Category Archives: General Assembly

A Full Slate For Vice-Moderator Nominees For The PC(USA) 220th GA

3 Replies


After a burst of activity on Tuesday that filled out the field we now have all five Vice-Moderator selections for our five Moderator candidates.  Here they are in alphabetical order:

TE Jeff Kerhbiel (standing with TE Janet Edwards) – Jeff is the pastor of Church of the Pilgrims in Washington, D.C. and has served two other churches in urban settings. He did his undergraduate work at Hope College and his M.Div. is from McCormick. He also has a D.Min. from Columbia and has recently published a short (60 page) book on Reflecting with Scripture on Community Organizing. Church of the Pilgrims is associated with The Pilgrimage Seminar Center which is a service-learning hostel for groups doing work in that area. You can follow his church on Twitter at @pilgrimsdc.

TE Shamaine Chambers King (standing with TE Randy Branson) – Shamanine serves as the pastor of Windsor Presbyterian Church in Windsor Heights, Iowa. From her Facebook page we know that she has also served internships in Austin, Texas, and as a pastoral assistant in Virginia.  She is a graduate of Trinity University and Austin for her M.Div.

TE Hope Italiano Lee (standing with TE Robert Austell) – The lead pastor (their title) at Kirkwood Presbyterian Church in Bradenton, Florida. She is a grad of Eckerd College, studied at Princeton, has her M.Div. from Columbia and her D.Min. from Gordon-Conwell. She has long been active with farm worker ministry in Florida as well as working with youth. She also preached at the opening worship service of the recent FOP/ECO gathering in Orlando. You can hear her preach in the sermons posted on the church web site and follow her on Twitter at @pastorhope.

TE Sanghyuan James Lee (standing with TE Susan Krummel) – He is the pastor of Korean Community Presbyterian Church of Columbia, South Carolina, with an M.Div. from Yale Divinity School and an D.Min. from Union PCSE, Richmond. The web site press release tell us about his extensive experience working with Korean Presbyterian Churches on the presbytery and synod level and currently serves as the Adjunct Executive of the National Council of Korean Presbyterian Churches.

TE Tara Spuhler McCabe (standing with TE Neal Presa) – In what is probably a first, the Rev. Presa introduced Rev. McCabe as his Vice-Moderator selection in a live streaming video. Nice social media introduction but the audio on Tara was tough to hear.  Rev. McCabe is the Designated Associate for Congregational Life at New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C. Between the Moderatorial web site, the church web site and the NYAPC blog we don’t get much specific information on her previous positions but a general trend in her congregational, presbytery and national work is in youth work.  We are informed that Neal and Tara first worked together on a Young Clergy Pastors Event. She did her undergraduate work at Agnes Scott and has her M.Div. from McCormick. She has a presence on both Facebook and LinkedIn.

A few general observations. First, what’s with this grouping of names in three consecutive letters of the alphabet?

OK, on a more serious note, let’s have a look at some of the demographics across the whole group of ten – five Mod and five Vice-Mod candidates.  First, geographically we are mostly along the eastern seaboard. There are two west of the Mississippi and none from the Rockies westward. Second, the educational backgrounds are pretty firmly Presbyterian. There is a lot of Presbyterian heritage in this group with famous ancestors with Presbyterian connections, mention of multi-generational Presbyterian families, and a lot of Presbyterian education. There are a couple of Presbyterian Colleges in there, eight of ten of the M.Div.’s are from PC(USA) seminaries (and the other two are both from Yale). Between the M.Div.’s and the D.Min.’s there are a couple from SFTS, from McCormick and from CTS. Princeton is under-represented (one degree) and Dubuque, Johnson C. Smith and Pittsburgh don’t appear. In the graduate degree category Gordon-Conwell seems popular.

But the most noticeable item, at least to me, is that they are all teaching elders. I am faulting no one for this because after watching what the position of Moderator of the General Assembly has become I don’t see how there can be many ruling elders who can put that much of their lives on hold for two years to do everything the Moderator is expected to do.  I was hoping that the report of the Committee to review Biennial Assemblies would at least acknowledge this but I don’t see this in the report.

Based on past history, this is probably the field of nominees standing for the office of Moderator, but there is still time for additional nominees to declare. We now await the official booklet with the information on each nominee and whatever additional endorsements each might receive. Lots to reflect on as GA gets closer and once the information book comes out I’ll probably have some additional comments and maybe handicap the field.

Presbyterian Church In Canada Announces Nominee For Moderator of the 138th General Assembly

Leave a reply


This morning the Presbyterian Church in Canada announced the results of the voting for the nominee for the Moderator of the 138th General Assembly (2012). The wider church has chosen The Rev. Dr. John A. Vissers (B.A., M.Div., Th.M., Th.D.) as their Moderator for the upcoming assembly and the following year.

For over twelve years Mr. Vissers has served as Principal of The Presbyterian College, Montreal
and Adjunct Professor of Christian Theology at McGill University. He was ordained to the ministry in 1981 and served in churches in British Columbia and Ontario as well as an academic position at Tyndale Seminary. His academic degrees are from, in the order listed after his name above, University of Toronto, Knox College (Toronto), Princeton Theological Seminary and Toronto School of Theology. He has given significant service on the presbytery level, including having served as Moderator of the Presbytery of Montreal. At the national level he has served on the Committee on History, including as convener, as well as the Committee on Theological Education and currently on the Committee on Doctrine. He and his wife, Lynn McEwen have three children all currently persuing college studies – a son working on an M.Div. at Princeton Theological Seminary and another studying engineering at John Abbot College as well as a daughter studying Occupational Therapy at McGill. (Appreciate the OT since that field is a “family favorite” around my house.)

It seems a bit awkward writing some of the text above since it was just announced late last week by Knox College, Toronto, that Mr. Vissers would be taking a new position as their Director of Academic Programs (Knox announcement, PCC news release, Presbyterian College news release)

(As long as we have hit two of the three theological colleges of the PCC in one shot, it is worth pointing out that their third institution is St. Andrew’s Hall in Vancouver, B.C.)

And so, just as one of the other nominees for Moderator, the Rev. John Borthwick, has congratulated the Rev. Vissers on his blog, we also extend our congratulations to the Rev. Vissers on both of the recent developments in his life and assure him of our prayers for what will certainly be a very busy year.  (And for the record, we presume that the other candidates for Moderator also extend their congratulations and well wishes but Mr. Borthwick is the only one regularly blogging the journey.)

PC(USA) Synod PJC Decisions — Per Capita And Property

Leave a reply

For us Presbyterian Polity Wonks this past weekend was a good weekend for interesting PJC decisions. I will say at the onset that both were decided as I expected, but that does not make them any less interesting. And of course the interest and importance is enhanced by the fact that they deal with two of the hot-topics in the PC(USA) today — per capita and property. And the obvious reminder, these are synod PJC decisions so there is no broad application at this stage and as I will discuss I think they both rely on and reinforce current precedent.

If you want an executive summary of these two remedial cases here you go:  The SPJC of the Synod of the Trinity found that changes to the new Form of Government were not substantial in the area of per capita and that Pittsburgh Presbytery could not make a new policy to avoid paying per capita it did not collect. In the second case, the SPJC of the Synod of the Pacific found that San Francisco Presbytery did have the authority under the Book of Order and acted in good faith when it dismissed a church with its property.

Now the details…

Last December Pittsburgh Presbytery
adopted as part of its Manual of Presbytery the line “Presbytery shall only remit to the General Assembly the per capita assessment it receives from the particular churches that is designated by those councils.” In their decision in the trial of this remedial case – David C. Green, Complainant, vs. The Presbytery of Pittsburgh, Respondent – the SPJC of the Synod of the Trinity boils down the argument of the Presbytery and the SPJC’s disagreement with that argument nicely into two paragraphs:

Pittsburgh Presbytery argues that the adoption of the New Form of Government by the 219th (2010) General Assembly set aside the applicable previous decisions of General Assembly, Permanent Judicial Commission and Authoritative Interpretations since the General Assembly “chose not to include the strict construction language from the 1999 Authoritative Interpretation (Request 99-1)”.

We disagree with this argument. The substance of the previous relevant language, now found in G-3.0106, was adopted except for the addition of the clause, “but in no case shall the authority of the Session to direct its benevolences be compromised.” We do not believe the addition of this clause has changed the obligation of presbyteries to remit per capita to synods and General Assembly.

So, at this point the opinion is that the language in the Book of Order has not changed to a substantial degree and previous General Assembly Interpretations still stand. This decision is in agreement with the Report of the Special Committee on Existing Authoritative Interpretations of the Book of Order, released a few days after the SPJC decision, which recommends that Authoritative Interpretation 99-1 be retained. The SPJC decision also discusses GAPJC cases where the same conclusion was reached. They wrap this up by saying “We fully agree with the previous authoritative interpretations.” They then conclude the formal decision itself by noting that not passing on per capita is a “serious breach of trust and love” (Minihan v. Presbytery of Scioto Valley, 216-01) and then applying it to themselves:

If this form of congregational protest were to be passed on to synod and General Assembly by our judicial action, then we would be unconstitutionally encouraging a form of protest that is outside of our understanding of how change can and should be effected within our denomination.

The decision concludes with a Comment that first points out that the constitutional obligation to pay per capita can only be changed by the General Assembly and that for the realities of the current circumstances “The time has come for the General Assembly to provide more guidance on this point.” They then take this a step further and conclude the narrative with this observation:

The loss of per capita funds from financially strapped congregations is another issue altogether, and is addressed, in our opinion inadequately, by the vague standards relating to whether funds are available within presbyteries. Further, we would be remiss in not noting that reality of declining funding is a symptom, not the disease. The underlying causes must be prayerfully addressed at local, presbytery, synod and General Assembly levels, not in the denominational courts or in unconstitutional actions.

The second decision comes in a remedial case filed against San Francisco Presbytery related to its process in dismissing Community Presbyterian Church of Danville, California. In September of 2009 the Presbytery adopted a Gracious Dismissal Policy (version from Summer 2010 with corrections). In November 2010, after a ten month process that included a special informational presbytery meeting, the Presbytery dismissed the church with an agreement for payments to help offset the loss of per capita and mission funding, but no payments required for the congregation to keep the property. Three presbyters filed the remedial complaint charging that the Presbytery had not properly handled the case considering that property was involved. In their unanimous decision – Rev. Wilbert Tom, HR, Rev. David Hawbecker, HR, and Thomas Conrad, Complainants, v. The Presbytery of San Francisco, Respondent – the SPJC of the Synod of the Pacific did not sustain any of the charges, but for a variety of reasons.

As we delve into this we first need to pull that previous version of the Book of Order off the shelf since that was the constitution in effect at the time of the contested process and all citations are to that version.  Two sections were front and center in this case and I am sure that you know what they are.

G-8.0201  Al l property held by or for a particular church, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.), whether legal title is lodged in a corporation, a trustee or
trustees, or an unincorporated association, and whether the
property is used in programs of a particular church or of a more
inclusive governing body or retained for the production of income,
is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

and one of the responsibilities and powers of a presbytery

G-11.0103i . to divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches in consultation with their members;

I want to add two more notes at this point which were not in the forefront of this case but which were kept in mind. The first is the continuation of the section on property:

G-8.0301 Whenever property of, or held for, a particular church of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) ceases to be used by that church as a particular church of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in accordance with this Constitution, such property shall be held, used, applied, transferred, or sold as provided by the presbytery.

The second is a paragraph from the 1993 Nature of the Church Report to General Assembly (pg. 16)

The American tradition was being formed. In the Scottish church, all ultimate authority rested in and came from the assembly. But in the American church, the presbytery was the originating authority, relating particular churches into a larger whole. The 1788 Form of Government declared that “. ..no act of a General Assembly could become a standing rule without first being referred to the presbyteries, and securing the consent of at least a majority of them.” The presbytery is the very heart of the Presbyterian system.

The core thesis of the charges in the remedial case were that at worst the presbytery did not have the authority to dismiss a church with property because property “is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)” [i.e. the whole church must be involved]. At best, the case charged that the presbytery did not fulfill its duties as the trustee for the wider church by letting the property go without payment.

In the amended charges there were 13 specifications of error two of which were withdrawn by the Complainants during trial. I won’t go through all of them since most were not sustained either because no relief could be granted or Complainants failed to meet the burden of proof. Three charges form the core of the complaint and the rational of the decision:

Specification of Error No. 1. Complainants contend that the Presbytery’s vote of November 9, 2010, to approve dismissal of the CPCD under terms which included Presbytery’s relinquishment of any and all interests of the PCUSA in the Property without compensation in favor of the EPC is an action which is based on an error in Constitutional interpretation, in that the Presbytery does not own the Property but holds the Property in trust for the use and benefit of the PCUSA (G-8.0201).

Specification of Error No. 2. The Presbytery failed to meet its Constitutional responsibility as trustee in accordance with the Form of Government Part G, Chapter VIII of the Book of Order. As trustee, the Presbytery is obligated to act on behalf of the greater church, to ensure that all property held or used by its particular churches and their respective congregations is held, used and applied in a manner that faithfully advances and serves the ministry and witness of the PCUSA.

Specification of Error No. 4. The Presbytery acted against the Constitution of the PCUSA in that it failed to hold, use, apply, transfer or sell the Property for the benefit of the PCUSA. G-8.0301 provides:
[quoted above]

…Taken together, the provisions of Part G Chapter VIII require the Presbytery to act as a faithful trustee on behalf of the PCUSA in exercising its responsibility and power under the above-referenced Chapter and at Part G Chapter XI, to “divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches in consultation with their members” (G-11.0103i). By its vote on November 9, 2010, the Presbytery failed to act as a faithful trustee under the Constitution.

The rational from the SPJC is remarkably brief in not sustaining these charges. They note that all parties agree the Trust Clause means the property is held for the benefit of the wider church. They then reiterate “Under G-11.0103i, Presbytery has the authority to dismiss a church in consultation with its members to another reformed body” and note that the Presbytery had a process in place and that process was faithfully followed. Having followed the process and in consistency with its policy, they note that the Presbytery exercised its discretion granted under G-8.0301. They then conclude:

In good faith, Presbytery determined that acceptance of the PET [Presbytery Engagement Team] recommendations for dismissal would best serve the overall witness and ministry of the Church of Jesus Christ, thus benefitting [sic] the PC(USA).

Other charges not sustained because no admissible evidence was supplied or the burden of proof was not met include a couple financial ones – the small ratio of payments to Presbytery versus the value of the property and the cost of starting new ministries in the Presbytery. There were charges concerning the flawed nature of the Gracious Dismissal Policy and consideration of state law in the process which were not sustained because no relief could be granted. And two charges, one withdrawn and one not meeting the burden of proof/could not grant relief, questioned the qualifications of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church as a Reformed body a church could be dismissed to.

In summary, the Presbytery did have the authority and did act faithfully and in good faith in dismissing the congregation with their property.

And now, the rest of the story…

This decision also contains a comment which notes the limited applicability of this decision not just because it was decided at the Synod level but because the Gracious Dismissal Policy has been suspended. In light of this first application of the policy the Presbytery decided to suspend the policy and review it and you can read the review team’s September 2011 report. Regarding revisions specific to property and the Trust Clause, here is the relevant portion of the report’s rational (edited slightly for length):

Moreover, San Francisco Presbytery’s original dismissal policy has been challenged in our church courts because of Presbytery’s responsibility for enforcing the property trust clause. It is simply not an option for a presbytery to opt out of a required constitutional responsibility for its enforcement.

We believe that the revised dismissal policy needs to address not only the requirements of the property trust clause, but also the importance of every church in fulfilling Presbytery’s mission (as it becomes clearly defined) within our geographic area. When a congregation seeks to withdraw, Presbytery should consider whether it needs to establish a replacement church in that community and the cost of such action. If a congregation walks away from our denomination without consideration for the injury suffered by the whole, by that departure, it will remind us of every congregation’s sinful tendency to be separate and self-sufficient. We all belong to one another and together constitute the risen Body of Christ.

We have therefore proposed that, ordinarily, a departing church will pay to Presbytery a minimum 10% of the value of the church property. This guidance is based, in part, on the Biblical concept of tithing. However, our policy provides flexibility for the teams negotiating on behalf of Presbytery and the congregation to adjust the recommended amount of compensation depending upon the particular circumstances of the congregation in question… In addition to the property issues, Presbytery will also have to discern in each situation its past, present and future mission with respect to the number of members withdrawing and those wishing to remain with PCUSA, the presence of other Presbyterian congregations in that vicinity, and ongoing mission and outreach efforts in the area.

This revised policy, and proposed amendments to it, are still under discussion by the Presbytery and will probably be influenced by this SPJC decision.

So we have one decision that affirms presbytery obligations under our connectionalism, admittedly as interpreted as by the GA and its PJC. And we have another decision that affirms the presbytery as the basic unit to deal with congregational and presbytery property under the Trust Clause.

What next? Good question. Both decisions strike me as sound and consistent with current constitutional interpretations so I would be skeptical of the success of an appeal to the GAPJC. That does not mean that there won’t be one. For the San Francisco case in particular, with the revision of the policy underway and the limited number of specifications of error that were considered to be in order and could be dealt with, I could see an appeal not being accepted because the case would be considered moot. We will see if any of the parties in these cases consider it beneficial to appeal.

Stay tuned…

Moderator Designate of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) — Rev James Gracie

1 Reply


Earlier this week the Stornoway Gazette carried the news that the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) announced that the Rev. James Gracie is the Moderator Designate for the 2012 General Assembly. Rev. Gracie is the pastor of the Free Church (Continuing) congregation in Edinburgh.

Rev Gracie is a second career minister, having worked first in the Agricultural industry after attending the West of Scotland Agricultural College. While working on the Island of Skye he began preaching for congregations in that area and applied to become a candidate for ministry. After attending Free Church College he was ordained and inducted into his first charge on the Island of Arran in 1994. Between there and Edinburgh he also served a congregation in North Uist.

In the Fall Rev. Gracie made headlines when during the open comment period on the proposal to permit same-sex marriages in Scotland he came out strongly against the proposal on a BBC Radio program. Groups in favor of same-sex marriage condemned the tone and content of his comments, and particularly his comparison to pedophilia. He issued his own rebuttal and clarification and others wrote in to support him as well.

Our prayers are with Rev. Gracie for his leadership of the General Assembly and his term as Moderator.

Fifth Moderator Candidate For 220th PC(USA) GA (2012) Announced And The First Vice-Moderator Announcement

4 Replies

Late this past week a fifth individual announced her candidacy for Moderator of the 220th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Teaching Elder Janet Edwards has become the fifth candidate to stand for the office.

She has chosen as her theme “Forward Together With Courage” and on her candidacy web site she has a slightly different spin on the process and office.  She says (emphasis hers):

As I have pondered this notion of “standing for moderator,” another
meaning of the phrase has emerged for me: that the whole church stand
for the office of the moderator.

That means, for me, that we all embody the leadership, unity, and
hope that are so central to our church family and our Presbyterian
tradition.

[…]

My hope is to engage us all in moving forward, together, into the
future God is preparing for us, by doing this work together here and
now. And if we all can stand together in this way, just imagine what
power we will have to proclaim the Gospel in both word and deed!

She has structured her web site on the three on-going official tasks of the Moderator – Upholding the church through prayer, telling the story of the church’s life and being a bond of unity. In addition, she has the usual sections on My Call and Connecting with her. She makes good use of videos throughout the site.

In terms of connecting, she also has her Twitter handle (@revjanetedwards), a Facebook Page and her YouTube channel. In addition to blogging on the Moderator site she has her previous regular blog “A Time To Embrace.”

The Rev. Edwards made the news a couple weeks ago when her presbytery, Pittsburgh Presbytery – the host presbytery for GA – voted 144-85 to not endorse her for the position of Moderator. She is also known for her service as Co-Moderator of More Light Presbyterians and being cleared of charges she officiated a same-sex ceremony that was presented as a marriage ceremony.

There is additional coverage of her announcement from the Presbyterian Outlook, the Layman and More Light Presbyterians. Update: Presbyterian News Service article is out (Murphy’s law – they posted their just as I was posting mine)

In other GA Moderator news, candidate Sue Krummel has become the first to announce the selection of a Vice-Moderator candidate — the Rev. Dr. Sanghyuan James Lee.  Teaching Elder Lee is pastor of Korean Community Presbyterian Church in Columbia, South Carolina. He also actively serves in positions in his presbytery and with the National Council of Korean Presbyterian Church.

So, the field currently has five teaching elder candidates for Moderator and one teaching elder named as a Vice-Moderator running mate.  I think I have said enough.

PC(USA) GAPJC Decision In The Spahr 2012 Case: 1. The Decision

7 Replies


As you may have heard the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly (GAPJC) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) published four decisions yesterday. Wait, let me rephrase that – You may have heard about a GAPJC decision that hit the news yesterday. (For the polity wonks I actually think one of the other decisions is more interesting so I will try to comment on that in the next couple of days.)

The case is Disciplinary Case 220-08: Jane Adams Spahr, Appellant (Accused), v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) through the Presbytery of the Redwoods, Appellee (Complainant). Of the 15 GAPJC commissioners who heard the case, six of them signed one or both dissenting opinions.

This disciplinary case results from an accusation that was filed after the Rev. Spahr conducted same-sex marriages during the window when these marriages were permissible under civil law in the state of California. Among other things, this case became a test of whether a PC(USA) minister (teaching elder) could preform a ceremony presented as a marriage when permitted by the state.

At the present time the precedent for the interpretation of the PC(USA) constitution on this matter is the previous decision regarding Rev. Spahr (the Spahr 2008 decision 218-12) which now-famously stated (pg. 4):

The ceremonies that are the subject of this case were not marriages as the term is defined by W-4.9001. These were ceremonies between women, not between a man and a woman. Both parties acknowledged the ceremonies in question were not marriages as defined by the Book of Order. It is not improper for ministers of the Word and Sacrament to perform same sex ceremonies. At least four times, the larger church has rejected overtures that would prohibit blessing the unions of same sex couples. By the definition in W-4.9001, a same sex ceremony can never be a marriage. The SPJC found Spahr guilty of doing that which by definition cannot be done. One cannot characterize same sex ceremonies as marriages for the purpose of disciplining a minister of the Word and Sacrament and at the same time declare that such ceremonies are not marriages for legal or ecclesiastical purposes.

As that paragraph implies, the GAPJC overturned her earlier conviction on appeal because under the PC(USA) Constitution’s definition there is no such thing as a same-sex marriage.

Having now been charged and found guilty by the Presbytery PJC of new similar offenses in this regard the court had to decide on appeal whether her conviction on grounds of representing a same-sex ceremony as a marriage was correct.

In the decision nine specifications of error were regrouped into three different specifications of error, none of which was sustained. The first dealt with all the constitutional issues, the second that the various PJC’s have erred by “usurping the legislative power of the General Assembly,” and the third that there was a procedural error with the Synod PJC rephrasing the charges.

Regarding the constitutional issues the GAPJC decision says:

In Spahr 2008, Spahr was directed to refrain from implying, stating, or representing that a same-sex ceremony is a marriage. Within months of that order, Spahr performed marriage ceremonies for approximately sixteen same-sex couples. Although counsel for both parties confirmed that state law recognizes the legality of these marriages, the change in state law did not and could not change what is permissible for marriages to be authorized by the PC(USA).

and

The issue is not simply the same-sex ceremony. It is the misrepresentation that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) recognizes the ceremony and the resulting relationship to be a marriage in the eyes of the church. By the definition of W-4.9001, such a result cannot be. So the critical question is not whether the definitional language creates proscribed conduct, it is whether it is permissible to represent that one is doing something which one cannot constitutionally do.

and

This Commission agrees with the SPJC regarding Specification of Error No. 1 d and e (Appellant’s Specifications of Error Nos. 6, 7, and 8). The SPJC correctly found that “being faithful to Scripture and the Constitution on other matters does not provide a defense for the actions charged in this case,” and “the constitutional interpretations of Spahr (2008) and Southard by the PPJC are not inconsistent with the Book of Order when read as a whole.” Both the PPJC and SPJC found that Spahr’s conduct violated the Constitution.

The Decision portion where all this is laid out is relatively short, encompassing just over one page. Pretty short for nine specifications of error.

One commissioner, Barbara Bundick, wrote a concurring opinion which brings out a couple of interesting points. The first is that in some jurisdictions even if same-sex marriage is recognized by the state if it is not recognized by the clergy’s denomination that can invalidate the marriage. That is not an issue in this case since California does not have that provision but the point is made that those preforming marriages must be cautious about this in some jurisdictions.

Secondly, this concurrence takes issue with the GAPJC decision for not addressing liturgical forms.  It says:

While I affirm the majority opinion, I have serious concerns that the majority, in affirming the SPJC’s decision, is also affirming the SPJC’s criticism of the content of the ceremonies and the counseling Spahr conducted. In drawing a distinction between same-sex blessings, which are permissible, and same-sex marriages, which are not, the authoritative interpretations have gone beyond the definition of marriage to dictate the nature of the liturgy that can be used in same-sex blessings. […] In Spahr 2008, this Commission stated “the liturgy should be kept distinct for the two types of services.” This aspect of the precedent has created a difficult situation for those who minister to the GLBT community.

There is an inevitable and legitimate overlap between a same-sex blessing ceremony and a mixed-sex marriage ceremony. Both ceremonies involve a couple making promises to each other in the presence of God, their families and their community. As oft noted, “Form follows function.” Moreover, many, if not most of the trappings surrounding such ceremonies reflect popular culture rather than Biblical command. Given the overlap and the input from popular culture, how the two liturgies can be “kept distinct” is a mystery.

Requiring different liturgies has led to judicial micromanagement of the liturgy.

and concludes

The best solution is for the General Assembly to amend the definition of marriage to authorize teaching elders and commissioned ruling elders to preside at the marriages of same-sex couples in civil jurisdictions that recognize such marriages as legal. The definition now found in W-4.9001 was never designed for these circumstances. It was adopted in a world where same-sex marriages were inconceivable. By retaining that definition despite the increasing number of jurisdictions recognizing same-sex marriage, the church creates a form of second class citizenship for faithful Christians despite all the other places in the Book of Order where the full equality of persons regardless of sexual orientation is affirmed. I encourage the General Assembly to so act.

The second concurrence was signed by three commissioners and begins by looking at the Appellant’s arguments and suggesting “The Appellant asks this Commission to substitute her own interpretation for that made by this Commission in Spahr 2008.” It continues to discuss the fact that pastoral care and marriage are two different things in the Book of Order and they are to be considered separately. They say “Descriptions of pastoral care found in the Directory of Worship do not reach to the question of marriage.” It concludes by pointing out:

The appropriate way to redefine marriage and permissible practice within the PC(USA) is not through individual reinterpretation of the advice of the larger church, but by means of an amendment to the Constitution approved by the
General Assembly and ratified by the presbyteries of the church.

The first of the two dissents, signed by six commissioners, begins by saying that the majority decision is at odds with the PC(USA) constitution talking about the “equality and rights of all people.” It then talks about how we got here:

Both parties agree that before the 2008 Spahr decision there was no limitation on the conduct of teaching elders (clergy) regarding how they approached the matter of gay marriage, although most of the denomination hesitated to perform same gender marriages.

It goes on to say:

The larger church has repeatedly declined to amend W-4.9001 with regard to same-sex ceremonies. The church needs a sharper degree of clarification and guidance that precisely defines how it understands marriage, especially in light of the high financial and personal burden involved. Given the contention regarding the nature and practice of Christian marriage in our time, it would be important and valuable for the Church, through its General Assembly, to state its definition in clearer and more precise legislation.

and concludes with

Since the Directory for Worship is part of our constitution and the majority has found that it may give rise to disciplinary cases, then it should be immediately amended to clearly state that we fully welcome the LGBT community into their rightful place in our church, including allowing them to marry.

Overall, this is the one section that argues most strongly that the strict definition of marriage in W-4.9001 is wrong on equality and justice grounds. Some may see this as the natural linkage of the church’s stand for equality and justice while others will see it as advocacy beyond the the prevue of a PJC decision and possibly even judicial activism.

In reading this I do have trouble with their argument in the second section I quoted.  I think many in the church would argue that when the larger church has “repeatedly declined to amend W-4.9001 with regard to same-sex ceremonies” that does indeed provide a sharp “degree of clarification and guidance.” As for the GA stating its definition in clearer and more precise language, I refer you to the report to the 219th GA of the Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Unions and Christian Marriage where it says (p. 13):

What is the place of covenanted same-gender partnerships in the Christian community? The members of the PC(USA) cannot agree.

However, having said that, I will agree that while we will have trouble agreeing on a definition of marriage in an ecclesiastical sense, the PC(USA) Constitutional definition would be enhanced by a recognition that in a civil sense that reality is no longer always “one man and one woman.”

Five of those six commissioners on the first dissent continue on in the second dissent concerning the interpretation of the Directory for Worship. They begin:

The majority judges this case primarily in relation to the decisions in Spahr (2008) and Southard (2011) in a conviction that, behind its judicial interpretation, there is in the Constitution an explicit basis against officiating in a same-sex marriage. In fact, this conviction rests upon an assumption rather than explicit constitutional rule. It is grounded principally upon one section, even one sentence, in the Directory of Worship, that is claimed to have clear and obvious legal status. The Commission assumes here and in earlier cases that W-4.9001 presents a legal basis for denying the permissibility and validity of same-sex marriage because it presents a “definition” of marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. This assumption is flawed. This provision in the Directory of Worship cannot serve effectively as a judicial criterion.

They then argue that W-4.9001 reflects a different point in time when “The exclusive conventional norm was heterosexual marriage, when same-sex marriage, either civil or ecclesiastical, was unimaginable.”  They go on to argue that this section is introductory and narrative and that “To claim that this paragraph is primarily and intentionally legal in nature forces an artificial warp upon its evident narrative purpose.” Finally, they point out that grammatically the primary emphasis of the one sentence is the covenant nature of marriage and not the “one man and one woman.” The dissent concludes:

In this case and the other recent decisions, my principal concern is that this Commission has forged a standard upon an extremely fragile provision, employing a strained interpretation that does not provide the necessary legal foundation for resolution of our dilemma or foster pastoral guidance in the life of the church. By relying so heavily on W-4.9001, the Commission has ruled upon convention rather than law.

I enjoyed reading this dissent and even if you don’t agree with their conclusion if you want to read a well presented argument against the prescriptive nature of this section of the Directory for Worship have a look at it.

So, at this point the Rev. Spahr has reached her final appeal and will be subject to Rebuke by the Presbytery of the Redwoods. However, according to the L.A. Times article she has said that she will continue preforming same-sex marriages. (Although, at the moment they are not permitted in California.)

But getting back to polity questions, what does all this mean? Considering the number of statements that have been made and the wide variety of overtures that are headed to the 220th General Assembly this decision could have significant implications. And that my fellow polity wonks I will take up in Part 2.

Moderator Designate Of The Presbyterian Church In Ireland — The Rev Roy Patton

Leave a reply

It is the First Tuesday in February and right on schedule, a bit before 9 PM local time, Alan in Belfast and then William Crawley have broken the news that the Presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland have selected the Rev. Roy Patton as the Moderator Designate for the 2012 General Assembly. Mr. Patton was selected from a group of five nominees. He was the clear favorite of the 19 presbyteries receiving almost half of the endorsements with eight. (Not even close to needing the new same-day voting process in the event of a tie.)

Rev Patton is the pastor of Ballygilbert Presbyterian Church where he has been serving for 17 years. Before that he served at St. Enoch’s, Belfast, and Downshire Road, Newry.

He has considerable service to the PCI participating on several boards and working as the convener of some of them.  Currently, he serves as the Convener of the Board of Mission in Ireland.

He is a graduate of Trinity College and received his theological training at New College, Edinburgh, and Union Theological College, Belfast. (For those not familiar with the PCI, the completion at Union is a requirement of the denomination.)

The church web site tells us that his wife Daphne is a teacher and that they “very much work together as a team.”
(source: Presbyterian Church in Ireland )

So in light of that, our congratulations to Rev. Patton and our prayers for him and Mrs. Patton as they get ready for the General Assembly and for his Moderatorial year. Blessings on you.

The news is just breaking but additional coverage and quotes can be found at Alan in Belfast and the BBC news. We are expecting a formal press release to be posted by the PCI, but their pre-vote page has a brief biography of Rev. Patton and the other four candidates.

How Do You Get Your Message Out? New Development In Standing For Moderator

3 Replies

Well, as much as I have spent time discussing the Moderator election for the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, today’s brief note on new approaches brings us back to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

A couple of days ago I got an interesting Tweet from one of the candidates standing for Moderator of the General Assembly of the PC(USA).  It reads:

@nealpresa: Receive alerts of mod candidacy by texting word, “PRESA” to 56512. For email alerts text “PRESA (your email)” to 56512 #fb #pcusa #ga220

So now we can get mod candidacy alerts by text message. I believe this is a first.

This is actually a very smart move if you are aiming for a particular demographic.  Consider a meeting of a youth group (youth ages 14-20) that I was at last Sunday afternoon. They were discussing an upcoming activity and the youth chair needed a piece of information from the adviser.  The adviser asked “Can I email you that.”

“No” replied the youth, “text it to me.”

I can’t speak for this as a national trend, although I suspect it is, but for most of the youth and young adults that I work with on various things (and this includes my own kids) by far the number one means of communicating is by text message on their phones. If you haven’t noticed, phones are not to talk on any more but devices to send and receive text messages.  (And I sometimes suspect that one appeal of contacting your parents by text is that your friends don’t know its your parents you are texting to as opposed to having them overhear you on the phone.)

Email? Too complicated for the easy stuff. Twitter? Interesting, but not the way to hold a conversation. Text messaging is the simple method of communicating one-on-one for youth and young adults.

This does of course beg the question of whether there are enough commissioners who would want to get updates by text message to make this approach worth while.  It will be interesting to find out. And yes, I have texted in to be added to the distribution list but no alerts yet.

So how do you go about doing this? Well, the “text to” address of 56512 belongs to a direct marketing firm called Guide by Cell that offers various audio, mobi and text packages.  It must be pretty affordable because the budget for a Moderator campaign is capped at $1500.

As I said, it will be interesting to see how this new media works out for Rev. Presa. Stay tuned…

(And yes, there is other Moderator news this week, but I’m going to let that run a bit further before I do more with it.)

Musings On The FOP NRB Theology Document – 2. Theology Comes First

8 Replies


As we anticipate the next gathering of the Fellowship of Presbyterians I thought I would riff for a few minutes about their draft Theology Document…

One month ago the Fellowship released both a draft Theology and a draft Polity document for the new Reformed body ( NRB ) in preparation for their meeting in just under two weeks. The close of the comment period for the drafts was yesterday and registration closes on Monday. The Fellowship says that at the present time 2100 people have registered for the meeting so it looks will have significant participation.

For those interested in polity, parliamentary procedure and process I think you will find some of the analysis by Carmen Fowler LaBerge in the Layman of some interest. She highlights many of the process issues that will come up at the meeting, e.g. Who can vote on these documents? Will substitute motions be permitted? I’m sure the organizers have this all in hand but an announcement of these process issues has not been posted to the Fellowship web site. She also echoes a couple of my thoughts about the Theology document, which I will refer to in a minute.

While my first musing was on the polity related to subscribing to the theology, when the documents were released I probably looked forward to reading the theology document more than the polity — after all, our polity flows from the theology. There were several things I anticipated in the theology document and I can say that I was wrong about several of them.

Maybe my biggest question, and my biggest surprise, was the approach they took to confessional standards. The proposal is to adopt the whole of the current Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Book of Confessions as the initial standards. The Forward to the document begins with this (page 1):

The first task is to identify the statements of our confessional heritage that will connect us with the one holy catholic apostolic church and express our distinctively Reformed convictions within that church. We propose the collection of confessional documents in The Book of Confessions as the appropriate theological expression at this moment in our life together. These creeds, confessions, and catechisms have much-needed wisdom of proven worth for us, and can uniquely serve as the central documents for a new Fellowship that strives to retain meaningful connections among congregations, some of whom will be within the PC(USA), some of whom will be in a new Reformed body. (emphasis as in original)

Later it continues with (page 2)

We recognize that The Fellowship and/or the new Reformed body may, after a time of building and testing theological consensus among us, alter this judgment. But it is our opinion that the theological consensus among evangelicals has not been tested and, further, that to presume a consensus where one does not exist is to repeat one of the most significant theological failures of our generation. As members of the ordered ministries of the Church, we have agreed to The Book of Confessions. Let us keep that covenant that we may be found faithful to any new theological covenant we will make.

As I said, Carmen Fowler LaBerge echoes my surprise at this broad inclusion when she says:

I was surprised that the Fellowship document recommends the entirety of the PCUSA Book of Confessions
as the confessional standard of the new Reformed body.  In particular,
the Confession of 1967 is problematic for many who have grown
disaffected with the PCUSA’s diffuse theological wanderings since its
adoption a generation ago.

I could ask whether the playing field would have been different if the Belhar Confession had been adopted — but since it was not this really is a hypothetical and moot question at this time.

Now, I am going to take the document at face value about their reasoning, but also add that there are obvious pragmatic benefits to this choice: The document mentions the shared confessional standard that would benefit union churches and affiliations as well as the fact that they are beginning with a standard currently accepted and vowed to by those in the Fellowship. But, when you consider the time frame that the drafters were under as well as the potential for bogging down an assembly in fine-tuning a new confessional standard, the benefits of an off-the-shelf known entity are obvious. It also means that the NRB does not have to worry about publishing their own volume of confessions just yet.

The Confessional Standards are the first substantive portion of the document and the second is the Essential Tenets (of the Reformed Faith). I think that most would agree that the Essential Tenets section does a good job of articulating the historical orthodox Christian beliefs as well as what most would consider the traditional Reformed distinctives. Throughout it there is good agreement with the Foundations section of the PC(USA) Book of Order. In general, whether you personally agree or disagree with Reformed theology and basic Calvinism, you have to acknowledge that for the most part this section holds closely to that. And doing this section as a narrative, and not bullet points, I would say enhances the value of it.

The point where the disagreements would most likely begin is in the final “application” section – the document calls it “Living in Obedience to the Word of God.” This is the section that uses as a framework the Ten Commandments. While I discussed some of my hesitancy with this in the previous post, this is the section that applies the preceding confessions and tenets to specific lifestyle issues that a good portion of the church might see in a different light. For instance, the second point says:

2. worship God in humility, being reticent in either describing or picturing God, recognizing that right worship is best supported not by our own innovative practices but through the living preaching of the Word and the faithful administration of the sacraments;

Church historians and polity wonks may recognize that the term “innovative practices” is a loaded term in Presbyterian tradition. This is a current topic among churches, like the Free Church of Scotland, that are discussing flexibility in worship styles, particularly regarding exclusive unaccompanied Psalmody. As one article on the Regulative Principle puts it – “The regulative principle of worship requires man to worship God only as
He has commanded in His Word. To add elements of human innovation into
the worship of God brings His just displeasure.” (emphasis added) Many of these Presbyterian branches would consider some of the worship practices seen across the PC(USA) as “human innovation.”

Specifically, the term “innovations” is a technical term in many branches of Presbyterian polity whose depth of meaning I won’t go into at this time. One place it is regularly found is in the Barrier Act – the standard in many Presbyterian branches descending directly from the Scottish Reformation that says when an act of the General Assembly/Synod must have the concurrence of the presbyteries. A polity discussion from the Free Church Assembly regarding worship practices discusses the Barrier Act of 1697. The sub-title of the act is “Act anent the Method of passing Acts of Assembly of general concern to the Church, and for preventing of Innovations.” (Yes indeed, capitalized as a proper noun.)

But getting back to the Theology document… This complexity around the application of the second commandment is just one example. My point is that it is usually when the church tries to translate doctrine into practice that we run into the biggest differences of opinion.

Moving on I’ll finally get to what I like best about the Theology document, and that is the concept behind section three on Ideas & Questions for Immediate Consideration. Let me back-track to the Forward for the real punch line here (page 1-2):

Casual affirmation of our theological heritage by our generation has severely weakened our worship and witness. We are squandering the gifts our confessional heritage could give us. We confess we have not been good stewards of the Faith. We must now reengage the Faith of the Church in ways that are more deeply committed to its truth and thus its value in ordering our life toward faithfulness. We have a strong conviction that our current theological failures are not the failures of the bishops at Nicea, the divines at Westminster, or the confessors at Barmen; the failures are our own. Now is the time to confess it and strengthen our theological covenant.

It later (page 2) says

Structures for doing theological work and for keeping theological integrity need to be established. Theology is not only to be established in our minds and become formative for our hearts, it is to be embodied in our manner of life and in the structures of the church. Companies of Pastors and Orders of Elders need to be formed. Teaching and Ruling Elders must relearn how to fulfill their missional callings in light of the Faith of the Church.  Our faithfulness depends on it. We strongly propose that new structures will be formed for the purpose of making a contribution to the theological well-being of the church so that our Faith can make its full contribution to the mission of the Church.

[Rant mode on] This may not be true for your congregation but I sometimes ask myself “If we have a Book of Confessions, why don’t we use it?”

One of my concerns with adopting the Belhar Confession was that we have so many documents now that just sit on the shelf, what is the value of adding one more? And I’m sure my pastor is getting tired of my commenting that we don’t use confessions enough in worship and education, or when we use one from another tradition why don’t we use more from our Book of Confessions.

Don’t misunderstand me – just as this Theology document finds the standards “have much-needed wisdom of proven worth for us” I agree and value both the historical and the timeless voice in which they speak. It is not in their intrinsic value that I have questions but in their visibility and application in the church today.

[Rant mode off]

I really like the fact that the Theology document recognizes this and proposes a process for keeping the confessions “on the table,” making sure theology comes first (page 10):

Renewed commitment to sustained conversation is needed. At its best, sustained conversation is characterized by prayerful and rigorous study of the Scripture with attention to clarifying the Reformed theological lens through which we read the Scriptures, by grateful listening to the voice of the church around the world and through the ages, and application of theological wisdom to every part of life before God and for the world.

Toward these ends, we now commit ourselves to the formation of theological friendships in communities that include all teaching and ruling elders – gatherings of elders which covenant to study and learn together, providing mutual encouragement and accountability for the sake of sustaining and advancing the theological and missional work of the church.

If the creeds, confessions and catechisms are living documents, then we must live with them and into them. I very much appreciate that this document and the proposed life of the NRB addresses that fact.

Well, there are a bunch more things I had in my head to muse about, but my time is up and this got longer than I thought it would.  At this point I don’t anticipate another musing before the FOP has their next gathering so I’ll sit back and watch Presbyterian polity at work in a new venue. Prayers for the gathering and I’ll catch up with the FOP on the back side.

Follow Up On The Presbyterian Church In Canada Moderator Election — Details And Discussion

Leave a reply


The recent twist in the process to elect the Moderator of the next General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada is still a developing story and polity discussion. Since my last post on the topic the Presbyterian Church in Canada has released the biographical sketches of the five candidates for Moderator of the 138th General Assembly. The discussion around “active campaigning” for the office has also continued — I will get to that in a moment, but first some polity details about the election.

The focus on the election got me asking questions about what the details of the process are.  As I noted in that last post, the Book of Forms (section 282) basically says that it will happen. Drilling down a bit more I find that the most recent minutes (page 11) indicate that the process is “In accordance with the method determined by the 95th General Assembly…” Well, with a lot of help I want to take a look at the method which I have found to be a bit unique in the Presbyterian system.

Now, to give fair warning, this first part is polity wonkish and you may find it interesting but there are not many significant take-aways. You can go ahead and jump to part two if you are primarily interested in the developments in the moderator’s election itself.

Also, as I will explain in a moment, this research can not be done online.  So I am indebted to Colin Carmichael, the Associate Secretary for Communications at the PCC and the Clerks Office for providing the relevant documents for this discussion.

This all started when I read the minutes of the last General Assembly and they say that the method of election of the Moderator was determined by the 95th General Assembly (1969). The problem is that the oldest records available online are the 118th General Assembly (1992). After contacting the office Colin and the Clerks graciously, and quickly, provided me with not only the relevant portion of the 95th’s Proceedings, but also related portions of the 98th’s and 99th’s Proceedings.  In addition, they included this year’s Clerk’s letter to the presbyteries that helps explain the process.  Again, my thanks for all the work.

So what is the process? Based on a recommendation from the Administrative Council concerning a suggestion from the Committee to Advise the Moderator, the 95th General Assembly (1969) established a five year trial of standing orders to have the church elect, or technically nominate, the Moderator of the General Assembly. The process begins with presbyteries nominating individuals for the position — each may nominate up to two and they can be from other presbyteries. Then, based on these nominations the Clerk’s office confirms each of those nominated is willing to serve and sends out ballots to the presbyteries.  Here is where it get’s unique – each individual with a vote in presbytery, ministers and the designated ruling elders, is eligible to vote. But the vote is not by presbytery but rather all ballots get returned to the national office and they get collectively counted.  The top vote-getter is the final nominee for the office.

Now, for the polity/parliamentary procedure specialists the instructions have as part of their Preamble: “That in the Regulations below where the phrase “nomination of Presbytery” or equivalent is used, this phrase be understood for convenience only. (The only true nomination for Moderator is from the floor of Assembly.)” You can breath easier now.

I have simplified the steps in the discussion above but those are the essential steps. What is interesting is that this is what is referenced in the current minutes since it was only a five-year trial. That is where the Acts and Proceedings from the 98th and 99th GA’s come in. The vast majority of the original process was retained but an important change was made: In the voting each presbytery member now ranks their choices for Moderator. If no nominee receives a majority, not plurality, based on the number 1 choices, then the lowest vote-getter is dropped and those ballots selecting that person first have their second choice votes distributed. The process continues until one nominee receives a majority.

Again, for the polity wonks, here are the usual contingencies:

10. That the nomination be made from the floor of the Assembly, and that the opportunity be given for another nomination or nominations.
11. That, if the foregoing fails to be effective, the election of the Moderator shall proceed in the manner of 1969, notice being given to the Presbyteries as early as possible.

Let me throw in two things here: 1) Somewhere there is a little bit more because these instructions don’t include the part that a nominee needs the endorsement of three Presbyteries to appear on the ballot. 2) Because the instructions are pieced together from a series of Acts and Proceedings it appears that while reference is made to Standing Orders, they exist only as parts of different acts recorded by year and not a unified reference book.

A great transition to the next topic is the Clerk’s Letter from last August soliciting nominations for Moderator of the General Assembly. With that letter the Clerk included an adopted overture from the 74th General Assembly (1948) [slightly edited for length]:

A&P 1948, page 160 (Appendix)
NO. 11 – PRESBYTERY OF GUELPH
Re: Undue Influence Among Presbyteries
 
To the Venerable, the General Assembly:
WHEREAS, circular letters have been received by this Presbytery each year for a number of years from one or more other Presbyteries giving notice as to whom they have nominated for General Assembly appointments, and
WHEREAS, these nominations are supposed to be reported only to the General assembly and to the Boards concerned, and
WHEREAS, it would appear that the Presbyteries responsible for this procedure have been seeking to influence other Presbyteries to support their candidates.
It is humbly overtured by the Presbytery of Guelph that the General Assembly taken some action to put an end to this practice which we deem undesirable.
Extracted from the Records of the Presbytery of Guelph by Morriston, Ontario
March 17th, 1948
T.G.M. Byran
Presbytery Clerk

A&P 1948, page 94 (minutes)
Overture No. 11, Presbytery of Guelph, Re Undue Influence Among Presbyteries

Mr. W.A Young was heard in support of the Overture of the Presbytery of Guelph Re Undue Influence Among Presbyteries, and moved, duly seconded, that the Assembly express disapproval of practice complained of, and it was so ordered.

The Clerk includes in the body of the letter the advice:

While the overture refers only to letters from presbyteries, I am of the opinion that if, in the overture, reference had been made to letters from individual ministers, Assembly’s attitude would have been the same – disapproval of the practice. Subsequent Assemblies have not changed the position taken by the 78th [sic?] Assembly, but it appears that some within our church are either not aware of the action or have chosen to disregard it. Your assistance in communicating this concern and your good example will be greatly appreciated.

So that is regarding the lobbying of presbyteries and individuals on behalf of a candidate. The current situation involves the candidate himself and the use of social media and not letters.

To recap the situation, one of the candidates for Moderator, the Rev. John Borthwick of Guelph (déjà vu?) has been active on social media to begin a discussion about the moderator election.  Is it “active campaigning” as I originally called it?  It could be interpreted that way and I will leave it to the reader and those in the presbyteries of the PCC to decide if it is.  What he has done is opened up a discussion about the role of the moderator and what else should go on around the process of election.

At this point Mr. Borthwick is taking full advantage of social media with his personal Twitter at @jborthwik, his moderator Twitter at @borthwick4mod, a Facebook page, and more recently a blog related to his Moderator campaign – borthwick4moderator. That blog is what I want to focus on.

Now, while I appreciate his reprinting my previous post on this topic in his second post on the blog, I want to focus on his writing as a whole, with some emphasis on a more recent post. I will quote extensively, but will edit almost all of them for length.

The blog does have a number of sections found on typical PC(USA) Moderator candidate sites including the obligatory Who Am I? and the Sense of Call. His sense of call is short and telling – here it is in total:

“I’m average.”  I discovered that fact while I was attending the October
2011 meeting of the Synod of Central and Northern Ontario and Bermuda. 
During The Rev. Jeff Crawford, our Synod Youth Consultant’s
presentation, it was noted that the average age of Canadians is 39 years
old.  I’m 39, really and not just holding.  For the last year or two,
I’ve felt called to the role of Moderator of The Presbyterian Church in
Canada.  I was originally inspired by the journey and witness of The
Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow as he became one of the youngest moderators of the
PCUSA [sic].  I believe it is time for the Canadian average to be represented
and apparently our young people do as well.  As a conclusion to Jeff’s
presentation, he noted that the members of the Synod’s Presbyterian
Young People’s Society had asked him to deliver a recommendation to the
upcoming Synod meeting: that we consider nominating a 39 year old to the
position of Moderator of General Assembly.  It was then that I said,
“Here I am!”

(I will leave comments about being inspired by Bruce and the PC(USA)-ification of the PCC for another time.)

 In addition, he has the usual Endorsements section and the Experience and Education list.  He also has a couple sections you don’t regularly see – a listing of his Growth Areas and the information on The Other Nominees.

As of today he has seven posts on his blog including a brief initial Welcome, a recent Christmas greeting, and the reprint of my article I have already mentioned. I will leave it to you to read the article about what a Moderator is and the one on “Ten, actually Nine, Questions Every Moderator Nominee Should Answer.” I want to finish this post focusing on the remaining two that focus on the Moderator campaign.

The second of the two is “Being the Change” where Mr. Borthwick responds to a couple of thoughtful comments posted on the Facebook page about his handling the campaign, with an eye not so much on the legalistic aspects but on a spirit of fairness.  Here are a few selected sections of Mr. Borthwick’s response:

I deeply appreciate these comments.  I would love for all of the
nominees ‘to be on the same page’… but recognize that we didn’t ‘sign up
with this in mind’.  I appreciate Andrew’s point in a previous post,
where he says let’s hear from all the nominees instead of just promoting
John Borthwick.

and

I respect my fellow nominees deeply and am honoured to be on a list with
them.  I also believe that any one of them would make an excellent
moderator… but most of all I’d love to hear more about their vision and
hopes for our denomination (beyond the 100 words) and would consider it a
privilege to spend the next 114 days discussing the issues with them.

and finally

I am attempting to ‘be the change’ as opposed to following a traditional
process.  That doesn’t always win you friends.  My goal in all this is
not about ‘winning’ though but about shaking our denominational tree a
little to see what fruit falls.

The other post is his extensive answer to the idea of “active campaigning.” Here are his arguments for his approach, extensively edited for length:

  1. The moderator of the PCC is just the chair of a really big meeting… but I
    believe that the office carries tremendous power to influence and even
    transform our denomination.  […] [W]e
    should hear more than 100 words from our candidates!  We should hear
    about their vision and the ways that they will attempt to implement that
    vision.  […] I’ve always wanted
    to know more about the candidates.  And so that is why I’m sharing with
    you.

  2. I believe that the process we have now diminishes the office.  I’ve
    talked with many over the years who see the role as insignificant.  A
    victory lap for some.  A final feather in the cap for others.  […] Most people tell
    me that they tend to vote for who they know and like (or by process of
    elimination, vote for who they don’t know but have no negative opinion
    of unlike the other candidates).  […] I’ve heard ruling
    elders say that either they don’t vote or they ask their minister who
    they should vote for… since they don’t know any of the candidates.  I
    wonder if we have ever looked at ‘voter turnout’ with regard to our
    Moderatorial race.  Some of my colleagues have told me that they haven’t
    voted in years.  […] I’d suggest that some kind
    of modest campaigning (at least one that outlines what kind of vision
    candidates have for our denomination and how they would go about
    executing it through their year as Moderator) would be helpful and
    appropriate.

  3. Maybe the way we have understood the role of moderator is a thing of
    the past.  […] It seems that one
    generation sees it as something that one ‘stands’ for while the other
    wants to know what one stands for!  I think it is time that we knew what our moderator candidates stand for.

  4. There seems to often be a disconnect between the office of the
    moderator and the overall direction of the Church and its vision,
    planning, and campaigns.  […] Wouldn’t it be great if our moderators worked in
    partnership with denominational directions, plans and campaigns.  [… W]hat I’m recommending is that
    the Church makes an informed decision on who they would like to see as
    giving ‘voice’ to those directions.

  5. Finally, I’ve been told that I’m being disrespectful to past
    moderators and my current fellow nominees.  I wish to convey no such
    disrespect.  I have appreciated and valued the work of our past
    moderators, and our current one.  I respect greatly how they chose to
    serve our beloved Church in the role of moderator and their richness of
    work and witness that raised them to being recognized by the Church.  I
    also respect my fellow nominees, Peter Bush, Gordon Haynes, Andrew
    Johnson, and John Vissers.  They are all men whom I have met personally
    and have greatly appreciated my interactions with them.  Any one of them
    would make an excellent moderator of the PCC.  I would love to hear
    more from them as to how they would lead our denomination into the
    future and what kind of vision they would desire to see implemented to
    strengthen our life and work together.

I would encourage you to look at the thoughtful responses in the comments section of that post.  Bryn MacPhail notes “In my 13 years in the PCC, I probably left something like 4 or 5 signed
ballots blank–not because I didn’t value the position, but because I
valued it so much that I refused to vote for someone I wasn’t well
acquainted with.” Andrew Reid has a particularly thoughtful and extensive response which includes the observation “However, the impression I took from your “campaigning” was that you are
not trying to change the process but simply sweeping it aside.” And finally, Colin Carmichael reminds everyone that if other candidates want to participate in the discussion the church has a resource in www.pccweb.ca that they can use and his office would be glad to help them get going with their own web sites.

An interesting discussion – and I will leave it up to you to determine its value. On the one hand, it is aimed at making the church more open, more  interactive, more appealing to the younger generation. On the other hand, it is a unilateral attempt to do this in a way that is inspired by a different Presbyterian branch and clashes with the ethos of the PCC. Is this a reasonable goal? Is this a good way to go about reaching that goal? What matters here is not just the destination but the journey – how it is done is just as important to involving members as what the final outcome is.

Still plenty more to come in this discussion I am sure. It will be interesting how both the wider church responds to this discussion as well as how the 138th General Assembly does. Stay tuned…