The PC(USA) News Service has reprinted a press item from the Religious News Service entitled “Understanding the History of Mainline Decline” which is billed as an analysis piece by Tom Ehrich.  Rev. Ehrich is an Episcopal Priest, former Wall Street Journal reporter, and now has a subscription web site at www.onajourney.org.

On the one hand I am wondering why the News Service is releasing this.  The article strikes me as a bit “fluffy” that does not seem to make any new points.  It is just the old point that back in the 1960’s the mainline denominations lost a generation when their particular churches clung to the methods of the 1950’s.  (And I would add that the national offices became “socially conscious” and did things that the average person in the pew did not understand and agree with and the national offices did not adequately communicate to the average member.)

If I were a pessimist maybe I would think that the PC(USA) is releasing this into their system because of Rev. Ehrich’s comments on the institution: “Now [those in the present generation who are seeking] look to church for meaning and depth and
for a Christian community that can nurture faithful living. They have
zero tolerance for institutional overhead and stale arguments. We might
think we are saving society with our power struggles. In fact, we are
just driving people elsewhere.”  A conspiricy theorist might see a message from Louisville for dissenters in here.  Dissenters might see the national office holding a mirror to iteslf.

But even if we have heard it before the article does remind us, “what is our market,” “what does our customer want,” “what are we trying to ‘sell’?”  Rev. Ehrich does seem to be saying that we should not conform our message to the culture, but we should be attentive to how the culture is changing and what people are attuned to.  A couple recently visited my church based on our web site alone.  As our world changes do we continue our “proclamation of the Gospel for the salvation of human kind” in ways that reach the people who need to hear the message?

I you have read my earlier posts you know that I was a bit suprised at
how quickly churches started departing the PC(USA) following the 217th
GA just because of what the authoritative interpretation could
mean.  This has led to a situation where the major polity and
legal issue in front of the PC(USA) at this moment is the property
trust clause.

Now it appears we have the first test of the possible relaxation of
ordination standards.  This is not a real test involving a
candidate.  Rather, two clergy and two elders have requested a
called meeting of Sacramento Presbytery to act upon four resolutions
stating that their Presbytery will not relax their standards.  The
resolutions to be debated and acted upon are:

1. To promote the peace, unity, and purity of our
presbytery, we resolve that the Sacramento Presbytery holds that all
candidates for ordination, installation, and/or membership in this
Presbytery shall comply with all standards for ordination set forth in
the Constitution of the (PCUSA) (G-1.0500), or shall be ineligible for
ordination, installation, and/or membership.

2. To promote the peace, unity, and purity of our presbytery, we
resolve that the Sacramento Presbytery shall not receive into
membership, nor recognize as a member, anyone who has been ordained or
installed under a scruple (that is taking exception to any of the
ordination standards as set forth in the Constitution of the (PCUSA)
(G-1.0500)).

3. To promote the peace, unity, and purity of our presbytery, we
resolve that the Sacramento Presbytery shall honor the protest of every
congregation that chooses to exercise its right to withhold its per
capita, therefore, only designated congregational per capita funds
shall be used to fulfill presbytery per capita obligations, and
presbytery per capita assessments shall not be increased to compensate
for such protests.

4. To promote the peace, unity, and purity of our presbytery, we
resolve that the Sacramento Presbytery shall take no action to enforce
any general trust interest claimed against any property, real or
personal, held by an individual congregation within the Sacramento
Presbytery.

Like that property trust clause thrown in there at the end?

The meeting is Saturday September 9.  The full text of the call is online throught the Sacramento Presbytery web site.

Well, I updated the news of the Riverside PC of Linn Grove, Iowa,
earlier today but since then a flurry of additional items have broken,
all ultimately involving property.  I’ll give you my observations
on it at the end, but here is what has become public in the last 48 hours:

1. I have already discussed the vote at the Riverside Church and the called meeting of Prospect Hill Presbytery to address that.
2. The Layman is reporting
   possible similar action by the Windsor Presbyterian Church of Des
   Moines, Iowa.  The church has called a congregational meeting for
   this Sunday, August 13, and any action will be considered/responded to
   at the next stated meeting of the Presbytery of Des Moines on August
   19.  Interestingly, the presbytery web site currently has a broken link to their “call” (docket?) for August 19.
3. The PC(USA) Office of the General Assembly has just issued a new Advisory Opinion on “Implementing the Trust Clause for the Unity of the Church.”
4. The Layman has been supplied with two PC(USA) legal documents dealing with implementing the trust clause.  One of these (“Church
   Property Disputes: A Resource for those Representing Presbyterian
   Church (U.S.A.) Presbyteries and True Churches in the Civil Courts.”) addresses civil cases the other (“Processes
   for use by presbyteries in responding to congregations seeking to
   withdraw.”) ecclisastical law.

So, where does that leave us?

I find it interesting, this outbreak of  secession in Iowa.  What is going on in the Synod of Lakes and Prairies?
But other than the coincidence of geography and the broken link on the
Presbytery of Des Moines’ web site I am willing to let this take its
course as I wrote in my post earlier today.  I pray it will be
done decently and in order, but not legalisticly and vindictively.

The new advisory opinion I find a bit more disturbing.  Is the
timing a coincidence or was OGA holding it until a real threat
arose?  While I agree with much of it, particularly point I (I.
There is not a unilateral right of a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
congregation to depart from the denomination or its presbytery of
membership.), it seems to take a darker tone in point II (II. There are
also significant restrictions on how and under what circumstances a
presbytery may release a congregation.) and really sounds controlling
when you get to point III ( III. If a presbytery fails to carry out
these constitutional responsibilities, the synod may be required to
intervene.)

Finally, the two legal papers have some significant “strategy” points
to them that are due to what they are, legal discussions, as opposed to
sermons on grace and forgiveness.  I have only skimmed them but
hope to read them in more detail this weekend.  But sections of
them have a real “take no prisoners” tone to them.

So I ask again, where does this leave us?  I struggled with the
title I gave this post hoping that I was not over reacting.  But
reviewing the OGA material again, I am really left with the feeling
they are setting themselves up to win the individual battles of keeping
the buildings, but losing the war by having the membership leave the
denomination and in a way that does not bring glory to God and testify
to the grace and forgiveness Christians are to demonstrate to the
world.  The PC(USA) may end up with a lot of empty structures if
this is done wrong.

Will this be the dividing point in the PC(USA)?  I don’t
know.  If each of the presbyteries, synods, and the GA do it
right, we might end up with a smaller PC(USA) but our mutual
forbearance will be a witness to the world.  If we do it wrong,
it could get really ugly.

I will admit that I did not expect this to be the constitutional
crisis.  I hoped and prayed that the new authoritative
interpretation would get us through another two years without being
tested.  However, the pragmatist in me expected one of several
presbyteries to test the “local option” and I wanted it to play out in
the PC(USA) PJC system first before we got to the point of
congregations packing up and leaving the denomination. 
Unfortunately, it appears that some congregations are jumping to the
“end game” and trying exit strategies now.  May God grant us
wisdom and discernment in the days ahead and grace and forgiveness in
our dealings within the PC(USA).

In the midst of the PC(USA) GA news binge I sort of lost track of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America GA’s going on at the same time and place.  There were a couple of joint events and combined worship but I’ll focus on business from their Summary of Actions.

The 176th General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church convened June 19-23 in Brimingham, AL.  One of the interesting things about their organization is that in addition to a stated clerk they also have an engrossing clerk.  From the operations manual it appears that this individual only serves during the assembly and  the primary duty is to serve as the clerk-pro-tem in the stated clerk’s absence.  It was not clear if this was also the individual who dealt with preparing and processing “legislation” as an engrossing clerk would do in some state governments.

Much of the high profile business seemed to be related to the sale of the current headquarters and the capital campaign for the new headquarters.  You can check the status of the campaign at ilovemychurch.net.  Along with this there will be study, with a consultant, of the denominational structure.

One of the more interesting items of business is the adoption of a new logo.  At first glance I thought it was kind of mundane, but once I read the description and saw the combined elements it made sense.  I must admit however that the ordinary person, without the benefit of the description, will miss all the built-in symbolism.  Here is the information copied from their minutes:

The 132nd GA of the Presbyterian Church in Canada was held in St. Catharines June 4-9, 2006.  As noted in an earlier post one of the notable events was the naming (their term) of Wilma Welsh as moderator, the first layperson to serve in that position. 

   The next day there was a recommendation by the “Clerks of Assembly” to not allow ruling elders as interim moderators of churches.  From the GA report it seems that it was not just to moderate session, like elders serving on, or who have served on COM, can do in the PC(USA), but rather to serve in an interim pastoral capacity.  This would be equivilant to a commissioned lay pastor in the PC(USA) even possibly being authorized to administer the sacraments.

   The daily report talks about a “lengthy discussion” about providing sanctuary.  The GA adopted the following:

“Should a congregation of The Presbyterian Church in Canada, desiring in obedience to God’s word and its own conscience, may offer sanctuary to an asylum seeker whose claim for refugee status has been rejected and who faces a risk of persecution if returned to his/her country of origin, they may consider the following as appropriate steps to follow:
1. have an independent review of the evidence provided by the asylum seeker that confirms the risk
2. have exhausted all of the legal and political recourses as outlined in this statement;
3. have followed the decision making procedures of The Presbyterian Church in Canada.”

   Much of the debate seems not to be about polity issues that seem to be the focus of denominations like the PC(USA) but about church and society issues like aids and sustainable development.  In the coming year there will be a focus on global health and the concern about getting affordable medication to developing countries will be brought up with the Canadian Government and corporations.

   Short notes:  The GA was introduced to an annual theme for the church “Year of Sabbath” which will be launched church-wide in Advent.  During the Year of Sabbath each congregation will be encouraged to participate in at least one weekend long spiritual retreat.  The GA celebrated the 40th anniversary of the ordination of women to both the office of teaching elder and ruling elder.  The moderator, Wilma Welsh, ordained in 1967, was one of the first women ordained.

For more information, reports, presentations, and pictures you can go to the PCC General Assembly Page