elders in attendance has increased and the number of Ruling Elders has declined;

Interesting rational — On the one hand very true but on the other hand this cuts right to the very essence of Presbyterianism.

Functionally, Presbyterian and Reformed polity is distinctive in two regards — joint rule of teaching elders and ruling elders and connectionalism of governing bodies. This overture essentially says that modern electronic communication is at least changing, if not eroding, the way that both of these principles operate. It has moved the governing of the church from face-to-face interaction to virtual interaction, reducing the importance of the meetings for the joint deliberations of elders in decision making and eliminating the need for meetings to facilitate the connectional flow of information.

The overture does request regional meetings in years that the Assembly does not meet that would involve…

…contiguous presbyteries to cooperate on an alternate years to join two or three day meetings that can be conducted in churches and smaller venues where travel and lodging are less expensive. During such regional meetings Committees and Agencies can participate with reports and ministries can present displays if so requested and approved by the Administrative Committee.

It will be interesting to see where this goes and the discussion it begins.

Finally, there are a couple of items related to biennial Assemblies coming to the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The first is the fact that when biennial Assemblies were instituted it was specified that after this year’s Assembly meeting there would be a review of this practice. The Presbytery of Giddings-Lovejoy has sent an overture (Overture 49) that would expand the review of the GA from not just the timing but to include…

…considering the form and function of our General Assembly meetings by expanding the action of the 214th General Assembly (2002)… instructing this study committee to consider the whole of the General Assembly meeting in its form and function.

This review is to include, but is not limited to, matters of financial stewardship, the use of alternative forms of discernment, the number of commissioners and advisory delegates as well as the role of advisory delegates, the schedule for moderatorial elections, the environmental impact of assemblies, the frequency of meetings, and models for governance for future generations.

Got all that? The request is for a complete review, to put anything and everything about how General Assemblies operate on the table.

Another approach is taken by Overture 9 from Presbytery of Foothills. I discussed this in more detail a while back, but this overture essentially states that the way the PC(USA) does business in the GA hinders our connectionalism and to promote our connectional nature the church should hold a General Convocation “for the purposes of worship, mission celebration, and building up relationships within the Body of Christ” for five years. In the sixth year the General Assembly would meet to do business.

And in a final related overture, the Presbytery of San Diego notes that one reason for going to biennial Assemblies was to save money, but in changing the meeting pattern the number of commissioners to the Assembly was roughly doubled, not really saving that much money. They have sent Overture 54 to the 219th General Assembly asking for a change to the Book of Order to restore the number of commissioners to their previous levels.

We are all well aware that in this age of Web 2.0 the technology and pressure is present to make face-to-face meetings unnecessary. As we balance the use of technology and the stewardship of resources with the questions of how often and in what ways to meet, we also need to be mindful of the implications for our understanding of call, connectionalism, and discerning together in the Covenant Community brought together with Jesus Christ as its Head.

Changes In Theological Perspective Among PC(USA) Members

Leave a reply

Warning: This is another one of my posts where the analysis is going to get really geeky really fast. So be it — just jump to the end for the bottom line if your eyes start to glaze over.

In working on a couple of other current issues I decided that for my own edification I needed to find a metric for the theological viewpoint of the membership, not the leadership, of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and how that might be changing with time.

One motivation for this is the contention that the PC(USA) is preferentially losing conservative members. I have previously commented that 1) the total membership loss is much higher than what can be attributed to congregation level realignment out of the PC(USA) and that 2) change in presbytery level membership can not be correlated to leadership theological views. I had been holding the position that membership loss in the PC(USA) is broadly across the theological perspectives. I may be wrong about that. Here is an analysis of a different data set…

I looked at the last five Presbyterian Panel surveys: 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2008. These are the initial surveys of each new panel which serves as the “sample population” for the PC(USA) for the next three years. That is, the 1996 survey was for the 1997-1999 panel.

In those surveys I found five questions that were asked the same way in all five surveys that pertain directly to doctrinal issues giving a direct measure of an individual’s theological viewpoint. The five questions are:

Which one of the following terms best describes your current stand on theological issues?
All the world’s different religions are equally good ways of helping a person find ultimate truth
The only absolute truth for humankind is in Jesus Christ
Only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved
There is a life beyond death

I really wish the question about the respondent’s view of the Bible had been asked the same way every time because that would also have given a good perspective on the individual’s viewpoint. And there are a couple other questions that appear in every survey that could be considered theological indicators as well, such as “Have you ever tried to encourage someone to believe in Jesus Christ or to accept Him as a personal savior?” but these are more about spiritual practices and I thought the questions could be answered either way across the theological spectrum so were not as good of indicators.. (For the record, on this question of accepting Jesus Christ as personal savior it is very close to 60% “yes” and 40% “no” in all five surveys with no trend or statistical variation.)

Other technical details I need to mention: The margin of error is reported as +4%. I will only be looking at the “members” category but as I opined before 57% of “members” are ordained officers of the church and for elders they are those not currently serving on session.

Now, the first shall be last and the last shall be first so let me deal with the fifth one at the beginning. This is easy – over the five surveys there is virtually no change with always 84-86% who agree or strongly agree, 12-14% who are not sure, and 1-3% who disagree or strongly disagree. I would also note that there was a statement on four of the five surveys (missing in 1999) that “Jesus will return to earth some day.” The last three surveys are indistinguishable at 66-69% agree or strongly agree, 24-27% not sure, and 6-7% disagree or strongly disagree. The first survey was a bit higher for the two agree categories (75%) with equal drops (3-4% each) in the not sure and combined disagree. For these statements there is no indicator of change with time.

For the statement “all the world’s different religions are equally good ways of helping a person find ultimate truth” there is an interesting statistically significant variation, but not a trend. (Note that on all these tables I have added the “combined agrees” and “combined disagrees” categories to simplify graphing and they show up as “all agrees” and “all disagrees” on the chart.)

All the world’s different religions are equally good ways of helping a person find ultimate truth.	1996	1999	2002	2005	2008
Strongly Agree	9	7	8	9	11
Agree	31	28	27	23	26
Combined Agrees	40	35	35	32	37
Not Sure	18	18	19	25	19
Disagree	25	29	28	24	24
Strongly Disagree	18	18	18	20	19
Combined Disagree	43	47	46	44	43

It is not clear what happened here in the 2005 survey where the “agree” dropped and the “not sure” jumped up. Except for that point the responses to this question in the other surverys are all statistically indistinguishable with no clear suggestion of a trend.

When it comes to the statements about the significance of Jesus Christ, and that is not the significance in the statistical sense, there are clear trends of the sample populations moving away from the orthodox or conservative position. The two statements are 1) “The only absolute truth for humankind is in Jesus Christ” and 2) “Only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.” And yes, I am taking the two agree categories as reflecting the conservative position. Here are the numbers…

The only absolute truth for humankind is in Jesus Christ.	1996	1999	2002	2005	2008
Strongly Agree	43	46	41	39	38
Agree	29	27	28	24	21
Combined Agrees	72	73	69	63	59
Not Sure	1 7	15	17	20	20
Disagree	8	9	10	12	13
Strongly Disagree	3	2	3	5	7
Combined Disagree	11	11	13	17	20

Only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.	1996	1999	2002	2005	2008
Strongly Agree	27	26	23	26	25
Agree	19	20	20	15	14
Combined Agrees	46	46	43	41	39
Not Sure	25	25	23	25	25
Disagree	20	20	23	21	19
Strongly Disagree	8	10	11	14	17
Combined Disagree	28	30	34	35	36

In graphical form (and yes, the first graph is the “absolute truth” question not the “ultimate truth” question above)

In each of these there is an apparent trend with the number of those in some agreement with the statement decreasing with time, the number disagreeing increasing, and those not sure mostly to very constant.

Finally, we have the survey question asking each respondent to self-identify their theological viewpoint. I am not a big fan of the “conservative” and “liberal” labels but I have used it throughout this post because those were the options given in the survey for this question:

Which term best describes your current stand on theological issues?	1996	1999	2002	2005	2008
Very Conservative	8	5	5	6	6
Conservative	31	33	33	35	28
Combined Conservatives	39	38	38	41	34
Moderate	48	47	43	40	41
Liberal	11	12	14	14	18
Very Liberal	3	3	4	5	7
Combined Liberals	14	15	18	19	25

And graphically

It is interesting that in the first four surveys the shift seems to be from the moderates to the liberals with the conservatives fairly constant and then in the last survey group the liberals increase and the conservatives drop. While interesting, I am hesitant to put too much weight on that last point because we saw the 2005 “bump” on the different religions question was a one-survey event. In three years we will see if it is a new trend.

Now having laid the data out there, what does all this mean? First, and to my surprise, there was more of a shift than I expected in these indicators from conservative to liberal. The view of the denomination that it is growing more liberal may hold up. But what is actually changing?

One interpretation is to say that the changes in the panels represents the changes in the members of the denomination as a whole and the changes in attitudes in the survey group is explained by those joining and leaving the PC(USA). This is still a wildly under-determined problem (that is mathematical jargon) so many different distributions of those joining and those leaving would produce this result. For instance, you could say that those leaving broadly represent the membership but those joining are more liberal. Or you could explain it the other way, that those joining are broadly representative and those leaving are more conservative. And of course many different combinations in between.

The other explanation of course is that people’s minds are changing about these statements. Rather than members with fixed opinions moving in and out of the denomination we could say that there are people remaining in the denomination that are changing their viewpoint over time.

And these are two possible end-members and the best interpretation is probably some combination of the two and the precise balance between them would require tracking over time or questions specifically designed to test for time-variability of viewpoint.

We can narrow the possible range a little bit by looking at how this breaks down for the self-identified categories for each panel year. I do realize that the total membership number includes Ministers of Word and Sacrament as well but they represent about 1% of the total membership and so I am going to consider the effect too minor to worry about correcting for this back of the envelope calculation. Here is how the membership numbers would be split out based on the declared theological viewpoint of the sample population:

Year	Total Membership	Conservative Members	Moderate Members	Liberal Members
1996	2,631,466	1,026,272	1,263,104	368,405
1999	2,560,201	972,876	1,203,294	384,030
2002	2,451,969	931,748	1,054,347	441,354
2005	2,313,662	948,601	925,465	439,596
2008	2,140,165	727,656	877,468	535,041

Looking at the numbers we can see that the conservative and moderate declines can, with one exception (con
servative 2005), be explained within the denominational membership loss. The reverse is true for the liberal component — with the exception of 2005 all the other changes show an increase in the absolute, not just the relative, numbers. But none of these changes can be attributed to just those leaving or joining the church. The volume of the turnover is significantly larger than the actual net loss so each group must have members added and members lost and what is listed here is the net. (For specifics consider the 2008 membership numbers – the church had 103,488 members join, and 138,768 leave (not counting deaths). That represents a 5% annual turnover, or to put it another way, every 20 years the PC(USA) is a whole new church. More on that another time.)

Finally, you could speculate that the results reflect the way the respondents thought they should answer, either because of what they think the research group wants or because of how they see themselves even if their basic theological perspective has not changed.

So whether by membership turnover or change in opinion there is evidence that over the last 14 years the PC(USA) is indeed becoming a more liberal denomination at the level of the total membership.

Finally, a note about a paradox in this data: “Conventional wisdom” says that younger generations are more liberal, more questioning, more tolerant of other viewpoints like those the “truth” and “only way to salvation” questions ask. Does that mean that the changing viewpoints seen in the survey questions is due to an influx of younger members? Unfortunately not — In the 12 years between the 1996 panel to the 2008 panel the median age of the panel members has crept up from 55 to 60 years old. The interpretation is left as an exercise for the reader.

Update On The Presbyterian Mutual Society And The Presbyterian Church Of Ireland

1 Reply

Within the last week there have been some positive developments related to recovering from the Presbyterian Mutual Society collapse. The Society, which failed almost two years ago now, was associated with, but legally distinct from, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. Over the last two years the discussion has been both how to wind down the Society to get the best value from the assets is does have as well as the church having political discussions about a government rescue even this far after the collapse.

Some news this week…

The Presbyterian Mutual Society administrator has released an update regarding court decisions last week. The most closely watched decision pertains to paying back depositors and the court granted permission for that to begin. The situation is complicated by the fact that large depositors (more than £20,000) are regarded as creditors and small depositors as shareholders and in February the court did not grant permission for all members to be treated equally but upheld the law that creditors must be paid back first. With that being the case and the court granting permission, the administrator has announced this week that at the end of the month he will make the first payment to creditors of 12p on the £. The administrator is required to make public notice of this and the text of the notice that will appear in newspapers of record is available as a PDF document.

The administrator also reports that the court granted a one year renewable extension to the administration of the Society instead of the five year period he asked for. In addition the court has given direction (reported but not described) concerning those depositors who were also borrowers from the society and it gave permission and guidance on forming a creditor’s committee on which the administrator plans to include a shareholder observer. There is an Irish Times article and the BBC has an article on this and William Crawley has more in his Will & Testament blog. From the Irish Times piece it has the useful information that roughly £100 million is due shareholders and £204 million is due creditors. The administrator has determined that probable loan recovery will be £102 million and the value of investment property is £97 million.

On the other front there is current action on the political rescue front as well. Yesterday First Minister Peter Robinson told the Northern Ireland Assembly that rescue of the Society by a commercial bank is still the preferred path forward and would do the most for the savers in the Society. Today the situation is being debated in Parliament to remind the British Government of the seriousness of the situation. The Londonderry Sentinel quotes one of their local MP’s, Gregory Campbell, as saying about the debate “This should ensure that the needs of savers with the PMS are heard in Parliament and the Government know exactly how important action is for these people.” And the Belfast News Letter quotes another MP, William McCrea, saying “The DUP will continue to work towards a resolution that will see money paid to all savers both large and small.”

In related political action Mr. Robinson in his comments also said that a government panel put together to consider the rescue alternatives should be reporting soon. A recent UK Treasury committee investigation (Irish Times article) blamed a number of factors for the collapse including lack of tight Northern Ireland government oversight and regulation and the directors of the Society for the management.

It should be no surprise that with the slow pace of resolution, the inaction by the British Government when other financial institutions have been rescued, and the association of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland with the Society there are plenty of frustrated opinions being expressed. Mr. McQuillan, a politician from East Londonderry, is quoted:

“The Westminster Government has failed the PMS savers.

“They protected various credit unions and sought compensation from Iceland for Britons who lost money abroad, but they have failed the savers within the PMS here in this loyal part of the United Kingdom.”

The Belfast News Letter article is titled “PMS payment ‘too little, too late’” and has corresponding quotes from Mr. Ian McGimpsey – “Whilst this payment may bring some financial comfort to many loan holders, for others with substantial debts to pay it will have
little or no impact,” – and from Mr. Jim Allister – “It is, however, also important to remember that the smallest investors who may have the greatest need – those who had under £20,000 invested in the society -have not even received this paltry sum (of 12p in the pound),” he said,adding that the delay in resolving the PMS “is appalling”.

A Belfast Telegraph article, “Reduced payout of cold comfort to PMS investors” focuses on the Rev. Dr. Stafford Carson, Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, and the stories he has heard from investors and how the church is working for a resolution. And a piece in the Portadown Times by Dr. Carson details the involvement and investment by his own congregation in the Society.

So it looks like we hold on a little longer to see what government, probably combined with commercial, rescue might be put together. And yes, this will certainly be a topic at the upcoming General Assembly.

UPDATE: Following the debate the Moderator, the Rev. Dr. Stafford Carson, posted his comments and general positive attitude about the hearing that the issues got in Parliament. He also provides us the links to the transcript of the debate and the following answers to questions about the situation.

The Church Of Scotland National Youth Assembly — Looking Back And Looking Ahead

2 Replies

For the PC(USA)’ers who are going to GA this year, there is a joke about Minnesota (at least they tell me it is a joke) that Minnesota has two seasons: Winter’s coming and Winter’s here.

Right now I feel a bit like that with the National Youth Assembly of the Church of Scotland. I still had my discussion of the last NYA sitting as a draft and I find the announcement of NYA2010 posted on the web. So at this mid-point between NYA2009 and NYA2010 let me try to look back to get caught up and to look forward at what this year holds.

NYA2009 met back at the beginning of September last, and the final deliverances were posted about two months later. As I say every time I discuss NYA, one of the things that impresses me about the National Youth Assembly is the fact that items from their deliverances move on to the General Assembly coming up in just about two months.

The NYA2009 deliverances were posted on the NYA Blog by Iain McLarty. He includes this “cover letter“:

Hi everyone. Sorry it’s taken a while but you will now be able to find the final deliverance for each debate below. Both your General Assembly reps and I will try and make sure these are taken to the General Assembly and to its Councils and Committees but when you read through the statements you will find that a lot of them apply to local churches or to individuals and your involvement in these didn’t end on the Monday afternoon in Stirling. Remember that it’s up to everyone who was at the Youth Assembly to try and raise awareness of the deliverance and make changes happen, whether it’s just things you do yourself, your local church or your Presbytery. You could print them out and put them on your church notice board, or ask your minister to talk about a couple of points that your local church will take action on during a service. And if you have a blog you can copy them there and raise awareness of them. Well done again on producing an excellent result to the long weekend of debates and if you have stories of your success in promoting the results during the year then come back and tell people here.

The NYA business addressed four specific topics: Identity, Wealth, Spirituality, Inter-faith. This is going to get long but I decided I could not do the deliverances justice by editing out what I thought were the most important points. Therefore, I am going to give you the full text of each.

From the deliverance on Identity, here are the set of nine points that came out of the Assembly:

The National Youth Assembly…

1. Believes that we as a Church should seek to recognise and celebrate people as individuals with individual gifts and talents, and not to generalise.
We should:

(a) Seek to develop these gifts and talents
(b) Value building relationships over organising evangelistic events
(c) View people as works in progress and not the finished article

2. Would like the Church of Scotland to explore the emerging aspects of Positive Psychology as a way of forming relationships with people,particularly those on the edges of the church. We would encourage the church to develop resources and make these available to all groups and leaders working in the Church.

3. Believes that inappropriate responses by the Church of Scotland to the identity of individuals and groups has been a very real barrier to them feeling part of the church.

4. Urges the Church to explore ways of supporting growth in Christian identity for all ages, recognising the current work of COSY in this area.

5. Urges the Church of Scotland to continue supporting the young people of the church as they move through education and into the world of work. We encourage the church to help with pastoral support,offering guidance both spiritually and generally, as young people develop their identity through these difficult challenges.

6. Believes that the Church of Scotland should respond positively to identity issues by providing opportunities for social interaction:

(a) Between young and old by creating ways for them to work together;
(b) By encouraging social and community events within churches to build relationships;
(c) By encouraging all local churches to engage with a partner church somewhere else in the world;
(d) By developing small group networks for folk to meet together, share their stories and build relationships.

7. Believes that the Church of Scotland should acknowledge that people within the church, despite the fact that they are Christians,experience identity problems.

8. Encourages churches to make spiritual support groups available for everyone in the parish regardless of whether or not they are a member.

9. Believes that the Church of Scotland should not make people conform to one identity. Instead it should embrace diversity, with its own identity being ‘Everyone is welcome’

The deliverance on Wealth made these points:

The National Youth Assembly…

1. Urges the Church of Scotland to take the lead in opening discussions on personal finance and to provide support in helping with issues of stewardship.

2. Recognise that while Western society encourages materialism, which is unacceptable, the Church should not condemn individuals but should work with them to combat materialism.

3. Would like the Church of Scotland to prioritise spending on people. Local churches should be encouraged to invite disadvantaged groups into their churches to use their resources in whatever way is appropriate.

4. Suggests greater discussion of collective tithing. There should be increased accountability and transparency from the Church as to where financial contributions go. Individual churches should have more of a voice in where their contributions go.

5. Urges the Church of Scotland to continue to work with people of other denominations and faiths in trying to eradicate poverty.

6. Believes that the Church of Scotland should continue to support the work of Christian Aid in its tax justice campaign and should build stronger links with projects tackling poverty.

7. Feels that the church should be at the forefront of tackling the structures that keep people poor and encourage people to see poverty as not being restricted to financial issues, with other factors including spirituality, health and education. Local issues should not be neglected in favour of international ones.

8. Would like to see the church make tackling poverty a priority and to see it as an act of worship. The use of biblical texts as a means of communicating the necessity and impetus for working to eradicate poverty should be encouraged.

9. Recognises that churches do a lot of good work in tackling poverty and encourage this to be fed back through stories about this.

10. Believes that the church should play a key part in tackling poverty through educating people and being active in the community. The local church should be key to identifying local needs in order to prioritise eradicating poverty in Scotland.

11. Would like churches to ensure that people in congregations who are struggling financially can be honest and receive help without having to feel they have to keep up a ‘respectable’ façade.

12. Encourage the Church of Scotland to be more involved in practi
cal work both at home and abroad (e.g. building projects) in charities and projects, other than just providing financial support.

13. Commend and encourage the continuation of ethical investment practices by the Church of Scotland.

14. Urge individual church members to review their giving with a view to giving more sacrificially in order that the good work of the Church may continue.

In this set I particularly admire that it calls the Kirk to action keeping the responsibility on the church and the individual members, not on secular institutions.

The deliverance on Spirituality says:

The National Youth Assembly…

1.   Affirms that spirituality is a crucial part of the Christian faith and believes that the Church of Scotland is not good at engaging with this. The Church should help people mature in their spirituality by openly confronting it and not hiding from it and by providing more accessible resources and pastoral care.

2.   Believes that every aspect of life has a spiritual dimension (e.g. use of money, relationships, values, suffering)

3.   Would like to see people in the church helped to develop a healthy relationship with silence, including during church services.Where practical, a dedicated space should be provided in churches for meditation and reflection, both in and out of “church hours” and open and advertised to the general public.

4.   Would like to see more emphasis placed on spirituality in preaching, possibly including questions for contemplation and discussion.

5.   Encourages the creative use of big posters/billboards in prominent public places, with messages to inspire people spiritually.

6.   Encourages church communities and individuals within those communities to share their stories and faith experiences, with the relevant support.

7.   Recognises that traditional services are of spiritual value,but would like to see more exploration of alternative worship both in and out of services for example, art exhibitions, film liturgies,poetry, i-pod reflections and labyrinths.

8.   Would like to see the promotion of opportunities for learning such as “Adult Sunday School” and programs like Alpha or Living the Questions.

9.   Thinks that spirituality should be spoken about and practised from Sunday school age so that children are aware of it, for example through “Godly Play.”

10.   Suggest that it is useful to look at spirituality in an Inter-Faith way.

11.   Would like to see an event exploring alternative worship and spiritual development, possibly on the theme of “Live faith and share life” [rather than live life and share faith]

Now I am viewing this through an “American lens” so I don’t know if some of the current tension in American religion over the general term “spirituality” is present in Scotland also. If so this deliverance may be the most controversial or unconventional to some in the church, especially those that value orthodoxy. It is interesting that the deliverance acknowledges this saying “the Church of Scotland is not good at engaging with this.” In light of recent surveys that show that American “millennials” (those between the ages of 18-29) are “spiritual” but not “religious” this deliverance at times walks a fine line between the two, in places mixes them, and in other spots appears to advocate for what would be considered “new age” or “eastern” spiritual practices that some around here would argue should not be part of Christian worship or spiritual practices. On the one hand, promoting Adult Sunday School, sharing faith experiences, and seeing a spiritual dimension to every aspect of life can be considered foundational Christian practices. The large posters and billboards, healthy relationship with silence, and the alternative worship practices would be encouraged or discouraged depending on how they are focused. But for some, looking at spirituality in an Inter-Faith way could be a concern. This could be one of those issues where the details will be scrutinized. But again, I don’t know if this is even the issue in Scotland it is in parts of the U.S.

The last deliverance was on Inter-Faith:

The National Youth Assembly…

1. Believes that the church should do more to combat stereo-typical views of what Christians are like and understand that all faiths have extremists, including Christianity. There is a need to extend education about all faiths to avoid stereo-typing based on biased media reporting.

2. Thinks that there should be more Inter-Faith gatherings and conferences at local, national and international levels, with better advertising to increase awareness of this work and its importance.

3. Consider consulting with local police forces and outside agencies to ascertain priority areas where Inter-Faith dialogue is required.

4. Encourages the use of Inter-Faith meals as a means of sharing faith and belief to build meaningful relationships while being sensitive to other customs.

5. Encourages the Church of Scotland to promote Inter-Faith Dialogue overseas in areas such as Israel/Palestine and Africa.

6. Challenges local churches to extend loving friendship and conversation to people of other denominations and faiths and to love their neighbours regardless of faith or absence of faith. We should accept people for who they are, treat them with respect, and never pity. When talking with anyone we should have no agenda for converting them.

7. Encourages the Church of Scotland to offer more practical support to congregations engaging in Inter-Faith relationships. This could include an expansion of the role of Inter-Faith workers and the development of a volunteer network.

8. Encourages the Church of Scotland to recognise the values which we share with other faiths and which should inform and encourage practical work on issues such as poverty, conflict resolution and justice. Faith groups should work together for increased dialogue with all levels of government.

9. Are aware that ignorance breeds prejudice whereas knowledge breeds understanding. It’s crucial to build lasting relationships before tackling religious issues. We need to be educated about other faiths and try to educate other faiths in what we believe and why we believe it, promoting mutual understanding.

10. Encourages the Church of Scotland to reach out to those who feel threatened and fearful of new cultures and religions in their area in the hope that such feelings won’t escalate.

11. Would like the church to consider ways in which communities can have dialogue with people of other faiths while being careful to avoid tokenism and condescension.

12. Encourage ongoing Religious Education programmes in schools with the involvement of churches and other faith groups, as part of commitment to promoting understanding about different faiths among wider society.

13. Encourage Inter-Faith dialogue at all levels of the church,including opportunities for people from other faith communities to speak to churches about their beliefs.

14. Want to encourage ecumenical discussions so that Christians of all denominations can work to improve inter-faith relationships.

Again, the church walks in a tension between supporting a pluralistic society where it is helpful to understand the cultural context of those around us of different faiths while not compromising, or appearing to compromise, the essential tenets of its own faith. For the most part this deliverance does a good job walk
ing that line.

The next step is to see how these recommendations develop. As the cover letter says, there is much in here that happens on an individual, congregational or presbytery basis. But some of these items will come through to the General Assembly included in the deliverances from standing committees of the Assembly. We will see these specifics shortly as the Assembly reports are posted.

Moving on, a short while ago the information for NYA2010 was posted on the COSY Blog. Here is the lede:

Welcome to the National Youth Assembly 2010! Our theme for this year is To Boldly Go . . . and we’ll be thinking about mission – what does the word mission mean to you? How do we do mission in a 21st century Scotland and what might it look like?

The new Moderator of NYA is Kim Wood (note the spelling correction in the comment) and the discussion questions will be fashion, politics, and violence and peacemaking. Those are three interesting, relevant and wide-ranging topics and I look forward to seeing where the debate goes on those. Note also the emphasis on “mission in a 21st century Scotland” — not world mission, but local mission.

The event will be held at Stirling University, the same as last year, but apparently in a new venue on the campus. It is the first weekend of September, Friday 3 Sept. to Monday 6 Sept. 2010. And maybe the most important information: the conference is covered by the COSY Blog and will probably use the Twitter hashtag #nya2010. If you need to register you can do so at MadStuff.biz.

Chris Hoskins over at What Is Freedom? has posted a brief note expressing his regret that he will be missing the Assembly this year and how meaningful the NYA has been in his life. He says:

I will miss not being at the assembly, the 7 Youth Assemblies I have attended, as delegate or staff, over the last 10 years have been very important to me. I’ve made many good friends, been challenged, been inspired, at the assembly in 2000 I gave my life to Christ. Through my involvement in the Youth Assemblies, I’ve been opened to many other opportunities… I know this list seems a bit narcissistic, but I’m just realising how blessed I’ve been to be a part of all these things.

And he concludes with this advice:

If you’ve never been to the Youth assembly and you are eligible to go, I would recommend that you do, if you’ve been before, why do you share some memories with us? Those who are going this year – relish it, enjoy it, participate. Its the kind of event that is only as good as you make it, if you don’t put yourself into it and take part, it will never be as good as it could be – for you and for those around you.

I look forward to NYA2010, even if I will only attend in the virtual world. My prayers for another meaningful Assembly.

An Interesting Tale Of Stewardship, Property, And The PC(USA) Trust Clause

5 Replies

A news item on Friday caught my attention and got me thinking. This is a brief recounting and reflection on that news item.

The news, from the DailyNewsonline.com, is that Oakfield Community Bible Church (OCBC), a congregation that can be traced back to the First Presbyterian Church, Oakfield, NY, of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), purchased back its property from Genesee Valley Presbytery at public auction for $50,000. This property contains both the 11,740 sq. ft. church structure and the manse.

This history is, with a twist or two, simple and predictable: First Presbyterian wanted to leave PC(USA) over doctrinal differences, the Presbytery would not let them just take the property with them, after a brief attempt at negotiations the congregation filed a lawsuit for the property, and at trial the property was awarded to the Presbytery under the trust clause. Apparently the Presbytery decided not to continue using the property themselves and so auctioned it off. The successor church, now the OCBC was the successful bidder for $50,000. (There was a bit of bidding drama, check out the news story for more details.)

The one twist in here is that upon separating from the PC(USA) the congregation of First Pres. became the Oakfield Independent Presbyterian Church (OIPC) and a bit later the church split and the majority of the congregation followed the pastor to form OCBC. So, while no longer Presbyterian, OCBC in its membership represents the successor to First Pres. The remaining members of OIPC decided it was not worth appealing the trial court’s ruling. (Layman article)

So what questions does this raise?

First, for $50,000 did the Presbytery get anywhere near what they should have for the property? In scanning articles I have not seen the figures for what each side was talking in the brief negotiations. However, an article in The
Layman a week ago values the property at $398,000 and a comment in the minutes of a special meeting of Presbytery says “No appraisal has been done, but the worth may be greater than $200,000. The property is a valuable asset in the middle of the village.” The property
does not appear on the town’s 2005
tax rolls, but a residential property very close by had an assessed
valuation of $83,000. Even if the number in the Layman is a bit high
and we consider the minimum number the Presbytery listed, clearly the selling price at auction was no more than 25% of the
property’s value. It appears that other bidders at the auction were
only interested in the manse and were willing to bid $45,000-55,000 for
the whole property to get the house.

So, on the one hand the Presbytery appears happy to get the empty building off their hands so they don’t have to put money into maintaining a vacant property. In a depressed real estate market in a small western New York town they were able to unload a unique parcel of property. (And I am well aware of the current challenges related to selling a unique parcel. As chair of the trustees of the Synod right now I have a couple of “interesting” properties that we would like to find buyers for, especially if the offer reflects the value of the property. One city has offered us naming rights if we donate the property to them for a park.)

But on the other hand, we have to ask the question whether with some patience and work the Presbytery could have gotten more value out of the property. Yes, it probably would have required carrying it on the books longer and if not used for religious purposes carries the risk of losing tax exempt status. And I am sure that the Presbytery considered this. In addition, in defending the litigation they incurred expenses, some of which may have been offset by higher governing bodies or insurance.

On the other side of the equation the congregation is now back in the facility they were using before for what is probably a good deal. It has been vacant for a while and that carries concerns about the condition but basic upkeep seems to have been preformed. The flip side of this is that the church has been unsettled with some uncertainty and other arrangements for a couple of years. And in the auction process they did not have assurance that they would be the successful bidders.

So is this a win-win situation, at least as far as the property is concerned today? Presbytery gets vacant property off their hands, church gets to use their old facility again for a price that is 25% of the property value.

One does have to wonder if the Presbytery could have gotten more of the value out of the property. One also has to wonder if a negotiated settlement right at the very beginning may have gotten everyone a reasonable outcome without the expense, frustration and polarization of litigation.

I don’t know what the best answer is here but these are questions that come to mind as I read about the outcome of this property auction.

Ethno-religious Violence In Nigeria And The Presbyterian Response

1 Reply

Violence around the city of Jos in Plateau State of Nigeria has been moving in and out of the mainstream media headlines over the past week. However, while this month’s attacks by Muslim Hausa speaking Funali herdsmen on Berom Christians has gotten some press it is also reported that this is a retaliation raid for Berom attacks on Funali settlements back in January. And in the even bigger picture, as you can probably anticipate, this is part of a much longer and larger cycle of violence in the area. I found a story from the BBC to be particularly helpful in providing the context for the conflict. Here are some helpful excerpts:

A mosaic of distinct ethnic groups – Tiv, Jukun, Pyem, Kofyar, Berom, the Hausa-Fulani and many more – live along this dividing line between the Muslim north and mostly Christian south.
…
The fertile land and jobs were a powerful draw for migrants seeking work. People travelled to Jos from all over Nigeria.

Those patterns of migration are marked today by sharp divisions in the community.

People here are either classified as indigenes or settlers.

Indigenes are able to prove their ancestry in the state.

Settlers – whose grandparents and great-grandparents settled here – cannot.

Settlers find it difficult to get jobs in local government, or apply for educational scholarships.

Most indigenes are Berom Christians. Most settlers are Hausa Muslims.

Many Christians believe Hausa Muslim settlers seek to seize political control and impose Sharia law. They fear an extremist Islamist agenda and jihad.

Many Muslims believe the Plateau State government wishes to drive them out of certain areas.

The circle of violence, the emergence of vigilante groups and organised militia, the suspicion of the military within the Christian community and the lack of a political framework for talks worries those tasked with security.

There is a bit of coverage out there, some of it better than others. From the admittedly incomplete reading that I have done I would recommend the BBC article, a New York Times piece, and an AP story from The Boston Globe. General Christian voices include Christian Today and The Christian Post. Local voices carried by AllAfrica.com include news stories, opinion pieces, and interviews. In particular, there are some interesting comments in that interview with Barrister Yahaya Mahood who has previously represented Fulani settlers. In the interview he says about earlier incidents:

They are not religious riots. They are ethnic clashes between those that are called indigenes and those called settlers. The dispute in the two communities is not over religion, its practice or right. It is purely economic. In both cases, people who settled 200 years who are purely traders and businessmen dominated the economy over those who say they are indigenes and who are public servants and farmers.

When asked for his solution to the current conflict he answered in part:

[I]f the ‘indigenes’ will not accept the ‘settlers’ as Nigerians with a right to stay anywhere in Nigeria and enjoy rights as Nigerians, then the federal government should move all the settlers out of Jos back to wherever and pay them adequate compensation. That is why I welcomed the Chief Solomon Lar Panel, made up of indigenes and settlers to sort out their differences. It is better than setting up Judicial Commissions of Inquiry.
…
We should allow Chief Solomon Lar panel to do its work. They know themselves. They know the problems and have the solution. The federal government must step in, be firm and rebuild the town as was done in Zango. Plateau State government should be neutral and fair to all, if the settlers are to remain in Jos. The leaders of the settlers should undertake to control their people and there should be mutual respect. Only that can guarantee peace.

That is a brief introduction to the situation. Related to this I have seen both internal and external responses from the Presbyterian church.

From the Presbyterian Church of Nigeria the Moderator of the General Assembly, The Rt. Rev. Ubon Bassey Usung, has expressed views similar to those of Mr. Mahood. According to the press report The Moderator “warned that the recurring ethno-religious crisis in Jos, Plateau State, if not checked immediately, might snowball into a full-blown war.” The article goes on to say:

Usung condemned the attack. He advocated the setting up of a Conflict Resolution Committee made up of Christian and Muslim leaders, government community chiefs and security agencies to check violence in the area. “The committee should be able to preach peace among the members of the various communities and religions in the area and nip any crisis in the bud,” he added.

In solidarity with the Presbyterian Church of Nigeria the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, The Rev. Harvey Self, has issued a statement which echoes Mr. Usung’s call for peace, security, and community work to heal the divisions. The statement concludes with:

We also call on state and federal authorities in Nigeria to put an end to the culture of impunity by making every effort to identify and punish to the full extent of the law all those responsible for instigating and for carrying out these murderous attacks. In addition, we call upon state and federal authorities to make a concerted and sustained effort to deal with the underlying causes of these repeated outbreaks of ethnic and religious violence; namely, discrimination between settlers and indigenes, endemic poverty, and the continuing unresolved disputes over land. Finally, we call on all people of faith, everywhere, to pray and to work together for peace, healing, reconciliation, and acceptance of all human rights for the people of Nigeria.

We will see how this develops and which other Presbyterian branches speak out on it. For now, I echo these words for us to “pray and work together for peace…”

And You Think Robert’s Rules Are Confusing…

Leave a reply

In governing body meetings we usually start to get the eyes glazing over when a substitute motion is introduced and sometimes moving the previous question gets a bit frustrating when debate is closed, or not closed, and those on the losing side of the vote would rather have it their way. But in general parliamentary procedure is a set of parameters for the decent and orderly functioning of a deliberative body that we live with so the minority gets their opinion heard and so that we are clear what the body has done when it has done something.

For those with a knowledge of Robert’s Rules who are following the current Congressional maneuvering on the health care bill we sometimes have trouble completely understanding what the Congress is up to with talk of a “self-executing rule” in the House and a “budget reconciliation bill” in the Senate.

As I was looking at this in a little more detail I was struck by the introduction to the first edition (1876) of Robert’s Rules of Order where the good Brig. Gen. Henry M. Robert says:

Parliamentary Law refers originally to the customs and rules of conducting business in the English Parliament; and thence to the customs and rules of our own legislative assemblies. In England these customs and usages of Parliament form a part of the unwritten law of the land, and in our own legislative bodies they are of authority in all cases where they do not conflict with existing rules or precedents. But as a people we have not the respect which the English have for customs and precedents, and are always ready for innovations which we think are improvements, and hence changes have been and are being constantly made in the written rules which our legislative bodies have found best to adopt. As each house adopts its own rules, it results that the two houses of the same legislature do not always agree in their practice; even in Congress the order of precedence of motions is not the same in both houses, and the Previous Question is admitted in the House of Representatives, but not in the Senate. As a consequence of this, the exact method of conducting business in any particular legislative body is to be obtained only from the Legislative Manual of that body.

Brig. Gen. Henry Martyn Robert

Mr. Robert goes on to talk about how he based his rules for deliberative assemblies on the U.S. House of Representatives at that time. A shock to me. To look at the way that Congress works today I have some trouble matching it up with Robert’s Rules. Maybe the difference between then and now are the “innovations which we think are improvements.” (I have seen in person a Senate session with three senators in the chamber — the President Pro Tem, and the representatives of the majority and the minority — discussing the consent agenda and agreeing to the docket and rules of debate for a major bill the next day. And from the C-Span camera you would never know the rest of the seats were empty. But I digress…)

So in case you are inclined to check out the Legislative Manuals for the House and the Senate, the Library of Congress has made it easy for you with the House and Senate resources at the top of their Government Resources page. Drilling down a little bit you get the more detailed list of resources from the House Committee on Rules and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. (And I can’t help but notice how the House web page has only the Committee Chair pictured while the Senate has equal sized pictures of both the Chair and the Ranking Member. But I digress…)

In the current debate one parliamentary, or procedural, option being talked about is the “self-executing rule.” It turns out that the self-executing rule is a 20th century innovation and the Wilson Center has a good background piece on this innovation which was introduced in 1933 (that’s from another good article from the Washington Post). For those of us familiar with Robert’s it is a bit like a “non-consent consent agenda,” I would say. To put it a better way, it is a second motion which is not debatable but gets approved with the approval of the first debatable motion. While technically separable, if you have the majority control you can keep it from being brought to the floor by itself. And the Wilson piece is clear, and probably to no one’s surprise, while the use of this rule has become more common, throughout the last few decades the party in the minority is usually “shocked” to think that the majority would resort to such tactics. (Reminds me of Captain Renault in Casablanca who says “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!” as pretense and in mock indignation as he is handed his roulette winnings. But I digress…)

I am sure that most of my American readers have heard more about the “budget reconciliation process” to be used in the Senate since that has been in the headlines for almost two months now. For almost everything you wanted to know about Budget Reconciliation the Congressional Research Service has a handy publication. It is what Robert would consider an “innovation” coming from the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 which provides a process which is governed by “special procedures.” “These procedures serve to limit what may be included in reconciliation legislation, to prohibit certain amendments, and to encourage its completion in a timely fashion.” The floor procedure to provide for timely consideration is described thus:

During floor action on reconciliation legislation, the Senate and House follow different procedures and practices. In the Senate, debate on a budget reconciliation bill, and on all amendments, debatable motions, and appeals, is limited to not more than 20 hours. After the 20 hours of debate has been reached, consideration of amendments, motions, and appeals may continue, but without debate. The Senate often will consider a substantial number of amendments in this situation. The Budget Act does not provide any debate limitations on a reconciliation bill in the House. The House, however, regularly adopts a special rule establishing the time allotted for debate and what amendments will be in order. The House special rule typically has allowed for consideration of only a few major amendments.

First, remember the Robert quote above about each chamber having their own rules. And second, by specifying the 20 hours of debate the debate in the Senate is automatically cut off meaning that there is no need for the closure vote that has the infamous 60 vote super-majority provision.

And finally, if you think you have never really heard of the reconciliation process before consider the acronym C.O.B.R.A. While most people think of the extension of medical benefits the acronym comes from the name of the larger bill itself, with the wonderfully oxymornic title of “The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.” But you probably knew that al
ready.

Well, I have no intention of digging back in the Library of Congress to see how House and Senate rules have evolved over time, but I find Robert’s words about “innovations which we think are improvements” to be a bit prophetic. I wonder if he would base his rules on those deliberative bodies today?

In general Presbyterian procedures seem less complicated, but we generally can not claim that they are purely Robert’s rules. Every one has special procedures for changing doctrinal standards that involves voting by the presbyteries, some requiring majority and some super majority. Many have their governing bodies hear and decide judicial cases so there are special standing rules for that. And there is always the PC(USA) which has Advisory Delegates with voice and vote in committee but voice only in plenary. Yes, we even have our own Legislative Manual beyond the basics of parliamentary procedure.

Indiana Court Awards Property To Particular Church And Not PC(USA) Presbytery And Synod

Leave a reply

This past week Judge Carl Heldt of the Vanderburgh Circuit Court, Indiana, issued his ruling in the case of Presbytery of Ohio Valley and Synod of Lincoln Trails, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) v. Olivet Presbyterian Church. This lawsuit was regarding the Olivet property which the higher governing bodies argued Olivet could not take with it as it disaffiliated from the PC(USA) and realigned with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. The court ruled that after examining all the incorporation and real estate documents there was no evidence of a higher governing body ever having a legal interest in the property and so the congregation held clear title to it. Along with this the court ruled that under “neutral principles” the PC(USA) can not have an “implied trust” on the property since the ownership of the property is to be judged only by the documents applicable under civil law and not the Book of Order or other documents related to ecclesiastical law.

Thanks to The Layman you can read a scanned copy of the court decision. There is also reaction from The Layman.

Now, I would not normally devote so much time to reading and analyzing a trial court decision — I expect this decision to be appealed and I would rather devote the time to looking at the legal reasoning after it has had “peer review.” However, two things caught my attention in this decision…

First, after following the California Episcopal Churches case very closely a couple of years ago I found it interesting how essentially the same arguments played differently in the two courts. Now I do realize that the California cases hinged on a point of California corporate law that permits hierarchical churches to place an implied trust on property, and that getting to the California Supreme Court different lower courts and trial courts ruled in opposite ways on the issue.

But in this case the judge goes to great lengths to set the foundation for his ruling based on neutral principles. The decision is 29 pages long of which the Finding of Fact is roughly half at 13 pages. The Conclusions of Law takes up almost 14 pages (the balance is the preferatory material and the judgment order) and of those pages five and a half are a detailed analysis of case law and precedent, both in Indiana State Courts and U.S. Federal Courts, to set the foundation for his decision based on neutral principles. The bottom line here is that if the larger church has no presence in the civil documents (incorporation and real estate) the ecclesiastical documents are irrelevant. This decision quotes a U.S. Appeals court decision (Merryman v. Price, 1971) that relied on a U.S. Supreme Court Decision (PCUS v. Blue Hull, 1969) where it says:

It is clear that the civil courts can not rely upon ecclesiastical law of the church to impose an implied trust upon real estate.

and, regarding neutral principles, goes on to say:

This approach has the advantage of almost never involving a civil court with the vexing problem of whether preferred evidence is admissible under the First Amendment. Further adjudicating church property disputes by relying on formal title will ensure an almost evenhanded administration of justice since the necessary evidence will almost always be admissible. The formal title approach will seldom involve a civil court in deciding what the polity of a given church is, a determination which will almost inevitably involve ecclesiastical considerations. One final advantage inherent in this approach is that it invites and encourages religious organizations to title their property as clearly and unambiguously as possible.

I would add that in considering the formal title to the property this congregation has taken a slightly different path than many to their current affiliation. As the facts of the case detail, this was a mission plant of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in 1891 but became part of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America in the partial merger of 1906. It has now realigned from the PC(USA) to the EPC.

The second thing that caught my attention was the court’s attention to the polity of the PC(USA) as expressed in the Book of Order. Or maybe it is better to say the conflicts in the polity that make sorting out ecclesiastical disputes in civil courts difficult.

In point 8 of the Findings of Fact the decision says “Even the PC(USA) Constitution and Book of Order permits and acknowledges the possibility of movement away from its denomination.”

In point 18 of the Findings of Fact, “[T]here are no specific set of By-laws prescribed by the Book of Order or other authority of Plaintiffs.” (And I would add that the flexibility of nFOG will enhance this point.)

Point 20 presents the PC(USA) argument that as a congregation of the PC(USA) they recognize church governance while they voluntarily chose to be affiliated with the denomination. The church counters with the facts above, that there is provision for disaffiliating and that there is no set By-laws.

In the Conclusions of Law the court writes in point 7 “The Book of Order is cited by both parties and contains contradictory terms as it relates to property disputes.” It then goes on to cite G-9.0102 about church courts having only ecclesiastical jurisdiction and not civil authority.

And point 20 notes the discrepancy between the PC(USA) argument that this is a “dissolution” of the congregation while at the same time a paragraph in the stipulated facts that both parties are in agreement on states that “The Olivet congregation has consistently made it clear its intention to continue it affiliation and worship under the EPC…” and never expressed plans or interest in abandoning its property.

But the major piece of analysis of PC(USA) polity is point 19 which covers more than one page double-spaced (I figure my interested readers can figure out the Book of Order references so I have edited those for length):

19. Both parties cite various portions of the PC(USA) Book of Order in support of their respective positions.

Plaintiffs’ case significantly relies upon G-8.0201, added to the Book of Order in 1981, which states:

All property…is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

Plaintiffs rely heavily on this and other provisions of Chapter 8 in the Book of Order in asserting its trust interests.

The Olivet Defendants reply asserting the Book of Order is an ecclesiastical document which by its very terms is not supposed to have civil law jurisdiction citing G-9.0102 stating:

Governing bodies of the church are distinct from the government of the state…

Both parties assert many other provisions of the Book of Order all of which are part of the record. Olivet also cites the Affidavits Alex Merwin and William Rasch. Irrespective of the affidavits, the court concludes that wading into various provisions of the Book of Order which may or may not be conflicting requires this Court to determine ecclesiastical questions in the process of resolving property disputes which is prohibited by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. [cite removed] Plaintiffs ask this court to hold that pursuant to
G-8.0201, the Olivet property is held in trust for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and yet Defendants assert that G-8.0201 is not a settlor’s declaration but an assertion by an entity that does not hold title to any of the property at issue in the instant case and which never held property at issue in the present case. Plaintiffs assert the actions of its Presbytery consisting of voting members of various churches must be upheld while Defendants cite Chapter G-9.0102, stating governing bodies of the church (i.e., a Presbytery) have only ecclesiastical jurisdiction. As further example, G-1.0307 of the Book of Order states: “That all church power, whether exercised by the body in general or in the way of representation by delegated authority is only ministerial and declarative…” At G-1.0308 it states “Any ecclesiastical discipline must be purely moral or spiritual in its object and not intended with any civil effects…” This conflict and the other potentially conflicting provisions in the Book of Order appear to this Court to force an evaluation or determination or ecclesiastical questions or interpretations in the process of resolving this property dispute. This Court declines to do so, based upon the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Indiana State Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court precedent and state court precedent. “Civil courts will be bound to give effect to the result indicated by the parties, provided it is embodied in some legally cognizable form.” Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 606 (1979)

In other words: The Court leaves the sorting out of the Book of Order to church judicatories and polity wonks — it is not their business. (I wonder if the nFOG would help or hurt the case?)

As I stated before, this could have a long way to go through the appeal process. And it is clear that state law and precedent have significant implications in all of these property cases. While there is some hope that one day the U.S. Supreme Court will take one of these cases and use it to set clear legal tests for when neutral principles versus church government theories apply, so far this term the high court has declined to hear two cases that have asked for a hearing so this situation still relies on state law and so varies between the states.

We will see where this particular case may lead us.

A Little Levity For March 2010

Leave a reply

I need a diversion from some other heavy work this weekend so I thought I would share a couple of lighter thoughts…

From MSN Lifestyle we have the 75 Best Dressed Men of All Time, and thanks to The Contemporary Calvinist we know that none other than John Calvin is number 52. I tried to find a direct link to #52 but as far as I could find you need to click through the first 51 to get there. So to save you the time of clicking through all that the citation says:

John Calvin, theologian

Because the most famous minimalist in world history knew a man didn’t need expensive clothes or bright colors to convey authority. Black and white, worn with the requisite gravity, can be powerful and intimidating. Just look at the Secret Service. Or the Reservoir Dogs.

It is interesting to note that Calvin is the figure on the list who lived the longest ago, with the exception of the generic caveman that starts the list. Almost everyone else on the list is “modern.” It is also interesting that the only other religious figure on the list is the next one, #53, Malcolm X. (And in an interesting and unrelated observation, Sean Connery makes it onto the list twice, once as himself (#13) and once as James Bond (#19).) But from my knowledge of Calvin, I have to think that it would greatly disturb Mr. Calvin, the theologian who was so clear that it was not about him that he insisted on a secret grave, that he would be honored in this way.

One of the heavy tasks I began this weekend is to start work on my sermon for the Easter Sunrise Service. It is not just the writing of the sermon itself but the fact that part of the sermon is to insist that in order for the resurrection to be exceedingly good news you have to deal honestly with the bad news of death. Yes, this will probably not be your typical Easter sermon, but when did I do anything typical?

So related to that I see that a Vatican official, in a collection of advice on preparing homilies, suggests that homilies should be no longer than the eight minutes a person can focus their attention. (Interesting that in all that advice, some if it like starting early in the week I could endorse, the 8 minute mark got the headlines.) I know of few preachers who could regularly stop at this point but I have worked with a couple of pastor nominating committees who considered something only slightly longer than this a positive skill of a potential pastor. And if you keep the length short, you don’t have to worry as much about the fine print in yesterday’s Beetle Bailey comic strip.

Now related to pastor searches I bring you a final lighter note for today… If you are not familiar with the blog Beaker Folk of Husborne Crawley you might be interested in the Archdruid Eileen’s commentary on their community life and religious perspective. It provides a humourous look at religions in general and organized religion in particular. With a hat tip to Ruth Gledhill, here is one of my favorites from the blog, a job posting:

Situations Vacant — The Dispersed Communities of Spalding

The Dispersed Communities of Spalding are looking for a male or female druid with vision, capable of leading our communities forward into new challenges.

We are a group of 12 Beaker communities scattered across the hamlets to the east of Spalding.

Well, when we say communities, strictly speaking four of these communities have only one member each and there’s only twenty-three of us in total. But we are dedicated to keeping true to our roots. Which is why we insist on worshiping only each within our own Moot Houses, coming together only for the annual Falling Out ceremony where we remember why we don’t get together any more often.

In order to help our communities to reach out to the people in the Spalding area, the new druid must be capable of vision, bringing forward radical ideas to transform the way we “do community”. Which we will ignore. They must be capable of relating easily with the young, teenagers, the old and the middle aged. They will be up to date with the very latest ideas in Beaker Worship, but still willing to keep on with the same old pebbles and tea lights regardless.

They must be good at dealing with frustration, and able to keep their thoughts very much to themselves.

A gifted evangelist and strategist, the main role for the new druid will be to try to work out how to raise the funds to patch up the roofs of 12 Moot Houses, all of which are in dire states of repair. The boilers have gone in 6 as well. The new druid must be able to inspire a giving attitude amongst our Folk, without at any point ever mentioning money. It tends to depress us.

We are a modern and equal-opportunities group of fellowships, and will welcome the right druid, regardless of marital status, sexuality and gender, as long as his wife is good at baking cakes and they have a couple of kids.

If that doesn’t resonate with some churches…

Final PCA SJC Decision In Bordwine v. Pacific Northwest Presbytery

Leave a reply

This past Thursday the General Assembly Standing Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church in America issued their final decision in the case of TE James Bordwine, et al. vs. Pacific Northwest Presbytery. By a vote of 17 concur, 2 dissent, and 3 absent (with no disqualified, recused or abstaining) the Proposed Decision was affirmed by the full SJC.

This case is regarding the process and conclusions of the investigation and examination of TE Peter Leithart by the Pacific Northwest Presbytery. (For more details you can check out the enumeration of the facts in the decision or my brief summary when the Proposed Decision came out last December.) The Commission found:

II. Statement of the Issue

Did PNW err in its handling of the Reports from the PNW Study Committee appointed to examine Leithart’s fitness to continue as a PCA Teaching Elder?

III. Judgment

Yes. The Complaint is sustained, and the case is sent back to PNW with instructions to proceed according to the Reasoning and Opinion of this Decision.

Then the Reasoning and Opinion Section begins with:

The Record in this matter suggests that there are aspects of the teachings of TE Leithart that are in conflict with our standards.

The section goes on to briefly point out that since a formal disciplinary judicial process had not been carried out in this case the relief requested by the Complainants of declaring his views out of accord could not properly be made. On the other hand, without the judicial process the Presbytery can not declare that the views are not out of accord. But there is a strong presumption of guilt, the test for initiating judicial proceedings.

The Decision sets forth a two step process: 1) To counsel TE Leithart concerning his views and to encourage him to either “recant and make reparations for those views,” or “to take timely steps toward affiliation with some other branch of the visible church that is consistent with his views.” 2) Failing one of the outcomes of step 1 to then begin the judicial process.

Having now set out the basic findings of the Decision, I wanted to comment on the significant difference between the Final Decision and last December’s Proposed Decision. The Final Decision is seven pages long, the Proposed Decision is twenty. The difference is almost exclusively in the Reasoning and Opinion section. In the Proposed Decision the SJC wrote an extensive analysis of the documents from the PNW investigation showing where TE Leithart’s views were problematic. There is none of this in the Final Decision. In the Final Decision the SJC shortened up their reasoning a bit to simply state that a strong presumption of guilt exists and then leave it to the judicial process, if there will be one, to decently and in order make the decision if the views are out of accord.

The second way that the Final Decision differs from the Proposed Decision is the inclusion of “Step 1.” In the Proposed Decision the order was to “institute process.” In the Final Decision the preceding step of non-judicial counsel was added to try to achieve a restorative outcome without the divisiveness the judicial process can bring.

I would also note that the cover letter indicates that the two dissenters to the opinion have not indicated an intent to file a Minority Report so this Decision is final and no decision between a majority and minority report will need to be made by the General Assembly. (I would also add that there might be a minority opinion floating around out there but not a minority report, and second in my reading of the BCO to send a Minority Report to the GA requires at least one-third of the voting members of the SJC to dissent and the two dissenting votes is far short of that so a minority report would not be appropriate.)

There has been some significant response to the Final Decision including The Aquila Report, R. Scott Clark, and A Profitable Word. But once again I thank TE Jason Stellman at Creed Code Cult for his views on the matter since he is the closest to it, being one of the Complainants. In addition, I am deeply appreciative of his making the decisions available. And once again, I leave you with his words about this situation:

Although I do agree with the PCA’s decision (obviously, since I wrote the Minority Report and personally argued the complainants’ case before the SJC panel last Fall), I have absolutely no desire to prosecute a case against a good man and godly scholar simply to prove a point and set legal precedent for other NAPARC churches to follow (which a conviction certainly would do). For the sake of the weak semblance of unity that our Protestant churches have, I would prefer that this case be resolved in some way besides a long, drawn-out (not to mention expensive and time-consuming) court battle. While the confessional side may very well “win” if this thing goes to trial, I can’t help but feel that we’re all losers here. I know I’m supposed to feel a deep sense of satisfaction that, if Rev. Leithart is removed from the PCA, justice has prevailed and the system is shown to have worked, but I just can’t seem to shake the feeling of emptiness—not to mention the bitter taste in my mouth—that this whole process has occasioned.

The GA Junkie

The Politics of Presbyterianism

Monthly Archives: March 2010

Meetings Of A Presbyterian General Assembly — How Often?

Changes In Theological Perspective Among PC(USA) Members

Update On The Presbyterian Mutual Society And The Presbyterian Church Of Ireland

The Church Of Scotland National Youth Assembly — Looking Back And Looking Ahead

An Interesting Tale Of Stewardship, Property, And The PC(USA) Trust Clause

Ethno-religious Violence In Nigeria And The Presbyterian Response

And You Think Robert’s Rules Are Confusing…

Indiana Court Awards Property To Particular Church And Not PC(USA) Presbytery And Synod

A Little Levity For March 2010

Final PCA SJC Decision In Bordwine v. Pacific Northwest Presbytery