Category Archives: news

Situation In Malawi With The CCAP — Update And Reaction

Last Saturday I tried to outline the news out of Malawi regarding some clergy leadership of the Livingstonia Synod of the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian (CCAP) that crossed some national political leaders in their messages at a funeral for a doctor who had only days before been removed from his position as the Minister of Health. For more details see my writing from Saturday, but the bottom line is that when I was writing on Saturday the three pastors had been arrested Friday but two were released the same day. A magistrate had denied bail for the third on Saturday.

I am pleased to report that on Monday the magistrate granted the Rev. Levi Nyondo, Secretary-General of the Synod, his release on bail of K100,000 (about US$658) with instructions to check in regularly with the police. Trial is set for September 14. (coverage from The Nation )

What has been interesting has been the reactions reported by the media from other groups in the country.

In the message at the funeral Rev. Nyondo is reported to have suggested that the Livingstonia Synod would be supporting current Vice-President Joyce Banda of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for president in 2014. Then there was an article in the The Nation where DPP member and government minister Symon Vuwa Kaunda said at a Tuesday news conference that Ms. Banda was not the party candidate for 2014. Then today the official party spokesman is reported to have said that Tuesday’s comments were only “an expression of interest” by Mr. Vuwa and that there is no official party candidate yet.

Another article talks about the opposition United Democratic Front (UDF) calling on the DPP and Livingstonia Synod needing to come together to mend their differences for the good of the country. The spokesperson is quoted as saying “It is dangerous for church and state to be fighting, both are entities that yield (ed. wield?) power in their own right and for them to be fighting each other can put the whole country in a very awkward situation.” However the response from the DPP is that “The issue is between police and the Livingstonia Synod, and I wonder how the DPP is coming in…”

Even more interesting from the point of view of a GA Junkie is the reaction from another CCAP synod, Nkhoma Synod generally in the central part of the country. I say “generally” because Livingstonia and Nkhoma have had disagreements about church planting in each others territory as individuals from different tribal groups move around the country. They have now agreed to be flexible in their geographic nature.

With that as background, it is noteworthy to see an article where a spokesperson, the Deputy Moderator, for the Nkhoma Synod denies giving “moral support” as claimed by a Livingstonia speaker. Instead they “only prayed for sustainability of his spirit silently.” To me prayer is a substantial form of support but I think they are looking for public support because he goes on to say that “As any other Malawians we were concerned, but chose to speak through silence.”

The best article I have read today on this whole situation is an op-ed piece in the Nyasa Times titled “Marginalizing the north.” The author, whose name I can’t seem to find in the article, writes as someone from the south of the country but provides a very insightful and balanced view of the geographic/ethnic/religious dynamics and tensions that exist. He starts off by saying “As a Southerner, I feel the North has been hard done by when it comes to certain elements of how public life and civil service have been organized and structured in Malawi.” He discusses several issues but within the political representation section he says:

The refusal by Livingstonia Synod to come to terms with Nkhoma Synod is a complex, very complex political issue. It should not just be understood as a mere squabble over boundary issues. It is a political conflict, largely because Nkhoma Synod, glorified and represented the Banda regime, something the Livingstonia Synod rejected throughout.

To ask or even condemn Livingstonia Synod for ‘failing’ to come to agreeable terms with Nkhoma, an iconic representation of the demagoguery of the MCP is, is in my opinion, overstretching the tortured political memories. It’s almost like criticising the people of Moto Village in Mangochi for not voting for MCP.

A bit later he says of the clerics that were arrested:

Instead of arresting them, let us mediate on what may have transpired such ‘treasonous’ statements. Think about the progression of political developments: the quota system (I was not a beneficiary and will never support preferential treatment in education); the sacking of DPP officials and ministers from the North; the feeling of marginalization, after the North staunchly supported Bingu’s survival under intense persecution from the UDF and MCP between 2004 and 2009; the firing of three DPP ministers from the North (even when one or two from the same region replaced them); and then, the death of a minister after being sacked.

He does say that the north has its own problems, issues, and reasons that it is not innocent in this. But as this situation develops I found this a wonderful insight from a Malawian who is outside the current tensions. We will see what happens in the trial in two weeks.

Disagreement Between CCAP Livingstonia Synod Leadership And Malawi Government Continues — Three Clerics Arrested

Leave a reply

Malawi Police arrest 3 CCAP clerics: Treason!

That is the headline on one on-line story in the Nyasa Times about yesterday’s incident at the funeral for recently sacked health minister Prof. Moses Chirambo that is related to the continuing dispute over the education quota system. The Church of Central Africa Presbyterian Livingstonia Synod has for over six months now been voicing concern about the government’s quota system that, in the church’s opinion, restricts the number of students accepted to university from their region in the north.

Yesterday the issues arose again at the funeral for Moses Chirambo. Prof. Chirambo was a trained ophthalmologist who, up to a few days before his death, was serving as the country’s health minister. I will let the account of the funeral from the Malawi Voice tell the next part of the story:

After eulogies from various dignitaries that included Vice President Joyce Banda and speaker of national assembly Henry Chimunthu Banda, it was the turn of the Synod to take over the proceedings.

When the Synod’s General Secretary Rev. Levi Nyondo took to the podium, he openly criticised President Bingu wa Mutharika for firing Chirambo out of his cabinet last week.

The Reverend said Mutharika erred in firing the late Chirambo saying there was nobody matching his academic and profession reputation hence it made no sense to have him fired from the cabinet unceremoniously.

But Nyondo’s remarks did not go down well with the DPP youth director for Rumphi Christopher Mtambo [sic] who shouted on top of his voice telling the Reverend to take politics out of the proceedings.

Ntambo’s reprimand to the Reverend irked Moderator of the Synod Mezuwa Banda who stood and starts accusing the DPP of trying to intimidate the church telling Ntambo to shut up as time for the party to speak was gone.

This triggered the cacophony which took the DPP’s former member Harry Mkandawire and Themba la ma Themba Chikulamayembe to calm down. When the dust settled down, the ceremony proceeded.

Friday evening, following the funeral and interment, police arrested Livingstonia Synod Moderator Rev. Mezuwa Banda, Synod General-Secretary Rev. Levi Nyondo and his deputy Rev. Maurice Munthali. Mr. Banda and Mr. Munthali were released later Friday evening but General-Secretary Nyondo remains in custody. According to the Malawi Voice article:

Northern Region police spokesperson confirmed of the release of the two. “But we are still keeping Rev Nyondo because we have found out that he was the one who uttered most of the treasonous words at the funeral, but so we are still doing our investigations.”

While that is the only direct quote from a police spokesperson reported in the media, from the news reports the charge seems to simply be “treasonous words,” the closest to a specific comment the news sources identify seems to be the “hint” or “comment” that the Synod would support current Vice-President Joyce Banda in the 2014 Presidential elections.

According to another article from the Nyasa Times Mr. Nyondo was denied bail today. The article says

Magistrate Justus Kishindo rejected Nyondo’s bail application, saying he would “tamper with evidence”.

At last report that is where the judicial process stands although the article also reports that people are gathering outside the Court to protest the arrests and detention.

The second Nyasa Times article also reports on the response from Malawi’s Human Rights Consultative Committee. Here is an extended quote for the full statement as reported:

The Human Right Consultative Committee (HRCC) has also condemned the arrest of Rev Nyondo.

HRCC executive director Undule Mwakasungula said on Saturday, “Malawi was heading back to the one party dictatorial rule practiced during the MCP [Malawi Congress Party] regime.”

“History is repeating itself,” said Mwakasungula while pointing out the church had a social role to play in society and that the views of the Livingstonia Synod clergy were critical to addressing issues affecting people of the northern region.

He said “Malawi is a democratic country” and people with dissenting views with the government “should not be oppressed.”

“We cannot undermine the importance of the clergy in the consolidation of our democracy. The clergy were the pioneers of advocating for democracy and human rights in Malawi and they continue to take a leading role in safeguarding our hard won democracy,” said Mwakasungura.

“We at CHR would also like to remind the DPP led government to realize that the law should not be used to target those that do not share their views.”

The rights defenders added:”It is a pity that in this age the DPP led government just like the Malawi Congress Party and United Democratic Front before it used the treason and sedition charges to settle political scores with those deemed to be from the other political divide.

“It is even more disheartening and costly to tax payers to note that most if not all perceived treason and sedition cases either die a natural death or are still being dragged through the corridors of our justice system. Tax payers have been forced on numerous occasions to pay compensation to those that have been wrongly accused of treason and sedition.”

CHRR said the moves by Mutharika government of turning Malawi into a police state need to be checked now and for all.

“We do not want to find ourselves in the bottom pit that Zimbabwe has found herself in. It is high time that the DPP realize and learn to live with those that have different point of view and accommodate their view. It is possible to practice clean politics.”

CHRR pressed for the immediate and unconditional release of Rev Levi Nyondo.

Two notes from the polity wonk perspective: 1) It is interesting to see the HRCC make statements supportive of the role of the church in social issues. 2) I find it interesting that the views of who one or two leaders will support in an election four years away are taken so seriously. Normally under Presbyterian polity we acknowledge that individual leaders can speak for themselves but unless endorsed by their governing body they do not speak for the larger church.

This has a ways to go and is part of a larger disagreement. We will see where it goes. Stay tuned.

There is additional coverage by NewZimSituation.com, and AFP.

The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland — Review And Reform And Ministries

Leave a reply

Nothing like starting off with a “bang.” But Mike gave us the heads-up on this…

Monday the first two reports to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland appeared on the Kirk web site and you know they are significant when the Kirk also issues a press release . The two reports are for the Ministries Council and the Panel on Review and Reform . And I intentionally let the names run together in the title since there is a great deal of review and reform in the Ministries report.

As anyone who has served on a ministries board would expect, the Ministries Council report contains a varied set of action items (25 total) dealing with various aspects of the ordained ministry from the system of tenure, to the process of training for the ministry, to the new Priority Areas Action Plan. While all important items I will concentrate today on the part of the report that is the high-profile section, the proposal to reduce the ministerial work-force in the Kirk to “1,000 full time equivalent” posts. And this is not central office staff but parish ministers and remember that all parish ministers are paid from the General Assembly level out of their budget, not at the congregation or presbytery levels. Key among the reasons for this proposed change is the budget situation which due to the combination of economic factors and declining membership will leave the Ministries Council with a deficit of £5.7 million in 2010. Because of the payment of salary to clergy through the Ministries Council it’s budget represents 87% of the total budget of the church. The report has recommendations with both 2014 and 2020 target dates.

But as the report says “Out of crisis, however, can come both vision and opportunity.” Specifically, the Council says of their work:

Undoubtedly the most urgent part of the 2020 Vision in terms of decision-making this year will be Building for Sustainable Future Patterns of Ministries, Finance and Presbytery Planning (1.4). In presenting the overall vision for the future, the theological and economic challenges contained in the proposals for reshaping ministries, planning for variety and achieving a sustainable pattern for the future through pruning for growth, the Council recognises the size of the task ahead for all of us. In the overarching context of 2020 Vision, however, it is a task which is full of opportunity if we can grasp the vision together. The task is both theological and financial: there is a budget to be balanced and that is a financial challenge. There is also, of more lasting theological significance, the need to establish patterns of ministry for the 21st century which see the stipendiary ministries of the Church more clearly in their proper context, the ministry of all God’s people. The Council invites the General Assembly to step forward into the future boldly and with hope.

The bottom line for this assembly, and almost certainly the next few as well, will be the summary of the report of the Special Commission on the Third Article Declaratory that the church has a call from Jesus Christ to bring the Gospel to the whole of Scotland, but not an obligation to keep doing it the same way.

To this end, the section on Building for Sustainable Future Patterns of Ministry (1.4) begins with this introduction:

1.4.1 Introduction
To address the issues facing the Church in terms of ministries will require both vision and discipline. The Council has offered such vision to the General Assembly in successive years… In receiving these reports the General Assembly affirmed ‘the concept of a “mixed economy church” within the Church of Scotland, where both existing and fresh expressions of church co-exist, not at the expense of the other, but for the benefit of the whole.’ (Deliverance 4, 2008).

In reality there is nothing new in this. This is the story of the church through two millennia. In dependence on the Holy Spirit every generation has gratefully accepted the best that exists and supplemented it with fresh ideas. Change is the norm rather than something surprising in the life of a Church which moves in tune with God’s Spirit.

As we embark on a process towards balancing the budget of the Council, it is crucial to see this in context. The theological work which has been ongoing to enable a rethinking of patterns of ministry is not an innovation to try and give some positive ‘spin’ to bad news about financial cuts! Far from it: the Council has been urging serious thinking about the shape of ministries since at least 2006 because it believes this is right for the mission and growth of the Church in the new millennium. That it is now also urged upon us by the economic circumstances should not allow us to lose sight of the genuine opportunity to find a future shape for ministry which recovers more strongly our historical and reformed commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ as a ministry of all God’s people.

And the Council points out they can not do it alone and there is no single “fix.” The major “levers,” as they call them, that must work together are territorial ministry, presbytery structure, presbytery planning, training for ministries, and congregational resourcing. The report then goes on to discuss the new staffing model:

The Council is absolutely clear that the issue of creating sustainable ministries is both a theological and an economic question. Theologically, we are being challenged to create new patterns of ministry which can carry the mission of the Gospel forward in the communities of Scotland and, where appropriate, beyond. Economically, there is the stark reality of a £5.7M deficit which must be addressed at once.

Having looked carefully into this, the Council has concluded that the Church can now afford 1000 full-time ministries and 75 two-day locums.

For reference, the report says that there are currently 1,234 posts although roughly 10% are usually vacant at any time. The report allocates ministry posts across the presbyteries (Appendix 1) and explains:

It is the intention of the Ministries Council to move towards allocating each Presbytery a ministries budget which relates to the number of FTE posts. It wants to encourage Presbyteries to think creatively about ministries and believes that giving each Presbytery responsibility for its own ministries budget will help it do this.

The body of the report paraphrases the action requested in the deliverance (items 7 and 8) like this:

The Council invites the General Assembly to instruct all Presbyteries to review their plans with a view to achieving 1000 ministries by 2014. The intention is that all Presbyteries will begin this process at once seeking to implement the figure in column 4 of the table as soon as possible.

But as I quoted at the beginning “Out of crisis, however, can come both vision and opportunity.”

The need to create sustainable units in non-urban areas has often resulted in a series of linkages and/or unions, so that a minister today is often serving an area that four people might have served 50 years ago…

Now is the time to turn that notion on its head. Instead of asking, what area constitutes a viable unit that can justify the employment of a full-time minister, we should ask, what form of ministry is appropriate for the people of faith in this distinct community. If effective ministry and mission occurs in community networks we need to find ways of fitting ministry into existing communities, rather than creating artificial communities that fit a particular model of ministry.

Our planning has essentially worked with a single model of ministry, full-time Parish Ministers. While there are many places where this is the appropriate model of ministry and therefore should continue, in others places it is not.
…
While it is possible for paid and unpaid, ordained and lay people to work together, current structures do not encourage this. Those who try to work in this way often feel they are fighting against the structures rather than being assisted by them.

To this end the report lists several different types of pastoral ministry. These would include non-stipendiary ministers, bi-vocational ministers and ordained local ministers which would all be filled by individuals “assessed, trained and qualified” for Ordained National Ministry but serving at different levels of church employment possibly with additional non-church employment. In addition there are Readers who are locally trained and assessed and would receive payment just for pulpit supply.

To reach this goal the report notes the “chicken and egg problem” of planning and training.

The Ministries Council is currently engaged in a thorough review of training. Serious thought is being given to an approach to training that would lead to people serving not simply as full-time ministers of word and sacrament, but also in all the different styles mentioned. It thus makes sense for Presbyteries to begin thinking about how their mission might be enhanced if they could use people in these roles alongside full-time ministers of word and sacrament, and also to begin encouraging people to consider offering themselves for service in these roles.

Change is not easy, and at the end I’ll return the Ministry Council’s comment on that, but additional evidence for this is provided in the report of the Panel on Review and Reform where their first action item (after receiving the report) is

Approve the request for an extension of time to develop the proposals for reform set out in section 2 of the report and instruct the Panel to report further to the General Assembly of 2011.

The Panel has been involved in consultation and gathering input on at least five different models of presbytery restructuring and implications for devolved powers, resourcing, and the role and size of presbyteries, among other things. The Panel comments on the complexity of the process saying:

2.1.4 There is no one single or normative model of church life. The Panel believes an agreed model for an alternative structure should take into account the particular circumstances in which a presbytery may find itself at any given time. For example, Highlands and Islands, central belt, urban, suburban, priority area and rural charges will have a common operating structure but require sufficient flexibility according to regional and local need. The Panel recognises that one size does not fit all and invites Presbyteries to work with them on a more dynamic model for the Church.

So to develop models the Panel proposes forming “Presbytery Pilot Regions [PPRs] to plan and prepare the Church for reform.” To implement this the report says:

2.1.9 The Panel proposes a progressive implementation of these proposals to begin in September 2010. Those presbyteries choosing to participate in the pilot will work with the Panel to develop their own structures and procedures that support mission. During 2011 and 2012, more presbyteries will be encouraged to join the pilot.
…
2.3.1 The Panel proposes to test a new model of regional church by establishing a scheme the purpose of which is to encourage presbyteries to focus on mission in the local context and to experiment with different forms of operation appropriate to their own situations…This is not about structural change for the sake of it but about renewal and engagement within and beyond existing structures where the presbytery is the regional resource and support for delivery of local mission initiatives.
…
2.3.4 The Panel’s consultations with Presbyteries demonstrated their wish to be mission-oriented rather than administration-driven. The primary objective of the pilot scheme is to strengthen presbyteries in ways that enable them to further the mission of the Church, to share the Gospel with all, and to provide resources and effective encouragement for the total Christian effort within the region. They would need to be adaptable to change and continual review, flexible enough to be aware of the possibilities for different forms of ministry, and open to exploring new directions where missional imagination could be realised.

The report then goes on to discuss at great length the vision of the church and the role of presbyteries as well as aspects of implementation of the pilot plan. It does not discuss the structure or plan for any pilot region since that is to come from the pilot region itself. This section of the report concludes with this:

2.20 A Church under reconstruction and unafraid of change

The Book of Nehemiah
is an important one for church
leadership. It is a significant model for the church
today: the origin of vision through prayer, the need to
share vision, and enable and empower others to become
involved in making it happen, and the need to maintain
leadership through periods of conflict and opposition.
(Panel on Review and
Reform, Strategy Paper, 2009)

2.20.1 Nehemiah challenged his people with a compelling vision to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. He created an atmosphere which encouraged people to speak up. He recruited the leaders of the city to do the work. He used forty leaders with their teams working side-by-side and shoulder-to-shoulder to rebuild the wall. Some built large sections; others built next to where they lived. They each did according to their ability and resources. The wall was just the pilot project for Nehemiah’s plan to restore the nation. He had mechanisms in place to enable feedback about progress.

2.20.2 The Panel has tried to follow Nehemiah’s model as it works to

1. offer a method to determine an alternative presbytery structure
2. ensure that enough time is allowed to do the task thoroughly
3. highlight the financial implications of reform
4. ensure the appointment of staff with the appropriate skills
5. provide training in place for those who need it
6. create an opportunity for all presbyteries to participate throughout the process.

2.20.3 It is our reformed tradition that we have been able to improve – sometimes quite radically – yet we retain our identity and our sense of calling and purpose as God’s people. We must constantly seek to re-articulate our vision, re-interpreting what it means to bring the ordinances of religion to the people in every parish of Scotland through a territorial ministry.

2.20.4 The whole witness of the Bible points to a God who calls his people out and on from where they are, not knowing where they are to go, and the true image of the Church is of the community of the future and not of the past.

2.20.5 The Panel offers a vision for taking measured steps to reform the regional structure of the Church to align with a mission strategy. We are excited by the challenge and opportunity that lies before us and trust that the wider Church will become enthused by the prospect of together reforming a church whose structures would be more focused on bringing the kingdom closer to the people of Scotland.

Similarly, the penultimate part of this section of the Ministries Council report is titled “It can’t be done!” It echoes the need for a model of ministry appropriate to the local situation. I leave you with this section:

In many Presbyteries there is a belief that it will not be possible for charges to continue to serve their communities if there is a further reduction in ministries numbers. This belief is found from cities to islands. Each Presbytery faces particular issues and each Presbytery believes the issues it is facing are unique and merit special dispensation. Through its contact with Presbyteries the Ministries Council is aware of the challenges facing the Church across the country. The Council does not believe that the answer is to give one Presbytery additional ministries, which can only come at the expense of all the other Presbyteries. Instead the Council believes that the answer lies in tackling ministry using these different models.

The Council has for some time been casting a vision of a different approach to ministries. Rather than having a single model of ministry (the full-time, professional minister serving a charge whose size is determined by the need to be sustainable as a full-time post), the Council believes there needs to be a range of ministry models, some full-time and some part-time, some paid and some not. The proposal to allocate each Presbytery a ministries budget based on FTE posts will gradually allow each one to determine what patterns of ministry are best suited to serve all the communities for which it is responsible.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — The Power Of Interpretation

2 Replies

It is beginning to look like G-13.0103r is going to be a big deal at the PC(USA) GA this year…

This short item in the Book of Order currently says that the General Assembly has the responsibility and power:

to provide authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order which shall be binding on the governing bodies of the church when rendered in accord with G-13.0112 or through a decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission in a remedial or disciplinary case. The most recent interpretation of a provision of the Book of Order shall be binding;

Now, I am about to launch into a very polity wonkish review of this section and the role and nature of the Permanent Judicial Commission. If you are just looking for the bottom line you can skip on down to the discussion of the individual overtures.

Probably the place to begin is considering the judicial process and judicial implications in Presbyterian government. I am not a specialist on the history of judicial process but a bit of what I have found out is helpful to pass on here.

First, it should be kept in mind that most Presbyterian branches do not have Standing or Permanent Judicial Commissions. As we saw last spring the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was presented a complaint and protest from members of a presbytery. To consider the appeal in a timely manner the Commission of Assembly, not a judicial commission, reviewed it and while they had the power to hear the case and render a decision they decided by a close vote to have the appeal heard by the next General Assembly. That full Assembly then took an evening and sat as the appellate court for the Kirk. Likewise, the General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church has a time on their docket when they sit as the highest judicial court in their church. This is the norm for Presbyterian branches. Back in 2001 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Australia (the other PCA) changed their procedures to not have a judicial commission and now the full Assembly hears the appeals, dissents and complaints. (Thanks to The Rev. Dr. Paul Logan, Clerk of Assembly, for helping me straighten that history out.)

How the Judicial Commission developed in American Presbyterianism I would be very interested in knowing more about. I give you a few parts to the story that I am aware of which will be useful as we consider the current news. First, we know from Charles Hodge’s Constitutional History of the United States of America Volume II that while the highest governing body was the Synod, up to 1786, that body heard the judicial cases from the presbyteries. However, in 1869, shortly after the north/south split in 1861, the constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. described synod and the General Assembly being able to refer judicial cases to a commission whose purpose it was to hear the case. The suggestion of the wording is that these were not permanent or standing but I don’t know what happened in practice. (As an interesting note, the 1867 wording said that “the cases of ministers on trial for error or heresy” could not be referred to a commission meaning that they had to be tried by the full Assembly.)

I am not aware of a resource to research on-line the constitutional history of the United Presbyterian Church USA/NA so I’ll have to go to the oldest resource I have close at hand and that is the 1970 Book of Order of the UPCUSA. That Book makes clear reference to a Permanent Judicial Commission but the PJC could only render preliminary decisions and the decision did not become permanent until affirmed by a vote at the next Assembly. It is interesting that the Presbyterian Church in America , which traces its polity to the Presbyterian Church in the United States, has the provision that its Standing Judicial Commission can file a final decision unless a large enough minority of the members of the Commission file a minority report and then it goes to the full Assembly for their consideration and final ruling.

What we can probably safely draw from this is that judicial commissions developed as a feature of American Presbyterianism between 1786 and 1867 and in the merger of 1983 that formed the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) they ended up with the power to render their own decisions in that branch.

Now if the polity wonks will excuse me let me also mention that a “commission” has a very specific usage in Presbyterian polity. A commission is not a fancy name for a committee, or is that a name for a fancy committee, but rather is an entity created by a governing body to act with the full authority of that governing body to the extent that the governing body authorizes it. That is why the PC(USA) GAPJC can interpret the constitution, because it is given that power by the General Assembly to do so on its behalf. And in the UPCUSA that power was not unilaterally given to the PJC but rather all decisions needed to be reviewed and affirmed by the full Assembly.

Now, let me get very specific to the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Checking section G-13.0103r in the Annotated Book of Order we learn a few interesting and relevant things about its history:

First, this section has more annotations than any other of the paragraphs in the responsibilities of the General Assembly section (G-13.0103) indicating that it has been regularly involved in Assembly discussion and GAPJC decisions. We also find that this paragraph was added in 1987 to clarify the intent of G-13.0112, which this section references. The other proposed modifications to this section run the spectrum from limiting PJC interpretation authority (1996 ) to making the GAPJC the only body to provide interpretation (1997 ). That latter one seems to me to deny the inherent connection between the GAPJC and the full Assembly. And there was a 1993 amendment rejected which would have returned to the UPCUSA system of the Assembly reviewing and affirming GAPJC decisions as well as rejected requests in 1992 and 2006 for GA interpretations to be ratified by the Presbyteries. Bottom line as we look at this year’s overtures — We have been here before.

It is also important to keep in mind the recent history of back-and-forth interpretations from GA and the GAPJC. In 2006 the 217th GA adopted the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity of the the Church . That action included an authoritative interpretation that presbyteries needed to consider candidates’ declared departures from the standards of the church. Some presbyteries developed their local standards and procedures and when challenged the GAPJC ruled that while each candidate must be considered on a case-by-case basis candidates were free to declare exceptions in belief but not practice. The 218th GA clarified this AI in 2008 explicitly saying that candidates could declare exceptions in both belief and practice. Since that GA there have been a couple more GAPJC cases that have clarified the procedures in these cases. I have often referred to this as a game of ecclesiastical ping-pong.

Having outlined the background detail of this section let us turn now to what is on the docket for the 219th General Assembly of the PC(USA)?

As a reminder paragraph G-13.0103r now reads:

r. to provide authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order which shall be binding on the governing bodies of the church when rendered in accord with G-13.0112 or through a decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission in a remedial or disciplinary case. The most recent interpretation of a provision of the Book of Order shall be binding.

Overture 6 from Mid-South Presbytery would add to this a new last line that says “No authoritative interpretation shall be issued by a General Assembly which amends or alters a clear mandate contained in any provision of the Book of Order.” Their rational for this is brief (one sentence) and states that the intent is to be sure the Assembly has “proper limits to the use of authoritative interpretations.” The implication in here is that G-6.0106b is a “clear mandate” and Assemblies should not be using a non-amending method to get around it.

On the other hand we have Overture 16 from Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area titled “On Amending G-13.0103r to Reduce Vexatious and Improper Litigation in the Church.” With a title like that you could probably guess that this amendment asks to eliminate the GAPJC ability to interpret the Book of Order by striking the phrase “or through a decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission in a remedial or disciplinary case.” Part of the rational for this overture says:

Judicial cases are extremely burdensome and costly to governing bodies of the church. When brought improvidently, they violate our biblical obligation to avoid vexatious or unnecessary litigation (D-1.0103) and are inconsistent with our fundamental theological conviction that we are most likely to discern the true movement of the Holy Spirit when we gather together in General Assembly (G-1.0400). Moreover, the GAPJC is woefully unprepared to do the work of the General Assembly, since it hears only from the parties to the case; does not have the wider perspective afforded by all of the persons and resources that inform deliberations by the General Assembly; and must prepare its decisions within very tight time constraints (a number of cases usually must be decided, immediately after hearings, in only one or two days).

The proposed amendment would affirm our historic polity of collective discernment under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and put an end to the “culture of litigation” that is growing in the church. It would do so by removing the incentive to pursue fundamental changes in church law through individual court cases. The judicial commissions of the church still could decide particular cases brought before them, as they do now. However, the authority to interpret the Constitution so as to bind the whole church would rest exclusively with the General Assembly.

I could write a whole polity discourse on these two paragraphs (and that might have something to do with why the Bills and Overtures Committee of the Presbytery recommended its disapproval ) but let me note one point here and some more later. Yes, the litigation is costly not just to the governing bodies but to both sides in the judicial process. At the present time governing bodies are on both the complainant and respondent (or prosecution and defendant) sides of high profile cases. I could not agree more that it would be good to minimize costs — but if you want to reduce the cost work on the judicial process in the Rules of Discipline. At the present time our polity permits, and always has, those that dissent on conscience to have their complaint heard.

Overture 77 from the Presbytery of Arkansas seeks to return the GAPJC interpretations to the process of the UPCUSA polity. There are multiple changes so permit me to reproduce the proposed language in its entirety (proposed new language in italics):

r. to provide authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order which shall be binding on the governing bodies of the church when rendered in accord with G-13.0112 or through a decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission in a remedial or disciplinary case,which is approved as an authoritative interpretation by the next plenary session of the General Assembly. The most recent interpretation of a provision of the Book of Order approved by a plenary session of the General Assembly shall be binding; …

Overture 55 from the Presbytery of San Diego does not deal directly with G-13.0103r but is related in a couple of ways. It seeks to have the General Assembly get out of the business of dealing with controversy by striking G-13.0103q which says that one of the responsibilities of the General Assembly is:

q. to decide controversies brought before it and to give advice and instruction in cases submitted to it, in conformity with the Constitution.

Let me say this… Nice idea – I think many of us would appreciate it if the Assembly did not have to deal with controversy. However, as the highest governing body in the Presbyterian church the Assembly has been dealing with controversies, with varying degrees of success, for practically the whole 300 year history of American Presbyterianism. If the GA did not handle the various controversies the issues won’t go away. We will either become frustrated in trying to deal with them at lower levels or connectionalism would break down and the controversies would have to be dealt with by middle governing bodies. As much as everyone finds the time spent on these frustrating, our Reformed background says that controversies will arise because of our sinful human nature and it is the historic role of the highest governing body to collectively decide these through discernment of the community.

This overture is also relevant because if successful in the Assembly and the presbyteries concur the sections following will be re-lettered and paragraph r will become q.

Now having laid out the overtures let me make a few comments about the current situation in the PC(USA). I have to agree that we, as a denomination, have a lot of ecclesiastical judicial cases to be reviewed. Most Presbyterian branches have two to four a year that have to be heard by the highest governing body and these can be handled by the governing body. Since the last meeting of the General Assembly the GAPJC has issued decisions in 13 cases. So the first question is whether a full Assembly could handle that case load and further whether some of those cases could wait the two years between assemblies.

I realize that none of these overtures ask for the elimination of the GAPJC but two of them would modify its authority. I must admit that taking all interpretation authority away from the GAPJC does not make sense to me. In rendering some decisions it must interpret the Book of Order, especially if the new Form of Government is adopted and the “operations manual” elements are removed. Judicial boards, be they civil or ecclesiastical, have the responsibility to “fill in the blanks” when the general nature of legislation must be made specific. If the Assembly finds it desirable to have better congruence between the PJC and the full Assembly then Overture 77 is the way to go.

On the other hand, just as the PJC, as an extension of the Assembly, must be able to interpret so must the Assembly itself. It is there to, among other things, resolve controversies so it needs interpretation authority too. Overture 6 does not take away that power but there could be questions about what is a “clear mandate.” At face value I have to agree with Overture 6 but have to ask if this needs to be specified and if the idea of a “clear mandate” is clear itself. The important thing here is that the Assembly must only interpret and not use the power of interpretation as a substitute for the process of seeking presbytery concurrence in matters of faith and doctrine.

But there is a bigger picture here: In looking at this issue we must not fall into the trap of viewing these entities as independent branches of Presbyterian government as there are sperate branches of civil government. While the U.S. Government finds its system of checks and balances in three co-equal branches with individual responsibilities a Presbyterian government finds its accountability in its connectional nature as “…presbyters shall come together in governing bodies… in regular gradation” (G-4.0300c) The horizontal structure of the church is to equip it for mission and it must be remembered that the OGA, GAMC, PJC, and standing committees are nothing more than parts of the General Assembly itself that the Assembly has seen fit to create to help it do its work. Our accountability is of a vertical nature, as it should be with Jesus Christ as Head of the Church at the top. And while Jesus is the Head the Book of Order tells us (G-9.0103) that the foundation is the presbyteries – “The jurisdiction of each governing body is limited by the express provisions of the Constitution, with powers not mentioned being reserved to the presbyteries, and with the acts of each subject to review by the next higher governing body.”

The bottom line here is that we should not view the GA/GAPJC relationship as adversarial for the GAPJC is merely a commission of the GA to help it do its work. Likewise, the GA/Presbytery relationship is one of mutual support in our connectional system and just as the rational for Overture 16 suggests that GA is a larger body and there are greater numbers to discern the will of God than the smaller GAPJC, the same can be said of the GA sending items to the presbyteries for concurrence, not because we are democratic but because it provides an even greater group of elders, ruling and teaching, to discern together what God would have us do.

Post Script:
In this first footnote let me return to the probable cause of these overtures, the on-going ecclesiastical ping-pong game:
1) In the back and forth over Authoritative Interpretations and declared exceptions to the standards and belief and practice it is important to note that the GAPJC has not ruled on exceptions declared by any specific individual. All of the legal decisions have so far dealt with procedures and timing in the ordination process, not with any candidate’s specific scruple.

2) If the GAPJC were to be denied the ability to provide interpretation, what about previous interpretations? I presume they would be explicitly adopted or somehow grandfathered in. But if previous interpretations are no longer binding does this mean that an officer can object to and not participate in, but not hinder, the ordination of women?

Church And State In Scotland And England — The Reformation Still Means Something

Leave a reply

Suppose that you are the future head of the Church of England but you want to get married in a different church, in this case one belonging to the Church of Scotland — Big Problem. Yes, believe it or not the Reformation still means something.

In case you have not been following the British royal gossip, and I hadn’t until it broke into the realm of Reformed theology, the rumor is going around that Prince William, second in line to the British throne, is close to having an announced engagement to girlfriend Kate Middleton. If true, congratulations to both of them. The problem that has arisen is that according to The Daily Express…

A source told the Sunday Express: “Officials at Buckingham Palace have been under huge pressure from Kate to try to persuade the Queen to agree to a Scottish wedding.

“Scotland will always have a special place in Kate’s heart because that is where she met William and where they spent so many happy years together at St Andrews University.”

Romantic weddings are nice… However when marrying a future king and head of the state church there is a part of the constitution that requires you to be married in the church you will someday be the head of. Unfortunately for romance 450 years ago the Church of Scotland decided that the church did not need the monarch as part of its structure and declared that Jesus Christ was the Head of the Church. The British royals have a respected place but not religious position in this National Church. Word is that they are back to church shopping now that St. Giles has been ruled out. (There would be something ironic about getting married next to the grave and in the shadow of a statue of a reformer who was not afraid to take the monarch to task.)

There is another interesting twist to this church and state thing, the decision for the Queen to meet the Pope in Edinburgh on his visit in September rather than in London. Church spokespersons deny any church/state reason for this (from the Scotsman):

The church yesterday also denied conspiracy theories that His Holiness was meeting Her Majesty in Scotland to avoid embarrassing questions over his call for Anglicans to rejoin the Catholic Church.

While the Queen is head of the Church of England, she is only a member of the Church of Scotland, because of the constitutional settlement around the Act of Union.

The practical reason for the location is that the monarch will already be in the neighborhood for her summer holidays. But it does seem a handy device that since they won’t be in England this will avoid the head of one break-away church having to greet the current head of the church they broke away from and is now open to churches transferring back.

Finally, the fact that the Church of Scotland is also a break-away church as well is not lost on the pontiff, and he recognizes the difference between Presbyterians and Anglo-Catholics. Back at the beginning of February the Pope met with the Scottish Bishops and had this to say about the Reformation:

The Church in your country, like many in Northern Europe, has suffered the tragedy of division. It is sobering to recall the great rupture with Scotland’s Catholic past that occurred 450 years ago. I give thanks to God for the progress that has been made in healing the wounds that were the legacy of that period, especially the sectarianism that has continued to rear its head even in recent times. Through your participation in Action of Churches Together in Scotland,see that the work of rebuilding unity among the followers of Christ is carried forward with constancy and commitment. While resisting any pressure to dilute the Christian message, set your sights on the goal of full, visible unity, for nothing less can respond to the will of Christ.

It would seem that the Anglican division is seen as less substantial than the Reformed differences — the “great rupture.” And what is meant by “resisting any pressure to dilute the Christian message” being used in an ecumenical reference is left as an exercise for the reader.

Special Meeting Of The General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Ireland Regarding The Presbyterian Mutual Crisis

Leave a reply

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland just concluded an almost two hour Special Meeting to deal with the crisis at the Presbyterian Mutual Society.

I followed it closely on Twitter but only got the live video stream working at the very end of the meeting so my comments reflect the official tweets from @pciassembly and a couple of other news sources that got their impressions up quickly.

Since my last update two weeks ago when the Special Meeting was called the Northern Ireland Government has been working on a plan to rescue the savers in the Society. According to today’s Belfast Newsletter the proposed £225m package from the government would include a £175m government loan to the Society Administrator to accelerate payments to investors, and a £50m hardship fund from which the small investors could withdraw up to £20,000.

The call for the Special Meeting says regarding the church:

While not in a position to share a full written description of what they describe as ‘Plan B”, the First and deputy First Minister indicated that it would include a ‘hardship fund’. In addition to a contribution from government, they anticipated that a sum of at least £1m would be forthcoming from the Presbyterian Church in Ireland towards this ‘hardship element’.

The documents for the meeting include the Report and the Supplementary Report for the Assembly — the latter contains the proposed resolutions.

The Assembly was convened by the Moderator, the Rev. Stafford Carson, who called the meeting to order just after 2 pm local time with scripture reading and prayer. A press report says that about 800 of the 1200 commissioners were present. According to the official Twitter messages the Moderator offered an apology “on behalf of PCI for the distress and anxiety that the PMS crisis caused to savers” and “The church has not abandoned these people. We hope that this painful experience will not be prolonged much longer.” He thanked those who have worked hard on behalf of the savers and asked the church to stay united as they work through this.

The Moderator said that while they still hold out hope for a “commercial solution” the possibility is looking “increasingly less likely.” Consequently, participating in the government plan, the “Plan B” that is referred to, is advisable since it may be the only hope. He said “We want to ensure that our actions promote and advance, and do not inhibit or prevent, a just solution” and “We must show we are not a reluctant church, being dragged along by Government.”

The Assembly then turned to the business:

Resolution 1 to receive the report of the Panel on the Financial Crisis was received.

The Twitter messages suggest that Resolutions 2-6 were also easily adopted:

That the General Assembly call on all congregations and members to continue in prayer and to offer practical support where possible for everyone who has been affected by financial hardship, including those caught up in the situation of the PMS.
That the General Assembly are acutely aware of the continuing distress of many savers who have been unable to access their savings in PMS.
That the General Assembly welcome the commitment of the Prime Minister to seeking a resolution of the PMS crisis and his acknowledgement of a moral obligation to do so.
That the General Assembly regret the delay and reaffirm the importance of seeking urgently a solution which will, if at all possible, give a full settlement to all claims, whether from “shareholders” or “creditors” and welcome the assurance that the “commercial” solution is still an option.
That the General Assembly commend the efforts of the Northern Ireland Executive, led by the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and encourage all politicians to work vigorously for a successful solution.

There was more discussion when they got to Resolution 7:

That in the event of the government failing to secure a “commercial” solution and the Northern Ireland Executive bringing forward a final and comprehensive proposal which includes a “Hardship” Fund element, the General Assembly agree in principle to contribute £1m.

One tweet quotes the Rev. John Dunlop – “The law does not necessarily serve justice – a hard lesson for us to learn” and then says that he “suggests creditors who are in line to get their money back plus 8% interest, forgo the interest and contribute to shareholders.” There were proposed amendments and word-smithing of the resolution and in the end the Assembly passed Resolution 7 and changed the wording so the end of the resolution now reads “…commits in principle to contribute £1m.” Earlier discussion made clear that the concept for raising this money would be by voluntary contributions and not an assessment on the church. (I will also note that the wording of the original in the tweets did not always correspond with the on-line text so there might have been a couple of different versions circulating.)

Finally, the Assembly passed Resolution 8

That the General Assembly instruct the Panel on the Financial Crisis to consider ways in which the necessary finance may be raised for the above contribution and to report to the June Assembly.

and concluded the meeting by singing that great Irish hymn “In Christ Alone.”

There are initial news reports from the Belfast Telegraph and the BBC about the meeting. And clearly from Resolution 8 this will come back at the regular Assembly meeting in just under two months.

UPDATE: The PCI has issued a summary of the meeting which contains the final text of the debated and amended resolution:

That in the event of the government failing to secure a “commercial”solution and the Northern Ireland Executive bringing forward a final and comprehensive proposal which includes a “Hardship” Fund element, the General Assembly agree in principle to contribute £1m, while the General Assembly affirm their view that the members of the PMS are thrifty savers and not risk taking investors.

Also, the Moderator has posted the full text of his remarks to the Assembly on his blog .

Presbyterians — Owning The Label

3 Replies

An interesting little news article flashed across my news alerts this morning. If I am not reading too much into the story it is not only interesting but fascinating.

The news site NorthFulton.com reports that “Church of the Hills Changes names.” The story lede says:

JOHNS CREEK – The Church of the Hills officially changed its name to Johns Creek Presbyterian Church effective Easter Sunday, April 4.

If you read this the same way that I did the first thing that jumps to mind is that a church with a name that evokes the generic community church concept, maybe one that is trying to be “seeker sensitive,” has changed course and is now embracing its Presbyterian roots and membership. At the present time that seems to be the exception and not the rule.

Now I may be reading way too much into this news story. But here is a quick run down of what I have found out. (And since they are changing their name their web site may be changing as well so some of these links might be broken shortly.) They are a relatively new church in the growing suburbs north of Atlanta and part of the Greater Atlanta Presbytery, PC(USA). The news story says that the church “follows many local area businesses in adopting the young city’s name” suggesting recent incorporation of Johns Creek. The story also quotes the interim pastor, The Rev. Chris Price:

“Our new name better assists newcomers and families who are seeking a Presbyterian church in the Johns Creek area and reinforces our commitment to the Johns Creek community,” explains Johns Creek Presbyterian Church’s interim pastor, the Rev. Chris Price. “Our name has changed, but our philosophy has not. We’re looking forward to strengthening our presence in the city of Johns Creek by continuing to offer residents a strong and balanced community-based, spiritual home that provides fellowship, worship, and extensive outreach programs.”

That quote sure seems to indicate they want to increase their brand as being Presbyterian.

From the history of the church on the web site we find out that it was chartered in 1995 with 100 charter members. The congregational statistics from the PC(USA) show fairly steady growth from 1998 (about 390 members) to 2008 (855 members). Worship attendance has not grown as much going from 250 to 390 in the same time period. Nevertheless, it is a growing congregation in the PC(USA).

At the present time the web site is still under the old name and on the web site the church neither promotes nor runs from the “Presbyterian USA” label, as they use it. As you can see in the church logo to the right the Presbyterian label is smaller but present. (I don’t normally insert a graphic like this in my articles but with the name change I expect any links to break so I’ve included it this time.) Reading through the web site references to the PC(USA) by that name are present but scattered and the presbytery involvement in the planting of the church is acknowledged.

In short, I am left to conclude that the while the congregation and/or leadership was previously accepting of the Presbyterian label it appears that they have decided to now raise its visibility in the community. And this is based on what I could find quickly and read into it, a somewhat dangerous thing to do. The Presbyterian affiliation may have been more or less visible than I estimate before this. The affiliation may be more or less than before with the name change.

[This is about to get a bit off-topic but one thing that did strike me is that there may be a bit of a back story to all this. You thought I was out on a limb so far, let me put one more item on the table. In another article in NorthFulton.com from almost exactly two years ago there is the announcement that a new pastor had been called to become a co-pastor with the founding pastor of the congregation. The article also says that the founding pastor is getting ready to retire so it appears they tried to do the “co-pastor pastoral transition” strategy to get around the vacant pulpit and interim like they have now. Anyway, two years later neither the name of the called pastor nor the name of the founding pastor are now seen in the staff list, and in fact from comparing the pictures it appears that the pastor they called has now landed in Vicksburg. This is not to cast any aspersions on what may have caused this turnover — I have chaired COM, I know that things like this happen for good reasons. But I bring this up only to ask, but not answer, the question of whether the name change may also have been directly or indirectly influenced by the staff changes?]

This story is an interesting contrast to another item today, a post by Dave Sarafolean on Joshua Judges Ruth. That post reminded us of a post by Darryl Hart on his blog Old Life Theological Society about a year ago titled “Too Cool For You? Wither The PCA.” In that piece Mr. Hart talks about the reasons that one conservative Presbyterian branch might have a church plant near an existing church in another conservative branch. He suggests:

One possible reason for the inability of PCA Philadelphians to recommendCalvary OPC to Presbyterian communicants in the area is that the PCA,even in some of its more traditional sectors, like Tenth, no longercultivates a sense of being Presbyterian. Instead, what appears to drivethe PCA, and has been doing so since roughly 1995 when Tim Keller andRedeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City became such a phenomenon,is exegeting, engaging, and redeeming the culture. (emphasis added)

And another recent example that I have cited is the Oakfield, NY, church. What began as the First Presbyterian Church of Oakfield became the Oakfield Independent Presbyterian Church and then the congregation reorganized again as the Oakfield Community Bible Church losing its Presbyterian identity.

So in these days of churches downplaying their denominational affiliations if not distancing themselves from them (remember in my neck of the woods the Crystal Cathedral is Reformed Church in America and Saddleback Community Church is Southern Baptist) it is fascinating to see Johns Creek re-engaging the Presbyterian title.

Follow-up To The Oakfield Sale — The Going Price Of An Historic Church Building In Upstate NY

1 Reply

Just a very quick note as a follow-up to my previous post “An Interesting Tale of Stewardship, Property, and the PC(USA) Trust Clause.”

In that post I described the sale of an historic church building at auction back to a new congregation made up of many members of the old congregation, First Presbyterian Church of Oakfield, NY. In that sale Genesee Valley Presbytery got $50,000 which seems to about cover their legal fees in this whole incident. The various reports placed the value of the building at greater than $200,000, and probably closer to $400,000. An anomaly?

It turns out it is not. VitureOnline reported yesterday, and I don’t think it is a hoax appropriate to the day, that a vacant historic church building in Binghamton, NY, acquired by the Episcopal Diocese of Central New York through trust clause litigation when the congregation that was there departed the Episcopal Church for the Anglican Communion in North America, was sold back in February to the local Islamic Awareness Center for $50,000. Again, the assessed value of the property was $386,400. The Diocese saw about the same return on the property as the Presbytery — cash payment of roughly 1/8th the value and no longer having to worry about and care for a vacant building.

For reference, sale of church property below assessment is not unusual. The Episcopal Diocese of Rochester in June 2007 sold off the All Saints church building, now assessed on the tax rolls at just over a million dollars, for $475,000. So that sale was at roughly half the value of the property.

So, $50,000 seems to be the going rate for a $350,000 – $400,000 valued unoccupied church building in Central/Western New York. The macro-economic supply and demand implications are left as an exercise for the reader.

Update On The Presbyterian Mutual Society And The Presbyterian Church Of Ireland

1 Reply

Within the last week there have been some positive developments related to recovering from the Presbyterian Mutual Society collapse. The Society, which failed almost two years ago now, was associated with, but legally distinct from, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. Over the last two years the discussion has been both how to wind down the Society to get the best value from the assets is does have as well as the church having political discussions about a government rescue even this far after the collapse.

Some news this week…

The Presbyterian Mutual Society administrator has released an update regarding court decisions last week. The most closely watched decision pertains to paying back depositors and the court granted permission for that to begin. The situation is complicated by the fact that large depositors (more than £20,000) are regarded as creditors and small depositors as shareholders and in February the court did not grant permission for all members to be treated equally but upheld the law that creditors must be paid back first. With that being the case and the court granting permission, the administrator has announced this week that at the end of the month he will make the first payment to creditors of 12p on the £. The administrator is required to make public notice of this and the text of the notice that will appear in newspapers of record is available as a PDF document.

The administrator also reports that the court granted a one year renewable extension to the administration of the Society instead of the five year period he asked for. In addition the court has given direction (reported but not described) concerning those depositors who were also borrowers from the society and it gave permission and guidance on forming a creditor’s committee on which the administrator plans to include a shareholder observer. There is an Irish Times article and the BBC has an article on this and William Crawley has more in his Will & Testament blog. From the Irish Times piece it has the useful information that roughly £100 million is due shareholders and £204 million is due creditors. The administrator has determined that probable loan recovery will be £102 million and the value of investment property is £97 million.

On the other front there is current action on the political rescue front as well. Yesterday First Minister Peter Robinson told the Northern Ireland Assembly that rescue of the Society by a commercial bank is still the preferred path forward and would do the most for the savers in the Society. Today the situation is being debated in Parliament to remind the British Government of the seriousness of the situation. The Londonderry Sentinel quotes one of their local MP’s, Gregory Campbell, as saying about the debate “This should ensure that the needs of savers with the PMS are heard in Parliament and the Government know exactly how important action is for these people.” And the Belfast News Letter quotes another MP, William McCrea, saying “The DUP will continue to work towards a resolution that will see money paid to all savers both large and small.”

In related political action Mr. Robinson in his comments also said that a government panel put together to consider the rescue alternatives should be reporting soon. A recent UK Treasury committee investigation (Irish Times article) blamed a number of factors for the collapse including lack of tight Northern Ireland government oversight and regulation and the directors of the Society for the management.

It should be no surprise that with the slow pace of resolution, the inaction by the British Government when other financial institutions have been rescued, and the association of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland with the Society there are plenty of frustrated opinions being expressed. Mr. McQuillan, a politician from East Londonderry, is quoted:

“The Westminster Government has failed the PMS savers.

“They protected various credit unions and sought compensation from Iceland for Britons who lost money abroad, but they have failed the savers within the PMS here in this loyal part of the United Kingdom.”

The Belfast News Letter article is titled “PMS payment ‘too little, too late’” and has corresponding quotes from Mr. Ian McGimpsey – “Whilst this payment may bring some financial comfort to many loan holders, for others with substantial debts to pay it will have
little or no impact,” – and from Mr. Jim Allister – “It is, however, also important to remember that the smallest investors who may have the greatest need – those who had under £20,000 invested in the society -have not even received this paltry sum (of 12p in the pound),” he said,adding that the delay in resolving the PMS “is appalling”.

A Belfast Telegraph article, “Reduced payout of cold comfort to PMS investors” focuses on the Rev. Dr. Stafford Carson, Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, and the stories he has heard from investors and how the church is working for a resolution. And a piece in the Portadown Times by Dr. Carson details the involvement and investment by his own congregation in the Society.

So it looks like we hold on a little longer to see what government, probably combined with commercial, rescue might be put together. And yes, this will certainly be a topic at the upcoming General Assembly.

UPDATE: Following the debate the Moderator, the Rev. Dr. Stafford Carson, posted his comments and general positive attitude about the hearing that the issues got in Parliament. He also provides us the links to the transcript of the debate and the following answers to questions about the situation.

The Church Of Scotland National Youth Assembly — Looking Back And Looking Ahead

2 Replies

For the PC(USA)’ers who are going to GA this year, there is a joke about Minnesota (at least they tell me it is a joke) that Minnesota has two seasons: Winter’s coming and Winter’s here.

Right now I feel a bit like that with the National Youth Assembly of the Church of Scotland. I still had my discussion of the last NYA sitting as a draft and I find the announcement of NYA2010 posted on the web. So at this mid-point between NYA2009 and NYA2010 let me try to look back to get caught up and to look forward at what this year holds.

NYA2009 met back at the beginning of September last, and the final deliverances were posted about two months later. As I say every time I discuss NYA, one of the things that impresses me about the National Youth Assembly is the fact that items from their deliverances move on to the General Assembly coming up in just about two months.

The NYA2009 deliverances were posted on the NYA Blog by Iain McLarty. He includes this “cover letter“:

Hi everyone. Sorry it’s taken a while but you will now be able to find the final deliverance for each debate below. Both your General Assembly reps and I will try and make sure these are taken to the General Assembly and to its Councils and Committees but when you read through the statements you will find that a lot of them apply to local churches or to individuals and your involvement in these didn’t end on the Monday afternoon in Stirling. Remember that it’s up to everyone who was at the Youth Assembly to try and raise awareness of the deliverance and make changes happen, whether it’s just things you do yourself, your local church or your Presbytery. You could print them out and put them on your church notice board, or ask your minister to talk about a couple of points that your local church will take action on during a service. And if you have a blog you can copy them there and raise awareness of them. Well done again on producing an excellent result to the long weekend of debates and if you have stories of your success in promoting the results during the year then come back and tell people here.

The NYA business addressed four specific topics: Identity, Wealth, Spirituality, Inter-faith. This is going to get long but I decided I could not do the deliverances justice by editing out what I thought were the most important points. Therefore, I am going to give you the full text of each.

From the deliverance on Identity, here are the set of nine points that came out of the Assembly:

The National Youth Assembly…

1. Believes that we as a Church should seek to recognise and celebrate people as individuals with individual gifts and talents, and not to generalise.
We should:

(a) Seek to develop these gifts and talents
(b) Value building relationships over organising evangelistic events
(c) View people as works in progress and not the finished article

2. Would like the Church of Scotland to explore the emerging aspects of Positive Psychology as a way of forming relationships with people,particularly those on the edges of the church. We would encourage the church to develop resources and make these available to all groups and leaders working in the Church.

3. Believes that inappropriate responses by the Church of Scotland to the identity of individuals and groups has been a very real barrier to them feeling part of the church.

4. Urges the Church to explore ways of supporting growth in Christian identity for all ages, recognising the current work of COSY in this area.

5. Urges the Church of Scotland to continue supporting the young people of the church as they move through education and into the world of work. We encourage the church to help with pastoral support,offering guidance both spiritually and generally, as young people develop their identity through these difficult challenges.

6. Believes that the Church of Scotland should respond positively to identity issues by providing opportunities for social interaction:

(a) Between young and old by creating ways for them to work together;
(b) By encouraging social and community events within churches to build relationships;
(c) By encouraging all local churches to engage with a partner church somewhere else in the world;
(d) By developing small group networks for folk to meet together, share their stories and build relationships.

7. Believes that the Church of Scotland should acknowledge that people within the church, despite the fact that they are Christians,experience identity problems.

8. Encourages churches to make spiritual support groups available for everyone in the parish regardless of whether or not they are a member.

9. Believes that the Church of Scotland should not make people conform to one identity. Instead it should embrace diversity, with its own identity being ‘Everyone is welcome’

The deliverance on Wealth made these points:

The National Youth Assembly…

1. Urges the Church of Scotland to take the lead in opening discussions on personal finance and to provide support in helping with issues of stewardship.

2. Recognise that while Western society encourages materialism, which is unacceptable, the Church should not condemn individuals but should work with them to combat materialism.

3. Would like the Church of Scotland to prioritise spending on people. Local churches should be encouraged to invite disadvantaged groups into their churches to use their resources in whatever way is appropriate.

4. Suggests greater discussion of collective tithing. There should be increased accountability and transparency from the Church as to where financial contributions go. Individual churches should have more of a voice in where their contributions go.

5. Urges the Church of Scotland to continue to work with people of other denominations and faiths in trying to eradicate poverty.

6. Believes that the Church of Scotland should continue to support the work of Christian Aid in its tax justice campaign and should build stronger links with projects tackling poverty.

7. Feels that the church should be at the forefront of tackling the structures that keep people poor and encourage people to see poverty as not being restricted to financial issues, with other factors including spirituality, health and education. Local issues should not be neglected in favour of international ones.

8. Would like to see the church make tackling poverty a priority and to see it as an act of worship. The use of biblical texts as a means of communicating the necessity and impetus for working to eradicate poverty should be encouraged.

9. Recognises that churches do a lot of good work in tackling poverty and encourage this to be fed back through stories about this.

10. Believes that the church should play a key part in tackling poverty through educating people and being active in the community. The local church should be key to identifying local needs in order to prioritise eradicating poverty in Scotland.

11. Would like churches to ensure that people in congregations who are struggling financially can be honest and receive help without having to feel they have to keep up a ‘respectable’ façade.

12. Encourage the Church of Scotland to be more involved in practi
cal work both at home and abroad (e.g. building projects) in charities and projects, other than just providing financial support.

13. Commend and encourage the continuation of ethical investment practices by the Church of Scotland.

14. Urge individual church members to review their giving with a view to giving more sacrificially in order that the good work of the Church may continue.

In this set I particularly admire that it calls the Kirk to action keeping the responsibility on the church and the individual members, not on secular institutions.

The deliverance on Spirituality says:

The National Youth Assembly…

1.   Affirms that spirituality is a crucial part of the Christian faith and believes that the Church of Scotland is not good at engaging with this. The Church should help people mature in their spirituality by openly confronting it and not hiding from it and by providing more accessible resources and pastoral care.

2.   Believes that every aspect of life has a spiritual dimension (e.g. use of money, relationships, values, suffering)

3.   Would like to see people in the church helped to develop a healthy relationship with silence, including during church services.Where practical, a dedicated space should be provided in churches for meditation and reflection, both in and out of “church hours” and open and advertised to the general public.

4.   Would like to see more emphasis placed on spirituality in preaching, possibly including questions for contemplation and discussion.

5.   Encourages the creative use of big posters/billboards in prominent public places, with messages to inspire people spiritually.

6.   Encourages church communities and individuals within those communities to share their stories and faith experiences, with the relevant support.

7.   Recognises that traditional services are of spiritual value,but would like to see more exploration of alternative worship both in and out of services for example, art exhibitions, film liturgies,poetry, i-pod reflections and labyrinths.

8.   Would like to see the promotion of opportunities for learning such as “Adult Sunday School” and programs like Alpha or Living the Questions.

9.   Thinks that spirituality should be spoken about and practised from Sunday school age so that children are aware of it, for example through “Godly Play.”

10.   Suggest that it is useful to look at spirituality in an Inter-Faith way.

11.   Would like to see an event exploring alternative worship and spiritual development, possibly on the theme of “Live faith and share life” [rather than live life and share faith]

Now I am viewing this through an “American lens” so I don’t know if some of the current tension in American religion over the general term “spirituality” is present in Scotland also. If so this deliverance may be the most controversial or unconventional to some in the church, especially those that value orthodoxy. It is interesting that the deliverance acknowledges this saying “the Church of Scotland is not good at engaging with this.” In light of recent surveys that show that American “millennials” (those between the ages of 18-29) are “spiritual” but not “religious” this deliverance at times walks a fine line between the two, in places mixes them, and in other spots appears to advocate for what would be considered “new age” or “eastern” spiritual practices that some around here would argue should not be part of Christian worship or spiritual practices. On the one hand, promoting Adult Sunday School, sharing faith experiences, and seeing a spiritual dimension to every aspect of life can be considered foundational Christian practices. The large posters and billboards, healthy relationship with silence, and the alternative worship practices would be encouraged or discouraged depending on how they are focused. But for some, looking at spirituality in an Inter-Faith way could be a concern. This could be one of those issues where the details will be scrutinized. But again, I don’t know if this is even the issue in Scotland it is in parts of the U.S.

The last deliverance was on Inter-Faith:

The National Youth Assembly…

1. Believes that the church should do more to combat stereo-typical views of what Christians are like and understand that all faiths have extremists, including Christianity. There is a need to extend education about all faiths to avoid stereo-typing based on biased media reporting.

2. Thinks that there should be more Inter-Faith gatherings and conferences at local, national and international levels, with better advertising to increase awareness of this work and its importance.

3. Consider consulting with local police forces and outside agencies to ascertain priority areas where Inter-Faith dialogue is required.

4. Encourages the use of Inter-Faith meals as a means of sharing faith and belief to build meaningful relationships while being sensitive to other customs.

5. Encourages the Church of Scotland to promote Inter-Faith Dialogue overseas in areas such as Israel/Palestine and Africa.

6. Challenges local churches to extend loving friendship and conversation to people of other denominations and faiths and to love their neighbours regardless of faith or absence of faith. We should accept people for who they are, treat them with respect, and never pity. When talking with anyone we should have no agenda for converting them.

7. Encourages the Church of Scotland to offer more practical support to congregations engaging in Inter-Faith relationships. This could include an expansion of the role of Inter-Faith workers and the development of a volunteer network.

8. Encourages the Church of Scotland to recognise the values which we share with other faiths and which should inform and encourage practical work on issues such as poverty, conflict resolution and justice. Faith groups should work together for increased dialogue with all levels of government.

9. Are aware that ignorance breeds prejudice whereas knowledge breeds understanding. It’s crucial to build lasting relationships before tackling religious issues. We need to be educated about other faiths and try to educate other faiths in what we believe and why we believe it, promoting mutual understanding.

10. Encourages the Church of Scotland to reach out to those who feel threatened and fearful of new cultures and religions in their area in the hope that such feelings won’t escalate.

11. Would like the church to consider ways in which communities can have dialogue with people of other faiths while being careful to avoid tokenism and condescension.

12. Encourage ongoing Religious Education programmes in schools with the involvement of churches and other faith groups, as part of commitment to promoting understanding about different faiths among wider society.

13. Encourage Inter-Faith dialogue at all levels of the church,including opportunities for people from other faith communities to speak to churches about their beliefs.

14. Want to encourage ecumenical discussions so that Christians of all denominations can work to improve inter-faith relationships.

Again, the church walks in a tension between supporting a pluralistic society where it is helpful to understand the cultural context of those around us of different faiths while not compromising, or appearing to compromise, the essential tenets of its own faith. For the most part this deliverance does a good job walk
ing that line.

The next step is to see how these recommendations develop. As the cover letter says, there is much in here that happens on an individual, congregational or presbytery basis. But some of these items will come through to the General Assembly included in the deliverances from standing committees of the Assembly. We will see these specifics shortly as the Assembly reports are posted.

Moving on, a short while ago the information for NYA2010 was posted on the COSY Blog. Here is the lede:

Welcome to the National Youth Assembly 2010! Our theme for this year is To Boldly Go . . . and we’ll be thinking about mission – what does the word mission mean to you? How do we do mission in a 21st century Scotland and what might it look like?

The new Moderator of NYA is Kim Wood (note the spelling correction in the comment) and the discussion questions will be fashion, politics, and violence and peacemaking. Those are three interesting, relevant and wide-ranging topics and I look forward to seeing where the debate goes on those. Note also the emphasis on “mission in a 21st century Scotland” — not world mission, but local mission.

The event will be held at Stirling University, the same as last year, but apparently in a new venue on the campus. It is the first weekend of September, Friday 3 Sept. to Monday 6 Sept. 2010. And maybe the most important information: the conference is covered by the COSY Blog and will probably use the Twitter hashtag #nya2010. If you need to register you can do so at MadStuff.biz.

Chris Hoskins over at What Is Freedom? has posted a brief note expressing his regret that he will be missing the Assembly this year and how meaningful the NYA has been in his life. He says:

I will miss not being at the assembly, the 7 Youth Assemblies I have attended, as delegate or staff, over the last 10 years have been very important to me. I’ve made many good friends, been challenged, been inspired, at the assembly in 2000 I gave my life to Christ. Through my involvement in the Youth Assemblies, I’ve been opened to many other opportunities… I know this list seems a bit narcissistic, but I’m just realising how blessed I’ve been to be a part of all these things.

And he concludes with this advice:

If you’ve never been to the Youth assembly and you are eligible to go, I would recommend that you do, if you’ve been before, why do you share some memories with us? Those who are going this year – relish it, enjoy it, participate. Its the kind of event that is only as good as you make it, if you don’t put yourself into it and take part, it will never be as good as it could be – for you and for those around you.

I look forward to NYA2010, even if I will only attend in the virtual world. My prayers for another meaningful Assembly.

The GA Junkie

The Politics of Presbyterianism

Category Archives: news

Situation In Malawi With The CCAP — Update And Reaction

Disagreement Between CCAP Livingstonia Synod Leadership And Malawi Government Continues — Three Clerics Arrested

The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland — Review And Reform And Ministries

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — The Power Of Interpretation

Church And State In Scotland And England — The Reformation Still Means Something

Special Meeting Of The General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Ireland Regarding The Presbyterian Mutual Crisis

Presbyterians — Owning The Label

Follow-up To The Oakfield Sale — The Going Price Of An Historic Church Building In Upstate NY

Update On The Presbyterian Mutual Society And The Presbyterian Church Of Ireland

The Church Of Scotland National Youth Assembly — Looking Back And Looking Ahead