PC(USA) GAC Meeting: Change is coming. Will it be enough?

Leave a reply

To expand the alphabet soup in the title, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A)‘s General Assembly Council (GAC) concluded their fall meeting just over two weeks ago in Louisville and everywhere there was talk of change.  The question of course is will it happen and if so, will it be enough?  Let me discuss what has come out from the Presbyterian News Service.

It should be noted that this meeting included the executives of Middle Governing Bodies (MGB’s, that would be presbytery and synod representatives).  This was highlighted in the article titled “ Consensus sought on communication strategy.”  This reports begins by saying:

General Assembly Council (GAC) Executive Director Linda Valentine has
said that Presbyterians around the church repeatedly tell her the
denomination needs to improve its communication efforts.

I would disagree somewhat:  I think that the communications efforts are generally good.  I think it is the message, coordination, and uneven levels of coverage that need to be improved.  OK, maybe that would be included in “communication efforts” but I think there are levels of nuance here.  I’ll get back to that in a moment.

This article continues on to talk about Karen Schmidt’s presentation to the GAC and MGB representatives.  Ms. Schmidt is the new deputy executive director of communication and funds development for GAC.  She comes with corporate experience and is looking to  develop a corporate approach to communication strategy for the PC(USA)  including “branding.”  To help develop this strategy she asked those at the meeting a series of questions.  By a wide margin, the representatives said that “the whole church” is “doing the talking,” they agreed that we are “the church” (as opposed to a type of charitable organization), and that the audience is the people in the pews.  Also by a wide margin those present felt that communication should be identified as coming from the Presbyterian Church (USA) as opposed to one of its agencies.  Finally, the participants ranked “Foster/improve climate of trust,”, “Engage to empower/drive support,” and “grow membership/worship attendance” as the primary purposes of the communication.

All of this sounds nice, but part of the problem over the years has been agencies, or even corporations, related to the PC(USA) making statements (or publishing books) that don’t represent approved policy or doctrine but are viewed as coming from the PC(USA) as a unit and not that branch of it.  And yes, it does speak to the people in the pews.  At least that is the audience that pays the most attention even if that is not the intended audience.  So, if the PC(USA) does develop a unified communication strategy it had better be just that – unified.  And if they are going to speak for the denomination as a whole, it needs to be consistent with the policy and doctrine of the denomination.

Now, on to some more change…

Another article from the Presbyterian New Service titled “ Sea Change: New PC(USA) staff transform evangelism and world mission efforts” shows the new directions in Louisville.  The article begins with:

New staff people are bringing about a sea change in
the way the Presbyterian Church (USA) carries out its ministries in
evangelism and world mission.

Tom
Taylor, deputy executive director for mission, Eric Hoey, director of
evangelism and church growth, and Hunter Farrell, director of World
Mission, outlined their new approach to the Evangelism and Witness Goal
Area Committee of the General Assembly Council meeting here Sept. 20.

In the article it talks about how Rev. Taylor wants to “develop a culture of evangelism and mission in the whole denomination” and that the seven GAC “program areas” have been renamed “ministry areas.”  He also talked about their “buzz word” acronym CARE in decision making.  Does the decision conform to “Collaborative, Accountable, Responsive and Excellent.”

I have come to appreciate the very candid and honest comments from Eric Hoey.  (I note his comments on the PCUSA membership decline in this previous post.)  In this article it talks about his talking to his staff in Louisville about what they understand their work to be.  The article says of his impression of the staff from talking to them since he arrived a few weeks ago “…they lack focus and cohesiveness and are somewhat dispirited by
uncertainty about funding and the continuation of their positions as
the new GAC structure unfolds.”

Finally, the brand new Director of World Mission, Hunter Farrell, spoke.  The article says of his comments:

He said he wants to bring together the new
Presbyterian Global Fellowship, middle governing body executives,
seminary professors of mission, the Witherspoon Society, Antioch
Partners ( a joint effort of the Presbyterian Frontier Fellowship and
the Outreach Foundation), General Assembly mission staff and others.
“All these groups have their perspective about what God is doing in
this world.”

Instead of each group doing their own thing, he wants them to see how they can more effectively accomplish mission together.

Again, focusing the effort and trying to get a variety of groups on the same page.  And an impressive accomplishment if he gets all those groups at the same table.

While I have previously talked about whether the new blood would be able to make changes in the corporate culture, after hearing these comments, and the unified front of Taylor, Hoey, and Farrell, I now have guarded optimism that they will be successful.  The questions do remain about whether they will meet resistance, how much change they can affect, and will it be the right type and enough to revitalize the denomination?  Time will tell.

Reaction to Rev. Kirkpatrick’s decision to not run for fourth term

Leave a reply

To summarize the reaction to Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick’s decision, it has been predictable.  Those that he is closely associated with praise his service, those on the conservative side thank him for making a wise decision for the good of the denomination.  Some examples…

The World Association of Reformed Churches, of which he is currently serving as president, has issued a nice press release praising his service and being a person of “deep faith, biblical and theological depth of understanding, vision, courage and leadership skills.”

Most progressive organizations and blogs, such as the Witherspoon Society, seem to just cite or reprint this release or the Presbyterian News Service release about Rev. Kirkpatrick’s departure without additional comment.

On the conservative side, the reaction is led by the Institute for Religion and Democracy’s Presbyterian Action arm that issued a press release thanking Rev. Kirkpatrick for “graciously” not running again.  In the press release, James D. Berkley, the Presbyterian Action Director, is quoted as saying “I commend Clifton Kirkpatrick for his characteristic graciousness in
displaying the courage to step aside to allow new leadership to emerge.”  If you want more free-wheeling commentary on this you can check out Mr. Berkley’s blog appropriately named “ The Berkley Blog,” especially his entry titled “ Stated Quirks.”

Another interesting blog post on the subject comes from Jody Harrington in her blog Quotidian Grace where she has a concise post titled “ Kirkpatrick to step down.”  In there she writes:

While it’s tempting to view his retirement as paving the way for positive changes for the denomination, the truth is that renewal of the PCUSA is not the job of the Stated Clerk alone, but of all of us who care about the church, with the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

But maybe the best part of her post is in the comments section where there is a “Draft QC for State Clerk” movement.

Dr. Ian Paisley to step down as moderator of the Ulster Presbytery

Leave a reply

While the decision by Rev. Kirkpatrick to not run for another term as stated clerk was awaited news to US Presbyterians, an even more notable Presbyterian departure was announced over the weekend.

It was announced late last  Friday night in Belfast, Northern Ireland, that after a five hour presbytery meeting, the Rev. Dr. Ian Paisley decided he would not run for another term as Moderator of the  Ulster Presbytery of the Free Presbyterian Church.

This is  a significant event from both a secular political viewpoint as well as an ecclesiastical and polity perspective.

Politically, this is important because the 81 year old Rev. Paisley is also the First Minister of Northern Ireland and the political leader of the Protestant side of the government.  Up to this point, with his continuing religious involvement, there has been a certain overlap of church and state.  This overlap will continue to a degree because the Rev. Paisley will continue as pastor of Martyrs Memorial Church of Belfast, but not to the degree it had while he was moderator.

This religious overlap is due to the fact that not only is the Rev. Paisley the Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church, but he has been for every year but one since he essentially founded the denomination in 1951.  While the Free Presbyterian Church has taken a more international turn over the last decade or so there is still a recognition of its roots in Northern Ireland and Rev. Paisley’s role in its history.

As a good GA Junkie would recognize, there are some apparent differences here with Presbyterianism as we recognize it in most other circumstances.  In particular, most of the time a Moderator of a Presbytery or General Assembly only serves for one term honoring the Presbyterian value that power is vested with the body not with any individual and multiple terms in leadership would tend to enhance power.  As you might suspect, a significant power base has build up around Rev. Paisley because of his near-perpetual office.  But, it might not surprise you to know that the Free Presbyterian Church, at least in Ireland, does not have a written Book of Order, or equivalent so the use of the word “polity” here is a bit loose.

Because of the political implications there are numerous news stories out about this.  Here is one from the BBC.  It will be interesting to see if any of the church order repercussions make it into the news or blogosphere.

PC(USA) Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick will not seek fourth term

Leave a reply

It was just announced by the PC(USA) Presbyterian News Service that the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) will step down when his current term ends at the General Assembly in 2008.  Rev. Clifton Kirkpartick has served three four-year terms and says he will now devote his time to his family and his other position as the president of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. Rev. Kirkpatrick’s full statement can be found in the press release.

For any State Clerk candidates out there here is your chance.  The Stated Clerk Nominating Committee will post the application materials on the PC(USA) web site soon.

EPC update on the Transitional Presbytery

Leave a reply

The latest issue of the “ EP News,” the on-line newsletter of the General Assembly office of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), has an update on their Transitional Presbytery to provide a path for PC(USA) churches, especially those who are part of the New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC), to join the EPC.  The newsletter says:

As of August 21, the following churches and
pastors have been received into the NW/EPC Transitional Presbytery: 
Central Presbyterian Church, Huntsville, AL (Randy Jenkins, pastor),
First Presbyterian Church, Quincy, IL (Rod Bakker and Kevin McGinnis,
pastors), The Forks of the Brandywine Presbyterian Church, Glenmoore,
PA (Andy Curtis, pastor), Great Valley Presbyterian Church, Malvern, PA
(Dan Stewart, pastor), and Upper Octorara Presbyterian Church,
Parkesburg, PA (Bill Kelly, pastor).  Hope Presbyterian Church of Rogue
River, OR (Brian Boisen, pastor), has been received pending their
dismissal from the PCUSA.  Also, Sean Martin has been received as a
minister member of the presbytery.  He will be laboring outside the
bounds at Covenant Presbyterian Church, Simsbury, CT.

The article also lists one more church, Grace Chapel of Madison, MS, which has also been received by the administrative commission.  I interpret this differentiation to mean that Grace Chapel is moving to the EPC but is not a NWAC church.

Overturn on appeal of Redwoods vs. Spahr: Synod PJC decision

Leave a reply

Thanks to Rev. Jane Adams Spahr’s web site we have a pdf with the scanned image of the Synod of the Pacific PJC decision overturning the Presbytery PJC acquittal of the Rev. Spahr for preforming same-sex weddings.  Since it is an image I won’t be including as many quotes from the decision as I might if I could cut and paste the text.

There were three points of appeal for the Presbytery of the Redwoods prosecuting team.  The substantial one was that the Presbytery PJC’s decision that same-sex weddings were not specifically prohibited by the PC(USA) Book of Order and a 1991 Authoritative Interpretation was in error.  By a vote of 6-2 the SPJC sustained this error citing the Book of Order, the 1991 AI, and the GAPJC case of Benton vs. Presbytery of Hudson River.  The decision says:

Taken as a whole, the Book of Order, the 1991 AI, and the Benton case, make clear that ministers are not to conduct ceremonies represented as marriages between persons of the same sex.  Regardless of the expression of conscience by the Rev. Dr. Spahr, she may not circumvent the standards of the Church.  Although the Rev. Dr. Spahr had acted with conscience and conviction, her actions were contrary to the constitution as it is authoritatively interpreted, is therefore subject to censure. [sic]

On two technical matters the SPJC sustained the errors unanimously.  The first was a PPJC commissioner who should have been recused because she participated with Rev. Spahr in another “marriage ceremony.”  The SPJC decision says

We view the likelihood of tainting the proceeding as substantial.  A 6-1 vote on the decision does not cure the error. In judicial proceedings avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest is critical.

The second technical matter was that the PPJC did not enter the decision on each charge separately in the decision.  They were advised to follow the proper procedures in the future.

The Synod PJC imposed the censure of rebuke.

There are two minority reports.  One signed by both dissenting commissioners argues that since these ceremonies are not an essential tenent of the Reformed faith they should be subject to freedom of conscience.  The second minority report, signed by only one of those two dissenting commissioners, argues that none of the cited authority actually prohibits ministers from preforming these ceremonies.

Since my initial post with the news, the Rev. Spahr has issued a press release which is posted on her web site quoting her as saying she is “deeply saddened that the church has chosen not to recognize these loving relationships.”  The press release is also posted at That All May Freely Serve.  I have seen nothing yet from the Presbyterian News Service.

The press release from Rev. Spahr does confirm that she will appeal to the GAPJC.

Breaking news: Synod PJC reversals acquittal on Spahr case

Leave a reply

Three days later than expected, the PJC of the Synod of the Pacific has just issued its decision in the review of the Presbytery of the Redwood’s acquittal of the Rev. Jane Spahr where she was charged with preforming lesbian weddings.  According to an Associated Press story now posted as a news article from the San Jose Mercury News the synod pjc ruled 6-2 that the Rev. Spahr had acted with “conscience and conviction” in preforming the weddings reversing the presbytery decision.

The article also says that the decision was delivered to the parties yesterday evening by certified mail.

I expect: 1) A lot more details to be released shortly and 2) the decision to be appealed to the GA PJC.

I’ll post again in a couple of hours.

Comments on the Presbyterian Coalition Gathering

Leave a reply

A couple of quick comments on the Presbyterian Coalition Gathering X in Houston this last week.  I am mostly dependent on the coverage from the LaymanOnline and some info from the Outlook.  I have not seen any coverage in other blogs or the Presbyterian News Service.  Since you can get the news from them if you are interested in more details, I want to add a couple pieces of analysis and commentary.

The Outlook placed the attendance at 125 and in one article on the Layman a speaker lamented the small attendance.  This leads me to wonder about the state of the “conservative” organizations in the PC(USA).  Is this decline at the Coalition Gathering just part of the life-cycle of the organization, due to interested individuals and churches getting spread out over more organizations, and/or a shift in momentum (and strategy?) to something like the New Wineskins group.  This may be echoed in the comments of the co-moderator of the Coalition, Jerry Andrews, as quoted by the Layman: “American
evangelicals are the most contentious group on the face of the Earth. If we didn’t argue
all the time, we probably wouldn’t be evangelical.” Yes, I took that out of context, but I do think there is something to this characterization and this argumentative nature makes evangelicals a bit restless and prone to “move onto the next thing.”

I enjoyed the Layman’s article about the presentation by the Rev. Tom Taylor, deputy executive director
for mission in the General Assembly Council.  I have been keeping track of Tom and his time in Louisville because I consider his tenure there a bellweather for the possibility of change within the institutional leadership.  His appearance at the Gathering I consider a positive step in and of itself.  But the Layman got it right when they observe that Rev. Taylor has not been on the job for a full year yet and has not had an opportunity to be part of the budgeting process.  That is where the rubber will meet the road and we will see if he and other fresh evangelicals can have an influence or if they will be tilting at windmills.  (Where the heck am I getting all these clichés this morning?)

I found it interesting that the Outlook story did not cover Tom Taylor’s remarks or presence.  I found it more interesting and even disturbing that a major staff member from the GAC speaks at the Coalition Gathering and there is no Presbyterian News Service coverage of that or anything related to the Gathering.  However, they did just release a story about the November Covenant Network Conference. I won’t say that it is necessarily institutional bias, there could be many reasons for the missing coverage, but it sure could be viewed as such.  As I keep telling my fellow members of a synod task force:  Yes, doing this or that may be extra work, but if we want to be viewed as having done a credible and balanced job we need to do a little bit more to be sure all sides feel they have been properly heard.

Developments in the Federal Vision Theology debate

2 Replies

Our story so far…

There is a theological perspective that has been gaining some recent popularity known as Federal Vision Theology (FV) with ties to another, longer established view called the New Perspectives on Paul.  For background on all this you can go to my original post or a great web site at www.federal-vision.com.

This past June the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) approved, by a wide margin, a report critical of this theology and its errors in orthodoxy relative to the PCA standard, the Westminster Confession.

There was considerable discussion about the report before ( 1, 2, 3), during, and after the GA, not just by PCA members but by those in other reformed denominations who are also wrestling with this.  (It probably goes without saying that the PC(USA) has its own controversies and is probably the one reformed denomination in the US that is not looking at this.)

Being some distance from the PCA GA I wanted to look at what has happened since then on this topic.

First, I was very impressed how few “knee jerk” reactions there were.  Responses and commentary were very reasoned, and for the most part respectful, and seemed to shift somewhat from a specific argument about the report’s points and process to a more general and “big picture” view of the situation.  Essentially “here we are, what does it mean.”

One of these reasoned responses was a Joint Federal Vision Statement issued about July 30 and signed by eleven ministers, including all that I would consider the “usual suspects.”  (movie reference – not intended to be negative)  There is one page of introduction, six of doctrinal statements in the form of “We affirm… We deny…” and the final half page with the signatories.  It should be noted that about half of these pastors are with churches that are in the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches, the CREC acronym that is found within the Statement.  Most of the remainder are PCA churches.  One point that I found confusing is that the intro to the statement describes CREC as a “confederation” not strictly a denomination but the web site is loaded with denomination language.

Following the issuance of this statement there has been some analysis of it and it has served as material for debate and rebuttal in the blogosphere.  The most comprehensive critique of the statement has to be by the Rev. Lane Keister in his blog Green Baggins.  I will not even attempt linking to individual posts since he went through the statement with separate posts analyzing and critiquing each individual section.  Lots of reading there if you are so inclined.  Click on his topic Federal Vision.

A second multi-part, but slightly less extensive analysis can by found on the blog Reformed Musings and there is another by the Rev. R. Scott Clark on The Heidelblog.  This latter one has an interesting twist since the Rev. Clark is at a church that is part of the United Reformed Churches in North America www.urcna.info or www.covenant-urc.org/urchrchs.html whose General Synod this past summer adopted resolutions on three points of “sola fide” and nine points of the Federal Vision Theology and he discusses those in his blog as well.

While the blogs above are generally critical of the FV, the signatories of the statement are not silent and you can find the defenses and responses of Douglas Wilson on his blog Blog and Mablog and those of Jeff Meyers on his Corrigenda Denuo.

On the general topic of the FV controversy, one of my favorite blog posts since the report was adopted is by Kevin D. Johnson on July 2 in his blog Reformed Catholicism.  It is a long reflection titled Problems with Federal Vision Theology and Practice.  What strikes me about his viewpoint is first that it comes from his own experience over multiple years as a one-time FV defender and second that his concerns include the pastoral aspects of the theology and controversy.  He writes:

[A]ny critique of the Federal Vision theology should at least first deal
with the pastoral context with which it was originally framed. Is
Federal Vision theology the appropriate pastoral response to the
nominalism apparently latent in the late twentieth-century Reformed
world? In the last five years has Federal Vision theology capably
addressed this and related issues with any sort of effectiveness in
calling youth and children back to Reformed or Presbyterian churches?

Finally, I would like to note one other blog entry, but with a bit of hesitance since it is a bit polarizing and strongly worded.  However, I found the information in the article “ Ligonier Ministries Responsible for Federal Vision Converts?” interesting and, as far as I know the history, accurate.  This article describes how the now defrocked (for other reasons) R. C. Sproul Jr. provided a platform for major FV advocates such as Douglas Wilson and Steve Wilkins in the Ligonier Ministries publication Tabletalk while he was still the editor.  It raises the interesting question of why the Rev. R. C. Sproul Sr. Ph.D. (a PCA pastor and professor) allowed this to happen while he, at least based on his two minute speech that I listened to during this year’s debate on the FV report, favored the PCA report.  The bottom line of the article is that by promoting the FV theology the result was actually to lead people away from the Reformed faith and into either Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic churches.

Interesting stuff.  But as multiple observers are now wondering, when will enforcement of the report begin?  And will FV proponent pastors and churches stick around to be heard or quickly move to the CREC.  Similar dilemma to the PC(USA) controversy, different topic.

Appeal of Rev. Jane Spahr’s PJC decision

Leave a reply

Last Friday, August 17, the Synod of the Pacific Permanent Judicial Commission heard the appeal of the acquittal of the Rev. Jane Spahr by the PJC of the Presbytery of the Redwoods.  Back in March, 2006, the Rev. Spahr was acquitted of having violated the PC(USA) prohibition on ministers preforming same-sex weddings. As a recent PC(USA) New Service article summarizes the decision at that time:

But since the section of the PC(USA)’s constitution that reserves
marriage for a man and a woman “is a definition, not a directive,”
Spahr “was acting within her right of conscience in performing marriage
ceremonies for same-sex couples,” the presbytery tribunal of ministers
and elders said in a written ruling.

The decision was appealed to the synod PJC by the Presbytery of the Redwoods.  The decision is expected today or tomorrow.  Whichever way the synod PJC goes and appeal to the GA PJC is expected.

The Rev. Spahr is set to retire at the end of this month from her position as the Founding Minister Director of That All May Freely Serve.  The weekend of August 11-12 there was a series of events honoring her and her service at the Downtown United Presbyterian Church of Rochester, NY.

And now a comment:  I found a quote from the Rev. Robert Conover, the stated clerk of the Presbytery of the Redwoods interesting.  The PC(USA) news articles quotes him as saying

“My sense is that our presbytery more or less
reflects the denomination as a whole in that we’re relatively evenly
divided in our perspective. A significant portion of the presbytery is
very supportive of Janie and her actions and a significant portion of
the presbytery is not. So regardless of how the case is ruled on, at
whatever level, there will be those who are disappointed.”

From the south end of the state of California the Presbytery of the Redwoods carries a very distinct reputation as a liberal, not a divided presbytery.  In addition to the Jane Spahr case, the evidence from down here includes an acknowledged lesbian candidate for ministry who transfered her presbytery of care from the Presbytery of San Gabriel to the Presbytery of the Redwoods when it looked like she would not be approved for ordination by San Gabriel.  She was ordained by Redwoods in the Fall of 2001.  As a story from the Presbyterian News Service at that time describes it the approval hinged on what is meant by “chaste.”  Maybe the Rev. Conover is right, I know that some of the presbyteries around here are not as conservative as we are sometimes made out to be, but because of evidence like these two stories this is the reputation Redwoods has.