Category Archives: Analysis

Additional Overture On Women In The Church For PCA GA Posted

7 Replies

I see today that Overture 10 for the 37th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America has been posted to the Overtures web page.  This overture is essentially identical to Overture 5 but I want to take a moment to not just review the overture, but consider a couple of the alternatives for what is intended here.

News
At their Presbytery meeting on February 21 the Susquehanna Valley Presbytery approved and forwarded on an overture to General Assembly to “Appoint Study Committee on Role of Women in the Church.”  This is now posted on the web site as Overture 10.  If the title sounds familiar, it is.  This is effectively a concurring overture to Overture 5 from James River Presbytery.  In fact it is identical in content to Overture 5, with one minor exception.

To set the stage for my analysis comments below, let me review the overtures in detail.  As I said, unless noted otherwise the wording is identical in both overtures.

The Whereas section sets forth the current situation in the PCA:

Whereas, The Book of Church Order follows Scripture in forbidding the ordination of women to positions of authority over men; and

That would be Book of Church Order (BCO) section 7-2

Whereas, the PCA has faithfully held to this standard; and
Whereas, the PCA has struggled with the question of how women in the local church are to exercise their God-given gifts within the framework of the BCO, and

This discussion has been going on for a while including four overtures to the last GA about women serving as deaconesses, including the 2008 Overture 9, Overture 15, and Overture 17, all three about creating a study committee on the subject.  The 36th General Assembly chose to keep the standards as they were and not create the study committee.  However, the discussion continues including articles in byFaith magazine with an  article making the case for commissioning deaconesses by Tim Keller and an article arguing against by Ligon Duncan.

Whereas, many PCA churches are uncertain about how to use appropriately God’s gifts among the many capable women within the membership of those churches; and
Whereas, in many PCA churches those gifts are under-utilized;

So, the problem seems to be that in light of the prohibition on deaconesses, or some form of service for women that resembles an ordained office for men (such as commissioning), these Presbyteries are asking for clarification about what ministries women can be involved in and in what ways.  Also, given that information how can they be encouraged in their ministries.

The overtures then go on to ask for a Study Committee to do four things:

(1) What sorts of roles may women fill in the life of the church?
(2) What are some models of local church practices that have developed as ways of employing the gifts of women in the lives of their congregations that might be exemplary and encouraging to other local churches?
(3) What elements of organization and accountability to ordained leadership can be commended to PCA churches that are consistent with the BCO?

And item number 4 is the only point that I can find a difference between the two overtures.  Overture 5 is sort of the standard wording of the request and almost expects changes to the BCO:

(4) What modifications, if any to the BCO might be desirable for achieving the best utilization of the gifts of PCA women in light of the teaching of Scripture?

Overture 10 does not explicitly ask for recommended changes but asks if there is a problem:

(4) Does our BCO unnecessarily hinder achieving the best utilization of the gifts of PCA women in light of the teaching of Scripture?

Other than the names of the presbyteries and the formalities of transmittal this is the only difference in content of these two overtures that I can find in a side-by-side reading.

Finally, there is the section to limit costs to $10,000 and pay for it with private contributions.

Analysis
Central Pennsylvania and the Mid-Atlantic region are not typically regarded as the hot beds of agitation for deaconesses; that distinction usually goes to Philadelphia Presbytery of other metropolitan areas, like New York.  However, last year’s GA did deal with a related issue from Northern California as part of the records review.  (Interesting to note that they are also the most uniformly progressive areas in the PC(USA) ordination standards debates.)

But in researching this issue I came across an interesting historical note on the web site of The City’s Gate Presbyterian Church of Harrisburg, PA.  They have an article on Deaconesses at The City’s Gate Presbyterian Church which says:

As a denomination, The Presbyterian Church in America does not
recognize the ordination of women to either of the two offices of the
Church: elder and deacon. Yet, within the separate branches of reformed
practices that have converged to form the PCA, there is a tradition of
recognizing women who serve the church in specific, public ways as deaconesses. This
tradition was—and still is—most notable among the churches in the PCA
which were formerly part of the Reformed Presbyterian Church,
Evangelical Synod (RPCES), several of whom are part of the Susquehanna
Valley Presbytery, where The City’s Gate enjoys its membership and
employs it for the extension of God’s Kingdom.

The wisdom of this historical recognition of women in ministry is
evident to growing numbers of churches within the PCA apart from the
RPCES tradition.  Increasingly, PCA churches are officially and
formally affirming the importance, the contributions, and the value of
their women in significant, spiritual leadership roles within their
congregations.  This recognition and honoring of the call of God on the
lives of godly women by the church is most frequently done through the
creation, organization, and implementation of the commissioned position
of Deaconess.

and concludes with

It is the desire of The City’s Gate Presbyterian Church to afford to
all its members the fullest expression of their gifts and calling to
private and public ministries within the church.  It is the vision of
this church to carve out for its individuals in public ministry the
widest swathe allowable for them for the use and exercise of their
gifts and calling within the confines of the denomination’s
Constitution.  As part of its pledge of loyalty and loving service to
the Lord Jesus in the greater PCA body, The City’s Gate will actively
seek to reform the church where those present confines are in conflict
with the clearest teaching of Scripture, through heart-felt adoption of
the Motto of the PCA as its own: “Reformed, and Always Reforming.”

I have not yet determined if this overture may have originated from the session of this church, but some tension between the two merged branches regarding this would be understandable.  In fact, as PC(USA) churches realign with the EPC this is a current point of discussion within the EPC.

Having said that, how should we view these overtures?

The most straight-forward is to consider them at face value — They seem to be saying “As a GA you are not authorizing ordained or commissioned deaconesses, as is the historical tradition for some of us, so what are the acceptable roles for women in ministry?”  That seems to be a simple and generally reasonable request.  The GA can of course answer like they did last year that “The BCO is clear as it stands now; work within that framework.”

If you want to read more into it, especially if you like conspiracy theories, these overtures could be seen as a way to get the committee created with a more innocent request and then once the foot is in the door, or the camel’s nose under the tent, standards might get changed.  It may be a little progress, nibbling at the edges of the current standards, or it could be a significant change in ordination standards.  That is parallel to the current PC(USA) vote on Book of Order Amendment 08-B:  The previous vote was to remove the “fidelity and chastity” section, this year it is just to modify it.  But many conservatives see the proposed change as having about the same effect of eliminating the standards.

There is an interesting discussion of the issue and overtures at PuritanBoard with both views, “we need clarity” versus “this is an end-run on deaconesses,” being expressed and debated.  No resolution there but we will have to watch and see what the Assembly ends up thinking.
 

What Is A Presbyterian? — Part 2

Leave a reply

What is a Presbyterian? 

Back in Part 1 I posed this question and my eight possible answers:

As a Presbyterian I believe that my, and my church’s, primary responsibility is to:

  1. Glorify God and enjoy Him forever
  2. Proclaim the gospel for the salvation of human kind
  3. Provide shelter, nurture, and spiritual fellowship for the children of God
  4. Provide for the maintenance of divine worship
  5. Preserve the truth
  6. Promote social righteousness
  7. Exhibit the Kingdom of Heaven to the World
  8. Maintain an ecclesiastical government of teaching and ruling elders governing jointly in community

All of this is follow-up to a thought provoking post by Carol Howard Merritt where she had a point that we often hear the criticism of young evangelicals that “Well, they
obviously don’t know what it means to be Presbyterian.”  This continuation of my thoughts was equally motivated by listening to a friend of mine a couple of weeks ago using the term Presbyterian in a way I thought was imprecise.  (I thought he should know better but I’ll ask him for clarification when I see him again in a couple of days.)

“Being Presbyterian.”  What does that mean?  To review the source of my eight possible answers above, #1 is confessional from the Westminster Standards, #2-7 are constitutional for the PC(USA) with about a century of tradition behind them, and #8 is polity from a variety of Presbyterian constitutions.

In addition, “Being Presbyterian” is used in a variety of settings these days from a blog by Colin Carmichael for the Presbyterian Church in Canada to a book (On Being Presbyterian) by Sean Michael Lucas.  And there are a number of web sites, from churches to denominations, that have their answer to what it means to be Presbyterian.

As I mentioned above, what partly motivates me here is listening to my friend use the following three words interchangeably:  Reformed, Calvinism, Presbyterian.  While (most of the time) these three words are very closely related, each does have a distinctive meaning.  So in this context what makes Presbyterian different?  As one of the comments on Part 1 pointed out, it is #8 above, the ecclesiastical government, that makes Presbyterians uniquely Presbyterian.  The other seven items could be claimed by a number of other traditions, Reformed or otherwise.

Don’t get me wrong here, there are many different aspects to being Presbyterian, otherwise there would be no need for all the books and web sites.  But I suggest that the “Presbyterian distinctive,” the unique identifier, is the manner of church government.  (And I should point out that since this form of government has its roots with John Calvin in Geneva, we may call it Presbyterian, but other Reformed churches use it as well.)

It is true that Reformed Theology, Calvinism, and Presbyterianism are very closely linked and historically originated in this order in a very short period of time.  (With due recognition that to a certain degree Reformed theology is recovering the theological work of Augustine.)  In terms of their most basic theological principle, the sovereignty of God, there is almost complete agreement.  And as I have been commenting here on the Presbyterian distinctive, R. Scott Clark has re-posted his series on Who or What gets to define “Reformed.” (Part 1, Part 2, A little more…)

It is unfortunate the term “Calvinism” has come to represent a fairly narrow (five points to be exact) theological concept put together by a Dutch synod 55 years after John Calvin’s death.  This loses sight of the richness of the three volume Institutes of the Christian Religion which may be the single most important development of Reformed Theology.  However, I am in agreement with my trusty New Dictionary of Theology (Ferguson, Wright and Packer, editors) that to make Calvinism synonymous with Reformed Theology loses sight of the rich history of Reformed Theology before and after Calvin.  As the Dictionary says:

Reformed theology is often called ‘Calvinism’ due to the towering impact of John Calvin.  However, this is not an entirely satisfactory term.  First, owing to the above pluriformity [the Reformation in other cities] Calvin neither could nor did impose his views on others.  The autonomy of the various Reformed centers saw to that…   Second, it is doubtful whether Calvin’s distinctive theology, rooted in biblical exegesis, was properly grasped by many who came later…

More to the point, what we know as Presbyterianism grew out of Calvin’s theology and church order in Geneva and is evidence of how limited a scope the term ‘Calvinism’ came to represent.  We speak of Reformed Baptists and Congregationalists being Calvinistic, but they lack the connectional system typified in most Reformed and Presbyterian branches.  So just having Reformed theology does not necessarily imply you are Presbyterian.

It is important to note that in some limited cases being Presbyterian does not imply that you are Reformed.  While the Cumberland Presbyterian Church has a clear Presbyterian polity and theology of a covenant community, its 1984 Revision of the 1883 Confession of Faith says, concerning Saving Grace:

When persons repent of sin and in faith embrace
God’s salvation, they receive forgiveness for their sin and experience
acceptance as God’s children. [4.10]

This is one item, and somewhat out of context, but it is a taste of their confession which does not follow the five points of Calvinism.

Now, it is all well and good to rehearse the history and summary theology of Presbyterianism, but what does it mean to be Presbyterian?

My answer is grounded in action and result:  The action is with God whose nature and will we try to understand through the witness of Scripture, including the example of the New Testament Church.  The result is that Presbyterians live as the Body of Christ into which God has called them, organizing their ecclesiastical government in a way that allows us to discern God’s will in community and hold each other accountable as the Body of Christ.

Practically speaking, our Presbyterian distinctive is the ecclesiastical government which results from the reliance on the covenant community when we recognize that individually we are fallen, imperfect and fallible individuals.  And we acknowledge that synods or councils “may err; and many have erred,” but it is better than “going it alone.”  You might think of it as the worst way to run a church, except for all the other ways.

Getting back to my original list, all eight of those ideas fall out of the belief in the sovereignty of God and the nature of the covenant community.  And therefore, while they can be applied to a wide range of denominations, there is a practical tie to Presbyterianism.

So “being Presbyterian” means a lot of things.  It begins with the nature of God and what God as done for us, which leads to the call upon our lives as covenant community and the Presbyterian distinctive of our polity.  So when we hear “Well, they
obviously don’t know what it means to be Presbyterian,” the imperative of the covenant community is that if God has called them into it, we accept them as they are and then be in discussion with them about what “being Presbyterian” means.
S.D.G.

Some Brief Observations On PC(USA) Amendment 08-B Voting

4 Replies

In the last week and a half five more presbyteries have voted on Amendment 08-B (the modification of G-6.0106b that would remove “fidelity and chastity” language) sent to the presbyteries by the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  Some brief news, observations and comments…

1)  The unofficial vote count now is 4 yes and 14 no.  You can follow the unofficial vote count at The Layman, Presbyweb, or the Presbyterian Coalition.

2)  The official vote count, that is those votes that have been received by the Office of the Stated Clerk, is 1 yes and 11 no.  The official tally list has the reported votes for all the amendments and ecumenical statements.

3)  At this time no presbytery has switched its vote from the last similar vote in 2001-2002.

4) The National Korean Presbyterian Council, an organization of 400 Korean churches in the PC(USA), has sent a letter to the churches in the PC(USA) arguing against any changes to G-6.0106b.  The letter is available in Word format from the Presbyterian Coalition web site.

5)  About 10% of the presbyteries have now voted — 18 of 173.  The final tally in 2002 was 46-127, the current 4-14 mirrors 10% of that pretty well.  This is either by shear luck (or providence) or voting order is pretty random if the final numbers end up about the same as the last vote.

6)  The decline in total numbers of commissioners voting continues with vote totals being an average of 80% of what they were in 2001-2002, a trend I noted earlier and my analysis has been confirmed by The Layman with a bit more data and similar explanations.

7)  In a fit of shear geekiness I threw together a model to project the presbytery vote counts into the future.  I’m still refining the methodology and would like to have more data from this round before I put out my forecast for the future of G-6.0106b.  Stay tuned for that.  But one striking feature of my current model projecting forward three GA’s  (2014) is that in that time as many presbyteries disappear (decline to zero votes) as change their votes.  I was not expecting that many to disappear, that was not part of the model, so I’m looking to see if that is a reasonable result and rethinking some of my algorithms for the next iteration.

I won’t go into more details on this topic since not much has really changed with this situation since my previous discussion, the favorable response of More Light Presbyterians to a string of three yes votes in one day, not withstanding.  Maybe the one significant piece of news is that only 18 presbyteries have voted so far, a number below past votes, and that might suggest the discernment process the GA recommended is being used and presbyteries are taking time to discuss this issue.  I’ll update again when there is significant news or more data.

A Look At Some Details In the PC(USA) Membership Changes

4 Replies

I have long had a curiosity about some of the nuances of the changes in the membership of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  I mentioned this in my analysis last June when the 2007 statistics were released and again in a discussion I had in the comments section of a recent post.

The questions is:  How much of the PC(USA) membership decline can be attributed to churches departing to other denominations versus how much is individual departures?

To attack this question I used as my basis for churches departing two complimentary lists.  The first is the one published by the Layman Online.  The second comes from the PresbyLaw site.  The Layman List is a bit more up-to-date than the PresbyLaw list.  The PresbyLaw list goes back much further, further than I wanted to check, and has the events broken out and linked in a more detailed fashion.  But in major details there are no significant details that differ between the two lists.  The information on these lists was checked against the PC(USA) Congregational Directory.  I checked a few other web sites and articles to try to refine some of the information.  And in my working with the numbers below I did not include membership changes due to deaths —  membership transfers to the Church Triumphant are an acceptable loss.  However, the “net” membership changes do have the deaths included.

First, the results for 2006 and 2007 as best as I could piece them together.  While it is tempting to reproduce my research into another table in this blog I’m not sure my time or your patience justifies it.  So what is listed are summary statistics.

2006
According to the official statistics, from 2005 to 2006 there was a net loss of 56 churches.  Within the loss in churches there were 56 dissolved and 6 dismissed.

From the Layman and PresbyLaw lists there were 7 churches that left the denomination.  While these were usually marked as “dismissed,” from looking at the individual statistics it is often not clear or consistent how the members were lost so I lump the two together throughout.

So, with 62 churches gone, of those 7 “departing” for other denominations, 11% of the church loss can be accounted for in departures of this nature.  That means that 89% are churches dissolved for other reasons.  Around my area it is declining membership.

Between 2005 and 2006 the net loss in membership was 46,542.  In the losses column there were 27,900 certificate losses, that is transfer requests to other denominations, and 102,125 “other” losses.  The total of these two is 130,025.

Based upon the seven churches listed as departing their total membership was 901, or 0.7% of the total and 1.9% of the net.

To this we can add the churches on the list which I will call “distressed.”  I did not research the circumstances of each one, but some of these show a year-after-year decline and some have a one-time decline when the church was declared in schism, a group left the church and the PC(USA) could identify a “continuing” church.  There appear to be two of these on the list for a total loss of 261 members.

So, the total loss in 2006, as best as I can reconstruct, from “denominational concern,” is 1126 members.

2007
From 2006 to 2007 the net loss of churches was 83 on the official rolls.  In the loss column there were 71 dissolved and 12 dismissed for the total of 83.

From the lists there were 16 fewer churches so in 2007 19% appear to be denominationally related.

Total denominational membership dropped by 57,572.  In the loss column 30,329 were certificate losses and 102,714 were “other” losses for a total of 133,034, or 3018 higher than in 2006.

From the 16 departing churches there are some significantly higher memberships than in 2006 with the total being 6832 or an average of 427 per church.  The average church size, according to the PC(USA) statistics, is 205 members, so these include larger than average churches, the largest being 1900.

There are also nine “split” churches in the list that have listed a loss of 965 members between transfers and other.  That brings the total losses on these lists to 7797 or 5.9% of the PC(USA) total for transfers and losses and 13.5% of the denominational net.

Discussion and Conclusions
Well, the first conclusion seems to be that the vast majority of people who leave the PC(USA) are not leaving with a particular church or splinter group but are just leaving as individual families.  Based on these lists, even a major flaw in my methodology would not increase the numbers dramatically relative to the totals.

So this seems to bring good news and bad news.  The good news is that the defections to other denominations are not a major outflow.  The bad news is that there are much larger issues to consider in the loss of membership.

One interesting finding is the relatively close correlation between the
official number of churches dismissed and the number on the lists. 
While some of the departing congregations were dissolved it is good to
know that a majority were dismissed.

Two interesting items about the PC(USA) methodology did jump out at me.  The first is that as far as the membership numbers are concerned a church and its members have not left until the PC(USA) says that it has left.  While a church may vote to leave the presbytery or civil legal process may hold up their “recognized” departure for months to years.  This means that churches appear in both the PC(USA) membership directory and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church directory simultaneously.  For example: First Presbyterian Church, Thibodaux, LA — PC(USA) and EPC.

The second is that reporting of membership statistics for churches in schism is sometimes, shall we say, questionable.  While some churches were clearly showing the sudden drop in membership from those that moved on with the departing group, in other cases the membership is being kept level, sometimes just filling in the static number with no gains or losses.  Examples:  Londonderry, NH and First PC Torrance, CA.

It would be expected that in both of these cases the statistics would get caught up at some time in the future.

One area these do not address, and I do not presently have the time to pursue, is the concentration in specific presbyteries.  There are some concentrations, such as Pittsburgh, Heartland, and Sacramento Presbyteries, so departures will have more impact on a local level.

A final observation:  In several communities where churches departed and the vote was not overwhelming I looked at the membership statistics for near-by PC(USA) churches.  In no case could I find any membership increase in a local church corresponding to the departure of the other church.  If not all the members went with the departing group they did not transfer to local PC(USA) churches.

This is not a problem with record keeping at Louisville, but a problem at the local level where the membership reports come from.  On the one hand it makes me wonder how far off some of the other numbers are.  But I am also thankful for numbers at all since the PC(USA) is one of the few Presbyterian branches there has generally reliable reporting that they make available to the general public.

Commentary
Why do we care about this?  Personally it has been a curiosity to me and I did this to see how large of an affect this is on the PC(USA) membership statistics.  While it is noticeable it is not significant.

In a larger sense we care because the loss of members is not a good thing.  If this tide can be stemmed it will not in itself stop the denominations slide, but it will be a step in that direction.

But maybe the thing I personally find troubling is how small a contributing factor this really is.  How much time, money, energy, polity, and concern has been poured into 6% of the lost membership.  In so many conversations this has been the focus.  What if we took the same energy for the other 94% who just leave the church?  Could we get a better return on our efforts there?

I’ll keep playing with these numbers and it will be interesting to see if the trend continues to accelerate.  It probably will because I stopped my 2008 list after the first six months and I already had 12 churches on the list.  And if you see a flaw in my methodology please let me know where I slipped up.

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 Future of the Mainline Church

Leave a reply

This is one of those “convergence of thoughts” posts were several things coalesce in your thinking and you realize the significant common thread running through them.  What was probably the catalyst for this was the report that the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released last week titled “ U.S. Religions Landscape Survey.”  I’ll return to specifics of that survey in a minute, but in that report I saw nothing that I did not already know from my experience and anecdotal evidence; it just quantifies the observations.

The bottom line is that the report says, among other things, what we already know about mainline Protestant denominations:  the members are getting older and the denominations are getting smaller.  Not a surprise to anyone following the PC(USA) membership trends which saw a 1.4% decrease in the number of churches between 2003 and 2006 and a 5.7% decrease in membership in the same time period.  The one year decline for 2005-2006 was 2.0% for the PC(USA).  Over the same three-year time period the PCA reported a 5.7% growth in the number of churches and a 4.2% increase in membership. (Note that I chose the PCA and not the EPC so there is not an argument to be made that those gains are mostly departing PC(USA) members and churches.)  Similarly for the United Methodists, the title of a Christian Post article yesterday pretty much says it all: No Future for Methodists Unless Change Occurs, Say Leaders.

For the PC(USA) (and, while I did not dig up the statistics, the “mainline” Presbyterian branches in other countries as well), one observation is that we do not retain our young people.  That is supported by the Pew Forum study.

First, another academic survey which again quantifies in today’s college students what I saw happen among my peers at a state university 25 years ago.  The Pew Forum has a Q&A on their site with Alexander W. Astin, the director of the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA on “ Spirituality in Higher Education: A National Study of College Students’ Search for Meaning and Purpose“.  As they define it, college students become less “religious” (they stop going to church) and more “spiritual” (things like “attaining inner harmony”) between their freshman and junior years.  There is also a measure of their political thinking and the students tend to become more “liberal” in their thinking.  (Note that the Pew Forum Q&A does not include confidence intervals but if it is like most national surveys it is about +/-4% which actually renders some of the statistical differences for politics on the Pew page as indistinguishable.) (Digression: If you want an interesting discussion of differing impacts of “progressive” and “conservative” faculty on college campuses check out an article by Harrison Scott Key from World on the Web.)  I’m still doing some thinking about the UCLA study’s categories and classifications, but they support what many of us recognized over the last couple of decades, if not longer. [I will note that my day job is in academania so I have a front row seat to this. I was in a group recently where two students were having a discussion over whose form of yoga was better.]

If I had to summarize the Pew Forum study in one line it would be that today American churches, religion, and spirituality have become a commodity with individuals looking for consumer satisfaction and not brand loyalty.  And no, I’m not the first to say that.

As background, for the total population they found that 78.4% of Americans self-identified as Christians breaking down to 51.3% Protestant, 23.8% Catholic, and the balance of 3.3% other Christian including Eastern Orthodox and two groups not everyone would group with the Christians, Latter Day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses.  The next largest group was “Unaffiliated” comprising 16.1% of the population but within that group, in addition to the atheists and the agnostics there is what you might call the “apathetic,” although the study calls them “nothing in particular.”  Now apathetic is not quite right because part of the “nothing in particular” are “secular unaffiliated” who would be the apathetic, but there is also a “religious unaffiliated” who do say religion plays a significant part in their lives, but apparently not organized religions groups.  If you care about particular states, regions, ethnic groups, or other demographics the report is extensive and the web site easy to drill down through to get some very detailed information.

One other interesting detail is that among the Evangelical Protestants the second largest group is Nondenominational.  Baptists are the largest group among Evangelical Protestants with 41% of the group and then Nondenominational and Pentecostals are tied for second with 13% of the group for each.  For the record, Evangelical Presbyterians, led by the PCA, are 3% of the group.

I should mention that in the survey there is a third Protestant tradition tracked, that being the “Historically Black Protestant Church.”  However, since Presbyterianism comes in at 0% in this tradition I won’t be regularly referring to it.

One more little detail:  Since the individuals in the survey self-identify their religious affiliation I am curious about the “Mainline Presbyterian” breakdown.  While 1.1% of respondents were PC(USA), <0.3% identified themselves as “Other Presbyterian in the Mainline Tradition” and 0.7% as “Presbyterian in the Mainline Tradition, not further specified.”  So if you are Presbyterian in the Mainline Tradition, but not PC(USA), what are you?  Ex patriot Church of Scotland, PC Ireland or some other global Presbyterian branch?  Another American Presbyterian who thinks they are mainline? Someone who has left the PC(USA) but still identifies with the mainline church, whether or not attending elsewhere, or someone who won’t admit to being in the PC(USA)? According to the narrative of the study these were individuals who identified themselves as Presbyterian but no further, and who said they were not “born-again or evangelical.”  And what about PC(USA) members who identified themselves as “Evangelical?”

With that overview, let me turn to one small piece of the Pew study, specifically the religious landscape with young adults and migration patterns away from the denomination of their upbringing.  The study finds that 62% of Americans over age 70 identify themselves as Protestant while only 43% of those in the 18-29 age bracket do.   As for Unaffiliated, it is claimed by 25% of the 18-29 age group while claimed by only 8% of the over 70 group.  And in each of these groups the age distribution, while not strictly linear, does increase or decrease consistently. The survey also looked at shifting religious affiliations by comparing the tradition an individual was raised in versus where they are now.  (Note that multiple changes or changes back to the original are not seen.)  The biggest changes are seen in the Unaffiliated group with 7.3% of the population being raised unaffiliated but 16.1% claiming it now.  And most of that gain was in the “Nothing in particular” cat
egory.  The second largest gains were seen in the Nondenominational Protestant category with 1.5% raised in that tradition but 4.5% currently identifying with it.  Within those currently self-identifying as Protestants, 18% of Evangelical Protestants were raised outside Protestantism and 31% switched from another Protestant family while for those in Mainline Protestantism it is similar with 16% from outside and 30% from another Protestant family.  That leave 51% and 54% respectively who are currently in the tradition they were raised in.

Now that is a bunch of numbers, but breaking that last one down by denominations the Baptists have the best retention rate at 60% with no change while Presbyterians have one of the worst with only a 40% retention rate.  Of those that were raised Presbyterian and changed roughly equal numbers, about 15% went to each of other Evangelical Protestant denominations, other Mainline Protestant denominations, and No Religion.

I will point out that some of these numbers about migration apply to individuals across the age spectrum.  But considering the UCLA study, the fact that Unaffiliated is strongest among the 18-29 age group, and my qualitative observation of college and college age being the time that young people now lose touch with the church, I would argue that while these trends are not specific, they are at least representative if not dominant in the college age group.

With each of my three children, there is a clear attraction to the energy, vitality, and relationships that certain other churches in town have.  All three, while growing up at home and faithfully attending and serving at our Presbyterian church, also regularly attend the youth group at another church.  (And there are two different “other” churches between the three of them.)  These other churches have thriving youth programs that attract, hold, and educate the kids.  They are not attracted by the theology, they are attracted by the energy and the relationships.  These two other churches are not Presbyterian, but I have seen nothing that a Presbyterian church could not do.  In fact from reading his blog, I think Mark Smith’s church does do things like this with their youth.  But from what I have seen it takes work.  Not just work by the Youth Director, not just work by the Youth Team, but work by the whole church.  The whole church?  Yes, because some of us “frozen chosen” have to be ready to sometimes have worship music that might include a drum set and electric guitars.  Yes, because some of us need to get off our duffs and be ready to help out with youth events like Mark does.  Not only can a small youth team not do it alone, but if we want to empower the younger generation of our members (note, not the “future of the church” or the “next generation”, they are with us today) we need to show them that they are valued by the broad community and have a place in our worship and the life of the community.  And I think we can do that without compromising our Reformed faith and traditions (I’ll have to think more about how some of this might interact with the “ regulative principle of worship“).  [I think I just outlined an upcoming moderatorial sermon.]

[Please forgive me if I seem hypocritical by making these suggestions and yet my own kids also attend other church youth groups.  I would point out that 1) they are still engaged in our church and its youth group and 2) My wife, and I to a lesser degree, have been active with youth events and the youth team.  But we are not above looking at what makes other youth programs successful and it takes the time and the efforts of a lot of people to change the climate and educate the faith community.]

A final piece of anecdotal evidence:  Over the last week I have been part of two interesting conversations with two young men.  The first had just finished high school and was starting at a local community college.  He grew up in the Baptist church and from what we adults could piece together he was now in rebellion against a strict upbringing.  He could clearly and succinctly exposit his religious views and they were clearly theistic and non-Christian.  Here, I thought, was a college student headed for the Unaffiliated, but I hope that in the near future he is able to work out some of his uncertainties with the help of an understanding and non-judgmental faith community.  The second conversation was with our son who requested that we have him excused from the last few minutes of his school day so he could attend the memorial service for a member of our church.  While it was a wonderful and faithful gentleman who had gone to be with the Lord, he was not a close friend so my wife and I were initially skeptical that all our son wanted was an excuse to get out of one of his least-favorite classes.  But as we talked with him we realized that he was serious about wanting to be part of the faith community that gathered to remember this saint and so we pulled him from school for the worship service.  It demonstrated for me that something had clicked for my son about being community in the church.

Within the PC(USA) this spring it will be interesting to see if the denomination can get and hold the attention of young adults.  One driving force is the Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow and his standing for election as Moderator of the General Assembly with a Web 2.0 campaign.  Yes, the other three candidates, Rev. Bill Teng, Rev. Carl Mazza, Elder Roger Shoemaker, all have web sites and Mr. Mazza is blogging.  But Bruce’s web site is updated frequently and has the Web 2.0 bells and whistles like DOPPLR, Facebook, yelp.  From one of his posts it is apparent that questions are being raised about this modern style and whether that is an appropriate way to run a campaign.  For the Moderator election I’m not sure how much of that will help him; it is my experience that few commissioners are in the demographic that appreciates Web 2.0 or that it would influence their vote.  But taking a long view, it should be the hope of those who care about the future of the PC(USA) that Bruce simply doing that will attract and hold the attention of the younger generation of PC(USA) members and leaders.  Or maybe wake some of the rest of us up to what we need to be thinking about.

As I work through my GA 101 series I am thinking about how Reformed Theology, Presbyterian polity and Web 2.0 intersect, inform each other, and maybe conflict.  From a traditional Reformed approach, does an on-line community gathered together in the “virtual” world differ from the covenant community gathered together in the “real” world?  Can you have a true Reformed “Second Life” church?  (That is not Second Life as in The Church Triumphant but as in “The Church Virtual.”)  So I plan to revisit this piece of Reformed theology in detail in my concluding installment of the GA 101 series: Reformed theology and Presbyterian polity for the future — The Church Virtual?

But for now I have written enough and probably glazed over a bunch of eyes with all the statistics.  The take-away is that the numbers continue to not look good for the PC(USA) in the long run and we need to think about how our community, within the bounds of our Reformed faith, needs to adjust.

PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions — Walking a Center Line?

8 Replies

First, I need to clarify my previous post now that I have had a chance to more carefully review the three decisions.  While all three General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission decisions went against the presbyteries, I read too hastily and it now appears to me that these three unanimous decisions should be seen as a decision against “restating” the Book of Order, not as a decision in favor of declaring scruples and granting exemptions.

Executive Summary:  The three decisions can probably be best summed up with this quote from 218-10: Bush and Others v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh.

Restatements of the Book of Order, in whatever form they are adopted, are themselves an obstruction to the same standard of constitutional governance no less than attempts to depart from mandatory provisions.

My reading of this is that the GAPJC is waking a center line:  You can’t adapt the Book of Order in any special way, whether that be declaring provisions as mandatory or by granting an exemption.  It is what it is.

Full Discussion
With that summary out of the way, let me turn to a more detailed discussion of the cases.  Late last week the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) of the Presbyterian Church (USA) (PC(USA)) heard arguments on three cases that involved Presbyteries passing resolutions about Book of Order requirements, especially G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” requirement, being mandatory or “essential.”  For the sake of completeness I will list the cases here with full title and in the rest of the post will refer to them by number and presbytery.

218-09:
Barlow J. Buescher, Dave R. Brown, Mary D. McGonigal, Jeanne Howell,
Serena Sullivan, Eileen Dunn, Wayne H. Keller, Don E. Keller, Dwight W.
Whipple, David R. Kegley, F. Mark Dowdy, Brian Heath, R. Sidney Cloud,
Isaac H. Jung, Irene Van Arnam, Michael Baugh, Chuck Jenson, Donna Lee,
and the Session of Lakewood Presbyterian Church v Presbytery of Olympia (218-09 Olympia)

218-10: Randall Bush, Wayne Peck, and the Session of East Liberty Presbyterian Church v Presbytery of Pittsburgh (218-10 Pittsburgh)

218-15:
Session of First Presbyterian Church of Washington, 1793, Session of
First Presbyterian Church of Charleroi, Jeffrey A. Kisner, Frances
Lane-Lawrence, D. Jay Losher, Robert Miller, Kenneth E. Nolin, Charles
Puff, John Rankin, Susan Vande Kappelle, Robert Vande Kappelle, Betty
Voigt, Robert Randolph, and Linda Mankey v Washington Presbytery (218-15 Washington)

It should also be noted that 218-10 Pittsburgh was the lead decision and the other two reference it.  Also, while none of the decisions contain a dissent, 218-15 Washington contains two concurring decisions that comment on some details but not on the final decision.  However, 218-15 Washington did arrive at the GAPJC to have some procedural issues decided and the decision states that the other two decisions should stand as the answer to the validity of the Presbytery resolutions that are at the heart of the case.  Other than to say that reading the history of the case is a good lesson in why we keep detailed minutes, I’ll leave the discussion of 218-15 Washington at that and for the constitutional questions focus on the other two cases.

In all three cases the Presbyteries, in the wake of the report as adopted of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity and the associated Authoritative Interpretation, adopted a resolution that basically said that mandates in the Book of Order are binding, the implication being that they are not up for negotiation as “scruples” or “exceptions.”  One part of the Presbytery of Pittsburgh resolution reads:

Adopts the principle that compliance with the standards for ordination approved by the Presbyterian Church (USA) in the Book of Order is an essential of Reformed polity. Therefore, any departure from the standards of ordination expressed in the Book of Order will bar a candidate from ordination and/or installation by this governing body. Provisions of the Book of Order are signified as being standards by use of the term “shall,” “is/are to be,” “requirement” or equivalent expression

The Washington resolution is very similar and Olympia has the same sentiments in briefer form.

Well each was appealed to the respective Synod PJC  The PJC of the Synod of the Trinity heard 218-10 Pittsburgh and 218-15 Washington and overturned the presbytery resolutions in both cases.  The PJC of the Synod of Alaska-Northwest ruled on 218-09 Olympia and upheld the presbytery’s resolution.

The GAPJC ruled against the Presbyteries resolutions.  However, in the written decisions for Pittsburgh and Olympia the GAPJC appears to be saying “Nothing has changed so you don’t need to change anything.”  In addition to the lead quote above, the GAPJC also writes in 218-10 Pittsburgh:

As finally adopted by the General Assembly, the Authoritative Interpretation does not equate “polity” with “behavior.” Nevertheless, the church has required those who aspire to ordained office to conform their actions, though not necessarily their beliefs or opinions, to certain standards, in those contexts in which the church has deemed conformity to be necessary or essential… The candidate and examining body must follow G-6.0108 in reaching a determination as to whether the candidate for office has departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity, but that determination does not rest on distinguishing “belief” and “behavior,” and does not permit departure from the “fidelity and chastity” requirement found in G-6.0106b.

And later on they write:

While the General Assembly and the GAPJC may interpret these standards, the Authoritative Interpretation did not (and constitutionally could not) change any ordination standard, including the requirements set forth in G-6.0106b. Similarly, no lower governing body can constitutionally define, diminish, augment or modify standards for ordination and installation of church officers.

And finally:

Ordaining bodies have the right and responsibility to determine whether or not any “scruples” declared by candidates for ordination and/or installation constitute serious departures from our system of doctrine, government, or discipline; to what extent the rights and views of others might be infringed upon by those departures; and whether those departures obstruct the constitutional governance of the church. At the same time, attempts by governing bodies that ordain and install officers to adopt resolutions, statements or policies that paraphrase or restate provisions of the Book of Order and/or declare them as “essentials of Reformed faith and polity” are confusing and unnecessary. G-6.0108a sets forth standards that apply to the whole church.

So the decision is:

For these reasons, the Resolution is unconstitutional and in error. It is not permissible for a presbytery or a session to define “essentials of Reformed faith and polity” outside of the examination of any candidate for office. Such a determination must be made only in the context of a specific examination of an individual candidate.

It would be an obstruction of constitutional governance to permit examining bodies to ignore or waive a specific standard that has been adopted by the whole church, such as the “fidelity and chastity” portion of G-6.0106b, or any other similarly specific provision. On the other hand, the broad reference in G-6.0106b to “any practice which the confessions call sin” puts the responsibility first on the candidate and then on the examining body to determine whether a departure is a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity and the remainder of G-6.0108(a) with respect to freedom of conscience. The ordaining body must examine the candidate individually. The examining body is best suited to make decisions about the candidate’s fitness for office, and factual determinations by examining bodies are entitled to deference by higher governing bodies in any review process.

The GAPJC decides 218-09 Olympia by quoting long sections of 218-10 Pittsburgh, overturning that Presbytery’s resolution and overturning the Synod PJC decision that upheld it.

So what do these decisions mean?  It looks to me that the GA PJC is setting itself up to hear the Larges and Capetz case. If they hold to the reasoning in these decisions, as I read it, they look to overturn those presbytery actions as well.  Or, this could be viewed as setting the case law so that if the Synod PJC’s refer to this case and decide against the ordinations the GAPJC may have no reason to hear the cases.   But in the big picture, it looks like the GAPJC really is trying to walk a center line on this and to really show that “Nothing has changed.”  And I think the unanimity of the decisions may be a signal of this as well.

The issue of course is that those other two cases will take some time to work through the system and the Assembly meeting this June could change the constitutional and polity landscape, or the membership of the GAPJC for that matter.  However, in my opinion, the GAPJC has written reasonable decisions that set a precedent upholding the current PC(USA) constitution’s balance between conscience and standards that will be reviewed by upcoming cases.  Stay tuned for the next cases, and for other people’s views of these decisions.

GAPCJ Decision: Stewart vs. Mission Presbytery – Ordination Standards probably apply to candidates

Leave a reply

The Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly (GAPJC) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) issued four decisions this past week, all of them interesting.  I will begin with one of the more complex and important decisions and one that discussed last July when the presbytery took their action and again in October following the Synod PJC tie vote on the case that was filed:

George R. Stewart v. Mission Presbytery:  This case was shaping up to be a test case on at what stage of the PC(USA) process for ordination as minister of word and sacrament the Book of Order ordination standards would apply.  Specifically in this case, Mission Presbytery voted to advance to candidacy a women who was an acknowledged lesbian involved in an active relationship.

The Rev. Stewart filed a remedial case with the PJC of the Synod of the Sun and the trial was held September 8, 2006.  The trial resulted in a tie vote of the voting member of the Synod PJC.  On October 11, 2006, the case was filed for appeal with the GAPJC and accepted on October 20.

On November 17, 2006, the candidate requested of her Committee on Preparation for Ministry to be removed from the process.  At the March 3, 2007 presbytery meeting the presbytery approved the request. The Presbytery moved to have the case dismissed, on grounds of mootness, on March 6 and the Executive Committee of the GAPJC concurred on March 23.  On March 28, Rev. Stewart requested a full hearing which the GAPJC granted.

I give this full chronology because in the course of these events, the focus of the case changed significantly.  What the GAPJC ended up deciding on was whether the case was now moot by the withdrawal from candidacy.  In effect, Rev. Stewart had gotten, through the candidate’s action, the relief he had requested.

Well, the majority of the GAPJC ruled that no relief could be granted so that the case was indeed moot.  There was a dissent that this was about presbytery process not the individual and it should go forward in amended form. But I would not have spent all of this time if there wasn’t something interesting.

On one point that Stewart requested, the “need for guidance” the GAPJC did have something to say:

Stewart further argues that there is a “need for guidance” because the statements to the Presbytery and the SPJC cast doubt on the Book of Order requirements for candidates. This Commission is not an advisory body for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) regarding matters relating to the Constitution, but is charged with deciding cases or controversies. However, this Commission notes with concern that the record shows that both the Presbytery and the SPJC appear to have relied on the Book of Order: Annotated Edition entry for the Sheldon, et al. v. Presbytery of West Jersey, Minutes, 2000, p. 589, case, rather than the language of the case itself. Such reliance was misplaced.

It turns out that there were significant differences in Sheldon, et al. v. Presbytery of West Jersey and to only read the entry in the Annotated Edition of the Book of Order did not give the full context and application of the case.  The GAPJC concludes that section with the statement:

Annotations found in the Book of Order: Annotated Edition can be helpful to the Church as it seeks to be faithful in its life and service; however, they are not authoritative. The assistance that annotations offer to the church is as a guide to the deliverances of the bodies that have been accorded authority in our Constitution. To the extent that the misstatement in the Book of Order: Annotated Edition was relied upon by the Committee on Preparation of Ministry, the Presbytery, and the SPJC, it misled each body.

In the decision section it was the expected, that the case is moot and that the appropriate parties be notified of the decision.

Fifteen of the sixteen members of the GAPJC were present and four filed a dissent that effectively said that the complaint was not against the individual being advanced to candidacy but against the presbytery for its process and an amended complaint should be allowed since relief could still be granted there.

So, where does that leave us?  This did not turn out to be the test case that it could have been but by the reminder of the GAPJC about the Sheldon case being different, it has clearly left the door open for another case of this type if it were to make it this far.  To claim that this was a victory for those supporting the current ordination standards is going a bit far.  In the same way the GAPJC reminds us to do our homework, not just look at the “Cliff notes” (pun intended), it would be too early to see this as prohibiting advancement to candidacy without the case law being written.

As for reaction, Toby Brown of Classical Presbyterian is in Mission Presbytery and was part of this case and has posted his take on this, especially the part about reading the full decision, not just the annotation.  There is nothing on the PC(USA) News Service, and I don’t expect any for a dismissed GAPJC case.  It has been picked up by the Louisville Courier-Journal but they, in my opinion, slightly mis-state the decision.  They refer back to the Commission’s reference to the Sheldon case and report this as a ban on advancing to candidacy those whose lives are not in accord the PC(USA) ordination standards.  As I say above, I see it as still an open question but there seems to be an implication that this GAPJC would, given the correct case, decide that they can not be advanced.  So, at the present time there appears to be a ban by implication, or extrapolation, of the existing case law.