Category Archives: news

Destructive Haitian Earthquake

Leave a reply

It has been a while since I have drifted from my usual theological and polity discussions into my area of professional work.  Yesterday’s Mw=7.0 earthquake in Haiti has prompted me to now digress to the natural world for this discussion.

I am sure that most of you are aware of the major earthquake on the west end of the island of Hispaniola in the Caribbean.  The epicenter of the earthquake was about 10 miles west of Port-au-Prince, the capital of Haiti which is on the western part of the island.

I should begin by saying that while the occurrence of the earthquake was not a surprise I was a bit surprised by the size.  While magnitude 5 and 6 earthquakes occur regularly around the Caribbean we don’t see magnitude 7 earthquakes that often – this is one of six in the last 10 years around the Caribbean basin.  In this area there was another magnitude 6.5 to 7 earthquake off the northeast side of the island in 2003.  Of these Caribbean earthquakes this one was a bit unique in that it occurred on land and not in the ocean.  And there was a Mw=8 earthquake centered on the east end of the island in 1946.

One of the big questions when an earthquake gets this large is where the fault broke.  Up to magnitude 5 the length of fault that breaks is relatively small so the epicenter does a good job of describing the location of the earthquake.  For larger earthquakes the epicenter is nothing more than the point it starts at and major fault slip can occur some distance away.  In this case the good news, if you want to call it that, is that all the major aftershocks are to the west of the epicenter giving strong evidence that the fault broke to the west away from Port-au-Prince.  So not only was the strongest shaking not in the capital but the energy was directed away from it.  Yes, little consolation considering the scale of the damage that we are seeing.

The presence of this earthquake, and in fact the presence of the island of Hispaniola itself, can be attributed to this area being on a sliver being pushed up on the boundary between the Caribbean and North American plates.  There is a major fault zone just off the north shore of the island and then this one that cuts across and through the south side.


Having knowledge of the tectonic setting of Haiti and the presence of these faults it is not surprising that there is a moderate seismic hazard for the region.  However, don’t let the colors fool you – the highest hazard areas in this region are still an order of magnitude lower than most of the “low hazard” areas here in Southern California.  (And no, I’m not even going to attempt to explain what the numbers mean other than to say that it is related to the probably of experiencing damaging shaking in 50 years.)

There is one more very interesting (at least to me) behavior we see in earthquakes and that is a ten-to-one ratio of number of earthquakes as the magnitude increases.  This holds for the whole world, regions of the world, and aftershock sequences like this one.  So far the numbers are right on as demonstrated by the fact that as of now there are reported 35 earthquakes greater than, or equal to, magnitude 4.5.  If we increase one magnitude point to earthquakes greater than or equal to 5.5 there are four, including the main shock.  The magnitude-frequency ratio is holding.  (For the real geeks and seismologists I come up with a b-value of 1.05 currently but that presumes completeness of the IRIS catalog down to 4.5.)

If you want more maps and technical details on this earthquake you can check out the USGS information page for it.

Let me return to Presbyterianism to conclude.  I know that mission boards are trying to get information and status reports from workers in the country — my brother-in-law has not been able to reach his contacts there yet.  From the reports there is extensive damage to an already weak infrastructure so news may be slow getting out.  There were mission trips from New Jersey and Wisconsin churches in the country and news just appeared that the both groups are safe.  And disaster aid is being collected by PWS&D (PC Canada), PDA (PC(USA)). (I’ll add others as I see them.)  UPDATES: The PC(USA) now has a press release about mission workers, mission teams, and disaster assistance.  There is now an update from the OPC.  The PCA Mission to North America is evaluating the situation and taking contributions.  And there is an announcement that the Canadian Government will match donations to PWS&D. The Cumberland Presbyterian Church has made a donation, and encourages more, through Church World Service.

Finally, a couple of years ago I wrote about a “theology of earthquakes,” if you will.  If you want more on how I fit my professional work into my theological framework check that out.

And keep praying, not just for the devastation in Haiti but in areas all around the world that need help recovering from whatever disasters have struck them.

Looking Ahead: 219th General Assembly Of The PC(USA) – The Second Moderator Candidate

2 Replies

With thanks to the Presbyterian Outlook for confirming the news, we now know that the Rev. Jin S. Kim has been unanimously endorsed by the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area as a candidate to stand for election to be the Moderator of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

The Rev. Kim is the founding and senior pastor of the Church of All Nations in Columbia Heights, Minnesota.  Much as we joked about Bruce being the hometown boy with a home-field advantage at the 218th, it looks like Jin will have that distinction at the 219th.  Yet to see if that is an actual advantage.

At the present time the Rev. Kim has a single Moderator web page as a part of his personal blog New Church Rising.  On that Moderator page, in addition to his stock bio (it is essentially the same as the church bio, except he dropped the ice fishing reference, and his bio for the Belhar Special Committee is a condensed version) the page has his “Reflections on our life together as a Presbyterian family…”  That reflection begins with:

In a post-modern, post-ideological, post-denominational, multicultural age often marked by uprootedness and loss of meaning, how do we “do church” in a way that testifies to the reconciling gospel of Jesus Christ?  In an individualistic culture that tends toward alienation and isolation, how do we lead our congregations, ministries and presbyteries to become high-risk, low-anxiety places, to lead God’s people to confess who they are, to experience healing in intimate community, and to be a witness to the liberating power of the Spirit?

He goes on to talk about how this age requires a new “conceptualizing” of leadership, how we need to transition from the institutional model to something daring, prophetic and countercultural.

The Rev. Kim is widely known in the PC(USA), speaking regularly at conferences and according to his blog he is a speaker at the Institute for Multicultural Ministries going on right now at Princeton Theological Seminary.  He preached for worship services for the 216th (2004) and 218th (2008) General Assemblies, and as I mentioned above he is a member of the Special Committee to study the adoption of the Belhar Confession.  I look forward to his future writings on his blog and his view of the present situation in the PC(USA) and where the church should be headed.  (And you have to respect someone who gives their kids middle names based on ancient creeds – check the last sentence of his bio.)

I can not conclude this post without mentioning that in doing the research for this story I came across the blogs of two pastors that discussed some confusion in the process on Saturday when the presbytery elected their GA commissioners.  While the specific details are not fully covered there seems to be some misunderstanding and disagreement about voting on the slate of alternate commissioners the Nominating Committee put forward and the presbytery voting to do it differently.  Pastor Paul Moore titled his post “That didn’t go well” and draws two conclusions: 1- “We need to learn how to disagree better.” 2- “We have to value the process less.”  The second blog, by Pastor Stephanie Anthony, pretty much sums up her point in the title “Where’s the trust?”  This is a follow-on to Rev. Moore’s writing and makes the point that we have the process for a reason, but within the process the presbytery needs to put some trust in the committees, in this case the Nominating Committee, that they elect to do the work.

UPDATE:  1. The Presbyterian News Service released their article about Rev. Kim this afternoon. 2. Blogger Viola Larson has read through Rev. Kim’s blog and weighs in with some criticism and concern about what she reads there.

New Principal Clerk Of The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland

Leave a reply

I don’t know how many of you caught this job announcement for a new Principal Clerk of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.  As the announcement says “These senior positions offer talented individuals the chance to make a significant contribution to the life of the Church.”  But note, for some of us elsewhere around the globe, “Applications are invited from Ministers of the Church of Scotland for this key role.”  Now, although the job posting never explicitly says that the Principal Clerk must be a clergy member, it does ask for “experience and understanding of the parish ministry” and the Acts and Regulations of the Church of Scotland do require the Principal Clerk to be a minister.  Sorry all you polity-wonk ruling elders.

Well, in case you had not heard and are interested, sorry but the position has been filled.  No official press release from the Kirk yet, but according to Scotsman.com the selection for the next Principal Clerk is the Rev. John Chalmers.  Rev. Chalmers has previously served in parish ministry, his last charge being Palmerston Place Church at the West End, Edinburgh.  He currently is serving as the “pastoral adviser in the ministry department” of the national headquarters according to the article.  He will be confirmed by the Assembly in May and will begin duties over the summer.  The article quotes him as saying: “I’m excited by the challenge and approach it with quite some fear and trepidation.”

[I will update here as more stories and the press release are issued.]

For watchers of the Kirk the retirement of the Very Rev. Dr. Finlay Macdonald, the current Principal Clerk, is not a surprise.  At the last Assembly Rev. Macdonald was absent and the Assembly “resolved that the Rev Dr Marjory MacLean be appointed Acting Principal Clerk for the duration of the absence of the Principal Clerk.”  There is no word if the Rev. MacLean, presently the deputy principal clerk, was a candidate for the permanent position.

So, the best of wishes to the Rev. Chalmers as he prepares for and assumes his new position and it will be interesting to see how he advises and guides the Assembly of 2011.  And best wishes to the Very Rev. Dr. Macdonald as he prepares for retirement, but not until after he helps the Assembly through the 2010 Meeting.

And to all my readers, a happy Boxing Day, Feast of St. Stephen, and Second Day of Christmastide.

New Official Web Site Design And Blog From New Zealand

1 Reply

If you have not visited the web site of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand recently then you have missed the redesign of their site.  It is a sharp design with good use of graphics and easy, logical navigation bars.  It is a design that give the page a new look while preserving elements of the “feel” of the old site.  A nice transition.  And there are nice dynamic elements – check out the “Find something fast” bar at the top. When the Book of Order is at the top of this list you know you will please a GA Junkie.  But maybe the best thing about the new site is that there is now a feed for new info posted to the site, a great help for those of us with feed readers.  The redesign does unfortunately mean that many links in all my past posts about the PCANZ are now broken.

But for me the real news from New Zealand is that the PCANZ Archives Research Centre has begun its own blog, “Presbyterian Research,” in the same style as the blog from the PCA Historical Center, “The Continuing Story.”  Like The Continuing Story, Presbyterian Research highlights the denominational history and ethos with short vignettes and glimpses of items in their collection.  Any GA Junkie would appreciate the story about the 1901 General Assembly which got into a debate on the floor of the Assembly over the robes the Moderator was wearing.  Another item highlights a recent lecture to the Research Network by the Rev. Dr. Susan Jones.  (The print version is available on-line.)  The item describes the lecture

…which probed the development of ministerial training in the PCANZ.  She not only placed her research in an historical context but she also analysed the nature of the training itself. Her analysis showed that training has been fragmented and that ordinands have often learned academic subjects but they have not been helped to integrate knowledge into their faith.

When the article describes the topic as “continually challenging” that can probably be applied to Presbyterian branches everywhere.

And finally, what geek can not appreciate a blog where the first article is titled “Hello world!”  (For the non-geeks, it is now a standing tradition among programmers that your first programming exercise is to write a program that prints out the words “hello world.”)

So far it is interesting reading.  I look forward to much more.

Church Of Scotland Commission Of Assembly Meeting – Ordination Standards Debate And Manse Occupancy

This was an interesting meeting last Friday (Nov. 13) in a number of ways.  One way that it was interesting was because of the media attention that was paid to it.  I seldom see much, if any coverage, of the meetings of the Commission of Assembly.  But extending on that it was interesting in what the media coverage was about.  With two controversial decisions to be considered by the Commission, only one of them seemed to get any media attention, particularly in advance.  I will cover that item second, but a brief reminder of the role of the Commission and the other item that did not get much media attention.

In the Church of Scotland each General Assembly establishes a sub-group to act on important matters in the interim year until the next Assembly meets.  As a commission they are empowered to act with the full authority and power of the whole Assembly on many matters.  We are fortunate that the Rev. Ian Watson of Kirkmuirhill served as a commissioner to this meeting and brings us a lot of insightful details in his blog.

The first item relates to the continuing journey regarding ordination standards in the Church of Scotland, specifically as it relates to same-sex partnered clergy and candidates.  The short review is that after a church called a minister last spring the call was protested and the GA decided to deny the protest.  But, the GA also decided that the topic should be looked at by a special commission and during the two years the commission is working there are to be no calls or ordinations of same-sex partnered clergy.  But what about individuals starting the process?  An individual was approved by the Presbytery of Hamilton, a dissent and complaint was filed and the individual withdrew. However, that withdrawal did not halt the protest and there was a request for clarification whether the moratorium did apply to candidates.  That is the question brought to the Commission of Assembly last week.

In his detailed post about the meeting Rev. Watson tells us:

The end result was that the Commission decided to uphold the dissent and complaint against the Presbytery of Hamilton.  The practical result is that the deliverance brought in the name of Rev. Dr. John McPake at May’s General Assembly (amended after long debate)—the moratorium—is to be interpreted broadly and not restrictively.  When it instructs Courts, Councils and Committees of the Church not “to make decisions in relation to contentious matters of sexuality, with respect to Ordination and Induction” that includes training for the ministry, which, by its very nature looks towards ordination and induction.   Should a Court, Council or Committee be faced with making a decision in this regard they must decline to do so, sisting the matter if appropriate, until 31st May 2011.

In his description of the meeting he talks about the background to this presbytery’s decision and the advice they had received from the Principle Clerk’s office.  He also talks about what the intent of the moratorium was and how a literal versus intended interpretation was applied.  He sums up that section with this (emphases his):

While it might seem that the Presbytery had reached a wise compromise, it presented the wider church with a problem.  Was this indeed the outcome May’s General Assembly had in mind?  Some felt that this was too narrow an interpretation.  While Hamilton Presbytery might wish to add a rider to their acceptance of the candidate, other Presbyteries might not.   Were this decision to go unchallenged, it would appear that the Church of Scotland had not decided not to train sexually active homosexuals for the ministry. 

Many believe that the moratorium provided the church with the chance to calm down.  The relative peace which has descended upon the church would be endangered if it become known that the moratorium was being applied so strictly as to be null and void for all practical purposes.

In the end the Commission agreed 43-38 to the counter-motion, made by Rev. Watson, that the moratorium applied to those training for the ministry as well.

As I said at the beginning, outside of Rev. Watson’s account, and the blogs like this one that link to it, the coverage of this action has been limited.  I have seen no coverage in the mainstream media, but there is some in the alternative media.  One example is an article from PinkNews which mentions the meeting and decision in the first line, and then spends the rest of the article profiling the candidate who was approved and then withdrew.  In the blogosphere there are some interesting comments by John Ross at Recycled Missionaries.

The second item did get the coverage in the mainstream media leading up to the meeting including the Edinburgh Evening News and The Sun.

This question revolves around a provision in the Regulations of the General Assembly, specifically Reg VII 2007 item 2. (Reg. VII 2007 in Word Format.)  That item says:

2. A Minister has the right to live in the Manse and a corresponding duty to occupy it.

The question raised is “what does it mean to ‘occupy’ the manse?”

The specific situation is that the Rev. John Munro, pastor of Fairmilehead Church near Edinburgh, lives in his personally owned home about 1/2 km from the church.  He and his wife did live in the manse next to the church for about 5 years but moved about two years ago reportedly because his wife did not enjoy living in the manse.  However, Rev. Munro made a good-faith effort to “occupy” the manse by working there every day.  Edinburgh Presbytery ruled that using the manse’s library and having possession of the manse’s contents were not sufficient and that occupying the manse entailed living there.

The Commission of Assembly agreed with the Presbytery by a vote of 64 to 5 (as reported in the Edinburgh Evening News) and has sent the case back down to the Presbytery for its action.

At this point I, as someone outside the Church of Scotland, am scratching my head a bit.  First the action is reported but the reasons behind this regulation are not clear t
o me.  (Or maybe I should say that I can think of a dozen reasons for the regulation but I don’t know which one is correct.)  The best indication we have is one reference in The Sun article where an unnamed friend of Rev. Munro says “They fear if the Inland Revenue thinks manses are no longer necessary for the job, they will change its tax status. But they are being paranoid. Since 2003 only five people have asked to live out with their manse in Scotland.”

Here in the states many churches have done away with the manse for a variety of reasons.  These include the fact that a manse is “one size fits all” and the minister and their family don’t always fit the property.  Also, some view the opportunity to own their property outright as an investment to help when they reach retirement.  And in the recent “housing bubble” many new church plants could not afford to purchase land for the church, let alone a manse for their pastor.  Finally, in the states the tax codes generally allow a minister similar tax treatment if they are in a manse or receive a housing allowance for their own property.

So this case in Edinburgh goes back to the Presbytery and possible outcomes range from censure to full dismissal from the charge.  We will see what the Presbytery decides.

Ordination Standards In The Evangelical Presbyterian Church — The Current Discussion

Leave a reply

In the Evangelical Presbyterian Church the discussion on ordination standards appears to me to be more of a speed bump than the litmus test it seems to have become in other Presbyterian branches.  The church is holding their stated position, that whether or not women should be ordained is a non-essential and therefore a local standard, in tension with the incumbent position of the churches coming in from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the conflict they may be in with the geographic presbytery in which they reside.  Because the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery provides a temporary location for these churches the issue is important but not immediately pressing.

At the last General Assembly the Presbytery of Mid-America proposed one solution for co-existence which did not meet constitutional muster.  Recognizing this as an issue that required a solution the PJC recommended that an Interim Committee be formed to look at the situation.  The Moderator has now named this Committee and they held their first meeting in Memphis, TN, last week according to the article in the EP News.  The committee is composed of 18 members — one teaching elder and one ruling elder from each presbytery.  Its charge is to “explore ways to include those pastors and churches with conflicting positions on Women Teaching Elders in the presbyteries of the EPC” and is to report back to the 30th General Assembly in 2010.

I have seen no reports from the meeting itself yet but it will be interesting to follow the path they take in working through this issue.  In closing I will leave you with the words of the PJC about the importance of this discussion from its decision last summer:

The PJC wants the record to reflect that it recognizes and deeply appreciates the serious nature of the issues prompting the Mid-America Overture, the historical background and self-described struggle in the Mid-America Presbytery, the extraordinary effort and prayerful attention exhibited in working in harmony and love with one another, and the heartfelt and deep concern for the peace, purity, and unity of their presbytery reflected by the Implementation Committee in their presentation. Here it must be added that the PJC is saddened by the possibility that there may come a time when wonderful children of God might decide to divide themselves over an issue now established in the Church as a non-essential.

Current News In The Ordination Standards Discussion In The Church Of Scotland

2 Replies

Compared to my two previous notes on developments in the PC(USA) and the PCA this recap on developments in the Church of Scotland will be relatively short since their process is much more focused at the moment.

You may remember that the last General Assembly dealt with a protest filed by a group of presbyters who considered their presbytery’s action to concur with a church’s call to a partnered gay man to pastor the church to be out of order.  The GA upheld the presbytery decision and denied the protest.  Along with the protest there was also an overture filed by another presbytery to establish some standards for ordained office regarding lifestyle and sexual orientation.  Instead of acting on that the Assembly chose to structure an environment to engage the church in discussion over this issue.  This environment includes a Special Commission to study the issue and report back to the 2011 Assembly, a moratorium on installations and ordinations of partnered same-sex individuals as officers of the church, and a ban on officers of the church talking publicly about the issue.  The moratorium and the gag order are for the two years the Special Commission will be working.

Well yesterday brought news that Lord Hodge will chair the special commission.  Lord Hodge is a Judge of the Supreme Court and was previously Procurator to the General Assembly, among other legal and judicial positions.  The news article also lists an additional four members of this nine member commission:

Other members of the commission include the Rev John Chalmers, former minister of Edinburgh’s Palmerston Place Church; advocate Ruth Innes, a member at Palmerston Place Church; former Moderator the Very Rev Dr Sheilagh Kesting; and the Rev Peter Graham, former clerk to the Edinburgh presbytery.

Thanks to the Edinburgh Evening News for this, but I look forward to a formal press release from the CofS Newsroom, or a more detailed media article listing the full membership of the commission.

A sidebar here, (pun intended) on the leaders of these Church of Scotland special commissions.  For those of you keeping score at home, this is the third special commission in three years that I am aware of.  The first of these, created by the 2006 General Assembly, was the Special Commission on Structure and Change which reported back to the 2008 Assembly.  What I find interesting was that commission was headed up by Lord Hodge’s colleague on the high court, Lord Brodie.  Not every commission is headed up by a distinguish justice because the third commission, and one that is currently working, the Special Commission on the Third Article is chaired by the Moderator of the 2006 Assembly, the Very Rev. Dr. Alan D. McDonald.  (And if you want more on the Structure and Change and Third Article stuff, you can check out my earlier discussion of all that.)  But in summary, you have to be impressed with the church’s integration in the culture to be able to get such secular leaders onto GA commissions.  (And you have to wonder how they have time to do it.)

Finally, I was looking back and I probably should close the loop on one more related item.  Back at the beginning of September the Presbytery of Hamilton voted to admit to training for the ministry an individual whose lifestyle was the subject of the new discussion in the church.  The issue at the time was focused on whether this presbytery action was a violation of the GA action, in spirit if not in letter.  Subsequently, the individual, Mr. Dmitri Ross, withdrew his application after the controversy erupted.  In a Time article he is quoted as saying:

“I do not wish, and have never sought, to be a cause of division within the Church I love so dearly. Therefore, after much heartfelt deliberation, and after much prayerful consideration, I have decided to withdraw as a full-time candidate in training for ministry of word and sacrament in the Church of Scotland.”

Like the other ordination debates, all of this is a point in the journey, or a step in a process, that will play out.  Stay tuned…

The Continuing Ordination Standards Discussion In The Presbyterian Church In America

1 Reply

I know, this ordination standards discussion/debate is getting old.  It seems to keep on going, there are overtures to every GA about it, some congregations seem to ignore or nuance the standards that are in the constitution, and we keep having judicial cases over it.

Well, I could be talking about the mainline and the recent developments there, but today I turn to the ongoing discussion in the Presbyterian Church in America over ordination standards.

For those from any of the Presbyterian branches who just wish that ordination standards debates would go away… don’t hold your breath.  The discussion over ordination standards has been with the American Presbyterians pretty much since its founding three centuries ago and was one of the factors in the Old Side/New Side split of 1741.  The concept remains constant and the particular contested standard shifts.

The discussion in the PCA of course is over women serving as deacons, or more precisely as deaconesses.  Everyone agrees that the PCA Book of Church Order does not allow women to serve in ordained office.  (A fact that seems a little irritating to a few who joined the PCA when the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod, which had female deacons, merged with the PCA back in 1982.)  But there appear to be many ways to nuance this from having men and women as non-ordained deacons sometimes with commissioning, to having a board of deacons but having men and women assistants that are not particularly distinct from the board that leads them.

Within the last couple of days this has become a fresh news topic because of developments on both sides of the issue.

On the side of flexible implementation of the diaconate come copies of the e-mail that Redeemer Presbyterian Church sent out to its members soliciting nominations for church office.  The text of this e-mail is posted on both the BaylyBlog and the PuritanBoard.

Maybe the most amusing part is their terminology.  Since there is a general understanding in the PCA that a deacon is male and a deaconess is female, Redeemer apparently uses the term “deek” as a gender neutral title for a deacon/deaconess.

But it is clear from the email letter and from the Redeemer web site that, at least publically, there is no distinction or acknowledgment of ordained deacons being only men in the PCA.  From both of these sources you would never know that is a standard of the church.

In the email it says:

There are 49 men and women currently serving on the Diaconate and 20 men serving on the Session as ruling elders. These men and women have been elected by the congregation and have gone through theological and practical training to master the skills and the information necessary for these positions.

At least in the email there is implicit recognition of elders being men, a distinction that is not on the church’s Officer Nomination web page:

Qualifications of Officers

The following are requirements for all nominations.

FOR DEACON/DEACONESS NOMINEES: Nominees should be a Christian for at least three years and a member of the Redeemer for at least one year; OR, a Christian for at least three years and a regular Redeemer attendee who has been committed to Redeemer as their primary place of worship for at least two years and a member for at least six months.

FOR ELDER NOMINEES: At the time of nomination, an elder nominee should have been a Christian for at least three years and a Redeemer member for at least one year.

And on the Diaconate page it says:

Who We Are and What We Do

The Diaconate, a group of men and women nominated, elected and appointed by the Redeemer members, exists to contribute to the building of a repentant and rejoicing community through loving, truth-telling relationships where practical, visible needs are being met while hearts are being changed through encounters with Jesus and one another. We express in practical ways Christ’s command to all believers to love our neighbor as ourselves.

As I said, from everything I have seen from the church the PCA requirement that ordained officers are only men is, at a minimum, obscured to the routine observer.

Contrast this with the overture to the 38th General Assembly of the PCA that was passed last week by Central Carolina Presbytery. (Reported by The Aquila Report.)

Amend Book of Church Order 9-7 by adding, “These assistants to the deacons shall not be referred to as deacons or deaconesses, nor are they to be elected by the congregation nor formally commissioned, ordained, or installed as though they were office bearers in the church.”

That seems to directly address the ambiguity present in the material from Redeemer.  If there is any doubt, consider the last three “Whereases” in the resolution:

4. Whereas while some RPCES congregations had women on their diaconates, the RPCES resolved as part of the J&R agreement with the PCA to “Amend the existing doctrinal standards and Form of Government of the Reformed Presbyterian church, Evangelical Synod, by substituting for them the doctrinal standards and Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America” ; and

5. Whereas several churches in the PCA currently elect and commission women to the office of deacon and call them by the title deacon or deaconess and allow them to serve on the diaconate; and

6. Whereas BCO 9-7, which states that women may be selected and appointed by the session of a church to serve as assistants to the deacons, is often cited as pretext for this practice of electing and commissioning female deacons;

In the past few years the GA has usually had overtures that would set up study committees to make recommendations about the situation and constitutional language.  This addresses the constitutional language head-on proposing a clarifying addition.

Finally, there are complaints filed against Metropolitan New York Presbytery for actions taken at their presbytery meeting last March.  (And thanks to the BaylyBlog for their publication of the full text of the actions.)

The presbytery action in March affirmed that the various flexible implementations of deacons, such as commissioning instead of ordaining or women serving as non-ordained deaconesses in the same capacity as ordained men, was not a violation of the BCO. The first complaint, filed in April, argues that the practices permitted by the presbytery are in fact a violation of the BCO.

At the May presbytery meeting the presbytery rescinded it’s March action but took no further
action regarding making a statement that some of the existing practices in the Presbytery were in violation of the BCO.  They did begin considering ways to discuss the issue.  A new complaint was made by two of the original complainants with the Standing Judicial Commission of the GA.  In September the officers of the SJC ruled that the complaint was filed prematurely since the Presbytery had responded by rescinding its action and was still in discussion about the other requested items in the original complaint.

That is where this issue sits at the present time in that Presbyterian branch.  With nine months to go before the 38th General Assembly there will probably be a few more twists and turns before the Assembly convenes.  However, whether it be the PCA or the mainline relative I find it striking the similarities in the two situations and how they keep moving along in such parallel manners.

Three Decisions From The GA Permanent Judicial Commission Of The PC(USA) — Ordination Standards And More

Leave a reply

The Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) heard appeals in three cases last Friday, October 30, and yesterday published their decisions in the three cases, all of which were unanimous.

While the two decisions dealing with ordination standards were highly anticipated, and one of those does finally clarify a point in the PC(USA) ordination process, it is my assessment that for anyone following the polity closely they would not be surprised by the decisions handed down.  And while this closes the book on two of these cases the third decision does explicitly anticipate the possible continuation of the judicial proceedings.

This first one is unlike the other two…

In remedial case 219-12 Phinisee v. Presbytery of Charleston-Atlantic as you read through the history of the case it begins to sound like a comedy of errors.  Unfortunately, for anyone who has served on a Committee on Ministry for any length of time several of the aspects begin to sound too familiar.

In this case the church that the Rev. Phinisee was pastoring developed a conflict in the congregation which they were trying to work through with a consultant and the COM.  The pastor and session requested an Administrative Commission, the COM wanted to handle the process themselves.  So far fairly standard.

The issues of the case revolve around 1) a request in writing by three elders to the moderator of the session (Rev. Phinisee) to call a session meeting and Rev. Phinisee not calling the meeting and 2) the COM calling a session meeting to call a congregational meeting to dissolve the pastoral relationship with Rev. Phinisee.  This happened in December 2006 and the Rev. Phinisee filed his remedial complaint with the Synod PJC in early January 2007.  The case was further complicated by the Synod PJC failing to act within 90 days and the complainant then asking the GAPJC to assume jurisdiction.  The GAPJC then told the SPJC to get moving.  The SPJC did and basically found that everything was done according to process.

The appeal to the GAPJC had six specifications of error of which the GAPJC did not sustain five of them.  This included the error that the Presbytery should have appointed an Administrative Commission with the GAPJC noting that the appointment of a commission is “a discretionary function that resides solely with the presbytery.”  Where the GAPJC did sustain the error is in the SPJC’s finding that the congregational meetings were properly called.  In brief, they noted that a COM does not, of its own authority, have the power to call a special session meeting (which in this case called the special congregational meeting).  The presbytery may delegate that to the COM but the record is clear in this case that they had not.  The GAPJC also noted that the Rev. Phinisee was at fault as well for not calling the session meeting after receiving the legitimate written request from three elders.  Due to the passage of time no direct relief could be granted in this case but the GAPJC did order the Presbytery to establish an administrative commission to review policies and procedures.

In closing the GAPJC says:

This case demonstrates the consequences of failing to follow the Book of Order for calling meetings and dissolving pastoral relationships. The flaws of the COM procedure were exacerbated by the failure of the Synod to respond in a timely manner to Phinisee’s grievances.  Justice delayed was an impediment to the process and a fair proceeding throughout the course of this matter. Governing bodies are reminded that “all participants are to be accorded procedural safeguards and due process” (D-1.0101).

Case 219-08 – Bierschwale, Lenz and Shanholtzer v. Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area is a remedial case related to the process for restoring the Rev. Paul Capetz to the exercise of ordained ministry.  Without covering the full history, Mr. Capetz had, at his request, been released from the exercise of ordained ministry because of his conscientious objection to the “fidelity and chastity” section G-6.0106b.  With the 2006 GA Authoritative Interpretation allowing the declaration of an exception he requested, and was granted by the presbytery, his restoration to the exercise of ordained office.

The complainants filed their case with the SPJC on the grounds that in granting Mr. Capetz’ declared exception the presbytery failed to “adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108.”  The SPJC initially dismissed the case on the failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted but an earlier GAPJC decision sent it back to the SPJC for trial on one of the three points, the specifics of declaring an exception.  In their decision in the trial the SPJC found that the presbytery had properly carried out the process in G-6.0108 and were correct in their decision to grant the exception.  However, in conducting the trial the SPJC took the unusual step of excluding the public from the proceedings.

At this point is it important to note that the Constitutional standards, the GA Interpretations, and the previous GAPJC cases as they apply to process are nearly unanimous in their application to the ordination process only.  The declaration of an exception is something that is normally considered when an individual is being examined for ordination.  In addition, the application of these standards in the call process of a previously ordained individual is limited by the Sallade v. Genesee Valley decision to a “position that presumes ordination.”  Mr. Capetz was previously ordained and seeking validation of ministry in a position teaching at a seminary. In short, this case does not easily fall under any of the established polity and interpretations.  As has been pointed out in such cases before, if there is a question about Mr. Capetz’ manner of life under G-6.0106 that would be handled as a disciplinary case.

In their decision the GAPJC noted that all parties agree that the presbytery process was unique to this individual.  Consequently, the GAPJC concurred with the SPJC that granting the exception did not “infringe on the views of others and did not obstruct the constitutional governance of the church.”  Further, “There is nothing in the record to show that he [Capetz] has taken any action that could be deemed to be an act in violation of G-6.0106b.” and “This Commission reaffirms what it previously held in Bierschwale I that Capetz’ future conduct is not at issue in this case.”  The GAPJC did sustain the specification of error that the SPJC trial should not have been closed under the PC(USA) open meetings policy.  (The proceedings in a remedial case may be closed only for reasons of maintaining decorum.)

With that background we come to the third decision which revisits much of this under other circumstances…

Remedial case 219-11 – Naegeli, Stryker and Gelini v. Presbytery of San Francisco does deal with a candidate in the ordination process.

In this case Ms. Lisa Larges, who has been in the process for ordination as a Minister of Word and Sacrament for 20 years, was certified ready to receive a call with a declared exception by San Francisco Presbytery.

A couple of polity notes at this point.  The first is that previous GAPJC decisions have generally held that candidates that can not affirm the standards for ordained of
fice in G-6.0106 should not even be in the process.  With the 2006 Authoritative Interpretation explicitly introducing the declaration of an exception it has been ambiguous at what point the presbytery should act upon the declaration.  The second item to note is that the status of “certified ready” is one usually conferred by the Committee on Preparation for Ministry and need not be voted upon by the presbytery as a whole.  Both of these are noted in the decision.

To briefly summarize the history the CPM voted 12-9 on December 5, 2007 to certify her ready for examination for ordination pending a call.  At the January Presbytery meeting both a majority report for certification and a minority report to remove her from the rolls were presented and by a vote of 167-151 the Presbytery accepted the majority report.  In the remedial case heard by the SPJC that Commission rescinded the status of “certified ready” but did not rule on the declaration because an examination had not taken place.  (Ms. Larges was not present and therefore not examined at the January 2008 Presbytery meeting.)  (And in another side note, if you read the story as currently posted on the More Light Presbyterians web site you will note that they have the timing off — the original AI was from the 2006 GA and it was reaffirmed by the 2008 GA.  The CPM and Presbytery actions took place before the 2008 GA.)

The GAPJC grouped the nine specifications of error into four groups.  For the two related to the actions of the Presbytery, neither were sustained.  The GAPJC agreed that the proper time for declaring an exemption was at the time of examination for ordination.  Part of the reasoning was that the examination was the time when other waivers or exceptions were considered.

The GAPJC partly sustained one of the two specifications of error related to Constitutional Interpretation of G-6.0106b.  While noting that an examination had not formally taken place, they did note that in the action the Presbytery had followed they had not completely fulfilled the requirements of G-6.0108 for the policy and process of declaring an exception.

There were two specifications of error regarding the actions taken by the CPM and one of those was sustained in part.  On one level, actions of a committee of presbytery are not reviewable by a higher governing body since the principle of review applies to governing bodies themselves.  However, as noted in this case, when the action of a committee is the action of the governing body acting through the committee, in this case the CPM, it is reviewable.  However, the GAPJC concurred with the SPJC that while the CPM presentation to presbytery was “not as clear as it could have been,” there was no misrepresentation.

Finally, of the three specified errors related to the Procedures of the SPJC, two were sustained.  One related to the handling and admission of certain confidential documents in what was referred to as “Envelope B.”  The GAPJC decision notes that there are procedures for handling confidential and sensitive material, that the material need not be made public, but that at least the substance of the material (documents or testimony) must be disclosed to all parties even if it is only offered but not admitted to evidence.  If offered but not admitted it still becomes part of the record of the case.  In the point that was not sustained it was agreed that it was acceptable, but not necessarily advisable, to not have a verbatim transcript of pre-trial hearings.

So the result is that the previous action of the Presbytery has been rescinded but the Presbytery is now free to examine Ms. Larges for ordination, including in the examination her Statement of Departure from G-6.0106b.  This is expected to happen next week.

One of the points that the complainants wanted was for the SPJC to instruct the Presbytery that G-6.0106b was a standard of the church and a declared departure from that was not permissible.  Both the SPJC and the GAPJC declined to do so.

However, while emphasizing that each examination must be handled on a case-by-case basis, as part of the decision the GAPJC took pains to reiterate previous decisions about the process and procedures of the ordination process and examination.  They included an extended section from the Bush decision that begins:

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-6.0108a with respect to freedom of conscience.

And the Commission also cited additional cases on this aspect including Buescher v. Olympia, and Wier v. Second Pres.

The Commission also made a point of cautioning against acting too hastily to ordain so as to preclude a judicial challenge to the way the examination was handled.  Again, there was a good length quoted from a previous case, this time McKittrick v. West End Pres., which includes the caution:

[When] an installation occurs immediately following the examination process, there may be no practical opportunity for a protesting or dissenting party to seek a stay of enforcement of the decision to install. The Presbyterian custom of conducting business ‘decently and in order’ should not be converted into a race in which the swift prevail.

On close reading I get the distinct impression that they are trying to send a message.  Whether that message is “be sure you sweat the details because this will be reviewed” or whether it is “we aren’t saying this in as many words but remember G-6.0106b is on the books” will have to be seen.  (And maybe they are saying both.)  But it is important to remember that up to, and including, these decisions the GAPJC has ruled unanimously but really only on technicalities.  The substance and handling of a declaration of departure has not been formally ruled upon.  If the exception is granted in this case, and a new remedial case is filed there is the very real possibility that it would work its way through the church judicial process parallel to the church taking another vote on G-6.0106b that might remove that section and render the judicial cases moot.

Just another day as we strive to be “reformed and always being reformed according to the Word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit.”

Breaking News: PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions Published

2 Replies

The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has published their decisions on recently heard cases.

In my initial assessment I see no surprises in these two unanimous decisions regarding ordination standards:

219-08 – Bierschwale and others v. Presbytery of Twin Cities:  (Capetz case)  In my initial reading the important polity opinion rendered is that G-6.0106b and previous decisions like Bush v. Pittsburgh apply to the ordination process.  This case had to do with the restoration and validation of ministry, not ordination and call.  In that process there were no problems.  The sustained complaint was that the Synod PJC closed its proceedings.

219-11 – Naegeli and others v. Presbytery of San Francisco:  (Larges case)  This is a much more complex decision with several points being sustained in part and not sustained in part.  Bottom line for polity is that the question of when to declare an exception has been declared to be at the time of examination for ordination.  Practical result is that Ms. Larges has been cleared to be examined at the meeting next week on Nov. 10.  However, while not “instructing” the presbytery in this matter the GAPJC did emphasize the responsibility of determining if a declared exception is “a serious departure from essentials of Reformed faith and polity, and if it determines that she has, it must then decide whether the departure infringes on the rights and views of others or obstructs the constitutional governance of the church.”  The GAPJC appears to have left open the possibility of another case following the presbytery’s decision at that meeting.

Now, I’ll take some time and read every detail before commenting further.