Category Archives: General Assembly

Special Meeting Of The General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Ireland To Discuss The Presbyterian Mutual Society

1 Reply

Earlier this week the Rev. Dr. Stafford Carson, Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, issued the call for a special meeting of the Assembly to consider the plan recently proposed by the Northern Ireland Government.  The meeting is to be held on Tuesday 13 April at 2:00 PM, the first date possible with the requisite 14 day advance notice of the meeting.

The press release says:

The business of the Special Assembly, says the letter, is “to consider the present situation for savers in the Presbyterian Mutual Society andto respond to a recent initiative of the Northern Ireland Executive.”

“On Monday the First Minister and deputy First Minister announced that they had formulated proposals to resolve the PMS crisis which they intended to submit to both the Prime Minister and Treasury,” said the Moderator. “The Church recognises the substantial financial commitment of both the Treasury and the Northern Ireland Executive in this process and appreciates all that has been done by Executive Ministers, local politicians and their officials to reach this point.”

“We understand that part of these proposals will involve a financial contribution from the Presbyterian Church. In order to expedite the process we have called this special meeting of the General Assembly,whose decision would be necessary to raise any funds”

The press release says that the report and proposed motions are expected to be mailed out to commissioners next week.  This is only the third special meeting of an Assembly in the last 34 years.

Last Monday, the day before the notice of call was issued, the Rev. Carson issued a statement about the possible settlement:

We welcome the announcement from the First Minister and deputy First Minister that they will be meeting with the Prime Minister Gordon Brown to press for a resolution of the PMS crisis.

It’s encouraging to know that a solution may be possible but we are disappointed that everyone’s preferred option of a commercial solution does not now seem possible. From our perspective that was the only solution that would deliver 100 pence in the pound to all savers.

However, if the Northern Ireland Executive, in consultation with the Treasury has been able to devise a scheme that restores 100 percent of all savings then that will be an excellent outcome.

We have not seen details of the proposals and at this stage we need clarity. We have sought written information on the details of this package and await a response.

The details of the government proposal are not yet know but a Belfast News Letter article says “It is believed that First Minister Peter Robinson and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness are set to meet Prime Minister Gordon Brown imminently to discuss the deal.”  However, a Belfast Telegraph article reports on the dissatisfaction of some savers in the Society regarding the suggestion that even though the plan would pay them back most, if not all, of their deposits the funds would be returned over time and not immediately as they desire.

Stay tuned as details of the proposal and the church report are released.

Nominee For Moderator Of The 136th General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Canada Announced

Leave a reply

Today it was announced The Rev. Dr. Herbert Gale is the nominee for Moderator of the 136th General Assemblyof the PresbyterianChurch in Canada. The announcement was made by The Rev. Stephen Kendall, Principal Clerk of General Assembly, on behalfof the Committee to Advise the Moderator, The Rev. Gale being chosen from the three candidates announced in December.

The Rev. Gale currently serves as the Associate Secretary, Planned Giving, for the Presbyterian Church in Canada.  He is a native of North Carolina and was a member of Myers Park Presbyterian Church as well as serving that church as youth director after college.  He attended Union Theological Seminary (Richmond) and served as pastor of Shelby Presbyterian Church in Shelby, NC, after seminary.  He later earned an M.Th. from the Toronto School of Theology and began his service to the Presbyterian Church in Canada at St. James Presbyterian Church, Stouffville, Ontario.  In 1993 he and his wife Shirley were called to Westminster-St. Paul’s Presbyterian Church in Guelph to serve as co-pastors.  In 2004 the Rev. Gale moved to his current position with the denomination.

He has served multiple times on church advisory committees, including the Worship Advisory Committee when it produced the Book of Common Worship in 1991 as well as serving as a worship leader for various conferences.  The press release says of his ministry:

A pastor at heart and a Canadian Presbyterian by conviction, Herb isconvinced that an intentional focus on planned giving can help providean additional source of funding for the church at every level to realizeits dreams and to expand its ministry for generations to come.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — A Survey Of The Landscape

3 Replies

Over the last few days I have become refocused on the upcoming General Assemblies and trying to map out my strategy for blogging in advance of each one.  Needless to say, if I am going to blog about every overture submitted to the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) it will take some time.  Or maybe not…

At the present time there are 102 overtures, two committee reports, and 52 recommendations from standing committees of GA entities.  But of those 102 overtures, well over half fall into six predictable categories.  Here is the landscape we are looking at:

Ordination Standards:  It should be no surprise to anyone following the PC(USA) these days that the hottest topic for this GA, as measured by the number of overtures, is ordination standards.  There are seventeen overtures that directly address G-6.0106b or other sections of the Book of Order that deal with ordination standards.  In addition, there are a few more that address the way that the General Assembly does it’s business that could influence the ordination standards status as well.  And there is one, Overture 56, that proposes to change the Book of Order to require future changes to the Book of Order to have the concurrence of two-thirds of the presbyteries making it significantly harder to change the Constitution.  (For reference, there are other Presbyterian branches, such as the PCA, which do require a 2/3 vote.)

Marriage:  Second in the number of related overtures is the topic of Marriage.  Not counting the report of the Special Committee on Civil Unions and Christian Marriage and the minority report, which have not appeared on PC-Biz yet, there are eleven overtures asking for Book of Order changes or Interpretations related to this.

General Assembly operations and procedures:  This is the most “jello” category, a little hard to nail down, but I count about 15 overtures that address how the General Assembly does it’s business.  While a few ask for constitutional changes, like Overture 54 to reduce the number of commissioners that I mentioned yesterday, most are changes to the Standing Rules.  This assortment of overtures deals with who can speak, who can vote, what and when business can be transacted.  There are some interesting and attractive items in here, like Overture 38 to give priority to controversial items or Overture 74 which would have the standing rules require committee reports and votes on business items to all be placed ahead of dinner before commissioners get too tired.

But what is interesting about this category is that there are several additional items in the recommendations category.  One of these is Recommendation 38 from the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly which would add the requirement that when the Moderator is empowered to appoint a task force or special committee the Moderator consults with the Nominating Committee.  (Maybe Bruce was a bit too free wheeling and independent in his appointments and they don’t want that to happen again.  We just want to make sure it is done decently and in order.)

New Form of Government (nFOG): The three remaining categories are all close but this weighs in at number four with seven overtures.  Some try to perfect it while two, Overtures 44 and 95, ask for more time to consider it and one, Overture 98, wants to dismiss the task force and ask the presbyteries to roll back all the resent changes including the undoing of the Chapter 14 change made a couple of years ago.  And then Overture 95 invites more suggested changes from the church on the nFOG.  We could take one step beyond their suggestion, post it on a Wiki, and let the whole church work away at it for two years.  (And no, I am not being sarcastic but am seriously considering if it would be a worthwhile exercise.)  Overture 53 seems to say that the nFOG is only a starting point and after we approve it further revisions are still necessary to make it a manual of operations.

Middle East:  Again, this category is tied to both an ongoing discussion in the church and a just released task force report that is not on PC-Biz yet.  This is the area that seems to be receiving the most outside publicity and criticism from Jewish groups and the mainstream media.  There are six overtures in this area, most of which do not directly address the report since the report was so recently released.  In addition, there are three recommendations from GA permanent committees on this topic.

Middle Governing Bodies: Finally, there are five overtures and one recommendation to study or change the middle governing body structure.  These include two overtures to increase flexibility, one in presbytery membership (45) and one in synod membership (36), and the rest to decide if we need to cut some of them back.

Finally, across all the categories there are two overtures and four recommendations that request a task force, special commission, and even an Administrative Commission to get something done.  I am still trying to decide if the fact that twice as many of these recommendations come from the permanent committees means something significant, positive or negative, about the way the PC(USA) does business.

Those six categories cover 61 of the 102 overtures posted on PC-Biz.  So the landscape is dominated by these controversial issues.  But in between we find some interesting individual items.  There is Overture 12 “On designating May 1 every year as a Day of Prayer for Healing.”  (Interesting idea although I would have liked to hear the rational for that particular date since there are other things on May 1 as well.)  And Overture 48 which would add language about the Covenant Community to the section on membership.

At this point we are well past the 120 day deadline so no more overtures proposing changes to the Book of Order would be expected.  But there is plenty of time for other overtures before the 60 day (those with financial implications) and 45 day (all others) deadlines so the number should continue to grow.  At this point before the 218th GA there were only 75 overtures posted so we are well ahead of that pace this year and we can probably expect more than the 128 overtures there were for that meeting.  We shall see where it finally ends up.

Meetings Of A Presbyterian General Assembly — How Often?

2 Replies

How often should a Presbyterian General Assembly or General Synod meet?  For a couple of centuries now the answer has generally been annually, but in recent times that pattern has been up for discussion.  It is interesting to note that in the list of Moderators of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on Wikipedia in the early years there are multiple Moderators listed in a given year indicating not just multiple meetings, but multiple Assemblies per year.

The importance of the “how often” question is raised again today as the highlights of the meeting of the Assembly Council of the Presbyterian Church in Canada are released.  The Assembly action on an overture to the 133rd General Assembly (2007) asked the Council to consider biennial Assemblies and the Assembly created a task group to study the issue and consult with the other governing bodies.  The Council considered the report which included the responses to a model for biennial Assemblies that was sent to the church for comment.  In general, the church was narrowly in favor of biennial Assemblies with sessions favoring it 54 to 37, presbyteries opposed 11 to 13, and synods and committees were each 2 to 1 in favor.  But it is most interesting to see the commentary on this voting:

It was noted, for example, that there appeared to be a regional divide where courts in Quebec and the Maritimes were overwhelmingly opposed while support strengthened to west. It was also noted that those courts supporting the notion tended to not include reasons for their support while those opposed offered lengthy explanations for their decision.

The report recommended moving to biennial Assemblies but a motion to move that direction in principle failed in the Council vote.  The report tells us  “A new motion recommending that General Assembly ‘affirm the practice of annual assemblies’ was proposed and approved.”

So while the recommendation in response to this overture has been made, as the comment in the Minutes of the 133rd GA (p. 214) tells us, this matter has been before the church “many times in the past.”  As would be expected, the overture itself (p. 519-520) appeals to the time, effort and finances expended on annual Assemblies and the best use of those resources.

(A side note on a topic that I will be considering further in the future:  It is interesting to see that this matter was sent to the lower governing bodies for an advisory vote.  From what I have seen this is a practice that the PCC seems to do on a fairly regular basis but is much rarer in other Presbyterian branches.  One other place in the PCC history that this formal advisory vote is seen is in the early 20th century as the Presbyterians were considering their place in the Union movement and the presbyteries and sessions were consulted on multiple occasions about uniting with other Christian bodies.  In light of this, I find an overture to this year’s  General Assembly of the PC(USA) to require the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy to send proposed statements out to the presbyteries for “study, discussion, and comment” prior to the report to the General Assembly to be in a very similar spirit.)

There is another overture to a General Assembly to consider biennial Assemblies.  This one is to the 38th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America.  Overture 6, from Evangel Presbytery, asks the Assembly “to direct the Administrative Committee to conduct a study for the feasibility of conducting General Assemblies on a bi-annual basis.”

The Whereases do include the usual argument about the amount of time and financial resources it takes to make the Assemblies happen, but that is not the primary argument in this overture.  The principle argument is that with modern communications the Assembly no longer serves the purpose of getting reports out to the Assembly commissioners to take back to the lower governing bodies.  In that task the Assembly is now irrelevant.  But the overture goes on to say that efficient electronic communications has another impact:

Whereas, denominational issues that once were debated on the floor of GA are now resolved and presented in a refined and reasoned manner causing the floor process to lose much energy and interest with commissioners spending considerable time away from the meeting to visit the exhibitions during the presentations of Committees and Agencies; and

Whereas, in addition to declining interest in the conduct of business, travel and lodging expenses have affected GA and attendance during the last five years has declined annually while the ratio of Teaching Elders in attendance has increased and the number of Ruling Elders has declined;

Interesting rational — On the one hand very true but on the other hand this cuts right to the very essence of Presbyterianism.

Functionally, Presbyterian and Reformed polity is distinctive in two regards — joint rule of teaching elders and ruling elders and connectionalism of governing bodies.  This overture essentially says that modern electronic communication is at least changing, if not eroding, the way that both of these principles operate.  It has moved the governing of the church from face-to-face interaction to virtual interaction, reducing the importance of the meetings for the joint deliberations of elders in decision making and eliminating the need for meetings to facilitate the connectional flow of information.

The overture does request regional meetings in years that the Assembly does not meet that would involve…

…contiguous presbyteries to cooperate on an alternate years to join two or three day meetings that can be conducted in churches and smaller venues where travel and lodging are less expensive. During such regional meetings Committees and Agencies can participate with reports and ministries can present displays if so requested and approved by the Administrative Committee.

It will be interesting to see where this goes and the discussion it begins.

Finally, there are a couple of items related to biennial Assemblies coming to the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  The first is the fact that when biennial Assemblies were instituted it was specified that after this year’s Assembly meeting there would be a review of this practice.  The Presbytery of Giddings-Lovejoy has sent an overture (Overture 49) that would expand the review of the GA from not just the timing but to include…

…considering the form and function of our General Assembly meetings by expanding the action of the 214th General Assembly (2002)… instructing this study committee to consider the whole of the General Assembly meeting in its form and function.

This review is to include, but is not limited to, matters of financial stewardship, the use of alternative forms of discernment, the number of commissioners and advisory delegates as well as the role of advisory delegates, the schedule for moderatorial elections, the environmental impact of assemblies, the frequency of meetings, and models for governance for future generations.

Got all that?  The request is for a complete review, to put anything and everything about how General Assemblies operate on the table.

Another approach is taken by Overture 9 from Presbytery of Foothills.  I discussed this in more detail a while back, but this overture essentially states that the way the PC(USA) does business in the GA hinders our connectionalism and to promote our connectional nature the church should hold a General Convocation “for the purposes of worship, mission celebration, and building up relationships within the Body of Christ” for five years.  In the sixth year the General Assembly would meet to do business.

And in a final related overture, the Presbytery of San Diego notes that one reason for going to biennial Assemblies was to save money, but in changing the meeting pattern the number of commissioners to the Assembly was roughly doubled, not really saving that much money.  They have sent Overture 54 to the 219th General Assembly asking for a change to the Book of Order to restore the number of commissioners to their previous levels.

We are all well aware that in this age of Web 2.0 the technology and pressure is present to make face-to-face meetings unnecessary.  As we balance the use of technology and the stewardship of resources with the questions of how often and in what ways to meet, we also need to be mindful of the implications for our understanding of call, connectionalism, and discerning together in the Covenant Community brought together with Jesus Christ as its Head.

Moderator Designate Of The General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Ireland

Leave a reply

Three news sources, the BBC, U.TV, and Daily News, are reporting that the Rev. Norman Hamilton, pastor of Ballysillan Presbyterian Church in north Belfast, has been chosen by the presbyteries as the Moderator designate of the 2010 General Assembly.  Presuming that he carried the five presbyteries that voted for him in the February vote, he received votes from six of the nine presbyteries that voted for candidates not making it into the second round.  He received the votes of eleven of the nineteen presbyteries.

The BBC provides this reaction from Rev. Hamilton:

“I am greatly humbled and surprised that this has come to me.”

“I hope during my year to bring a very Biblical perspective to a wide range of issues that are important to both church and society.”

Second Vote For The Moderator Of The General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Ireland Tomorrow — Presbyterians Doing Things Decently And In Order

Leave a reply

Originally I was not planning to post a pre-meeting comment about tomorrow’s second vote to select the Moderator designate of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.  The vote is necessary because in last month’s voting the Rev. Norman Hamilton and the Rev. Norman McAuley each received five presbytery nominating votes with the remaining nine votes divided between three of the other four candidates.

But today Alf McCreary, the religion correspondent for the Belfast Telegraph, has an opinion piece in that paper titled “Church’s election process shows the need for reform.”  In that article he brings up two good arguments why the church should modify their election procedures.  While I see his point I am not sure that I agree with him.

His first point is that the second vote should be taken the same day as the first rather than waiting the month.  He argues that this would provide a longer lead time for the nominated candidate to make the necessary preparations for the Assembly and their moderatorial year. 

From the practical consideration of giving a designate a chance to prepare I could see that the four extra weeks to make arrangements could be useful.  But from the management of the presbytery meeting and the discernment process of the body having the vote at successive meetings is more logical.  Going through the process twice in one evening would get it over with but would also prolong the evening since every presbytery reports to a central office and 18 presbyteries would have to wait for the last one to report to know if another vote is necessary.  Yes, times could be set for voting to be completed, but to set pre-determined inflexible times for making decisions goes against the Presbyterian concept of the body taking the time to discern God’s will together.  (Note: this is not an argument against a specific body setting its own time to end debate.  Any individual governing body is welcome to limit their debates as they decide for themselves.  My argument is with outside constraints limiting discussion.)

And if the amount of lead time is truly a concern then move the moderator voting back a month so there will be sufficient time after a runoff should there be one.

Mr. McCreary’s second point is equally valid – that with a term of one year by the time the Moderator has come up to speed through on the job training their moderatorial year is up.

While valid points, what both of these arguments miss is the nature of the role of the Moderator in the Presbyterian system.

First, the Moderator is chosen for his previous experience, service to the church and divinely bestowed gifts for this form of service.  Particularly if the moderator designate is a pastor they have already moderated session meetings and probably church committee meetings.  The presbyteries in selecting their nominee should consider the skills and abilities each candidate has for presiding at the meetings and representing the church throughout the year.

As an aside, while the selection to be a Moderator of a higher governing body is an honor it should not be viewed as a “lifetime achievement award” or automatic post when you have “put in your time.”  Like all positions within the church God bestows specific gifts upon each believer for them to use for the building up of the Body.  Not all these gifts are alike.  While everyone has gifts, not everyone has the gifts of administration and leadership desiresable for the position of Moderator.  The body’s work of discernment is related to identifying those who do possess the gifts that correspond to a particular position of service, be it Moderator or another office.

Second, the position of Moderator is one of service and not authority.  Granted, he is empowered with the authority necessary to conduct the meetings of the governing body decently and in order.  But beyond that he has no authority of his own but the authorization of the governing body.  In this light, the position is a temporary one and passes to the next Moderator on a regular basis, generally when the governing body next reconstitutes itself.

Having said that I would also acknowledge that the selection process for the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland is both unique among Presbyterian branches and also my favorite.  It is the only one where all those gathered to discern God’s will are not in the same place but rather distributed in their 19 individual presbytery meetings.  Other branches do it by nominating committee or the Moderator is selected from among the members of the Assembly when the governing body convenes.  To me, having one individual identified and endorsed by the wider church represented by the presbyteries is particularly meaningful.

So there you have my commentary on the Irish process.  I can understand the concern for efficiency, expediency and experience.  And I would hope that in our governing bodies we would keep those goals in mind — but only to the extent that we are still concerned with discerning God’s will together.

Upcoming 38th General Assembly Of The PCA — Mid-February Update: Intro and Overtures 1-5

Leave a reply

The 38th General Assembly (2010) of the Presbyterian Church in America will convene in Nashville, Tenn., on June 29th.  The PCA is getting ready with the announcement of their 50 Days of Prayer for the General Assembly devotional, this year to focus on the Sermon on the Mount.  The web page for the Assembly is up (although sized a bit larger than I usually keep my monitors) with a link for registration and the overtures page.  There is no docket yet but the schedule is posted.

The theme for the Assembly is “Love, Sing, Wonder.” As the Organizing Committee web site explains, this is taken from the first line of a hymn written in 1774 by John Newton, “Let us love and sing and wonder.”  And these are words which have found a new audience in a contemporary musical arrangement.

There are currently five overtures posted:

Overture 1: “Ministry to Seniors” from New Jersey Presbytery.  This overture seeks to affirm and encourage both ministry to seniors as well as ministry by seniors.  It asks for five things: 1) Commending the Christian Education and Publications Committee (CEPC) for their good and ongoing work in this area. 2) And while commending them request their continued work in the area and this work be included in their reports to future GA’s and (3) that it be sure to include the Biblical importance of ministry by seniors as well as ministry to them.  4) That the Sunday following Labor Day be designated “Seniors’ Sunday” and (5) that the CEPC help promote the special Sunday and consider a week-long special event, as appropriate.

On the one hand the second Sunday in September has now become “Grandparents’ Day” in our secular society and this presents a way to turn that to the Lord’s purposes and recognize the wide variety of contributions made by seniors, not just their being grandparents.  On the other hand, how often are we to find special purposes for the Lord’s Day beyond the regular worship of God.  Are other Sundays throughout the year held up by the PCA for special recognitions like this?  For a strong argument against the hybridization of Sundays for purposes like this I suggest reading Andrew’s comments on Overture 1 at A Profitable Word. 

Overture 2:  “Amend BCO 9-7 to Prohibit Deaconesses” from Central Carolina Presbytery.  This overture asks the Assembly to send to the presbyteries an amendment to the Book of Church Order section 9-7 which would append to the end of that section about deacons’ assistants the following line for clarification:

These assistants to the deacons shall not be referred to as deacons or deaconesses, nor are they to be elected by the congregation nor formally commissioned, ordained, or installed as though they were office bearers in the church.

I don’t think it is news to any of my readers that this is currently a hotly-debated subject in the PCA and this is probably only the first of several overtures on both sides of this discussion.  Once all the overtures are in and we know the lay of the land I may have more to say.  In the mean time you can check out my comments about this overture (as part of a related discussion) from earlier this month and Kevin’s exhaustive analysis of the overture and broader situation over at A Profitable Word.

Overture 3:  “Expand Boundaries of Pacific Northwest Presbytery” from the Pacific Northwest Presbytery.  This overture asks the Assembly to approve the expansion of the Pacific Northwest Presbytery to encompass all areas of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska where there are PCA churches not yet within the bounds of a presbytery.  Specifically,

Therefore, the Presbytery of the Pacific Northwest overtures the 38th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America to expand the borders of the Presbytery to include the entirety of the states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.

First, where is the Presbytery now?  The Presbyteries web page tells us “All of Washington west of and including the counties of Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, Lewis and Skamania.”  According to the church directory page there are 24 PCA churches in the State of Washington, 19 in Pacific Northwest, three in Korean Northwest, and two in Korean Southwest Presbytery.  The directory also tells us that there is one church in Alaska, seven in Oregon (one of those in Korean Northwest), and one in Idaho.  Interestingly the directory associates all those churches with Pacific Northwest, if not already with Korean Northwest, even though this overture asks to formally expand the borders to include them.

In order to fully appreciate this overture it is also helpful to have a look at the Guidelines for Dividing Presbyteries since certain of the language in the overture’s whereases is referential to that document.  This document not only concerns dividing presbyteries but presents what are considered preferred parameters for a presbytery.  The first nine of the twelve considerations are:

  1. A radius of 2 1/2 hours maximum driving distance
  2. A minimum of 10 churches
  3. A total communicant membership of at least 1000
  4. Presbytery boundaries should not partition metropolitan areas
  5. A presbytery should have regional cohesiveness
  6. A presbytery should have at least three churches each having a membership of at least 125 communicant members
  7. Presbytery boundaries should be such that its member churches have a potential for shared ministries
  8. Presbytery boundaries should be such that its member churches have a common commitment to the region within the boundaries and sense their shared responsibility to cover the region with the Gospel
  9. When a presbytery reaches 30 churches it should consider whether subdivision would lead to more effective ministry

So where does this put the expanded Pacific Northwest?  It will clearly be larger than ideal in driving distance but with on
ly one church in Alaska there is not much that can be done there.  Yet even the Washington/Oregon/Idaho churches will be too far apart for that to be reasonable.  The expanded presbytery will have 27 churches, well more than the minimum and approaching the suggested upper limit.  Beyond that, without some more research I can not speak for the membership or church sizes but the expanded presbytery would probably still have the regional cohesiveness and potential for shared ministries.

In short, because of the distances involved and the potential situation of lots of churches in sparsely populated areas I can understand the objective of one large presbytery with many congregations.  However, under the established guidelines I would hope some study would be done to see if two presbyteries would provide a better arrangement “to cover the region with the Gospel.”

Overture 4: “Revise Boundary of Central Georgia Presbytery” from Central Georgia Presbytery.  This one is short and sweet – Central Georgia and Savannah River Presbyteries both agree that two counties now in Savannah River would be better served for spreading the Gospel if they were in Central Georgia.  A concurring overture from Savannah River Presbytery would be expected.

Overture 5:  “Amend BCO 26-2 to Clarify How Non-binding Sections of the BCO May Be Amended.” from Covenant Presbytery.  The requested change to the Book of Church Order reads:

Therefore be it resolved that BCO 26-2 be amended as follows (new text in bold and underlined):
26-2. Amendments to any portion of the Book of Church Order, whether constitutionally binding or not, may be made only in the following manner:

  1. Approval of the proposed amendment by majority of those present and voting in the General Assembly, and its recommendation to the Presbyteries.
  2. The advice and consent of two-thirds (2/3) of the Presbyteries.
  3. The approval and enactment by a subsequent General Assembly by a majority of those present and voting.

This seems straight forward, but let’s unpack this a little bit — The PCA Book of Church Order has binding and non-binding parts, as this overture recognizes.  The problem that arose was that the previous GA interpreted the BCO such that they went ahead and amended non-binding parts by themselves without sending the changes to the presbyteries for their concurrence.

So now we have this overture which provides a catalyst for interesting thought and discussion among polity wonks.  The issues involved touch on the intersection of two parts of Presbyterian polity: 1) When does a General Assembly action requires concurrence of the presbyteries, and 2) in what cases and to what degree the constitutional language is binding.

On the first question there are two general models.  The first are branches that require presbytery concurrence any time the constitutional language is to be changed.  This would include most American Presbyterian branches that have a Book of Church Order or Book of Order that has constitutional authority.  In this case for the PCA this overture requests to make it clear that this is the case for their BCO.

The other approach to requiring presbytery concurrence is usually referred to as a Barrier Act and is seen throughout much of the rest of the world including Scotland, Canada and New Zealand.  Part of the Church of Scotland Barrier Act says:

…that General Assemblies be very deliberate in making of the [Acts of Assembly], and that the whole Church have a previous knowledge thereof, and their opinion be had therein, and for preventing any sudden alteration or innovation, or other prejudice to the Church, in either doctrine or worship, or discipline, or government thereof, now happily established;

So the areas that an Assembly must seek the concurrence of the “whole Church” are “doctrine or worship, or discipline,” or ecclesiastical government.  In general, these branches have a collection of Acts of Assembly instead of a Book of Order and the Barrier Act is applied in an Assembly to specific acts that involve the four “core” areas.  But rules here are not hard and fast — the Presbyterian Church in Canada has the whole collection with the Barrier Act, Acts of Assembly, and the Book of Forms. And the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand has a Book of Order but has marked those sections subject to the “special legislative procedure,” which is their term for needing the concurrence of the presbyteries.

The second question that this overture touches on are what parts of our Presbyterian polity are binding and which are not.  For the PCA BCO this is clearly stated in the head note to the Directory for Worship:

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.

Those three specified sections that have full constitutional authority are ones dealing with the sacraments.

(This raises three slightly-related, and possibly frivolous, questions — 1) This preface uses “obligatory” and the overture uses “binding.” Should they be harmonized? 2) Is a “temporary statement” from 35 GA’s ago still truly a temporary statement.  (I have to laugh because my church got away with a building with a temporary use permit for about that long.) 3) Since this preface is in the Directory for Worship but not in one of the specified sections, is it not obligatory itself?  (I told you this was going to get frivolous.))

One of the reasons I do bring up that last frivolous statement is because there is a case on appeal in the PC(USA) regarding the binding nature of their Directory for Worship.  The PC(USA) uses terminology rather than itemization to determine what is obligatory and the preface to the whole Book of Order lays this out:

In this Book of Order
(1) SHALL and IS TO BE/ARE TO BE signify practice that is mandated,
(2) SHOULD signifies practice that is strongly recommended,
(3) IS APPROPRIATE signifies practice that is commended as suitable,
(4) MAY signifies practice that is permissible but not required.
(5) ADVISORY HANDBOOK signifies a handbo
ok produced by agencies of the General Assembly to guide synods and presbyteries in procedures related to the oversight of ministry. Such handbooks suggest procedures that are commended, but not required.

And as we saw in the Presbytery PJC decision in the Southard case there is disagreement over the role of the Directory for Worship and the authority of any specific paragraph if it does not contain one of these prescriptive words.  That will be settled by further judicial review.

So, getting back to the overture at hand — In the model of Presbyterians who operate with a Barrier Act, there is a tradition and logic to the interpretation last year that changing sections that are not “core” and obligatory need not have the concurrence of the presbyteries.  However, this overture would make the language clear, and hold it in line with American Presbyterian tradition, that if language in a constitutional document is to be changed it must be sent to the presbyteries for approval.

Now, I have used this overture as a platform to launch into a discussion of a couple related, but not necessarily germane, topics.  For a more focused discussion I again point you to A Profitable Word where Andrew has a post mostly discussing Overture 5, but touching on 3 and 4 as well.

(And I should say, in case you have not figured it out by now, that the blog A Profitable Word is a relatively new blog written by a team of four polity-knowledgeable elders from the PCA who know the PCA history, nuance and back-story to their polity better than I do.  A good blog for polity wonks to keep an eye on.)

So there is the start to this General Assembly business.  We know that more waits in the wings and I will return to that in a future post.  Stay tuned.

Free Church Of Scotland (Continuing) General Assembly 2010 Moderator Designate

Leave a reply

The Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) (FCC) today announced their Moderator Designate for the upcoming General Assembly.  As reported by the Stornoway Gazette the Rev. David Fraser will lead the church’s highest governing body beginning at their meeting in May.  He was trained at the Royal College of Science and Technology in
Glasgow (now part of the University of Strathclyde), the University of Aberdeen, the Free Church of Scotland College and
the University of Transkei (now part of Walter Sisulu University), inducted into parish ministry at Mull in 1970, and seven years later began his 23 years of service as a missionary in South Africa.  At the division of the Free Church in 2000 he moved to Zambia to work with Frontline Fellowship and while there helped establish Covenant College.  Upon his “retirement” he returned to Scotland and now pastors Shettleston Free Church (Continuing) (Church History).

Congratulations to Rev. Fraser and best wishes for his moderatorial year.

First Vote For Presbyterian Church In Ireland Moderator Designate Ends In A Tie

Leave a reply

Well, I guess William Crawley gets points for calling it Friday at Will and Testament. His closing line was

In other words: it’s too close to call. If I was a betting man (whichI’m not), I’d expect the election to continue into March.

The results were just released by the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, as reported by the BBC, and two nominees, the Rev.  Norman Hamilton of Ballysillan, Belfast, and the Rev. Norman McAuley of Greenwell Street, Newtownards, both received the votes of five presbyteries.  The other nine presbytery votes were not specifically reported but only described as “divided among three other candidates.”  And that means that one candidate received no votes.

When the voting is reported I’ll update it here.  However, the BBC article is suggestive by listing the Rev. Derek McKelvey, Rev. Ivan Patterson, and the Rev. Roy Mackey, but not the Rev. Ruth Patterson.

UPDATE: The Church press release is now out and breaks down the voting as:  Hamilton – 5, McAuley – 5, McKelvey – 4, I. Patterson – 4, and Mackey – 1.  They also note that this is the third tie vote in nine years.

So, as Mr. Crawley so presciently suggested, the presbyteries will vote again between these two nominees in March.

Selection Of The Moderator Designate For The Presbyterian Church In Ireland

Leave a reply

The month of January was a particularly busy one for me, as evidenced by the fact that I only posted eight times.  But having just finished up one service to the church (which is now available on-line) and having been part of a wonderful family celebration this past weekend, I now hope to return to blogging in earnest.

And none too soon since tomorrow, the first Tuesday in February, is one of my favorite of Presbyterian events – the selection of the Moderator Designate for the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.

In fine Presbyterian, “lets come together and discern this as the body of Christ” fashion, all the presbyteries meet on the same evening and each discusses who should be the next Moderator of the General Assembly.  Each votes and sends their result into the Clerk of Assembly.  For the last couple of years there has been a predetermined list to vote on, but I actually liked it better in the past when there was no slate and each presbytery proposed names that night and voted their choice from that local slate.

From the PCI press release this year’s nominees are:

Rev Norman Hamilton(Ballysillan)
Rev Derek McKelvey (Fisherwick)
Rev Norman McAuley (Greenwell Street,Newtownards)
Rev Roy Mackay (Second Comber)
Rev Ivan Patterson(Newcastle)
Rev Ruth Patterson (Restoration Ministries)

The press release also contains brief biographies of each nominee.  Revs. Hamilton, McKelvey, and Ruth Patterson have been nominees before.  And for the record, if Ms. Patterson were elected she would be not only the first woman ordained as clergy in the PCI but the first female moderator of the PCI as well.

If you are looking for a “favourite” to watch the Belfast Telegraph handicaps the nominees:

Informed church sources in Belfast believe that Ms Patterson would not be the bookies’ favourite.

The front-runners are the Reverend Norman Hamilton (64), minister of Ballysillan in north Belfast; and the Reverend Derek McKelvey (65), of the fashionable Fisherwick Church in south Belfast.

Insiders, however, have tipped the Reverend Norman McAuley (34), of Newtownards, to emerge as the winner.

[As an editorial comment, the Belfast Telegraph lists his age as 34 but the PCI press release lists the date of birth as 1956 so he would be 54, not 34.  I guess we will get a chance to check that if he is indeed elected.]

The Belfast Telegraph has a second article about the election which does a really great job of explaining the nature and role of the Moderator of the General Assembly as well as discussing the possible politics or the body’s sense of balance behind the voting.  And over at Will and Testament William Crawley also does the “what if” and decides this one is too close to call and may go to a run-off in March.

Stay tuned and we will find out the discernment of the church at about this time tomorrow.