Category Archives: news

PC(USA) News Service interview with Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick

Leave a reply

The PC(USA) News Service recently ran a news story based on an interview PCNS coordinator Rev. Jerry Van Marter did with Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick.  For the most part the questions and answers were predictable and soft-ball but a few points stick out.  If you will permit me, I am going to intersperse my comments in this post rather than saving them for the end.

Maybe the headline item is that Rev. Kirkpatrick has not ruled out running for a fourth term as Stated Clerk.  He says that he will seek to discern his call to this ministry over the summer.  (Is this like the current political fashion of first announcing your candidacy on a late-night talk show and then making a “formal” announcement later?)

For me the most interesting response was about the Office of the General Assembly’s view of the legal memos on property that have come to be called the “Louisville Papers.”  Rev. Kirkpatrick says:

He said a legal opinion on church property that
denominational critics have derisively called “The Louisville Papers”
and labeled “hard-line” and “secretive” are simply that — legal
opinions on church property law.

“That’s not the advice we’re giving churches and sessions,” Kirkpatrick insisted, citing a more recent paper from his Constitutional Services office entitled “Responding Pastorally to Troubled Churches.” That
document states: “We commend using a response team that seeks a time of
prayer and conversation aimed at understanding the conflict and
identifying steps toward reconciliation.”

I believe that this is the first response I have seen out of the Stated Clerk’s Office about these documents and I am glad there was finally some acknowledgment and explanation of them.  I think we are all hearing a variety of stories from “the trenches” about the different approaches presbyteries are taking.  And, unfortunately, I think that the knowledge of the existence of these memos soured the environment and forced congregations to respond aggressively in the process of leaving the denomination rather than trusting the presbyteries and the connectional process that we have.  Yes, I am aware of the hard-fought civil legal battles that have been and are being fought.  I would like to hear more about the “vast majority of cases” that Rev. Kirkpatrick refers to where the presbyteries are not going to court.

Beyond that the interview goes over much of the denominational, international and ecumenical events that have been covered in other PCNS news stories over the last couple of months and how from these events the story says “Despite the departure of a handful of disaffected Presbyterian Church(U.S.A.) congregations in recent months, General Assembly Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick remains convinced that the troubled denomination “is in a potential tipping point of renewed growth and vitality.””

I think all of us hope that he is correct.

Complaint re-filed against Rev. Janet Edwards in Pittsburgh Presbytery

Leave a reply

This past fall I was following a case in the PJC of Pittsburgh Presbytery where the Rev. Janet Edwards was accused of conducting a wedding for two women.  (My previous posts of  Sept. 18, Nov. 15, Dec. 11)  The charges again the Rev. Edwards were dismissed because the investigating committee filed the charges four days late.

It was announced and expected that the complaint would be re-filed and late last week the Rev. James Yearsley did so.  The original complaint was by Rev. Yearsley alone; the new complaint is also signed by seven additional ministers and six elders.  It is interesting to note that of the fourteen individuals signing the complaint, only Elder Robert Gagnon is currently in Pittsburgh Presbytery.  And of the signers of the complaint two are recognizable names in the Presbyterian commentator community:  Professor Gagnon and the Rev. Toby Brown (A Classical Presbyterian).

The PC(USA) New Service has issued a press release on the developments as well as some coverage in the popular media, including the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

A new investigating committee will be formed.

Scottish Religious Leaders to Attend Celtics/Rangers Football Match

1 Reply

Last December, as part of a series of efforts to halt sectarian violence in Scotland, there were discussions about the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, the Right Rev. Alan McDonald,  and the Scottish Roman Catholic Cardinal Keith O’Brien attending a Rangers/Celtics football (soccer) match.  Due to security and then scheduling issues the idea was put on hold.  It was announced over the weekend that Rev. McDonald and Cardinal O’Brien would be joining First Minister Jack McConnell at the Celtics/Rangers match at Old Firm in Glasgow this coming Sunday.  They will also be joined by religious leaders from other faiths.

NWAC responds to the NPWL

Leave a reply

In my previous post I reported on three articles the Network of Presbyterian Women in Leadership (NPWL) posted on their web site discussing the transition of churches to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) and their polity that ordination of women is a local option.  The New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC) has responded in their web log to the first two articles posted on the NPWL web site.  The entry, titled “Advancing Biblical Truth: Women in Leadership and the Proposed New Wineskins/EPC Transitional Presbytery“, begins with the statement that the NWAC:

The New Wineskins Constitution
makes no explicit distinction between men and women serving in roles of
leadership in the church, embracing the biblical declaration in
Galatians 3:28 that in Christ “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave
nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Women
have always been, continue to be, and will always be an integral part
of the New Thing that God is doing through the New Wineskins
Association of Churches (NWAC).

(If you followed the New Wineskins Winter Convocation you know that there was a question from the floor asking why the Strategy Team was all male.  The response was that no women had asked to be on it.)

Further on in the NWAC response where they discuss the Rev. Anita Miller Bell’s article about the glass ceiling for women in the PC(USA) there is an interesting observation that I had not previously thought about:

To Rev. Anita Bell’s credit, she admits that the experience of women pastors within the PCUSA has not been all it should be. However, both NPWL articles fail to examine underlying causes to the “glass ceiling” in the PCUSA other than a pastor’s gender. There are at least two other realities that should have been discussed. The first is the promotion of feminist and womanist theologies by the denomination. This has not helped orthodox and evangelical women pastors in finding a call. Pastor nominating committees are understandably concerned about the possibility of nominating a pastoral candidate and then later discovering the candidate does not uphold an orthodox or evangelical theology.

The NWAC  article goes on to discuss eight reasons that evangelical women pastors should consider moving to the EPC.  These include the fact that the NWAC will have its own transitional presbytery in the EPC where they will get to decide if women can be ordained and the fact that if you are an evangelical Presbyterian women looking for an alternative to the PC(USA) than the EPC is the only game in town.

The take on the PC(USA) to EPC transition from the Network of Presbyterian Women in Leadership

Leave a reply

The Network of Presbyterian Women in Leadership (NPWL) is posting a series of articles on the transition of churches from the PC(USA) to the EPC. The issue of course is that the ordination of women is not accepted across the EPC but is a “local option.”  As Becce Bettridge, the Director of NPWL, put it in the first article titled “Has Anyone Asked the Women“: “My question to the EPC is: Why would I want to be part of a church that overwhelmingly now views my leadership with suspicion?”

The second article in the series, “Where will the Women be Welcome,” by the Rev. Anita Miller Bell asks a broader question:  “Are ordained women treated as equals in the PC(USA)?”  She writes:

Yet, lest we become too judgmental of our brothers and sisters in the EPC and those who would join them, we must take a moment of honest self-reflection in our PCUSA fellowship.  Ordained women, especially those called to the ministry of Word and Sacrament, know full inclusion in the ministry life of the PCUSA in name only.  After 50 years, women still face the “glass ceiling” across the theological spectrum of the church.

 Her analysis of this situation is fascinating, at least to me, and I think it contains a great deal of truth.  She writes, in part:

This lukewarm embrace of women in ministry by the PCUSA and the “local option” approach of the EPC both find their roots in the original decision made by our denominations’ predecessor to ordain women to the ministry of Word and Sacrament 50 years ago. That decision, framed by postwar emphasis on human rights and democracy among mainline churches, has often been characterized as a “simple act of fairness”.   Our debate centered more on the social correctness of opening the door to women in ordained ministry than on the Biblical
witness of the essential nature of women’s ministry within the body of
Christ.

Such well-intentioned “social correctness” has not transformed the heart and mind of the church to embrace fully the leadership of the sisters in our midst.

She goes on to discuss the “Body of Christ” and how an individual’s gifts and talents are intended to be used for the building up of the body and how a person’s calling should not be a matter of fairness but a response to their place and role in the body.

There are presently three articles posted and in the third seminarian Janice Krouskop discusses her perspective on the transition and what it may mean for her call and career.

The EPC does have a Position Paper on the Ordination of Women where they say:

…while some churches may ordain women and some may decline to do so, neither position is essential to the existence of the church since people of good faith who equally love the Lord and hold to the infallibility of Scripture differ on this issue, and since uniformity of view and practice is not essential to the existence of the visible church, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church has chosen to leave this decision to the Spirit-guided consciences of particular congregations concerning the ordination of women as elders and deacons, and to the presbyteries concerning the ordination of women as ministers.

Now, a couple of comments where I’m about the stray into the more controversial and may raise the blood pressure of some of my readers…

Returning to the first NPWL article, it contains echoes of arguments that I regularly hear.  In one line  Ms. Bettridge asks: “Why would I want to be part of a church whose denominational culture does not view me as an equal partner in ministry, gifted and called to serve the Body of Christ?”

What caught my attention here is that this is essentially the same question that my friends and family who support the ordination of practicing homosexuals ask.  The progressives in the PC(USA) and other denominations see no difference between these two ordination questions.  If a person has been given these gifts for leadership by God, why should they not be ordained?  Does Rev. Anita Miller Bell’s argument apply here as well?  It is not a matter of fairness but a matter of gifts and call.  And appealing to scripture is not the clear-cut way out since we are all probably familiar with the exegetical arguments on all sides of both of these issues.  It comes down to how you read scripture and how you understand officers within the church.

Now, I do acknowledge that the two issues are different and I see differences in the scriptural support for the two issues.  But, the PCA and other conservative Presbyterian branches do not recognize either ordination, and the PC(USA) recognizes one and is arguing about the other. We need to be aware that for many people these two issues are linked and each of the NPWL articles could be quickly and easily rewritten to focus the same arguments on the issue of homosexual ordination.

My two cents worth from my background and experience.  Now back to our regularly scheduled politics.

Santa Barbara Presbytery Action

Leave a reply

I have previously reported on the action of Santa Barbara Presbytery at their February 10 Presbytery meeting passing a resolution that calls on the churches in the PC(USA) to return to focusing on Jesus Christ.  While the Layman Online reported on the the action at the meeting I admitted in that previous post that I was not completely clear from their reporting exactly what was adopted.

Well, Santa Barbara Presbytery has updated their web site and the uncertainty has been cleared up.  On their Resources Page there is now a link to “Appropriate Response” which is the word document of A Declaration of Theology and Action that was approved at that meeting.  As far as I have been able to tell it is the unmodified (with the exception of the endorsing body) document sent to the Presbytery by the Session of Community Presbyterian Church of Ventura.  So, my uncertainty is cleared up:  The Presbytery did adopt the heavily footnoted (barely) 21 page document from Community Pres.

The first 15 pages are are the theology part, much of it structured on the “We believe…, We reject…” formulation of the Barmen Declaration.  At this time I have only skimmed the document but it appears to cover the usual ground, e.g. the Lordship of Jesus Christ, authority of scripture and the PC(USA) deviation from these.  It is interesting to note that the last section in this part, “V. Faith as Response” starting on page 14, comes almost word-for-word from Community Presbyterian’s “Faith, Membership, and Discipleship” statement that appears to be necessary to affirm with your signature in order to join the church.

The final pages of the document are the action part putting forth resolutions, all adopted by the Presbytery.  There are about 18 resolutions (it sort of depends on what you count as sub-sections) in four groups dealing with PUP, Stewardship, Property and the Future.  Again, if you are following these resolutions there are few surprises here.  The resolutions cover adherence to Book of Order ordination and membership requirements, being pastoral about churches considering leaving the PC(USA) and not taking coercive action, to honor a church’s withholding of per capita in protest, to not rigidly enforce the property trust clause by legal action, to form a task force to consider the future and renewal of the PC(USA), and to mail the document out to all congregations and governing bodies.  One resolution did catch my eye as a bit different and that one deals with correcting congregations that do not hold to the Book of Order ordination standards.  I may have missed it in other similar documents, but I don’t remember seeing anything quite like this before.  In the “Towards Peace, Unity and Purity” section resolution 4 says:

In its discernment of the essentials of Reformed polity and for the sake of the peace, unity, and purity of the church, the Presbytery of Santa Barbara adopts the principle that compliance with the standards for ordination adopted by the whole church in the Book of Order is an essential of Reformed polity. Since every pastor has vowed at ordination to be governed by our denomination’s polity, any conscious and deliberate departure from the essentials of Reformed polity is a sign of spiritual rebellion and/or illness. The presbytery has the express power (a power that only the presbytery can exercise) to provide pastoral care for the members of presbytery, visiting sessions and ministers on a regular basis (G-11.0103g). Therefore, the presbytery will counsel, guide and, if necessary, correct any pastor that is spiritually ill or in rebellion.

I will be reading the document in more detail this weekend and if anything else is unique enough I will update.  Otherwise, look for the document in a church mailbox near you.

Old PC(USA) news still circulating

Leave a reply

I am a bit amused at the new news coverage of the event about a month ago when there was a letter sent to all congregations by PC(USA) Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick and General Assembly Council Executive Director Linda Valentine.  This letter, dated January 29 and titled “We are better together in Christ’s unity,” encouraged congregations to remain part of the PC(USA) body and not look to move elsewhere.  I don’t remember any real popular media coverage of it at the time.

Fast forward to the New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC) Winter Convocation a couple of weeks ago and the news story suddenly “got legs” when the Associated Press issued a story.  The latest printing of this story that I have seen is in today’s inclusion in the Religion News in Brief column in the Casper (Wyoming) Star Tribune.  (It is the third item down.)  While this AP story is honest about the January 29 date of the letter these stories leave you with the impression that the letter was written as a response to the New Wineskins decision, not as an attempted preemptive strike.  The AP story does not give the date of the NWAC Convocation.

A story in the Louisville Courier-Journal titled “Presbyterians ask churches not to leave” gives the impression as well.  It gives the early February time frame for the NWAC meeting but does not give the date of the letter and leaves the reader (at least this reader) with the impression that the letter was a reaction to the meeting.  However, the Courier-Journal article does include more detail, more quotes from both sides, and more background information than the AP story.

World Anglican Communion wants U.S. Episcopal Church to be clear about their compliance

Leave a reply

The Anglican Primates’ meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, finished up on Monday night (maybe Tuesday morning local time) and from their final communique it appears that the conservatives of the Global South got some fairly strong wording about the situation in the Episcopal Church. The communique (section 20) does say that the Episcopal Church took the Windsor Report seriously, but still expresses concern (section 21) saying “we believe that there remains a lack of clarity
about the stance of The Episcopal Church, especially its position on the
authorisation of Rites of Blessing for persons living in same-sex unions.”  The communique goes on in sections 23 and 24 to say:

23. Further, some of us believe that Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention does not in fact give the assurances requested in the Windsor Report.

24. The response of The Episcopal Church to the requests made at Dromantine has not persuaded this meeting that we are yet in a position to recognize that The Episcopal Church has mended its broken relationships.

The primates also recognized that there are churches and groups in the Episcopal Church that would like alternate oversight but upheld the status of the Presiding Bishop.  They did say that they will work with the Episcopal Church to try to lessen the divisions. They also said that an urgent need exists for “those of us who have lost trust in The Episcopal Church need to be re-assured that there is a genuine readiness in The Episcopal Church to embrace fully the recommendations of the Windsor
Report.”

Reaction to the meeting:

From the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, excerpts from his comments:

Hence the recommendations of the Primates at the end; a proposal to
establish a pastoral council; a responsibility shared between the Primates’ Meeting and the Presiding Bishop, asking those bishops who have already offered to take up this responsibility to provide pastoral care within The Episcopal Church for the conscientious minority and a challenge to both sides really, a challenge to The Episcopal Church to clarify its position; a challenge also to those who have intervened from elsewhere to see if they can negotiate their way towards an equitable settlement within the life of the North America Church.

You’ll notice that we also suggested, to pick up an unfortunate metaphor that’s been around quite a bit, the kind of ceasefire in terms of litigation. At the very end of the recommendations you’ll see that the very last paragraph that the primates urge representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it, to suspend all actions in law arising from this situation, None of us; none of us believe that litigation and counter litigation can be a proper way forward and we don’t see that we can move towards sensible balanced reconciliation while that remains a threat in wide use.

From Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori:

(Anglican Communion Web Site Article)

The next steps are really for the Episcopal Church to receive it, for the House of Bishops to respond in ways that they’ve been asked. The House of Bishops meets in a few weeks and it will be an opportunity for us to begin to engage and discuss the possibilities.

Be of good faith. We’re entering Lent and there’s probably not a better time for us to receive this communiqué from the Primates’ Meeting. It will be hard news for a number of members of this Church; it will be welcome news for other members of this Church. This is a season to remember who is the focus of our faith and it is not we ourselves.

(Episcopal News Service Press Release)

“It is clear that despite the subcommittee report, a number of the Primates were unhappy with General Convention’s response, and clarification of that response is among the Primates’ requests of the Episcopal Church,”

The Primates in their meeting studied a draft of an Anglican Covenant that many in their comments pointed to as a way forward in this controversy providing a common framework of belief.  This document in many ways resembles a set of what the Presbyterians are now calling “essential tenets.”

Want a distraction from Presbyterians? Try the Anglicans.

2 Replies

Things are heating up at the meeting of 38 global primates (Anglican national or regional leaders) in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.  The meeting, which began yesterday, has the controversy in the American Episcopal Church over ordination standards and same-sex unions front and center.  Many conservative African primates are concerned about the liberal drift of the American church.

One item yesterday was an evaluation of the Episcopal Church’s response to the Windsor Report, a statement put together by a commission appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury after the Rev. V. Eugene Robinson, an openly active gay man, was ordained a bishop.  A report was prepared by the Communion Sub-group for presentation at this meeting indicating that the Episcopal Church had fulfilled the requests of the Windsor Report.  According to an Episcopal News Service press release about the present meeting the gathered primates concurred with the report that although the General Convention of the Episcopal Church did not use the precise wording of the Windsor Report the statements it approved expressing regret for offending Anglicans and declaring a moratorium on ordination of active homosexuals were “sufficient.”  Regarding this matter and the general controversy in the Episcopal Church the primates heard from three bishops besides the Presiding Bishop of the church.  These three bishops span the theological spectrum on the issues.  The Episcopal News Service statement says that all parties have been asked to withhold comments until after the meeting adjourns on February 19 but I’ll bet we get an earful then.  However, a statement by the American Anglican Council calls the Sub-Group Report “highly inadequate in its assessment of the U.S. Episcopal Church’s response to requests made of the church by the Anglican Communion primates.” A statement by Robert Williams, aide and spokesperson for Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori, (reported widely, here by the Globe and Mail) says “The spirit of Anglicanism will prevail here and there will be a middle way forward” but that the Presiding Bishop “will not waver in her stand for justice and inclusion of all people in the body of Christ.”

Well, things got more interesting today when the primates gathered for Holy Communion and the service was boycotted by seven conservative primates from a group known as the Global South.  These bishops posted a statement on the Church of Nigeria web site that says in part:

We each take the celebration of the Holy Eucharist very seriously. This deliberate action is a poignant reminder of the brokenness of the Anglican Communion. It makes clear that the torn fabric of the Church has been torn further. It is a consequence of the decision taken by our provinces to declare that our relationship with The Episcopal Church is either broken or severely impaired.

The Global South Primates took similar action in 2005 at a summit in Ireland.  The seven primates represent the churches in Nigeria, South East Asia, Kenya, West Africa, Uganda, South America, Rwanda.

Final decisions will be made later in the meeting but it looks like it may be interesting.

Santa Barbara Presbytery Approves Document Calling for PC(USA) to Return to Jesus Christ

Leave a reply

The Layman Online is reporting that Santa Barbara Presbytery approved a document at their Presbytery Meeting on February 10 that uses very strong terms to call the PC(USA) back to faith in Jesus Christ.  (I would note that the Santa Barbara Presbytery web site appears several months out of date, at least as meetings are concerned, and I was not able to get any direct information about this from there.)

The declaration adopted was based upon a “Declaration of Theology and Action” from the Session of Community Presbyterian Church of Ventura.  This 19 page PDF document is heavily footnoted with Scripture and Book of Order References.

At this time, based upon the Layman Article, it is not clear to me if the Presbytery resolution is the document from the church, based upon the document, was inspired by the document, or the document is an appendix or something extra like that.  I will try to find out more.

Whatever the bottom line, Santa Barbara Presbytery has taken action that is reported to include some strongly worded language.  The Layman article says that every PC(USA) congregation will be getting a copy so I look forward to seeing that.