Category Archives: General Assembly

The PC(USA) New Revised Form Of Government — Introductory Thoughts And The Revised Foundations

7 Replies

I am sure that most of the G.A. Junkies in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) know that the Form of Government Task Force will be bringing their revisions to the New Form of Government  to the 219th General Assembly next July.  Having now had time to study the revisions I wanted to share my thoughts and observations.

It is important to keep in mind the goal and history of the revision of the Form of Government section of the Book of Order.  The goal is to make the Book of Order, or at least the Form of Government, a constitutional document that sets forth the basic principles but is not loaded up with the detailed procedures that the church is to follow.  In addition, it is to be a “missional” document reflecting the concept that the church exists for mission — to go out into the world and make disciples.

The first recent major revision to the Book of Order came from the 217th General Assembly when that Assembly sent a revised version of Chapter 14 to the presbyteries, and the presbyteries concurred.  (An interesting discussion at this time would be whether the presbyteries still think the new Chapter 14 is a good thing and how that will influence the outcome of the present decision.) What we have today in that chapter is the stylistic goal for the whole Form of Government section.  At the 218th General Assembly the Form of Government Task Force brought a complete revision to the rest of the FOG but the Assembly committee and the full Assembly decided it was “not ready for prime time.”  The tenure of the task force was extended, three Assembly commissioners were added to the task force, and given the opportunity one member of the task force opted out of the “extended mission.”  Just over a month ago the task force released their New Revised Form of Government for the review, consideration, and discernment of the church.  This revision is to reflect the vast amount of input the task force received both at the 218th Assembly as well as through the presbyteries and directly.

If you wish to follow my discussion closely, or you want to have a detailed comparison yourself, there are several documents that you might want to consult.  The first, of course, is the current 2009-2011 Book of Order.  From the 218th GA (2008) there is the Report of the Task Force as well as a great side-by-side comparison of the revision to the Form of Government section at that time.  From the extended mission we have Report of the Task Force with the full text, as well as the Foundations and Government sections separately.  As tempting as it is to refer to the first revision as the “revised version” and the new one as the “new revised version,” for my discussion here and in following posts I will refer to them as “nFOG 2008” and “nFOG 2010.”  (The dates are for the year of the GA that considers them, not the year of release.)

For those just joining the discussion, or those who wisely have better things to do between GA’s than remember all these details, I should point out that a major recommendation in the nFOG 2008, and maintained in nFOG 2010, is the division of the existing Form of Government section into two sections.  The first four chapters would be split out on their own, rearranged into three chapters, and called Foundations of Presbyterian Polity.  They would now be the “F” section of the Book of Order and their placement into a new section would emphasize their application to all the other sections of the Book of Order.

In this post I will focus on just the Foundations section and leave the remainder of the Form of Government section for another time.  If you are curious what I said two years ago about it you can check out my previous comments.  As I read back through them today, with the exception of one messed up sentence where I am not sure what I was trying to say, I think my attitude now is still the same as reflected in that post.

I would begin by saying that while the nFOG 2008 did a major reorganization of the first four chapters, nFOG 2010 leaves most of their reorganization in place and has done more modification of the text, mostly to improve readability.  To my ear the Foundations section reads better than before.  A good example of this language:

 Current nFOG 2008  nFOG 2010
G-3.0100 Form
The mission of the Church is given form by God’s activity in the world as told in the Bible and understood by faith.

G-3.0101 God’s Activity
a. God created the heavens and the earth and made human beings in God’s image, charging them to care for all that lives; God made men and women to live in community, responding to their Creator with grateful obedience. Even when the human race broke community with its Maker and with one another, God did not forsake it, but out of grace chose one family for the sake of all, to be pilgrims of promise, God’s own Israel.

God’s Covenant
b. God liberated the people of Israel from oppression; God covenanted with Israel to be their God and they to be God’s people, that they might do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with the Lord; God confronted Israel with the responsibilities of this covenant, judging the people for their unfaithfulness while sustaining them by divine grace.

  F-1.01 GOD’S MISSION
The sovereign mission of the one triune God—Father, Son,and Holy Spirit—gives substance and form to the Church’s activity in the world. The Church knows God’s sovereign work in creation and redemption through God’s Word in Scripture, the witness of the confessions, and the presence of Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. As the Church responds to God’s gracious call, it participates in the divine mission—proclaiming the time of the Lord’s favor, bringing good news to all who are impoverished, and announcing release to those who are imprisoned, sight to those who are blinded, and freedom to those who are oppressed. In its faithful mission, the Church is assured of God’s blessing and filled with hope in the fulfillment of God’s purpose. Along with Christians everywhere, Presbyterians have no higher goal in life or in death than to live in covenant fellowship with the triune God, to embrace and serve God’s mission, to glorify and enjoy God now and forever.		  F-1.01 GOD’S MISSION
The good news of the Gospel is that the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—creates, redeems, sustains, rules, a
nd transforms all things and all people. This one living God, the Scriptures say, liberated the people of Israel from oppression and covenanted to be their God. By the power of the Spirit, this one living God is incarnate in Jesus Christ, who came to live in the world, die for the world, and be raised again to new life. The Gospel of Jesus Christ announces the nearness of God’s kingdom, bringing good news to all who are impoverished, sight to all who are blind, freedom to all who are oppressed, and proclaiming the Lord’s favor upon all creation.

The mission of God in Christ gives shape and substance to the life and work of the Church. In Christ, the Church participates in God’s mission for the transformation of creation and humanity by proclaiming to all people the good news of God’s love, offering to all people the grace of God at font and table, and calling all people to discipleship in Christ. Human beings have no higher goal in life than to glorify and enjoy God now and forever, living in covenant fellowship with God and participating in God’s mission.

In this particular case I do think the nFOG 2010 reads better, theologically presents the might acts of God in a more logical manner, and I like the filling out of the nature of the triune God in the first line.

It does leave the question of whether this is the best opening for the Book of Order and as I argued before I still favor the current language for its force and gravity:

All power in heaven and earth is given to Jesus Christ by Almighty God, who raised Christ from the dead and set him above all rule and authority, all power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. God has put all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and has made Christ Head of the Church, which is his body. [G-1.0100a]

There are places where subtle changes were made that, to my reading, do have significant theological or historical implications.  One example is from the last line of F-2.02 on the confessions as subordinate standards:

 Current nFOG 2008  nFOG 2010
Yet the church, in obedience to Jesus Christ, is open to the reform of its standards of doctrine as well as of governance. The church affirms “Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda,” that is, “The church reformed, always reforming,” according to the Word of God and the call of the Spirit.
[from G-2.0200]		 Yet the church, in obedience to Jesus Christ, is open to the reform of its standards of doctrine as well as of governance. The church affirms “Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda,” that is, “The church reformed, always to be reformed,” according to the Word of God and the call of the Spirit.
[from F-2.02]		 Yet the church, in obedience to Jesus Christ, is open to the reform of its standards of doctrine as well as of governance. The church affirms Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei, that is, “The church reformed, always to be reformed according to the Word of God” in the power of the Spirit.
[from F-2.02]

First, I appreciate the extended Latin phrase being included as well as the use of italics rather than quotations.  But the change from the “call of the Spirit” to “power of the Spirit” is one that I currently am not persuaded of.  While I would fully endorse the power of the Holy Spirit, when used in the context of the church being reformed I would prefer referencing the initial action of God through the call of the Spirit in that reformation.  We affirm that reformation is not of human initiative but of God’s.

There is a similar change when the new version speaks of the Protestant Reformation:

 Current nFOG 2008  nFOG 2010
G-2.0400 Faith of the Protestant Reformation

In its confessions, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) identifies with the affirmations of the Protestant Reformation. The focus of these affirmations is the rediscovery of God’s grace in Jesus Christ as revealed in the Scriptures. The Protestant watchwords—grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone—embody principles of understanding which continue to guide and motivate the people of God in the life of faith.

 F-2.04 The Confessions as Statements of the Faith of the Protestant Reformation

In its confessions, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) identifies with the affirmations of the Protestant Reformation. The focus of these affirmations is the rediscovery of God’s grace in Jesus Christ as revealed in the Scriptures. The Protestant watchwords—grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone—embody principles of understanding that continue to guide and motivate the people of God in the life of faith.

 F-2.04 THE CONFESSIONS AS STATEMENTS OF THE FAITH OF THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION

In its confessions, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) upholds the affirmations of the Protestant Reformation. The focus of these affirmations is God’s grace in Jesus Christ as revealed in the Scriptures. The Protestant watchwords—grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone—embody principles of understanding that continue to guide and motivate the people of God in the life of faith.

Again, there are a couple of subtle changes that, to my thinking, make different theological and historical statements about the Reformation confessions.  The switch from “identifies with” to “upholds” is one that I think I disagree with, but I am still wavering.  On the one hand, “upholds” distances us from the confession like “it happened and we acknowledge it.”  On the other hand, while it has a greater sense of distance “upholds” does have, to me, a greater sense of affirmation or attachment than “identifies.”  I’m still debating these changes with myself.

One change that I am grateful for is the return of a paragraph related to the historical nature and “stance” of confessional standards:

 Current nFOG 2008  nFOG 2010
b. Thus, the creeds and confessions of this church reflect a particular stance within the history of God’s people. They are the result of prayer, thought, and experience within a living tradition. They serve to strengthen personal commitment and the life and witness of the community of believers.
[G-2.0500b]		 [not included] The creeds and confessions of this church arose in response
to particular circumstances within the history of God’s people. They claim the truth of the Gospel at those points where their authors perceived that truth to be at risk. They are the result of prayer, thought, and experience within a living tradition. They appeal to the universal truth of the Gospel while expressing that truth within the social and cultural assumptions of their time. They affirm a common faith tradition, while also from time to time standing in tension with each other.
[from F-2.01]

Well, if you have gotten this far in my post I thank you for caring so much about this.  As I said there are several subtle changes that have been made that may affect whether you do, or do not, like the revision.  I won’t give any more side-by-side comparisons, but another subtle change that jumped out at me was the opening paragraph of the Principles of Order and Government where nFOG 2008 talks about the historic principles of church order “which have been a part of our common heritage in this nation,” the nFOG 2010 drops the “in this nation.”  While I can appreciate an attempt to remove a nationalistic tone, I do want to affirm that the PC(USA) is only 25 years old and there are almost 300 years of American Presbyterianism before that.  In addition, I think the qualifier is useful since in my study of Presbyterianism globally there are certain distinctions to church order in the American branch that these principles reflect.

I would note that two additions I appreciate are the inclusion of more scripture references throughout the section as well as more attention paid to the triune God.  And while the changes in structure are few, I would also complement the task force on the few times they did move sentences and ideas around with putting them in places that they more logically fit.

I suspect that most G.A. Junkies have particular sections of the Book of Order that they appreciate and value for the precise wording as well as the doctrine behind the section.  I have three in the Foundations section that are dear to me.  In my post from the last go-round two years ago I ranted about the change to the beginning of Chapter 1 where Jesus Christ as the head of the Church has been moved one section later.  I am pleased to say that the Great Ends of the Church have remained untouched.  But between nFOG 2008 and nFOG 2010 they had to go and change the section [F-1.0301] that begins “The Church of Jesus Christ is the provisional demonstration of what God intends for all of humanity.” and ends “The Church is called to give shape and substance to this truth. The Church is further called to undertake this mission even at the risk of losing its life, trusting in God alone as the author and giver of life, sharing the gospel, and doing those deeds in the world that point beyond themselves to the new reality in Christ.”  In nFOG 2010 it is no longer the “provisional demonstration” but is to demonstrate the gifts through Jesus Christ.  Furthermore, it does not risk its life for the mission but for the community. No only do I miss the specific wording that I have memorized and love, but it gives the appearance that is intended to be a missional document is not quite as missional.  Then again you can’t please everyone.

I think that is more than enough for right now.  I am still working on the new Government section of nFOG 2010 and will post on that probably in a week or two.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — The Assembly Business Is Now Live

Leave a reply

While I have been anticipating the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) “going live,” I can now report that within the last week or so it has.

In this case, going live has two components:

1)  The anticipated official web site of the Assembly is now up and running complete with several sub-pages and lots of pictures of the 218th GA.  There is a greeting from GA Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons on the front page, a nice set of FAQ’s for commissioners, and the beginnings of an on-line commissioner orientation including a video tutorial of PC-Biz, the on-line business system.  A preliminary schedule is posted and the right navigation bar has a suggestive, but inactive, region titled “GA 219 Social Networking.”  There are still some broken and interesting links on the pages (particularly for the OGA graphic) but the web site represents a good start.

2) Speaking of PC-Biz, I had mentioned that it had been primed for the 219th but now when you check out the business there are three overtures posted.

Overture 1 asks the Assembly to issue an Authoritative Interpretation that essentially restores previous AI and General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission decisions regarding Book of Order section G-6.0106.  The previous AI’s on this section were removed by the 218th GA as part of the action that sent the ultimately unsuccessful Amendment B to the presbyteries for a vote.  This Overture comes from the Presbytery of San Diego with concurring overtures from Central Florida, Cherokee, Washington and Yukon.

Overture 2 is a fairly routine matter of transferring a church from one presbytery to another.  The original location of Community Church of Seattle Presbyterian Church was in the Presbytery of Seattle but in 2003 they relocated to a property that is in the Presbytery of North Puget Sound.  There is a bit of a twist because the transfer did not happen at the time of the move six years ago due to North Puget Sound not being in a position to accept a loan guarantee that would have transfered with the church.  As they say, now the way is clear.

Overture 3 requests a fairly substantial change to the position of Commissioned Lay Pastor (CLP).  At the present time a CLP receives basic theological training and can then be commissioned by the presbytery to serve in a specific congregation.  When the CLP finishes at that congregation they are available for work in another congregation but are not able to do freelance work.  This overture from South Louisiana Presbytery requests a change to the Book of Order G-14.0560 to allow a CLP to have “at-large” status between calls and be free to serve on an as-needed basis, even in their own congregation if requested by the session.  The rational section of the overture says this:

Given the current reality that many of our smaller membership congregations are unable to afford the services of a commissioned lay pastor, even if one were available in or near the community, much less a minister of the Word and Sacrament, it is incumbent upon the denomination to provide avenues where these congregations may be served by trained laity, especially for the celebration of the sacraments. Having adopted the essential tenets of the Reformed tradition, we should exhibit a visible expression of the Reformed tenet of “the priesthood of all believers” or what Scriptures call the “royal priesthood,” (1Peter 2:9; Ephesians 2:19–22; 1Corinthians 6:16–18).

The realities of ordained ministry in the PC(USA) are that many congregations can not afford ordained leadership and those that are seminary trained have less interest in serving small rural congregations.  This is a situation the church will have to address and this is one approach to it.  Personally, I’m not sure yet that this would be my preferred course although it is a very reasonable proposal.  On the other hand I was very much in favor of a parallel move about 12 years ago when the church changed the Book of Order to allow “commissioned” deacons so that individuals could serve in the ministry of the diaconate in a specified means of ministry without the particular congregation having a full board of deacons.

So hold on to your hats as this is only the beginning.  We have almost exactly nine months before the Assembly convenes, lots of overtures to go, I am sure, and several committee and task force reports to be issued.  In addition, I have gone through enough parts of the New Revised Form of Government that the 219th will have to address to begin making some comments, probably tomorrow.

PC(USA) Committees And Task Forces Getting Ready For GA

Leave a reply

With nine months before the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) the pace of work is picking up and reports, preliminary and final, are being issued.

In particular, the PC(USA) has several special committees and task forces working on various tasks from the 218th GA or the General Assembly Mission Council.

Recent press releases about the various groups and their progress include:

At this time one committee, the New Revised Form of Government Task Force, has reported out in final form for the input of the denomination.  Their full report is posted and commended to the church for study ahead of the Assembly.  I have begun studying the 2009 version relative to the 2008 version and will have comments on the revisions in the near future.

But I have not gotten very far into that yet since I have been otherwise occupied, because…

The Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage met last week and has released their preliminary report for review and input by the church.  Input can be sent to civilunion.marriage@pcusa.org.  It should be 1000 words or less and received by Nov. 15.

The report begins:

As members of Christ’s church, we differ profoundly; but can we also see that those who disagree with us are seeking to love one another with God’s grace, advance the radical inclusiveness of the gospel, and promote biblical faithfulness? Though we reach very different conclusions, can we rejoice that our church is willing to wrestle together prayerfully with the question: How do we extend the grace of God to all, calling all persons—regardless of sexual orientation—to repentance and conversion, so that all will experience God’s gracious intention for humanity?

And the concluding section says:

What is the place of covenanted same-gender partnerships in the Christian community? The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) cannot agree. But the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is not ours. It is Christ’s. We did not choose Christ; Christ has chosen us, and appointed us—each and every one—to go and bear fruit that will last in this part of Christ’s vineyard. We have no right to destroy what is not ours. Knowing this, we believe that it is our Christ-given duty to stay at the table, especially when we disagree.

At the present time the report contains no recommendations to the Assembly — The committee will decide on those at their final meeting in January.

Now, I am going to take a step back and make some personal comments:  As many of you are aware I am a member of that Special Committee.  I have no comments about the content of the report — the committee worked very hard on it, was unanimous in support of the draft version, and that is our word to the PC(USA) at this time.  We have made our comment as a committee, we now welcome your comments back.

What I do want to say is that it was a privilege to work with the other 12 members of the committee.  I had to laugh yesterday when Peter Smith of the Louisville Courier-Journal referred to us as a “blue-ribbon” committee.  It has always felt more like I was a lowly sinner in need of God’s grace, mercy and salvation in the midst of a group of fellow sinners.  Yet, though we are all sinners, the members of the committee are a wonderful bunch of passionate, gifted, intelligent, thoughtful brothers and sisters in the faith.  And I would emphasize that Bruce Reyes-Chow did a great job of making the committee theologically diverse.  But despite our different viewpoints, when we speak in the report of “seeking to love one another with God’s grace,” we really do mean that.

I also want to commend the report to you because a lot of very hard work went into it.  Writing teams worked all summer, we read more than a thousand items of input that individuals sent in, and the four day meeting was a marathon.  (Sometimes revisions were posted to our collaborative software at 3 AM.)  In one of her good summaries of the meeting Leslie Scanlon of the Presbyterian Outlook picked up my comment about “the month of the last two days”.  (Leslie has a second article about the meeting as well.)  We did not sleep much, and when I did sleep it was not very soundly.  (Although I understand I was not alone in that regard.)  I can honestly say it was the most intense four days I can remember, even more intense than being a commissioner to GA.  And based on my notes, I would point out that in those four days every sentence in that report was reviewed by the full committee, page-by-page, and most of the sentences in there were modified in some way in the course of that review.  As I said, the full committee owns the full document.

I also want to thank the church for their input over the summer.  More than a thousand comments came in and we read them all.  Several of them were very moving – thank you for sharing your passions and hurts with us and I will carry those comments with me for a long time to come.

So read the report, let us know what you think.  And when you do there are a few things to keep in mind:

  • The landscape we are trying to describe was constantly changing as this report was written.
  • The content of the report reflects the
    mandate the 218th GA gave us    .  Don’t expect stuff that isn’t there.
  • That mandate includes the provision that we can not recommend modifying W-4.9001, the definition of Christian marriage.
  • And we have to do it in 10,000 words or less.     (It is like the standing joke in academics about reviewers of journal articles asking that you discuss this, that, and the other thing in more detail, and by the way, make the paper 10% shorter.

Thanks.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — The Build-up Begins

5 Replies

Yes, you read that title correctly.  I hope you have caught your breath from the last General Assembly and all the amendment voting because the cycle for the next GA begins… NOW!

The 219th General Assembly (2010) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) will meet from July 3-10, 2010.  It will be hosted by the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area at the Minneapolis Convention Center and the Committee on Local Arrangements (COLA) has put out the call for volunteers. (I have not found the COLA web site yet.)  And as we found out from the ELCA this past summer, watch out for the tornadoes.

The sure sign that GA was coming was the change in the default setting on the electronic business tracker, PC-Biz, from the 218th to the 219th GA.  No business, including overtures, has been posted to the system yet.

However, there are overtures waiting in the wings to be posted and one, two, maybe three of them, are floating around on web sites.  And it would probably surprise no one that the visible ones are all related to ordination standards in general and G-6.0106b in particular.

While the Office of the General Assembly has no GA 219 web page yet, at least that I can find, if they keep naming conventions consistent I would expect to find it here.  They have however announced the scriptural theme, “Rivers of Living Water” based on John 7:38, and have presented the logo.

I know that entities are working hard to get their assigned tasks completed and the one that has now released its product is the New Revised Form of Government Task Force.  Remember that their report came to the last Assembly and raised so many questions and concerns that the Assembly decided a more extensive input process was needed and so continued the process for another two years while adding a few of the Assembly commissioners to the nFOG Task Force.  Well, the new report was released last week and the church is invited to study it.  In fact, there is a letter from Task Force member Elder Carol Hunley specifically addressed to fellow elders explaining some of the motivation for the revision and encouraging them to study the new report and to take it seriously.  I have too much on my plate at the moment to digest that report but I’ll study it myself in the next month or two.  You can have a look at the full report or each of the new sections, Foundations of Presbyterian Polity and Form of Government, separately.  For comparison, the report to the previous GA is still available on-line, or should that disappear it will be available in a less-readable form on PC-Biz.

I think that covers all the signs of the next GA that I have found.  As I have time and more overtures and reports appear we will begin again the analysis of the upcoming business.

Sorting Out What The Actions Of The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland Mean

3 Replies

The General Assembly (2009) of the Church of Scotland dealt with a protest to a Presbytery approval of a church’s call to a partnered gay man to serve as pastor of the church.  For more details you can check out a couple of my previous posts, but to greatly summarize the actions of the Assembly on the specific case the policy of the CofS going forward they:

  1. Sustained the call and the Presbytery approval
  2. Formed a Special Commission to report back to the 2011 General Assembly with recommendations about such actions in the future.
  3. Placed a moratorium on ordination and induction (installation) of partnered same-sex individuals while the Commission is working
  4. Placed a gag order on all officers of the church urging them not to talk publicly about this whole issue while the commission is working

There has been much made about the gag order since the Assembly, including my comments in May and August. Up to this point that has been getting most of the publicity.

But this week brings news of some disagreement over the nature of the moratorium on ordination of partnered gay candidates.  Thanks to the Rev. Ian Watson for bringing this to our attention and all the important details are laid out in a post on his blog, with a brief follow-up.

His first post is extensive and complete enough that a GA Junkie can get a good idea of what the issues are.  I will summarize the recent action and then comment on the polity implications and the parallel to the PC(USA) working through this same question.

Rev. Watson reports that on September 1 the Presbytery of Hamilton “voted to nominate for training for the ministry of a man who is in a civil partnership.”

The question that arises is what is the scope of the Assembly’s action.  The specific deliverance says:

Instruct Presbyteries to observe a moratorium on ordinations and
inductions which might appear to prejudice the Special Commission before it reports.

Rev. Watson reports that as part of this decision the Presbytery received advice from the national CofS Ministries Council pertaining to the moratorium.  The complete advice is in his post, but it reads in part:

The decisions recently made should ensure that no applicant will be prejudiced, between now and the General Assembly of 2011, in the decision of their Presbytery whether to nominate them. That Assembly will determine the Church’s position, on receipt of the report of the Special Commission that has been established under the convenership of a Scottish judge.  No-one can predict at this stage what implications that might have for those who are applicants, candidates, or serving in the ministries of the Church at that point. 

So it is unclear if the moratorium applies only to the final step in ordination and induction, or applies to the whole ordination process.  This is a question that the Church of Scotland will have to wrestle with.

One of the reasons that I bring this up is because the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has had to deal with exactly the same issue, and the changes that the Report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity (PUP) brought.

Since adoption of G-6.0106b into the PC(USA) Book of Order there has been a discussion about at what point in the ordination process the “fidelity and chastity” clause needed to be applied.  The decisions of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, especially Sheldon v. West Virginia and Stewart v. Mission, set the pattern for handling these cases during the ordination process not at the point of the final examination for ordination by the Presbytery.

The Authoritative Interpretation adopted with the PUP Report allowed for declaring exceptions to the standards of the church but it does so in the context of examination for ordination, not entry into or during the preparation process.  Suddenly the ground shifted so that the review was no longer during the preparation process but at the time of examination.  This was the process affirmed by the PJC of the Synod of the Pacific in the case of Naegeli v. San Francisco, but has not been tested by the GAPJC yet.

So there you have some of the subtleties of this type of case.  Where is the appropriate point in the process to enforce standards or policy?  It is not clear that the Church of Scotland case will go any further, that would require a protest from members of the Presbytery of Hamilton and Rev. Watson does not suggest that is coming.  There does appear to be a need for a formal clarification from the Ministries Council to the whole church, not just on a case-by-case basis to Presbyteries.  But this would then start to drift into the realm of the prohibition on publicly discussing the topic. 

And what is the spirit of the actions that were taken by the CofS General Assembly?  The sense I got from listening to the debate was that they wanted to provide a level and neutral space for the Commission to work.  A space that was not biased or prejudiced by specific actions and statements within the church.  I must agree with Rev. Watson that this action by the Presbytery of Hamilton does seem to encroach on the spirit, if not the letter, of the Assembly action.  Time will tell how this develops.

61st General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Vanuatu

2 Replies

The 61st General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Vanuatu is presently meeting, beginning last Sunday and continuing for the week.

While I have a professional interest in the island nation of Vanuatu and the region, it is helpful to review their Presbyterian heritage.  The one summary available on-line is the informative, but dated, profile from the World Council of Churches.  That profile talks about the beginning as a mission synod with ties to Presbyterian churches in Scotland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Nova Scotia (Canada).  A similarly dated description from Reformed Online provides some more historical details and includes statistical details including that there are 500 conventional parishes and 450 house churches.  This with 121 ordained clergy which are increased by an average of three per year from their ministerial training facility.  The Presbyterian Church is the largest denomination in Vanuatu with slightly over one-third of the 215,000 inhabitants as members.  Because of the educational system the Presbyterian church has established Presbyterians have been influential and numerous in the country’s leadership.  The Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand has affirmed the PCV as their “primary mission relationship” and the PCV also has relationships with the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the Uniting Church in Australia, and PC(USA), among others.

However, tracking the GA turns out to be a bit difficult.  While the church has a web site, we get a page saying “Website Coming Soon.”  No sign of activity on Twitter or in the blogosphere.

Because of the speech by the General Secretary of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, Mr. Setri Nyomi, there has been some press coverage of his comments.  Mr. Nyomi is reported to have spoken both to the Assembly as well as to a study group.  His comments both times were principally related to the care of creation but in the study group he tied in the comments of John Calvin on the subject.

It is also reported in the articles that the country’s acting president and the prime minister spoke to the Assembly affirming church and state working together for the good of the nation.  And it is reported that Mr. Moses Obed was elected Moderator of the General Assembly.

That’s about all I see at this time.  I’ll post next week if any additional information about the Assembly becomes available.

CD Review: Some Assembly Required by Angus Sutherland

1 Reply

I finally got around to ordering the CD “Some Assembly Required” from the Presbyterian Church in Canada.  For a G.A. Junkie this CD is a gem.

First, let me dispel any misconceptions.  This is not your typical CD of Christian music.  You won’t see it on the best seller charts.  It won’t be earning any Dove Awards.  To my knowledge this CD is one of a kind.

But, if you are a Presbyterian who understands and appreciates the nuances and idiosyncrasies of our Presbyterian system of government, and you don’t mind some humor about it in music, then you will probably get a kick out of this collection of seven songs.

And this album is worth every penny of the $Can 15 that it costs if for no other reason than the proceeds go to the Presbyterian World Service and Development Agency (PWS&D).

The Rev. Angus Sutherland has put together a set of seven novelty songs about Presbyterians in general and our system of government in particular.  I bought the album on the strength of the song “The Clerk’s Rant” which is available from the PCC web site.  It was a rap-style song with clever rhymes and witty lyrics from a clerk delivering, in a very typical “clerk tone,” guidance on parlimentary procedure for making motions and amendments.  Having now heard the rest of the album I can say that there is more clever song writing that I enjoyed.  For example, the second verse of the song “Decently and In Order” (sung to the tune Scotland the Brave with a whole bunch of extra syllables in the last line)

The people can be picky.
Ministry can be tricky.
The situation sticky.
What will you do?
When life is going faster,
It’s hard to be a pastor.
So when you face disaster,
What pulls you through?

Refrain
We have the answer here
to help disperse your fear.
When you are lost here is one place you can come for answers.
When they will give no quarter,
Here’s how you meet disorder:
Decently and in Order,
And according to the Book of Forms.

(And as you probably guessed, the Book of Forms is very similar to, but not exactly the same as, the Book of Church Order or Book of Order.  The official documents of the PCC are the Acts of Assembly and the Book of Forms is updated regularly, but not annually, to reflect the Acts.)

It is also interesting to consider how universal the “Presbyterian experience” is.  The song “Moderator” (words and music by Mr. Sutherland) tells the story of a supposedly straight-forward committee report on the floor of the Assembly and the amendments and motions it is subjected to.  Here are the second and third verses, each of which is in a different voice invoking the requests of different GA commissioners:

Moderator, Moderator, Over here at microphone one.
I’m intending to be amending for so much is left undone.
Isn’t it a pity, don’t it make you blue.
Clearly the committee hasn’t thought the whole thing through.
Moderator, Moderator, my amendment’s on the floor.

Moderator, Moderator, I am standing — hear my plea.
The punctuation situation needs correction theologically.
If we place a comma after the word “and”
There will be no trauma and all will understand.
If those moving are approving, I propose this vital change.

Haven’t we all been there at one time or another.  And as a bit of an inside joke, the committee that is reporting is the Committee on History for which the Rev. Sutherland is the convener.

The strength of the album in my mind are the five songs more specific to Presbyterian governance.  There are two songs more general to the PCC and Presbyterianism:  “PWS&D” and “We are called.”  While interesting they don’t have the same resonance with me as the Assembly songs do.

So again, this album is not for everyone.  But for the rare breed versed in Presbyterian polity, parliamentary procedure, and the ways of General Assembly or other courts of the church this album will surely being a smile to your face.  Enjoy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a reply

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

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

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

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

Overtures
There are four overtures for the Assembly to consider:

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

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

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

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

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

This is a great segue to my next topic…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 37th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church In America — Moving From Committee To Plenary

2 Replies

The 37th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America began yesterday with their committee work and will continue with seminars and committee meetings most of today with the opening plenary session this evening.  They will be meeting all this week (June 15-19) in Orlando, Florida.

If you are following the GA you probably already know about these resources, but I will list them just in case:

Unfortunately there is no webcasting this year but there is a very active community on Twitter using the hashtag #pcaga. (Editorial note – I like the use of a hashtag that is not specific to a particular year so it can be continuing and reusable.  This does presume that Twitter will still be useful a year from now.)

Leading up to the Assembly there have been some good blog posts.  In particular I would point out Kevin Carroll’s post on “A Newbie’s Survival Guide To General Assembly” on Reformed and Loving It.  There is also an interesting “preview” article by Ed Eubanks, Jr., on General Assembly 2009 — Hopes and Expectations.

Overtures
The Overtures Page shows that there are now 22 overtures to the Assembly.  In my last post reviewing the overtures I left off at No. 15.  Of the remaining seven, six deal with new presbyteries or revising presbytery boundaries; and several of those are concurring with overtures already discussed.  The one additional overture, Overture 18, is titled “A Declaration Concerning Homosexuals In The Military.”  (byFaith news article) In this overture Eastern Pennsylvania Presbytery asks to have the Declaration endorsed and delivered to the President by the Moderator.  The Declaration lays out the Biblical prohibitions on homosexual behavior and asks that the Government observe scriptural morality and not normalize homosexual behavior in the military.

For many of the overtures the Assembly will be considering I would commend two blogs to you.  In each case these writers have taken the individual overtures and discussed them in greater detail than I have had the opportunity to do.  The first is Jordan Mark Siverd who writes necdum videmus.  He has written on Overtures 3, 6, and 7.  And Kevin Carroll also did a great job discussing most of the overtures with articles about Overtures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 22. (I hope I caught them all.  Apologies if I missed any.)

From the PCAbyFaith Twitter feed, and one news article, we do have information from yesterday’s meeting of the Bills and Overtures Committee about the committee’s recommended action on some of these overtures:

  • Overture 1 on Removal of Censure to answer in the affirmative as amended
  • Overture 2 on RAO debate of minority reports to answer in the affirmative
  • Overture 3 on Assumption of Original Jurisdiction to answer in the negative
  • Overture 4 on Adding “Interim Pastor” to answer in the negative
  • Overture 5 on Study Committee on the Role of Women to answer by Overture 10
  • Overture 6 on Marriage to answer in the negative
  • Overture 8 on Examination of Men from other Denominations be answered in the negative (reported vote 37-33 with 3 abstain)
  • Overture 9 on Judged differences from Confessional Standards for Men From other Denomination answer in the affirmative
  • Overture 10 (and 5) on Role of Women answer in the negative.  News Story.  May be minority report
  • Overture 13 on Adopt Danvers Statement answer in the negative
  • Overture 14 on Giving Notice on Intention to Withdraw answer in the negative
  • Overture 15 on Directing Philadelphia Presbyter to Adopt Specified Policy on Role of Women ruled out of order by Clerk and Overtures Committee
  • Overture 18 on Declaration on Homosexuals in the Milty answer in the negative.

And now we see what is the will of the full Assembly.

So I will be following by Twitter, blogs and news as best as I can.  I don’t anticipate any regular updates since I have some ecclesiastical functions that will be keeping me highly occupied the next few days.  But I will comment briefly if news warrants.