Category Archives: EPC

The 29th General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church — Working Out What It Means To Be Missional

Leave a reply

One of the most interesting items of business for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church at their General Assembly back in June was a statement on what it means to be “missional” and what that means for their structure and operations as a church.

Now, in the wider church these days it is the trend to be missional.  But what missional means is a bit like the statement in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone,” it means just what I choose it to mean –neither more nor less.”

For a good summary of the variability of the term there is an article from Christianity Today in March 2008.

Here is what the ECP GA adopted about being missional (taken from the Theology Committee report):

Our denomination wants to clarify for its member churches who we are and what we do as the United States becomes a mission field that is larger, more spiritually diverse and more antagonistic to the Gospel than ever before.

The term “missional” has become common and therefore highly nuanced. We desire to define missional in a simple and specific way so that each EPC church can commit to a unified, obedient pursuit of the expansion of the Kingdom of God.

  1. A missional church grasps that God is a missionary God and that “it is not so much that God has a mission for His church in the world, but that God has a Church for His mission in the world.”

  2. A missional church believes that the mission of God is rooted unalterably in the Bible, God’s infallible Word. Therefore, a missional church believes that the essence of God’s mission is to extend the reign of God and is summed up in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

  3. A missional church is a visible community of authentic disciples of Jesus Christ who gather for celebration, prayer and teaching and then disperse locally and globally as His missionaries to love and serve people. In so doing, a missional church both pursues and welcomes those who are searching as they are drawn into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. The greater purpose in all of this is that the earth will be filled with the worship of God.

  4. A missional church believes that it is more than just a collection of individuals, but that it is a community called together by God both to love Him and serve Him.

  5. A missional church is concerned with more than maintaining programs for existing members; it is called to mobilize itself both individually and as a community to daily self-sacrifice for the hurting world around them. A missional church is both inwardly strong and outwardly focused.

  6. A missional church perceives that the essence of these things is the essence of its existence. Therefore, a missional church will constantly seek to reevaluate itself as to whether or not it’s emphasis, organization, and activity effectively positions the church to partner with God in His mission.

  7. A missional denomination

    a. Believes that the location of ministry is the local church
    b. Is made up of local congregations committed to being missional
    c. Believes that the Presbyteries and General Assembly, being expressions of the larger church, have an important role to play in identifying, equipping and supporting leaders and churches. They are a key link in the principle of mutual accountability toward missional ministry and Biblical standards.
    d. Constantly examines whether its polity, structures and programs are supporting or inhibiting that missional commitment

First, this is clearly a very Presbyterian formulation of missional since it takes into account the full governing body structure of the denomination.  But, having said that it also affirms that the higher governing bodies are there to play a supporting role and for accountability.  The mission and ministry point of the church is the local congregation.

It has the sense of the sovereignty of God and the idea that God leads in mission and we in the church are participating with God.  To use my favorite phrase, “God acts first.”  It also reflects that God calls the church into being (“a community called together by God”).

In other business of the Assembly there was a very tangible result of the principles listed in #7 above.  The Committee on National Outreach proposed, and the Assembly approved, a change in their mandate that would reduce the size of the committee on the national level and move the responsibility for church planting to the presbytery level leaving the national committee to encourage and provide resources.  (It begins on the bottom of page 6 in this set of recommendations.)  The rational says:

Grounds: For the past three years the National Outreach Committee has engaged in a thorough review of its mission and ministry to the EPC. It has identified those activities that are best done at the national committee level and sought to “push down” to the presbyteries those activities that are best pursued at that level. During this time, the NOC met jointly with presbytery Church Development Committee chairs. Recognizing that the CDC’s are closer to the local level, NOC asked the CDC’s to experiment with meeting and taking care of those items focusing on church planting and church revitalization. Given the success of this experiment we are unanimous in proposing this change.

NOC has concluded that the best way to pursue church planting, church revitalization and evangelism is to support the presbyteries and churches as they take responsibility for these activities.

The adoption of this definition of a missional church did not spring out of thin air; there has been a build-up to this point.  It came out of the work of the Long Range Planning Committee which was formed by the 25th GA of 2005.  In 2006 they issued a white paper titled “Toward a Stronger Future” where they talked about evangelism and “recovering mission.”  They talk about their plan for the study and how they are basing it on the work of the Missional Leadership Institute and how “for real change to happen it must be owned from the
bottom up.”  (Although their links appear old and broken and the MLI has moved or folded.)  The Long Range Planning Committee wrapped up their work and presented to the 28th GA (2008) and based on their report specific actions of the Assembly were presented through the Theology Committee and the Committee on Administration.  While not having any action items directly deriving from the Long Range Planning Committee, the Committee on Administration does reflect in their goals the same approach as the National Outreach Committee where they list one of them as:

F. To “push down” activities historically directed out of the national office to Presbyteries and provide or recommend appropriate means of equipping and encouraging presbyteries in their mission.

And they share their vision for the structure and functioning of the EPC five years from now as:

Another way to describe our vision for the EPC is to describe what we hope to find as one examines our denominati
on five years from now. In 2014, anyone observing the EPC would find:

1. A General Assembly that oversees the work of the church by supporting the Presbyteries as they support the local churches.

2. Presbyteries that offer helps to local churches in such areas as evangelism, discipleship, training and other facets of Christian ministry.

3. The re-formation of the Great Commission in the form of the missional church widely accepted and firmly established in priorities.

4. A re-formation of the church – in our practice, not our doctrine.

I only share the first four items in the vision but there are 15 more for you to have a look at (it begins on page 8 of the committee report).

I think that give a good overview of what the EPC decided and where it sees itself going with the concept of “missional.”  If you want to look at it more take a detailed look at the Committee on Administration report as well as their 2007 “Missional Church Primer” and a series of reflections the stated clerk, the Rev. Jeff Jeremiah wrote leading up to their 2008 GA.

Now, on to missional from another vantage point…  Stay tuned.

Ordination Standards In The Evangelical Presbyterian Church — The Current Discussion

Leave a reply

In the Evangelical Presbyterian Church the discussion on ordination standards appears to me to be more of a speed bump than the litmus test it seems to have become in other Presbyterian branches.  The church is holding their stated position, that whether or not women should be ordained is a non-essential and therefore a local standard, in tension with the incumbent position of the churches coming in from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the conflict they may be in with the geographic presbytery in which they reside.  Because the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery provides a temporary location for these churches the issue is important but not immediately pressing.

At the last General Assembly the Presbytery of Mid-America proposed one solution for co-existence which did not meet constitutional muster.  Recognizing this as an issue that required a solution the PJC recommended that an Interim Committee be formed to look at the situation.  The Moderator has now named this Committee and they held their first meeting in Memphis, TN, last week according to the article in the EP News.  The committee is composed of 18 members — one teaching elder and one ruling elder from each presbytery.  Its charge is to “explore ways to include those pastors and churches with conflicting positions on Women Teaching Elders in the presbyteries of the EPC” and is to report back to the 30th General Assembly in 2010.

I have seen no reports from the meeting itself yet but it will be interesting to follow the path they take in working through this issue.  In closing I will leave you with the words of the PJC about the importance of this discussion from its decision last summer:

The PJC wants the record to reflect that it recognizes and deeply appreciates the serious nature of the issues prompting the Mid-America Overture, the historical background and self-described struggle in the Mid-America Presbytery, the extraordinary effort and prayerful attention exhibited in working in harmony and love with one another, and the heartfelt and deep concern for the peace, purity, and unity of their presbytery reflected by the Implementation Committee in their presentation. Here it must be added that the PJC is saddened by the possibility that there may come a time when wonderful children of God might decide to divide themselves over an issue now established in the Church as a non-essential.

Exit Strategy? Parallels In Institutional Realignment And Consequences

3 Replies

The parallels are very interesting, if not striking…

For the past week the big news in religion circles has been the Roman church establishing a structure to bring into full communion Anglicans that are now at theological odds with their own denomination and are looking for a more conservative church.

But consider this Anglican-Roman possibility compared to the PC(USA)-EPC situation.

At the top level there is the structural similarity.  In each case the receiving church has created a specific auxiliary structure within the church to accommodate the beliefs, polity and practices of the immigrants.  While Rome is still ironing out the details, it has been announced that the post-Anglican branch will have a “personal ordinariate” (read bishop or other episcopal type person)(update: a good note on personal ordinareates from Called to Communion) for that branch.  The EPC has of course set up the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery.

Now, yes, I am fully aware of a couple of points where these two cases are reversed.  First in size, the larger Roman church is offering to receive from the smaller Anglican church while it is the other way around for the PC(USA)/EPC relationship.  But there is a historical relationship in each of these cases with the smaller denomination braking away from the larger at some point in the past.  One other important difference in this situation is the speed that each developed.  While the founding of the New Wineskins Presbytery was not immediate, it did happen relatively quickly by church history standards.  The reunification of the Roman and Anglican branches has probably been a goal of Rome for, oh, say 500 years, and this most recent move should be viewed as something specific that has been in the works for a while, maybe a couple of decades.

But beyond the structural parallels there are at least two dynamics in this where we may see parallel activity as well.

The first is the effect on the receiving institution.  Interestingly, in both cases the receiving institution will have to make accommodation for women serving in ordained positions.  While the EPC had this as a local option, we have seen some question about how former PC(USA) churches would be integrated into EPC presbyteries that do not currently have women ordained to church office.  For the Roman church, it will have to accommodate not only women serving as priests but the reality of married clergy.  And while Rome has previously accepted married clergy that have realigned to them from the Anglican church, this will require a whole new level of accommodation.

But what this really does is raise the possibility of questions from the established side.  “If they can be part of us and have women clergy, why don’t we?”  “If they can be part of us and the priests can be married, why can’t we?”  I have previously spoken of the PC(USA)-ization of the EPC, it will be interesting to see what the ramifications are for the Anglican-ization of the Roman church.  How much interest will there be in members and clergy drifting from the established side to the new branch?

(Correction:  After multiple contacts about my line above about women priests (see the comment below) I did some more looking and 1) can not now locate my original source for that and 2) located a lot of commentary that implies no women priests.  Accordingly, I have struck that comment.  If I can locate my original source I will reinstate the above line and cite a reference.  Until then it is not an issue. Sorry about that.)

The second parallel is the one of pragmatism and practicality — The idea looks good on paper, but will they come?  Put another way — How much will this be viewed as the better of two imperfect options?

Within the PC(USA) the situation is still developing.  The church has, for the moment, retained the ordination standards but the majority view seems to be that when in all likelihood the PC(USA) presbyteries vote on it again a year from now there is the distinct possibility that G-6.0106b will be modified or removed.  At the present time not all of the churches who are part of the New Wineskins Association of Churches have moved to the EPC New Wineskins Presbytery — many see their calling to remain with the PC(USA) for the moment.  And Presbyterians for Renewal has proposed a non-geographic synod for churches to be able to remain in the PC(USA) while holding differing views on ordination standards.  While the EPC option is available it appears that so far a minority has viewed it as the appropriate way forward.

There is a similar situation in the Anglican Communion even without the offer from Rome.  In the U.S. there is both the Anglican Church in North America that broke away from the Episcopal Church as well as some dioceses that are looking at staying, but just barely.  The Diocese of South Carolina has a special convention this weekend where it will consider five resolutions that would keep them in the church but withdraw from many of its functions.  Similarly, within the Church of England there are groups within the church that are eying the announcement from Rome, but seem to be leaning towards the loyal opposition route.  And then there is the Global South where the “liberal trajectory” in parts of the Communion is an issue, but not for them at home.

One area which does not seem to be a parallel is the politics of the exit strategy.  In the PC(USA) the EPC option seems to really be viewed as just that, an option.  Despite charges of recruiting PC(USA) churches, and the effort by the PC(USA) to hold onto property, it has seemed to be something that churches consider for the sake of their ministry.

Now maybe I am reading too much into some of these stories (or the media is writing too much into these stories), but over the last week I have gotten the impression that many of the conservatives in the Anglican Communion see the offer from Rome in political terms and a development to be used as a bargaining chip.  Maybe it is just me, but from the comments welcoming the new option (e.g. ACNA) it almost seems like some members of the Communion are using the Roman Church as a “white knight.” They are not so much interested in joining Rome as to use its offer to put pressure on the Anglican Communion to reinforce conservative views.  But maybe this is just me reading some conspiracy theory into all this.

If you are interested in more of the practical realities of this offer to the Anglicans from Rome I would suggest a piece by Diana Butler Bass on Beliefnet and Peter Smith at the Louisville Courier-Journal.  And of course, one of my favorite reads, GetReligion, has five different articles analyzing the coverage of the announcement.  (One, two, three, four and five)

Now, if you are regular readers of my blog you probably realize that I have an analytical interest in church realignments.  It will be interesting to see how this develops.  I think that my first Ph.D. degree is probably enough so I won’t be doing the comprehensive research and analysis, but there are probably a couple of good dissertations about church structure and realignment that will come out of this and I look forward to that research.

In addition, it will be interesting to see what develops in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America over the same issues after this past summer’s Churchwide Assembly.  So far about ten ELCA churches have had a first vote on realigning with the Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ.  But I need to start closely following another denominational branch like I need…

Anyway, it is interesting to see how both the structures and practicalities of these realignments are developing.  We will see what the actual outcome of all this will be.

EPC General Assembly, PC(USA) Membership Statistics, Ecumenical Relations — Yes, There Is A Thread There

It may sound like the set-up line for one of Johnny Carson’s Karmac the Great routines, but with the interesting timing of the release of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) membership numbers the week before the Evangelical Presbyterian Church’s 29th General Assembly some may see it as a Divine Comedy. (And I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out all the possible meanings of that.)

I will do a more focused run-down of the EPC GA in a later post, especially the interesting document that they adopted providing their formal definition and direction regarding what it means to be a missional church.  That, in my opinion, is the most exciting thing to come out of the Assembly.

But here I want to close the loop on all the EPC/PC(USA) issues that are on the table.  Even after this GA the issues are still on the table and this will not be any sort of final word.  In fact, they will probably keep going for a while yet…

For the EPC side with reports from the General Assembly I will go to my regular reads — Michael McCarty at Around the Scuttlebutt and David Fischler at The Reformed Pastor.  For the topics in this post it is mainly the Rev. Fischler.  (Thanks for all the detail.)

Actions at the EPC General Assembly
One of the topics that I discussed in my pre-Assembly summary was the polity dance that the EPC is working through to be able to accommodate both egalitarian and complimentarian churches in their structure.  Mid-America Presbytery brought an overture proposing a dual “affinity presbytery” structure but ahead of the meeting the PJC ruled the overture was out of order because structural changes like those proposed would require new language in the Book of Order.  The Presbytery said they would not contest the PJC ruling and the Assembly upheld it.  (For more details check out David’s Day 2 Report.)  What came out of this particular debate was a proposal for an interim committee to “to explore ways to provide a pathway to unity while protecting freedom of conscience.”  The committee was approved by the Assembly the next day.  The committee will include two elders from each presbytery including the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery and will report back at next year’s Assembly. (Day 3 Part 2 Report)

On the last day of the Assembly the Fraternal Relations Committee brought a recommendation, and it appears the Assembly concurred, “to continue to communicate with the PC(USA) according to biblical principles and to encourage ‘face-to-face’ talks.”  (Day 4 Report)

More on that in a minute, but first the PC(USA) item…

PC(USA) Membership Numbers — The Response
For anyone just joining the conversation this may seem like a strange jump, but while the churches realigning from the PC(USA) to the EPC are not the largest group leaving the denomination, it is the largest single “identifiable” destination.  That is in contrast to those who “drift off” and are removed from the rolls or individually transfer to a variety of other churches.  And as Scott comments on my discussion of the membership statistics, the departures to the EPC are just one component of the departures from the PC(USA) for people who are unhappy with the negative climate they see in the church.

The membership statistics elicited responses from the wide community of PC(USA) and other Reformed bloggers.  Among these:

  • The Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, Moderator of the General Assembly, comments that the denomination operates with an out-dated world view.
  • Jody Harrington at Quotidian Grace points out that this decline is bigger than just this one denomination.
  • On The Heidelblog R. Scott Clark discusses what the statistics mean about active members of the PC(USA) if you were to clear the roles and also the implications for the EPC.
  • Rev Kim at Called to be: The Pastor’s Wife and the Pastor reflects on what the decline looks like as a pastor serving a congregation.
  • And John Shuck of Shuck and Jive, in a post titled “Presbyterian Pruning” wonders whether this decline is actually a good thing for the denomination.  He has a number of interesting thoughts including “Maybe it is good news that the denomination is losing members. Perhaps it is a sign that people are growing up, thinking for themselves, and have no need of evangelists who want to save them from the pits of hell.” And “So I will expect more and more huge losses for the PCUSA until progressives and traditionalists part ways. I don’t think this will happen by design, but by attrition.”  (And if you did not catch it the reference to “no need of evangelists” is a direct response Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons’ call for us to be evangelists.)

As you can see, many of those watching the PC(USA) do not see the membership decline as isolated from other branches, although individual perspectives vary.

EPC and PC(USA) Ecumenical Relations
As you can see from the EPC response above, and my previous comments about the PC(USA) Investigating Committee, this is a sensitive topic right at the moment. 

To recap, the last PC(USA) General Assembly set up the investigating committee to check out charges that the EPC was actively recruiting churches away from the PC(USA).  Again, Viola Larson has some comments about this and the possibility that the meeting in her presbytery was not well publicized.

Now, Michael McCarty has some details of one encounter between the investigating committee and a church.  He relates the follow
ing:

But at the [EPC] GA, I met several folks whose congregations went directlyfrom the PC(USA) to a geographic EPC presbytery. Their congregationsdid meet with representatives of the “investigating” committee,although the committee members were surprised that ruling elders andmembers attended. (They had “invited” only the pastors.)

Theirexperience was telling. After the pastors, elders and members relatedhow their congregations initiated the move, and initiated the contactwith the EPC, the committee representatives interjected withdeclarative “questions” such as “Well, you knew that what you weredoing was wrong, correct?” or “You never proved that the PC(USA) wasapostate, so leaving was a violation of ordination vows, right?”

Whenthe EPC members asked their inquisitors “Wait, we thought you wanted toknow that we were not recruited. It sounds as if you have already madeup your mind that we were recruited, although we were not, and are justlooking for sound bites to support your position. Is that correct?”

Stunningly, the PC(USA)’s response was “That is correct.”

One polity point – I will accept the account here that only the pastor was invited to the meeting, but in our polity I don’t view that as appropriate.  While I could accept excluding at-large members, the meeting should be held with the Session since that is the governing body of the congregation.  After all, when the presbytery meets with the church every three years under G-11.0502c it meets with the full session.

Now, I must admit that I viewed this account with a certain degree of caution, this being the account from one side of a meeting.  Until yesterday…

At church yesterday, out of the blue and without prompting, I had a member of my congregation come up and describe to me a similar meeting that a family member of theirs was at.  Since it was in a different synod I did not know the details, but as described it seemed like one of these meetings.  To me one of the most fascinating aspects was that the church was a PC(USA) congregation that, while having sympathies for the New Wineskins churches, had chosen not to realign with the EPC but stay with the PC(USA).  Never the less, the description of how the presbytery/investigating committee came into the meeting was described as “adversarial.”  After hearing their description and how upset my friend was at what happened at their relative’s church I now have a lot more respect for Mr. McCarty’s account.

But I want to close with a sign of hope.  While some may debate if this news account can be looked at as a positive outcome from all aspects, at least if you want to look at the total number of people in the pews this is a win-win situation.  (And yes, I realize that there is a lot of painful history leading up to this point.) (Update: Michael McCarty has posted a discussion of this painful history at Londonderry and some info with slightly different numbers for membership and worshipers.)

The Eagle-Tribune of North Andover, Mass., has a story titled “Divided Congregation Flourishes as Two New Groups.”  It is about the Londonderry Presbyterian Church which divided in 2007.  The article relates that at that time there were 375 members of the congregation.  A large group left the church and founded the Orchard Christian Fellowship in the EPC.  In the nearly two years since the split the continuing PC(USA) congregation has grown from 39 to 224 members.  The EPC congregation has also flourished and now numbers 450 members.  Doing the math, what was a congregation of 375 is now two respectable churches with a combined membership of about 675, a number approaching double the original size. (1.82 times larger to be precise.)

Is there a lesson in here about finding ways to get past our controversies quickly for the sake of the Gospel?  I do realize some may only see the true Gospel or True Church in one or the other of these churches.  But maybe both sides can see the outcome as beneficial for them if they realize that getting the division done quickly, while it may not be the best display of Christian unity, at least sends a better message than long, drawn out court battles.  And maybe both sides would view it as “pruning,” but this particular example seems to suggest that getting the division out of the way lets a congregation get on with their life and better focus on the mission of the church.

Just some thoughts, but I was intrigued by the Londonderry example.  And yes, I realize that it is not so easy to just say “you go your way and I’ll go mine” because there is the children property to think of.  But it does provide something to think about.

And speaking of mission, I’ll return later with a look at the newly adopted EPC view of a missional church.

The 29th General Assembly Of The Evangelical Presbyterian Church — Upcoming Next Week

Leave a reply

The 29th General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (in the U.S.A.) will convene in Brighton, Michigan this Wednesday June 24 and run through Saturday June 27.  For those following the GA these resources might be useful:

TE Nate Atwood (bio as Word doc) will be installed as the Moderator of the General Assembly when the meeting convenes and RE Rob Liddon (bio as Word doc) will be installed as the Moderator-elect at the conclusion of the Assembly, presuming neither committee nominee is successfully challenged..

Some of the important reports to watch for include a recommended definition of a “missional church” and a proposed Preliminary Position Paper on the Doctrine of Scripture in the Permanent Theology Committee report.  In addition, a referred overture from the last GA concerning creating the position of Co-pastors is being returned with a recommendation to approve from the Theology Committee but the recommendation to not approve from Ministerial Vocation Committee.  The Theology Committee gives no rational for approval but in their recommendation against the Ministerial Vocation Committee gives five arguments against which includes “The need for clearly identified leadership.”  For some of the other business and activities you can check out the GA Preview.

I have not seen anyone mention official Twitter messages or a hashtag.  Following this year’s trend a hashtag would be something like #epcga or #epcga09.  I will update here if either of these happen.
UPDATE:  In checking Twitter it appears that the hashtag people are using is #pcaga29.  Just when you think you have it figured out…

Overtures
There are four overtures for the Assembly to consider:

Overture 09-A from the Presbytery of the Mid-Atlantic requests that the EPC develop a position paper “setting forth the denomination’s beliefs and position regarding stem cells, the human embryo, and related questions of bioethics and human life.”  This was prompted by the recent Presidential Executive Order changing federal policy on funding stem cell research.

Overture 09-B also from the Presbytery of the Mid-Atlantic cites five examples from the Book of Order where they believe that the document is not clear and asks “the Moderator to appoint a committee to review the Book of Order with the input of the Stated Clerks of all presbyteries for the purpose of identifying terms, sentences, paragraphs, and/or sections which are not clear and/or may cause confusion when applied.”  It also asks that the review committee recommend appropriate revisions.

Overture 09-C from the Presbytery of the Midwest requests a change to the Book of Discipline which strikes me as possibly resulting from a recent experience.  Briefly, it would change the rules in a disciplinary case so that if the officer renounces jurisdiction before judgment is rendered the court would no longer need the individual’s permission to conclude the case and render judgment if “it is necessary for the purity of the church or the benefit of the offender.”  The condition of the offender’s approval was previously added in response to a state court decision in a case in another denomination and they point out that each governing body should determine the appropriate course of action based on their own state laws.

Overture 09-D from the Presbytery of Mid-America requests that it be allowed to form two affinity presbyteries, one permitting the ordination of women as teaching elders and the other not.  However, the Permanent Judicial Commission has ruled that this is not a request that the General Assembly can act upon but their interpretation of the Book of Order is that it would require amending the Book of Order.  Polity wonks would enjoy reading the basis for this ruling in the PJC Report.  Their first point about a presbytery having jurisdiction in a geographic area and whether two affinity presbyteries represent 1) Two presbyteries, 2) One presbytery with split jurisdiction or 3) Three presbyteries – the two affinity presbyteries plus the “mother” presbytery – is a well presented polity dilemma.

The Assembly will first have an opportunity to uphold this decision and if it wishes to not concur it may then move on to the overture as presented.  My read of the PJC decision is that they are on firm polity ground and the EPC will need to reason through how the diversity of opinions on the ordination of women as teaching elders should be handled.

This is a great segue to my next topic…

The EPC and the PC(USA)
When I discussed the PC(USA) 2008 membership numbers a couple of days ago I noted that for the PC(USA) the loss of ten churches and about 8000 members to the EPC in 2008 was a minor fraction of the total net loss of 69 churches and a bit more than 69.000 members.  The losses alone, not net, from the PC(USA) not counting deaths were close to 139,000 members.  The PC(USA) has other larger avenues of loss than churches realigning with the EPC.

But the EPC Statistical Report is fascinating reading and the same is not true for the EPC.  The EPC grew from 207 to 247 churches between 2007 and 2008, an increase of 19% and it grew from 77,482 to 92,864 members, an increase of  20%.  Most of this growth was in the transitional presbyteries, including the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery.  The total churches in transitional presbyteries grew from 17 to 36 and membership from 8014 to 19,178.  In all, the 36 churches in the New Wines
kins Presbytery represent 15% of all the EPC churches.  And looking through the list several churches were accepted directly into other geographic presbyteries.  Clearly the substantial growth in the EPC can be tied to churches realigning from the PC(USA).

Now, in case you are asking – if the PC(USA) only had 10 churches realign in 2008 according to the Layman’s list what about the other 30?  Two reasons:  The first is that the Layman’s list is not always clear when the church gets dismissed or unilaterally departs.  So there is some uncertainty in the numbers regarding which year to count.  But the explanation in many cases is the fact that 27 churches with about 16,000 members departed the PU(USA) for the EPC in 2007 but many were received by the EPC in 2008.  At some point I’ll find time to reconcile the two lists but a summary comparison makes clear that those listed on the departing list eventually appear on the EPC list.

Anyway, the bottom line is that while the departure of churches for the EPC is a disturbing but small part of the membership drop for the PC(USA), it is a major issue for the EPC.  Like it or not, the EPC is being PC(USA)-ized.  The clear implication for the EPC is the influx of churches with ordained women.  (Although, as I looked at it several months ago I found that very few of the churches had women as teaching elders so it is not as pressing for the denomination as it may at first seem.) I’ll take up the question of other transfers of PC(USA) culture another time.

From the PC(USA) side there has been extensive discussion, administrative commissions, civil law suits over the property, and judicial commission reviews of what has been happening.  I won’t cover that ground again here, but I do want to mention one other issue and that is the charge that the EPC is actively recruiting PC(USA) churches.

It needs to be pointed out that the EPC has on the front page of their web site a link to information for churches thinking of joining the EPC.  That combined with a perception in some presbyteries that the EPC was making inappropriate contact with churches thinking of leaving the PC(USA) led Peace River Presbytery to send an overture to the last General Assembly.  The overture asked for an investigation and action regarding the EPC actions by the Executive Office of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches.  Instead, the GA committee recommended and the General Assembly approved a referral to the PC(USA) Committee on Ecumenical Relations.  Their investigation is in progress now but not without controversy.  Viola Larson talks about missing a meeting with the representatives of the investigating team because the meeting was not widely announced and posted on the presbytery’s web calendar with very short notice (and if you read the comments to her post others checked cached copies of the calender that suggest it was actually posted after the meeting).  On the PC(USA) end we will have to see how this investigation develops.

On the EPC end the influx of PC(USA) churches puts stress on geographic presbyteries that do not ordain women.  The EPC does not consider whether or not to ordination of women as an essential of the Reformed faith so it is left up to the appropriate governing body.  (For more on that check out their position paper.)  To accommodate ordained women is one of the reasons for the transitional presbyteries.  But the transitional presbyteries are intended to be transitional and disappear in a few years and then have the churches move into the geographic presbyteries.  What then?

As mentioned above, Overture 09-D is one approach that the Presbytery of Mid-America would like to try.  The EPC will be struggling with that at this meeting.  And remember that back in February the Presbytery of the East approved new guidelines for the ordination of women.  The EPC is showing a movement in that direction.  We will have to see what else the former-PC(USA) churches bring into this branch of American Presbyterianism.

I will update as I find more sources of information on the EPC GA.

What Does It Take To Get Ordained Around Here?

4 Replies

What does it take to get ordained around here?

You can tell that my younger son has grown up in a Presbyterian family.  This past weekend he had a telling Freudian slip when he was reading a line in a presentation and instead of saying the correct word “obligation” he substituted the word “ordination.”

But when you get down to it much of the current discussion and debate in the Presbyterian church branches is around what it takes to be ordained an officer in the church and the standards for ordination and ordained officers.

The PC(USA) is wrapping up the vote rejecting the replacement of the “fidelity and chastity” section in the Book of Order.  There are also judicial cases (Paul Capetz, Lisa Larges) in process related to declaring exceptions.

The EPC will be discussing transitional and affinity presbyteries at its GA to accommodate the various theological positions permitted under their “local option” and “in non-essentials, liberty” regarding ordination of women as officers.

The PCA is actively debating and discussing women in helping ministries and when their role begins to be comparable to that of a man’s role as an ordained deacon.  (This issue has been developing so quickly that I have not had time to properly package it up for posting so here is only one of many recent news items on this topic.)

The moderator designate of the GA of the PCI has received some notoriety for his views that women should not be ordained ministers.

And as the Church of Scotland GA rapidly approaches the discussion continues over the call of a partnered gay man to a church in Aberdeen and the protest of that call to be heard by the Assembly as well as an overture clearly stating the standards for ordination and service.

With all of that GA business, an additional story has taken on a life of its own…

Over the weekend Adam Walker Cleaveland over at pomomusings wrote about “When an M.Div. from Princeton isn’t enough…” and his attempt to come under care of San Francisco Presbytery and the requirement from their Committee on Preparation for Ministry (CPM) to take six more classes to fulfill their education requirements even though he has the degree from a PC(USA) seminary.  Getting ordained has been a continuing struggle for him and this is only the latest speed-bump, road block, brick wall, on-coming train… you pick the metaphor.

I have known many people who had trouble with their CPM’s like this but what makes Adam’s current situation interesting is that his friend the Rev. Tony Jones, who has a soap box on beliefnet to broadcast this far and wide, has take up his cause and started a petition to support Adam.  It currently has 130 signatories.  In the blog entry Mr. Jones writes:

Few things piss me off as much as the sinful bureaucratic systems of
denominational Christianity. When rules and regulations trump common
sense, then the shark has officially been jumped.

But what gets
to me even more is that bright, competent, and pastorally experienced
persons like Adam continue to submit themselves to these sinful
systems. They assure me that it’s not for the health insurance or the
pension. They do it cuz they feel “called.” And if I hear another
person tell me that they’re sticking with their abusive denomination
because, “They’re my tribe,” I’m gonna go postal.

So, it’s time
for us to do something. It’s time for us, the body of Christ, to ordain
Adam. To that end, I’ve started a petition, beseeching Adam to quit the
PC(USA) ordination circus and to accept our ordination of him.

This led another friend of Tony’s (FOT?), PC(USA) minister John D’Elia to argue, among other things…

On the other hand, your friend may have erred in being unwilling to
demonstrate that he could take direction and counsel from a governing
body—something that I believe has a place in the context of the
American religious free market. In the PCUSA, the process of becoming
ordained is partly an exercise in learning healthy submission to peer
authority (I can see the eyes rolling back in your head). Now setting
aside the not-nearly-rare-enough instances where the submission
required is unhealthy, it’s not a bad lesson to learn. More
importantly, once candidates have completed (survived?) that process,
we have enormous freedom to live and serve as our own calling leads us.
It’s OK with me that we disagree on this point. That’s not the problem.

(I should add that Rev. D’Elia has posted an apology to Rev. Jones for drifting into a personal attack in this post.)

Tony Jones has a follow-up post where he writes:

I’ve got a bunch of people upset at me for encouraging my friend, Adam Walker-Cleaveland, to forsake the ordination process of the Presbyterian Church (USA) denomination. I even went so far as to post an online petition
to attempt to convince Adam to drop out of the PC(USA) process and
consider himself “ordained” by the Body of Christ — that is, by all of
his fellow believers.

and then he continues the discussion responding to the Rev. D’Elia.  It ends with a “To be continued…”

This publicity provided by Tony Jones has resulted in some additional articles about Adam’s situation and this discussion, including Out of Ur, neo-baptist, and koinonia.

Two observations on all of this:

1)  The ordination standards debate is nothing new.  It was part of the disagreement in American Presbyterianism that lead to the Old-side/New-side split of 1741.  The question there was over, wait for it, THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION and “religious experience.”  The Old-side Presbyterians were questioning the preparation and theology of the New-side Presbyterians being produced by the Log College, an educational institution sometimes pointed to as a predecessor of, yes, Princeton.  (Note the argument that there is not an administrative lineage between the two schools like the theological heritage they share.)  The more things change…

2)  “The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body.” [from PC(USA) Book of Order G-9.0103]

This one sentence is at the heart of these ordination debates in the Presbyterian Churches.  In Presbyterianism the idea is that once an individual has been ordained by one governing body the whole church recognizes that ordination.  This sets up an appropriate tension between individual ordaining bodies and the broader church to set standards for ordination so that others are comfortable accepting an officer ordained by another governing body.

This is not to say that once ordained you are a “free agent.”  On the contrary, you agree to the discipline of the church and if you stray from the church, its standards and its beliefs, the discipline of the church is to restore you and reconcile you with your brethren.  Again “the act of one of them is the act of the whole church.”

It is interesting that one of the important points in the discussion between Tony Jones and John D’Elia is that the Rev. Jones was ordained in the Congregational church and the Rev. D’Elia was ordained in the Presbyterian church and that is reflected in their views and arguments.  The role of the “institution” is at the heart of their discussion.

In most Presbyterian branches the Presbyteries are responsible for the admission, preparation and examination of candidates for the Ministry of Word and Sacrament.  In the PC(USA) there are certain national standards for education and written examinations in particular areas.  But the presbyteries are given some flexibility even in these to set their own standards for candidates.  That is where Adam is getting tripped up.  And because of the presbytery’s control and authority it is recommended, as Adam points out, that you do not switch presbytery of care during the process.  I can point to several cases I know of where that was nearly disastrous for candidates.  I also know of cases where an individual was not accepted into the process in one presbytery but was later accepted by another.  That is the nature of the Presbyterian system and on-balance we believe that it works. 

From my reading of Adam’s transcript I would have accepted his education with the exception of the weak area he notes himself (Greek exegesis).  But I’m not on a CPM or in the presbytery he wants to come under care of so I have to trust it to them.  So if/when he is finally ordained I do accept the actions of that presbytery as the “act of the whole church.”

Are there problems?  “All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred.” [Westminster Confession, XXXI, IV]  So yes, problems arise.  But that is also part of our Reformed theology that we are more likely to get it right as a group than we are individually.

Where this is getting difficult at the present time is in declaring exceptions to non-essentials.  While the PC(USA) still has “fidelity and chastity” in the constitution one part of the church considers it at least binding if not essential.  Clearly there are those with the view that just because it is in the constitution it does not mean it is binding or essential.  But there are some on both sides that do recognize that if something so clearly stated in the constitution can be “scrupled” that this at worst will lead to a breakdown of the trust relationship between ordaining bodies, and at best court cases over the obligation of one presbytery to accept the ordination of another when an exception has been declared.  It makes an end-run around the established system that holds us in tension and accountable to each other.

So we will see how all of these develop.  There is a lot to watch in the coming weeks.

Filling In The Blanks On EPC And PCA GA Overtures

2 Replies

In my previous posts about upcoming General Assembly business, specifically overtures to the Assembly, I mentioned hints of information but no specifics on two items.  Well, there is now specific information, or at least more information, on these two items.

For the 29th General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church there has been some advance discussion of Affinity Presbyteries to provide a framework for churches that ordain women to be able to join.  As I mentioned in the last post on the subject, the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery was discussing the idea but it has chosen not to request such an affinity presbytery.  There were also indications that the Presbytery of Mid-America was going to overture for a parallel affinity presbytery structure.  That overture has finally been confirmed in the EP News of Feb. 19:

The Presbytery of Mid-America met at Central Presbyterian Church
in St. Louis, Missouri on January 30-31. By an approximate vote of two
to one, the presbytery approved a proposal to draft an overture for
General Assembly consideration calling for the creation of two affinity
presbyteries within the geographic bounds of Mid-America. One affinity
presbytery “would ordain only men to the office of teaching elder and
one would be free to ordain men and women to the office of teaching
elder.” These presbyteries would exist for five years, after which an
evaluation would take place.

The full document is available and contains some more interesting detail.  There is one note that says that the two presbyteries would commit to maintaining the viability of each other.  The second note talks about another meeting before the presbytery meeting where 20 complimentarian pastors indicated they all favored the concept and agreed to work with their sessions to ensure viability and to “maintain relationships.”  There is also a section that talks about the ordination of women being a non-essential and that the presbytery had a process to study and discuss the issue.  Being unable to agree they are now requesting this “friendly division.”

The same news article also mentioned the action of the Presbytery of the East that I talked about last time.  The presbytery agreed to begin permitting the ordination and service of women as pastors.  The article also mentions that the Presbytery of Florida voted to have the Moderator appoint a special committee “to study the ordination and reception of women as Teaching Elders” in that presbytery.

The other piece to be filled in was the missing text of an overture to the 37th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America.  While not available a the time of my previous post on this, the text of Overture 1 has now been posted and it is a fairly simple piece of clarification.  It deals with Book of Church Order section 37-7 which addresses the removal of censure on an individual after they have relocated to another area.  Specifically the overture requests the change from a person removing to a “part of the country” to “location.”  The rational is that “part of the country” is ambiguous while “location” removes the ambiguity.

The EPC General Assembly And Other Developments Related To The Ordination Of Women

Leave a reply

It is widely acknowledged that one of the details that is a point of complexity with churches leaving the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and going to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church is the ordination of women.  In the EPC this is a point of local option — Teaching elders (ministers) for the presbytery and ruling elders and deacons for the session with presbytery concurrence.  (For more on this you can check out a previous post from last August and the EPC Position Paper on the Ordination of Women.)  Back in November a special announcement from the EPC outlined the current status, or box score:

In the EPC, we currently have two presbyteries that
prohibit women teaching elders, two that will not use gender as a
consideration in approving ministers and candidates, two others who
have a procedure in place that allows consideration of women ministers
and candidates without violating conscience, and two that are still
working on the issue and will have come to a conclusion by the second
week of February 2009. One of these, Mid-America Presbytery, will
consider an overture asking the 2009 General Assembly to approve an
affinity presbytery within its boundaries as a response to women
teaching elders.

This special announcement was about a proposal that would be coming to the General Assembly from the New Wineskins/EPC Transitional Presbytery Commission.  This proposal would create a permanent non-geographic presbytery that would have accepted the ordination of women, a presbytery that would have helped PC(USA) churches that realigned with the EPC.

Well it has now been announced in the last couple of weeks that the NW/EPC Transitional Presbytery Commission has withdrawn this proposal.  The announcement lacks specific details, only that it has been discussed at regular meetings over the last couple of months and “At the conclusion of those discussions the Commission decided to withdraw the proposal.”

The announcement from November says that Mid-America Presbytery is considering an overture for an affinity presbytery within it’s bounds, and there is word that this passed at the presbytery meeting last week.  However, there is as yet no overture information on the EPC GA web site, we are waiting for the next edition of the EP News, and I have not yet gotten responses to a couple of inquiries I have made.  So, we will have to wait a bit longer for official confirmation and the details.

Also in the last couple of weeks we have the news reported by Backwoods Presbyterian (Benjamin Glaser) on PuritanBoard and the Rev. David Fischler at The Reformed Pastor that the Presbytery of the East has approved a policy and guidelines for the ordination of women.  The text of the policy:

1. The Presbytery of the East of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church
(EPC) will honor the Christian liberty of individual congregations to
call their ministers and, therefore, will not prohibit candidates for
ordination as Teaching Elders from being processed and presented to
Presbytery due to their gender.

2. All candidates will be
processed as set forth in the Book of Order of the EPC, the EPC
Procedural Manual for Ministerial and Candidates Committees, and the
Presbytery of the East By-Laws.

3. All candidates will be examined in accordance with the EPC’s
specific criteria for ordination and ministerial preparation and must
agree with the Essentials of Our Faith and subscribe to the Westminster
Confession of Faith;

4. Once presented on the floor of Presbytery, candidates will be questioned as set forth in the Book of Order of the EPC.

5. Members of Presbytery will be allowed to vote their consciences in
regards to their Biblical convictions concerning an individual’s
ordination.

6. All members will be treated during the entire process with charity,
grace and the respect due to one who seeks to submit themselves to
Scripture and the calling of the Holy Spirit.

There was some discussion about this on the PuritanBoard and how the influx of PC(USA) churches will put pressure on the EPC regarding complimentarian versus egalitarian views of ordination.

So, I  will keep watching the news and welcome further details or insights on any of these presbytery developments.  And I anticipate an interesting discussion at GA.

Looking Forward To GA Season — PCA, PC Canada, EPC

Leave a reply

While the PC(USA) is trying to sort itself out after its last General Assembly, most of the rest of the world is starting the cycle over again and preparing for their 2009 GA’s.  And news is starting to filter out.

The Presbyterian Church in America will hold its 37th General Assembly June 16-19 in Orlando Florida.  Registration is now open.

Business is beginning to develop and last week Presbyterians Weekly News reported that Central Carolina Presbytery passed an overture that would:

remove wording that binds obedience to civil law on matters of marriage, and enjoins ministers to perform only marriages that “do not transgress the laws of God”; then begins the process of granting Chapter 59 full constitutional authority.

As civil courts and legislatures begin allowing same-sex marriages the church is looking to protect their religious understanding of the ceremony.

The reference to Chapter 59 of the Book of Church Order (BCO) is interesting:  The Directory for the Worship of God begins at Chapter 47 and not all parts have constitutional authority.  As a preface says:

Temporary statement adopted by the Third General Assembly to preface the Directory for Worship: The Directory for Worship is an approved guide and should be taken seriously as the mind of the Church agreeable to the Standards. However, it does not have the force of law and is not to be considered obligatory in all its parts. BCO 56, 57 and 58 have been given full constitutional authority by the Eleventh General Assembly after being submitted to the Presbyteries and receiving the necessary two-thirds (2/3) approval of the Presbyteries.

So the overture would begin the process to add Chapter 59 on Marriage to the other three that do have authority.  For you information, Chapter 56 deals with baptism, Chapter 57 addresses “The admission of persons to sealing ordnances,” and Chapter 58 is about the Lord’s Supper.

No official list of overtures has appeared yet but I think we can expect that shortly.

Today the Presbyterian Church in Canada issued a press release announcing the four candidates for Moderator of their 135th General Assembly to Convene on June 7 in Hamilton, Ontario. The Moderator is elected ahead of the GA by the presbyteries.  Of the four candidates, the lone elder, Ms. Marilyn Clarke, is from St. Catharines right next to Hamilton.  The other three candidates are all ministers, the Rev. Karen Hincke from Peterborough, Ontario, the Rev. Richard Sand from New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, and the Rev. Harvey Self from Orangeville, Ontario.

Finally, I mentioned back in November that the Evangelical Presbyterian Church was studying ways to handle the varying viewpoints on ordination of women to church office.  Again, no official list of overtures has been posted for the 29th General Assembly to be held June 25-27 in Brighton, Michigan, but there is the earlier news item about a proposal to create non-geographic affinity presbyteries that is expected.  I’ve gotten word that individual presbyteries are considering things like this as well and it will be interesting to hear the GA discussion on this.  As I’ve speculated before, the PC(USA) migration to the EPC will force some adjustments and this looks like the leading edge.

These are only three of the many upcoming GA’s and I look forward to moderator elections and the posting of business in the next few weeks.  I’ll let you know when I see something interesting.

Summary Judgement in the Kirk of the Hills Property Case

2 Replies

In the case CJ-2006-5063

The District Court for Tulsa County, Oklahoma granted summary judgment in favor of Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) on September 9, 2008, and denied the motion for summary judgment of Kirk of the Hills.  Judge Jefferson Sellers enforced the decision of the Presbytery’s Administrative Commission and ordered Kirk of the Hills to convey the church’s real and personal property to Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery.  [from the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery Press Release]

Tulsa County District Judge Jefferson Sellers ruled today that the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) and the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery of the PCUSA (EOP) own the Kirk of the Hills property at 4102 E. 61st Street, under the denomination’s constitution. A constitutional provision inserted in 1983 provides that the denomination holds a trust interest in the property of a local church, even when the local church bought and paid for the property. The Kirk of the Hills paid for the property over the last four decades and the deeds are in the Kirk Corporation’s name. [from the Kirk of the Hills Press Release]

While I generally follow the property cases currently underway in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and The Episcopal Church, I usually leave the routine coverage of the cases to other sources.  (PresbyLaw, The Layman Online, Virtue Online)  The decision that was handed down yesterday in the case of Kirk of the Hills Church of Tulsa, Oklahoma (formally Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), now Evangelical Presbyterian Church) is notable in a couple of respects.

First, Kirk of the Hills is cited as the largest church, and one of the first churches, to depart from the PC(USA) following the 2006 General Assembly adoption of the PUP report.  This case was being watched by the churches as a test case of how the denomination and legal system would handle these cases.

This leads into the second interesting point, the legal theory of the decision.  The written decision has not appeared in the court database yet (if I’m checking the right database) but I’ll do a little reading between the lines of the press releases.  The Kirk press release is shorter (one page) and contains fewer legal details but the section I quoted at the beginning implies that their legal theory was that since the church has had deed to the property before the explicit trust clause then they own the property.  The Presbytery press release is richer in legal detail including part of the successful legal theory and says:

The Court followed the “hierarchical deference” approach in awarding the property to the Presbytery, which holds the property in trust for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  Oklahoma has been considered a “hierarchical deference” jurisdiction since the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling in 1973 in Presbytery of Cimmarron v. Westminster Presbyterian Church of Enid.

In reading through the press release it struck me that while the trust clause was mentioned above, it was always in the context of the church structure.  Furthermore, the Presbytery document places an emphasis on the Administrative Commission, like the opening quote above, as a demonstration of the PC(USA) hierarchical church.  It appears then, that the Administrative Commission and the process was a more significant legal argument than the trust clause alone and it seems to have worked in arguing against the Kirk’s argument about the trust clause.

While I look forward to reading this decision when made available somewhere, in skimming through the 1973 ruling, which relies heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Watson v. Jones (1871), it does not surprise me that with this legal precedent a District Court ruled in this way.  It seems that if Kirk is going to retain its property it will have to convince the current Oklahoma Supreme Court that this case differs from Cimmarron v. Westminster.

An appeal decision has not been made but is likely, according to the church press release.  Kirk and EOP have 20 days to make arrangements about the property under the judge’s order.

Beyond the legal arguments where does this leave everyone?  It seems that EOP will have a big empty box on its hands and a 2,400 member church with a 175 family preschool will be looking for a new location.  It is too soon to know what is going to happen here but I think both parties could use our prayers.  While this predates the GA action, maybe it is time to remember the “gracious, pastoral response.”

UPDATE 9/11/08:  The Presbyterian News Service has issued an article/press release on the decision which draws heavily on the Presbytery press release I also drew on.  But it is interesting that in News Service article they use the phrase “trust clause” and place an emphasis on that while I read the Presbytery’s release to emphasize the Administrative Commission process as being important.  I did find it interesting that the New Service article describes Kirk of the Hills departure with the more dramatic term “bolted” without any additional facts about the swiftness or legal proceedings to support the use of the term.  Terms like “departed,” “disaffiliated,” or “realigned” might have been more appropriate if the circumstances of the departure are not spelled out in the story to suppor the dramatic term.  I also found it interesting that the article describes the PC(USA) as a 2.3 million member denomination when at the end of 2007 the membership of 2,209,546 would round to 2.2 million members.  It could be habit, 2007 is the first year the PC(USA) would round to 2.2 million members, or it could be that we were 2.3 million members when the process started in 2006.

Also, I have still not found the full decision posted anywhere yet but…  PresbyLaw has info from the hearing where the decision was read and the report there is that the judge suggested that on appeal the court could go with “neutral principles” and that could go in favor of the church.

Finally, the word from other sources, included in PresbyLaw, is that the church will appeal.