Category Archives: General Assembly

Recent Developments With The Church Of Scotland And St. George’s Tron

Since I first discussed this situation two months ago the “discussion” over the property, the building and its contents, has continued between the departing congregation of St. George’s Tron in Glasgow and the Church of Scotland and in the past week there have been a few major developments.

To very briefly recap the situation, the city centre church’s leadership and congregation expressed concerns over the trajectory the Kirk is on towards allowing the ordination of officers who are in active same-sex relationships. For about a year they considered their relationship with the Kirk and in June voted to leave the Church of Scotland and become, at least for the moment, an independent congregation. While there are some reports of unpaid assessments, the major sticking point, as it is with some other Presbyterian branches, is the property, and the Kirk, through the presbytery, chose to keep the property and not let the departing congregation retain any of it.

Within the past week there have been three important developments. A week ago during an evening service a writ was served on the congregation requiring certain contents of the building to remain with the Church of Scotland. On Sunday December 9 the congregation held their last service in the building and then vacated it. Then, earlier this week the Kirk asked the Charity Regulator to enter the fray and settle the property dispute.

As one individual commented on this blog earlier about these disputes – “There are three sides: Your story, my story and the truth.” From this distance I don’t know where the latter lies but the agreed facts are listed above. Now let me share some of the viewpoints.

The congregation’s side has been well covered in the media and the coverage has been generally favorable to them. The Kirk has been almost silent and this situation has now become a public-relations problem for the Church of Scotland. The Kirk has been bit more active this week with damage control. Yesterday they issued a statement about the whole situation. Regarding the serving of the writ they say:

Messengers at Arms do not – and did not in this case – storm the
building and demand the return of items. It had become apparent that
former office bearers of the Church of Scotland Congregation had started
to remove items that we believe belong to the Church of Scotland from
the building. An interim interdict granted by the Court of Session was
served simply to prevent this continuing, and to prevent the disposal of
items already removed until questions of their ownership can be
resolved. The former minister met the Messengers at Arms in a side room
and the interdict was handed over – all reasonably amicable, we have
been told.

The congregation’s view, or at least the pastor’s story, is presented in a Herald Scotland article which says:

As the Kirk intensified its efforts to reclaim property, more than
100 church members were left stunned when Messengers-at-Arms arrived to
serve legal papers demanding the return of a number of key items.

The church minister, Rev Dr William Philip, described the arrival of
the law officers as frightening and humiliating. He said: “To disrupt a
prayer meeting in that way and demand the organ and other key items that
were gifted to the congregation, just weeks before Christmas, truly
beggars belief.

“Not content to evict us, it seems they are determined to publicly
humiliate our leaders and frighten our members, some of whom are
vulnerable people.

“It is shameful. Having law officers disrupt a church meeting and
intimidate a church is something we associate with China or former
Soviet dictatorships but is the last thing we expected from the
so-called national Church.

It is worth noting at this point that The Scotsman has an article that briefly and equally quotes both sides regarding this incident.

There are some parallels between this situation and one in the PC(USA) back in June of 2005 where a minority group continuing in the PC(USA) disrupted, intentionally or unintentionally, the worship of the break-away majority which then held the property. The incident was particularly news-worthy because the Moderator of the General Assembly, Rick Ufford-Chase, was with the minority and hoping to speak. The initial reports from the Layman described the incident by saying “a
contingent including Rick Ufford-Chase, the moderator of the
Presbyterian Church (USA), tried unsuccessfully to take over the June 26
worship service being conducted by the majority.” On his blog Mr. Ufford-Chase responded and essentially said that he did not realize what he was getting himself into and that the last thing he wanted to do was to intensify the existing divisions. The Layman did report on Mr. Ufford-Chase’s response.

Back to the Tron…

It should be noted that additional writs were served with the pastor, Mr. Philip, saying that one was delivered to his wife at the manse concerning that property and to other officeholders regarding the church building according to The Herald.

The viewpoints are less divergent about the last service in the building for the departing congregation this past Sunday. An article posted by the Christian Institute describes the service this way:

On Sunday 500 people packed St George’s Tron for the minister’s last sermon at the venue.

He spoke about the difficulties faced by those who would stay true to
the Bible’s teachings and “make a life investment with Jesus”.

He made reference to the Church of Scotland’s “refusal of any terms on which we might continue to use the facility”.

The Herald notes that the congregation departed singing “A Safe Stronghold our God is Still,” an English version of Martin Luther’s Ein Feste Burg

“These things shall vanish all; the City of God remaineth,” were the words that echoed as their last Sunday service ended.

There
were hugs and tears as the congregation closed the doors of the church
from which they have been evicted, despite contributing £2.6 million to
its refurbishment.

An article in the Scotsman also covers the last service in the building and has a number of quotes from members of the congregation regarding their view on the situation.

Having been unsuccessful in negotiating the disposition of the property and the Kirk having the interdict served, the Church of Scotland has now asked OSCR (Office of the Scotland Charity Regulator) to decide the varying claims on the disputed buildings and contents. It is covered by the BBC and mentioned in the Kirk statement, saying:

When access [to the property] was finally granted [to Church of Scotland Trustees] last week it was apparent that many
items had been removed from the building that we believe belong to the
Church of Scotland. Yet again they seem to be asserting their rights to
these items through action without any willingness to discuss matters
with us.

To claim that the Church of Scotland is acting in a
heavy handed manner is, in our opinion, merely an attempt to divert
attention away from the real issues here. These are nothing to do with
differing theologies, but about ownership of charitable assets, and the
questionable financial management of the former congregation – in
particular the legality of the transfer of assets of the Church of
Scotland to the Epaphras Trust before the individuals chose to leave the
Church of Scotland. We have therefore written to OSCR to raise our
concerns about the legality of this, as we consider we have a duty to do
under charity law.

As you may have noted in this post this situation has deteriorated into a war of words. Among the strongest is the statement made by Mr. Philip that I quoted above when he told the Herald Scotland, among other things, that “Having law officers disrupt a church meeting and
intimidate a church is something we associate with China or former
Soviet dictatorships but is the last thing we expected from the
so-called national Church.”

The Kirk statement responds to this saying

The claims made by the former minister and his supporters are extreme.
To claim that the Church of Scotland is persecuting them, intimidating
them and acting like a dictatorship does not stand up to examination.
Since they announced that they were leaving the Church of Scotland last
June – a decision which caused a great deal of sadness in the Church –
we have gone more than the extra mile to persuade them to stay, to enter
into meaningful discussions with them over the Church of Scotland
assets they lay claim to, and to try to come to an acceptable agreement.
However they have consistently refused to hand over the congregational
records and other assets, and they have turned down an offer of a
tenancy arrangement for the manse. They had given us no notice of any
plans to move services out of the building after 9 December.

So where to now?

For The Tron Church, their new name reflected on their web site, they will begin worshiping in the (apparently uncontested) church halls about five blocks away on Bath Street. In one of the Herald Scotland articles a church spokesman indicated that they had planned to move after Christmas.

For the Church of Scotland the plan is to continue their presence with a continuing worshiping congregation in the now recovered building. That same Herald article concludes with this quote:

The Very Reverend William Hewitt, session clerk of the on-going Kirk congregation, said: “It is regrettable that we are again forced to take action like this to protect our charitable assets. However, we are left with no alternative given the on-going lack of open co-operation from the leaders of the former congregation”

and the Kirk statement says

However it is now the future that counts. That is why we have decided we
have to rebuild the Church of Scotland presence in this part of Glasgow
City centre, based out of the Tron building. The Church of Scotland is
now starting to focus this work. It will do so building on the
traditions of conservative evangelical preaching and compassionate
service, and to that end a Transitional Ministry is currently being
established.

There is still no end of letters and opinion pieces appearing in the media about the situation with The Tron including concern for the situation, the possibility of schism and a call to reassess the polity. One columnist in the Glasgow Evening News asks the important question ‘Who does the Kirk think will fill this church now?‘

It is interesting to note the effort the Kirk is putting behind the continuation of their ministry in the building. Did you catch the title of the acting session clerk? ~~(And I have to think that is a mistake and they mean session moderator.)~~ (UPDATE: It has been confirmed that Rev. Hewitt is serving as the interim Session Clerk. I am not used to a Rev in that position.) The Very Reverend William Hewitt was the Moderator of the 2009 General Assembly.

In looking at how the Kirk handles this dilemma, and in how Presbyterian branches in general handle challenges, it is interesting to ponder the observation of the Rev David D. Scott in that polity reassessment piece I linked to above. In that letter he talks about how at the congregation level the members have called the pastor, contribute to the budget and have a level of graciousness about the happenings in the church. He then says:

At regional and national level, people are much more detached from the parishes. Our executive is not elected and doesn’t hold a mandate from the people. Financial decisions are not being made by the people who actually put the money in the offering bowl. A system of courts immediately raises the Pauline dichotomy of law versus grace.

After 30-odd years in the ministry, I think it is time for a radical reassessment of our polity. What we call “the courts of the church” are not effective in two crucial areas. First, situations that require the application of grace. This is true not only of the present crisis with seceding congregations but also with office-bearers (and especially ministers) who find themselves in difficult situations, sometimes through no fault of their own. Secondly, the application of vision and the accommodation of visionary people who think out of the legal box and other boxes too.

So we will see how the situation in Glasgow plays out. It seems that it is being watched closely as the test case that will set the precedent for future departures. While I know there is a lot at stake here I have to ask the question as to how we as the Body of Christ best balance our witness to the world with our ecclesiastical proceedings over doctrine, polity and possessions. Yes, I know – the answer is “very carefully.” But for the run that this is having in the Scottish media we should be asking whether we can be a witness to the world while still being right. (And don’t say “you first!”)

OK, commentary mode off. We will see what is next. Stay tuned…

PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions — Presbytery of Newark v McNeill

1 Reply

This was a busy and significant week for the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). A week ago they heard three significant cases and earlier this week issued their decisions. I am going to take these individually because of the importance of each one and taking them in order of their case number hoping to have all three finished by the end of the weekend.

Disciplinary Case 221-02: Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) through Presbytery of Newark,
Appellant (Complainant) v. Laurie McNeill, Appellee (Accused)

This decision includes three concurring opinions and a dissent.

The GAPJC decision gives a good summary of the origins of this disciplinary case:

On October 17, 2009, McNeill, a minister of the Word and Sacrament, Pastor of the
Central Presbyterian Church in Montclair, New Jersey of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (PC(U.S.A.)), and member of Presbytery, was married under the state law of Massachusetts to
Ms. Lisa Lynn Gollihue. The ceremony took place at Christ Episcopal Church in Harwich Port,
Massachusetts, and was officiated by a minister of the United Church of Christ and two priests of
the Episcopal Church, according to a modified marriage rite from the Book of Common Prayer of
the Episcopal Church.

Upon the announcement of the marriage a complaint was filed with the presbytery, an investigating committee was formed and TE McNeill was tried on two charges:

Charge 1: You, Laurie McNeill, on or about October 17, 2009, did commit the offense of participating in a same-sex ceremony, in which two women, namely yourself and Lisa Lynn Gollihue, were married under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in violation of W-4.9001 of the Book of Order, and thereafter representing to your then congregation and others that such ceremony was a “marriage” all in violation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

Charge 2: You, Laurie McNeill, during the period beginning at least as early as October 17, 2009 and continuing until the date hereof, did commit the offense of being involved in a relationship described as a “happy marriage” with Lisa Lynn Gollihue, a person of the same sex as yourself, in violation of G-6.0106(b) of the Book of Order, in failing to live a life either in fidelity in marriage between a man and a women [sic] or chastity in singleness, all in violation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

You will note that the charges were filed under the previous Form of Government and before G-6.0106(b) was changed.

The Presbytery PJC acquited her on both charges and on appeal the Synod PJC concurred. The case was then appealed to the GAPJC.

The GAPJC consolidated the 32 specifications of error by the SPJC down to 11 specifications. For the sake of space I will be consolidating a bit further and summarizing the specifications. None of the errors were sustained by the GAPJC.

The first error addresses the Directory for Worship and the definition of marriage in W-4.9001 and the second error addresses the SPJC determination “that the Constitution of the PC(U.S.A.) does not regulate the conduct of ordained officers of the PC(U.S.A.) in services conducted outside the auspices of the PC(U.S.A.).”

While the present decision does not reference the Southard decision at this point, part of that decision does reflect on this:

This Commission further held in Spahr, for prospective application, “that the liturgy should be kept distinct for the two types of services.” In light of the change in the laws of some states, this Commission reiterates that officers of the PCUSA who are authorized to perform marriages, when performing a ceremony for a same-gender couple, shall not state, imply, or represent that the same-gender ceremony is an ecclesiastical marriage ceremony as defined by PCUSA polity, whether or not the civil jurisdiction allows same-gender civil marriages.

In response to these two specifications of error the present decision says:

The Directory for Worship “…sets standards and presents norms for the conduct of worship in the life of congregations and governing bodies of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).” In this case the service of worship did not occur in a PC(U.S.A.) church nor was it conducted under the auspices of the PC(U.S.A.); therefore, the Directory for Worship does not apply. The Constitution is silent regarding the marriage of an officer of the PCUSA in civil marriage ceremonies. Further, Scripture and Confessions were not argued as part of the trial record and, therefore, could not be considered on appeal.

Note that there are two circumstances that combined brought this ceremony outside of the established legal precedent for the PC(USA) — First, is that it was not “conducted under the auspices of the PC(U.S.A.)” and the second was that prior decisions involved those that preformed the ceremonies not simply participate in them. Since this ceremony was only connected to the PC(USA) in that a teaching elder in the PC(USA) was one of the individuals getting married under a narrow reading of the Directory for Worship and previous decisions they would not apply in this case. This rational also applies regarding specification of error number four not being sustained.

The third specification of error said that it is a violation of the Constitution to describe this relationship as a marriage to which the GAPJC points out “The stipulated facts from the record reflect that, although Appellee did describe herself as married, she made it clear that the PC(U.S.A.) did not recognize her marriage.”

The fifth and sixth errors were regarding G-6.0106b — what constitutes a violation of it and when it should be applied. In the rational the decision says “the evidence did not support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that McNeill committed an offense.” In part, as one of the concurring opinions points out, this is a diplomatic way of saying that there was no evidence presented of sexual activity in this marriage.

But the decision leaves unanswered one part of the fifth specification of error where it says “The SPJC erred in determining that it was not clear in what circumstance or to whom G-6.0106b applied and that G-6.0106b was only applicable in the context of an examination and, therefore, could not be enforced in a disciplinary process.” Without answering if G-6.0106b was applicable outside the context of an examination they have affirmed that view in this case but do not give the church guidance for future cases. (And even though G-6.0106b is now in a different form in G-2.0104b it does raise an interesting question of the applicability of this or other specific standards for ordination in the Book of Order.)

The next three specifications of error address the applicability of Scripture and the Confessions in this case. These errors were not sustained because, as you can see in the charges above, the charges focused on the Book of Order provisions and did not include support by Scripture or the Confessions and support from these sources was not introduced at the original trial. The decision says:

Appellant charged Appellee for violating two specific provisions of the Book of Order. In the trial before PPJC, Appellants neither argued nor presented evidence of violations of Scripture or Confessions. An appellate body cannot find that a trial court erred by not considering argument or evidence when neither the argument nor the evidence was presented to the trial court. Further, it is impermissible for an appellate body to consider new arguments and evidence on appeal, except on application as set out in D-14.0502. No such application was made in this case. By not arguing or presenting evidence of violations of Scripture or Confessions at the trial level, Appellant waived making such arguments and presenting such evidence on appeal.

Finally, the last two errors suggest that the case was proved beyond a reasonable doubt but the GAPJC in their decision sides with the opinion of the PPJC that it was not.

Most of the rational is in the reply to the specification of charges but the GAPJC adds a bit of commentary in the formal decision section:

This case illustrates the tortuous place in which the PC(U.S.A.) finds itself on the matter of same-gender marriage. Previous cases, which dealt with teaching elders officiating at such services, state that unions between same-gender couples, whether legally recognized or not, cannot be declared to be marriages under the current interpretation of W-4.9001. Our Constitution, specifically this section of the Directory for Worship, did not anticipate the range of issues facing the church today surrounding same-gender relationships. In light of the number of cases coming before this Commission and the convoluted grounds upon which cases are brought and decided, it would be beneficial for the church to provide a definitive position regarding participation of officers in same-gender ceremonies whether civil or religious.

No errors were sustained, all appeals are exhausted and no PJC found grounds to affirm the charges against TE McNeill.

Now some other opinions in the matter.

The first concurring opinion, signed by three commissioners, takes the main and expands upon it saying that the General Assembly needs to supply clear guidance regarding same-sex marriage because of the spiritual and financial toll these cases are taking on the church.

The second concurring opinion, signed by two commissioners, is a bit more specific about discussing whether sexual activity could be addressed. The bulk of the opinion says:

There was no evidence of sexual activity here. Appellee entered into her civil marriage on October 17, 2009, when former G-6.0106b was in effect. Since PPJC refused to presume sexual activity, there was no evidence that G-6.0106b had been violated. While it is tempting to assume that “happily married” persons are engaging in sexual activity, it would be inappropriate to reach a guilty verdict exclusively on a presumption. See Wier v. Second Presbyterian Church, Minutes, 2002. Defendants in disciplinary cases are presumed innocent until proven guilty (D-11.0401), and have a right to remain silent. (D-10.0203c). If a rebuttable presumption of sexual activity were allowed, a defendant would have to waive the right to remain silent in order to rebut the presumption. The PPJC verdict was therefore supported by the evidence and was properly sustained by SPJC.

And in case you are thinking “does this really hinge on sexual activity” the answer is “yes” and you can refer to decision 220-01 White and Crews v. Session, St. Paul Presbyterian Church of
San Angelo, Texas.

The third concurring opinion addresses the very narrow scope of the charges and the decision when it says that the Directory for Worship guides “congregations and governing bodies” but does not mention individuals. This opinion says, in part:

…Clearly the Directory for Worship does not reach to services of worship held outside of Presbyterian Churches without absurd consequences. For example… Presbyterians may worship in churches that do not share our theology of the Word or the sacraments without being accused of an offense.

However, “the Directory for Worship reflects the conviction that the life of the church is one, and that its worship, witness, and service are inseparable. …. [I]t describes the theology that underlies Reformed worship.” (Preface, Directory for Worship) Here is suggested an integrity of theology, worship, and life.

It is troubling that the Appellee in this case, by virtue of being a subject in a marriage ceremony held in a church over which the Directory for Worship has no jurisdiction, succeeded in doing for herself what she would be unable (under Spahr and Southard) to do for others, i.e., enter into a marriage that, while not recognized by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), is legally recognized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

This Commission is bound by the charges brought by the Complainants/Appellants. Therefore, this case is limited to considering the application of W-4.9001 and G-6.106b. The Commission was restricted to these particular matters of polity and could consider neither Scriptural and Confessional arguments nor standards of pastoral accountability rooted in the Constitutional questions for ordination. It is conceivable that, had the charges referenced Scripture and/or Confessions or the ordination question concerning the peace, unity, and purity of the church, the argument and outcome of this case may have been different.

The dissent in this case is filed by two commissioners. This dissent takes issue with all of the underlying issues in this case and how they were viewed by the majority. It is not diplomatic about arguing for the presumption of sexual activity. It argues for the applicability of the Directory for Worship to the conduct of individuals:

[T]he argument that the Directory for Worship, which is an integral part of our Book of Order, does not provide grounds for which to regulate the conduct of our officers outside the context of worship, is also troublesome given that “This Directory for Worship reflects the conviction that the life of the Church is one, and that its worship, witness and service are inseparable.” (Preface). It also states in Section W-1.1005 that “a Christian’s personal response to God is in community” and that “the Christian community worships and serves God in shared experiences of life, in personal discipleship, in mutual ministry, and in common ministry in the world.” How can any officer of the church, or any member for that matter, separate his or her life as being within the church in part, and outside the church in part, or as was argued in this case, single in the eyes of the church and married in the eyes of the state? Our life as Christians is integrally a part of the church, or as stated in W-1.1005, “A Christian’s personal response to God is in community”.

And finally, they argue for the applicability of G-6.0106b in this case.

There is one additional expression of dissent in this case beyond the GAPJC decision and it comes from a press release from Mauck & Baker, LLC, the law firm that worked with the prosecution throughout the case. In addition to expressing their disappointment they provide more details on their case and take issue with all the reasoning by the GAPJC majority in the decision.

Regarding the lack of admissibility of Scriptures and Confessions on appeal the press release says:

This
is in clear distinction to the recent Davis case from 2009 in which a
Presbyterian Teaching Elder was accused of viewing pornography on a
church computer. There the charges were as unspecific as to what had
been violated as in this case, citing the ordination vows generally,
there being nothing at all in Scripture or the Constitution which
addresses pornography. Nevertheless the GAPJC had no trouble sustaining
the conviction on the general grounds that viewing porn disturbed the
peace, unity and purity of the Church.

I would first note that, unlike this case, in the Davis case (Decision 219-09) the charges on which the trial was held contained specific reference to Scripture (the Seventh Commandment as explained in the Confessions) and ordination vows (guided by the Confessions and furthering the peace, unity and purity of the church). I would also note that in the current decision I could find no reference to the Davis case.

But this press release is correct that in the Davis case G-6.0106b was cited in regards to prosecution based on standards in daily life and not just in the context of examination. The decision says:

The Book of Order and the Book of Confessions make it clear that church officers are to conduct themselves within certain limits. While there are few specific church-wide standards of proscribed conduct, (e.g., G-6.0106b), there are many aspirational statements in the church constitution for how church officers should behave. Notwithstanding the church’s preference to avoid a code of forbidden conduct, the church expects that the life and character of its officers be marked by adherence to Biblical and confessional principles.

The Davis decision later goes on to say

This Commission finds that a session or presbytery may determine whether one of its members acted or failed to act in a particular manner that “is contrary to the Scriptures or the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)” (D-2.0203b)… The question before this Commission is this: “Was Davis’ use of pornography on a church computer a constitutional offense?” The governing body of membership first determines whether a church officer has departed from biblical and constitutional standards (G-6.0108b) and whether to impose a censure (G-11.0103n and r). The PPJC did make such determinations about Davis’ use of pornography. The SPJC affirmed that decision and this Commission concurs.

There are a number of other outlets that have expressed opinions on the outcome of this case including More Light Presbyterians, The Layman and the Covenant Network.

A couple of my thoughts on this case…

First, Detail Matter! From reading the GAPJC decision much of the outcome was related to the way the charges were drawn up and the trial conducted. Once the trial is concluded it is only under specific circumstances that additional arguments can be introduced.

I was reminded of the importance of details listening to the news this evening regarding insurance coverage for those affected by Superstorm Sandy earlier this week. One important distinction relates to the cause of damage to your house. If you have rain or wind damage than standard homeowners insurance will cover it, but if the damage is due to flooding you better have special flood insurance. The second distinction regards the storm itself. If your homeowners insurance has the higher hurricane deductibles it matters if the storm that hit you was Hurricane Sandy or Superstorm Sandy.

In a way this decision came down to details and how the GAPJC decided to interpret the constitution. They could have applied G-6.0106b to manner of life similar to the Davis case, they could have interpreted the Directory for Worship to have had greater applicability to an individual’s life and not just congregational worship, but they kept to narrow interpretations. As the one concurring opinion says, “It is conceivable that, had the charges referenced Scripture and/or Confessions or the ordination question concerning the peace, unity, and purity of the church, the argument and outcome of this case may have been different.”

My second comment is the implication of that last quote: This was one case but because it was so tightly tied to the details I believe it has very little applicability and interpretive importance going forward. Those interested in prosecuting these cases know what does not work so clearly the roadmap now is to construct charges and prosecution strategy that includes Scripture, the Confessions and interpretation of the Directory for Worship that balances both the covenant community and the individual within it. Charges should have a theological depth like the Davis charges or the charges against Charles A. Briggs.

Enough on that for this evening. Next stop: San Francisco and the trust clause. While I think the McNeill case has a limited scope going forward I think the San Francisco decision presents us with the most important decision of the three this week. It is a decision that could have significant implications and broad applicability. At least that is my read on it – your mileage may vary. Stay tuned…

Church Of Scotland Sexuality Discussion And Resulting Departure Actions

5 Replies

Over the last few weeks and months there have been some significant developments regarding ministers and churches that are concerned with the direction the Kirk is headed.

Briefly, the background to the recent actions is in the on-going discernment by the Church of Scotland through the General Assembly to determine the church’s stand on same-gender relationships. The current stream can be traced back to January of 2009 when Queens Cross Church in Aberdeen extended a call to the Rev. Scott Rennie who was in a same-gender relationship. This call was sustained by the presbytery and later that Spring the dissent and complaint concerning the presbytery decision was refused by the General Assembly. The Kirk has done what in my opinion is a wise thing and that is to deal with the matters of same-gender relationships as a whole including consideration of ordination standards and civil unions and marriages. The 2009 General Assembly, after refusing the dissent and complaint, considered some additional overtures and ended up setting up a Special Commission to consult with the church more widely concerning these matters. The Special Commission brought to the 2011 GA a set of recommendations which included a choice of which direction to head concerning this matter. By a vote of 351 to 294 the General Assembly chose to “Resolve
to consider further the lifting of the moratorium on the acceptance for
training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship, and to
that end instruct the Theological Commission to prepare a report for the
General Assembly of 2013…” So that is where we are, waiting for next year’s GA to see how the report of the Theological Commission is acted upon. From there, any polity changes based on the Theological Commission report would take another year.

Except that not everyone is waiting. With a trajectory chosen some members of the Church of Scotland are concerned with what they see as a non-biblical direction and are considering their options.

Most recently, the Rev. Paul Gibson has moved from the Church of Scotland to the Free Church of Scotland, being accepted by the Commission of Assembly on 4 October. In the Free Church news article he is quoted as saying:

I’m under no false illusions that somewhere out there is the perfect denomination or Church.

However, in these days of political correctness, pluralism and great
moral confusion, I believe that what is so desperately needed is not
further confusion and liberal ambiguity from the Church, but instead a
consistent appeal to the unchanging truths of God’s word, the Bible.

The Church should, by God’s grace, do all in its power to further,
rather than hinder, the good news of Jesus Christ in Scotland.

Something about this transfer caught the attention of the mainstream media and Rev. Gibson did an interview with The Scotsman which was picked up by several other news outlets. Something that caught my attention was the nuance that each headline writer gave. In The Scotsman it is said that he “defects” to the Free Church. The Christian Post says he was “forced out,” and at least they use that term again in the body of the article. And in the Christian Institute article the headline says he “quits Kirk.”

The other news is related to the congregation of St.George’s Tron, a landmark church in the centre of Glasgow. (Hey, if your URL is thetron.org you have something going for you. )

Back in June, after a year of prayer and discernment, the church decided to leave the Church of Scotland because of their disagreement with the GA’s chosen trajectory. This past Tuesday the Presbytery of Glasgow received a report from a special committee and, based on documents online, approved the report’s recommendations to retain the property — the buildings as well as the contents, bank accounts and church records. The presbytery decision is fresh so the situation is still developing but this disagreement could certainly head to the courts. In the statement from last Sunday the Rev. Dr. William Philip addresses this:

Now, we mustn’t pre-judge the issue, Presbytery on Tuesday night can
reject this report, but I have to tell you that I think that seems
extremely unlikely. And so, barring an intervention of God, that means
that we must be prepared for the fact that we must soon be forced out of
this building where we meet and where we so delight to share the gospel
of the Lord Jesus Christ. It may also be that the family and I are
forced to leave the manse and that we as a Church may lose all of our
other assets as well. (These things are more complicated, we may have a
better legal defence there, although it does seem that the Scottish
charity regulator has tended to side with the Church of Scotland view.
But as I say, these things are complex.)

Nevertheless, the deliverance being urged upon Presbytery on Tuesday
night includes taking further legal action without delay to dispossess
us of these things. As you know, there is already legal action underway
personally against myself and our Session Clerk and our treasurer.

[Note: the last action he is referring to is most likely the already initiated legal action to recover the church records.]

There are articles about the decision from The Scotsman and the Herald Scotland.

Let me make a few comments on church polity and legal precedents in this matter.

The Church of Scotland does not have a “trust clause” as American Presbyterians are familiar with. As I understand the property situation in the Kirk, title to church property in Scotland is, with minor exceptions, held by the General Trustees at a national level. This clearly presents a major legal hurdle for a congregation to overcome to retain their buildings and as noted in the statement above the charity regulator tends to side with the Church of Scotland.

Now, I have been advised that Scottish laws, and property laws in particular, have some unique aspects to them so I don’t want to go too far out on a limb here, but from the reading I have been doing the current situation does appear to present an up-hill battle for the congregation.

There is one recent church property decision that may present a precedent that supports the denomination and that is the July 2009 decision in the case of Smith and other v Morrison and others. In this case the Free Church of Scotland successfully sued the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) claiming that when the two groups split in 2000 the Free Church (Continuing) congregations were not entitled to take the property with them.

There is an interesting nuance here because it appears that under Scottish law a church may keep property if they separate after, and because, the denomination has “departed from fundamental principles.” The Free Church decision talks extensively about fundamental principles and how they are not an issue in that case. One such passage says

[63] The national church cases were of limited importance to
the essential issues in the present case. Each dealt with the issue of
fundamental principles in a different context. The pursuers here did not aver
departure by the defenders from fundamental principles.

The implication throughout is that if fundamental principles were at stake the decision might have been different. Since this case does involve doctrine we will have to see if that does qualify as a fundamental principle and makes a difference in any legal proceedings.

[A couple of interesting points for those familiar with current happenings in American cases. The first is that American courts stay clear of doctrinal issues in property cases under the “neutral principles” concept and can not judge whether one side or the other has departed from fundamental principles of doctrine. The second is that for PC(USA) folks this idea of fundamental principles probably carries echos of the ongoing discussion about essential tenets and if this question goes forward it will be interesting to see the arguments made about where these issues are, or are not, fundamental principles of doctrine.]

It is interesting to note that the Free Church (Continuing) is now trying to cast their continuing property dispute with the Free Church as a fundamental principles case. Now that the Free Church has relaxed their position on exclusive unaccompanied hymn singing the Free Church (Continuing) is claiming that they have made a change regarding their fundamental principles. (Opinion: I personally don’t think that will go very far.)

If you want more on the FC/FCC property dispute you can find it with Martin Frost and Scottish Christian. There is also the statement by the Free Church regarding the decision on the Sleat and Strath Free Church blog. These actions do continue and about a year ago the decision was upheld on appeal. In the decision regarding the appeal one of the judges, Lord Drummond Young, wrote

In this respect, the exhortation to long suffering forbearance and unity
of the spirit within a congregation may be as relevant to Broadford and
other communities in Scotland in the 21st Century as it was to Ephesus
in the First Century.

And so just as there is the prospect of more Free Church cases to reclaim property there is also the prospect of not just St. George’s Tron but other Church of Scotland congregations getting involved in legal actions if they decide to leave the denomination.

As with so many things Presbyterian there is a long way to go here. Stay tuned…

UPDATE: 15 October – Herald Scotland brings the report that legal proceedings against St. George’s Tron have been initiated.

UPDATE: 21 October – The Church of Scotland has issued a statement about the St. George’s Tron situation. In the statement it is pointed out that the congregation has unpaid contributions to the Presbytery of Glasgow and has a loan of almost £1M from the General Trustees. (H/T Peter Nimmo)

220th General Assembly of the PC(USA) — A Summary Of Summaries

4 Replies

Well, the 220th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church is behind us. I am taking a little while to digest a lot of what I saw and heard and will probably have at least a few things to say about it, and maybe a lot. However, I have completed my summary sheet that I make available to my congregation and anyone else is welcome to it as well. This year it was particularly tricky to compile because a lot happened but in the end not a lot changed. I ran out of room to mention the debut of the new hymnal, corporal punishment, the language about “repentance for sin” and the various “means of grace” that is being proposed for the ordination standards (G-2.0104a) and the immigration and social justice issues (besides the Middle East), among other things.

If you want to see an official summary there is the traditional church-wide pastoral letter from the PC(USA) leadership. UPDATE: The PC(USA) has also now issued their summary, Assembly in Brief.

I have not seen other comprehensive summaries yet (please point them out if I am missing them) but there is plenty of information out there. (There is of course the published summary from the Presbyterian Outlook available for purchase and distribution to congregations.)

From the mainstream media there is a good article from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

If you want to drink from a fire hose there are these news feeds with copious articles about individual actions and issues

There was also a feed from the Presbyterian Layman and their collection of writers. In addition, Robert Austell has started ramping up the post-GA coverage on his GAhelp site.

Update: Christie Ramsey has put together a great collection of links to points of interest in the videos – Mountaintops, Valleys, Memorable, Important, and The Best of Gradye

There are also official reactions on specific topics from various organizations. There are comments from:

Covenant Network (marriage)
More Light Presbyterians (marriage)
Israel/Palestine Mission Network (Middle East)
Presbyterian Peace Fellowship (Multiple news items)
Presbyterians for Family, Faith and Ministry (Marriage)
Presbyterian Lay Committee has produced a Post GA Issues Report

[ Update – I originally had the following sentence above but on rereading I realized that the article was an extremely prescient and prophetic entry from before the Assembly that Tod reminded us of because it could have just as easily been written after the meeting – “Most notable is probably the reflection from Tod Bolsinger on the Mid Councils Commission blog about the fate of their report.” ]

Beyond this there are numerous individual reactions. At the moment I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to go through those, but I reserve the right to add a few of the ones I find particularly enlightening.

More later

220th General Assembly of the PC(USA) — Saturday Morning

9 Replies

Live blogging the Saturday morning concluding session.
If you are following along live you will want to hit refresh periodically to reload the post. (And please excuse the typos as my fingers fly – even more so with the fatigue at the end of the week.)

The business for the morning is to finish all unfinished business, worship and adjourn the Assembly

[As a courtesy to my family members I am staying with I departed around midnight last night so I am still piecing together the business that happened after I left. I have not found a definite time that the Assembly adjourned but it was around 1:30 AM.]

The Assembly is dragging itself back and as the house band gets started they being with an instrumental version of “Precious Lord, Take My Hand.” Got to think they had the “I am tired, I am weak, I am worn” line in mind, if not the rest of the verse “Through the storm, through the night/ Lead me on to the light/ Take my hand precious Lord, lead me home.”

[Yes, I just got confirmation that the Assembly recessed at 1:30 AM due to a combination of factors, but mostly because the buses would stop running at 2 AM. Thanks Andy]

So, all the usual – The band warms us up, the Moderator calls us to order at 9:00 AM and a ruling elder commissioner leads us through the prayer cycle.

The Moderator thanks the band and the Assembly gives them a standing ovation.

1001 Worshiping Communities – Common Table, Bend, Oregon

Bills and Overtures
   Committee 4 will report
   Final set of minutes will be reviewed by the members of the Bills and Overtures committee
   Thanks, and standing ovation, for the Moderator and Stated Clerk

Committee on Review of Biennial Assemblies – Committee 4
Arrested last night Item 04-01 Recommendations 3, 5, 8
Motion to refer on the floor – To ask the Special Committee to continue its work with emphasis on certain specific areas
   Can this be done by COGA?
   This motion negates the work we on the committee did
   These are good recommendations – let’s let them develop them more
   This motion is too prescriptive
Commissioner asks for reality check of where we are – “My body was here last night but my brain checked out.” In response even the Committee Moderator needs to be corrected about this
Two motions tried to be made but not in order at this time since they do not apply to the motion on the floor
Commissioner comment – We must aggressively work to empower those under 35 in this church
Commissioner argues that while further work might be good the Special Committee’s work is lacking from the beginning and the Assembly Committee had better ideas
Call the question – approved on voice vote
Vote on the motion to refer
   Advisory delegates [is there a problem with the voting system – nothing is happening. Awkward long pause. Now Gradye whispers something to Neal. Consultation with someone else. Gradye leaves.] The video system is having technical difficulties so the results will be delivered on paper. Singing while we wait.
OK, we go to hand vote – debate closed. The motion to refer is defeated

Back to the main motion
Committee recommends that Item 04-03A be approved with amendment
Commissioner speaks to trusting the committee, especially when they vote 24-2
Item approved without objection

Committee recommends that Item 04-03B be approved
Committee recommends that Item 04-03C be approved with amendment (that an overture from a presbytery asking for a constitutional change have the concurrence of one other presbytery, not 10% as proposed by the Special Committee)
Amendment from the floor – After making it and getting clarification the commissioner withdraws it
These items approved without objection

Item 04-08 Regarding Extending the Timeframe for the Work of the Review Committee
Recommend approval with amendment
Commissioner argues against – we have created enough task forces, this will cost $38K
Committee member responds that there has to be a better way to do business and they have ideas they would like to try
Talking polity of how to replace this with something else – recommendation of Moderator is to vote this down and them move something else
Commissioner argues for crowdsourcing as less expensive
[The keypads are working again]
Voting
Commissioners – 347 yes, 128 no

Item 04-05 Regarding Young Adult Commissioners
Committee recommends that it be disapproved and referred back to the Special Committee
Commissioner, who I think said he was a stated clerk, asks if you can disapprove and refer
Substitute motion – Direct the Stated Clerk to communicate with the presbyteries to prioritize sending young adult commissioners to Assembly
Commissioner speaks to it and asks how we can be better structured to get young adults involved
Moderator suggests that it be an amendment to the comment
Commissioner objects and wants it to be an action item
Stated Clerk suggests adding it to the action item and it will be acted upon – Commissioner agrees
Commissioner argues that “We need to think outside the box and one of the boxes is General Assembly.” Need to think alternately to a week long meeting
YAAD objects – it gives us too little credit. Need to take action to bring young people in as commissioners not advisory delegates (Well received by assembly)
Is there anyone on the Committee under 35? Answer – almost half of the committee is under the age of 40 (And the Review Committee Moderator is the only one eligible for AARP)
More polity confusion as to what is on the floor
Commissioner speaks in defense of young people who will come to meetings – but want the time to socialize outside of the meeting
Amendment passed on voice vote

Substitute Motion – Actually, this will probably be done by amendment as it adds a paragraph that is the original language
Agreed that the best way to do this would be to vote down the current motion and then propose the new language
YAAD argues against – nice idea but there are better ways to do it as Assembly Committee discussed
Commissioner – We don’t need young adult synod representation. We need young adult leadershp
YAAD – There is no lack of young adult leadership at this assembly
Without objection the question is called
Vote on the Item
Advisory delegates TSADs 31% yes, YAADs 50% yes, EADs 75% yes, MADs 67% yes
Commissioners – 387 to 77
The committee’s recommendation is approved

This concludes the committee’s report

Questions: The property trust clause motion earlier was ruled out of order. Could the Stated Clerk please explain further? Stated Clerk – There was language missing from the motion regarding business at a congregational meeting which if it had been added would have made the motion in order.

Report on the Encountering the the Gospel of Peace Anew Initiative
From the Peacemaking and International Issues

Commissioner moves reconsideration of 10-15 on the Status of Women in the PC(USA)
Information I did not hear last night – The report was mandated by the 218th GA
[Polity point – one Assembly’s action does not bind future committees]
Commissioner speaks in favor – also did not understand ramifications, we need to take this issue seriously
Commissioner argues that the money is better spent supporting women in ministry instead of studying it
Commissioner reminds Assembly that the cost is over four years so annual impact is small
Commissioner argues that this late in the Assembly, with some commissioners having left, this is not a good time to move reconsideration
[A couple of short fuses in the room – “we are tired, we are weak, we are worn.”]
Question for clarification and response: This is not just about the status of women but the view of women by men.
Vote on motion to reconsider
Advisory delegates – TSADs 75% yes, YAADs 22% yes, EADs 60% yes, MADs 50% yes
Commissioners – 127 yes to 305 no, 3 abstain
The motion to reconsider is defeated

Commissioner apologizes for being so vocal about the point of order and compliments the Moderator

Mission Coordination
This Assembly has added $929,054 to the 2013 budget and $823,186 to the 2014 budget
The GAMC will have to figure out how to pay for it
Commissioner points out that certain numbers don’t add up. Checking the written it is a typo and the screen is corrected
The recommendation is approved without objection
The outgoing GACM chair, Mike Kruse, makes remarks and thanks Linda Valentine for all the work she has done and the transformations that have happened
He passes the stole to the new GAMC chair, the first young adults GAMC chair – Matt Schramm
The new chair thanks Mike for his leadership and encourages young adults to get involved
This concludes our report

Linda Valentine and Gradye Parsons give a promo for Big Tent

The Committee on Local Arrangements is recognized and gets a standing ovation
Makes presentations to Moderator and Vice-Moderator
Thanks to the c
ast of thousands who helped out at this GA including the executive committee of COLA

General Assembly Procedures
The Committee Moderator reports the membership numbers that were used for calculations in response to an earlier question
Cost of actions for 2012 – $240 (has to be absorbed)
For 2013 the Assembly’s actions will add 0.15 to per capita budget
For 2014 the Assembly’s actions will add 0.08 to per capita budget
There has been an agreement to absorb some costs from reserves so impact on assessed per capita will be lower – $0.07 in 2013 and $0.04 in 2014. That brings the total per capita assessment to $6.87 for 2013 and $7.02 for 2014.
Approved on voice vote
Committee leads a short song of their own composition based on “We are one in the Spirit” thanking COLA

COGA makes some final announcements and thanks

Thanks and presentation from OGA to COLA
COLA Chair is presented with a commemorative plate

The Committee on Local Arrangements for the 221st General Assembly reports
Gives thanks that their video person produced a long and short version of their video and will now show the short version (applause)

The Stated Clerk gives thanks to all the people that have run the platform and worked backstage and behind the scenes.
And thanks to the commissioners for their hard work.

Moderator makes his thanks for the help of “his people”

Announcements – Leave the keypads on the table.

We now go into closing worship.

[My live-blogging ends here. Thanks to all who have followed along.
Thanks to my sister and brother-in-law for letting me crash at their place.
I have posted my regular summary sheet on the GA on www.ga220.info
Now to worship and after that to go be a tourist for the rest of the day. And get some sleep.

Grace and peace to all of you.]

220th General Assembly of the PC(USA) — Friday Evening

220th General Assembly of the PC(USA) — Friday Afternoon

1 Reply

Live blogging the Friday afternoon session…
If you are following along live you will want to hit refresh periodically to reload the post. (And please excuse the typos as my fingers fly – even more so with the fatigue at the end of the week.)

I am not sure why I keep linking to the proposed docket for the rest of the Assembly. At this point it is pretty much toast, but it does give a hint of the order in which we will be taking things. But at the end of the Morning session we had completed the work docketed through yesterday afternoon. There are ten committees left to report in two more sessions today.

Having only gotten through Middle East this morning the plan for the afternoon is to begin with Civil Union and Marriage (Committee 13) and then go back and start taking the rest in order. We will see how far we get but that puts Mission Coordination (Committee 10) on deck followed in the line-up by Review of Biennial Assemblies (Committee 4) and Immigration Issues (12).

The house band gives us some music to get seated by

Brought to order by Moderator Presa and led through the prayer cycle led by two YAADs.

1001 Worshiping communities video

Bills and Overtures presented by Tom “Gnome” Harmon who compliments the parliamentarians on their neckwear

OK, here is the proposed lineup
Civil Union and Marriage
Foundation video
Church Growth and PILP
Church Orders
Immigration
Mission Coordination
Peacemaking and Intermational Issues
Health Issues
Authoritative Interpretation
Review of Biennial Assemblies
[Like I said, the original list is toast]
Approved without objection

The Vice-Moderator of Bills and Overtures also notes that the meeting will run late this evening but that he and the Moderator of Bills and Overtures have had a child born in the last year and so have been preparing for this.

Committee on Civil Union and Marriage Issues – Committee 13
Committee opens business with prayer
Our report contains no consent agenda items
Committee Moderator comments
     Committee “sought to hold a broken church together”
     The most heated debate in Committee was not about marriage but about parliamentary procedure
     Committee was divided but not divisive
     Brings two recommendations – Call for study and a recommendation to amend the Directory for Worship
     Recommendations are intended to be held together

Item 13-04 Amend the Directory for Worship
Want this item to prompt the church to a deep conversation
Two minority reports
Minority Report #1 To answer all committee actions with the statement
   Wants to achieve “balance” and keep it from being “fracture”
   Sending an amendment does not count as listening
   Let’s not sharpen our divisions
[Lines are forming at the microphones]

Moderator will begin taking questions
Point of Order: No motion is in order which conflicts with the body’s constitution. The main motion conflicts with the Book of Confessions. Moderator asks for Clerk’s advice. Clerk asks ACC to comment on the Constitutional issue. Paul Hooker – The question assumes the Constitution is of a uniform nature. It is really two parts. The BofC spans a large theological spectrum. BofO guides us in operating the church. ACC opinion – A statement in the BofC might not pose a conflict with a statement in the BofO. Stated Clerk advises that the motion is in order and the Moderator so rules.

Appeals the ruling of the chair. It will take a majority vote to sustain the chair.
Debate begins
On the one hand the arguments are drawing on the Confessions as a foundation of our polity, on the other the need to have the debate on this subject that is now important in the life of the church
Question is called
Main motion – approved 70% – the Moderator’s ruling is sustained

Motion to limit debate to 10 speaker each for and against (requires 2/3 vote)
Advisory delegates – Slightly no excepts MADs all yes
Commissioners –
The Stated Clerk preforms an “intervention” – motion only says commissioners and does not specify exactly what part of debate
Moderator rules it out of order

Question: Commissioner asks if having a minority report is appropriate to answer all committee business items. Stated Clerk says it is.

Motion: That all business related to 13-04 be concluded by 4 PM. (Requires 2/3)
Advisory – TSADs strong no, YAADs slightly no, EADs even, MADs strong yes
[Note: I am using the descriptive rather than numbers because for some of these there are significant abstentions and I can’t type fast enough to give all 12 numbers.]
Commissioners: 53% yes and 46% no. Not 2/3 so does not pass

Perfecting the Main Motion
Committee recommendation so declared perfected

Perfecting the Substitute Motion
Amendment – Add 13-14 and 13-Bus to the minority report since intent is to answer all Committee business with this minority report. Approved on voice vote
Motion – Limit debate on item 13-04 and all pending motions in its regard that for each part be limited to 10 speakers for or against. (Requires 2/3)
Advisory – TSADs and YAADs 40% yes, EADs and MADs slightly yes
Commissioners – 61% yes so does not pass
Motion to declare perfected not recognized
Amendment to remove 13-02 from the list – Advisory yes except EADs strong no
Question: Is the maker of the motion supportive of the minority report? Stated Clerk that is not a shall but a should. Maker of motion “To get my amendment approved I will vote for the minority report.”
Commissioners: 42% yes, 57% no defeated
Question: Request that all votes related to Committee 13 be by electronic voting. Moderator points out that will take more time. Using cards to get sense of the Assembly Moderator agrees to use electronic voting frequently but not exclusively
Substitute declared perfected

“Shall the Substitute Motion become the Main Motion?”
Debate begins
Our presbyteries don’t want to go through this again
Clergy in a tough position and we need to talk about the Authoritative Interpretation
Part of our pastoral duty is to lift up scripture and say no when Jesus has directed us otherwise
Member of committee talks about hearing a lot of “emotional blackmail” from both sides. Not helpful
YAAD In favor of substitute to give presbyteries a chance to decide
TSAD Need to broaden our definition of marriage

5 minute break
YAADs led an energizer – for the record there are some good dancers among the Stated Clerk and the Associate State Clerks

Resume business
Question: Can we get perspective from mission partners and director of world mission. Hunter Farrel – 35 of our global partners have indicated that changing the definition would damage relations, six would have to issue statements, and 18 would probably break relations.

Debate
Support minority report-We have broken churches that need time to heal
Like in Acts is God doing a new thing?
Jesus said nothing about homosexuality but there is an argument from silence. But affirmed original creation
Faithful committed relationships are consistent with scripture
Approval of main motion would cause problems in the Korean community
Scripture says “there is neither…but we are one in Jesus”
God loves us unconditionally but Jesus said “a man leaves…”
Approving the substitute motion means we can’t debate the merits of the AI
Jesus did not look to society or to the church but to scripture
There is not time to wait four years to heal broken relationships and wait to do what’s right
Question: What about the case where a clergy is asked to bless a heterosexual union without a marriage. (e.g. the case of older adults who might lose benefits if they were to marry) Committee says they did not discuss such situations
Sense that we are moving to a new vision – need vision and justice but not to change the definition of marriage
To study this delays justice – unfair to make suffering people wait
Apology for wrongs but because I love you I need to uphold the standard of one man and one woman
If this takes us into the storm so be it – we trust that God is still God even in the midst of the storm
Question: Is there anything that would make sure a congregation does the study. Answer: There is no enforcement by GA or presbytery to make sure a congregation does it.
The Presbyterian church has embraced a new orthodoxy. Presbyteries losing churches and members
What does it say about us that instead of leading the PC(USA) is playing catch-up to states like New York?
YAAD says that YAADs are divided as well
Commissioner reminds the Assembly that there has already been a Special Committee on Marriage and Civil Unions that cost the church $60K. Now there is a proposal for another committee costing $40K
Question: What is LGBTQ? Discussion about the various terms the Q stands for

Request for prayer beginning with silence.
Moderator now has commissioners go into their prayer groups to share “what have you heard, what are you feeling?”
Moderator closes in prayer

Vote to call the question – Advisory delegates yes, Commissioners 95% yes
Shall the Substitute Motion become the main motion?
Advisory delegates: TSADs – 94% No, YAADs strong no, EADs and MADs mild yes
Commissioners: 323 to 346, motion is defeated

Back to the main motion.
Minority Report #2 on Item 13-04
Suggests that if our definition of marriage is to be redefined than we should change not just the definition in the Book of Order but “a full constitutional redefinition”

The Main Motion is perfected

Perfecting the Substitute Motion
Amendment: Strike the last sentence regarding necessity of amending confessions since that is inconsistent with ACC advice (and he apologizes for a lack of bow tie but he is sporting a stylish GA Junkie button. )
Advisory delegates agree, MADs strongly
Commissioners: 73% yes, 24% no

5 minute break

Resume debate
Questions: Does this minority report have implications for divorce? What about the W-4.9000 mention of a civil contract which is out of step with several jurisdictions? Answers: No and the church gets to define marriage.

Amendment to have Office of Worship design and implement a discussion in each presbytery and session and get feedback one year from now.
Point of order: Something like this was in the minority report. Stated Clerk- yes it was. Moderator – I rule it out of order. Committee Moderator – We have something like this in our business can we do that? Moderator – yes you can.
[Great moment when the Committee Moderator asked “Mr. Moderator” and Moderator Presa went looking out on the floor and the Committee Moderator had to say “next to you.”]

Debate on “Shall the minority report become the main motion?”
EAD from Guatemala – How will our church be affected? If you really care about your partners around the world, listen to us. But to listen you need to be quiet.
Question: There are other scripture references that are not in the minority report. (more of a statement than question)

[Hope you don’t mind if I am a bit more lax about getting every idea here because we are hearing a lot of the same ones as the past debate although there is more quoting of scripture by those supporting the substitute motion than in the previous debate.]

Question called – Approved 95%
Will the substitute become the main motion
   Prayer
   Advisory delegates: TSADs 19% yes, YAADs 20% yes, EADs 60% yes, MADs 29% yes
   Commissioners: 266 yes, 397 no, 3 abstain

Return to the main motion
Amendments are not in order, we go straight to debate
Today the PC(USA) has the opportunity to be prophetic, My opinion has changed. We need to take the prophetic word not to the world but to the rest of the church
God made us different created in the image of God.
The Bible has many different examples/definitions of marriage, reflects cultural location
Point of order: Ask that people waiting at microphones stand in line and not cluster in groups. No response from Moderator
It would be a rash thing to approve this
Question: Where are we going? Is this motion still in tandem with the second recommendation? Yes
Need for LGBTQ justice now
Lets show God’s love, we are in the presence of his Kingdom
Point of Information: In all the paperwork we have it refers to Christian marriage. Can we marry other faiths? Committee Moderator: This is addressed in that section of the Directory for Worship
Change is hard, sometimes painful. I tried driving in Scotland but instinct was hard to overcome. Give our parishioners some credit – they will get used to it.
As we debate these issues we need to remember all the people who have left the church
Question: When do dissents have to be filed? When is the end of the meeting? Stated Clerk: I am having real questions when the end of the meeting will be. Realistically, you have to the end of the meeting tomorrow which would be at 11:15 before worship.

Moderator asks commissioners and delegates to break into their discussion/prayer groups
Called back to order with “Spirit of the Living God”

Question is called – on voice vote
Moderator prays, nothing can separate us from the Love of God, “neither yes votes nor no votes”
Advisory delegates: TSADs 82% yes, YAADs 75% yes, EADs split even, MADs 29% yes
Commissioners: 308 yes, 338 no, 2 abstain, defeated

The report is arrested but a motion to disapprove this item will need to be made
Clerk makes a couple of announcements including that we only have the room for another 17 1/2 hours (and we have 8 1/2 reports)

With prayer we adjourn for dinner
See you at 7:30 PM SORRY – THAT IS 7:00 PM!

220th General Assembly of the PC(USA) — Friday Morning

2 Replies

Live blogging the Friday morning session…
If you are following along live you will want to hit refresh periodically to reload the post. (And please excuse the typos as my fingers fly.)

The proposed docket for the rest of the Assembly is posted at Bills and Overtures.

This morning’s schedule is complicated – Middle East Peacemaking Issues (Committee 15) was arrested last night and from yesterday afternoon afternoon we still have Mission Coordination (Committee 10). Docketed for the morning is Standing Committee elections, Review of Biennial Assemblies (Committee 4) and Immegration Issues (12)

We begin with (coffee and) singing

Brought to order by Moderator Presa and work through the prayer cycle led by the Ecumenical Delegate from the Waldasians in South America.

Bills and Overtures – We have ten committees yet to report. Suggest 1:50 for Civil Union and Marriage. Set the time for each speaker at 1 minute.

Debate ensues (even though it is not debatable) and a motion is made to set the time per speaker at one and a half minutes.
Question called approved by voice
The amendment fall 29% to 71%
Vote on the original motion to limit speeches to 1 minute – Passes 94% to 6%

Motion to make Civil Union and Marriage as an order of the day at 1:50 PM

Bills and Overtures is back – Presents commissioner to present a modified version of the motion arrested yesterday about consolidating all the groups formed by the Mid Council Review actions. Keeping the Racial Ethnic task force separate.

Question from the floor – can we hold off and make this a super-task force covering other topics?

This is a complicated formula for the 14 members of the Commission – 4 220th GA Commissioners, 4 Members of the Mid Council Commission, 4 members of COGA, 1 member from the National Racial Ethnic Ministries Task Force, 1 member representing synod executive leadership (I personally wish is said “synod leadership”), [and a partridge in a… ]
Passed 64% to 34%

[This reminds me of the Assembly Commission of the Church of Scotland made up of a subset of Assembly Commissioners to act on behalf of the Assembly between Assemblies.]

Financial Implications
GA Procedures – 2013 – added $0.08 to per capita; 2014 – added $0.05 to per capita
Excellent Junkie question from the floor – with declining membership what membership base is used to convert added cost to added per capita. Answer: based on standard projections, can be found in 03-12 in one of the COGA attachments
Mission Coordination – Added $18,420 to 2013 and $13,740 to 2014 budget

General Assembly Nominating Committee Report
There is one challenged position 00-02a3

All unchallenged positions are overwhelmingly approved

Challenge for ACC position
Daryl Fisher-Ogden challenged by Katherine J. Runyeon
Speeches supporting each nominee
Advisory delegates – TSADs and YAADs slightly prefer GANC nominee. EADs strongly GANC nominee and MADs strongly challenger
Commissioners – 64% Daryl Fisher-Ogden, 36% Katherine J. Runyeon

Nominations for the Nominating Committee – Item 00-03
No challenges
Approved 97% to 1% with 2% abstentions

Vice-Moderator Tom Trinidad assumes the chair

Motion to Reconsider 15-11 (Divestment)
It was a close vote and others, like me, may have pushed the wrong button
Question: If you vote one way but mean to vote the other is that really voting on the prevailing side? Stated Clerk- According to Roberts’ Yes.
Discussion for and against – “lets move on” versus “this is important we need to talk about it some more” (no one else saying they pushed the wrong button or I came to understand something different overnight)
Call the question – 90% to 10%, debate is closed
Main motion to reconsider “shall the minority report become the main motion?”
Advisory delegates – TSADs – 55% yes, YAADs – 43% yes, EADs – 29% yes, MADs – 63% yes
Commissioners – 38% yes, 62% no, 1 vote abstaining
The Assembly

[Based on comments from floor patience is getting thinner today and it appears from the vote that the commissioners feel they want to move on. I made some comments on a similar situation at the 219th Assembly.]

Question: (asked of everyone so really a speech) Who will stand against the continued illegal occupation of Palestinian lands?

Moderator calls on Moderator of the Middle East Peacemaking Committee
Committee Moderator proposes that items 15-03, 15-05, 15-07, 15-08 and 15-10 be answered by the Assembly’s action on 15-11
Motion to consider items separately
Advisory Delegates say no except MADs slightly yes
Commissioners – 15% yes, 85% no [ Commissioners want to keep moving ]

Motion to vote on 15-03 separately – The Clerk explains that the body has declared them a unit and would need to vote down this current motion.

Debate –
Trust the work of the committee which overwhelmingly recommends these items. Vote down this motion and consider, discuss and vote on these individually
Motion to call the question – debate closed with 91% in favor
Vote on the main motion
Advisory delegates: Strongly yes except MADs at even yes-no
Commissioners: 76% yes, 24% no

Item 15-02 Boycotting Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories and Hadiklaim
Approve with Amendment
(Boycott Israeli products produced on occupied lands)
Substitute motion: To insert the divestment language from 15-11
Moderator rules it out of order – Stated Clerk reminds us that having addressed it and failed to reconsider we can not consider it again this Assembly

Debate

[Got to pass on the Tweet from @AllisSeed: #ga220 A new view of purgatory–the Assembly that never ends.]

Call the question – Approved 92%
Commissioner asks for info from the ACREC [I think this is out of order since the question was just called. That did not strike me as a procedural question.]
Vote on main motion
Advisory delegates – all strongly yes
Commissioners – 71% yes, 28% no, 3 abstentions

Stretch break

Item 15-01 On Recognizing that Israel’s law and practices constitute apartheid against Palestinian People
Recommend disapproval
Comment from committee – While the situation is significant and a problem, there are specific definitions of apartheid and this situation does not fulfill the definition
Question: what is the definition they are using for apartheid? Resource person says UN definition is in resources for the report
Comment: Commissioner points out the advocacy after the question was called in the last action. Moderator acknowledges that and says that he will be more aware of that
Debate – People trying to get 2 minute speeches into 1 minute limit
Commissioner asks approval because the definition of apartheid involves two racial groups
Commissioner asks disapproval because the strength of the word and the presence of the wall
Commissioner who is native South African says he has been to the wall and it is not apartheid

Question called (and tech crew has that on the screen as requested earlier by a commissioner and adds “you’re welcome” when thanked by the Moderator.) Approved 97%
Vote on the Main Motion
Advisory delegates – strongly yes excepts EADs 80% no
Commissioners – 72% yes, 27% no, 2 abstentions

Item 15-06 Call for economic solidarity with Palestinians
Recommendation to answer with action on items 15-02, 15-10 and 15-11.
No discussion
Advisory delegates very strongly approve except MADs 67% no
Commissioners – 89% yes, 11% no, 3 abstentions

Item 15-09 On human rights and religious freedom of Arab Christians
Recommendation from Committee to disapprove – language is not helpful
No discussion
Advisory delegates – TSADs evenly split, YAADs yes, EADs Yes, MADs evenly split
Commissioners – 72% yes, 27% no, 5 abstentions

Item 15-12 Commissioner Resolution on Prayer and Action for Syria
Committee recommends approval with amendment
No discussion
Advisory delegates – Very Strongly yes
Commissioners – 96% yes, 3% no, 5 abstentions

A final brief comment: This committee’s work has attracted the attention of the world. While the close vote has disappointed some and encouraged others, it is a disagreement about stratigy and tactics. We know that we all want to work for peace in the Holy Land.

“And that concludes our report”
Assembly gives the committee a standing ovation
Moderator prays

Motion from the floor – Commissioner moves that the Board of Pensions be directed to create a relief of conscience plan for those plan members “troubled by the choice to continue holding… assets in Caterpillar, Motorola Solutions, and Hewlett Packard.”

No discussion
Advisory delegates strongly yes
57% yes, 41% no, 16 abstentions

Comment from the Board of Pensions – Due to how securities are managed the “proposal is impossible.”
The Moderator is left speechless… “Well…”, “With God all things are possible”
Commissioner points out that the Assembly can request but not direct the Board of Pensions
The Stated Clerk points out we have reached an order of the day for Worship and the Assembly should take up this again in the afternoon.
Any announcements? Clerk “It is time to worship”

We move to worship and I will resume live blogging at 1:30 with the afternoon session.
[Note a correction – the order of the day for Civil Union and Marriage is 1:50 PM]
And boxes of coffee are starting to appear

220th General Assembly of the PC(USA) — Thursday Evening

The GA Junkie

The Politics of Presbyterianism