Category Archives: General Assembly

Looking Ahead: 219th General Assembly Of The PC(USA) – The Second Moderator Candidate

2 Replies

With thanks to the Presbyterian Outlook for confirming the news, we now know that the Rev. Jin S. Kim has been unanimously endorsed by the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area as a candidate to stand for election to be the Moderator of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

The Rev. Kim is the founding and senior pastor of the Church of All Nations in Columbia Heights, Minnesota.  Much as we joked about Bruce being the hometown boy with a home-field advantage at the 218th, it looks like Jin will have that distinction at the 219th.  Yet to see if that is an actual advantage.

At the present time the Rev. Kim has a single Moderator web page as a part of his personal blog New Church Rising.  On that Moderator page, in addition to his stock bio (it is essentially the same as the church bio, except he dropped the ice fishing reference, and his bio for the Belhar Special Committee is a condensed version) the page has his “Reflections on our life together as a Presbyterian family…”  That reflection begins with:

In a post-modern, post-ideological, post-denominational, multicultural age often marked by uprootedness and loss of meaning, how do we “do church” in a way that testifies to the reconciling gospel of Jesus Christ?  In an individualistic culture that tends toward alienation and isolation, how do we lead our congregations, ministries and presbyteries to become high-risk, low-anxiety places, to lead God’s people to confess who they are, to experience healing in intimate community, and to be a witness to the liberating power of the Spirit?

He goes on to talk about how this age requires a new “conceptualizing” of leadership, how we need to transition from the institutional model to something daring, prophetic and countercultural.

The Rev. Kim is widely known in the PC(USA), speaking regularly at conferences and according to his blog he is a speaker at the Institute for Multicultural Ministries going on right now at Princeton Theological Seminary.  He preached for worship services for the 216th (2004) and 218th (2008) General Assemblies, and as I mentioned above he is a member of the Special Committee to study the adoption of the Belhar Confession.  I look forward to his future writings on his blog and his view of the present situation in the PC(USA) and where the church should be headed.  (And you have to respect someone who gives their kids middle names based on ancient creeds – check the last sentence of his bio.)

I can not conclude this post without mentioning that in doing the research for this story I came across the blogs of two pastors that discussed some confusion in the process on Saturday when the presbytery elected their GA commissioners.  While the specific details are not fully covered there seems to be some misunderstanding and disagreement about voting on the slate of alternate commissioners the Nominating Committee put forward and the presbytery voting to do it differently.  Pastor Paul Moore titled his post “That didn’t go well” and draws two conclusions: 1- “We need to learn how to disagree better.” 2- “We have to value the process less.”  The second blog, by Pastor Stephanie Anthony, pretty much sums up her point in the title “Where’s the trust?”  This is a follow-on to Rev. Moore’s writing and makes the point that we have the process for a reason, but within the process the presbytery needs to put some trust in the committees, in this case the Nominating Committee, that they elect to do the work.

UPDATE:  1. The Presbyterian News Service released their article about Rev. Kim this afternoon. 2. Blogger Viola Larson has read through Rev. Kim’s blog and weighs in with some criticism and concern about what she reads there.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — Re-envisioning The Process

2 Replies

As I continue my exploration and commentary on the overtures being sent up to the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I want to focus today on three that deal with the operations of the Assembly.

But before I get down to the nitty-gritty of the overtures let me make some observations about the business and operations of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

If ask anyone who has been a commissioner to the General Assembly about the experience they will probably tell you that it was generally good and interesting but also an intense and tiring experience.  You begin on Saturday with some preliminaries and the election of the Moderator. You worship Sunday morning, socialize (or network) Sunday afternoon.  There might be a brief plenary business meeting and then the committees begin meeting.  The committee work begins in earnest on Monday morning and goes until whatever hour on Tuesday the committee gets it done — it might be at noon, it might be the wee hours of Wednesday morning.  The first part of Wednesday is devoted to reading committee reports, and then the marathon begins as the full Assembly starts working through the 15 or so committee reports.  On Friday night the Assembly goes until it is done because on Saturday everyone just shows up to formally adopt the budgets that resulted from their work over the last week, gets a pep talk about what a nice place the next Assembly will be held at, and then they are dismissed with a prayer.  They then get on their planes and collapse in exhaustion and it really doesn’t matter where the next Assembly will be held because the commissioners seldom see the light of day for that week.

Well, maybe I exaggerate a little bit because there is sunlight when you walk between the hotel and the convention center in the morning and again out to the restaurants for lunch.  Sunday usually provides an opportunity to see some of the neighborhood. And of course the YADs (now YAADs) need a nice place for their mid-week get-together.

But if you think I am being too sarcastic here I would argue that I am not.  If you have been a commissioner, or have had a long talk with someone who was, you will probably think or hear something like “Is this any way to run a church?”  When it gets to plenary there are just over two days to deal with the business from 15 committees, some of these items having great significance.  “Back in the day” when the material was all printed the business easily filled two three-inch binders.  And the reports you got before the Assembly convened were all in small print.  Any wonder the full Assembly usually trusts the work of the business committees.

Let me finish my commentary, more like a rant, with some hard numbers:  For the 218th GA of the PC(USA) there were 109 overtures from presbyteries and synods, not counting concurring overtures that got folded in, that the Assembly had to deal with.  On top of that there was business from the committees and entities of the national office.  For comparison, last year the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which also meets for one week, had two overtures and one ascending complaint.  The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, again a one week meeting, last year had nine overtures.  The Bible Presbyterian Church had seven overtures and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church last year had four.  The Presbyterian branch with the next closest number of overtures that I am aware of, and please let me know if you know of another with more, is the Presbyterian Church in America with 22 overtures, and eight of those were related to creating new presbyteries and redrawing presbytery borders — the remaining 14 dealt with polity, doctrine and discipline.  This is not to say that other GA’s have no controversy — far from it.  But from what I have seen most GA’s have no more than one or two spirited debates in the course of the whole GA.  The PC(USA) seems to have one or two per day.

All this to say that as I observe other GA’s around the globe and see how they operate it strikes me that something is significantly different about the way the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) operates.  And based on some of the overtures that are being submitted to the 219th General Assembly I am apparently not the only one who thinks so.

Let me begin with Overture 9 from Foothills Presbytery which proposes that the church get together annually in a convocation but only do business at the meeting every sixth year.  (Had to smile at the thought that this is almost a “reversed sabbatical year” – rest for six and work for one.)  With this overture they provide an extensive rational which includes:

  1. We believe the following:
    • The vast majority of Presbyterians are happy with their congregations, their presbyteries, their synods, and the ongoing work of General Assembly staff to ensure the smooth day-by-day running of the mission of the denomination.
    • On the other hand, we believe that Presbyterians of all theological perspectives find themselves frustrated with the manner in which discussions occur and decisions are made by the General Assembly, and that General Assembly in its present functioning, presents a significant threat in our beloved church and to its peace, unity, and purity.
  2. Further, based on our experience, and reports of General Assembly commissioners, we believe that
    • the volume of information presented to commissioners at the assembly, including, but not limited to annual reports, denominational positions on particular issues, repeated actions to amend the constitution, etc.,
    • the committee structure and process employed to introduce business to the floor of the assembly,
    • the lack of relationships between commissioners,
    • the lack of time to process issues that are often enormously complicated and multifaceted,
    • the consequent pressure to give in to the emotion of the moment,
    • the disparity of knowledge about specific subjects between commissioners, General Assembly staff, special interest groups;
  3. all often
    • lead to confrontation without reconciliation, (2 Cor. 5:18–19),
    • contribute to a heightened emphasis on winners and losers, rather than winners and winners (see 1 Cor. 6:7–8),
    • lead to a tendency for our national body to act legislatively rather than pastorally (see Paul’s approach to meat offered to idols in 1 Cor. 10:23–33),
    • promote stagnation rather than growth in our common life together (Eph. 4:15–16),
    • lead to the predominance of single-issue thinking (party-spirit, see Gal. 5:20)
    • reinforce a growing sense of anxiety in a significant number of our congregations every time assembly meets, (see John 14:27)
    • and erode denominational pride, loyalty, and commitment.

So the basic intent is to be relational and missional five years and based on that common foundation to address the detailed work of the denomination in the sixth year.  I have to commend them for identifying issues and providing a possible restructuring.  The overture does not give specific recommendations f
or the restructuring — Clearly a system such as they propose would shift a lot more authority and responsibility for operational details like budget and ministry to the GAMC and the OGA.  It would also be interesting to know if the Big Tent event this past summer would be a possible model for the convocations or if they are thinking about a more focused meeting.  This overture will definitely give this year’s commissioners something to think about and discuss.

The other operational overtures to date are not nearly as sweeping and only address specific operational points.

Overture 7 from New Harmony Presbytery asks for a specific change to the Standing Rules of the Assembly, a change that does not need presbytery approval but could be undone or suspended by a subsequent Assembly.  The proposal is to reduce the recurrence of similar Book of Order changes being sent to the presbyteries for vote by adding operational language that says:

b. Should an overture require an amendment to the Constitution that proposes substantially the same action as that which was approved by one of the two previous sessions of the General Assembly and subsequently failed to receive the necessary number of affirmative votes for enactment when transmitted to the presbyteries, it shall not be considered as an item of business unless and until 75 percent of the commissioners present and voting vote to do so,

The parliamentary point on this is that under the standing rules amending or suspending the rules (Section L) requires only a two-thirds vote, so if this is adopted it would be easier to suspend this rule than affirm a constitutional amendment under it.  In terms of how business would be dealt with under this rule, would an overture subject to this rule be automatically sent to the business committee for recommendation and then come back at the end of the week for the full Assembly vote to proceed, or would the rule be taken up at the beginning of the week so if the request is denied the business committee has one less item to deal with?  Probably just put on the consent agenda of the first Bills and Overtures Committee report.

It is worth noting however that this overture does address a comment/complaint that is regularly heard in some presbyteries about the fact that similar amendments keep getting sent down from the Assembly and keep getting defeated by the presbyteries.

(And a very picky polity wonk comment on the wording:  It speaks of the previous “sessions of the General Assembly.”  In Presbyterian polity the General Assembly is both a meeting and a group of people forming a governing body.  A given General Assembly, such as the 218th, has a stated meeting and may have called meetings. (I won’t go near that at this time.) Technically, the 218th General Assembly is still in existence but simply in adjournment and then will dissolve upon convening the 219th GA.  So more appropriate wording would be “one of the two previous General Assemblies.”  As I said, picky, wonkish, and I even catch myself not being strict using these terms.  But this is a difference with Reformed Church polity where their higher governing bodies, such as the class (=presbytery), do not “exist” between meetings.)

Finally, Overture 6 from Mid-South Presbytery sort of falls into this general theme of overtures because it would amend the Book of Order regarding the Assembly’s ability to make Authoritative Interpretations.  The overture asks that the Assembly send to the presbyteries a constitutional amendment that would add to the end of G-13.0103r the line:

No authoritative interpretation shall be issued by a General Assembly which amends or alters a clear mandate contained in any provision of the Book of Order.

While this seems pretty straight-forward, as we have seen in the Southard Decision from the Boston Presbytery PJC even the majority and dissenting members of the PJC differed on what the minority would consider “a clear mandate” in the Directory for Worship.

Well, that takes care of these three overtures.  At the present time there are 13 overtures posted on PC-Biz and I have now commented on eight of them.  It looks like the next batch to talk about are related to peacemaking and social witness polity.  For reference, looking back at my notes from two years ago there were 23 overtures posted by this time so if business processing by the OGA is running at the same pace there appears to be noticeably fewer overtures submitted so far.  (As a technical note, overture processing has gone from a dedicated web page to the PC-Biz system and so I could imagine that the efficiency of processing could be either higher or lower than last time depending on the complexity of the back-end technology involved.)  The number posted could also be lower because of the staff reductions we have seen or because the 120 day deadline is later this year.  We will just wait and see what the total comes to. Stay tuned.

Presbytery Merger In The Presbyterian Church Of Aotearoa New Zealand And Some Polity Observations

1 Reply

I recently saw a news item on The Southland Times web site about a presbytery merger in the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand that, as written, surprised me a bit.  (Today brings another, more detailed article from the Otago Daily Times.) The fact that there was going to be a merger was not what caught my attention – the PCANZ is in the midst revisioning and restructuring the church with there Press Go program and the Reform of Presbyteries initiative. No, being the polity wonk that I am what I was wondering about was the way the article phrased the approval process.  The article says:

Southern presbyteries will be united in February to better connect with their communities and to try and attract more youthful members.

Five presbyteries, encompassing all Presbyterian parishes within Southland and Otago below the Waitaki River, are joining together to form the Southern Presbytery.

and

The Southern Presbytery will merge on February 13 at the Calvin Church in Gore at 2pm, and will be ratified in October by the Presbytery Church of Aotearoa New Zealand.

The polity wonks out there probably immediately recognized that this is the reverse of what we are used to in these matters.  The structure and shape of presbyteries is usually a matter for the next higher governing body, in most cases the General Assembly.  As the article says the presbyteries “will be united in February” and then it “will be ratified in October” by the General Assembly.

On one level the PCANZ Book of Order is a bit unique in its description of the powers and responsibilities of the GA when it says

General Assembly to establish presbyteries
8.7 Formation, alteration and abolition of presbyteries

(1) The General Assembly may

(a) form a presbytery,
(b) determine the name of a presbytery,
(c) fix the area or region for which a presbytery has responsibility,
(d) on its own initiative or at the request of a presbytery, alter the name of a presbytery, abolish a presbytery, or change the area or region for which a presbytery has responsibility.

I was surprised to see in there that the GA “may” and not “shall” do these things regarding presbyteries.  However, the present news is the result of action taken by the last General Assembly in 2008 when it approved, without debate, the report of the Presbyteries Task Group on The Reform of Presbyteries.  The GA approved in advance the reorganization of all the presbyteries and we can expect more of these mergers to follow with final approval at this year’s Assembly in the fall.

But in researching this and looking at the details of presbytery structuring in other Presbyterian branches I was reminded of an interesting quirk in the polity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

Let me begin with the Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America, for a reason you will see in a moment.  The BCO includes in the list of responsibilities of the GA

14-6. The General Assembly shall have power:

e. To erect new Presbyteries, and unite and divide those which were erected with their consent;

A quick check of the history of this section of the BCO shows that the PCA has always had this section as a “shall” and before that the predecessor polity of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. had the GA as the governing body to create and dissolve synods, but not presbyteries.  The polity would then give the synods the responsibility to organize presbyteries.

What is the current situation in another PCUS successor denomination, the PC(USA)?  The current Book of Order says:

G-13.0103  The General Assembly constitutes the bond of union, community, and mission among all its congregations and governing bodies. It therefore has the responsibility and power

m. to organize new synods and to divide, unite, or otherwise combine synods or portions of synods previously existing;
n. to approve the organization, division, uniting, or combining of presbyteries or portions of presbyteries by synods;

Affected synods must concur with presbytery changes, but this GA responsibility for presbytery creation sets up an interesting paradox in that the Assembly creates the presbytery but the synod reviews its records.  Cooperative governance.

The Annotated Book of Order gives no indication of a change to this section shifting responsibility for presbyteries from synods to the GA and no reference to pre-merger citations or documents so this could be inherited from the UPCUSA. or derives from the merger.  More research necessary – but an interesting mix of ecclesiastical responsibility and weaker powers for the synods.

With the significant discussion about the role of synods in the PC(USA) this is only a quirk or minor distraction.  The real question gets back to the restructuring of the church in New Zealand and whether these merged presbyteries with minimal administrative responsibility can fulfill the expressed purpose of attracting more youthful members.  Will the mission drive the polity?

New Principal Clerk Of The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland

Leave a reply

I don’t know how many of you caught this job announcement for a new Principal Clerk of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.  As the announcement says “These senior positions offer talented individuals the chance to make a significant contribution to the life of the Church.”  But note, for some of us elsewhere around the globe, “Applications are invited from Ministers of the Church of Scotland for this key role.”  Now, although the job posting never explicitly says that the Principal Clerk must be a clergy member, it does ask for “experience and understanding of the parish ministry” and the Acts and Regulations of the Church of Scotland do require the Principal Clerk to be a minister.  Sorry all you polity-wonk ruling elders.

Well, in case you had not heard and are interested, sorry but the position has been filled.  No official press release from the Kirk yet, but according to Scotsman.com the selection for the next Principal Clerk is the Rev. John Chalmers.  Rev. Chalmers has previously served in parish ministry, his last charge being Palmerston Place Church at the West End, Edinburgh.  He currently is serving as the “pastoral adviser in the ministry department” of the national headquarters according to the article.  He will be confirmed by the Assembly in May and will begin duties over the summer.  The article quotes him as saying: “I’m excited by the challenge and approach it with quite some fear and trepidation.”

[I will update here as more stories and the press release are issued.]

For watchers of the Kirk the retirement of the Very Rev. Dr. Finlay Macdonald, the current Principal Clerk, is not a surprise.  At the last Assembly Rev. Macdonald was absent and the Assembly “resolved that the Rev Dr Marjory MacLean be appointed Acting Principal Clerk for the duration of the absence of the Principal Clerk.”  There is no word if the Rev. MacLean, presently the deputy principal clerk, was a candidate for the permanent position.

So, the best of wishes to the Rev. Chalmers as he prepares for and assumes his new position and it will be interesting to see how he advises and guides the Assembly of 2011.  And best wishes to the Very Rev. Dr. Macdonald as he prepares for retirement, but not until after he helps the Assembly through the 2010 Meeting.

And to all my readers, a happy Boxing Day, Feast of St. Stephen, and Second Day of Christmastide.

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

10 Replies

Yesterday was the first of December and as is the procedure of the Presbyterian Church in Canada the Principal Clerk, Stephen Kendall, announced the nominees for Moderator of the next General Assembly.  The presbyteries have between now and April 1, 2010, to vote on the following individuals:

The Rev. Dr. Jonathan Dent, minister, St. David’s Presbyterian Church, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador

The Rev. Dr. Patricia Dutcher-Walls, Dean of Students and Professor of Hebrew Bible, Vancouver School of Theology

The Rev. Dr. Herb Gale, Associate Secretary, Planned Giving, The Presbyterian Church in Canada.

Interesting demographics – three pastors/no elders; two men and a woman; evenly divided between parish ministry, academics, and governing body work.

The Moderator will be installed and preside at the 136th General Assembly which will convene on June 6, 2010, in Sydney, Nova Scotia.

Looking Ahead: 219th General Assembly Of The PC(USA) – The First Moderator Candidate

2 Replies

Last week the National Capital Presbytery voted unanimously to endorse Elder Cynthia Bolbach as a candidate for Moderator of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  This news is brought to us from the Presbyterian Outlook, but I am expecting that a news story will soon appear from the PC(USA) News Service and be posted on the GA219 web site.

However, Ms. Bolbach is well ahead of the curve and has her web site/blog up and running.  She has titled it “Food for Thought” and her first, and only post so far, has the understandable title “Am I Crazy?”  In addition, the site includes pages “About Cindy” and “Why PCUSA [sic] Moderator?”  She has her own press release and a photo gallery. (And the National Capital Presbytery has a short note that links to the press release.  And I probably should mention that the news was also announced on the blog of the Presbytery of Silly Walks in the Pines.)

Elder Bolbach grew up Lutheran and joined the New York Ave. Presbyterian Church when she moved to D.C. after college.  There she was ordained a deacon and elder and served as the clerk of session.  She currently is a member of First Presbyterian Church in Arlington, Virginia.  Her other service to the denomination includes being a commissioner to the 209th GA in 1997, serving on and chairing the presbytery’s Committee on Ministry, and serving as Moderator of Presbytery.  But maybe the service that really answers the question she asks above, “Am I Crazy?” is that she has spent the last four years as the co-moderator of the denomination’s Form of Government Task Force.  On her web site she writes about this saying:

We have the opportunity to begin to change by adopting the proposed new Form of Government – a proposal that returns the Form of Government to its proper status as a Constitutional document, rather than the regulatory manual that it has become over the past 25 years. That’s a good start. We need to go further. We need our presbyteries to focus less on administration and more on empowering their congregations to be effective wellsprings of ministry and mission. We need to stop thinking and acting like a bureaucracy and start thinking and acting like disciples.

So why does she want to stand for Moderator?  In her “why” piece she writes:

[O]ur ability as a denomination to proclaim these messages effectively as we move into the second decade of the 21st century is in peril. Our multicultural, secular society no longer has Christianity, much less the institutional church, much less the P.C. (U.S.A.), at its center. It no longer trusts implicitly in the effectiveness of institutions. Yet we continue to believe that we can do ministry the same way we did fifty years ago.

It’s a simple choice, really: if we don’t change, we’ll die.
…
A denomination that proudly claims the resolve and resiliency of John Calvin cannot let this happen. A denomination that takes seriously Jesus’ command to “go out and make disciples” cannot let this happen.

How do we reclaim a prophetic voice that will be listened to and taken seriously? The first step is to understand that we must proclaim our message in new and different ways. We must understand that we can no longer rely on a denominational name brand or on denominational loyalty. We must understand that the corporate organizational structure that was created in the 1950s is no longer viable. We must understand that our primary responsibility is not to impose rules but to empower and enable our congregations and their members to go out into the world and proclaim the transforming message of the Gospel.

Coming from a legal career in the corporate world I’m sure she understands “corporate structure” and “brand loyalty.” I look forward to hearing more.  I also look forward to all those other things that come with a moderator candidacy these days including the Facebook group and the Twitter hashtag.

UPDATE:  The PC(USA) News Service article is now available.

Current News In The Ordination Standards Discussion In The Church Of Scotland

2 Replies

Compared to my two previous notes on developments in the PC(USA) and the PCA this recap on developments in the Church of Scotland will be relatively short since their process is much more focused at the moment.

You may remember that the last General Assembly dealt with a protest filed by a group of presbyters who considered their presbytery’s action to concur with a church’s call to a partnered gay man to pastor the church to be out of order.  The GA upheld the presbytery decision and denied the protest.  Along with the protest there was also an overture filed by another presbytery to establish some standards for ordained office regarding lifestyle and sexual orientation.  Instead of acting on that the Assembly chose to structure an environment to engage the church in discussion over this issue.  This environment includes a Special Commission to study the issue and report back to the 2011 Assembly, a moratorium on installations and ordinations of partnered same-sex individuals as officers of the church, and a ban on officers of the church talking publicly about the issue.  The moratorium and the gag order are for the two years the Special Commission will be working.

Well yesterday brought news that Lord Hodge will chair the special commission.  Lord Hodge is a Judge of the Supreme Court and was previously Procurator to the General Assembly, among other legal and judicial positions.  The news article also lists an additional four members of this nine member commission:

Other members of the commission include the Rev John Chalmers, former minister of Edinburgh’s Palmerston Place Church; advocate Ruth Innes, a member at Palmerston Place Church; former Moderator the Very Rev Dr Sheilagh Kesting; and the Rev Peter Graham, former clerk to the Edinburgh presbytery.

Thanks to the Edinburgh Evening News for this, but I look forward to a formal press release from the CofS Newsroom, or a more detailed media article listing the full membership of the commission.

A sidebar here, (pun intended) on the leaders of these Church of Scotland special commissions.  For those of you keeping score at home, this is the third special commission in three years that I am aware of.  The first of these, created by the 2006 General Assembly, was the Special Commission on Structure and Change which reported back to the 2008 Assembly.  What I find interesting was that commission was headed up by Lord Hodge’s colleague on the high court, Lord Brodie.  Not every commission is headed up by a distinguish justice because the third commission, and one that is currently working, the Special Commission on the Third Article is chaired by the Moderator of the 2006 Assembly, the Very Rev. Dr. Alan D. McDonald.  (And if you want more on the Structure and Change and Third Article stuff, you can check out my earlier discussion of all that.)  But in summary, you have to be impressed with the church’s integration in the culture to be able to get such secular leaders onto GA commissions.  (And you have to wonder how they have time to do it.)

Finally, I was looking back and I probably should close the loop on one more related item.  Back at the beginning of September the Presbytery of Hamilton voted to admit to training for the ministry an individual whose lifestyle was the subject of the new discussion in the church.  The issue at the time was focused on whether this presbytery action was a violation of the GA action, in spirit if not in letter.  Subsequently, the individual, Mr. Dmitri Ross, withdrew his application after the controversy erupted.  In a Time article he is quoted as saying:

“I do not wish, and have never sought, to be a cause of division within the Church I love so dearly. Therefore, after much heartfelt deliberation, and after much prayerful consideration, I have decided to withdraw as a full-time candidate in training for ministry of word and sacrament in the Church of Scotland.”

Like the other ordination debates, all of this is a point in the journey, or a step in a process, that will play out.  Stay tuned…

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — Synods: An Expanding Or Contracting Universe?

Leave a reply

It has been an interesting week for synods in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and not just because my own met a couple of days ago.

It is clear that the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) will have plenty to talk about next summer related to synods, if they want to tackle the subject.  We already knew about the optional changes to synods that the new Form of Government document would permit if it is approved.  In addition, two overtures have been posted that would reduce or eliminate synods.  Finally, there is a proposal from Presbyterians for Renewal to create a new non-geographic synod for churches and presbyteries to gather in based on theological affinity.

The PC(USA) has been in serious discussions for a while now about the usefulness of synods and whether it is a middle-governing body the church should do away with much like the Church of Scotland did away with them in 1992.  This discussion is recognized by both the original Form of Government Task Force Report as well as the updated nFOG report.  While the two reports do not get rid of synods, they both contain an essentially identical section (like most of the updated nFOG the new version reads a bit better than its original) G-3.0404 Reduced Function which says:

A synod may decide, with the approval of a two-thirds majority of its presbyteries, to reduce its function. In no case shall synod function be less than the provision of judicial process and administrative review of the work of the presbyteries (G-3.0401c). Such a synod shall meet at least every two years for the purposes of setting budget, electing members to its permanent judicial commission, and admitting to record the actions of its permanent judicial and administrative commissions. Presbyteries of such a synod shall assume for themselves, by mutual agreement, such other synod functions as may be deemed necessary by the synod.

Before going any further it is useful to look back at the history of synods in American Presbyterianism.  We usually put the beginning of the Presbyterian church in America in 1706 with the establishment of the first presbytery.  This was followed in 1717 with the first synod, the Synod of Philadelphia, which became the highest governing body until the first General Assembly in 1789.  In 1741 this main branch of American Presbyterianism had its first split into the Old Side and New Side and a second synod, the Synod of New York, was created for the New Side presbyteries and churches.  While the resolution of the split in 1758 returned the church to one synod, the Synod of New York and Philadelphia, the Old Side/New Side division persisted at the presbytery level, even to the point of having over-lapping presbyteries based on theological affinity in the New Side First Presbytery of Philadelphia and the Old Side Second Presbytery.  These would eventually be merged but it took over fifty years.

More recently, in the business before the 218th General Assembly the overtures included one to once again permit affinity presbyteries and now synods by allowing for flexibility in membership (Item 03-05), an overture to study the synod structure (Item 03-06), and the 217th GA was overtured to look into a Korean language synod.  All of these proposals were turned down by the full Assembly.  It is important to note there is historical precedent for racial ethnic synods with the Catawba Synod of the former PCUSA in the first half of the 20th century.

Since my last summary of the posted business for the 219th three more overtures have been added to the PC-Biz site.  One addresses Authoritative Interpretations and I will comment on that separately.  The other two new ones both address synods, specifically asking for a reduction or elimination of them.

Overture 4 from the Synod of the Rocky Mountains asks for changes to Chapters G-12 and D-5 of the Book of Order to decrease the responsibilities.  In fact, one of the parts of the overture would add to the current Government section the same language that is proposed in the nFOG about “reduced functions” for synods at the option of the constituent presbyteries.  But the overture goes on to proposed changes to the Government and Discipline sections that would allow two adjoining synods to form a joint Permanent Judicial Commission.

Overture 5 is more dramatic, proposing the elimination of Chapter G-12 all together eliminating synods from the PC(USA) structure.  The next part of this overture from the Presbytery of New Hope would set up a Synod Transition Administrative Commission, which would be the decently and orderly thing to do so as to wind up the work of the Synods.  There are a couple of polity issues I have with the wording in the overture.  (If this is something the Assembly decides to do the rewrite of the Commission mandate would be relatively straight-forward.)

Keeping in mind that a Presbyterian Commission is empowered to act on behalf of, and with the full authority of, the governing body that creates the commission, I would object to the members of a commission being named by the Stated Clerk and the Moderator of the Assembly.  That would be fine for a committee or task force, but if a commission is to have the power of the Assembly, than the members should be approved by the full Assembly itself.  This would necessitate the vote on the constitutional changes following the 219th GA and the naming of the commission and subsequent wind-down of the synods by the 220th GA two years later.

[For the polity wonks, GA Junkies, and those interested in the details:  It is interesting that the Book of Order keeps talking about “appointing” commissions.  But if you drill down into the Annotated Book of Order, under G-9.0503a(1) there is an annotation referring to an interpretation by the 217th GA that a presbytery may delegate the responsibility of naming a commission for an ordination.  So, by implication the naming of commissions for other purposes may not be delegated but must be approved by the full governing body.]

My second concern is, I believe, a polity problem and that is with the mandate of the Commission.  This part of the overture reads:

2.   If the presbyteries concur in removing synods from
the Book of Order or proposed Form of Government, that the Stated Clerk and Moderator of the 219th General Assembly (2010) be authorized to appoint a Synod Transition Administrative Commission by July 2011 to ensure that all matters related to the elimination of synods be addressed. This includes review of presbytery minutes, permanent judicial commissions, or other constitutional functions assigned to synods. The commission would be authorized to resolve all fiduciary functions related to synods and any regional groups that are currently functioning as part of synods.

There are several aspects to my concern.

First, there is no end date for the Commission.  Give it a two-year initial life and renew it every GA if its work is not done.

Second, the overture contains a reasonable list of things to do, but is the commission to do those things (minutes review, PJC cases) for what is in process at the time of the constitutional change or forever?  It seems that a more detailed plan for synod transition is needed, unless this commission becomes a permanent commission (and the name of the commission contains transitional so it is not intended to be the case).  Let me put this another way:  If the commission is to do review of presbytery minutes is that just once for the transition or on an ongoing basis.  And if just once, than there should be another section to this overture that describes how the GA will take on the review of the minutes of 173 presbyteries in the future.

And that is my Third concern, that while this overture covers the transition commission, what then?  There needs to be consideration of the transition process for the OGA and the GAMC if they are going to take over the essential functions of the 16 synods.

Yes, I am being picky here, but because of the nature of commissions you have to cover the details when it is created.  I don’t see any fundamental problem with this overture that can’t be overcome with some detailed rewriting by the Assembly, if this is the direction they chose to go.  And I am very curious to see the Advisory Committee on the Constitution’s comments on this overture.

Well, that is what is currently on the docket, but this past week also brought another proposal that we can expect to see on the radar in the next couple of months.  The organization  Presbyterians For Renewal (PFR) has published their solution for the PC(USA) going forward, which is to expand the synod structure by creating a 17th synod to serve as a non-geographic affinity synod.  Churches concerned about the doctrinal direction the PC(USA) is taking could chose to switch over to this New Synod.

The full proposal is 13 pages long, of which 9 are FAQ and 2 are the text of the proposed constitutional changes with a 2 page Appendix that appears to act much like the procedural manuals envisioned under the nFOG.

Since this is just a proposal and has not been transmitted yet, or at least posted, as a formal overture from a presbytery I am not going to dissect it line-by-line but will make some general comments and highlight a few specifics.

As you can imagine for something like this to work it contains a bit of creative polity, especially items granting the New Synod (the working name until it is created and formally named) a reasonable amount of autonomy.  It does however say that it has the “same responsibilities and powers as all other synods” which presumably means the ecclesiastical and administrative functions that include a PJC and records review.  However, it also says that the provisions in this new section supersede any other Book of Order provisions to the contrary and that the provisions in this section may not be changed by the rest of the denomination without a majority vote of all the presbyteries in the New Synod.

One polity point that quickly becomes apparent is that New Synod presbyteries lose a certain amount of authority under this plan.  On the one hand, the synod will control ordination standards instead of the presbyteries.  Presbyteries will conduct the examinations but the New Synod “has the responsibility and power to maintain the standards for ordination and continuing ministry.”  There appears to be little room for interpretation of the standards at the presbytery or session level.  On the other side dismissal of churches from the New Synod has been removed from presbytery approval to a vote of the congregation wishing to switch.  (And this applies to a church wishing to join New Synod or leave New Synod.)  However, while approval of the dismissing presbytery is not required the approval of the receiving presbytery is required in both cases.  (Under present polity for a church to switch the congregational vote is not required but it must be approved by both presbyteries, the synod or synods involved, and the GA.)

I had to laugh when I saw in the FAQ the comment about the church fighting over ordination standards for the last 3 decades.  While the current sexual standards have been the point of contention for 30 years, the Old Side/New Side split almost three centuries ago was over ordination standards, including subscription to the Westminster Standards.  Interestingly, this New Synod proposal brings back something that is very close to creedal subscription.  A couple of ways this will happen is outlined in the Appendix.  First, the New Synod will produce a list of some, but not the, essential tenets as areas that must not be overlooked in examining candidates for ordained office.  Secondly, in the New Synod any ordained officer of the church must affirm:

Along with the broader constitutional standards for manner of life (e.g. G-6.0106a), New Synod also holds to the standard that its officers will live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness.

It goes on to say “Those who can not make this affirmation for their own manner of life will not be approved for ordination or installation in an office, or for membership in a presbytery.

It is important to remember that the standards New Synod is interested in maintaining are the ones that are currently in force in the PC(USA).  Currently the church is debating if there is any flexibility in the standards either because they are  “non-essentials” or because the violate an office-holder’s conscience.  What the final version of this document needs to do is present the ordination standards for New Synod not so that it sounds like legalism, but instead in a way that it brings grace.

It will be interesting to see if this Assembly wants to tackle the present situation with synods.  And I await the wording of the New Synod proposal as an overture from a presbytery.  Stay tuned…

Church of Scotland General Assembly 2010 Moderator Designate

Leave a reply

This morning the nominating committee announced the Moderator Designate for the 2010 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.  I would like to congratulate the Rev. John Cairns Christie on receiving this honor.

Rev. Christie is a native of Glasgow and is a second career minister having a first career as a teacher with training in biology.  He holds the highest professional certification of Chartered Biologist from the Society of Biology.  After nearly two decades in education he was ordained to the ministry in 1990 and his early service included work as a school chaplain.  He has also served as convener of the Glasgow Presbytery Education Committee, among others.  Since 2004 he has been serving in Interim Ministry and currently serves at St Andrew’s Parish Church, West Kilbride and some times at Scots Kirk, Lausanne, Switzerland.  (And I thought I had an interesting commute. )  The Rev. Christie appears to have plenty of activity in his life having served on several GA committees, recreational activity that includes 5-a-side football, and his wife Annette is on the international team for the Scottish Indoor Bowling Association.

The Church of Scotland has an official press release of the announcement and so far the media appears to be using the info in the press release.  I’ll update here when more detailed stories or interviews have been published.

UPDATE: I was glad that we still have an insider view of the process thanks to the Rev. Ian Watson at Kirkmuirhill.

UPDATE: An interesting editorial in The Times about The Kirk needing to have a Moderator for longer than one year so they can “make a mark.”

Free Church Of Scotland General Assembly Moderator Designee

Leave a reply

The Free Church of Scotland yesterday announced that the Moderator of their 2010 General Assembly will be the Rev. David Meredith of Inverness.  The Rev. Meredith has pastored the Smithton Free Church for the last 25 years and is credited with building a tiny outreach congregation into a thriving one.  (That church name is from the announcement although the church web site lists the church as the Smithton-Culloden Free Church.  The church web site also brings news they had a 25 year celebration for Rev. Meredith just a couple of weeks ago.)

Mr. Meredith is a career minister having earned a degree in English and Politics at Strathclyde University before studying for the ministry at Free Church College.

I like the description that Rev. Meredith gives of his interest in ministry:

David says he has a desire to bring contemporary applications to
ancient truths, and to see vibrancy within a Free Church which is free
from parochialism and focused on the spiritual needs of Scotland.

In particular I like that idea of bringing “contemporary applications to ancient truths.”

The Free Church of Scotland General Assembly will convene in May in Edinburgh.  I look forward to Rev. Meredith’s leadership.