Category Archives: commentary

The Fellowship Gathering — Through The Tweets Dimly

9 Replies

Last week was an interesting week for me, what with the Virginia earthquake on Tuesday and the two day Fellowship of Presbyterians Gathering in Minneapolis on Thursday and Friday.

I did not make it to The Gathering so I have been trying to follow it from my vantage point over here on the Left Coast. News and blog articles about the event are starting to appear, but it was fascinating to track the Twitter comments and interactions during the meeting.  However, what I found was that while the tweets were interesting and helpful they were not enough to help me connect all the dots to understand what the Fellowship is and where it is going. (Guess you had to be there… )  What follows is not so much reporting on the Gathering but sharing my impressions from and about the social media content related to it. As Scott Keeble (@skeeble99) put it:

Gotta love overreactions to 140 char. summaries of a conference you aren’t at.

If you want to play along at home you need to check out the tweets with the hashtag #mn2011.  As the meeting was getting underway I did comment that I did not see a lot of use of the #pcusa hashtag and by implication there was a distancing from the institution. Several friends of different theological stripes informed me that it is indeed common practice to only use the conference hashtag and that nothing sinister should be seen in the use of hashtags.  I stand corrected and apologize for casting aspersions where nothing should have been read into it.

Now, if you want a good look at the best play-by-play of the event you need to check out the constant stream of tweets from Carolyn Poteet (@cvpotweet) who was the unofficial live-tweeter. Her stats say she is only at 1034 tweets ever — I would have sworn that she had 10,000 in one day last week! Of course, she hit her rate limit a couple of times and to get the complete picture you need to also check the tweets from @TomJHouston which she co-opted to keep the info coming while her account was in time-out.  Carolyn, thanks for all your efforts! Your tweets helped tremendously to follow along. (Generally tweets I quote but are not identified as from another source came from Carolyn and I trust that my quoting her in what follows does not stray from Fair Use.)

Also be aware that there were times when the participants split up into breakout sessions so if you see tweets sent at about the same time but on very different topics that is probably what is happening.

Moving on from the reporting to the “conversation” the first thing that impressed me was the theological breadth represented by those tweeting from The Gathering. In particular there are several people I know that I don’t think were at the meeting to sign up for the New Reformed Body but were checking out the Gathering for other reasons. I trust that they will provide their thought in the blogosphere in the near future. Based on the Twitter activity I make a back-of-the-envelope calculation that about 5-10% (100-200 people) of those present probably held viewpoints contrary to the view of orthodoxy the Fellowship seems to be promoting.

In addition, I was pleased to see at least three of the “big four” from the General Assembly at the meeting.  The GA Moderator and Vice-Moderator were there — Moderator Cynthia Bolbach made some well-received comments towards the end of the meeting, judging by the tweets, and Vice-Moderator Landon Whitsitt was his usual self providing a nice stream of insightful comments throughout the meeting. (More on this later) If I understood the tweets correctly, GA Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons was also in attendance and spoke briefly — as Seth Normington (@revnormsy) put it “Brief, rather opaque comments from ga stated clerk, gradye parsons. Nice of him to attend. Blessings, good sir.” There was no mention of GAMC Executive Director Linda Valentine being present and likewise but I saw no identification that anyone else from the GAMC was in attendance. [Update: Thanks to Jody Harrington’s comment below where she commented that Linda Valentine was at the conference. The text above has been adjusted appropriately.]

That leads me into a few observations about the meeting gleaned pretty much exclusively from the tweets:

  • Besides the breakout sessions there were also discussion groups. It looks like the higher governing body professionals and officers were grouped together in their own groups. I did not see an explanation of this and am curious why.
  • Carmen Fowler LaBerge (@csfowler2003) informs us “#mn2011 registration info: 950 clergy; 575 elders; 53 church administrators; 20 PCUSA staff; 68 presbytery execs. 300 didn’t indicate.” (That would be 1966 total)
  • Carolyn also tweeted the answer to one of the nagging questions I had: “Primary diff from New Wineskins – tone.” Another time a speaker is quoted as saying “I felt like New Wineskins got hijacked by angry people.”
  • Leslie Scanlon (@lscanlon) of the Outlook provides us with some of the descriptions of where the conservatives feel they or the denomination is – “Some metaphors used at #MN2011. Deathly ill. Stuck in a box canyon. Car sunk in swimming pool. #pcusa”
  • Because it is Twitter with a 140 character limit the acronyms were flying. Two that I had to recalibrate my brain for were NRB – which to this group means New Reformed Body but I normally think of as National Religious Broadcasters – and the FOP (or FoP) – which of course here means Fellowship of Presbyterians but in my day job is a professional organization.
  • There were questions from afar about the diversity in the Gathering but I did not see the questions answered.  However, at one point Carolyn tweets this telling comment “Potty parity at #mn2011! First time in my life I’ve ever seen a line at the men’s room but sailed through the ladies’!”

Going back to that bullet point about the tone of this group, I was struck by how positive the official portion of the meeting was.  That did not completely extend to the Twitterverse, but I’ll talk about that below. Based on the 140 character reports the leadership of the FOP is in communication with, and maybe even working with, the OGA leadership.  It was also made clear that  “we are not calling anybody apostate,” and “will not seek to demonize the #PCUSA in any manner.” And one final quote on this – “One of the ways this won’t be a spin off to a new denom (quickly), is b/c we don’t want to lose relationships w/people we love.”

Two big topics at this meeting that are inexorably linked are the New Reformed Body and theological beliefs, usually referred to as the Essential Tenets of the Reformed Faith.

Coming into the meeting the FOP had made it clear that the NRB (yes, I can throw acronyms around too ) was going to happen but that there were a lot of details to be worked out.  The impression I got from the Twitter reporting and discussion is that enough details have to be worked out and now this is a train that has left the station and is headed for the announced constitutional convention January 12-14, 2012, in Orlando. But the FOP clearly hopes for the NRB to continue in some form of partnership with the PC(USA).  One comment was “the degree to which the NRB can relate back to the PCUSA, and we hope it can, baptisms, ordinations, permeable boundary.” Another said “hopefully we can share some HQ functions – missions, theology and worship…” One of the themes I found most helpful was the description of what they are about in this sequence of tweets from Carolyn: “like-minded church to unite around a common purpose. from Phil 2:1-2,” “we’ve created such a broad tent that there’s no center pole. we need to establish essentials again,” and “need to make clear abt what’s at the center rather than police the
boundaries, so people can determine if it’s a good fit for them.”

Related to this is the question of standards.  At the Gathering the NRB was described as an “empty warehouse” waiting to be filled.  That is to be done this Fall when draft documents are posted on the web site, regional gatherings are held, and they are finalized at the constitutional convention in January.  There is a clear intent to define or state the Essential Tenets of the Reformed Faith. But this led to a lot of Twitter conversation about the standards.  There were comments about the return of subscription. While not necessarily advocating subscription, @BenjaminPGlaser, who was at the meeting, asked in a tweet “I wonder how many of the ministers/ruling elders at #mn2011 could affirm the WCF w/out major qualification…” (WCF is of course the Westminster Confession of Faith, a document that Presbyterians historically have included in the standards that needed to be subscribed to.) There were also references to Machen, particularly his final sermon recently republished in Theology Matters. To that TwoFriars commented “Machen’s fundamentals are NOT Reformed essentials, FYI.” Along a similar line Landon Whitsitt (@landonw) commented “I’m struggling to reconcile the fact that the “essentials of faith” being thrown out at #mn2011 are classicly Evangelical, not Reformed.” Craig Goodwin (@craiggoodwin) had a number of thoughtful comments about standards and in response to Landon asked ” …are Evangelical, not Reformed. Can’t be both?” It will be interesting to see what this discussion produces throughout the Fall leading up to the January meeting.

Going forward I suspect the real hard questions will not revolve around the theology, although they probably should, but around the “Three P’s”, yes pensions, property and power.  To put it bluntly – can you take it with you when you leave?  From the Q&A portion of a presentation on the NRB Carolyn tweeted “lots of Qs about per capita, pensions, etc. A – we’re not giving answers
at this point, don’t want to get tangled in the details.”  This turned out to be a bit deeper than it seems — they put off some of the discussion of details to a breakout on Friday but they are also putting off details until the relationship of the NRB with the PC(USA) is more clearly defined.

I want to look at this topic of the relationship between the NRB and the PC(USA) in more detail another time after the presentation videos are posted and I have had a chance to digest them.  Let me just say here that three possible models were proposed: 1) This might be accomplished with union presbyteries – a polity solution that already exists. [ed. note – I should have seen that before now!] 2) Create the category of affiliate churches or affiliate presbyteries like the current affiliate members. Requires new polity language. 3) Leave completely.  Regarding this, Carolyn quotes Jim Singleton: “Singleton – yes, this is gonna be messy!!”

Now, a couple of weeks ago in my pre-Gathering piece I suggested that this event was a Rorschach Test for those who had issues with the PC(USA).  Well, I see now that I was right in concept but wrong in scope.  This event was a Rorschach Test for the whole PC(USA) and maybe even for American Presbyterianism more broadly. But after the broad reaction that the very first Fellowship letter last February engendered I should have expected that.

Departing from Twitter for a moment it is important to note that groups with opposite views have posted very specific pieces on their web sites interpreting or making suggestions related to the Gathering.  More Light Presbyterians issued a call to prayer for the meeting and a related article.  Individually, Janet Edwards offered a suggestion to the FOP ahead of the Gathering, as did Shawn Coons, and Adam Walker Cleaveland wanted to make sure the elephant in the room got named. Clearly this meeting had a lot of people’s attention across the denomination.

So back to Twitter and the meeting…

First, in the interest of full disclosure I would comment that I (@ga_junkie) did not tweet much but did make the one comment I discussed above that could have been considered snarky, and also a second that could be taken that way as well.  Early on Andrew Johnson (@AndrewJohnsonYM) tweeted “New reformed body… no brand but Christ” which I retweeted adding “Starting to sound like the Springfield Presbytery”. (If you need the reference, Springfield Presbytery was part of the Stone-Campbell Movement that left the Presbyterians two centuries ago proclaiming “No creed but Christ” and led to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). )

The vast majority of Twitter comments I saw were constructive and contributed to the social media discussion.  Yes, a lot may have had a snarky edge to them, but I found few offensive and there was a general improvement in tone when the organizers made it clear that this new group was not about demonizing the PC(USA).

Yet most of the comments, my own included, seemed to clearly reflect the lens through which the writer was viewing the Gathering.  Exempli gratia:

DavidIvie1 David Ivie
#mn2011 why would a group convene to protest gay ordination and then on day one celebrate women’s ordination? no sense of irony?

David_Berge
David Berge
#mn2011 lots of people talk about “post-denominationalism” 4 better or worse #fellowshippres is actually doing something about it

rwilliamsonjr Robert Williamson Jr
If you want to leave, I will
bid you peace. If you want to stay, I will embrace you. But I can’t
relate to the leave-but-stay option

Stushie57
John Stuart
The future of the Church is in Christ’s good hands, not conferees nor ordinands.

joyousjava Lara B Pickrel
Sometimes our churches’ panicky attempts to keep people from leaving (for the sake of numbers) feels like idolatry.

craiggoodwin
Craig Goodwin
Pleasantly surprised by tone and focus of #mn2011. Did it take finally losing the vote for Presby evangelicals to get focused on mission?

Reading the events through our own lens or filter is not inherently an issue.  It is what shapes our diversity and understanding of the world and the conversation and listening process for others helps us to not only see alternatives but can help us refine, sharpen or adapt our own perspective.  Along those lines I have to point out and say how much I appreciated the tweets from Landon Whitsitt (@landonw) who was multi-tasking and reporting on the proceedings through both his open source lens as well as his progressive lens. This tweet captures his dual perspective:

Okay…I’m putting my cards on the table. Except for including GLBT
persons, I want a church that looks like what I’m hearing at #mn2011

Let me conclude by saying that in spite of some sharp comments in the Twitterverse I was generally very impressed by the depth, breadth, level, volume, tone, thoughtfulness and civility of the Twitter conversation around this event.  But the operative word here is “around.” While the live tweeting helped me know what was going on I still feel that I am looking through a glass dimly related to where this is going. The quotes that were passed on and the sessions reported on still seemed to reflect the influence of the core group of tall-steeple pastors. There seemed to be lots and lots of discussion of a New Reformed Body but I did not sense how that might have been informed or moderated by Dr. Mouw’s comments regarding why we need each other. And I am still left with the impression that tail number four may be wagging this dog. But this is only what I see from my remote vantage point via the Twitterverse.

So, as this moves on I am looking forward to several things. First, I want to see the videos when they get posted on the Fellowship site so I have the primary sources for much of this information and I can judge for myself. Second, I await written accounts from those who were there – something longer than 140 characters. (The Presbyterian Outlook has already posted several articles by Leslie Scanlon including ones on the lead off presentations, Richard Mouw’s message, the talk by Ken Bailey, and an initial summary. There are similarly one, two, three and four articles from the Presbyterian News Service.  In addition, it looks like Two Friars and a Fool are aggregating blog posts on the Gathering but I would single out Jim Miller’s which is getting a lot of Twitter recommendations.) Once I have a chance to view, read, think and digest I anticipate being ready to make some more comments about the content of the meeting.

Looking out a bit further the real test of this model as the open source community that Landon is looking at will be in the process for posting, consulting, editing and approving the new documents for the New Reformed Body.  At this point I am pretty much trusting Landon’s impression of the proceedings so far in its promise for development of a Covenant Community in a participatory environment.

Looking even further ahead, there is a good possibility that both the New Reformed Body’s partnership with the PC(USA) as well as developments in the other FOP streams will require actions by the 220th General Assembly and changes to the Book of Order. Leslie Scanlon captured this quote from Mark Brewer:

“This next General Assembly is going to be wild.”

I look forward to seeing how the development process works and what product it results in.  I also look forward to seeing how the broader church reacts as this progresses.  This has the promise of being new territory — I like an experiment and I hope you do too.  Stay tuned…

Between A Rock And A Hard Place

Leave a reply

Well, it is not exactly Scylla and Charybdis, but the Mid-Atlantic states of the U.S. found themselves in the shaking of a moderate earthquake Tuesday while keeping a watchful eye on Hurricane Irene.

I want to talk about the relative risks later in this post, but first a little bit on the earthquake itself.

As you can probably imagine Tuesday was an interesting day at work for me.  The day began with hearing about the other significant earthquake in Colorado. When I heard about it on the radio I was expecting it to be a bit further west in the more active seismic belt where I have worked (fifth from top and third from bottom if you really care).  But I found it was to the east along the front of the Rocky Mountains.  An interesting location but not completely unexpected.

Then about 11 AM PDT my computer ground to a halt.  Checking around I found that my Twitter feed for earthquakes had gone crazy and that a 5.8 had occurred back on the east coast.  At about the same time my email sprung alive with notes from college friends with questions or comments.  Now here was an interesting event. And it was the largest earthquake globally on Tuesday.

For a comparison of this earthquake to previous eastern US events you can have a look at the USGS Historic Earthquake list.  The largest east coast earthquake is the 1886 Charleston, SC, earthquake at 7.3 and there are no other east coast earthquakes over 7 on the list. There are no earthquakes on the list in the magnitude 6 range. The next earthquake is an 1897 event in western Virginia which appears to still hold the record as the largest earthquake in the state. In total there are thirteen earthquakes in the magnitude 5 range in the coastal states.  Then there are seven more earthquakes for which there is not complete enough information to accurately estimate a magnitude, but we know that the intensity of shaking was strong enough that we can safely consider them to also be in the magnitude 5 or larger range.

So, for the eastern seaboard that are 21 earthquakes in about 300 years or an average of one earthquake about every 14 years. The previous one? Nine years ago in northern New York.

It is interesting to look at the seismic hazard map for the contiguous United States.  An experienced Presbyterian will appreciate the seismic hazard zones for the central and eastern US.  With only a few exceptions we don’t know where major deep faults are and which of the myriad of faults are inactive and which might be reactivated. Therefore, where there is higher seismic hazard is where something has happened in the past, just like some sections of the Book of [Church] Order are there because something happened. In that part of the world seismic hazard analysis is reactive.

The western US is a different story.  We think we know where active faults are, can measure their activity and put hazard estimates on specific geologic features and not just broad areas. Hazard zones are more narrowly defined and we believe have better known values.

So with that quick intro to seismic hazard estimation, lets consider how it compares to other natural hazards.  The bottom line for much of the country is that earthquakes are the least of your worries.

A good comparison comes from an analysis by Barton and Nishenko for the USGS. They find that for the United States the probability of having 10 fatalities for an event in a given year is 11% for an earthquake, 39% for a hurricane, 86% for floods, and 96% for tornadoes. For a graphical representation of where you would expect these consider this map from Insurance Center Associates. There is a similar one from the New York Times. (And it is worth pointing you to Robert Simmon’s critique of how this map represents the data.)

Now, let me make what will seem at first to be a quantum leap…

One of the thing’s I appreciate about our Reformed heritage is the concept of Vocation. What this means in my field is that when I talk to people about earthquakes I recognize that there are usually emotional issues underlying many of the questions they ask me.  In a sense, I am not just an earthquake geologist but I become a counselor or therapist as well.  In other words, I am doing ministry in a particular and unique way.

What I have found in doing this is that to a given individual the type of natural disaster is just as important as the risk of a disaster itself.  It is clear to me from talking with dozens of people that the different numbers only matter to a point and that people have different personal comfort levels with different types of risks. This is brought home nicely in a split-panel cartoon that ran right after the Northridge Earthquake — in one panel a guy is up to his eye balls in snow reading a newspaper headline saying “Earthquake hits California” and in the other panel a Californian, with debris behind him, is reading the headline “Record Cold Grips Northeast.” And each of them is thinking “Why would anyone live there?”

Why would anyone live in earthquake country? Because they don’t like tornadoes, hurricanes or blizzards.  Likewise, I know people who have left California for the Midwest because they are more comfortable with tornadoes than earthquakes.  Some people like predictability. Some hate waiting for the unknown in a tornado warning and would rather not have the suspense and have an earthquake hit out of the blue.  Some have a sense of security knowing that hurricanes have a season when they hit and you get two days notice.  Some would rather have an earthquake and get it over with.  I think that I have heard it all.

Likewise I sometimes wonder if different Presbyterians have preferences for different risks in the church. I will leave the development of that idea as an exercise for the reader.

So to those between the rocking of the earthquake and the hard place of the hurricane, may you know God’s solid presence in the midst of earth’s uncertainty. To all of those who are in the path of Irene, whether it has already gone through you or is still headed your way, we lift our prayers.  To those in the epicentral region of the earthquake we pray that your damage is not substantial and is easily repaired and give thanks that there was no loss of life and no serious injuries. To those currently meeting in Minneapolis we pray that no tornadoes will go through town. And to all affected by the many different types of natural disasters we pray for God’s comfort and peace for you in the midst of it.

Fellowship PC(USA) Gathering — Some Things To Pay Attention To

8 Replies

I have to admit that for the purposes of blogging I was not really tracking the Fellowship PC(USA) Gathering too closely.  Yes, I knew it was coming up but I did not have it ranked too high on the news scale of the stories I was tracking. It struck me as a bit of a New Wineskins redo and instead I have been struggling to stay on top of other news items, especially in the midst of General Assembly Season.

Now, this may seem contradictory, but in the interest of full disclosure let me also say that personally I have been very curious about the Fellowship gathering and how it fits into the PC(USA) big picture at the present time.  In fact I was interested enough, and the questions in my own congregation were numerous enough, that I very seriously considered attending. However, family commitments are keeping me home that weekend and it seemed a long way to go for a two day meeting.

Having now put my cards on the table, I will continue by saying that I have changed my mind and now consider this something that all of us in the PC(USA) need to be watching.

What changed my mind? First, the size.

At the present time the Fellowship PC(USA) is saying that they have pre-registered an overflow crowd of 1900 attendees.  Checking some numbers, it seems that this will be the largest gathering in the PC(USA) this year, and I think it will make it one of the largest gatherings of Presbyterians in the world this year.

How big? Not as big as a PC(USA) General Assembly, but the PC(USA) Big Tent gathering had an announced attendance of around 1700.  The NEXT Church event was 350.  The PCA General Assembly had 1,183 commissioners and the Church of Scotland GA had around 800 commissioners.  For the GA’s, if we make a rough estimate that observers are about the same number as commissioners that puts their total attendance in the same ball park as the Fellowship PC(USA) is expecting. In the PC(USA), 1,900 members would represent almost one in every thousand of the total membership. If you want to consider congregations, the 830 congregations expected to have representatives make up about 8% of the PC(USA) churches.

Is it a minority? Yes. Is it significant? In light of the size of other gatherings I think it is.  The material from the Fellowship says “The initial planners thought there might be a few hundred people interested in new ways of ‘being church’…” This event has evolved into something bigger.

So lets be honest – to bring together the largest gathering of Presbyterians this year with a six-month lead time says something about the state of the PC(USA). However, I think it says more about the uncertainty some members of the PC(USA) feel than it necessarily says about the new organization itself.

Why do I say this?  Consider the developments in that time.  The Fellowship PC(USA) launched with a letter and a white paper which quickly needed some clarifications added to it. Early on there was a video by the Rev. Jim Singleton talking about a “new kind of fellowship” as a group mostly within the PC(USA), but maybe some outside it, and advertises it as an idea to be presented to the Fellowship gathering.  There is also an interesting video by Rev. Singleton where he takes credit for the “deathly ill” phrase and gives the explanation behind it.  Then in May, with the impending passage of Amendment 10-A, the Fellowship issued another letter that said “we are committed to starting a new Reformed Body without leaving the PC(USA).”  So having a portion of the Fellowship outside but in correspondence with the PC(USA) had been de-emphasized.  (Although it should be noted that one of the signatories to that letter is Head of Staff at a church that is now exploring dismissal, but keep reading because this letter has been superseded.)  The Fellowship also announced the hiring of the Rev. Dr. Paul Detterman as Administrative Consultant for the Fellowship.  On June 24 they announced that the main room had reached capacity and that registrations were going to be taken for an overflow room bringing the total possible registration to 1,450.

At about that time another letter was posted with new goals for the Fellowship.  They say:

The goal of the Fellowship is to form a new way for Presbyterian
congregations to relate, recapturing more of what it means to be the
body of Christ.  The mission of the Fellowship is to create an
environment in which these congregations can grow and thrive as
communities in covenant.

And they acknowledge that the landscape has changed:

While the original motivation for the Fellowship was a desire to
positively impact the decline and increasing dysfunction of the PC(USA),
the passage of Amendment 10-A has brought an enormous challenge into
the discussion.  Suddenly, a new reality has emerged in our
denomination, creating a crisis of integrity for Presbyterians who
remain committed to theological orthodoxy.

And the new Reformed Body outside the PC(USA) was back on the table:

One option under the Fellowship umbrella will be a new Reformed body
that, while desiring to maintain mutually helpful association with the
PC(USA) and its related institutions, will nonetheless provide a clear
and distinct identity beyond the PC(USA).  Documents required for the
creation of this new Reformed body are in process.

And in an interesting admission they say “We believe the new Form of Government (nFoG) provides specific options previously unavailable to us, and we are exploring these.” And somewhere about this time the name changed from the Fellowship PC(USA) to Fellowship of Presbyterians. (For reference, the new domain name fellowship-pres.org was acquired on August 11) [Update: The Fellowship discussed their new name and logo on August 16.]

The final step in this prologue to the meeting was a letter from the Administrative Consultant titled “What to expect in Minneapolis…”  I will return to this in just a moment.

It is important to also recognize that while this may be the most high-profile effort under way there are numerous other initiatives floating around.  One of these is the creation of Presbytery Committees of Correspondence. (News coverage by the Presbyterian Outlook, The Layman) (And for those not familiar with the term, “Committees of Correspondence” is a loaded term going back to the American Revolution)  In another development the Presbytery of San Diego has created an Administrative Commission to work with churches interested in moving their membership to them as a like-minded presbytery, “if the way be clear,” effectively forming a flexible, semi-geographic, or “fuzzy-boundary” (as I like to call it) presbytery.

So, in this present landscape what should we be watching for at the Fellowship Gathering? In looking this over I see a Rorschach Test in all of this – if there are 2000 people there will there be 2000 different opinions and expectations?  Has the Gathering come to represent a visible way of expressing protest or uncertainty about the PC(USA) without enough common vision?  In his recent letter Mr. Detterman admits as much:

As the spring progressed, however, and it became clear that ordination
standards and a significant portion of the Book of Order would be
changed, the August Gathering became the go-to place for many more
people with a wide range of different needs and concerns.  As the number
of registrations grew, so did people’s expectations.  Now with well
over 1,900 people attending, the “gathering” appears to have morphed
into a “happening.”

and

The 830+ congregations sending representatives have many different
needs.  Some are looking for a “safe” place in the wake of changed
ordination standards.  Others are looking for innovation and
opportunities for missional engagement.  Some are committed to
continuing long-term relationships with the PC(USA) while others will be
seeking assistance toward an expedient departure.  People who are
coming to Minneapolis looking for an ecclesiastical “silver bullet,” an
instant solution that calms the waters of their ministry will be
disappointed.

With that introduction the letter gives four things, or “tiers,” to expect:

First, for those happy, content, or accepting of where they are the gathering will be offering “ideas and options for nurturing Christ-honoring ministry in place.”

Second, some attendees will be interested in innovative and creative changes in presbytery structure. “A few of these models will be explained and explored.”

Third, for congregations not in a comfortable place in their presbytery “new possibilities for “affiliate” congregations will be introduced.” This will also include discussion of possible changes to be sent to the 220th General Assembly.

Finally, there is the option of a “new Reformed Body,” now explicitly distinct from the PC(USA). This goes on to say:

The idea is to recapture our core identity, believing that Reformed
theology has much to say to our contemporary culture, and that Calvin’s
original vision for the nature and role of presbyteries offers a better
way of relating to one another than most of us are experiencing now.  In
forming this new Reformed “body,” there is also the opportunity to move
with imagination and energy into the reality of a post-denominational
world.

The letter is clear that no votes will be taken at this meeting.  The letter says “We will be presenting a carefully-designed range of options, all covered
by a large “umbrella” of shared commitment to Jesus Christ, to God’s
mission in the world, and to each other.  Discernment and intelligent,
Christ-honoring discussion will be the heart and soul of our time
together.”

I have to think that there are a few more possibilities out there as well so it will be interesting what comes to the surface and what ideas and reports come out of the Gathering.

It will also be interesting to see what reaction there is from outside the Gathering.  There has been a bit so far from beyond the Fellowship’s sphere of influence.  Shawn Coons has written encouraging them to honor the statement on the web site that their actions be “mutually helpful association with the PC(USA) and its related institutions.”  An article from The Christian Century anticipates a strong preference for the fourth option above in a piece titled “Lull before another Presbyterian storm?“

I do want to point you to one more video before I go.  One of the keynote speakers at the Gathering is Dr. Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary.  He was gracious enough to take the time and speak with my presbytery and I understand that he has been speaking to others as well.  Los Ranchos Presbytery heard him and posted the video of his hour-long talk.  It is not exactly the same as what he discussed with us, but his perspective and passionate argument for staying together as a denomination make the video well worth watching.  (At our presbytery meeting he spoke more about practical ways that we could work out to stay together.)

So, I look forward to hearing about this gathering from a distance.  The official Twitter account for the Fellowship is @fellowshippcusa [Update: changed to @fellowshippres] and the announced hashtag is #MN2011. We will see who else is tweeting and blogging from the event. And as it goes, maybe we will have enough pieces of a large jigsaw puzzle to start finding a picture emerging.

[As a postscript let me point out that the Presbyterian Outlook was working on this event in very similar directions as I was and got their stuff posted over the weekend.  They have (at least) one article about the Gathering, another on the mixed signals, and an editorial.]

Two PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions On Ordination Standards — A Plate Of Polity, Doctrine On The Side…

4 Replies

Today the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) released their decisions in two closely watched remedial cases.  One reason for the high-profile nature of the cases is the fact that they began their lives with G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” language, in the Book of Order, but as of last month that language has been removed and modified in the new G-2.0104b. Does the change in language make the cases moot?  The GAPJC said yes… and no.

If you want the summary and outcomes, here you go:

The case of Session of Caledonia Presbyterian Church and others v. Presbytery of John Knox deals with the examination for ordination of Mr. Scott Anderson.  The key quote in this decision is:

The Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Moot is granted, and the Stay of Enforcement is lifted. The only alleged irregularities set out in Appellants’ Notice of Appeal cite G-6.0106b and Authoritative Interpretations of that section as the basis of their Appeal. The language of that section was removed from the Book of Order prior to the GAPJC hearing of the Appeal. In granting this motion, this Commission declines to rule upon the application of a provision of the Book of Order that no longer exists. Nothing in this Decision should be construed to interpret the ordination standards under the new Form of Government, as that issue is not before the Commission.

The second case is that of Parnell and others v. Presbytery of San Francisco and results from the examination to ordain Ms. Lisa Larges.  This case was not dismissed but eight of the specifications of error were not sustained for the same reason the Anderson case was dismissed. Where this was different is that doctrine was cited as an irregularity.  The decision says:

The record does not reflect that the SPJC ruled on the Appellants’ contention that Scripture and the Confessions prohibit certain sexual behavior. While the Appellants’ complaint was based primarily on G-6.0106b, the Appellants clearly and consistently presented arguments at trial on the basis of scriptural and confessional standards without objection by the Presbytery. Since the doctrinal issue is central to the Appellants’ case, it was error for the SPJC not to expressly rule upon the issue.

The case is remanded back to the Synod of the Pacific PJC and the SPJC is “encouraged to direct the Presbytery to reexamine the candidate under G-2.0104b.”

OK, that’s the bottom line.  Now polity wonks, lets do some more reading.

Regarding the Caledonia v. John Knox decision what is striking to me is that while the decision itself is just the dismissal and relatively straight-forward, I did after all give you the complete Decision in the quote above, this is a longer decision.  Of the 15 commissioners on the GAPJC (there is one vacant position) eight signed on to one of the three concurring comments and five signed at least one of the dissenting comments. (One commissioner signed both dissenting comments.) So a lot of the commissioners wanted to say something and these additional comments essentially triple the length of the decision.

The concurring comments included commentary on how the General Assembly had issued a flawed Authoritative Interpretation, how the Commission could not consider broader issues than G-6.0106b because they were not raised in the appeal, how the Presbytery should have started over with Anderson under the new Book of Order language as suggested, and how some commissioners would have preferred to have affirmed the SPJC decision rather than dismiss the case.

The dissenting comments focus on how the SPJC decision is flawed because it did not address the doctrinal arguments (like the SPJC decision in the Larges case) and the flawed nature of the GA AI.

The catch of course is that while these statements were made in the decision, since the case was dismissed they do not raise to the standard of Interpretation.  However, the tension over the AI from the General Assembly that allowed scrupling of practice as well as belief has been substantial and that issue is reflected in the concurrence by Copeland, Kim, Cramer and Cornman says:

While we find the “Knox AI” to be flawed, we believe that the Presbytery acted in good faith when it based its decisions on its interpretation of that Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108 adopted by the 218th General Assembly (2008). G-13.0103r of the Form of Government in force at the time of the contested ordination examination states, “The most recent interpretation of a provision of the Book of Order shall be binding.” In this case this would be the Knox AI. The flaw of the Knox AI, however, is that it fails to recognize that any AI, regardless of who issues it, cannot modify a specific requirement of the Book of Order. An AI can interpret the Constitution but the only way to modify such an explicit requirement (G-6.0106b) is through the amendment process.

The decision in Parnell v. John Knox is more extensive, but eight of the eleven specifications of error are dismissed because “the constitutional provisions under which the Candidate was examined are no longer part of the Constitution.”  A ninth was dismissed because they found that the record did not sustain the claim that the presbytery itself departed from the Essential Tenants of the Reformed Faith by approving the candidate. There were two specifications of error regarding the SPJC not dealing with the doctrinal issues raised and only dealing with process. These are the errors that were sustained.  I have quoted the relevant portion of the decision above where the GAPJC points out that “the Appellants clearly and consistently presented arguments at trial on the basis of scriptural and confessional standards without objection by the Presbytery.”  The GAPJC decision is careful to also note that “In sustaining this specification of error, this Commission is not ruling on whether doctrinal error or abuse of discretion occurred, but only that it is not evident from the language of the decision whether or not the SPJC ruled upon this matter.”

There is a concurring opinion by one commissioner who expresses caution that review of ordaining bodies decisions should be done carefully:

The protocol for review by an appellate body needs, therefore, to be very prudently limited to those cases in which either an ordaining body or a Permanent Judicial Commission has very clearly erred or the process is so defective as to have deprived one of the parties of due process, such that there are extraordinary reasons for reversal. The duty of a reviewing body is to be discharged with caution and great deference.

He says that the only reason he can concur is because the recommendation is to have the presbytery do the examination again under the new standard.

There is also a dissent by three commissioners who feel there are no grounds to have the doctrine arguments reviewed by the SPJC: “For an appellate body to be empowered to micromanage the ordination process without there being extraordinary reasons would be ill-advised.”  They conclude their comments with the economic argument:

Both parties urged this Commission not to remand this case for further hearings as they recognized that to do so would not only cause significant and unnecessary expense to the church, but would also result in no difference in outcome. This Commission is charged with securing th
e “economical determination of proceedings.” We believe that sending the case back to the SPJC does not accomplish that charge.

A couple of things jump out to me in these decisions:

1) Previous GAPJC decisions regarding ordination standards seem to have been crafted so that members of the GAPJC were unanimous, or nearly so, in the decision. The decisions give the appearance that this was done by focusing on the process.  The variety of voices heard in these decisions, particularly the Caledonia v. John Knox, strikes me as a shift in tone and there is no longer an emphasis on high-consensus decisions.  It may be the change in circumstances with the passage of 10-A.  It might have to do with the fact that these cases have reached a level of maturity that all the procedural issues have been beaten out of them and they are now down to the core doctrinal issues.  Or it may be that the church as a whole has reached a point where we need to start taking these issues seriously.  I don’t know if others agree but looking over these decisions I sense a change in tone from previous ones.

2) Related to that, these decisions appear to me to be sending a message that the GAPJC  is ready to start dealing with those issues, maybe even wanting to based on some of the writing.  The feeling is not unanimous, as a couple of the minority comments argue for leaving those issues to the presbyteries.  But one concurring decision in the Caledonia v. John Knox case says:

Additionally, the Appellants, while arguing on appeal a scriptural basis for overturning the Presbytery’s action, failed to include such arguments in either their original complaint or the specification of errors. These omissions meant that this Commission was unable to address issues broader than the application of G-6.0106b in its Decision.

They almost seem to be lamenting the fact that they wanted to deal with this but could not work on that problem because of the structure of the appeal.

Now, there is an opinion that differs from mine regarding this, but as I read these decisions it seems to me that the GAPJC is saying it might be time to examine the doctrine at the highest level.  The caveat they place is that it needs to be done decently and in order by properly arguing it at the court of first impressions and by properly appealing it in the brief.

So the bottom line – In Mr. Anderson’s case the process has concluded.  The stay of enforcement is lifted and he is cleared to be ordained.  As for Ms. Larges, the process continues.  There will be another trial before the SPJC on the doctrinal issues, there will probably be another examination for ordination before the presbytery based on the new Book of Order language, and I would suspect another appeal to the GAPJC following the new SPJC hearing.  While this extends a very long journey even further, the apparent benefit to many of us in this upcoming cycle will the the opportunity to actually have the GAPJC rule on the doctrine and not just the process.  Stay tuned…

[Update: Note the comment below by the Rev Mary Holder Naegeli who was in the midst of this case. 1) The remand does not necessarily mean a reopening of the trial, 2) doctrine was discussed by the PJC in the proceedings but not in the decision, 3) The GAPJC consensus seemed to be that they would not accept the case for review another time.  Thanks Mary.]

“The Medium Is The Message”… Again

2 Replies

Well, I am back on the grid after a series of trips and time in the wilderness – a literal wilderness not a spiritual one.  I have a number of ideas outlined from this time of camping, work and reflection and hope to get them worked up as blog posts shortly.  This includes some thoughts on Landon Whitsitt’s book Open Source Church, which played into what I want to talk about today.

In my brief time back on the grid a bit over a week ago the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) released the PDF version of the new Book of Order and initially charged for it.  This was a break from tradition, both for the PC(USA) specifically as well as for Presbyterian and Reformed Churches in general. There was an initial uproar about it and a few days later the decision was reversed. As Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons tweeted (@gradyemp) “I will confess that we have not explained well the move to charge for the download.” With that the controversy quickly died down — We have returned to normal and all is right with the world again.

First, thanks to all who wrote me with the update that the download was once again free. I did catch it just before going off the grid again but did not have time to properly respond.  Now I have had a chance to reflect on this a bit.

Some observations:

1. Once again “the medium is the message” and the medium now is Twitter.  I have found it interesting how quickly a topic can get circulated via Twitter.  As one article says, “Twitter Does Not Supplant Other Media, It Amplifies It.”  This change was quickly amplified on Twitter and that is where the majority of the questions, answers, guesses and complaints were circulated, all in 140 characters or less.

2. As I indicated in my initial response the move to charge crossed a line that I am not aware that any other Presbyterian or Reformed denomination had previously crossed. (Please correct me if I missed one.) This does not mean that the PC(USA) should not have taken this route.  The fact that they started down this road, even if they quickly turned back, is an indication that cost recovery needs to come from somewhere, especially if sales of hard copies are dropping as more people acquire the electronic version. If the Book of Order is to support itself then as sale of print copies decreases it only makes sense to charge for the electronic copies. I am pretty sure that was the rational behind the move. The other alternative is that initial publication costs be funded through per capita.

3. As the quote from the Stated Clerk above indicates the move was not done well. Again, the medium is the message. In addition to the change being made with no advance warning or interpretation the license terms of the new version were not explained.  The copyright notice it carries is the same as the print version.  Does that mean that I have to pay $10 for every computer I want to store it on? Can I store it in the cloud on something like Dropbox or Google Docs? Can all the ruling elders in a single household use the same download copy? Can a church, presbytery or synod office pay for one copy for the administrative and ecclesiastical personnel to share? Should it contain DRM measures to control the use?  I could keep on going.  While the questions are currently moot the issue is that the world has changed and that electronic use agreements can not be the same boiler plate we are used to in the paper copyright statements.

4. A couple brief quotes from Landon Whitsitt’s book are applicable here:

In so many areas of church organizational life, I believe that part of the problem we in the church have is that we unreflectively mimic what we see played out in the business world. “Business” is hard to avoid because it affects so much of our lives. [p. 148]

and

But when we employ modern business practices unreflectively, we begin to internalize the value systems from which those practices spring. [p. 149]

Now, those familiar with the book may comment that the book deals with orgaization and leadership while this controversy has to do with the sale of a document.  True enough, but in making the decision to start charging for it did the organization reflect on why to charge or was it reduced to a “business decision.”

5. Speaking of Open Source Church, when I saw that The Book of Order download was no longer free my first reaction was that somehow violated open source principles. (And I was not the only one.) But it was only with a little reflection that I came to realize that the Book of Order does not even come close to the Open Source Definition.  Again, Landon had a lot to say about this as well.

Let me suggest that this incident says a lot more about how we operate than whether we are willing to shell out a few bucks for our constitutional document.  It says a lot about how we communicate with each other, or don’t communicate as the case may be.  As I suggest, if we have to pay for the paper version why should we not have to pay for the digital version. (Maybe the paper version should have a premium price to pay for the materials as well as the labor of putting it together.) But it also suggests that more thought needs to be put into the differences between an electronic and paper version in regards to how they are used.

Let me also suggest that the church as a whole should be open to new models.  How about an even more radical form of the Book of Order that I have not had time to pursue yet (so go ahead and run with this if you are interested). What if the Annotated Book of Order was online as a Wiki. Yes, it would require permission to upload all the text, but the idea is that the actual text and official annotations are displayed and locked, but us polity wonks generate additional commentary and discussion on the material.  It would be possible to include preceding versions of the text for historical perspective and language from other branches for comparison.  Think of it as sort of a Presbyterian polity midrash.

It is fascinating to view the interaction here of the top-down control structure and the new instantaneous bottom-up feedback made possible through social media.  The church needs to adjust to the media in many different aspects, if not embrace it, as the technology advances.

A Sign Of The Times – PC(USA) Charging For The PDF Of The New Edition Of The Book Of Order

10 Replies

The cost of being a G.A. Junkie just went up…

With thanks to @andyjames for bringing it to our attention, we are now aware that the electronic version of the new edition of the Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is ready for download as a PDF.  The catch… for the first time that I am aware of a Presbyterian Branch is charging for the downloadable PDF.  It will set you back $10US.  You can still get the previous edition, but with the major rewrite the Form of Government section will be out of date. And the unchanged Book of Confessions is still available for free as well.  We will have to see what is done with the on-line version of the Annotated Book of Order.

Of course, if you are interested in the constitutional documents of another branch I can point you to the following free downloads:

Well, I think you get the idea.  But if you know of another branch that charges for the download please let me know because I don’t know of another one.

Having said all that, it is reasonable to consider that there are preparation costs involved in the new edition and I can imagine that fewer paper copies are being sold so if the cost is going to be recovered on the distribution end the charges are necessary to fund the project.  None-the-less, there will be comments about those costs being something per capita is supposed to fund. But it does seem to be a sign of the times with the need to find other sources of revenue to fund the publication if hard copy sales and member giving are declining.

What we will have to see now is whether the PC(USA) will stand alone with this cost recovery or if now that one branch has crossed the line and charged for it will more follow?  From a personal point of view, if I had to purchase everyone of the documents in the above list it would make my hobby a more expensive one.  OK, time to get out the charge card I guess…

Update: A little more poking around this morning has not shed much more light on this.  The BOO will be available in several formats and with $10 the going rate for PDF download, single copies of the hard copy (quantity discounts available but also have to pay shipping), and a couple of eReader versions (technically $9.99). You want a CD with BOO and Book of Confessions? That will be $15. And the on-line annotated will still be available (and there was much rejoicing).

The big question I have been looking at is what are the licensing terms of the electronic version.  Can I put it on both my home and work computer or put it in the cloud? Can a church buy one PDF and distribute it to all the Session members or all the ordained staff?  I looked at the store and did not see this addressed pre-purchase. Presumably the PDF will contain this information and you can look at it after you buy it.

New Ordination Standards Language In The PC(USA) And The Discussion Of Standards

2 Replies

As the polity wonks in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are well aware we have to be studying up on the changes to the Book of Order that go into effect this weekend.  The biggest change is the addition of a new section, Foundations of Presbyterian Polity, and the rewrite of the Form of Government, but there are a few other amendments that changed language elsewhere in the constitution. While the paper copy is still at the printer and the electronic copies are in preparation, especially the annotated version, we do have the vast majority of the new Form of Government from the amendment booklet.

However, there are about 20 locations where other specific amendments have made changes to the Book of Order, and seven of these are in the FOG.

Of these changes the only one to have any substantial opposition in the presbyteries is the new wording of G-2.0104b, the standards for ordination. This is the new number and wording for what was previously numbered G-6.0106b and we will have to learn to have the new number roll off our tongue as the old one did.

Some may say that this debate is over and we can move on to other things so there is no need to get used to the numbering of that section.  I think the evidence is that in the short- to intermediate-term there will still be substantial discussion about what it actually means so I at least am getting used to it.

For some this weekend is an occasion for celebration and More Light Presbyterians have released a suggested opening liturgy for this coming Lord’s Day that begins

Common Beginning of Worship and of Church Life
July 10, 2011

Procession
(run free with banners, scarves, ribbons, streamers, etc)

I have not seen a liturgy for those who favored the previous ordination standards language, but I suspect that if there is one it is a bit less exuberant.

The reason that I don’t think the Book of Order citation number will soon disappear from our vocabulary is that there is now a substantial amount of discussion about how to live into the new verbiage.

For example, More Light Presbyterians have issued a guide with their recommendations about moving forward with the new language titled Ordination Guide: So That G-2.0104 Shall Be a
Blessing for our Church and World. On the introductory web page they say:

Fair, accurate interpretation and implementation of 10-A, now known
as G-2.0104 is our top priority. We have created Ordination Guides from
an affirming perspective and we have sent them to staff in all 173
presbyteries…

We need to get this
affirming Guide in the hands, hearts, minds and actions of every
Presbyterian congregation, every Committee on Preparation for Ministry
and every Committee on Ministry. We believe that G-2.0104 can be a
blessing for our Church and world. For 10-A to make the difference it
can make, we need to make sure that it is understood, honored and
followed by every church and presbytery. We know this is a tall order:
11,000 churches in 173 presbyteries. All of us doing our part can make
this happen. Together we are building a Church that reflects God’s
heart.

The guide is not very extensive and addresses all the primary audiences briefly. It frequently says something similar to this passage that is part of the advice to seminaries:

For polity professors and administrators handling placement, help your seminarians study the exact wording of G-2.0104. Help them become as familiar as possible with the theological contours of their own presbyteries, other potential presbyteries where they might come under care and the presbyteries where they might seek a call. Prepare them to be ready to ground their responses to questions from Committees on Preparation or [sic] Ministry and from Pastor Nominating Committees in Scripture, the confessions and the constitutional questions.

Depending on your perspective, this advice could be seen a either practical advice about discerning and living into their call or as “teaching the test” and making sure the candidate knows the right thing to say when the time comes to improve their chances in a presbytery with some differences of opinion.

From the opposite perspective there is an equally interesting document now posted.  With the change in the ordination standards language the PC(USA) has removed their “mandatory church wide behavioral ordination standard.” Now that the mandatory standard has been removed, what will become of judicial cases that are in the pipeline?

The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission is scheduled to hear two of those cases three weeks from today on July 29th. In an effort to argue that their case is still relevant even with the new language, Parnell and others have submitted a Supplemental Brief in their case against the Presbytery of San Francisco. (And thanks to the Presbyterian Coalition for making it available on their web site.) The brief begins with this:

The question is posed whether this case is still at issue, given the recent ratification of Amendment 10-A, and if so, whether any of the specifications of error are mooted by that revision to Book of Order section G-6.0106b. The basis of Appellants’ case from the beginning has been the clear and univocal mandate of Scripture. Scripture has not changed, so the case is not moot.

The suggestion of mootness implies that when 10-A deleted fidelity/chastity from the text of G-6.0106, something new was achieved, either a new standard or a new procedure. Neither is the case. Changing the sexual ethic standard requires changing Scripture, while the procedures described in 10-A merely restate current ordination process (G-14.0452 and G-14.0480). Since 10-A presents nothing new, the case is not moot.

I applaud the writers of this brief for taking on the issue as it now stands and not under the previous language.  In response to a motion by the Presbytery they argue:

The Presbytery has suggested that this case should be decided with reference solely to the former language of G-6.0106b and without regard to the subsequently certified Amendment 10-A, that is, by applying only the text that appeared at the time. If a new rule had superseded an old one because it contradicts the former, this suggestion would be debatable. But this is not the situation before us. Simply, 10-A is neither a new rule nor a new procedure. Thus, nothing is gained by this Commission excluding 10-A from its consideration. In any case, there is no authority that mandates that a matter must be decided using only the rule that existed at the time.

With appreciation for their efforts and respect for their argument, it is my opinion that this effort will not be successful.  While the GAPJC regularly decides cases regarding procedures and interpretation of the Book of Order, with the removal of the mandatory standard I am not seeing a lot that the GAPJC would feel obliged to weigh in on.  GAPJC decisions seldom address doctrinal questions that have been interpreted on the presbytery level generally showing deference to the presbytery’s decision. They have been clear in the past that beyond the mandatory standard the presbytery is the body to decide fitness for ordination as a teaching elder.  It will be interesting to see how the GAPJC addresses the argument that scripture and the confessions still provide a mandatory standard and that nothing has changed.

Speaking of standards, I want to finish up with some thoughts about the definition and application of standards for ordination in the PC(USA) today.

First, the Bush v. Pittsburgh decision (218-10) set the bar for what presbyteries can do, or more generally can not do, in the way of standards and ordination examinations.  Some of the more relevant sections:

3. Statements of “Essentials of Reformed Faith and Polity”: 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. [Headnotes, p. 1]

The constitutional process for amending ordination standards (or any other provision of the Constitution) is defined in Chapter 18 of the Form of Government. While the General Assembly and the GAPJC may interpret these standards, the Authoritative Interpretation did not (and constitutionally could not) change any ordination standard, including the requirements set forth in G-6.0106b. Similarly, no lower governing body can constitutionally define, diminish, augment or modify standards for ordination and installation of church officers. [p. 5]

Ordaining bodies have the right and responsibility to determine whether or not any “scruples” declared by candidates for ordination and/or installation constitute serious departures from our system of doctrine, government, or discipline; to what extent the rights and views of others might be infringed upon by those departures; and whether those departures obstruct the constitutional governance of the church. At the same time, attempts by governing bodies that ordain and install officers to adopt resolutions, statements or policies that paraphrase or restate provisions of the Book of Order and/or declare them as “essentials of Reformed faith and polity” are confusing and unnecessary. G-6.0108a sets forth standards that apply to the whole church. These standards are binding on and must be followed by all governing bodies, church officers and candidates for church office. Adopting statements about mandatory provisions of the Book of Order for ordination and installation of officers falsely implies that other governing bodies might not be similarly bound; that is, that they might choose to restate or interpret the provisions differently, fail to adopt such statements, or possess some flexibility with respect to such provisions. Restatements of the Book of Order, in whatever form they are adopted, are themselves an obstruction to the same standard of constitutional governance no less than attempts to depart from mandatory provisions. [p. 6]

The Presbytery’s resolution would define the “essentials” of Reformed faith and polity by restating the Presbytery’s intention to enforce mandatory provisions of the Book of Order, when it has no authority to do otherwise. At the same time, declaring “essentials” outside of the context of the examination of a candidate for ordained office is inappropriate. As was stated in the 1927 Report of the Special Commission of 1925 (Swearingen Commission Report) Presbyterian Church in the United States of Am
erica Minutes, 1927, pp. 78-79:

One fact often overlooked is that by the act of 1729, the decision as to essential and necessary articles was to be in specific cases. It was no general authority that might be stated in exact language and applied rigidly to every case without distinction. It was an authority somewhat undefined, to be invoked in each particular instance. . . . It was clearly the intention that this decision as to essential and necessary articles was to be made after the candidate had been presented and had declared his [or her] beliefs and stated his [or her] motives personally, and after the examining body…had full opportunity to judge the man himself [or woman herself] as well as abstract questions of doctrine.

[ p. 6 ]

It would be an obstruction of constitutional governance to permit examining bodies to ignore or waive a specific standard that has been adopted by the whole church, such as the “fidelity and chastity” portion of G-6.0106b, or any other similarly specific provision. On the other hand, the broad reference in G-6.0106b to “any practice which the confessions call sin” puts the responsibility first on the candidate and then on the examining body to determine whether a departure is a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity and the remainder of G-6.0108(a) with respect to freedom of conscience. The ordaining body must examine the candidate individually. The examining body is best suited to make decisions about the candidate’s fitness for office, and factual determinations by examining bodies are entitled to deference by higher governing bodies in any review process. [p. 7]

There is a lot there, but let me boil it down to the probably over-simplistic summary that “ordaining and installing bodies must examine candidates individually and can not set blanket standards for those candidates.” (And any polity wonk has to appreciate a decision that works in the report of the 1925 Special Commission which in turn refers to the Adopting Act of 1729. Sorry, its a polity wonk thing.)

So, if a presbytery has an issue of conscience regarding ordination standards and wants to be on record with a particular theological stance but can not officially declare standards what might be some options?  A few that I see:

1) Prominently maintain the status quo.  If you have that stance, under the Bush decision you can not declare it as a standard. But if your stance is clearly stated and advertised then candidates not in agreement are more than likely to find a more obliging presbytery.

2) Declare your standards anyway. While it might not be in agreement with the Bush decision, a presbytery could try this and wait and see if anybody complains, particularly in a judicial sense by filing a remedial case.  At the present time there is a lot of talk of mutual forbearance and not making further waves so a presbytery might be allowed to continue with this approach for a while.

3) Set it as a requirement for membership. The Bush decision has a suggestive footnote — “2. Governing bodies may impose other requirements on church officers, after ordination and installation, such as requirements to abide by ethics or sexual misconduct policies.” So what if these requirements were set outside of the examination process? What if fidelity and chastity were part of a presbytery’s ethics and sexual misconduct policies?

4) Sub-presbyteries. While flexible presbyteries are not a reality at the present time, what if we were to administer this on a smaller scale?  What if a presbytery were to become more of a “super-presbytery” with two administrative sub-groups?  Clearly certain constitutionally required functions, such as the moderator and the clerk, could not be sub-divided, but I think that the new Form of Government might just provide enough flexibility for some creative polity to make this happen.

There is another possibility that while not presently sanctioned by the PC(USA) does have a model in the new changes to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church‘s constitution that just became effective with the conclusion of their General Assembly last month.  In their case they needed a system to allow for differing understandings of ordination standards regarding women so they have modified their system to permit what I call “fuzzy presbytery boundaries.” It is set up so that a church with one stance that finds itself in a presbytery with the opposite stance can move to an adjoining presbytery that has a stance agreeable to them. This preserves a geographic component to presbytery membership as well as a respect for theological affinity.  It is not a fully flexible presbytery but an alignment based on both geography and ordination standards.

How the new language is implemented by each ordaining body is an issue that is just starting to develop and it will be interesting to see how this develops and what creative solutions may arise. Or maybe we will find out that creative solutions are not necessary but that the new language provides the flexibility for each presbytery to examine candidates regarding their own understanding of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the candidates gifts and talents. Stay tuned as this has a long way to go.

The Presbyterian Rebellion

2 Replies

American Presbyterians frequently circulate the claim that King George III of England referred to the American Revolution as a “Presbyterian War.” Several years ago I set out to find the original source from which the quote is taken since I was curious about the context in which the king made this statement — if indeed he even did. The first time I discussed this quest with my dissertation director (who happens to be an elder in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)), he suspected I may discover it is a fiction manufactured by proud Presbyterian myth-makers, for indeed many such writers have spun their yarn.

So begins a doctoral dissertation I found this week in researching an idea for my blog post for today. In his dissertation, titled The Presbyterian Rebellion: An Analysis of the Perception that the American Revolution was a Presbyterian War, Robert Gardiner pursues this quote and investigates the cultural context in which it might have been made.

Did King George say this? Here is how Dr. Gardiner summarizes his research on whether King George III would have said this –

The answer to the overarching question, then, is a nuanced affirmative. Did King George III call the American Revolution a Presbyterian Rebellion? Maybe, or even probably, but primary source documentation is lacking. Did King George III consider the American Revolution a Presbyterian Rebellion? Definitely. …[H]e gave every impression that it was a sentiment he held. Nothing suggests that George III disagreed with the opinion of his advisor, William Jones, who said that the American Revolution was a Presbyterian war from the beginning.

[Gardiner, p. 275-276]

He puts together a good line of evidence to support this and traces the quote itself, in a couple of different variations, back to the late 19th century and suggests the quote may have been manufactured, or misattributed, between 1876 and 1919.

But the rebellion, or on our side the War of Independence, was a Presbyterian cause. American Presbyterians are today well aware that the only active minister to sign the Declaration of Independence was John Witherspoon, president of the College of New Jersey, a Presbyterian school. And people also point to the Mecklenburg Declaration from May of 1775 where a group of local citizens of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, who were all Scots-Irish Presbyterians (one account) passed a resolution declaring independence.  While the exact timing and existence of that first document are sometimes questioned for their historical accuracy, it is good enough that North Carolina carries the date on its flag today.

So yes, Presbyterians played a part, but Gardiner does point out that it was not just the Presbyterians who were involved, or maybe even dominant.

Anyone attempting to allege a Presbyterian vs. Episcopalian controversy at the bottom of the revolt must explain the contradictory evidence. In particular, some of the most important leaders of the revolution were, in fact, Episcopalians — members of the Church of England. Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence 34 were Episcopalians while only 6 were Presbyterians. In that light, it seems that the king would have had more warrant to call the revolution an “Episcopal Rebellion” than a “Presbyterian Rebellion.” All one has to do is cite the examples of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, Patrick Henry, and George Wythe; and the Anglican vs. Presbyterian interpretation of the war quickly breaks down. These men were all bona fide Episcopalians, but at the same time, promoters of American independence.

[Gardiner, p. 279]

He goes on to say

The loyalists were quite aware of these facts, but they did not concede the point. According to loyalists, although many of the rebels wore Anglican masks, their hearts were not in harmony with their facade. Such was the observation of a loyalist named Tingly who tried to explain in 1782 the contradictory behavior of these revolutionary Episcopalians.

Tho they always professed themselves Churchmen [i.e., Episcopalians], they have proved that their principles & professions were not unisons; or, in other words, that they are Churchmen by profession, but Presbyterians by trade, i.e., no friends to Church and state … And those of this stamp joined with the hot brained Zealots among the Presbyterians who have almost all, without exception, proved fiery advocates for independency.

[Gardiner, p. 279-280]

Embedded in all of this is a distinction that is very important to make, and that is the cultural meaning of the term “presbyterian” at that time in England.  It carried a lot of baggage, to say the least, after the restoration and was a catch-all term for trouble-makers and those that opposed the crown. (Remember, Jesus Christ is the “ head over all things to the church“) As Dr. Gardiner put it in the abstract of his dissertation

The label “Presbyterian” was a much more ambiguous designation than it is at present. Employed broadly as a synonym for a Calvinist, a dissenter, or a republican, the term was used with considerable imprecision in the eighteenth century. Furthermore, it was used as a demagogic tool to inflame popular passions. The term Presbyterian carried with it the connotation of a fanatical, anti-monarchical rebel.

Well, maybe those Mallard Fillmore cartoons are just a bit anachronistic.

Dr. Gardiner describes his motivation for this dissertation in the abstract by observing that “there indeed was a profound religious factor at the heart of the conflict, both perceived and real” and the Revolution can not be attributed solely to “socio-economic factors.” So in that respect it was a Presbyterian Rebellion where he describes the situation saying “Calvinists and Calvinism permeated the American colonial milieu, and the king’s friends did not wish for this fact to go unnoticed.”

While the Declaration signed on this day in 1776 may make heavy reference to political and socio-economic factors, it opens and closes (concluding words below) with passages heavy with divine imagery.  So, a happy Independence Day to my American friends as we remember this Presbyterian Rebellion.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority
of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

“We Are Presbyterian” And “We Are PC(USA)”

3 Replies

Yesterday was the anniversary of the birth of Ebenezer Erskine in 1680. He would become a respected figure in the Church of Scotland but later in his life he had a disagreement with the Kirk leading him to renounce jurisdiction and help lead a group that would secede and form the Associate Presbytery in 1733.  This was the second division in the Church of Scotland, the Covenanters having divided from the established church a bit earlier.

So where am I going with this?  The point is that even in the earliest days of American Presbyterianism to say that you were a Presbyterian did not necessarily mean the same thing to everyone.  At a minimum, and this is simplifying things a bit, there was a tradition from the established church that would become the mainline, but also the Covenanters of the Reformed line and the Seceders of the Associate line.  And I probably don’t need to tell you that over the last three centuries the complexity has increased and not decreased.  (As a physicist I could point to increasing entropy, but that is not the purpose of today’s post.)

Yesterday also saw the launch of a new project led by the Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). I was glad to see it launched because there has been some build-up to it around the Internet and I was interested to see what would come of it.  One thing I was particularly interested in was the different names for the project and how that would affect the focus.  For example, the Twitter account has the handle @WeArePCUSA but the long description is titled “We Are Presbyterian.”  If you go to the launch site the title is also “We are Presbyterian” yet in the narrative below it refers to the videos coming from a “diverse group of folks from across the Presbyterian Church (USA).”

Maybe I am being too picky here. Am I just splitting hairs with this one? As I spend my free time blogging on global Presbyterianism I am well aware that the PC(USA) is just one local manifestation of this broad and diverse ecclesiastical form. Having watched these videos the We Are PC(USA) title is very applicable, but remember this is one small slice of a bigger fellowship.

OK, soapbox mode off…

In these 16 locally-produced videos submitted to Bruce and his crew we have a great representation of the PC(USA).  If you have a spare hour I would suggest watching them. In the ones featuring individuals, each person comes across as speaking from the heart about their church and their vision and passion for it. The group ones are also interesting, particularly to listen to the individuals and where they agree and where they have different perspectives.

Bruce issued an open invitation to submit videos (with a video invite as well) and asked that they answer five questions:

  1. Who are you and how are you connected to the PC(USA)?
  2. What about the PC(USA) are you most thankful for?
  3. What about the PC(USA) are you most disappointed in?
  4. What do you believe that God is calling us to be in the next five years?
  5. What is one ministry, organization or hope that we should pray for today?

It is interesting that about half of the things mentioned regarding the second question could apply to Presbyterianism in general and are not specific to the denomination: connectional system, joint governance on the boards of the church, confessional nature of our faith, priesthood of all believers.  Likewise, the third question had some more general responses as well: could do better with racial ethnic diversity, need to do better with youth and young adults.

I was also impressed that the spectrum of viewpoints were represented, but while the full spectrum of the theological diversity in the PC(USA) was represented in these videos, progressive viewpoints were more likely to be presented.  In particular, several presenters specifically mentioned that they were thankful for the increased inclusivity in the denomination from the passage of Amendment 10-A.  On the other hand, several of the videos stayed completely away from the polarizing issues in the church and spoke of other bigger-picture issues without having an explicit leaning left or right. And some of the videos did not answer the questions at all and one is almost half promotional for a group. But all-in-all an interesting hour of watching.

Bruce has also scaled back his plans for this project which was originally to be focused on an Internet marathon of sorts. Now he has posted the videos and is considering how much time and energy he has for another phase of the project.

Personally, I may post my own “Why I am Presbyterian” two-part blog post later in the Summer.  Two months ago I finished up a post with my conviction that if we prefer the Presbyterian form of church government we need to let people know why. Having issued that challenge I have now outlined my response and within the next month or two hope to have it ready for prime time.  But don’t expect anything focused on one particular branch – I do intend to make it a “We Are Presbyterian” presentation in the broadest sense of the word.

A Couple Of Changes In The PC(USA)

2 Replies

In the last few hours in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) there have been indications of a couple of interesting changes which I think are telling of the direction of the denomination.

Yes, the first one is the unofficial passage of Amendment 10-A — as of this evening the gahelp web site lists the vote as 88-68.  The official vote tally will require a bit of additional time for the current voting to be reported and recorded. From the buzz on the internet, especially Twitter, we know that today the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area became the 87th presbytery to approve the Amendment giving it the majority for approval, followed by Pacific Presbytery. The vote is not over, because this is about the discussion as much as the outcome, but unofficially it appears that its passage is assured.  It will be effective on July 10, 2011.

While that is a change, we must remind ourselves exactly what the change is.  What amendment 10-A does is remove a specific categorical restriction to the ordination standards by replacing the “fidelity and chastity” standards section with new language that calls on officers to “to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life” and for ordaining bodies to examine them on the Scriptural and confessional requirements.  But we must also remember that 10-A does not require a new inclusive standard when it comes to self-affirming practicing homosexuals.  The patch-work of interpretation I have heard over the last few days does regularly affirm the renewed importance of the ordaining body in the examination and the expected issues that will arise as different ordaining bodies reach differing conclusions from their examinations.  In short, the PC(USA) has allowed, but not mandated, the ordination of same-sex partnered individuals and passed the control to the lower governing bodies.

The second happening this evening I think is equally telling and that happening is the power of social media and the open source church.  Consider this – the Office of the General Assembly issued a news item, letter and Advisory Opinion, and some video messages within minutes of the announcement of the results of the vote in the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area.  In my experience, for the denomination to act this quickly or before official confirmation is unheard of.  Got to give them credit for 1) being prepared and 2) taking the social media crowd seriously.

Speaking of social media, at the height of the presbytery meetings this evening I was getting tweets with the #pcusa hashtag at the rate of about one per second.  While we were not trending, several people reported the “fail whale” (The Twitter screen for heavy system use) and so we may have been contributing to the server overload.

It was also interesting to note that the OGA was not the only ones ready.  Within an hour or two several groups had statements up including the Covenant Network, Presbyterian Outlook, Presbyterians for Renewal and More Light Presbyterians.

The point here is that the rapid response to this news shows how the denomination’s landscape has changed regarding social media and instantaneous communication.  Organizations were on-line watching and responded very quickly to the news with either new material or were ready with prepared remarks.

Finally, several mainstream news organizations were ready with stories but I think the first one out was from the Associated Press and writer Rachel Zoll is to be commended for a good article that gets our Presbyterian polity correct.  I’m sure we will see some good examples of the opposite tomorrow.

Well, I have lots more to say but it is late so no more tonight.  Over the next few days I’ll try to find time to crunch numbers and consider some more of how we got here.  But the heavy use and response on social media was to me just as interesting as the voting result itself and just as telling about what is happening in certain corners of the PC(USA).