Category Archives: news

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

Leave a reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update and correction on the PC(USA) Form of Government Task Force

Leave a reply

The Presbyterian Church (USA) News Service has issued a clarification article to an earlier article about the proposed Book of Order revisions from the Form of Government Task Force that I commented on about a month ago.  It turns out that the April 12-14 Task Force meeting was not fully covered by the News Service because of agenda changes and scheduling conflicts.  The News Service does not expand on that but a GA Junkie wonders what could be more important than a Task Force that wants to change the Book of Order?

So what was not complete?  It turns out that the next stop for the drafts of the new sections of the Book of Order is not the 218th General Assembly but the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) meeting in about a month.  They will be given the opportunity to comment on separating the first four chapters into a brand new Foundations section.  The News Service reports that the Task Force has gotten significant negative comments about splitting off the four chapters and that led them to the possibility of giving the General Assembly the choice of how to precede.  Based on the ACC comments the Task Force will decide whether to float both options or only one.

We will see what is reported after the August meeting of the Task Force.  Hopefully it will be complete on the first go-round.

Sometimes the only way you conquer the pull of power is to set it down

Leave a reply

The quote in the title is from British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s announcement today that he has set a date for his resignation.  But it got me thinking and reflecting on the pull of power, especially in a Presbyterian system.

As a Reformed church we believe that power should not be concentrated in an individual person but held by the commissioners to that governing body.  Even then, in the Presbyterian Church (USA), an elder may only serve on session for a maximum of six years before they must take at least one year off.  The same is true in my Presbytery for committees, although many people just move on to another committee.  My Presbytery has no restrictions on elder commissioners to Presbytery.  I’ve lost track of the number of years I have been an elder commissioner, but not always from my church.  My status as a voting elder in Presbytery has also included my time as a committee chair and as moderator and vice-moderator.  And minister members are always voting members for as long as they are members of Presbytery.  But, our Synod commissioners only serve a maximum of four years and an individual is usually only a General Assembly commissioner once.

There are places in our system where there is usually no limit on time of service.  Clerks are one of these places.  There is no requirement that the elder serving as clerk of session be an elected member of session so there is no limit on how long someone can serve.  As an example, when my six years as a member of session were up, I continued on for an extra two years serving as clerk.  No vote, but an opportunity to participate.  And at my parents’ church there is a vintage plaque memorializing a gentleman who a number of years ago served for decades as the clerk of session.

Our presbytery recently reelected our stated clerk for another three year term which will get them to near two decades of service.  Having worked closely with the clerk this individual is wonderful at the job, never injecting them selves unless I was about to do something contrary to the Book of Order or if I asked them for advice.  Now, the theory is that these positions have only limited power, but many of us are aware that even in setting dockets or providing constitutional guidance to committees there is the substantial opportunity for influence.  So, on principle, in a Presbyterian system, should there be term limits on any position just to avoid the “pull of power?”

Just some thoughts for today after hearing the quote from Mr. Blair.  In a related note, his presumed successor as PM is Mr. Gordon Brown, a Scot.  I have heard and read of him described a number of ways, but almost all of the profiles (like this one from Earthtimes.org) mention his father’s service as a minister in the Church of Scotland.  In one of the interviews this morning with an opposition commentator I heard him described as “presbyterian,” with the adjective used not in a spiritual sense but as being stern and reserved, much like another article I commented on here a while ago.

Update on the Anglican controversy

Leave a reply

At the present time the web site Anglican Mainstream is reporting that the Archbishop of Canterbury has added his voice to the controversy asking the Primate of Nigeria not to install the Rev. Martyn Minns as the bishop for  the Convocation of Anglicans in North America.  In addition, they are reporting the support of 30 members of the Church of England General Synod for the installation. The news about the Archbishop of Canterbury is about half way down in the article.  So far I have not seen this reported by The Anglican Communion News Service or the Church of Nigeria, but within the last few minutes the Episcopal Church has posted a press release.

Some news from the Anglican/Episcopal controversy

Leave a reply

Here is a quick run down of some recent happenings in the American Episcopal Church and it’s differences with the Worldwide Anglican church.

1)  The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has announced he will meet with the American Bishops after initially saying that he did not have room in his schedule.  The meeting will take place in September at the regularly scheduled bishops’ gathering.  You can read about it in an Episcopal press release and an Anglican Communion News Service piece.

2)  With the passage of civil union legislation in New Hampshire, New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson has announced that he and his partner will be having a commitment ceremony.  One of many news reports, this from ABC News or another one from the Boston Globe.

3)  The Nigerian Primate Peter J. Akinola plans to install Martyn Minns as a bishop in the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA).  This does not sit well with Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori who wrote Rev. Akinola to complain that this is outside the usual traditions and would not help reconciliation efforts. (Again, you can read the Episcopal press release or the Anglican Communion press release.)  In a response, Akinola turns the tables on her by suggesting it is the Episcopal Church’s liberal standards that have violated the traditions of the church and he is supporting a communion that is upholding tradition.  The response is available on the Church of Nigeria web site as well as Episcopal and Anglican press releases.

4)  The web site VirtueOnline by David Virtue specializes in covering and analyzing this controversy from the orthodox perspective.  Currently they have an interview with Martyn Minns about the installation this weekend.  There are also a number of commentaries.  One from April 7 talks about the Bishop of Los Angeles J. Jon Bruno and his reported attacks on the orthodox Episcopalians and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

5)  Finally, one more item that I am not entirely sure what to do with.  The Layman Online has run an article by the Rev. Canon David C. Anderson, president and CEO of the American Anglican Council that originally ran in the council’s weekly newsletter.  In the article there are several claims that the PC(USA) national staff and the Episcopal church hierarchy are working together on the legal processes around property and that the Episcopal church is using some of the strategy in the controversial legal memos from the PC(USA) OGA.  In addition, the commentary says that a Presbyterian governing body not specified has filed a friend of the court brief in the Episcopal church’s legal dispute against St. James Anglican Church in Newport Beach.  (In researching this it appears to be old news since this legal dispute appears to be settled in St. James’ favor back in January 2006 based upon this news/blog item from the American Anglican Council.)  I am currently trying to track down more on this item.

GA of the Church of Scotland: Same-sex relationships report

Leave a reply

With the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland coming up in less than a month the reports are becoming available and the press releases are flowing.  If you want to check out the reports they are available on the General Assembly Reports page and the Online Newsroom is dominated by releases for each of the major reports.

However, the highest profile report appears to be coming from the Mission and Discipleship Council and is titled “A challenge to unity: same-sex relationships as an issue in theology and human sexuality.”  The report is available in MS Word, RTF and Text formats.  You can find all three formats under Mission and Discipleship Council on the Reports web page or if you want you can jump straight to the MS Word format.  The report is 37 pages long and I have barely had a chance to skim through it yet.  I’ll try to read it in more detail tomorrow.  However, looking at the reactions that have come out about it there are a wide variety of reactions and opinions on it.  More on that in a minute.

First, a brief note on the history of this issue and this report.  It is important to remember that the major controversy at last year’s GA came not from this report but what was supposed to be a more routine report from the Legal Questions Committee.  That began not as a theological question as much as a civil legal question in response to the government passing the Civil Partnerships law permitting civil unions.  This year’s report is much more involved in the theology.  There was an earlier report adopted in 1994 and in 2004 the process began to update that report with the 2005 General Assembly commissioning this present two year study.

I have not had a chance to read the report in detail but in scanning it a few things stand out.  One of these is section 4.8 – The Church and Power.  In that section the report says:

But while churches participate in sexuality debates, there is a newer emphasis within the churches that power is exercised through service, according to which the churches align themselves not least with the poor, weak, marginalised and alienated in society and in the world as a whole.  In other words, the church increasingly identifies with people conventionally excluded from power.  Part of this emphasis includes listening to the voices of gays and lesbians, especially gay and lesbian Christians.  Hitherto it has been very difficult for people to speak openly in the church of homosexual desire or orientation, fearing judgment and punishment.  This report plays a small part in developing this process of listening to voices from previously unheard quarters.

Beyond this the study seems to cover the usual ground:  The differing approaches to interpreting scripture, the current scientific and psychological understandings, and how should homosexual persons live in the context of a Christian life.  And maybe the most significant thing about this report, is that it really comes to no conclusion about the issue in the section marked “Conclusion.”  The working group basically says “Here are the issues, we need to be talking about these questions and circumspect about answering them.”  To quote the final part of the conclusion:

Therefore the Mission and Discipleship Council presents this report, prepared by a Group of Christians who shared in debate their own unique perspectives and
convictions, and in so doing represented the wider Church. The report
endeavours to present different approaches to issues in homosexuality
generously and charitably, trying always to avoid caricature.  The unity within the Group – and Christians’ unity more generally – does
not however come simply from courteous debate, listening to all points of view, and attempting to understand the other more deeply, although these are virtues which the Group members tried to exhibit… The Council hopes then that readers of the report will be aided by it as they read it, reflect on it and discuss it together, worship and break bread together and journey on in faith.

I have found no specific recommendations for the church or theological affirmations being put forward in this report.

Now, for the press coverage. 

The one that intrigued me the most was the press release from the Church of Scotland itself.  It is titled “Kirk admits to ‘historic intolerance’ toward gay people.”  That headline is sure to grab interest and raise a few people’s tempers.  Reading through the article the basis for the headline is a line in the article which is taken from a very similarly worded line in the Process section (4.5) of the report: “…and the working group has listened to testimonies which have led members to recognise pastorally insensitive – indeed, sinful – attitudes on the part of the Church towards gay people.”  From a polity standpoint there is a problem here in that this is a report of a committee and it is not until GA adopts it does it speak for the Kirk as the headline suggests.  (Any Church of Scotland polity wonks out there who want to correct this point please let me know.)  However, I am further surprised that a point in the process section of a report that has no real action points would be singled out for the headline.  Finally, there is also the implication in the line that it was some, but not necessarily all, members of the council who were led to recognize the insensitive and sinful attitudes.

The web site Christian Today has an article titled “Kirk Report on Homosexuality a ‘Major Disappointment.'”  The article reports that the liberal group OneKirk welcomes the report as a step to “greater openness” while the evangelical group Forward Together finds the report a “major disappointment” because it says nothing new.

Finally, among some other news articles, is an article in the The Guardian titled “‘Sinful’ Church of Scotland told it must accept gays in its ranks.”  Now, I must admit that I’m not sure where that headline comes from because the article covers the same territory the others do.  Again there seems to be an emphasis on that one line in the process section.  I highlight this article because in the last paragraph there is a comment from Callum Phillips of the gay rights pressure group Stonewall Scotland that the report was a “cop-out”  because it was a theological document and did nothing practical.

This promises to be an interesting item on the docket.

Report of the PCA Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies

Leave a reply

The report of the Presbyterian Church in America‘s Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies has been released in advance of their upcoming General Assembly.  The report is published in the PCA’s web magazine byFaith online.

The Report

The report is 28 pages long when I print out the printer friendly version, contains a preface that serves as the transmittal letter, six sections including the analysis, declarations, and recommendations, and extensive footnotes.  From an initial scan of the document it looks well written and in general I found it to read well and the analysis and conclusions were understandable.  Not everyone will agree with the conclusions.  The committee was composed of four Teaching Elders (clergy) and three Ruling Elders.

There are nine declarations which the committee unanimously agrees upon.  In each case the decision is that the particular area “is contrary to those [the Westminster] Standards.”  These declarations include the Federal Vision viewpoints of 1) rejecting the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture, 2) that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church, 3) that Christ does not stand as a representative head, 4) that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary, 5) that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant, 6) that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ, 7) that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, 8) that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation…and yet not persevere in those benefits, and 9) that justification is in any way based on our works. (emphasis theirs)

The final content section of the report has five recommendations for the General Assembly.  This includes the usual type that the GA commend the report to the church for careful consideration and study and that the Study Committee be dismissed with thanks.  One recommendation is that the GA reminds the church that while the Westminster documents are subordinate to Scripture, they have still been adopted by the PCA “as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice.”   The report also recommends that elders be reminded that they need to make know to their courts where they differ with the standards and the Sessions and Presbyteries responsibility to condemn erroneous opinions.

In a related development, over the weekend Louisiana Presbytery has adopted and issued a Rational For Louisiana Presbytery’s Decision Regarding The Vindication Of TE Steven Wilkins.  (this links to a MS Word file)  This document was prepared for the Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA which is now dealing with Louisiana Presbytery’s examination of Steven Wilkins.  That decision is still pending.

Response

I don’t see a response yet from TE Steve Wilkins or his Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church or the Louisiana Presbytery.  The blogosphere has however come alive, sort of.  So far the posts are mostly just “it’s out,” and one of the more interesting of these is Anglicans Ablaze where the author, Robin G. Jordan, reminds us that one of the developers of the earlier New Perspectives on Paul theology was Anglican Bishop N. T. Wright.  This earlier work is addressed in the report.  Several of these blogs also repeat the Declarations and/or Recommendations and one prints the report in full.  The report was released only about 24 hours ago and I suspect that it will take a day or two for some digestion and critical analysis.  Also, I am expecting comment shortly by Doug Wilson, one of the Federal Vision theologians, on his blog “Blog and Mablog.”  I see nothing posted there today as of my writing this over lunch hour.

I can’t say that I will be able to keep up with all the responses in the blogs but will provide links to any I find especially insightful, particularly those from primary sources or that have significant polity implications.

The passing of Helen Walton

Leave a reply

Helen Robson Walton, a leader in the PC(USA) and the widow of Sam Walton (founder of Wal-Mart), died Thursday evening.  There is much being written of her retailing and philanthropic impact and legacy but, in keeping with the spirit of this blog, would high light just two items related to her leadership in the Presbyterian Church (USA):

She was the first woman to serve as moderator of the Arkansas Presbytery
She served on the Presbyterian Church (USA) foundation including serving as the first vice-chair of the board.

More details on her life and service can be found in numerous news articles currently being published.  I would refer you to the PC(USA) news service article (there was an earlier version of this story that was distributed with the date of her death wrong) and the Wal-Mart press release.

News on PC(USA) Book of Order revisions

Leave a reply

There are two current items of interest regarding revision and rewriting of the PC(USA) Book of Order.

The first is the status of Book of Order amendments from the last General Assembly.  The vote tallies were last updated on April 16 and most of the amendments have been approved.  While all of these affect the Book of Order, of particular interest are amendments 06-A and 06-B.1.  Amendment 06-A is a major revision of Chapter G-XIV, the longest chapter in the Form of Government section.  The amendment also includes some related “housekeeping” changes to other sections to match the new sections and words in Chapter XIV.  Amendment 06-B.1 moves the ordination questions and service from Form of Government to Directory for Worship.  The former is currently being approved by a narrow margin and the latter has received enough affirmative votes to assure passage.  The only other amendment whose outcome has not been decided yet is 06-B.2 “Adding Licensure of Candidates–On Amending G-14.0309” which is currently failing by the narrow margin of 60 to 63.  All other amendments have been approved by enough presbyteries.

In the other news, at it’s April 12-14 meeting the Form of Government Task Force, charged with rewriting the whole Form of Government section of the Book of Order, decided not to decide but to leave a structural question up to the 218th General Assembly.  The Form of Government web page has not been updated with the report of this meeting yet, but the PC(USA) news service issued a press release on April 16 reporting on the meeting.  Specifically, the task force had been working on a new version of the “G” section which moved the first four chapters into a new preceding section which would contain the “foundational principles” found in those chapters.  At the meeting last week the task force voted 6-3 to provide two versions to the next GA: One with the new fourth section and one that left the foundational principles in the Form of Government section.

The news article also talks about the underlying theology of the rewrite and how it is built upon “missional polity.”  This is the concept that the church does not have a mission, but rather that mission is its only reason for existence. The news story quotes a supporting document:  “Mission lies at the heart of the Church’s identity. The Church is called into being and is an expression of the mission dei, God’s ongoing engagement with the world to reconcile, transform, and finally fulfill the divine creative intent in it.”  (I thought I saw this document on-line at one time but can not find it again.)

The task force next meets August 16-18.

Brief Comment:  In the PC(USA) news service article four members of the task force and two PC(USA) staff members to the task force were quoted.  All but one staff member (Doska Ross) are identified as clergy!  Are elders involved in this process?  You would not know it from the news story.  The membership list shows that the task force is composed of six clergy and three elders.

Moderator elected at the 47th General Meeting of the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of Trinidad and Tobago

Leave a reply

The 47th General Meeting of the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of Trinidad and Tobago has just concluded and the Rev. Elvis Elahie, 45, was elected Moderator.  The meeting was held at St. Andrews Theological College, Paradise Hill, San Fernando.  Trinidad &Tobago’s Newsday reports that Rev. Elahie was ordained in 1988 and “has worked in several districts around the country.”

In his acceptance speech, Rev. Elahie is quoted as saying:

“Over the ages the Christian community has been
enriched out of the heritage of seers and scholars and saints.  Thus we must engage new insights for our time, by being possessors of the truth of many yesterdays, partakers of God’s thoughts for today and creators with God for a better tomorrow.  One of the areas which I am sure must engage our attention is that of the fusion between education and religion as we aim toward human development.”

In an interesting note on the polity of this denomination, the article says the previous moderator served two two-year terms.  Unlike most presbyterian denominations where a moderator serves a single term, the multiple terms here may indicate a greater role in the ecclesiastical operation of the church.