Monthly Archives: April 2011

The General Synod Of The Presbyterian Church In Trinidad And Tobago

Leave a reply

The 51st General Synod meeting of the Presbyterian Church In Trinidad and Tobago was held this week. This Presbyterian branch has three presbyteries broken down further into 23 Pastoral Regions with four or five churches in each region.  The church has 72 primary schools, five secondary schools and a theological college.

At the beginning of the week the Trinidad Express reported that the election of the Moderator of this General Synod was much less of a formality and more of a contended election.  As they put it:

Sources told the Express “members are in favour of a young, vibrant
minister to heal the decay in the falling membership of the church,
while the diehards are supporting a former moderator who had served two
terms in that office”.

And later they say

The Express learned Rev Brenda Bullock, current minister serving at
Couva, has the support of the younger members of the synod, as well as
those who want to see changes in the operations of the church. “We have
been losing members steadily, and now is the time for us to introduce
changes that would attract young people into the fold,” said a member of
the synod, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

So it looks like the “young, vibrant minister” prevailed and the Rev. Brenda Bullock was elected for a two year term as Moderator with 80 of the 102 votes, according to The Guardian.  In addition to this election being a more contested race, the election of the Rev. Bullock is notable since she is the first woman to serve as General Synod Moderator.  We wish her well and pray for her work.

The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland — Discussion Over Ordination Standards

1 Reply

One of the reasons that I started writing this blog was the objective to focus on Presbyterianism broadly — not just one branch or one region, but its ebb and flow as a global institution.  And one of the motivations for doing this was the fact that Presbyterian branches in different areas may be working through similar issues.

Well, as the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) nears the climax of its voting on Amendment 10-A regarding ordination standards the Church of Scotland is preparing for the 2011 meeting of its General Assembly where they will be addressing the same issue.

The issue came before the GA in the context of a specific case back in 2009 when a church called a partnered gay minister and while the presbytery concurred some members of the presbytery filed a protest and the full Assembly heard the case.  While the Assembly upheld the decision of the presbytery it took two additional actions.  First, it formed the Special Commission on Same-Sex Relationships and the Ministry which had the remit to “to consult with all Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions and to prepare a
study on Ordination and Induction to the Ministry of the Church of
Scotland” in light of this issue and a past report.  The Assembly also placed a broad moratorium on the church that prohibited both the induction and ordination of partnered homosexuals as well as restricting discussion of this topic to meetings of governing bodies.

The commission has been hard at work for the last two years and their report and study is coming to the 2011 Assembly.  The report has the deliverance, which I will get to in a moment, and contains the results of their consultations as well. The reports web page also has five additional resources, including spreadsheets containing their data.

There are nine items in the deliverance and the first and last are straight-forward — to receive the report and to discharge the commission with thanks.

Some of the remaining items are related to the church’s relationship to homosexual Christians in a broad sense and includes 2(i)(1) “It is contrary to God’s will that Christians should be hostile in any way to a person because he or she is homosexual by orientation and in his or her practice,” as well as 2(i)(2) that Christians are to be welcoming “regardless of [a person’s] sexual orientation and practice.”  In 2(i)(3) it also recognizes that the church needs to reach out pastorally to those “who find it difficult or impossible to reconcile their orientation with their understanding of God’s purposes as revealed in the Bible.”  And finally, there is a statement [2(ii)(4)] that it is not sexual orientation itself which is a barrier to membership or leadership roles in the church.  The deliverance also reaffirms discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unlawful in the church, with certain exceptions contingent on other parts of the deliverance.  But within this section, while it declares that “we view homophobia as sinful,” it clarifies this with the statement “We do not include in the concept of homophobia both the bona fide belief that homosexual practice is contrary to God’s will and the responsible statement of that belief in preaching or writing.”

As to the contentious part concerning ordination standards the Commission presents the Assembly two options in item 7 that would represent a step in one or the other direction.  Option “a” is “an indefinite moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship thus maintaining the traditional position of the Church.”  Option “b” is “the lifting of the moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship.”

As I said, each option is a first step and does not represent final language but comes with enabling language to have the Theological Commission, Ministries Council and Legal Questions Committee consider the position and propose the appropriate language to the 2012 Assembly if the prohibition remains and the 2013 Assembly if it is lifted.  In other words, if anything were to go to the presbyteries under the Barrier Act it would not be this year and probably not the next.  That Theological Commission I mentioned is a new entity proposed in item 6.

The deliverance, in item 8, would continue the moratorium on accepting candidates and conducting ordinations for at least another two years and item 5 would continue the moratorium on talking publicly about it.

That leaves item 4.  The language throughout the deliverance is generally related to “training and ordination” and induction and installation are not addressed except in this item.  In number 4 it is proposed to permit “the induction into pastoral charges of ministers and deacons ordained before May 2009 who are in a same-sex relationship.”

So that is the deliverance for the Assembly to debate. This is the only report docketed for Monday 23 May beginning at 9:30 AM Edinburgh time.

Now, taking a look at the body of the report it is interesting to see where the leaders of the Church of Scotland are on this issue.  The Commission sent out a series of questions to both Kirk Sessions and presbyteries to get feedback on this issue.  This was not a random sampling but an effort to get full participation in this consultation.   They got 1237 responses from 1273 sessions (some linked and neighboring sessions responded together) out of 1473 congregations.  There were 22,342 ruling and teaching elders that participated in this.  But the numbers come with this qualification:

2.4 We wish to state clearly that although exact figures are given in the following analysis this appearance of precision is to some extent illusory…

The report then goes on to detail certain data issues, such as how some questions have fewer responses than participants and how a few have more.  But they make the case that these are minor issues and while the results may not be ideal, or represent a truly statistical sample, the results are none-the-less pretty reliable and representative.

Regarding the presbyteries, the Commission received responses from all 45 presbyteries representing 2624 teaching and ruling elders.

The questions were divided into four sections and several of the questions gave a range of possible answers.  For example, question set 2 was on Approaches to same-sex relationships and the first question asked “Do you hold a clear position on same-sex relationships and how they should be regarded or do you find yourself uncertain as to the precise nature of God’s will for the Church on this issue?”  To this question 72.8% of members of Kirk Sessions and 77.5% of the members of Presbyteries responded that they had a clear position.  The section then went on to ask:

2b: Do any of the following descriptions help you to summarise your present position fairly and accurately?

i) We regard homosexual orientation as a disorder and homosexual behaviour as sinful. Gay and lesbian people should avoid same-sex sexual relationships, and, ideally, seek to be rid of homosexual desires. Unrepentant gay and lesbian people should not have leadership roles in the church.

ii) We accept homosexual orientation as a given, but disapprove of homosexual behaviour. We do not reject gay and lesbian people as people, but reject same-sex sexual activity as being sinful. Gay and lesbian people in sexual relationships should not have leadership roles in the church.

iii) We accept homosexual orientation as a given and disapprove of homosexual behaviour but recognise that some same-sex relationships can be committed, loving, faithful and exclusive – though not the ideal, which is male-female. However, because of the different standards required of those in Christian leadership, gay and lesbian people in sexual relationships, even if civil partnerships, should not have leadership roles in the church.

iv) We accept homosexual orientation as a given, and accept homosexual behaviour as equivalent morally to heterosexual behaviour. Civil partnerships provide the best environment for loving same-sex relationships. Gay and lesbian people, whether in sexual relationships or not, should be assessed for leadership roles in the church in an equivalent way to heterosexual people.

v) We accept homosexual orientation as a given part of God’s good creation. The Christian practice of marriage should be extended to include exclusive, committed same-sex relationships which are intended to be life-long. Gay and lesbian people, whether in sexual relationships or not, should be
assessed for leadership roles in the church in an equivalent way to heterosexual people.

Position (i) was favored by 8.8% of Session members and 11.3% of Presbytery members, position (ii) by 17.9% and 21.7%, position (iii) by 21.5% and 15.9%, position (iv) by 24.4% and 23.9% and position (v) by 19.4% and 17.5% respectively.

Question set 1 was about The Biblical Witness, set 2 Approaches to Same-Sex Relationships, set 3 about Ordination/Leadership in the Church and set 4 about the Unity of the Church of Scotland.  The section of the report that follows the enumeration of the responses discusses the findings.

As you can see from the responses to question 2b above, the church is evenly divided with respect leadership with the first three opinions, which argued against leadership positions, having 48.2% of the Session members responding while 43.8% favored one or the other of the last two responses which included leadership.

Question 3b specifically addressed the ordination of ministers (3b: Should a person in a same-sex relationship be permitted to be an ordained minister within the Church?) and members of Kirk Sessions answered 38.2% yes and 56.2% no.  It is interesting to compare this with the question on the Presbyterian Panel survey from the PC(USA) which asked “Would you personally like to see the PC(USA) permit sexually active gay and lesbian persons to be ordained to the office of minister of Word and Sacrament?”  In that 2008 survey 30% of ruling elders currently serving on sessions answered probably or definitely yes and 60% answered probably or definitely not.  For those classified as Pastors in that survey it was 44% yes and 48% no.  As another point of comparison, the vote at the 2009 General Assembly to refuse the dissent and complaint was 326 (55%) yes and 267 (45%) no – if that has any application to the present debate.  And in the PC(USA) the voting on Amendment 10-A is currently trending 55% yes votes by the presbyters.

When question 3b was reported as if it were a Presbytery vote on the issue it came out 7 yes, 37 no, and one tie.  However, question 3d, which asked about someone in an civil partnership being in a leadership position, did have majority support — 31-14.

Question set 4 asked about the Unity of the Church of Scotland with 4a giving a range of five responses ranging from changing the ordination standards would be heretical to not changing the standards being heretical with “deep-seated disagreement and personal disappointment” in either direction and not regarding the decision “particularly significant” for the church in the middle.  The session members responded with 9.7% saying it would be heretical to change, 28.1% would strongly disagree with the change, 19.6% did not consider it significant, 24.3% would strongly disagree if it did not change and 3.5% saying it would be heretical if it did not change.

In the discussion section the Commission notes this about the Presbytery responses:

3.13 In relation to question 4a: it is clear that a majority of Presbyteries opposed the ordination of a person in a committed same-sex relationship. If that vote were to be replicated in a vote on an innovating overture under the Barrier Act, that proposal would fail.

Question 4b asked “Would you consider it obligatory to leave the Church of Scotland under any of the following conditions?”  The conditions given include allowing the ordination of people in committed same-sex relationships to be ordained as ministers or to be in leadership, forbidding either of these, or if the GA were to make no clear statement.  The responses for each of the five are somewhat similar with between 8% and 20% answering yes and 73% to 78% answering no.

And finally, for the polity wonks, the last question asks about leaving the decision up to the lower governing bodies and 61.1% of session members and 71.2% of presbytery members say that the decision must lie with the General Assembly.

I hope this summary gives you a good idea where the leadership (remember, this was not a survey of the members but a consultation with the ruling and teaching elders) of the Church of Scotland is on these issues.  The section with the questions and the following section with the discussion have some other interesting points buried in them.

This study has a lot more in it besides the results of the consultation including the results of Consultation with Other Churches which gives a great summary of where other Presbyterian branches globally are on this issue.  (If you are wondering what it says about the PC(USA), it is not mentioned specifically but probably falls into the paragraph that says: 4.9 All the other responding churches continue in a process of discernment aimed at maintaining fellowship and unity.)

The study also contains the usual review of the scientific literature (Sexual Orientation: The Lessons and Limits of Science) and the web site has two additional review papers. There is also a section discussing the personal stories the Commission heard. And there is a section discussing the nature of ordained ministry.  But near the end of that section, and as transition to the next, the report says in paragraph 7.28: “Nonetheless, we see no basis for allowing the ordination of people in same-sex relationships unless or until the Church has resolved the broader question of the theological status of such relationships.”  As they note at the end, helping resolve this question would be part of the work of the Theological Commission.  (And this ordering is probably striking to me since the PC(USA) is taking it in the other order with marriage questions being debated but the ordination standards about to change.)

While the Commission report ends with a Conclusions and Recommendations section, the extended discussion in the second-to-last section attempts to synthesize all of the preceding work.  It is a good summary of the situation including what the church can agree on and where the members of the Commission, and by extension the church in general, disagree. It covers much of the same ground that similar reports have so I won’t attempt a summary of the 82 paragraphs over the 12 pages.  I will note that, as suggested above, the topic is considered in parallel with the consideration of the nature of marriage.

As I mentioned earlier, the Commission is proposing two options that offer a first step in a particular direction.  In the conclusion the Commission describes it like this:

9.2 In our recommendations we put forward as alternatives two options. In each case they are trajectories rather than firm decisions which can be reached now. This is because the divisions do not point to the adoption, here and now, of a radical stance in either direction. The General Assembly is therefore invited to express a view on the direction which it thinks the Church should take; but, if our recommendations are accepted, it will be the task of a future General Assembly in either 2012 or 2013 to determine whether or not to move in that direction, assisted by the further work which we propose that the Church should undertake.

9.3 Both trajectories recognise the need for further discernment and engagement between those of differing views. By working together for twenty months, we have learnt from each other; and we believe that the Church will benefit from such genuine engagement. Both trajectories also involve, among other things, the creation of a theological commission to assist the Church in deciding the direction it wishes to take. The Special Commission, of which we are the members, is not a theological commission as several of us have no theological training. We recommend that an authoritative theological commission should be composed of theologians of standing. This theological commission will ensure the
continuance of engagement and discernment under whichever of the trajectories the General Assembly may choose.

My only polity comment here is my bias to see both teaching elders (Ministers of Word and Sacrament) and ruling elders on the Theological Commission if it is created.

Let me return for a moment to question 4b, option (i).  The question asked if the elder would consider it obligatory to leave the Church of Scotland “if the General Assembly were to allow people in committed same-sex relationships to be ordained as ministers.”  To this question 19.4% of the members of Kirk Sessions answered yes, 30 Kirk Sessions were unanimously yes, 19.5% of members of presbyteries answered yes, and three presbyteries had a majority vote for this position.

I single out this question because much of the media coverage leading up to the Assembly seems to be on the Commission report, and many of those articles are questioning the unity of the church.  The Just Out blog has the headline “Church of Scotland fears schism over gay clergy.” Pink News says “Thousands could leave Church of Scotland over gay clergy.”  Of course, there are more moderate headlines and articles, like the Herald Scotland column “Church needs dialogue over gay ministers.”  How much these stories are trying to get attention with dramatic predictions is yet to be seen.  And in the end, the process will be as important as the final decision that is reached.

So mark you calendars for the Church of Scotland GA beginning on 21 May, and include the order of the day on Monday 23 May.  And pray for the body as it gathers to discern God’s will together.

Whither The PC(USA)? Wither The PC(USA)?

5 Replies

What next?  What does this mean?

I suspect that many of you have also been hearing these questions whispered and shouted as Amendment 10-A looks fairly certain to be approved by the presbyteries and replace the “fidelity and chastity” section of the Book of Order.  And I suspect that you are also hearing in the discussion of its passage the suggestion that there will be a resulting increase in the already high departure rate from the denomination or the comments that the next major Book of Order section to be changed will be the definition of marriage (W-4.9001) and then an exodus will really begin.

Well, as regular readers are aware, I have a particular interest in the dynamics of the realignments in Presbyterian branches (example 1, example 2, example 3).  Needless to say, I have been thinking about some of these questions in the larger context of the history of American Presbyterianism and what the church might look like in the near future.  So here is a back of the envelope calculation and a thought experiment related to what is next.  Because this discussion is currently gaining momentum in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I will be focusing on that branch, but I think a lot of this is easily generalized to other branches and denominations.

Experiment 1: Reality Check – The theological controversy is not the only membership decline issue
Frequently in the PC(USA) we hear that the denomination is losing members because of the internal controversies.  Well, it is probably a bit more complicated than that.

If we look at the summary of comparative statistics for 2009, the most recent year that is available, we can first make a rough estimate of the replacement capacity of the PC(USA).  In 2009 there were 20,501 individuals age 17 and under that joined the church by affirmation of faith. This is effectively the “internal gain,” that is the kids that come through the system from member families.  This represents a 1.0% membership gain for 2009.  This is offset by those that leave the rolls due to their new membership in the Church Triumphant, that is, those that have died.  For 2009 that was 32,827 or a loss of 1.5% of the membership.  So the net of -0.5% represents the church’s inability to replace its membership internally.

The other thing is that all of the mainline churches are declining in membership.  But within this decline there is a difference in the rates of decline relative to the strength of internal controversy in the churches.  For the six traditional “mainline” denominations that make the National Council of Churches 25 largest list, the less contentious United Methodist Church and American Baptist Churches in the USA declined by 1.01% and 1.55% respectively.  The three with more heated internal controversy had larger declines: PC(USA) declined 2.61%, the Episcopal Church declined 2.48%, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America declined 1.96%.  It would suggest that we could attribute at least 1%, and probably a bit more, of the PC(USA)’s decline to the internal controversy itself.  But that is only about half the total decline with the other half broken into about one-third the lack of internal replacement and about two-thirds the general decline in the mainline and the trend towards non-denominationalism.

Now the case can be made that these three factors are nothing more than different facets of the same general problem that the mainline faces — a younger generation shuns the “institutional” nature of the church with its continuing controversies in a hierarchical setting and their departure for the non-denominational or the “nones” raises the median age and decreases the birthrate.  However, the apparent correlation of membership declines with internal controversy is striking but not a complete explanation.

Experiment 2: Where could things go from here?
This is a fairly simple thought experiment — Let us begin with the question of the different paths forward and exploring a range of possible outcomes and then reflect briefly on the likelihood of each.  I’ll be structuring this a bit like a decision tree so at some point I can revisit it and place probabilities on the various outcomes. Also, I am trying to keep this as a generalization so it is applicable in other instances. And along the way here I have a notation to systematically label the different cases.

The first question is whether the denomination remains as a single body ( A ) or formally divides ( B ).

For branch A, where the denomination remains a single body, we could imagine one outcome where a unifying state is found (A1) and another where the church is internally divided (A2).

I think that taking this one more level is appropriate, and so let me suggest that the unifying state could be either a formal arrangement that resolves the issues and all sides accept as a solution (A1a) and maybe they are even happy with – a “win-win” situation” – or an acceptance to live by the decision of the majority submitting to Presbyterian polity that the church has gone through the discernment process to reach the decision and the church lives with that (A1b).

Now what if there is one body but with internal divisions – there could be either a formal and institutionalized arrangement (A2a) or a de facto division into clearly defined but not formally recognized divisions (A2b).

The other top branch is the formal division of a denomination into two distinct and separate bodies.  I must admit a bit more wrestling with this classification scheme and I’m not sure that always carrying it two levels further down works.  One form would be a formal division without specific action on the part of either side (B1). (More clarification on this in a moment.)  Another option would be division by action of only one side (B2).  For this we could consider two cases, one where the action is taken by the majority/dominant/controlling side (B2a) and the other where the action is taken by the minority/dissenting side (B2b).  Finally, there would be another case (B3) where the action is taken by mutual agreement of both sides.

Now, some clarifications of this system. First, this is a unary or binary system and only considers what is going on in one body that may be dividing into two bodies.  It does not consider a ternary system where some fraction is moved between two bodies.  In that case it would be viewed as a division of one and a unification of the second.  Second, as this example suggests, this system does not “map” the evolution of a division but only captures a description and classification of it at one point in time — a snapshot at an instant.  Third, it simplifies the situation of a whole body down to one category while a more complex description of different conditions at various levels may be better.  Finally, I have not yet reflected this classification system onto the reverse case of the merging of bodies.

So a quick check as to whether this scheme makes sense — here are some examples from Presbyterian history.

A1a – I would place the initial response for the Adopting Act of 1729 into this category where a solution was found that, at least temporarily, resolved the polity issue.  This was also the hope for the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Uni
ty and Purity (PUP Report), although it is not clear that this hope was ever realized.

A1b – The category of living with the present polity even if opposed to it probably describes much of Presbyterian history — to use a liturgical analogy this is the “ordinary time” of our history.  This category does not preclude working to change what is disagreed with, but it suggests maintaining the system and the discussion while also maintaining a sense of being the Body of Christ together.

A2a – While the body living with a formal internal division is not at all common, it is not unheard of either.  This was part of the solution to reunify the mainline back in 1758 to resolve the Old/New Side split.  The existence of the continuing Old Side/New Side presbyteries in the following years is a suggested prototype for some of the flexible presbyteries and New Synod proposals circulating currently.

A2b – The case can be made that this unofficial status of division represents the present state of the PC(USA) with individuals identifying more with the various affinity groups in the church than with the denomination as a whole.

B1 – This is the category that I have the most difficulty defining because I am not sure that it can easily apply to a denomination as a whole, but rather represents a subdivision of the body.  However, I was looking for a category to represent the present church-by-church migration away from the PC(USA) through the New Wineskins organization.  So here, rather than leaving en masse, maybe the church divides through incremental departures.

B2a – Probably the premier example of the controlling group (and not necessarily the majority) forcing the division is the PCUSA General Assembly of 1837 where the Old School commissioners “locked out” a portion of the New School commissioners and controlled the Assembly.  It can be argued that this quickly became category B3 where the two sides basically agreed that they wanted to go it alone without the other.

B2b – This may be the most common category in the formal divisions of branch “B” with the majority group making a decision or disciplining a group or individual and that action precipitates a formal departure by members of the minority.  Well known examples of this division include the Disruption of 1843 in Scotland where the Free Church of Scotland formed from the established Church of Scotland and the controversies in the PCUSA in the 1930’s that would lead to a division and formation of a branch that would later become the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

B3 – The best examples I know of in this category are related to Presbyterian reunions where a small group dissents and is permitted to not be part of the merger and usually continue are their own individual branch.  This includes the continuing Free Church of Scotland churches that did not join the United Free Church in 1900, the churches from the Cumberland Presbyterian Church that did not join the PCUSA in 1906, the churches in the Presbyterian Church in Canada that did not become part of the United Church in 1925 and the Australian churches that did not join the Uniting Church in 1977 but continued as the Presbyterian Church in Australia.  Even more recently, with the reunion that formed the PC(USA) in 1983, there was an opportunity for churches that were part of the Presbyterian Church in the United States to depart after the merger.  It may be appropriate to have subcategories B3a for a mutual division that is not merger related and B3b for the case of a merger where a group is allowed to opt out of the union.

So, if you were keeping score at home you can see that the scheme I set up initially is not hypothetical but has examples from throughout Presbyterian history for each of the categories I suggest.

Discussion
So at this point some of you may be wondering whether my two experiments are “apples and oranges.”  After all, the first involves changes on the individual level and the second involves categorizing ecclesiastical changes at the highest levels.  Let me suggest that they are related…

These two forces are the tension the PC(USA), and other mainline churches, struggle with today.  Those who still honor or understand denominational identity are looking at how that identity can be perpetuated and the modern ethos asks what the need for denominations is in the first place.  Maybe the question to ask at this point is whether some of these categories of divisions could even happen today?  To put it another way – As Western religious culture has transformed to a non-denominational model would we see a denomination divide in the same ways that it has in the past?  Would we see a denomination truly divide at all or would it just dissipate?

Many of the great reorganizations and realignments in the Presbyterian church were based on the conviction of those involved that they were Presbyterian, but in good conscience could not accept some particular doctrinal or polity issue and so they removed themselves to be the variety of Presbyterians they thought God was calling them to be.

In the discussion above about membership loss the point is that some of the loss is not related to what it means to be Presbyterian, it is about finding a church that fits my tastes or has a style I can relate to.  If we are now in a non-denominational age then being a Presbyterian means a whole lot less than it did even 40 years ago.

Related to divisions in the church, this raises the question of whether a dissenting group could get enough critical mass to form a new Presbyterian branch.  That is why I was so determined to find some description for B1, the incremental informal departure.

So based on the present conditions which of these categories are likely outcomes and which are not?  Group A1 is probably not likely since the PUP Report was apparently not accepted as a unifying solution and the ongoing discussion over ordination standards and the questions about the future if 10-A passes seem to imply that there are concerns in some quarters of the current or future polity.  If we are looking for a unifying solution is must transcend the polity debates.  So, unless a unifying solution can be found, if we want to keep the PC(USA) together we are considering branch A2 – somehow living with or working out an internal division.  So far the General Assembly has been reluctant to approve flexible presbyteries or a parallel synod.  Whether you want to identify our current state as A1b or A2b the bottom line is that the membership decline will most likely continue as long as the current state continues — I would suggest considering alternatives.

Following the other path, there is discussion of a division in the church if 10-A passes.  I’m not sure I want to place exact odds on explicit division, or any particular form of formal division.  But as I mentioned above, the B1 division continues with departures of individual congregations (another one last week) and so like status quo on branch A, there is no reason to expect this not to continue.  The problem with branch B of course is that any alternative means two smaller denominations.  The alternatives, after doing nothing, are 1) keep working to find a unifying solution, 2) create internal parallel structures, 3) by one method or another create two smaller denominations and see if that configuration is stable for both of them.

Now, as you can see from my list above you can’t use the seven last words of the church here: “We’ve never done it that way before.”  You could argue that its not the way its supposed to be done.  I can relate to that — remember I have a good friend who pretty accurately describes me as a “polity fundamentalist.”  I don’t like the notion of a flexible ecclesialogy at all. Its just not… well, ITS NOT PRESBYTERIAN!

Please don’t think that I am abandoning Presbyterian polity for the purely pragmatic p
urpose of reversing membership decline.  But, for those of us who value Presbyterian polity it appears that we have two choices – 1) Maintain the status quo and live with 50,000 member/year losses or 2) Consider what it really means to be Presbyterian (sovereignty of God, connectionalism, meetings, discerning the will of God together, etc.) and find creative ways to be the Church in modern society while holding on to our core beliefs and (I think this is important) letting people know why we value the essentials of our polity.  If being Presbyterian means something to us let people know why!

I pray daily for the Middle Governing Bodies Commission.  I am encouraged by Tod Bolsinger’s comments at our Synod Assembly that the Commission will be looking for ideas to try on a demonstration basis.  I hope that we all have the courage to try some creative ideas that may or may not work, but show that we can still be Presbyterian and do things in a new way.  Maybe they would be along the lines of unifying ideas or maybe trying to live under the same tent with polity that differs a bit.  I don’t know but I look forward to the suggestions.

So where is the denomination headed?  Whither the PC(USA)? I don’t know.  But I do know that if we keep doing what we are doing the PC(USA) will continue to wither.

Postscript: After posting and reflecting on this piece I realized that a part in my original outline that hit the cutting room floor provided a certain balance to the tension I develop.  Rather than go back and add it to the original (there was a reason it got pulled) let me add three sentences here: What I don’t develop, but have mentioned elsewhere, is the non-organizational aspect of the membership decline.  What studies are finding (Almost Christian, Vanishing Boundaries) is the need for mainliners to develop their spiritual focus, depth and expectations.  If we subscribe to that remedy than we need to take Deep and Wide, or similar initiatives, seriously.

Presbyterian Mutual Society — Full Court Decision And Payout Plan

Leave a reply

It took about a month but the full decision from Justice Deeny of the Northern Ireland Courts has now been published in the case related to the request of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland to be allowed to transfer £1 million to an assistance fund for investors in the failed Presbyterian Mutual Society.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
CHANCERY DIVISION
IN THE MATTER OF THE TRUSTS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN IRELAND
-and-
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARITIES ACT (NI) 1964
BETWEEN:
THE TRUSTEES OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN IRELAND – Plaintiff;
-and-
HER MAJESTY’S ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND – Defendant.

Now, regarding the actual decision, that the church could contribute these funds, there is nothing new here.  However, there are some details that I found interesting that were not included in the summary.

For example, I did not pick up the rushed nature of this case. Mr. Deeny writes:

[2]        The plaintiff had
asked for this matter to be listed for early hearing before the court as an
urgent decision was required to facilitate the creation of the access fund
prior to the adjournment of the Assembly on 24 March.  The court was told at
the hearing on 9 March that the General Board of the Presbyterian Church was
actually meeting the next day 10 March and were anxious to have a judgment by
then.  This is far from ideal.  The court has been able to facilitate this
request by announcing it’s ruling on 10 March.

The judge also makes several comments about the Mutual Society and how investors might have thought they had more security than they actually did:

[3]        It is necessary, for
present purposes, to recall the factual background to this application.  The
Presbyterian Mutual Society Limited received monies by way of investments or
loans akin to deposits from persons, largely in Northern Ireland.  It was not,
but might have been mistaken for, a building society.  Rather it was a Society governed
by the provisions of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (NI) 1969. 
This meant that it was not covered by Government guarantees extending to banks
and similar institutions when there was a run on such institutions after they
had lost the confidence of the public.  The Society went into administration on
17 November 2008.

and

[4]        By the Rules of the
Society the persons who invested up to £20,000 in the Society were credited
with  shares in the Society…  Sums invested
over and above that level, attracted by the interest rates which the Society paid,
were treated as loan capital to the Society.  This had an unintended effect that
these different investments, without the original investors very largely being
aware of it, had a very different status in law once it became apparent that
the Society would be unable to recover all its loans…

and

[6]        The Presbyterian
Church in Ireland had no legal responsibility for the Presbyterian Mutual
Society Limited.  That is clear.  But I accept the averments of Rev Dr Donald
Watts, Clerk of the General Assembly and General Secretary of the Presbyterian
Church in Ireland that this distinction was not apparent to very many members
of the Church.  They tended to consider the Church responsible for the
Society. 

[8]        It is important to bear in mind… what the membership of the Society was…  “Membership shall only be available to members of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland over the age of 18 years and their families… Any Corporation or unincorporated body shall be admitted to membership if the Board is satisfied that the Corporation is representative of members of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.”  Therefore the perception that the Presbyterian Church owed a moral obligation for the Society is not only a matter of nomenclature or encouragement to invest but also because  members of the Society had to be Presbyterians. [emphasis in the original]

Regarding the legal tests it turns out that if properly structured by the Northern Ireland Government this hearing would not be necessary and the church would be free to make the contribution to “relieve the poverty of individual members.”  When the General Assembly originally authorized the use of the money it was termed a “Hardship Fund.”  In the rescue package put together by the government it is now a “mutual access fund.” Considering the nature of the arrangement even the Attorney General did not want to authorize the expenditure, something “He was empowered to but
he thought it “preferential” (ie. preferable) to put the matter before the court.” (paragraph 13).

Beginning in paragraph 14 the decision begins with the legal restriction that “a charity is not allowed to make disbursements for
non-charitable purposes” but goes on to consider the case law regarding the situation when a charity has “a moral obligation to do so.”  There is an interesting reference in para. 17 regarding the British Museum and the “moral obligation” to grant an exception “so as to permit
restitution of cultural objects of which possession was lost during the Nazi
era (1933-1945).”

Why the court is involved is then clearly outlined:

[19]      The
attention of the court has been drawn to the briefing note regarding the mutual
access fund which accompanied the Minister’s letter of 26 January 2011.  From
that one learns that “there has been extensive opposition from PMS members to
the use of means testing and lobbying that the fund should operate on a formula
basis and Ministers are now prepared to adopt this approach.”  It is the
absence of means testing which deprives the gift of the sum of £1m of its
charitable character. 

 The decision, having considered the situation and the case law, now focuses on the specific decision at hand:

[20]      What is a moral obligation?  …It might be said that a person or organisation is under a moral obligation to act in a particular way towards another not by reason of law or force but because, on account of some earlier promise or the relationship with that other person or some other reason, their own conscience or that of right thinking people generally would consider they behaved honourably and well if they acted in that way but badly and wrongly if they failed or neglected so to do.  How would that apply here?  In his affidavits [the Clerk] gave a few moving examples of the hurt felt by some of these small savers deprived of an investment, modest by some standards but substantial to them.  These people will benefit by the scheme proposed to a considerable extent.  If the Church does not contribute it may well be that the scheme does not proceed and therefore the persons exposed to poverty will not be assisted.  By operation of law and the realities of the state of the Society it is extremely unlikely that they would receive any of their money back without such external assistance.

[21]      It is interesting to note that the [General Assembly] resolution of 2010 referred to the gift going to a solution which included a hardship fund i.e. that it would not be exclusively for those in hardship.  I bear in mind that any saver who finds themselves deprived of money which they had invested in an apparently reputable financial institution in the United Kingdom may be aggrieved to find themselves deprived of it when others in apparently similar circumstances have been compensated or indemnified. 

[22]      Perhaps the matter goes further.  It can be seen that the contribution of the Church is a modest one compared to the contribution to be made by taxpayers in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom.  It would be paradoxical if the general body of taxpayers consisting of Anglicans, Catholics, atheists, agnostics, Moslems and Jews (as well as Presbyterians and many others) contributed to this solution but the only Church to which the members of the Society could belong did not make any contribution. I am satisfied that [the Clerk’s] apprehension that the Presbyterian Church would be considered very widely to have acted badly in such circumstances is a correct one.  I am satisfied that the surrounding circumstances, including in particular the promise previously given by this resolution, constitute a moral obligation on the Church which enables and allows the court to authorise the payment of up to £1m towards this mutual assistance fund.

The decision continues a bit further to distinguish between “convenient” and “expedient” and just at the end make an interesting observation about the impact on the ministry of the PCI.  It points out that not only does this contribution deprive other charitable work of needed funds but that the Mutual Society issue has negatively impacted financial contributions to the church and this use of the money might improve that perception:

…I [that is Justice Deeny] take into account that there is a loss to the funds of the charity
i.e. the Church by the disbursement of this money but that the disbursement
will lead to very considerable benefit to a considerable number of members of
the Church and thereby in both the reputational and in all likelihood financial
sense to the Church itself, bearing in mind [the Clerk’s] report of some diminution
in contributions which may be caused not by the current economic difficulties
but by the controversy over the Presbyterian Mutual Society. It is in the
broader interests of the Church.

So, not as easy of a read as the Summary but still a fairly understandable, straight-forward and interesting decision.

In the month since the decision was handed down matters have progressed with the resolution of this specific issue.  The Administrator sent out the proposed settlement last Friday and the shareholders have a month to approve the package and if they approve it must also be approved by the courts.  If everyone agrees savers may get their money by June or July.  In a press release the Administrator warns “if the scheme is rejected the offer of money from the government and the Presbyterian Church will be withdrawn and the alternative will be liquidation of the Society’s assets.”  In the event of liquidation those shareholders in the smaller category will get nothing and the creditors with larger amounts would get about 72% of their investment back.

The scheme is moderately complicated with a sliding scale and proposed deferment of some monies to the creditors for ten years to allow for the smaller shareholders to get nearly complete recovery of their investment.  The scheme ensures that all savers will receive at least 77% of their outstanding holdings returned to them and small savers should get at least 97% returned.

So, after 30 months this saga appears to be finally coming to a resolution and, for some, a close.  It is of course far from over since the series of approvals are needed and even after approval the Administrator will still be working to repay a government loan and larger savers will be waiting the return of their deferred money.  But considering how long this situation went on with little news and occasional rumors, this is very significant forward progress.

Synod PJC Upholds the Presbytery PJC Decision In Spahr Case

2 Replies

The Rev. Jane Adams Spahr appealed the decision of the Presbytery of the Redwoods Permanent Judicial Commission in her disciplinary case to the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Pacific. The appeal was heard Friday March 25 and the decision released early last week.  The executive summary is that the Synod PJC, without dissent, did not sustain any of the 13 specifications of error and attached an interesting comment section which identifies two important points of polity for the General Assembly PJC to consider on further appeal.  The Presbytery PJC decision remains in force.

Briefly, the background in this case is that the Rev. Spahr was previously tried for preforming same-sex ceremonies that could be interpreted as a Christian marriage but the GAPJC found that, by the definition in the Book of Order, a same-sex union can not be a marriage and therefore she was not guilty because what she was charged with was not possible (Spahr(2008) decision).  The Rev. Spahr has since conducted more ceremonies and has been charged again with this offense.  The Presbytery PJC found her guilty, following the GAPJC precedent and interpretation, and gave her both a rebuke and an apology for having to find her guilty under current church law.

There is an important and pressing polity issue embedded in this case which is the situation of preforming same-sex marriages in a civil jurisdiction that permits them, in this case California during the “window period,” but when the church does not permit or recognize them.  In the recent Southard decision, which involved a marriage ceremony in Massachusetts, this issue was not addressed since the GAPJC dismissed the charges on appeal based on the fact that the Rev. Southard performed the ceremony before the Spahr (2008) decision was published.  [Correction: this issue was addressed – see the comment below]

In this present case the facts are not in doubt — all those concerned are clear that the ceremonies preformed were intended to be rituals of Christian marriage officiated by an officer of the church and were consistant with the laws of the State of California at the time of the ceremonies.  But as the SPJC notes at the beginning of the Preliminary Statement “…the outcome of this case depends upon the application of ecclesiastical precedent to those facts.”

The SPJC notes that the controlling precedent is the Southard decision and goes on to say:

The question is this: in the performance of these same-gender marriages, did Spahr’s participation in any way “state, imply or represent” that these ceremonies were ecclesiastical marriages, the standard set in Southard? This Commission concludes that it did.

After a summary review of the facts and testimony in the case the SPJC concludes with

The standard at the time Spahr conducted the weddings and the standard used by the PPJC in arriving at its decision was Spahr (2008), which held “that officers of the PC(USA) authorized to perform marriages shall not state, imply or represent that a same sex ceremony is a marriage.” Southard followed and offered a more narrow view. This Commission is compelled to follow Southard as the most recent decision by the GAPJC. There is no prejudice to the parties because the conduct prohibited by Southard is a subset of the conduct previously prohibited by Spahr (2008).

Because of the number of specifications of error, and the fact that none were sustained, I will not walk through all 13.  The key specification was number 2 — “The Presbytery Permanent Judicial Commission erred in constitutional interpretation when it determined the Rev. Jane Adams Spahr committed ‘the offense of representing that a same sex ceremony was a marriage.'”  The response to this specification is the longest, references back to the Preliminary Statement and wraps up with “Under both Spahr (2008) and Southard, the implication that a civil marriage is also an ecclesiastical marriage when performed for same-sex couples is a violation of the constitutional standard.”  The decisions in three other specifications refer back to this rational.

In three of the specifications of error (9, 10, and 11) the specification points to sections of the Book of Order related to inclusion and justice and makes the claim that the PPJC decision “…constitutes both error in constitutional interpretation and injustice in the decision.”  In all three cases the SPJC responded “The constitutional interpretations of Spahr (2008) and Southard by the PPJC are not inconsistent with the Book of Order when read as a whole.”

And for the polity wonks, the SPJC did their job fact checking the specifications of error because they note that one reference cited in a specification (G-5.0502) “has no application to this case” and that another (G-5.0202) does not exist.

The SPJC has included at the end of the decision a one-page Comments section where they make note of three important polity points in this case.

Let me jump to point 2 first, because this is the church-state matter I have raise before. The SPJC raises the concern for the pastoral role of Teaching Elders and here is their comment, in its entirety with my emphasis added in the last paragraph:

2. This Commission has a continuing concern about the pastoral role of a Minister of Word and Sacrament to those same-gender partners who wish to have a civil marriage. Spahr and Southard help to clarify the difference between civil and ecclesiastical weddings and the prohibitions required from PCUSA clergy in officiating at same-gender ecclesiastical weddings.

Our concern is for those PCUSA clergy who wish to officiate at a same-gender civil wedding. What would such a minister need to do to faithfully perform a civil wedding while conforming to PCUSA polity regarding ecclesiastical weddings? Would a Minister of Word and Sacrament be faithful to PCUSA polity, for example, if they officiated in a civil wedding outside a church plant, performed without any reference to the Directory for Worship, have the wedding license signed with no reference to a denomination or an ordination, or sans any other implication stated or unstated to the PCUSA? Or, is it a violation of church polity for PCUSA clergy to officiate at a civil same-gender wedding in all circumstances?

In a time when increasing numbers of states permit same-gender weddings and civil unions, it is important for the church to clarify how its clergy might pastorally participate in such secular occasions while honoring the PCUSA’s definition of Christian marriage.

I mention this first because I think their first points relates to this.  The first comment is about the role of the GAPJC in interpreting the constitution: “It is troubling that the GAPJC appears to have usurped the legislative province of the General Assembly when it created a new basis for discipline in Spahr (2008)… Whatever our opinion of the principle may be, it would appear that if the GAPJC has authority to proscribe specific behavior in this instance, it may do so in many other instances as well.”

An important and interesting observation, but one I do not entirely agree with.  I agree that any issue is best dealt with through the full General Assembly, but we also must realize the the Assembly has limitations in time.  At one time in the mainline church, and currently in some Presbyterian branches, the full GA sits as a judicial body deciding such cases. However, with typically a dozen cases now coming to the GAPJC between Assemblies there is no time in the full Assembly’s schedule for individually hearing these cases themselves.  For purposes of expediency and efficiency the GAPJC has been empowered as a commission to act with the Assembly’s authority in these matters.

Regarding legislative action on these matters the Assembly has had the opportunity to speak and has chosen not to.  Even regarding the formation of the Special Committee on Civil Union and Christian Marriage, on which I served, the Assembly charged us with writing a social witness document and explicitly charged us not to write a polity statement. Given this vacuum the GAPJC was in the position to fill it when a question arose.  While I fully agree that “The General Assembly and the presbyteries are more representative and better equipped to consider such matters by the usual practice of amending the Book of Order,” to date they have not, or are content to let the GAPJC decisions be the guiding authority.

Finally, the third comment is a message to us all and is important enough to quote it in full:

3. The Presbyterian Church (USA) has had a long season of discourse and debate regarding issues involving the participation of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons within the life of the church. Bound by the call of Scripture and Christ’s message of grace and love, many have chosen to stay in the midst of conflict to serve as advocates for those people and issues important to them. This Commission heard argument referencing the personal and poignant nature of this debate from participants on all sides who care at deep levels about the direction the church may go. The goodwill evidenced between the parties and their commitment to the church’s discernment process was an example of how members may remain faithful to their convictions yet further the resolution of conflict. In her decision to stay within the bounds of the PC(USA) and be subject to the church’s polity and discipline, Rev. Spahr’s ministry provides another example of engagement and commitment. May the church, as it continues this debate, find friends among colleagues in ministry and work with them, remaining subject to the ordering of God’s Word and Spirit.

So for the moment nothing has
changed in this debate.  The indication is that there will be an appeal to the GAPJC so we will have to wait for that to play out before we have an interpretation and guidance on the nature of marriage as described in Confessions and the Book of Order. Stay tuned…