Category Archives: General Assembly

The Rev. William Hewitt Selected Moderator Designate for Church of Scotland General Assembly (2009)

Leave a reply

This past Monday the nominating committee selected the Rev. William Hewitt, minister of Westburn Church, Greenock, as the Moderator Designate for the next General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

Rev. Hewitt is a career pastor who was ordained in 1977 and served at Elderslie Kirk for sixteen years before his present call.  His resume is extensive with a lot of community involvement and chaplaincy as well as service to the wider church including serving as convener of presbytery and general assembly committees.  He has served as a Presbytery Moderator twice, first for Greenock Presbytery, and then as the first Moderator of the Greenock and Paisley Presbytery.

This Moderator selection is also distinctive not just for the individual selected, but for other connections in the Web 2.0 world.  Rev. Hewitt is a friend and colleague of Liz who writes the blog journalling.  Check out her brief comments on his selection.

But this year there is also some interesting discussion about the process:
Louis, who served on the selection committee but did not make the final meeting because of illness, asks “Does the Church of Scotland select the Moderator of its General Assembly fairly?”  While he considers Rev. Hewitt a worthy selection, he notes that the process favors those who have served on General Assembly committees and have received the wider visibility.  He suggests the process needs to be changed:

But what about the minister, for instance, who has served
in congregational ministry for 30-40 years, who has proved to be an
excellent pastor, who has faithfully preached God’s Word, who has
discipled many believers to spiritual maturity, who bears the scars of
long service and who has come through the lean years as well as the
fat?  What about such a minister?  Such a minister may not have
written books or articles or letters, may not have much of a record of
service in the central committees and councils of the Kirk, and as a
consequence, will not be sufficiently well-known to be nominated at
meetings of the Committee to Nominate the Moderator.  Our system needs
to be changed to give such ministers a better chance.  Their worth
would be inestimable in the pastoral visitation that is the most
important task of the Moderator once the General Assembly is done and
dusted.

Another interesting bit of commentary come from scotsman.com in their story headlined “Kirk stalwarts passed over for Moderator.”  The article is very brief and really does not develop this critique or add anything new, but the headline is interesting.

So, congratulations and best wishes to Rev. Hewitt and we look forward to hearing from you on the Moderators blog.  (And please consider doing the blog with RSS feed and comments.)

PC(USA) Amendment Voting Begins

Leave a reply

At the present time Amendment 08-B, changes to the “fidelity and chastity” section, is going down to defeat… There are currently no presbyteries for and one against.

OK, humor aside, a couple of days ago I got a report from Josiah F who left the comment to another post with the news from Palo Duro Presbytery:

Josiah F wrote:
At the 111th stated meeting of Palo Duro
Presbytery. The amendment altering the ordination standards failed by a
29 for, 47 against. The bulk of the Presbyteries across the country
will be voting on this in February.

Even
though it was in Texas, the make-up of the voting body in this
Presbytery is very mixed and the majority are moderates (with just a
few far left and right). When it comes to the political make-up of the
voting body, this issue had a real shot.

In verifying the Presbytery vote I contacted Janne Brumbelow, the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery, who not only verified the vote, but included some helpful information about the process the Presbytery used.  I would remind you that the Assembly added a comment to this item, 05-09, which is not in the Amendment Booklet.  The comment reads “Presbyteries are strongly encouraged to consider this overture using a process of listening and discernment.”  With Ms. Brumbelow’s permission, here is her description of how Palo Duro did it:

Yes, the vote was 47 to 29 against but the process was very helpful for
all. 

We had two 15 minute presentations by respected ministers in our
presbytery — one for and one against.  Then we discussed the
presentations and amendment around tables of 6-8 persons.  All were
invited to speak even if they were not voting commissioners.  Then a
period of silence and a speakout time limited to 15 minutes total with 2
minutes per speaker.  Then silence and prayer and vote by only
commissioners by ballot.  There was little rancor and all appreciated
the process.  I think the way we handled it helped to build up
relationships rather than divide.

My own Presbytery is encouraging dialog and discussion on the issues and the amendment in a series of events spread over several months before we vote.

I know that voting will extend from now to March and one presbytery does not make a trend.  But, considering Josiah’s assessment of his presbytery this could be an up-hill battle for 08-B.  Within the next month several more presbyteries will probably be voting so we will begin to see if any trends develop.

I won’t be doing play-by-play on the voting but will provide “color” when warranted.  To follow the voting there is usually a chart over at the Layman Online and the Stated Clerk’s office has their official vote tally that is delayed since it needs the official report from each presbytery’s stated clerk.

[Update 10/28/08: The Layman now has the chart online.]

So stay tuned and we will see where this journey takes us.

Update:  No sooner do I post this than the Layman has their first article on the voting posted as well.  In addition to Palo Duro they also have the result from Presbytery of Central Washington which likewise defeated the amendment, in this case by a 55 to 7 vote.  The Layman does not have their chart up yet, as far as I can tell, but the Layman observes divergent results in these two votes relative to the previous vote in 2001:  for the votes in the negative the Central Washington vote was a few percentage points higher and Palo Duro was a few points lower.

Action By The Pacific Northwest Presbytery, PCA, Related To Federal Vision Theology

Leave a reply

As long as I am on the topic of doctrine and judicial cases in the PCA, here is the latest on another…

This past Friday, at the regular stated meeting of the Pacific Northwest Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America, the Presbytery acted upon a report from a study/examining committee concerning the doctrinal views of one of its members related to Federal Vision Theology.  The controversy over this topic has been relatively quiet since things were settled last March in Louisiana Presbytery regarding the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, Louisiana.  However, the Pacific Northwest case has been active for over a year, it has just been progressing quietly in the usual Presbyterian “decently and in order” way.  Going forward from here it may gain a higher profile.

At this point there has been enough written about the Federal Vision Theology and controversy that I will not rehearse all of that.  A good starting point for that is the web site www.federal-vision.com, or check out what I have written over the last, almost, two years.  This particular case began in June, 2007, when the 35th General Assembly of the PCA adopted a Study Committee Report on “Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theology.” In accord with the report Teaching Elder Peter Leithart immediately sent a letter to his Stated Clerk in Pacific Northwest Presbytery outlining his doctrinal views. He simultaneously published the letter on his blog as well.  In our usual Presbyterian fashion a study committee was established to examine TE Leithart and report back to the Presbytery on how well his views align with the Standards of the PCA.  It is also important to point out that while TE Leithart is a member of the PCA, he serves at Trinity Reformed Church in Moscow, Idaho, which is a member church of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC), of which many of the other Federal Vision Theology churches are now members, including Auburn Avenue.

I will not go into details about the action of Pacific Northwest Presbytery since we have the good fortune that T.E. Jason J. Stellman, who gave the report to the Presbytery as the acting chairman of the study committee, has provided a wealth of information on his blog De Regnis Duobus.  To briefly summarize his most detailed post, the committee presented both a majority report and minority report, Mr. Stellman being a signatory on the minority report.

The majority report concludes:

In the committee’s view Dr. Leithart’s views are
compatible with the teaching of our standards though there are certainly some
differences in statement, emphasis, and elaboration. Our brief was to determine
whether he denied or contradicted the teaching of our Standards, not to object
if he wished to say more than they say or even, in confessing the same truth,
to improve upon their form of words. That his positive constructions may seem
in some respects difficult to reconcile with the language of our standards is
not itself evidence that he denies their teaching. The dialectical character of
biblical teaching famously produces tensions that remain difficult, if not
impossible to resolve. We further take note of the several assertions of
loyalty to the teaching of the Standards that are scattered among Dr.
Leithart’s published works. He explicitly confesses his agreement with the
Standards’ doctrine of decretal election, forensic justification, and so on.

So, TE Leithart has some differences in doctrine, but not enough to be at odds with the Standards.

It is interesting to note that the minority report is about the same length as the majority report, but the total length was doubled, 27 pages versus 13, by analyses included as Appendices.  The minority report saw things differently:

We recommend
the following:

1. That Presbytery find TE Peter
Leithart’s views, as summarized in the Minority Report, to be out of accord
with the fundamentals of the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards.

2. That Presbytery direct TE Peter
Leithart to reconsider his views, as summarized in the Minority Report, and to
report the results of this reconsideration to the next meeting of Presbytery,
with the understanding that if his views continue to be out of accord with the
fundamentals of the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards,
Presbytery will proceed to depose him from its ministry without censure.

The Presbytery adopted the majority report.  From Mr. Stellman’s account a major argument was “theological innovation:”

The real concern on the part of the presbyters who spoke in favor of
Leithart was that we not become overly narrow and that we do not
discourage bold, pioneering theology.

Since the detailed post came out Mr. Stellman has responded to a public allegation that this is part of a “witch hunt” to rid the PCA of the Federal Vision Theology.

What will happen with this case?  The next step, according to Mr. Stellman, is to formally complain
against the Presbytery and they expect the complaint to be dismissed at the next
regular meeting in January.  If dismissed the next step will be an
appeal to the General Assembly level where this case could look a lot
like the Louisiana Presbytery one.

The General Assembly (2008) of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand

Leave a reply

This can’t be happening.  What happened to “decently and in order?”  Where is all that Presbyterian formality?  Hold on to your hat everyone because the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand has gone “user friendly.”

Well, I may be exaggerating a little bit, but for the GA set to begin on October 2 at St. Patrick’s College, Silverstream, in Wellington, some traditional language has been replaced and high-profile reports and proposals have less formal names.  But first things first.

The Rev. Dr. Graham Redding has been selected as the Moderator for the Assembly.  He recently became the director of one of the denomination’s training centers, the Knox Centre for Ministry and Leadership in Dunedin.  Previous to that he was a parish minister for 15 years.  He has served the church in a number of capacities and has written a book titled Prayer and the Priesthood of Christ in the Reformed Tradition.  He is married with three teenage children.  He has chosen “Reformed and Reforming” as the Assembly theme.

In reading through the Assembly business one of the major items will be the “Press Go” proposal.  This is an initiative to solicit and fund projects related to church growth.  Recognizing that the PCANZ attendance over the last 40-ish years has dropped from the 90,000 range to the 30,000 range, this project is looking for innovative ways to grow the church and for the money to fund it.  And the associated report comes with the rather informal and un-Presbyterian sounding title “The Great Big Growth Plan.”

This plan is based upon five assertions:

1. Decline is not inevitable.

2. The Church’s money is not ours. The resources we share, the money in the offering plate, our congregation’s bank balance and buildings are not ours. Those present and past have entrusted us with the resources we have for the purposes of glorifying God and fulfilling God’s mission for and in the world.

3. The Presbyterian Church is ruled by Elders. Every Elder makes a commitment to fulfil leadership responsibilities for the whole Church. No Elder can fulfil their role by basing their decisions on the singular interest of any particular congregation or group. When Elders do this they undermine what it means to be part of the Presbyterian Church. An Elder’s primary commitment is to God’s mission and their decisions need to reflect an earnest commitment to seek God’s wisdom and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

4. Growth is possible. It is happening. Experience tells us about the best ways to organise ourselves to support growth.

5. The changes advocated here are radical and costly and can only happen through a broad consensus and willingness by Church leaders. The changes are not for someone else to make- they require an ownership by each one of us.

So based on these assertions where does the report go?

The solutions offered here are on one hand very simple and on the other very complex. The simple idea is the release of church assets to fund growth. This is an idea which receives broad theoretical support. The complexity is that we are very very attached to these assets. They represent a place, a history and a security for us. It may be just too hard a decision to make.

(PC(USA) folk — Sound familiar? G-3.0400 – The Church is 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.)

The project requires money for leadership salaries and property acquisition.  The report also asks for money for a staff position to coordinate all this.  The report calls for the church to provide 10% of the return on their assets (property and investments) for this program as gifts of 2.5% per year for four years.  There are specific suggestions discussed in the report for different asset types, but for declining congregations with uncertain futures this could mean closing the church and selling the property.

So what will this be used for?  The report identifies five characteristics of growing and vital churches:

  • A strong pervasive commitment to focus resources on outreach based on Gospel imperatives. “We are not here first for ourselves but for others.”
  • An administrative structure which supports gifted and skilled Christian leaders to do the things that they are good at doing.
  • A readiness to support and fund innovation and to try new ideas.
  • Worship that reflects the culture and communication medium relevant to the congregation.
  • A resource base which allows for generosity, good hospitality, food and warmth in surroundings that are appropriate for the size and culture of the group.

With this in mind, the report advocates several steps.  For small churches a need to assess viability and appropriately support those that are in settings, particularly rural, where growth potential is minimal, but the ministry is vital.  There is a need to support new church plants in promising areas, particularly those the report considers “emerging” which it defines in a way many emerging church people might not agree with.  For medium sized congregations there is a need to evaluate solo pastorates and decide if a multi-leader team would help grow the church.  But the report really seems to rely on large churches, both for overall numbers growth as well as a resource to support the leadership of smaller churches in the area.  One model that I don’t explicitly see in the report, but derives from this large church idea, that the media has picked up, is a mega-church (my term, not theirs) auditorium style with small chapels associated with it that may accommodate the “traditional” existing congregations.

The report is 14 pages long and an interesting and easy read.  It is thought provoking and other church growth types might want to have a look at it.  It has been boiled down to a tri-fold brochure if you want an executive summary.  This proposal will be presented by the Press Go subgroup of the Council of Assembly.  In this final report there are a couple of changes, most notably the funding formula appears to have changed to having a $2 million contribution from the sale of a national property, a 1% contribution from churches’ investment return (as opposed to the 2.5% in the growth report), and additional fund raising.

Another item of business I would expect to be a major topic is a proposal to replace the Westminster Standards with a n
ew Statement of Faith and the associated commentary as the Subordinate Standards of the PCANZ.  The Westminster documents would join the Scots, Heidelberg, Second Helvetic, Apostles and Nicene documents in a “library of confessional documents which are central to the Church’s heritage.”  This recommendation comes from a body with the interesting name of the “Focal Identity Statement Task Group.”  This business is a follow up from the 2004 General Assembly where the Task Group report noted that the new confession had not been widely distributed in advance of the Assembly and that while the statement was originally included in the proposed new Book of Order, the commentary was not and should have been.  It is also possible that this report has been/will be withdrawn since the report from the July Council Meeting indicates there will only be a progress report.  If the report is presented and passed, it is my reading of the PCANZ Book of Order that this section is subject to the “Special Legislative Procedure” that requires the approval of the presbyteries.  I’ll keep researching this one.

It is probably worth noting at this point that this new Book of Order was approved by the previous GA in 2006 and then was approved by “the vast majority” of the presbyteries.  In the new Book the “Barrier Act” has been replaced by the similar “Special Legislative Procedure.”

This post is getting long so the one other major item I will put off until a follow-up post:  There is also a task group reporting on reforming presbyteries.  Briefly, the recommendations are 1) To restructure presbyteries to make them larger (they cite the PC(USA) as a model here) 2) separate the resourcing and governance functions and 3) separate the governance into core and discretionary.  It also wants to see what functions can be shifted to the central office.

In other business before the Assembly there are three presbytery “proposals.”  This is the first year with this new terminology and format and this is what most of the rest of the Presbyterian world would call an “overture.”  The first is a “clean-up” proposal designed to adjust the brand new Book of Order so that ministers in other validated ministries, not just in parish ministry, would be properly represented as GA commissioners.  The second proposal also addresses the new Book of Order, but asks for dispute resolution for certain lesser problems to be available quickly at a lower level as opposed to the new, central procedure.  The third proposal asks that the legislation of General Assembly be communicated not just to the presbyteries but to the parish councils/sessions directly as well so that the church is better informed.  Regarding this last one, I don’t read this as a request that sessions as well as presbyteries need to approve any legislation that GA has to send down to the church as “special legislation.”  It is also an interesting request in light of the new commissioner structure where each parish is supposed to have a commissioner, elder or pastor, to GA.

In reading through the rest of the business most is fairly routine that you would expect at most Assemblies.  The Council of Assembly has some business related to capital funds that appears to be coordinated with the funding models of Press Go.

So, with two weeks to go it will be interesting what lead-up there is to the Assembly and what coverage and commentary is like during the meeting.  And I’ll keep poking around and see what is actually supposed to happen with presbytery reform and the Focal Identity Statement.

8th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Ghana

Leave a reply

At this time there is less coverage of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Ghana than the General Synod of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Ghana.  It is currently meeting so maybe there will be more news later in the week when it concludes.

One article from Ghana Web focuses on the comments of the Moderator, the Rev. Dr. Yaw Frimpong-Manso in his Moderatorial sermon yesterday.  He encouraged the PCG churches “to pray for peaceful, transparent, free and fair elections.”  He also commented on the political process saying “As we work towards
Election 2008, let us pray for presidential and parliamentary
candidates who seek office because they see themselves as a call to
serve God and his people and not themselves first.”

I have noted previously that the Rev. Frimpong-Manso is forthright and outspoken when commenting on the moral state of society.  According to this article he also addressed that in his sermon:

Rt. Rev.
Frimpong-Manso said Satan had re-packaged immorality, bribery and
corruption, ethnicity, alcoholism, among others, “so that they are now
called weaknesses worth tolerating”. He appealed to Christians to be
watchful and lead upright lives and said “today we encounter forces of
division and rancour, sexual promiscuity, murder and crimes as well as
forces of family breakdown and breakdown in cherished values of
society”.


The Assembly also heard the call for churches to work for peaceful elections in a statement from Ghana’s President Kufuor that was read to the Commissioners, according to another story from Ghana Web.

In addition, Rev. Frimpong-Manso reported on the project to construct a new conference center and he reported on the church’s television ministry.  For both projects he appealed for the church’s continued financial support of these ministries.

As the week goes on we will see if additional news stories give us more information about the Assembly.

The 67th, and last, General Synod of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Ghana

Leave a reply

As the “General Assembly Season” winds down we come to the meetings of the two Presbyterian Churches in Ghana.  First, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Ghana.

The title of my post does not imply that the church is going away, rather that one of the actions of the EPCG was to reorganize their highest governing body to be the General Assembly instead of the General Synod.  In an interesting move, the EPCG is also “upgrading” their presbyteries to synods, apparently leaving the church without presbyteries at this time.  It is not clear if the church structure is intended to stay this way or if this paves the way for the creation of new presbyteries within the synods.  It was announced that this change is being made to bring the EPCG in line with “international practice.”

The theme of the General Synod, which concluded today, was “Called to Serve” and it was attended by 133 delegates.  The new moderator of the EPCG is the Rev. Francis Amenu who succeeds the Rev. Dr. Livingstone Buama who has reached the eight year limit on his service in that position.  In addition the Rev. Godwin K. Osiakwa was elected the new clerk.  The Rev. Amenu is a second-career minister, having been originally trained as a mining engineer.  Both Rev. Amenu and Rev. Osiakwa received their theological training abroad, Rev. Amenu in Indianapolis, Indiana, in the US and Rev. Osiakwa in Cambridge in the UK.

In line with the theme of the Synod, the Rev. Buama, in his sermon marking his conclusion as Moderator, said:

“Called to serve” was meant to be a wake-up call that can remind us and
challenge us to change our posture and disposition towards our vocation
and calling.

My key submission is that, if things are not
changing as they should, it is because we are not serving as we
should.

The kind of service that move things forward or effect a
change for the better in the church, the nation and the world at large
is not lip-service, but visible, tangible purposeful and sustained
service.

We are to excel in serving and not in power struggle and self-aggrandisements.

The Synod also heard from Mr. Kofi Dzamesi, the Volta Regional Minister, who urged the church, with its influence on the people of Ghana, to encourage and work for a peaceful election in December.  He urged the church’s nutrality in the elections to enhance its position as a steadying influence.  He also promised to work with the District Assemblies to help with financial support for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church University College.

For more coverage of this General Synod there are articles on Joy Online and Ghana News.

75th General Assembly (2008) of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Leave a reply

The 75th General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church was held at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, Washington, from Wednesday July 9 to Wednesday July 16, 2008.  There were around 150 OPC commissioners and fraternal delegates.  The OPC web site has a GA Report web page that was updated regularly throughout the week written by the Rev. James J. Cassidy with editing by Stephen Pribble, Linda Foh, and Barry Traver.  My report below is a summary and commentary on that report.

Business began with worship, including the Word preached by the Moderator of the 74th GA, the Rev. Robert Y. Eckardt.  After the roll call of commissioners and seating of fraternal delegates the floor was opened for nominations for Moderator.  The Rev. Alan Strange, Associate Professor of Church History at Mid-America Reformed Seminary was the only nominee and so was elected by acclimation and applause.  Following his installation of the Moderator the commissioners received their Advisory Committee assignments and the Assembly adjourned for the night.  [The Advisory Committees are the commissioner committees of the GA’s of other branches and as a PC(USA) based GA Junkie I have to keep straight their acronym “AC” which to me stands for “Administrative Commission.”]

On Thursday the commissioners worked throughout the day in committees and gathered in plenary in the evening to hear the reports of the Stated Clerk, Trustees, Statistician.  In addition all of these individuals were re-elected to serve again in those capacities for the coming year.  The Statistician reported a growth in the OPC of eight churches and 221 individuals.  Proportionately this is growth of about 3/4 of 1%, but it is growth even with the departure of one large congregation.

The evening session also included the report of the Committee on Coordination that works with three other standing committees for a unified Worldwide Outreach by the OPC.  One of these three committees then reported, the Committee on Christian Education.  One emphasis of the committee has been on recruiting young men for the ministry since at this time almost half of the active OPC ministers are over the age of 50.  It was also reported that a new Psalter-hymnal is in preparation for publication in 2011 and a report on the continued partnership with the PCA in their publishing arm, Great Commission Publications.

On Friday the Assembly heard the report from the Committee on Home Missions and Church Extension, including the information that there are currently 20 church planters working around the country with support from the denomination.  There was also a report on Foreign Missions and the outreach work of the church around the world.

There was a greeting from fraternal delegate the Rev. Kevin Backus from the Bible Presbyterian Church who was straight forward in his report of disagreements in the BPC over the relationship with the OPC.  In the end the BPC has chosen to remain in communication with the OPC despite the loss of some members over that decision.

On Saturday Dr. D. Clair Davis brought a word from the Presbyterian Church in America.  The report describes his comments:

He expressed how happy he was to hear the foreign and home missions
reports—”God has been good to you!” Dr. Davis explained that the PCA
grew by 1.5 percent last year, but 1/3 of the congregations are under
50 members, and 2/3 under 100. In other words, Redeemer Church in
Manhattan is not a typical PCA congregation. “Have we traded in
doctrine and life for church growth? I don’t think so. If we did, we
got cheated.” He went on to say that WCF 15:5 (which reads: “Men ought
not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every
man’s duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins particularly”)
has something to teach us. We need to repent of not just being
separate, but for what we have said and left unsaid. He encouraged us
to get to know each other better, and have lunch with a local PCA
pastor. And lastly, Dr. Davis shared something of what the PCA is doing
to reach Muslims today. More and more Muslims are making their way into
Europe and America, and thus we have an opportunity to reach them: “I
urge you to support us and work with us in the conversion of Islam for
the glory of Jesus Christ.” After his address Dr. Davis received a
standing ovation.

[If you did not get the reference to Redeemer Church in New York City, that is the multi-site “mega-church” whose head of staff is the Rev. Tim Keller.]

On Monday the Assembly considered the two overtures (yes, two compared to the 100+ for the PC(USA) and 19 for the PCA) presbyteries had sent to the GA.  The first considered was a request that the Presbytery of New Jersey expand its boundaries to include Puerto Rico.  The Assembly Committee that considered it recommended approval and the Assembly agreed.  The second overture, from the Presbytery of the Northwest, proposed a change in the process for a congregation to withdraw from the denomination (Form of Government XVI:7:a) that would change the time for the presbytery to respond from three weeks to “as soon as possible.”  The requested change was disapproved.  (I have not found the texts of the overtures but I am curious if the rational wants to allow the presbyteries less or more time to respond, probably more.  It is also interesting that this change is in the spirit of PC(USA) Form of Government revision that proposes to remove specific time frames from the polity.)

Other regular business before the Assembly included the approval of the records review, ratification of new member denominations for both the North Americans Presbyterian and Reformed Council and the Presbyterian and Reformed Joint Committee on Chaplains and Military Personnel, invitation of churches into corresponding relations with the OPC, and hearing reports on Interchurch Relations, Chaplaincy, and from the Historian.  These routine matters also included the rejection of a change to the constitution of the International Conference of Reformed Churches that would have introduced a bit more flexibility in the confessional standards a denomination must hold to be a member.  In another difficult matter, the committee on pensions had to report that while the pension fund was doing all right, the medical fund was not.  The Assembly voted to disband the fund in early 2009 and assist churches in finding alternate medical coverage for ministers.  In this and other reports churches were encouraged to look after their ministers.  On a better note, there were no judicial appeals for the Assembly to hear and deliberate on this year.  (Much as the PJC or SJC would hear and decide a case on appeal from a presbytery or synod.)

The balance of the Assembly’s time was spent deliberating and discussing the Amended Proposed Revised Version of the Directory for the Public Worship of God (APRV).  This has been in the works for a number of years, and in fact the 74th General Assembly began work on the revision last year, knowing that they would not finish the task.  It was with great rejoicing that this year’s GA did finish, but not without a significant amount of time and parliamentary deliberation.  By my count, of the rough equivalent total time of five days of plenary meeting time, almost three full days were spent on the APRV, and as I said, they picked up with they left off last year.  If you want the blow-by-blow description you will have to check out the report, although Rev. Cassidy says in the report that even he is not capturing everything.  I have picked out three details of the discussion that struck me to highlight.

1)  As I read through the report, it seems that the most time was spent debating the third membership vow:

Do you confess that because of your sinfulness you abhor and humble
yourself before God, that you repent of your sin, and that you trust
for salvation not in yourself but in Jesus Christ alone?

There was extended time, like a whole evening and then continuing on into the next assembly session, debating the precise wording of this vow.  Among other things, how the word “abhor” was used and its context in the vow.  In the end, after several (numerous?) proposed changes, the original language was retained.

2)  The second item was closely related to this:  Later in the debate a protest was filed that begins:

The undersigned protest against the action of the seventy-fifth General
Assembly in mandating the use of the exact language of the membership
vows, and furthermore in adopting language that is not acceptable to
several members of the Assembly, thereby binding consciences beyond
what was required of them at their ordination vows.

It then goes on to argue that  this has pastoral implications and that by requiring specific language a session can not have scruples over the specific language.  (Scruples are not just a concept or issue in the PC(USA))  A motion to reconsider was requested.  Seeing a time-sink ahead of them they did the logical think and took a break for dinner.   After dinner the motion was made and passed to reconsider the previous action.  Specifically, all this dealt with a revised footnote that now allowed modification of the vows only in the case where an individual could not understand them in their exact form.  After further consideration the Assembly returned the footnote to say that a session did have the power to modify the language of the vows for their church but  must note the change in the minutes.  With passage of that wording the protest was withdrawn.

3)  Monday morning the motion was made to recommit the APRV to the committee that drafted it with instructions for them to review it and break out the portions of it that are not specifically guided or directed by scripture and place those portions into a manual.  (Like one of the guiding principles in the PC(USA) for the revision to the Form of Government.)  This would have reduced the Directory in size and brought it back to the next GA for word smithing.  The vote on this motion to recommit was first postponed to Monday evening, then postponed again to Tuesday morning, and postponed again to Tuesday evening where the motion was finally voted upon and failed 46 to 88.

This is not the end of the saga for the APRV, but it is now one major step closer to being published in a few years.  The next assembly will have to finalize the changes, and propose the changes to the Book of Church Order where the new Directory affects it.  While the process was long, and from Rev. Cassidy’s fine description it appears to have been as loaded with parliamentary procedure as any major decision in a Presbyterian General Assembly is, the Assembly took the job seriously and got through it.  In the PC(USA) the Assembly did not have the time to work through the revised Form of Government.  For this and other reasons they handed it off to a task force for further review and comment by the presbyteries.  But in our Presbyterian system this is not just a parliamentary exercise but our way of discerning God’s will.  As Rev. Cassidy says in the report:

It is a humbling thing to know that we are working on something so
awesome. This is all about the glorification of God’s great name! May
we not lose sight of this as we work to the point of weariness on this
Directory. This is not mere word-smithing or an exercise in rhetoric or
debating skills. This is to the end that God might be glorified in the
worship of his people.

Thank you Rev. Cassidy for your report.

Finally, and if this was in the report in past years I don’t remember it, the OPC GA presented the “jack-in-the-box award.”  This award is for the commissioner who jumps up to the microphone to speak from the floor the greatest number of times and is a regular unofficial report from the Church of Scotland staff.  The award itself was a Machen bobble-head doll.  How appropriate.

The 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — Organizational Reactions

6 Replies

To say that there has been a lot of reaction, positive and negative, to the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) would be a major understatement.  With the web casts and various live blogs during the meetings there was immediate coverage, analysis, and commentary on the developments.  One number published by the PC(USA) was that there were 13,000 connections to the web cast.  They don’t say if that was unique IP numbers or peak number of simultaneous connections, but either way that is a number far greater than I would have estimated.  But is a significant fraction of the 20,000 “polity wonks” that I estimated in an earlier back of the envelop calculation.  So Presbyterians were out there watching, reading and reacting.

[Update: Thanks for the very rapid comment below from Dianna Ott, Director of Creative Services for the PC(USA).  She clarifies that the 13,000 is the peak number of connections to the live streaming.]

This instantaneous coverage led the PC(USA) to issue the first pastoral letter from our top three office holders (Moderator, GAMC Executive Director, Stated Clerk) within hours of the Assembly adjourning.  For the 217th GA the one and only letter was released three days later.  This first letter reported on the most controversial items of business, the ordination standards and the definition of marriage, that were causing all the stir across the denomination.  A second letter, just issued this week, is more of the usual letter with a summary of a wide variety of topics the Assembly dealt with, particularly the items adopted by a wide margin.

The initial letter began with a paragraph briefly describing some of the other actions taken by the GA:

The assembly dealt with well over 400 business items. Some items
had undivided agreement, including a covenant to join together to carry
out mission together and a churchwide commitment to “Grow God’s Church
Deep and Wide.” There was an action to continue to study a revised Form
of Government, and one committee devoted its time entirely to youth
issues. In addition, we continued our longstanding work toward peace in
the Middle East. More information on these and other actions will be
coming soon.

It then continues with the four highest-profile items set out in a very formal and factual manner.  (I have edited out the full Book of Order language changes for brevity.)

Perhaps the subject that will make the most
headlines has to do with the ordination standards of our church. It is
a subject with which Presbyterians are familiar and one that tends to
evoke great debates and deep emotions. With that in mind, we want you
to know what the assembly did—in the actual wording—in regard to
ordination standards, and what will happen next.

  • By
    a 54% to 46% margin, the assembly voted to propose an amendment to our
    Book of Order to change one of our current ordination standards. The
    change is to replace the current language that says officers of the
    church must live by “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a
    man and a woman or chastity in singleness” (G-6.0106b) to this new
    language: Those who are called to ordained service in the church…
  • By
    a 53% to 47% vote, the assembly adopted a new Authoritative
    Interpretation (AI) on G-6.0106b: Interpretive statements concerning
    ordained service of homosexual church members by the 190th General
    Assembly (1978) of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States
    of America, and the 119th General Assembly (1979) of the Presbyterian
    Church in the United States and all subsequent affirmations thereof,
    have no further force or effect.
  • By
    a 54% to 46% vote, the assembly adopted a new AI on G-6.0108 which
    restores the intent of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and
    Purity of the Church report (2006) to allow someone who is being
    considered for ordination or installation as a deacon, elder, or
    minister to register a conscientious objection to the standards or
    beliefs of the church and ask the ordaining body to enter into a
    conversation with them to determine the seriousness of the departure.
  • The
    assembly left unchanged the definition of marriage found in the
    Directory for Worship (W-4.9000)—”a civil contract between a woman and
    a man.”

By
its actions, the assembly has initiated a new opportunity to focus
ordination on primary allegiance and obedience to Jesus Christ, as well
as to Scripture and the church’s confessions. The assembly places the
responsibility onto sessions and presbyteries for discerning a
candidate’s fitness for ordination.

In
all of this, it is important to note that the assembly has not removed
the church’s standard of “fidelity in marriage and chastity in
singleness.” For the proposed change—making obedience to Christ the
ordination standard—to become part of the Book of Order, a majority of
presbyteries will need to ratify it over the next year.

We
know the assembly actions may do little to ease the anxiety that seems
to permeate our life together as a denomination. The debate isn’t new
and the future holds difficult challenges. As the Rev. Dan Holloway,
moderator of the committee that took up the items on ordination
standards, said, “As we move forward, it is essential that we have
conversations that are gracious and loving and welcoming, since we are
not all of one mind.” Our hope is that none of us will act or react
immediately to the decisions, choosing instead to pray and talk with
one another about these issues.

The new letter picks up where the first left off:

In that first letter, we outlined the assembly’s actions and our church’s next steps in a continuing story, the outcome of which
is known only to God. Most importantly, we infused our letter with our
strong and abiding hope for the future ministry and witness of our
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), because we are a Good News people.

We
hope that you will share with us a bold and unabashed hope, firmly
grounded in the solid foundation of our faith, that is daily confirmed
for us in seeing how God is at work in and through our
PC(USA).  Every day, we hear story after story of new churches and
fellowships, of immigrant and multicultural ministries, of large
churches joining with smaller ones to support and encourage
each other.  Everywhere there is a new and growing hunger to hear and
to tell the Good News.  The commitment to “Grow
Christ’s Church Deep and Wide” — overwhelmingly approved by the
assembly — grew out of that very hunger to say “no” to a climate of
decline and say “yes” to declaring a church wide commitment to participate in God’s activity in transforming the PC(USA).

With
this letter, we invite you to continue to celebrate with us good news
of our General Assembly and of our Presbyterian Church.  We ask you to
join us in giving collective voice to the hope, the passion, and the future that has the power to unite us as Presbyterian Christians:

The letter then goes on to discuss church growth in the “Grow Christ’s Church Deep and Wide” initiative, approval of the strategy for growth of African American congregations, he “Invitation to Expanding Partnership in God’s Mission,” a document which emerged from the Worldwide Mission Consultation in Dallas earlier this year, an approval of an increase in mission personal, the first in 50 years, a call for “Solemn Assemblies” around the church, and reaffirmed:

Called by Jesus Christ to be peacemakers, the assembly continued to
boldly affirm that stance around the world. The assembly called for
“responsibly” bringing the troops home from Iraq, continuing
peacemaking with Israelis and Palestinians, and supporting human rights in Zimbabwe, the Philippines, North Korea and Colombia.

The letter calls on PC(USA) members and governing bodies to respond by recommending people to serve as mission co-workers, hold Solemn Assemblies, participate in the “Grow Christ’s Church Deep and Wide” program, and support the work of mission around the world.

In reading through the two letters we seem to get the good in the second, the bad in the first, and the ugly is not covered.  I do realize that space is limited, even if two letters were needed, but membership decline is only briefly implied, the legal fights and funding are not mentioned, the GAC reorganization to the GAMC is pretty much missing as is the disagreement over designations with the Foundation, and the commissioner resolution on graceful departures is not touched on.  Yes, the letters, and the second one in particular, are trying to be uplifting and hopeful, but there is also a need for realism and honesty.  And in a very polity wonk comment, I would note that the votes listed in the first letter are the final votes on these items.  When a minority report was involved the other, not recorded vote, was whether the substitute motion should become the main motion and that vote was sometimes narrower and with about 1% abstentions.  Also the vote on definition of marriage is not listed.

Well, that is the official line from the PC(USA), but various affiliated organizations have their own take on the situation.

On the progressive side the web site for That All May Freely Serve opens with

TAMFS Thanks GA

That All May Freely Serve Thanks the General Assembly for its Prophetic Witness

With gratitude to God, the board, staff, and community of That All May
Freely Serve rejoice in the vote by the 218th General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church (USA) to open the door to the gifts and callings of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer members by removing its
institutional barriers to ordination.

The news at More Light Presbyterians is

Today, the 218th General Assembly of the PCUSA voted 54% to 46% to
end discrimination against LGBT members of our Church; and to provide
spiritual and ordination equality for LGBT Presbyterians.

And at the Covenant Network says

The 218th General Assembly fully lived into its theme, “Do Justice,
Love Kindness, Walk Humbly with your God.”  It took important and
historic steps toward a more welcoming church and spoke prophetically
on many issues.

It is interesting that the need for presbytery approval of the new language of G-6.0106b is mentioned in a secondary position, so the implication of all three is that systemic change has been achieved with just the new Authoritative Interpretations.  (With a GAPJC decision that will be proved right or wrong.)  It is interesting to note that in contrast to the 217th GA I have not heard anyone claim “Nothing has changed.”

On the evangelical side there are also predictable reactions. Presbyterians for Renewal has several articles on “the way forward.”  One begins:

Contending for the Faith: The Way Forward After the 218th General Assembly

The
218th General Assembly (GA) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
recently took numerous actions on important and controversial issues.
This article will outline several deeply troubling actions that require
the prayerful and active response of those concerned for biblical faith
and life in the PC(USA).

And another laments

A New Way into the Future

by James Harper, PFR Board President, July 11, 2008

The
General Assembly last month certainly changed the conversation around
the PFR table. For the last two years, we have been busy with the
process of redefining our mission and vision. You may have already seen
that we are about the mission of “mobilizing the leaders of
congregations within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to be biblically
faithful and missionally minded in their service to Jesus Christ.”
Delving into the political issues of the General Assembly may seem
incongruent with our new mission statement. To the contrary, we have
discovered that it is difficult to mobilize leaders and congregations
for the service of Christ when the denomination is fractured and
conflicted by the actions of a General Assembly. Nothing at this
General Assembly has changed PFR’s commitment to its mission, and to
preserving a denominational context conducive to church renewal.

The Presbyterian Coalition web site posted a Friday press release from member organization The Presbyterian Renewal Network that began:

Today the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) lies gravely wounded, by the hand of its
own General Assembly. This Assembly has struck multiple blows,
threatening to sever the sinews that hold us together as a Christian
body and as a part of the larger body of Christ. This is a day for
grieving.

And from the New Wineskins Association of Churches, the leadership team writes:

Theologically unhinged – The 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church (USA) has become theologically unhinged from our Biblical and
Reformation foundation. The actions of this Assembly are schismatic.
They foster division within our denomination and threaten the sundering
of the denomination from the world Church of Jesus Christ.

Finally, the article from byFaith, the official publication of the Presbyterian Church in America, says:

PCUSA Eliminates Restrictions on Homosexuality

The 218th Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly met in San Jose,
Calif., June 21-28, and made sweeping changes eliminating prohibitions
to homosexual behavior.

The
commissioners deleted the requirement that church officers and ministry
candidates adhere to “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between
and a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness” and struck a phrase
condemning “homosexual perversion” from the Heidelberg catechism.

And my compliments to “Harvey” for his commenting on this article and pointing out that some things require presbytery approval, even if some of the subsequent people commenting consider that a foregone conclusion (which few in the PC(USA) are willing to concede).

Well that is probably enough info for one post.  But as I noted earlier, we came out of the 217th General Assembly with the claims that the PUP report had not changed anything, and to some of our amazement the GAPJC decisions actually made that so.  Now we have a series of actions that nobody is claiming “nothing has changed,” not even the AI that is supposed to restore the intent of the PUP report.  In the next two years the Presbyteries and the GAPJC will put their mark on all of this.  Stay tuned.

What Will The Next Year Look Like In The PC(USA)?

4 Replies

What will the next year look like in the PC(USA)?

At
the PC(USA) General Assembly in the hours following the Assembly passing another proposed amendment to change G-6.0106b, the
question that moderators, clerks, and executives seemed to be asking
one another was “What does this mean for your presbytery?” With the
passage of the overture to send the modification of G-6.0106b back out to
the presbyteries again there was concern for what the next year would
look like in their body. And this was from leaders who themselves and
their presbyteries were across the theological spectrum. This was not about the issues, this was about the health of the Body of Christ.  The executives were concerned enough about this that they gathered in prayer and reflection on this issue.  It was almost
as an afterthought that anyone asked the question “Will it pass?” (In
case you wonder, the consensus is probably not.)

For those who care about this issue, and many do, this is an important issue.  Whether you see this as an issue of justice or an issue of Scriptural authority, either way these are things that the church should be about.  But we must conduct our discussions and hold our debates and interpret to our wider church in ways that witness to Jesus’ “High Priestly Prayer” where He says “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” [John 17:20, 21]

Amendment B was
passed in 1996 adding G-6.0106b to the Form of Government. Now, in the
following ten General Assemblies its removal or modification have come up at virtually every GA,
and twice, in 1997 and 2001, sent out to the presbyteries for modification or removal. Is it any
wonder that the “people in the pews” are getting tired of it. We polity
wonks and GA Junkies have an insight into how God, through the Holy
Spirit, works in our covenant communities through these governing body
meetings and our connectionalism. We need to recognize that the roughly 2000 people here at the
General Assembly represent about 0.1% of the PC(USA). Suppose we say
that there are twenty times that number who are polity wonks and care
about this stuff as a polity exercise: That means that 98% of the PC(USA) does not really
understand the process. (Note: I chose twenty times because that gives
twice the number of ministers in the PC(USA) so we will say that for
every minister there is an elder, or a member like Mark, who also understands.)

The point is that this issue keeps coming back and most of the PC(USA) either doesn’t care, doesn’t really understand why, or thinks there are better things to be spending our time on.  And again, this cuts across the theological spectrum.

How will this situation in the PC(USA) change? I see a few possible pathways to accepting the status quo or the removal or modification of G-6.0106b.

The first is the movement of the Holy Spirit.  I do not discount the power of the Holy Spirit and prayer to bring the church together enabling us to settle this or set it aside.

Another is generational change. If what appears to be the current trend continues, as the younger generation comes into fuller leadership in the church  they, if the YAAD vote is any indication, will be more amenable to passing these changes at the presbytery level.  This may be complicated if individuals, with more experience  and exposure to a variety of ideas, change their theological leanings with age.  It is also a call to all of us to provide sound theological and Biblical teaching to each generation so they are prepared to move into leadership and make these decisions.

Maybe the most likely avenue to acceptance of new ordination standards by the denomination will be attrition.  As the discussion and disagreements continue the evangelical side is finding it more faithful to depart than dispute.  The ultimate end member of this is that the PC(USA) will be left as a smaller, throughly progressive denomination that can then adopt these ordination standards.  With enough departures this would effectively result in a de facto schism.  Of course, the disagreements could rise to the level of creating a full-scale rapid parting of ways at some time in the future.  Or, the outcome could be two churches under one roof if flexible presbytery membership, similar to what has been proposed at the last two GA’s, is adopted.

The most unfortunate path for change would be apathy:  enough people on one side get tired of the dispute and just give up while remaining with the denomination.  Schism is preferable to apathy?  From a practical standpoint apathy would be the most convenient — no more dispute over polity and property while keeping as many people and places on the books as possible.  From a Reformed perspective it would be bad news because it means that we as a denomination have given up on working in community to be faithful to our Biblical heritage by being “always reforming according to the Word of God.”

So what does the year hold?  I hope and pray that as this comes to our presbyteries there will be a working of the Holy Spirit and that we may be open to the Spirit’s leading so that we may be faithful to what we are taught by Scripture concerning both qualifications for ordained office as well as glorifying God in how we discuss and decide on it.

The 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — Quality of Media Coverage of Ordination Standards

5 Replies

For members of Presbyterian churches, particularly the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), it is a generally accepted reality that the news media usually has trouble with our polity.  For constitutional amendments that must be approved by the presbyteries the media generally skims over, or ignores, the fact that action by the General Assembly is not the absolute word but the beginning of a process.

With that in mind I looked at some of the media coverage of the PC(USA) GA decision related to G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” section.

Presbyterian News Service
Probably the best coverage, but we would hope so.  It states right at the very beginning that this is only a proposal to be voted on by the presbyteries.  It also mentions the fact that the presbyteries have voted on changes to this section twice since it was added in 1996.

Associated Press
From the mass media this is my preferred story on the decision.  While the headline still does not get it correct (“Presbyterian assembly votes to drop gay clergy ban”) I really like the fact that the article itself mentions in the third paragraph that it still requires presbytery approval and right off in the first paragraph it says it sets up a confrontation. It also mentions that changes have been rejected twice before.  Well done.

Los Angeles Times
This, in its entirety, contains all the pieces but for too long in the article it sounds like this is a done deal.  From the lead paragraphs you would think the constitution has been changed, and then about 1/3 through the article mentions presbytery approval.  But the Times did a better job of reporting one fact, the vote, than the AP article.  The Times reported the vote where the minority report was rejected.  The AP story reported the final vote which had a higher yes vote.  The Times also reports the two previous rejected attempts.

United Press International
Here is a news article that completely misses it.  In this article it is a done deal.  No mention of presbytery vote, no mention of previous failures of removing the constitutional language.  As far as you would know from reading this “fidelity and chastity” is gone.

Just a quick survey.  As I looked through roughly 150 articles most either picked up the AP or the LA Times article.  I did not see the UPI story repeated in another publication.

Now, how many of us had to explain this several times over to people in our congregations this morning?