Category Archives: Analysis

A Look At The PC(USA) Church Dismissals In Alaska

A little under a year ago I did an analysis of some church dismissals from Tropical Florida and Mississippi Presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). In each presbytery multiple churches were dismissed permitting a statistical comparison of the sizes of those churches with the churches across the presbytery and the analysis found that the churches requesting dismissal were typically larger than the churches in the presbytery as a whole.

Now a similar situation has presented itself in the Presbytery of Alaska that allows me to once again go into statistical analysis mode.

The Presbytery web site contains this short news statement:

The Presbytery of Alaska met in Haines on April 5-7, 2013, and having concluded the processes set out in
“A GRACIOUS, PASTORAL RESONSE [sic] TO CHURCHES OF THE PRESBYTERY OF ALASKA REQUESTING DISAFFILIATION”
dismissed to the Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterian [sic] these churches: Kake, Angoon, Hoonah, Chapel by the Lake, Haines, and Skagway.

The Presbytery web site has been updated to list just the remaining nine churches.

At the one meeting this presbytery lost 2/5 of its 15 congregations. The question is whether this presbytery follows the previous pattern of church size distributions.

Here are the 15 churches’ membership numbers from their 2011 statistical reports.

Church	Location	2011 Membership
Remaining churches
First PC	Petersburg	39
First PC	Sitka	73
First PC	Wrangell	44
First of Craig and Klawock	Craig	46
Hydaburg PC	Hydaburg	28
Ketchikan PC	Ketchikan	42
Metlakatla PC	Metlakatla	40
Northern Lights UPC	Juneau	99
Yakutat PC	Yakutat	10

Dismissed churches
Chapel by the Lake	Juneau	491
First PC	Skagway	30
Frances Johnson Memorial PC	Angoon	21
Haines PC	Haines	63
Hoonah PC	Hoonah	13
Kake Memorial PC	Kake	14

Before the dismissals the Presbytery’s 15 congregations had 1053 members combined. Of that 421 members (40.0%) remain in the nine churches and 632 (60.0%) left in the six churches that were dismissed. The median size of the churches in the Presbytery before dismissal was 40 and after it is 42. The median size of the dismissed churches is 25.5.

So, the answer is that taken as a group the churches that requested dismissal to the Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians are generally smaller than the churches remaining in the Presbytery. In other words the pattern we saw in Mississippi and Tropical Florida is not seen here in Alaska, but rather we find the reverse.

There is one pattern here that we have seen elsewhere – the departure of the largest church. While this did not happen in Tropical Florida – there the largest church requesting dismissal was the second largest church in the Presbytery – we did see in Mississippi that the two largest churches departed. We are seeing in other presbyteries the largest church requesting dismissal but my more comprehensive analysis of that is still in the works. In Alaska, the largest church in the Presbytery was dismissed and it has a membership almost five times larger than the second largest church. In fact the membership of Chapel by the Lake represented 46.6% of the Presbytery’s church membership before dismissals and 77.7% of the membership that was dismissed. (And because this one data point has such a large value is the reason I have so far not mentioned the statical mean of the data.)

Looking a bit further at the data we see that the second and third smallest churches were also dismissed, contributing to the median size of the dismissed churches being below those that remain.

Just out of curiosity, if we drop the large outlier from the data set we find that there are 562 members in all the other churches with 40.1 members as the mean size of a church and 39.5 the median. For the five smaller churches that were dismissed there are 141 members (25.1%) and the remaining churches have 421 members (74.9%). These five departing churches have a mean size of 28.2 and a median of 21. The remaining churches have an average size of 46.8 and a median of 42.

All this to say that in this case, while the largest church in the Presbytery of Alaska was among those being dismissed, overall the churches that requested dismissal to ECO were generally smaller churches in the Presbytery.

I have not done the necessary research on these churches to have formulated a good theory as to why this reverse pattern is present in this presbytery. Part of the reason that this area may have significantly different dynamics is because of the isolation of each of these communities and therefore church choices are very limited. This is in contrast to areas with larger populations and better transportation networks where perspective members can church shop for a congregation that meets their long list of interests and preferences. Only in Juneau were there two Presbyterian churches in the same city. For the others, even if two churches were on the same island, travel between was by sea or air — no driving between the communities. There is generally no choosing between two Presbyterian churches with different styles or theological perspective.

For the polity geeks I will mention that with the Presbytery of Alaska dropping to nine congregations, they are now below the minimum of ten required for a presbytery. The Layman reports that while the Presbytery continues to be administered as it has been the Synod of Alaska-Northwest has assumed jurisdiction.

So, an interesting data set but one that may not be representative of other parts of the country. As other data sets get larger we will see what they look like.

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…

Candidates For Moderator Of The 220th General Assembly (2012) Of The PC(USA)

3 Replies

With three days to go before the election of the Moderator of this year’s General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I thought I really needed to get back to this subject a bit.

First, I wanted to mention two developments related to the field of candidates standing for Moderator and their selections for those standing with them for Vice-Moderator.

One of these is the departure of Teaching Elder Janet Edwards from the field. As she explains on her web site her husband Alvise has developed some medical challenges and this is no longer the appropriate time in her career to consider serving as Moderator of the General Assembly. our prayers continue to be with Janet and Alvise. Since she is no longer a candidate a revised Moderatorial Candidates Book has been issued. However, for my purposes here I am interested in the broader sweep of the candidates and will include her information from the original version of the book for part of my discussion below.

The second item is a bit of a controversy that has arisen around Teaching Elder Tara Spuhler McCabe, Vice-Moderator selection standing with Neal Presa. An anonymous source provided the Presbyterian Outlook, and apparently the Presbyterian Layman, with documents showing that the Rev. McCabe signed the marriage license for a same-gender marriage in the District of Columbia in April where the marriage is legally recognized. I suggest that you read the complete article from the Outlook with excerpts from their interview with Rev. McCabe because her answers are specific and nuanced. I will leave it to say that she describes her role as “standing with” the couple in their ceremony and guiding them through it, that it was not a ceremony at her church and her church was not aware of it until some time after it happened. Rev. McCabe will remain as the Vice-Moderator selection and Rev. Presa has released a statement on Unity with Difference related to the situation.

Turning to the Moderatorial Candidates Book I am struck by the incremental improvement in the candidate’s submissions with each successive GA, especially in the area of layout, design and typesetting. (The Book from the 219th GA for comparison) The candidates submit their self-formatted copy to the OGA and with the advances in desktop publishing they are looking more professionally done. In addition, throughout the time introducing themselves to the church each has established ways of branding themselves, like TE Randy Branson has done with similar graphical elements between his blog and his pages in the book. It is interesting to see that both TE Sue Krummel and TE Branson have gone to more formal portraits in their material now while TE Robert Austell and TE Neal Presa have stuck with the same head shots since they announced (if my memory is correct), neither of them appearing to be formal portraits. And you have to admire the QR code that TE Presa has put on his bio.

The Moderatorial Candidates Book has biographical and sense of call information supplied by each candidate and a page about their selected Vice-Moderator candidate. The candidates also have to provide brief (less than 500 word) answers to five questions from a list supplied by the OGA. The first three questions are required and they are:

1. What are some of the exciting possibilities facing the 21st Century church? What are the challenges that face the church in this century?

2. In the Mid-Council Commission report a great deal of the narrative spoke to the emerging shapes and forms for mid-councils. In your view, what do you find especially promising in the narrative and why?

3. How might the initiative to create 1001 new worshipping communities help the PC(U.S.A.) reach its goal of increasing its racial ethnic membership and come closer to becoming a multicultural community of faith, hope, love, and witness?

The additional two questions are selected by the candidate from a pool of seven possible questions. Interestingly – and I think this is a sign of the condition and hope for the PC(USA) – all five candidates (including TE Edwards) answered this question:

5. In F-1.03 of The Foundations of Presbyterian Polity in the Book of Order, we are reminded that, “Unity is God’s gift to the Church in Jesus Christ. Just as God is one God and Jesus Christ is our one Savior, so the Church is one because it belongs to its one Lord, Jesus Christ.” How would you work for unity within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and how would this contribute to the visible unity we seek within our church and with other churches and Christian communities?

In addition three candidates, TE Edwards, TE Krummel and TE Presa, all answered the same question as their second optional one:

10. Brian McLaren will be addressing the Office of the General Assembly breakfast on Monday morning. He has written: “Those who dedicate themselves to be agents of change in our churches will require superhuman doses of courage, kindness, creativity, collaboration, and perseverance. Thanks be to God, faithful change agents will find, like the little boy with his fish and bread, that they already have more resources for the journey than they realized.” What are some of the resources God has already provided the Presbyterian Church for the journey ahead?

For his second question TE Austell answered:

7. What suggestions do you have for identifying new directions for the development of faithful leadership for the mission of Christ?

and for his second TE Branson discussed:

8. We are living in a war-torn world. What might the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and its congregations do to strengthen the ministry of peacemaking at this time?

Questions about highlighting our confessional theology, ecumenical challenges and resources, and addressing economic injustice were not answered.

Now, I need to condense each candidate’s responses down into something manageable so I decided to feed their narrative portions and the answers to their questions through Wordle. OK, maybe a bit too much condensing, but it is interesting none the less.

It should be no surprise that “God” and “Church” are prominent in almost all five candidates’ statements and “Presbyterian” comes through pretty strong as well. But there are a number of interesting subtleties. (And the images below are displayed at about half size if you want to pop them out and have a closer look.)

Let me begin with Neal Presa. As you can see his cloud is dominated by “God” and “Church” with “one”, “Presbyterian”, “Christ”, “communities” and “mission” (and “Neal”) in a noticeably lower second tier. This is consistent with a recurring theme in his statement about the Church needing to be “catching up” to what God is about.
In many ways Randy Branson’s cloud is a bit different than all the rest. You will note that his is the only one with “God” not dominant in the cloud and that since Wordle is case-sensitive it differentiates between his use of the “Church” universal and the “church” particular. I was surprised that with his emphasis on the PC(USA) needing a Moderator-as-pastor at this time that the word “pastor” was not more prominent, but the associated word “ministry” is there. In a technical note, TE Branson is the only one to use the church abbreviation PCUSA and so that appears prominently in the cloud. The cloud does a good job of capturing his idea that this is a time of healing for the church so it might be looking a bit more inward.
Robert Austell’s Wordle cloud, like TE Branson’s, has several terms primary in the cloud – in this case “world”, “Christ”, “congregation” and “community”. In particular it reflects TE Austell’s emphasis on community and the outward look to the world. With his extensive work related to worship I was surprised that word is not more prominent and similarly for mission.
The first thing that struck me about Sue Krummel’s Wordle cloud was that her’s was the only candidates’ cloud with their name prominent in it. This is easily explained by the story telling about her family she does in her statement as well as the fact that her endorsement letter is peppered with her full name. Since that story telling relates to mission it is not surprising to see that and “world” also prominent in her cloud.
For the sake of completeness here is the cloud for Janet Edwards. In addition to “God” and “church” the term “Christ” is just as prominent. There are then several terms in the second tier like “new”, “unity”, “Presbyterian”, “change” and “moderator”. It is also interesting to note that a locality comes through stronger in her cloud than any other one due to the fact that Pittsburgh is not only the location of GA but also her long-time home and presbytery as well as her teaching at Pittsburgh Seminary and having historical family ties to it.

This obviously is not intended to be anywhere near an exhaustive discussion of the candidates’ thoughts and positions. For those making the decision on Saturday night I don’t want this to substitute for a good read of the Moderatorial Candidates Book. I do hope that it gives everyone a good overview and maybe a slightly different look at the candidate’s statements. In addition, it is my observation that the single most important phase of the election process is the Q and A on the floor of the Assembly before the vote. I intend to be there live blogging that. We can make two assertions at this point – the new Moderator and Vice-Moderator will be teaching elders and the winning ticket will be gender balanced. To the rest we trust the leading of the Holy Spirit. (And on a side note, I am leaving it as an exercise for the reader to consider the references to the three persons of the Trinity in the Wordle clouds above.)

In conclusion I need to give some full disclosure and on a personal note I want to contribute what you might call a reference check. This is the first year in a while that I have had some significant previous interaction with one of the Moderator or Vice-Moderator candidates and it should be no surprise that it would be Robert Austell. He is, after all, a first class GA Junkie as testified by his great GA Help web site and he has done me the honor of linking this blog there. In working with him I have always found him sincere, hard working and well informed as well as having a cheerful and positive attitude. I have seen him working with the diverse theological perspectives in the PC(USA) and I really believe that his gracious dismissal resolution four years ago has done much to set a more peaceful tone for the PC(USA) today. And please don’t hold our shared like of Bluegrass Music against either one of us. I don’t know the other three candidates well enough to single out Robert as the only choice for GA Moderator, but I know him well enough to say that if he is elected he will do a good job and represent the PC(USA) well.

And with that I turn it over to the wisdom, discernment and leading of the Holy Spirit through the voice of the commissioners. We pray that God will lift up a Moderator that God has prepared for these times.

Mid Councils Commission Report To The 220th GA Of The PC(USA)

Running The Numbers — Dismissals From Tropical Florida And Mississippi Presbyteries

5 Replies

Over the last couple of weeks a big deal has been made about how the recent dismissals of churches in the Southeastern US have removed about one-third of the members out of a couple of presbyteries. Some examples of this media include the articles on the Layman site (Florida, Mississippi) and an article on the Christianity Today site. Well, I decided to drill down into the data a bit.

First my data set: The latest from the PC(USA) are the 2010 comparative statistics and the congregational reporting also for 2012. I looked up the stats on each congregation in each presbytery and used Table 4 from the Comparative Statistics as a comparison. The list from the PC(USA) Find A Congregation when searched by presbytery was compared to the list each presbytery has posted of their churches (Florida, Mississippi). At the time I ran the numbers the dismissed churches still appeared on each list. Interestingly, the PC(USA) list by presbytery misses churches in each presbytery (First Pompano Beach in Tropical Florida and First Pascagoula and Vernal Presbyterian in Mississippi). In addition, the PC(USA) list includes Wiggins Presbyterian in Mississippi which no longer appears on the presbytery’s list. Finally, one church in Tropical Florida, Korean Central Presbyterian Church, has no data in the PC(USA) statistics. Working through all these differences does result in a list of churches that agrees in number with Table 4.

I checked with Jason Reagan, the Layman reporter who wrote the articles, and he confirmed that the numbers in his articles are current numbers supplied by the churches and the presbyteries. For the analysis I did the 2010 numbers provide a consistent database with a specific snapshot date for comparison both within the presbyteries as well as between them.

Presbytery of Tropical Florida
With 55 of 56 churches reporting data for the close of 2010 the membership of the churches in the Presbytery was 13,291 based on adding all the individual churches and 13,425 from Table 4. The average size of a church was 242 members with a median of 127 members. For the 47 continuing churches the total membership is 10,137 with an average of 221 members per church and a median of 113 members. The nine dismissed churches have a total membership of 3,124, an average membership of 350, and a median membership of 188. Seven of the nine have memberships above the Presbytery median. As a percentage, 16.1% of the churches in the presbytery and 23.7% of the members in the presbytery were dismissed.

For comparison, the Layman reported that the total current membership of the Presbytery was 13,525 and the total current membership of the dismissed churches is about 3,800. This total membership number that is slightly higher than the PC(USA) number may reflect slight growth in the Presbytery or information on the missing numbers for the one church. The difference for the number of members dismissed is significantly larger and using the current numbers from the Layman results in 28.1% of the members being dismissed.

Presbytery of Mississippi
For the 43 churches in the Presbytery at the close of 2010 there is a total membership of 4,425 from adding the individual congregations compared with 4,485 from Table 4. The average membership is 103 members and the median is 47 members. The five dismissed churches have a membership of 1297 (29.3% of the total membership) with an average membership of 259 members and a median of 361. Three dismissed churches have memberships higher than the median of the whole group and are the three largest churches in the Presbytery. One church is the median of the whole group and one is below. The 38 churches remaining have a total membership of 3128, an average membership of 82 and a median of 43.

According to the Layman article the current total membership of the Presbytery is about 4,300 members from which the dismissed churches will remove 1,400 members or about 32.5%.

Since collecting the data and running the numbers above another presbytery in the area, Central Florida, has dismissed two churches. I am not going to do the same comprehensive analysis for the presbytery right now (they list 75 churches so it will take more time than I have at the moment) but Table 4 lists a total membership of 27,193 giving an average per congregation of 363 members. The table lists the median church membership at 206. For the two dismissed churches Trinity of Satellite Beach has 877 members and First Presbyterian of Orlando has 3521 members. These 4,398 members account for 16.2% of the presbytery membership.

Discussion
One reason for undertaking this analysis is because these are large enough samples to try to quantify something that some of us have noticed – that the churches leaving the PC(USA) are on average larger than most of the other churches in the denomination. With the past pattern of one church from a presbytery here and one from another presbytery there arguments could be made that this was not typical or comparisons were weak. Now, however, with five churches from one presbytery and nine from another being dismissed in groups there is a more coherent data set.

As I note above, the churches dismissed in this round are larger than the average church in the presbytery based on both the average size and the median. For Tropical Florida the dismissed churches are on average 45% larger (350 versus 242) and for Mississippi 150% larger (259 versus 103). Similarly, the median is 76% and 668% larger for the dismissed churches.

It is worth noting that the average size congregation in the PC(USA) nationally in the 2010 data set is 191 and so while Tropical Florida has a larger average (242) and Mississippi a lower average (103) the average of the churches dismissed from each presbytery are larger than the national average (350 and 259). Similarly, the national median is 95 and all these relationships hold for that measure as well.

What first caught my attention regarding these numbers was the claim that one-third of each presbytery had been dismissed. I have noted previously that one-third/two-thirds splits seem to be one common division in Presbyterian divisions. In this case it is a bit lower than one-third, but still in the neighborhood and so it may hold in this case.

The problems with identifying this at this present time are however numerous. One issue is that additional churches may request dismissal so it is only a snapshot and not a completed process. Another is that while the churches have been dismissed there are likely some members who will be in a continuing church or who will remain in the PC(USA) joining neighboring churches. Another complication is that the dismissed churches are not all leaving together but some are going to ECO and some to the EPC. Finally, is it a reasonable thing to just look at individual presbyteries in isolation and ignore the big picture of the whole denomination.

What we can document from this is the fact that on average the churches that are requesting, and being granted, dismissal are larger churches. I can come up with numerous reasons for this but further work would be necessary to document whether there is one dominant reason. One possible explanation is that conservative churches tend to be more vibrant and viable and therefore be in a better position to attract and retain members. Another possible explanation is that larger churches simply
by virtue of their size are in a better position to strike out on their own, or join a fledgling group like the ECO, while smaller churches are dependent on some of the resources of the larger denominational structure, including monies paid into the pension plan. Those are just two of the several possible explanations.

It is worth noting that this trend does present challenges for the PC(USA). As we see in Tropical Florida it amplifies the membership losses when 16.1% of the churches leaving means that nearly one quarter of the members are dismissed with them. And in each presbytery you will note that the average size of church and the median size dropped after the dismissals.

While churches have been leaving for the EPC for a number of years now the dismissals to ECO have only just begun. It may be too early to reliably consider these numbers so we will see if this trend continues or if it changes with time. We shall see.

“A Vast Diversity Of Interpretation” — Redwoods Presbytery Expresses Their Disagreement With The Spahr II Decision

4 Replies

The biggest news in the Presbyverse right now is the motion passed by the Presbytery of the Redwoods objecting to the decision and punishment and failure to overturn those on appeal in the most recent disciplinary case against the Rev. Jane Spahr (the Spahr II decision).

In case you have missed it, this past Tuesday was the first stated presbytery meeting of Redwoods Presbytery since the PC(USA) General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission heard the appeal in this case and upheld the decision from the Presbytery Permanent Judicial Commission trial. Teaching Elder Spahr was found to have committed “the offense of representing that a same-sex ceremony was a marriage by performing a ceremony in which two women were married under the laws of the State of California and thereafter signing their Certificate of Marriage as the person solemnizing the marriage.” In addition, she was accused of persisting in this since the first disciplinary action (Spahr I decision) and of violating her ordination vows by failing to be subject to the authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order.

At the Presbytery meeting, in the Stated Clerk’s report of the GAPJC decision, a motion was introduced that laid out a series of reasons the judicial decisions were wrong and concluded with this resolution:

Be it RESOLVED that the Presbytery of the Redwoods opposes imposition of
the rebuke set forth in the decision dated August 27, 2010, as
inconsistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Constitution of the
Presbyterian Church (USA), and the faithful life of ministry lived out
in this Presbytery.

The full text of the resolution is available from the Presbytery (with a follow-up letter from the Stated Clerk), MLP web site or Mary Holder Naegeli’s blog.

Let me begin with some polity observations. We need to be clear at the onset that the Presbytery resolution is an objection or protest. The rebuke has been made and registered. The Presbyterian News Service article about the resolution says this from the Presbytery Stated Clerk:

“Perhaps the majority, perhaps all of them, thought they had removed the
rebuke but I don’t see how it is in the power of the presbytery to do
that,” Conover said, adding that he had about 30 minutes notice on the
Clark motion before the beginning of the meeting.

The article goes on to say that Laurie Griffith, manager of judicial process in the Office of the General Assembly affirms this as well with the article saying that “The rebuke stands, whether Redwoods Presbytery reads it publicly or not.”

Let’s drill down on this for a moment. In Book of Order section D-11.0403e about the degree of censure it ends with this line: “Following such determination and in an open meeting, the moderator of
the session or permanent judicial commission shall then pronounce the
censure.” In the decision Charlotte v. Jacobs (GAPJC decision 215-09) the Commission clarifies that “Unless there is a stay of enforcement in place, censure takes effect immediately upon the pronouncement of the decision at trial…” The Presbytery PJC decision did specify a stay in the event of appeals so with the exhaustion of the appeals the rebuke pronounced at the conclusion of trial on August 27, 2010 would go into effect with the decision by the GAPJC on February 20th, 2012.

Bottom line – they can express opposition to the rebuke, but under our polity the rebuke decided upon and initially imposed 21 months ago by the Presbytery through their own judicial commission became effective earlier this year.

What have they done? First and foremost, the Presbytery by a 74-18 vote has effectively registered a protest to the current authoritative interpretation of the PC(USA) Constitution. And, if I understand the news reports correctly (and I would welcome someone who was there to provide more accurate information in the comments) the resolution did not stop the Stated Clerk from reporting and distributing the decision, but it stopped the decision, including the rebuke from being read. Based on usual practice the rebuke has been read at lease once and probably twice before after the PPJC trial and the SPJC appeal.

I have spent a good deal of time in the last 36 hours working through GAPJC decisions and the Annotated Book of Order to see if I can find a precedent. I am not aware of one but I invite anyone to comment if they are aware of a previous similar presbytery action. From reports on-line it appears that others are not aware of a precedent either. The Louisville Courier-Journal has this in Peter Smith’s column: “Jerry Van Marter, director of Presbyterian News Service, said he knows
of no other case where a presbytery has refused to carry out a court
directive.” And in her blog Mary Holder Naegeli, an experienced watcher of these things, says “I cannot recall in almost 25 years as an ordained minister ever witnessing open defiance of a direct PJC order.”

What next? The PNS article says:

Laurie Griffith, manager of judicial process in the
Office of the General Assembly said there “are two possible options for
redress if anyone wanted to raise the issue” of the presbytery’s
refusal.

“Each presbytery submits a ‘compliance report’ to
the GAPJC, which is reported for information to each General Assembly,”
she told the Presbyterian News Service, but it’s always been just pro
forma.”

The other option, Griffith said, “could be a
remedial complaint against the presbytery, but remedial complaints are
not usually used to challenge disciplinary processes.”

My only comments on the remedial complaint is that 1) while they are not usually used to challenge disciplinary processes this resolution appears to be without precedent so “usually” is the operative word and 2) it strikes me that this is not so much an issue with the disciplinary process itself as with the Presbytery’s response to it and enforcement of it.

[Please see update at the end of this] Now, I want to mention one non-polity issue that – if correct – I do find disturbing. Reports have mentioned a significant media presence at the presbytery meeting for this item. If the media were there just expecting the reading of the decision, that is one thing. There seems to be a feeling, and I have no independent confirmation of this, that the media was made aware of the counter-motion in advance and were there for a sensational story. In itself that is still OK, we have open meetings… except note what the Stated Clerk said above – that he “only had about 30 minutes notice [of the motion] before the beginning of the meeting.” Presumably the same goes for the Presbytery Moderator who had to handle this business. (If the Moderator had notice but the Clerk did not then the Moderator and the Clerk need to talk more.) It strikes me as a break with our much-valued “mutual forbearance” and “peace, unity and purity” if the mainstream media was given notice to be there but those charged with the decently and orderly conduct of the meeting were not.
[Important update: Did get information from someone who was there and it was their impression that the media was there for the reading of the censure. In fact, they observed one reporter grumbling because they had already written the story and now had to rewrite it. I stand down from my concerns expressed above.]

I might have a lot more to say about this later, but there are more pressing events for a GA junkie upon us now and I will postpone any further thoughts on this, possibly indefinitely. If you want more coverage you can get it from all the usual suspects including…

Presbyterian coverage from the PNS and Outlook
Concurring opinions from MLP, John Shuck, Ray Bagnuolo and TAMFS
Opposing opinions from Mary Holder Naegeli, Viola Larson, The Layman and Stand Firm
Religious media coverage from The Christian Post
Mainstream media reports from several sources including the Louisville Courier-Journal and the Los Angeles Times

Enough for now — This will have reverberations for a while to come in many forms and on many levels. We will see where this leads. Stay tuned…

Threading The Needle — SPJC Approves Standards Statement

2 Replies

No sooner do I get done reflecting on the tension between a presbytery having full authority to determine if candidates hold the necessary and essential tenets of the Reformed faith and the requirement that presbyteries don’t actually try to enumerate them in advance then we have a Synod Permanent Judicial Commission (SPJC) decision that confirms that a presbytery has appropriately threaded this needle.

This case goes back to last September when the Presbytery of Los Ranchos adopted a statement on “behavioral expectations” of officers. This statement reads

Affirming that ‘The gospel leads members to extend the fellowship of Christ to all persons.’ (G-1.0302) The Presbytery of Los Ranchos, meeting on September 15, 2011, affirms that the Bible, The Book of Confessions and the Book of Order (including G-2.0104b and G- 2.0105.1 & 2) set forth the scriptural and constitutional standards for ordination and installation. Los Ranchos Presbytery believes the manner of life of ordained Ministers should be a demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and in the world, including living either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness and will so notify candidates for ordination/installation and/or membership in the presbytery. In obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture and guided by our confessions, this presbytery will prayerfully and pastorally examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office, including a commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions of ordination and installation.

A remedial complaint was filed with the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii PJC – Gerald J . Larson, Gary L. Collins, Rebecca B. Prichard , R. Winston Presnall, Margery Mcintosh, Michal Vaughn, Lucy Stafford-Lewis, July Richwine, Jerry Elliott, Sara McCurdy, Gregory Vacca, Gail Stearns, Steve Wirth, Suzanne Darweesh, Jane Parker , Darlene Elliott, Frances Bucklin, Deborah Mayhew, James McCurdy, Judith Anderson, and Susan Currie, Complainants, vs . Presbytery of Los Ranchos, Respondent (with thanks to the Layman for making the decision available on-line). The complainants had three Specifications of Error which the SPJC wrote “can be disposed of by the following specification: Whether a presbytery has the right to pass a resolution concerning the manner of life for its teaching elders as part of the proper exercise of the presbytery’s authority within the powers reserved to presbyteries . (F-3.0209)” And the decision says – “This specification is answered in the affirmative.”

In stating that the resolution is proper the key line in the decision section says

It does not restate the Constitution in that it explicitly affirms the various documents without offering an interpretation of those documents.

They go on to first note that prior GAPJC decisions are based upon a prior Book of Order, although it is worth mentioning that the Report of the Special Committee on Existing Authoritative Interpretations of the Book of Order is recommending that all the cited Interpretations be retained. The decision then discusses these standards in light of the Bush and Buescher GAPJC decisions. Relative to Bush v Pittsburgh (218-10) they note that the Los Ranchos statement is in compliance with that decision as the “Resolution does not seek to offer an interpretation, paraphrase or restatement of any constitutional provisions.” Regarding the Buescher v Olympia decision (218-09) the Los Ranchos resolution specifically says that each candidate will be individually examined and so it does not have essentials that are mandated in advance.

Then, in what strikes me as an interesting use of this section of the Book of Order, the decision cites F-3.0102 where it says “[E]very Christian church, or union or association of particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion, and the qualifications of its ministers and members…” I have usually read this in the context of affirming denominational differences not standards for individual presbyteries or particular churches so its use here struck me as out of place. Just my reading of it and I’ve grasped at thinner straws myself.

The decision section concludes with this:

The Resolution does not obstruct any on-going interpretation or implementation of the constitution. It does not alter or interpret the standards for ordination and installation. The Resolution does not seek to define any tenet as an ‘essential’ doctrine of the P.C. (U.S.A.).

But the SPJC has more to say in the order, and while lifting the Stay of Enforcement the Presbytery was also, under order, admonished for the language that they chose:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Presbytery of Los Ranchos be admonished that while this PJC considers the resolution constitutional, the use of specific language known to be divisive and inflammatory flies in the face of the responsibility to seek the peace, unity, and purity of the church.

Now, the polity wonks probably picked up two items in the decision that seem a bit of an issue, one being the use of F-3.0102 that I just mentioned. Two commissioners dissented from the decision and highlighted these two items in their opinion. Their first point is this:

1. In using the statement, “living either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or in singleness” the Presbytery is using a direct restating of the previous Book of Order requirement which was replaced by the General Assembly action and the presbyteries’ vote. Therefore, it has no constitutional standing and cannot be used to determine a candidate’s ordination eligibility. Such a policy preempts the vote of presbyters meeting in the future for the examination of candidates who have met the current constitutional requirements.

They later write:

This language is purposefully taken out of the standards for ordained service (G-2.0l04b) by the action of the General Assembly and vote of the presbyteries. This renders the statement of the Presbytery of Los Ranchos unconstitutional in form and intent.

Their second point is what they consider the misapplication of F-3.0102 by the majority. Expressing the same understanding of the section I mention above they write, in part:

In F-3.0102 the Book of Order continues to speak of the Christian church [in all its denominations] by saying, “Every Christian Church or union or association of particular churches”[referring to denominations, not presbyteries] is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion, and the qualifications of its ministers and members. [Again, referring Reformed Tradition churches, not presbyteries.]

In fact, the Presbyterian Church (USA) specifically stresses in diversity as it states in the Book of Order: (F-1.0403)

The unity of believers in Christ is reflected in the rich diversity of the Church’s membership…

Let me make two brief points in conclusion:

First, the Presbytery of Los Ranchos is trying to walk a very fine polity line here and in the opinion of the majority of the SPJC they have successfully done so. However, the decision I expected from this case was much, much closer to the dissenting opinion. I have to think that the verbatim inclusion of now-removed language from the Book of Order is a problem in light of the Bush decision. If appealed to the GAPJC I would think this decision has a high likelihood of being overturned. However…

Before the GAPJC will be able to hear this case, if appealed, the 220th General Assembly will be meeting and who knows what polity landscape will come out of that. One possibility is that an Overture from South Alabama Presbytery (Item 07-08) will be sent to the presbyteries for concurrence providing for presbytery-specific behavioral expectations to be included in the presbytery’s operational manuals. Or maybe officers-elect who are being examined will be explicitly prohibited from being asked to commit on how they would view the fitness of future officers-elect they might be examining. This request for an AI comes from similar overtures from Genesee Valley and Albany.

Finally, just a reminder and in full disclosure that I am, and have been, active in the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii and know a good number of the people on both sides of this issue. The opinions expressed here are my own and do not reflect any sort of official disagreement or agreement with the faithful members of the SPJC. These are purely personal conclusions and remarks.

So, like much in the PC(USA) at the moment the future developments in this case will be interesting to see and heavily influenced by the moving target that is PC(USA) polity at the moment. Stay tuned and we will see what happens.

PC(USA) GAPJC Decision — Parnell v. Presbytery of San Francisco

1 Reply

The Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has heard the final installment in a series of cases concerning San Francisco Presbytery’s decision to ordain Lisa Larges as a teaching elder. This has been a long journey which has finally reached its conclusion — this decision lifts the stay of enforcement and clears the way for the Presbytery’s decision to ordain Lisa to be carried out. In the larger context with the passage of Amendment 10-A we have probably seen the last of this type of cases.

I am not going to go through the full, complicated history of this case and the other remedial cases revolving around this ordination process – you can read about it in the GAPJC decision and my previous summaries. Briefly, where we stand with this case is that in the previous hearing before the GAPJC the Commission agreed with the Synod PJC that for the most part the procedure followed by the Presbytery was correct but that in their decision the Synod PJC had not properly dealt with the issue of doctrine. It was remanded back to the Synod for further consideration and now following that consideration, and an SPJC decision that there was no problem, it was appealed back to the GAPJC.

Now, in the case of Eric Parnell, Bruce McIntosh, Cordelia Shieh, Margaret Gelini, Greg Roth, Marsha Roth, Randy Young, and the Session of Walnut Creek Presbyterian Church, Appellants (Complainants), v. Presbytery of San Francisco, Appellee (Respondent): Remedial Case 220-10 the GAPJC in a unanimous decision did not sustain any of the eight specifications of error. As I indicated above every one dealt with doctrine and all begin “The SPJC committed an error of constitutional interpretation when it…” These specifications of error are:

“…when it failed to act according to its constitutional responsibility to warn and bear witness against error in doctrine within its bounds.”
“…when it presumed that it was the presbytery’s prerogative to determine the essentials of Reformed faith and polity, when they are expressed in the Constitution.”
“…when it failed to properly reconcile the Historic Principles of Church Order by giving effect only to F-3.0101 (Freedom of Conscience) at the expense of all the others.”
“…when it applied the concept of mutual forbearance (F-3.0105) to permit the candidate’s conscientious objection to a scriptural and confessional standard to infringe upon the rights and views of others (G-2.0105).”
“…when it failed to apply and enforce the interpretation of Scripture found in the Confessions (G-2.0105) with regard to sexual conduct.”
“…when it failed to discipline and rebuke the Presbytery for its failure to admonish and instruct the candidate in correct doctrine (G-3.0301c).”
“…when it permitted the Presbytery to accept a candidate for ordination who could not, by her rejection of sound doctrine, provide an affirmative answer to each of the constitutional questions for ordination (W-4.4003, 4005b, 4006b).”
“…when it permitted mere authoritative interpretations – in this case, the PUP and Knox AI – to override constitutional provisions, including those found in the Book of Confessions.”

As polity wonks know, every one of these has been an important polity question in the Presbyterian understanding of church government. In this present case some of these are rendered moot by the change in the Book of Order removing the specific restrictive language. But others are more general, such as how free a presbytery is to decide essentials of Reformed Faith and polity or the interplay of mutual forbearance, conscientious objection and confessional standards. I’ll make a couple of observations in a minute, but first some quotes from the decision itself.

In the opening paragraph of the decision section the GAPJC writes:

[The] alleged errors can be subsumed under two categories: (1) doctrinal error by errant interpretation of Scripture and Confessions, and (2) the authority of the Presbytery in the examination of the Candidate for ordination. The Commission agrees with the SPJC Decision that the Presbytery properly exercised its prerogative in determining that the Candidate did not depart from the essentials of Reformed faith and polity.

They note the “diversity of opinions” in the PC(USA) and that historically “presbyteries have had full authority to determine whether a candidate for ordination adheres to the necessary and essential tenets of the Reformed faith.” The decision section concludes by talking about the Book of Confessions:

The Book of Confessions reflects that the Church listens to a multitude of voices in shaping its beliefs. The Book of Confessions is hardly univocal, containing as it does eleven different creeds, catechisms, and confessions of faith written over millennia of Christian witness. … Therefore, the confessional tradition is, itself, an instrument of reform. The Book of Confessions, much like Scripture itself, requires discernment and interpretation when its standards are to be applied in the life and mission of the church.

The decision of the SPJC is therefore affirmed and the stay of enforcement vacated.

This decision comes with two concurring opinions from two different viewpoints. The first, signed by four commissioners, is an interesting historical commentary. It begins by noting that the original examination of the candidate involved declaring a scruple which they “believe to have then been unconstitutional.” With the change in the constitutional language this is no longer relevant.

But they go on to note, using language from the SPJC decision, the “vast diversity of interpretation of scripture and the confessions regarding human sexuality” across members of the denomination. They then write:

While we concur with this assessment of where the PC(USA) is as a denomination, we lament that it is in this place – where differences over matters of human sexuality have become so diverse and divisive, where slim majority votes create huge shifts in the communal life of the denomination, and where every decision the church makes in this area is a sweet victory for one side, and a bitter defeat for the other, ultimately causing entire congregations to determine that they can no longer remain in fellowship with the denomination. As Joe Small described in a recent article in First Things, our denomination has relied on polity instead of scriptural and theological discernment to decide particular manifestations of the dilemma in which we find ourselves.

In many respects the denomination has been transformed by a culture of sexual fixation rather than being transformative of that culture. What difference does it make to be “Christian” when it comes to our lifestyles? Have we spoken truth to power on issues such as promiscuity, premarital, extramarital and postmarital sex and the “soft” pornography that is rampant in our television shows and advertisements? Have we been willing to teach our children and each other on these matters? Or have we succumbed to the tyranny of cultural peer pressure? How can we discipline officers for sexual misconduct when we are unwilling to discipline ourselves generally? Have we been blinded by the “trees” of the homosexual issue, while overlooking the “forest” of the larger issues of sexual gluttony generally?

They continue with an interesting comparison of the situation today with the circumstances in the 1920’s that gave rise to the Swearingen Commission. They quote from the Commission’s first report that discussed the lack of interest in changing the Constitution but rather that “They are agreed that the remedies for our troubles are within the Constitution itself.” The opinion then goes on to say:

The same assessment could not be given today, and it is precisely our arguments over the constitution – including acts of outright defiance of constitutional provisions by those on both “sides” in our various debates – that we believe threaten our continued existence and future vitality as a faith tradition. There was a time when our covenantal commitment to each other was strong, and when “mutual forbearance” meant a willingness to abide by our constitution even as we worked to change it. Because of our increasing differences regarding what the constitution ought to say, those days are gone – and we are therefore in the position described by the Swearingen Commission in which our difficulties are “multiplied greatly.”

There is a second concurring opinion by two commissioners that makes an argument about the place of interpretation. They begin by noting that “the matter of interpretation is central because in large part it is inevitable within scriptural and confessional authority.” They go on to write:

The necessary act of interpretation has been at the heart of the Reformed tradition from its inception. One may, in fact, claim that the Reformation in itself was an event of radical reinterpretation, i.e., a corrected interpretation of the Bible in a recovery of the priority of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the means of grace.

They continue:

In this case, the parties agree on the necessity of continuing interpretation in understanding the meaning of Scripture and Confession through the application of modern textual analysis. The record exhibits testimony and general agreement in a number of interpretive conflicts in the church’s more recent history dealing with issues such as the role of women in the church, or in the matter of divorce and remarriage. The use of textual-critical methods, especially in the last century, has altered the range of interpretation to such an extent that scriptural and confessional texts in the arena of social and sexual relations areas have become open to alternate understandings.

Only in the matter of homosexuality do the Appellants claim an exception, i.e., pressing a univocal meaning and interpretation across vastly different historical periods and socio-cultural contexts. Although in other areas of contention there is an acceptance of the conditioning nature of radically altered historical-cultural situations, including differing social and scientific assessments, that may lead to the legitimacy of variant interpretation, in the argument of this Appeal homosexuality is an exception. It alone is held to be exempt from such interpretive analysis. The Appellants do not offer a convincing rationale in support of this exception. There is extended reference to a simple preponderance of pre-modern and early modern testimonies, but the argument remains rooted in an assumption of univocal constancy, with little reference to contemporary critical analysis or contextual differentiation. Absent such substantiation, the Appellants present no basis for rejecting the truth claim in variant interpretations.

The opinion concludes with how the Swearingen Commission described an essential tenet in their second report:

That which is “essential and necessary” is that which must be present in the doctrinal system of the church in order to uphold its central witness and maintain its distinctive character. Absent such doctrine, the system collapses. The test then becomes whether a particular doctrine or practice is necessary for the integrity of the system of doctrine as a whole.

They conclude that the doctrinal issue in this matter does not rise to the level of “essential and necessary.”

Now, while each of these is an interesting commentary and provides insights into the historical context, they are only concurring opinions and are not authoritative. In addition, they are essentially comments on the larger situation in the PC(USA) and how they see that it got into the current circumstances. It is left as an exercise for the reader as to the strengths of each of their arguments.

So, in that vain here are a couple of observations from me that I hope address the implications of this decision…

One of the things that I am on the lookout for when reading PJC or SJC decisions is to what extent they may be setting precedent. Because Amendment 10-A has gone into effect Specification of Error 8 is moot and was not individually addressed so this decision does not help enlighten us on the extent to which a General Assembly may use an Authoritative Interpretation to, shall we say, smooth constitutional language. The first concurring opinion gave us their belief on the matter. I am concerned that the 220th General Assembly could issue AI’s that will be bouncing back and forth between the GA and the GAPJC much as the PUP and Knox AI did.

One thing this opinion does reinforce is that “presbyteries have had full authority to determine whether a candidate for ordination adheres to the necessary and essential tenets of the Reformed faith.” In doing so the GAPJC again declines to give specific guidance on what those are and leaves it up to the presbyteries. Is the logical extension of this that presbyteries, in discerning the necessary and essential tenets, are empowered to formally establish what necessary and essential tenets are? (exempli gratia) We know from the 2008 Buescher v. Olympia decision:

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, and are themselves an obstruction to constitutional governance in violation of G-6.0108a.

Candidates must be evaluated individually but if the presbytery has “full authority,” to what extent can the necessary and essential tenets be determined as a matter of presbytery policy?

But while this decision speaks of the full authority of a presbytery and listening to a “multitude of voices,” the polity wonks are well aware of the tension and limits expressed in the Maxwell v. Pittsburgh decision where the GAPJC said that “presbytery’s power is not absolute. It must be exercised in conformity with the Constitution.” They went on to say

It is evident from our Church’s confessional standards that the Church believes the Spirit of God has led us into new understandings of this equality before God, Thus the Confession of 1967 proclaims, “Congregations, individuals, or groups of Christians who exclude, dominate, or patronize their fellowmen, however subtly, resist the Spirit of God and bring contempt on the faith which they profess.” (9.44.)

So a tension is present and over time the confessions may be understood to be more univocal on particular points.

And just a note about how these decisions focus on the church Constitution in general and the confessions in particular. Yes, it is the charge of the GAPJC to interpret the Constitution, but while the specifications of error made reference to scripture, only passing reference to this is made in this decision to the authority of scripture. The focus instead is on how it is filtered and viewed through the confessions. Compare this to the charges against Charles A. Briggs in 1893, admittedly a bit apples and oranges since this is remedial and that was disciplinary, which are very specific in regards to scripture references and doctrinal errors. As the Maxwell decision says, the authority of a presbytery is judged in relation to the Constitution, not in direct relation to scripture.

Another point that jumped out at me was the decision’s discussion of the nature of The Book of Confessions. I don’t think it surprised anyone who has looked at the history of American Presbyterianism to read the line in the decision that says “The Book of Confessions reflects that the Church listens to a multitude of voices in shaping its beliefs. The Book of Confessions is hardly univocal, containing as it does eleven different creeds, catechisms, and confessions of faith written over millennia of Christian witness.” Even with only the Westminster Standards American Presbyterians have had trouble agreeing on what they mean — how much more when you have eight other documents thrown in? In light of the fact that ECO has expressed their desire to be specific about necessary and essential tenets I, and I suspect a number of others, were surprised to see that they propose adopting all eleven of the documents as their subsidiary standards, at least as an opening position. Recognizing that this variety of statements is not univocal on many doctrinal issues, at the West Coast Fellowship of Presbyterians gathering in March it was interesting to hear TE Jim Singleton, in response to a question about this, commented that there will probably be doctrinal issues to be worked out “once we are all in the boat together” as the new ECO body.

OK, I have rambled on enough here so let me get to the bottom line. As I read this decision I don’t see that it breaks any new ground but is a confirmation of the current status in the PC(USA). It is significant in two respects: 1) From my tracking all pre-10-A judicial cases have now been concluded. 2) The reinforcing of the status quo comes at a pivotal time with the establishment of ECO and a number of contentious issues coming to the General Assembly in two months. Another milepost on the journey — let us see what happens next. Stay tuned…

Haven’t I Seen That Somewhere Before?

8 Replies

Last month when the Fellowship of Presbyterians was rolling out the new Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians they debuted and explained the new logo and the preferred acronym (that would be ECO not ECOPs).

At the time someone tweeted or blogged that the logo reminded him or her of X – and I have been looking back and trying to figure out who I saw say that both to give them credit as well as to be sure what X is. My failing memory tells me that they suggested the logo for Presbyterians for Earth Care shown above.

Well, after they mentioned that I started seeing similarities to other logos. I have included two examples above, one from the Friends of Calvin Crest and the other for a non-denominational church in our area.

Now to be clear, the Calvin Crest logo is not a deciduous leaf but a pine needle cluster or maybe a pine cone. But the look and feel is sure similar.

The presbygeeks out there know that this variation on a plant theme is nothing new for Presbyterians…

Yes, each of these global Presbyterian seals rocks the burning bush theme adopted by Presbyterians long ago. (Clockwise from upper left – old Church of Scotland seal, current Church of Scotland logo, Free Church of Scotland, United Free Church of Scotland, old Presbyterian Church in Ireland, current Presbyterian Church in Ireland, Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand, Malaysian Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Church in Canada, and Presbyterian Church of Taiwan)

[Note: Please see the comment by Alec below with a correction and some fascinating history of the symbols.]

So what got American Presbyterians sidetracked? There are a couple of exceptions

… and that BPC logo does have the burning bush. But for the most part American Presbyterians, and a couple more I threw in, tend to use the cross as their dominant theme.

(Tempting to leave this as an identification challenge but here are the logos: Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Presbyterian Church, old United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Presbyterian Church of Australia, and the Uniting Presbyterian Church of Southern Africa.) You can spot the burning bush or flame symbolism there in some of these, but the central motif has become the cross.

Where logo design goes from here will be interesting to see. If early American Presbyterians had a logo they did not use it much. I don’t know if it was simply because they did not feel a need to have a brand identity or maybe it was not worth the extra cost to print it on their documents, or maybe they though it came too close to violating the Second Commandment. Maybe some research on that sometime.

But these days it seems necessary to have a logo for brand identity, and if it is simple and can be reduced to a small size for your online avatar all the better. ECO clearly thought that having a unique (sort-of) logo was a worth while endeavor to put early effort into.

We will see where it takes them.

How Do You Get Your Message Out? New Development In Standing For Moderator

3 Replies

Well, as much as I have spent time discussing the Moderator election for the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, today’s brief note on new approaches brings us back to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

A couple of days ago I got an interesting Tweet from one of the candidates standing for Moderator of the General Assembly of the PC(USA). It reads:

@nealpresa: Receive alerts of mod candidacy by texting word, “PRESA” to 56512. For email alerts text “PRESA (your email)” to 56512 #fb #pcusa #ga220

So now we can get mod candidacy alerts by text message. I believe this is a first.

This is actually a very smart move if you are aiming for a particular demographic. Consider a meeting of a youth group (youth ages 14-20) that I was at last Sunday afternoon. They were discussing an upcoming activity and the youth chair needed a piece of information from the adviser. The adviser asked “Can I email you that.”

“No” replied the youth, “text it to me.”

I can’t speak for this as a national trend, although I suspect it is, but for most of the youth and young adults that I work with on various things (and this includes my own kids) by far the number one means of communicating is by text message on their phones. If you haven’t noticed, phones are not to talk on any more but devices to send and receive text messages. (And I sometimes suspect that one appeal of contacting your parents by text is that your friends don’t know its your parents you are texting to as opposed to having them overhear you on the phone.)

Email? Too complicated for the easy stuff. Twitter? Interesting, but not the way to hold a conversation. Text messaging is the simple method of communicating one-on-one for youth and young adults.

This does of course beg the question of whether there are enough commissioners who would want to get updates by text message to make this approach worth while. It will be interesting to find out. And yes, I have texted in to be added to the distribution list but no alerts yet.

So how do you go about doing this? Well, the “text to” address of 56512 belongs to a direct marketing firm called Guide by Cell that offers various audio, mobi and text packages. It must be pretty affordable because the budget for a Moderator campaign is capped at $1500.

As I said, it will be interesting to see how this new media works out for Rev. Presa. Stay tuned…

(And yes, there is other Moderator news this week, but I’m going to let that run a bit further before I do more with it.)

The GA Junkie

The Politics of Presbyterianism