The report from the General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical Relations with their Recommendations Regarding the Evangelical Presbyterian Church has been released and it is “interesting” reading in a number of senses of the word.  This report to the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) resulted from a referral from the 218th GA .  The opening paragraph of the report probably does as good a job as I could summarizing how we got here:

This report comes in response to an overture from the Presbytery of Peace River to the 218th General Assembly (2008) of the PC(USA) that would have asked the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC) to investigate the role of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) in persuading PC(USA) congregations to disaffiliate from the PC(USA) and be dismissed to the EPC. The assembly referred the overture to the General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical Relations, which appointed a task group to make recommendations.

So it is looking at the “role” of the EPC.  Going back to the original overture it asks of the Assembly:

The Presbytery of Peace River respectfully overtures the 218th General Assembly (2008) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to request the Executive Office of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches to investigate the actions and conduct of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, as described below, and to take appropriate action.

The described “actions and conduct” are:

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church is actively pursuing a strategy to persuade Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) churches to disaffiliate with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and be dismissed to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church has created a transitional presbytery to facilitate the process.

So this began not with the “role” of the EPC but with two specific complaints – “a strategy to persuade” and creating “a transitional presbytery.” The report addresses this in the Findings section at paragraph VI.4.l:

l.    There was no evidence that the EPC took the initiative in entering PC(USA) congregations to speak against the PC(USA), for the EPC, or about affiliation with the EPC. However, there was ample evidence that when invited by a session or pastor, EPC representatives went in without consultation with the appropriate judicatory within the PC(USA) and spoke freely.

OK, there is the answer that the presbytery asked for in the overture – The Evangelical Presbyterian Church did not initiate but did not discourage.  So now that we have the answer we can now turn off the lights, lock the door, and go home, right?  “By no means” — we are Presbyterians so there are 15 pages of report to document this and present recommendations to try to patch up relations with the EPC, acknowledge the pain of separation within the PC(USA), and try to find ways to do better in the future.

OK, having gotten my snarky comments about “mission creep” out of the way, let me begin again by saying that I found a lot to like in this report.  It is precise and accurate about many historical and polity points, a feature I appreciate.  That said there are some aspects that bother me but these are mostly in what was left unsaid.

It is worthwhile to begin the detailed analysis with the remainder of the Preface which makes a very important distinction in this:

The task group met with presbyteries in which congregations had departed the PC(USA), with pastors and members of congregations who had departed or were considering departing the PC(USA) including those affiliated with the New Wineskins Association of Churches, and with leadership of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. In listening to people’s stories and in reviewing documents, the task group sought to distinguish between actions of Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and actions of the New Wineskins Association (which consists of PC(USA) pastors and members, as well as former PC(USA) pastors and members who are now affiliated with the EPC).

The distinction is important in that the actions of the New Wineskins members can be considered matters internal to the PC(USA), at least at their root. Actions of the EPC, on the other hand, are matters between churches—churches that are both members of WARC. It is this latter category that is the focus of the original overture. The report that follows presents the findings of the task group regarding activities that are internal and external to the PC(USA), and presents recommendations on how the PC(USA) should move forward in its relations with the EPC.

I very much appreciate the tone throughout this report that this is a very complicated issue and that the EPC as a denomination must be viewed as an independent player despite the fact that it has the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery.  It is also important to remember, and this is one of the points that I think is passed over too lightly in the report, that the New Wineskins Association of Churches is a broad organization with members, individual and congregational, that have a wide range of opinions about departure from the PC(USA).  Any categorization of the NWAC should be done carefully.  The disaffiliation portion of the strategy report must not be viewed as the guidelines for all the members.

Maybe the historical point I most appreciate is the honest appraisal of the origin of our two denominations (V.1):

The histories of the EPC (with its organizing General Assembly in 1981) and the PC(USA) (with its organizing General Assembly in 1983) are deeply woven together, particularly since a large number of the congregations and ministers making up the EPC in its formative years had previously been a part of the PC(USA) or its predecessor bodies. Both the EPC and the PC(USA) lay claim to deep roots within the Presbyterian and Reformed traditions of the larger Christian family tree.

Yes, the EPC and the PC(USA) share the same root stock in American Presbyterianism, we are not some distant cousins but very close siblings.  And yes, the EPC predates the PC(USA).  And the report shares the vision of the EPC from its founding – “From those beginnings, however, the EPC was determined to grow by planting new congregations.” (V.3)

This section goes on to discuss the “trust clause” and I must compliment the Task Group on their historical footnote on the legal basis for it.  (And some of the members of the special committee I was on thought one of mine was long )  The report says of the differing perspective of the two denominations (V.3):

The EPC had developed a denominational understanding of property that is substantively different from the understanding in the PC(USA). The EPC and its leadership see no reason for holding onto congregations, ministers, or real property if those assets will help those persons to be more effective in their mission. In this area, the EPC’s ecclesiology differs significantly from the PC(USA)’s.

And later (VI.5.b) the report says this about the disagreements over the trust clause:

b.  During the task group’s visits, the issue that garnered the most theological—and legal—disagreement was that of the PC(USA)’s property trust provision in Chapter 8 of the Book of Order. What was debated among the NWI/NWAC’s national leadership played out “on the ground” in local congregations regarding property. Those desiring to leave saw this as a violation of their conscience, and their understanding of the nature of the church. The PC(USA) loyalists defended the ownership of property under the trust provision as biblical and held in Presbyterianism long before the explicit Book of Order clause. The different ecclesial understandings of the two denominations led to disagreement not only around ordination standards, property, and theology, but also around the meaning of congregational independence and connectionalism/congregationalism.

As I read this report I kept thinking that the task group, and often the denomination as a whole, seems to miss the tension inherent in the trust clause and only concentrates on the ultimate communal ownership of the property.  Yes, we have the trust clause (G-8.0200)

All property held by or for a particular church, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)… is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

But the question that I don’t hear asked as loudly, here or anywhere, is why do we have the concept of the trust clause to begin with?  While the language of the trust clause itself was inserted to make the concept explicit following a U.S. Supreme Court Decision (see that historical note ) the report and a PC(USA) OGA Advisory Opinion (#19) are correct in pointing out that it intrinsically flows from our view of the church as a connectional system.  We belong to each other not because we chose to belong but because Christ calls us together.

But this is then viewed in the light of why Christ calls us together and in Chapter 3 of the Book of Order titled “The Church and Its Mission” it says (G-3.0400) “The Church is called to undertake this mission even at the risk of losing its life, trusting in God alone as the author and giver of life, sharing the gospel, and doing those deeds in the world that point beyond themselves to the new reality in Christ.”  And regarding the list of responsibilities of the presbytery all relate back to the opening statement that (G-11.0103) “The presbytery is responsible for the mission and government of the church throughout its geographical district.”  The tension of holding property is to be good stewards so it does the most good for building the Kingdom and furthering the mission given us by Jesus Christ.  I’m not sure we are as good as we could be about “a time to keep and a time to let go.”  In light of the ultimate call to forward the Kingdom, and acknowledging the theology behind the trust clause, I see no reason that the line from the report could not be rewritten to say “The PC(USA) and its leadership see no reason for holding onto congregations, ministers, or real property if those assets will help those persons to be more effective in their mission.”  In both branches the property is for the purpose of mission, the branches differ as to which governing body has responsibility for discerning the best use of the property in furthering mission.

Following from that the most meaningful part of this report, to me, is the section of the findings that demonstrate how our “keeping” and “letting go” need some work.  Here are excerpts from the report:

j.    In several cases, both New Wineskins representatives now in the EPC as well as PC(USA) representatives said that when presbytery processes were followed, the outcomes were better than if a congregation entered into litigation against the PC(USA) presbytery. In every instance where the civil courts were involved, representatives of both New Wineskins and loyalist PC(USA) leaders said it became extremely painful. (VI.2.j)

b.   The size of the congregation was often a driving factor in the approach to discussions and the process for departure. Smaller congregations with fewer human and real property assets were often more easily resolved. In other cases, especially when the congregation was larger, the presbyteries recognized the need to be immediately engaged, and the situation often led to civil litigation, resulting in very large costs—emotionally and financially—for all involved. (VI.4.b)

c.   In general, those congregations that followed an ecclesiastical process… fared better. Although it depends upon the state, courts generally have sided with the PC(USA)’s understanding of Chapter 8… In some cases, departing congregations relying on a legal strategy alone or in concert with an ecclesiastical one, lost additional money or property, and would have been much better off without civil action. Situations that involved a higher degree of trust and communication usually resulted in a negotiated settlement with which all parties could live and still feel respect for one another. Some of these situations even seemed to result in what was perceived by many as a “grace-filled” process. (VI.4.c, emphasis mine)

Friends, the single most important thing I took away from this report was those two final lines.  We need to remember the “trust clause” is ultimately there for advancing mission and nothing else.

Having said that I want to highlight one more plus and one more negative I see in this report and then get on with the recommendations to the 219th GA.

First, looking beyond the trust clause and discussing Presbyterian connectionalism in general, the report does a good job of developing the concept that congregations must be dismissed to another body.  There is no such thing as an independent Presbyterian church within the Presbyterian understanding of the church.  For those not familiar with the issue at hand, the EPC New Wineskins Presbytery is a transitional presbytery and is simply a place that a congregation can momentarily stop on their journey.  While there may be an intent to join a geographic presbytery there is also the possibility of being released as an independent congregation.  Unless the relationship is fixed and not transitional the PC(USA) understanding of the relationship finds it wanting.  (Now I want to go back and look at how churches transferring into PC(USA) non-geographic presbyteries were handled since those were also intended to be transitional presbyteries with limited life times.)

Second – On the one hand I found the report refreshing in the acknowledgement of the existence and role of what have come to be called the “Louisville Papers.”  These are documents put together by the Stated Clerk’s office to help guide presbyteries in the legal work of property disputes.  It is important to remember that they are legal memos and read as such.  They are strongly worded and have the touch of a lawyer out to win his/her case.  I talked about all this back in August 2006 when they were made public by the Layman.

The report also makes a big deal of a document that in some ways serves a similar role produced by the New Wineskins Association of Churches, New Wineskins Initiative: A Time for Every Purpose Under Heaven.  It is a publicly released document that talks about the future of the NWAC and in part acts as a guide for NWAC churches for the disaffiliation process.  Section VI.5 of this task group report says “The task group’s findings in local situations regarding a desire for ‘theological clarity’ mirrored the language of the New Wineskins Initiative’s national spokespersons.”  The report also constantly refers to the various disaffiliation options mentioned in the strategy paper.  What I did not see in the report was the view from the other side — when viewed from the perspective of a church trying to depart the PC(USA) the legal action taken by a particular presbytery followed the advice in the “Louisville Papers.”  Now I agree that the legal documents covered the full range of responses so basically anything the presbytery did could be seen as following that guide, but what the report does not say is that each side saw the other as having their own strategy piece.

Most of the Findings in the report were gathered from visits to presbyteries where members of the task group spoke to the presbytery leaders as well as leaders and members of churches, including disaffiliated churches, in that area.  It is worth noting that the group visited nine presbyteries out of around 40 that one list shows having churches that disaffiliated or considered doing do.

There is a lot more in the report but having covered the major points I got out of it let me turn to the recommendations.

1.   Affirm that

a.   the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is in correspondence with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, by virtue of our common membership in the World Alliance of Reformed Churches;

b.   our common membership in the World Alliance of Reformed Churches is a visible sign of our oneness in Jesus Christ; and

c.   as members of the body of Christ, we are all called to treat one another as followers of Jesus Christ.

2.   Request the World Alliance of Reformed Churches to create guidelines offering basic protocols for interactions and behaviors between its member denominations.

3.   Call the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to

a.   confess to the rich tradition of freedom of conscience that we claim as Reformed, Presbyterian Christians, and

b.   recognize that this same tradition causes us to be prone to separation, demonization of those with whom we disagree, and a captivity to insistence on our own rightness.

4.   Invite the Evangelical Presbyterian Church to enter into such a season of confession with us.

5.   Acknowledge the unique complexity of the relationship between the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, given the fact that the ecclesial roots of many churches, members, and ministers now in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church lie in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and its antecedent denominations.

6.   Invite the General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church to engage in bilateral dialogue concerning various dimensions of the relationships between the two denominations and its member churches, members, and ministers; and that a report from this dialogue be made to the 222nd General Assembly (2016), with an interim report made to the 221st General Assembly (2014).

7.   Direct the Office of the General Assembly to develop resources to support presbyteries with congregations and/or ministers engaged in a process of discernment or undergoing the process of dismissal, in light of denominational learnings in the recent past.

8.   Acknowledge the deep pain caused by the experiences of congregations departing or going through schism and of ministers departing, and call upon synods to consider developing care teams to listen to people’s stories, thereby enabling healing, with presbyteries also urged to extend extra care during such vulnerable times of congregational and presbytery life.

9.   Encourage presbyteries, congregations, and individual families who experience the pain of separation to recognize that there is more than one way to understand the same event and to pray for one another through our shared faith in Jesus Christ.

I will not analyze these recommendations on a point-by-point basis but take an overview of them generally.  It is important to note that they all reflect a sense of restorative and not punitive church discipline.

Having said that, I have to admit that after reading the report I am very surprised at the nature of the recommendations.  The first six recommendations, some with sub-points, of the nine total (two-thirds of them) in one way or another touch on the PC(USA)’s relationship with the EPC.  While the report discusses the NWAC very heavily there is only a light treatment of the EPC role in the text as a whole and the findings in particular.  The process says there was a meeting with four representative of the EPC but I did not see any discussion of how that meeting went, specifics of the discussion, or any formal or informal agreements mentioned in the text and therefore don’t see from where these recommendations derive.  After having had bi-lateral contact why do the recommendations have such a unilateral nature to them?  While I don’t expect a specific agreement with the EPC in the recommendations, I was searching the text for some indication of how these invitations would be received.  Yes, at present the PC(USA) GA action would be an invitation from us, but the body of the report characterizes the current situation only from the perspective of the one side.  Can it give us an indication of how the EPC would take the invitation “to enter into such a season of confession with us”?

So I don’t see the same proportionality of rational in the text as I see in the recommendations and from the information in the body of the report I have having trouble “connecting the dots” to arrive at what is asked in the recommendations.

I really like recommendation #2 that would have WARC create the “guidelines offering basic protocols for interactions and behaviors between its member denominations.”  As the history of this situation shows the PC(USA) and the EPC have been operating with different expectations and procedures for the exchange process and to somehow come to a standard understanding would be helpful for all involved and may help relieve pain and confusion that result when different bodies have different expectations.  The report says (VI.3.a)  “In various conversations with PC(USA) presbytery representatives, their expectation that normal, standard ecumenical courtesy would be extended by local or national EPC judicatory leaders was repeatedly frustrated.”  Is “normal, standard ecumenical courtesy” something that is codified somewhere (Miss. Manners for the Ecclesiastical?) or an unwritten set of expectations that can vary from denomination to denomination even in the Reformed stream?  It appears to be the latter if WARC is being asked to develop these.

Similarly, I appreciate #7 which would have the church develop resources that are pastoral rather than legal.

Finally, I think the task group did a good job with recommendations 8 and 9 that acknowledge the pain involved in these events and encourage everyone to recognize that “there is more than one way to understand the same event” and to deal with this in a pastoral manner.

UPDATE: The EPC has now issued a press release saying it is “grateful” that the task group find the accusation unsubstantiated.  It with holds additional comments until after the GA acts on the report.

So this report took 15 pages to not only answer the original question but to look at the whole mess, and yes it did get messy, and to provide us with a perspective and lessons from what has happened and recommendations to help heal the pain and move on with being the Church.  With that in mind let me return to, and close with, one of those quotes that made the report for me.  Remember, the 218th GA also called us to a “Gracious Separation” and it is not just what we do but how we do it that is a witness to the world.  This report has much to support that Gracious Separation —  And the world is watching .  From section VI.4.d:

In those situations where matters went to civil court… the time, energy, and money expended on both sides was enormous. Some New Wineskins leaders who sought membership in the EPC expressed that if they had it to do again, they would likely follow an ecclesiastical process with the presbytery. Likewise, the presbyteries that had to respond to civil action, or that chose to initiate it, regretted the court costs and intervention into the life and work of the presbytery. Court proceedings were universally perceived as draining of the financial and other resources of the presbytery. Also, what trust might have been present prior to legal proceedings was often ruptured once those proceedings began.