Category Archives: news

Irish Presbyterians Chose Their 2011 GA Moderator

Leave a reply

For whatever obscure and personal reasons, today always feels like the beginning of the build-up to the General Assembly season to me.  There is something about the first Tuesday in February and the vote of the presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland for their General Assembly Moderator that perks up my interest and makes me look ahead to the upcoming GA season.  But enough waxing poetic… Let’s get down to business.

In the PC Ireland today the 19 presbyteries gathered in their traditional simultaneous meetings and elected…

Rev. Ivan Patterson, pastor of Newcastle Presbyterian Church. He was on the ballot last year
and received four votes in the first round.  This year he received a very strong 12 out of 19 votes. Rev. Patterson is quoted as saying “I am absolutely overwhelmed to be elected as Moderator. I am very
happy to serve the Church and to represent its members but am somewhat
daunted by the thought of the year ahead.”

There were four others on this year’s ballot:

From the PC Ireland press release in advance of the election, here is the brief biographical sketch for the Rev. Patterson.

Rev. Ivan Patterson

Minister of Newcastle, Ivan was born in 1949 and in 1980 was ordained as
Assistant in First Bangor. In 1982 he was installed as minister of
Bushvale before accepting a call to Newcastle in 1991. He convened the
Youth International and Inter Church Committee between 1984 and 1989,
the Youth Board from 1989 until 1993 and the Reception of Ministers and
Licentiates Committee in 2008. He is currently Clerk of the Iveagh
Presbytery, a post he has held since 1995.



Thanks to @cherylmeban for the first tweet.  The results were just announced with an official announcement and additional media reports should be released shortly.  I will update here.

My congratulations to Rev. Patterson and best wishes and prayers for his moderatorial year.

Theft Leaves The Church Of Scotland With Out A Symbol Of The Moderator

3 Replies

Every Presbyterian branch that I know of has a particular token passed between Moderators as both a mark of the office and a reminder of those who have held the office and those who will hold it in the future.  For some it is a service cross, for others a stole.  For the the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland these symbols include a ceremonial ring.

Last night that ring was among the items stolen from the home of the current Moderator of the Church of Scotland, the Rt. Rev. John Christie.

Numerous press reports confirm that the ring was among the items taken in an overnight break-in while Rev. Christie was asleep.  There is also a longer article from the BBC with a picture of the ring and some information on it’s previous mis-placement.  Beyond that I have not found any historical details on the background of the current ring.  The BBC also says that the church will make an appeal.  I will update as appropriate.

We pray for the quick recovery of the ring and for the Christie family.

More Updates Regarding Blantyre Synod, CCAP

Leave a reply

Well, things are not happening as quickly as they were a few weeks back, but since my last update there have been a couple of important developments in this story.

For those who need to have the details on the background, there is my original post on the story as well as one follow-up.  The short version is that the Moderator of Blantyre Synod of the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian spoke out against a pastoral letter by the Roman Catholic bishops and it soon became clear that while he claimed to speak for the Synod the members of the Synod let it be known that they did not agree.  In the aftermath the Synod removed Rev. Mangisa from his position as Moderator and Rev. Chimenya, the deputy general secretary who appeared with the moderator at the press conference, was removed as well.  The Synod also decided that there were problems with the management style of the general secretary, the Rev. Kadawati, and while not removed from office he was informed that he could not request another term.

The first thing that has happened since my last discussion was that the dispute has moved from the ecclesiastical realm to the civil courts with The Nation reporting that Revs. Mangisa and Chimenya have gotten a High Court injunction against the Synod halting their removal from office.  Not much on details supporting the request for an injunction and not much has been mentioned about it in the last two weeks.  The Nyasa Times reports that a group has met to plan a response to the injunction and civil action.  We will have to see where this goes.

It is interesting tracking the arguments at this point.  The original problem was that Rev. Mangisa spoke out unilaterally claiming to represent the Synod.  What he spoke out against was how the Roman Catholic bishops had very publicly inserted themselves in a political debate.  This was actually the 20th time the bishops had done something like this and I’m pretty sure my readers are aware that denominations all over the world do this all the time.  In fact, the Human Rights Consultative Committee of Malawi has issued a report supporting the bishops’ letter.  But this has started at least some discussion in Malawi about the place of religion in the political sphere.  Now with the injunction, the secular has become involved in the ecclesiastical.

The second development is related to the administrative issue, but with an interesting twist.  Coming up next week is a special service and ceremony to unveil and dedicate a mausoleum honoring a former first lady of Malawi, Ethel Mutharika.  The Rev. McDonald Kadawati, the embattled general secretary of the Synod, was to have been the lead minister and master of ceremonies.  Now the Office of the President and Cabinet (OPC) has asked him to step aside and replaced him with… wait for it… Rev. Mangisa.  The article about this in The Nation has a bit of analysis, but I won’t even attempt any kremlinology or reading the tea leaves on this one.  Probably best to accept the easy explanation that the Mutharika family was no longer comfortable with the Rev. Kadawati.

So the story continues in the Blantyre CCAP Synod.  We will see how it progresses and what additional items of polity is touches on for us to discuss.  Stay tuned…

New Leader Of NCCI From The Mizoram Presbyterian Church Synod

Leave a reply

The new General Secretary of the National Council of Churches of India is the Rev. Dr. Roger Gaikwad, a member of the Mizoram Presbyterian Church Synod of northeastern India.  Rev. Gaikwad was installed in his new position on December 9.

Mr. Gaikwad has been serving in ordained ministry for 33 years, most recently as the Principal of the Aizawl Theological College. He is a noted preacher, teacher and writer and a frequent speaker at church events.  His service extends beyond the school and denomination to participation in ecumenical and international committees.  As principal of the college he also had the responsibility of editing and publishing the Mizoram Journal of Theology.  His wife, Pi Zomuani Gaikwad, is also active in church work and is the first woman in Mizoram to hold a B.D. degree.  Her work has included chairing the Synod Women’s Fellowship and as president of the Women’s Assembly of the North-East India Christian Council.

Mr. Gaikwad’s term of office will include the centennial anniversary of the NCCI in 2014 and he will have much of the responsibility for planning that event.

The best coverage of the event seems to be from the NCCI press release and a story from Mizoram Synod.  There are several media reports, most echoing the official press release, like the one from the South Asia Mail .

Congratulations to the Rev. Dr. Gaikwad and best wishes and prayers for his work.

Musings On Middle Governing Bodies

2 Replies

Well, the Moderators have done their job and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has their Special Commission on Middle Governing Bodies.  There are 21 members of the commission and they look like a good bunch.  I know a couple of the members well and they are good choices for this work.  My prayers and best wishes are with all of you as you begin your work in two weeks.

This commission commencing its work, and the analysis I did last week, got me thinking about middle governing bodies and Presbyterian structure.  In particular I started wondering further about the size of presbyteries and where the PC(USA) falls in the spectrum.

After looking at some numbers I thought it would be a worthwhile thought exercise to consider the following option for reorganizing the PC(USA):

The presbyteries in the PC(USA) should be divided up so there are more, smaller presbyteries.

Oh, gosh, yes, this is counter-cultural and possibly counter-intuitive. The current thinking around the church is that with our declining membership we need to adjust our structure accordingly, combining presbyteries to keep them sustainable and eliminating parts of our structure. But this is only a thought experiment so stick with me for a few minutes.

What started me on this path were the following data.  Consider the following Presbyterian branches and their average presbytery sizes:

  Churches Presbyteries Churches/Presbytery
PC(USA)  10,657  173  61.6
 PC Taiwan  1208  20  60.4
 PCA  1740  79  22.0
 EPC  298  10  29.8
 PC Canada  952  45  21.2
 Church of Scotland  1200  43  27.9
 PC Ireland  550  19  28.9
Historic      
 PCUSA
Synod of New York
1888 		 822  29  28.3

Now I don’t know if these data got your attention, but obviously they got me thinking.  At the present time the PC(USA) has presbyteries that are on average a bit more than twice as large as these other branches and as they have been historically.  That is not to say that these other branches have uniform size presbyteries — Edinburgh Presbytery has 81 congregations and in 1888 the Presbytery of New York had 52 churches.  But today the largest PC(USA) presbytery is Coastal Carolina with 188 churches, and there are twenty more larger than 100 churches.  The smallest current presbyteries in the PC(USA) are San Juan and Cimarron with 14 churches and there are five more with less than 20.

So if smaller presbyteries are more of the norm, what if the PC(USA) were to reorganize so that it has lots more smaller presbyteries?  If we chose a target average of 25 churches per presbytery that would mean about 426 presbyteries in the denomination.  (Yes, I just saw a bunch of you flinch.)

Now I have no idea if this is a worthwhile thing to do — after all, the discussion on all levels has been to combine smaller presbyteries to make them sustainable.  But let me continue this thought experiment for a few more minutes to explore the implications.

It is interesting to note how the PC(USA) and its predecessor branches got here.  Finding the 1888 records was in some ways providential because, as the report of the Special Committee on the Nature of the Church and the Practice of Governance, approved by the 205th General Assembly (1993), tells us (p. 18):

Until the late nineteenth century, the denomination was “a ‘constitutional confederacy’ of congregations loosely connected by relatively weak institutional structures and a broadly defined constitution.”

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the church became a corporate denomination.

It goes on to clarify that the “corporate denomination” is not necessarily a negative because it could deliver goods and services to congregations and devote resources to mission causes.  But then in the mid-1970’s there was a decentralization of the corporate structure (p. 22):

Twenty years ago [1973] major reorganizations took place in the predecessor denominations of the PC(USA). A basic principle of reorganization was that mission was done best by the governing body closest to the area of mission.
…
In the UPCUSA, this reorganization led to the development of large regional synods where there had been smaller synods generally following state boundaries. Presbyteries and synods had full-time executives and offices… Presbyteries and synods linked sessions and congregations with the General Assembly. The UPCUSA saw this interrelatedness as program and polity, demonstrating the oneness of the church.

This is the background to how the PC(USA) got to its current structure.  Now, this thought experiment is about changing the structure but I do not fully discuss how much the underlying model on which the current structure is based would need to be changed to fit the new model.  Probably the model would need to be changed, but maybe not.

As I said earlier, the conventional wisdom in the PC(USA) right now seems to be that we need to find combinations of presbyteries to keep them sustainable as they loose members and resources.  But what is it about the institution we need to sustain?  The word that keeps flying around the PC(USA) right now, and what the new Form of Government is supposed to encourage, is to be missional.  We also keep hearing that we should not be stuck in the old ways but to find new and innovative ways of doing things.  With that in mind let’s consider what a structure loaded with small presbyteries would bring.

The benefits of the smaller presbytery model that I see are that they are more flexible and potentially more connectional among the member congregations.  For some presbyteries there would be no change — they are already in the target range.  For others, particularly in metropolitan areas, there would be significant reorganization.  Maybe San Francisco would remain unchanged (78 churches) but presbyteries over 80 (arbitrarily chosen from the size of Edinburgh) would be divided so Greater Atlanta and National Capital would each be divided into two presbyteries with slightly more than 50 congregations in each one.  Something like this is done in Toronto by the PC Canada where they have an East Toronto and West Toronto Presbytery with 23 churches.  It would seem that with a smaller more compact presbytery groups could meet more frequently, there would be less business so meetings could include a greater part of education, fellowship or visioning, and the smaller size would help make them more attuned, flexible, and responsive to local needs.  In other words — less business, more focus, more flexibility in addressing mission needs.  Isn’t that what the nFOG is supposed to be all about?

There are a number of issues I could see going either way depending on your perspective.  One of these is the institutional infrastructure.  On the one hand there are presbyteries in the target size range now that sustain their paid staffing needs beyond the stated clerk.  On the other hand, this suggestion is partly modeled on the way that the PCUSA was before it became a “corporate church” so paid support and resource staff at the presbytery level beyond the stated clerk may not necessarily be a desired part of the new structure.

Another issue that could  be subjective regarding the benefits and outcome is whether this would decrease connectionalism between middle governing bodies.  The structure back in 1888 was described as a “constitutional confederacy.”  Depending on your ideas for the PC(USA) and what your goals for the new structure are, that looser affiliation could be viewed as either a positive or a negative.

The issues on the negative side are significant as well.  With 426 presbyteries there would be an increase in the ecclesiastical review necessary, including records review and polity consultation.  One would expect the number of judicial cases to remain constant.

OK, that is where my thought experiment brings me and I have to admit I’m not entirely sure I like it in that form.  I did not address synods and for today let me simply say that something like synods would be needed in this model for a variety of reasons, including the fact that judicial and records review for 426 presbyteries would overwhelm the General Assembly.  There could be the same number of synods, there could be more – I don’t think that part of it is important right at the moment.

Now the discussion currently circulating in the wider church is about what the appropriate size of a presbytery should be so that it is sustainable.  Let me ask it a different way – What is the appropriate size to be able to conduct the necessary mission?  Remember, mission is to be done by the governing body closest to the mission.  I am more than ready to acknowledge that a presbytery of 25 churches could be too small to carry out the mission needs they see in a region.  What about a larger grouping?

Let me suggest another grouping here — for the sake of this discussion let’s call it a “district.” (FYI – districts are a perfectly good Presbyterian concept for non-governing body groupings, although some branches use it for subdivisions within a presbytery and some use it for groupings of presbyteries.)

The district would not be a governing body, no commissioners would be sent to it, it would have none of the powers or responsibilities of a governing body.  A district would exist for the purpose of presbyteries mutually coming together to conduct mission or other business that requires a scale larger than a presbytery but smaller than a synod.  Groupings like this already operate, such as the Sierra Mission Partnership between three presbyteries in California and Nevada.

Beyond that I really wouldn’t specify anything for a district.  Maybe it would be a formal division, such as covering three present presbyteries, or maybe it would be ad hoc and formed of presbyteries interested in a specific mutual mission.  (That latter concept could actually lead to overlapping districts each based on a mission need.)  It might or might not have staff.  The essential point is that it would be a larger grouping to help presbyteries facilitate mission of mutual interest.

Now, I have some dear friends who are presbytery execs and I don’t want to put this in a negative light for them, so let me suggest that there are places in this thought experiment for denominational staff if it is phased out at the presbytery level.  As I indicated, the place for sharing resources would be at the synod or district level.  While not every district would need/want/afford one or more professionals, that would be a place that someone would be beneficial to coordinate, encourage and oversee the joint mission. That would be a place for resource staff.  The other thing that I would imagine happening under this scenario is the expansion of professionals shared between or across presbyteries much like Sierra Blanca and Santa Fe do now.  The positions would not be the same, but it is probably a safe bet that not too far into the future the current professional positions will be different one way or another — We just need to figure out how.

So there is one model or option: We turn the PC(USA) into a collection of smaller, flexible and more intimate presbyteries.  We give up the idea of economies of scale for more relational groups that can focus on specific ways to be missional as God is calling them.

Anyway, I just throw this out there after looking at presbytery sizes in other Presbyterian branches.  It is only one of the options.  I don’t know if this is the route God is calling us since that is the task of all of us joining together to seek the will of God.

A “Glimmer Of Hope” For Presbyterian Mutual Society Savers

Leave a reply

The amount of “chatter” regarding a possible solution to the collapse of the Presbyterian Mutual Society in Northern Ireland (NI) has increased dramatically in the last few days and there are signs that an announcement could be just days away.

For more details on this continuing saga you should check out a previous post, but since last Spring and the Special Assembly meeting to consider the situation the biggest relevant development has probably been the change in the British Government.  In fact, in a post last week the Rev. Stafford Carson, the former Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland who has been staying close to the situation, talks about the visit of the Deputy Prime Minister and his comment “the new government is very mindful of the need to resolve the serious
hardship faced by members of the Presbyterian Mutual Society.”  Now in the past couple of days there have been very positive signs of a resolution.  While details are not known, Rev. Carson says

The Ministerial Working Group charged with resolving the PMS crisis met yesterday and the Secretary of State said that significant progress was made.

The Northern Ireland Members at Westminster continued to exert pressure at PMQs in the House today. It seems as though everyone is working towards an announcement being made next week. Could it be that the end is near for this long-running saga? We have had a number of false dawns before, and we hope and pray that a “just and fair resolution” will be forthcoming next week.

In addition to Rev. Carson this has been picked up by the NI media including the BBC, Belfast Newsletter, and the Irish Times.  But there are concerns about whether this will be a full rescue of savers or only partial restoration of their deposits, a sentiment expressed by an article from 4NI.

So we will have to wait for details to see how the promise and prospect of a “just and fair resolution” plays out.  But if nothing else, this is some of the best news that the savers have had since this two-year old saga began.  As usual, stay tuned… 

General Assembly 2010 Of The Presbyterian Church Of Aotearoa New Zealand

Leave a reply

Spring is in the air and it is time for another General Assembly…

Of course, if it is Spring the Assembly would be in the Southern Hemisphere, and so we look forward to the convening of General Assembly 2010 of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand at St. Andrew’s College in Christchurch in just a few hours.  It will conclude this Sunday October 3.

The theme of the Assembly is “Making Disciple-Making Disciples,” a topic chosen by the incoming Moderator, the Rev. Peter Cheyne.  As Rev. Cheyne says in the press release announcing the theme “It is about making disciples who become sufficiently mature to then make another generation of disciples.”  There is a booklet available on-line that will be used at the Assembly for six small-group Bible study discussion sessions on the topic.  Rev. Cheyne has started blogging, including a reflection on this topic.  (From a technical perspective it appears that the RSS feed is for the whole church web site and there is not one specific to his blog.)

So, for those GA Junkies playing along at home here is what you need to know:

Two important items I have not found yet are the docket and an on-line news page.  I will update here when I do find them. But this is a note that there will be audio files available of certain events so keep an eye out for that. UPDATE: The News and Audio Page is now being updated.

Similarly, I have been searching but have not found anyone tweeting the GA, officially or unofficially, and no hashtag.  Again, will update if I find anything.

The back story to this GA is the September 4 magnitude 7 earthquake near Christchurch.  For those not familiar with earthquake behavior the aftershocks behaviour is very typical (GNS calls it “textbook“) and they continue with five in the magnitude 3 range in the last day reported by the GeoNet official agency information.

Since the earthquake there have been a number of information reports and updates from church-related sources.  Linked to the GA web page is an update related to the Assembly.  And thanks to notes from the Rev. Geoff King of Knox Church, Christchurch, as well as the Presbyterian Research blog for posting the accounts, we have Pastor King’s three updates about the situation after the earthquake with one that day, another the next day, and the last a week on.  (That is the ecclesiastical perspective, for the geological angle I really appreciated the great photos of faulting that GNS has up on their scientific response page.)

So in the same way that prophet Amos marks time with an earthquake in his day this GA will probably be remembered for its temporal and geographical proximity to the Darfield earthquake.

Stay tuned in the coming week and let us see what God does among his people as they meet on the South Island.  Prayers for the meeting.

Reorganization Of The National Office Of The Presbyterian Church In Canada

2 Replies

In these challenging economic times Presbyterian branches are wrestling with what it means to be connectional and then how do we pay for it.  Last Saturday I was part of a discussion at our Synod Council meeting where we weighed a number of financial issues with how we relate to each other and tried to discern what we should be doing.  Over the last couple of years many branches have been dealing with the cutting of costs and/or enhancing revenue.

Well, along these lines the Presbyterian Church in Canada yesterday released a plan to reorganize their national office. It calls for a combining of their congregational ministries resource unit, The Vine, with their national ministries unit Canada Ministries.  The reorganization will also have financial management for the Life and Mission Agency centrally administered.  The former will result in a reduction in workforce of one executive and one support staff position while the latter will not affect staffing levels but will free up staff for other work.  The press release also notes the reorganization of duties in other units that will result in a reduction of three full-time equivalent positions.  Of the total of five positions eliminated two will be through retirements.

UPDATE: Reaction from the Emmaus Project which is part of the combined ministries. Update to the Update: Not part of those agencies, see the note in the comments.

The press release closes with this –

The management team expresses its appreciation of all staff who have lived with the knowledge that a reorganization is underway at the national office. These changes have not been without pain and stress and we regret that several good colleagues will be leaving the national office. The ongoing dedication and commitment of the national office staff to serving our church is acknowledged with gratitude.

Presbyterians And The Pope — The Reactions Vary

Leave a reply

Well, the Pope begins his four day visit to the United Kingdom tomorrow and the news related to Presbyterian reaction continues to build up.  I have already commented on Head of the Church issues and the idea of having an actor portraying John Knox being in the group greeting the Pontiff.  But why stop there — the historic rejection of the papacy by the Presbyterians as well as concerns over the handling of the Irish child abuse allegations have arisen as issues that are also making news in advance of the visit.

Let me begin with the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.  The Rev. Norman Hamilton was initially quoted by the BBC as saying “Her Majesty will welcome the Pope and I am very content to go along with her welcome to the Pope to Scotland and England.”  In the same interview he is also said to have allowed that he would have no problem meeting the Pope in a “non-religious context.”

The recent news is that the Rev. Hamilton will attend an ecumenical worship service in Westminster Abbey but has declined an invitation to attend a reception afterward and shake hands with the Pontiff.  His announced issue is not the historical differences but the handling of the Irish abuse scandal.  A BBC article makes it clear that Mr. Hamilton wants to join his Catholic countrymen in showing respect for the Pope while still acknowledging that the issues related to the Catholic Church still require “substantive discussion back in Ireland”.  The individual in charge of overseeing the Pope’s visit from the British Government’s side, Lord Patten, has criticized the Moderator for his proposed action suggesting that he is living in the 16th and not the 21st century.

On the other hand we have the reaction of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster which is quite vocal in their opposition to the Pope’s visit on theological and historical grounds.  A while back they published a pamphlet titled Roman Catholicism Examined in the Light of Scripture.  On their web site they have a statement which begins “The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster views the state visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the United Kingdom with dismay and abhorrence.”  The statement goes on to say:

In light of this [the reception by the Queen] his visit can not be construed as simply pastoral. We therefore publicly disassociate ourselves from any welcome given to him and repudiate those protestant churchmen who will welcome the Pope, meet with him or refuse to publicly condemn his teaching or remainindifferent. By their actions they not only give credence to his spurious claims but are betraying the very creeds they once professed to believe teach and defend. Those historic creeds of the Protestant Churches have recognised that the Pope by his claims has placed himself in the place of Christ and therefore have termed him -‘The antichrist in the Church’ (‘anti’ means in place of).

and follows with the statement in the Westminster Confession of Faith, 25.VI, about Christ as the head of the Church.

Following along with this statement, in a BBC article the Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church criticises the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland for even attending the service.  The Rev. Ron Johnstone is quoted as saying:

I think it is very sad that he [Rev. Hamilton] would go to such a thing. The Pope claims that the Presbyterian Church in Ireland is a false church. He claims that we should recognise him as the head of all Christians. And surely the Westminster Confession that Mr Hamilton signed is totally opposed to the teachings of Rome. Both can’t be right: either Romanism is right or the New Testament is right.

In addition, statement on the web site announces a “solemn service” in Edinburgh on the day of the Pope’s arrival followed by a public protest.  This protest has received press coverage and it is interesting that in the BBC article the Rev. Ian Paisley, former Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church, indicates that protest is connected with both the present abuse concerns in Ireland as well as the historical aspects.

Among other Presbyterian branches, the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland has their own pamphlet, Pope Benedict XVI and the United Kingdom.  And an article from Slugger O’toole has excerpts from a resolution passed by their Synod critical of the visit.  These churches in association with many others have posted a Papal Visit Protest Site to help publicise and coordinate the different protests.

The visit begins a few hours from now with all this pomp and ceremony.  Stay turned to see how it all unfolds.

Presbytery PJC Decision In Redwoods v. Spahr (2010)

5 Replies

The last three days the Permanent Judicial Commission of Redwoods Presbytery has been hearing arguments in the disciplinary case of Redwoods Presbytery v. Jane Adams Spahr.  The Rev. Spahr is accused of conducting ceremonies for same-sex couples that are prohibited by the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) but were legal civil marriages under the laws of the State of California at the time.  If this sounds familiar it is — this is a variant on the case filed against Rev. Spahr in 2004 that lead to General Assembly PJC Decision 218-12 that gave us the, shall we say interesting, decision that the Rev. Spahr could not have been guilty of conducting same-sex marriages because “The SPJC found Spahr guilty of doing that which by definition cannot be done. One cannot characterize same sex ceremonies as marriages for the purpose of disciplining a minister of the Word and Sacrament and at the same time declare that such ceremonies are not marriages for legal or ecclesiastical purposes.”  It may be a unique legal decision, but it is the prevailing interpretation on this subject and figures in the Commission decision.

This Commission sustained three of the four charges against Rev. Spahr, all related to the authority of the Book of Order and her persisting in preforming these ceremonies after the previous GAPJC decision.  But the Commission also weighed in with their judgment about the current polity situation in the the PC(USA).

Before I get to a discussion of the decision, I want to make a couple of observations about the trial itself.

One aspect of this trial is that it was probably the first one with significant real-time commentary on Twitter.  You can find most of the tweets under @revjanespahr and #revjanie.

It was interesting to follow the trial play-by-play, but as with most things on Twitter these days it also came with the attendant amount of snark, such as: “Oh God, she just mentioned the ‘silent majority.'” and “Blackstone: Same old same old — GAPJC.”  I would also note that virtually all of the tweets I saw were from Rev. Spahr’s supporters with none, that I saw, from anyone clearly supporting the prosecution.  Maybe I just didn’t find the hashtag.

A couple of items came across in the tweets that I wanted to comment on.
1) The argument that the Directory for Worship is descriptive and that it contains no “shalls.”  This was the argument that carried the day in a Presbytery PJC decision that acquitted the Rev. Jean Southard in a similar case in Boston Presbytery.  However, on appeal the Synod PJC found that the Presbytery PJC was in error in this reasoning and we await a General Assembly PJC case to clarify this.  But I will also say that after serving on the Special Committee on Civil Unions and Religious Marriage I came away with the understanding that W-4.9001 was the equivalent of a “shall” section and that is why I wanted to recommend to the General Assembly wording to make the civil marriage section of the definition more flexible.

2) Also related to the Special Committee and the definition, I think several of us on the Committee, myself included, came away from the study wondering if the church should be acting as the agent of the state in executing marriage licenses.  In my own experience I know that in such diverse settings as Mexico and Germany the civil marriage and the religious marriage are two distinct events with the religious ceremony possibly happening minutes or years after the civil ceremony.  This concept came up in this trial, based on the tweets, with arguments by the defense that the two are linked in the Book of Order and by the prosecution that they are not.  At least that is what I gathered from two 140 character messages.

Anyway, with that as preface, and with the understanding that this case probably has two appeals to go before it is settled, what did Redwoods Presbytery PJC give us this time?

Charge 1 was that Rev. Spahr solemnized a marriage “in direct violation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (GAPJC) in its Decision and Order in Disciplinary Case 218-12.”  This effectively says that W-4.0991 is a constitutionally binding requirement of the Book of Order.

Charge 2 was that Rev. Spahr “persisted in a pattern or practice of disobedience concerning the aforementioned authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order.”  In other words, since the previous GAPJC decision she had conducted multiple same-gender marriages.

Charge 3 was that Rev. Spahr “By intentionally and repeatedly acting in violation of the above-referenced authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order as set forth in Disciplinary Case 218-12, you, JANE ADAMS SPAHR, failed to be governed by polity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), in violation of your ordination vows (W-4.4003e).”

These three charges were sustained by the Commission on a 4-2 vote.

The fourth charge was unanimously not sustained: By publicly, intentionally and repeatedly acting in violation of the Book of Order, you, JANE ADAMS SPAHR, have failed to further the peace, unity, and purity of the church (W-4.4003g).

OK, that is the verdict.  Expect an appeal and another trip to the GAPJC. (And expect mainstream media reports to miss the nuances of the polity.)

What is most interesting about the decision is the second page with the commentary by the Commission.  They begin:

The Permanent Judicial Commission, in sustaining the first three charges, recognizes that while the Rev. Dr. Jane Spahr has indeed performed these marriages, which were and continue to be legal marriages, she did so acting with faithful compassion in accord with W7.3004. These marriages were legal in the State of California, being civil contracts (W4.9001), and are different from same sex ceremonies. The testimonies of those at court clearly demonstrated this difference.

We commend Dr. Spahr and give thanks for her prophetic ministry that for 35 years has extended support to “people who seek the dignity, freedom and respect that they have been denied” (W7.4002c), and has sought to redress “wrongs against individuals, groups, and peoples in the church, in this nation, and in the world” (W7.4002h).

But their commentary goes on as a word for the whole church:

In addition, we call upon the church to reexamine our own fear and ignorance that continues to reject the inclusiveness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.(G3.0401c) We say this believing that we have in our own Book of Order conflicting and even contradictory rules and regulations that are against the Gospel.

But the decision concludes with these words:

Notwithstanding the foregoing, we are constrained to accept that the following language in GAPJC Disciplinary Case 218-12 is authoritative and should be followed until and unless modified: “We further hold that the officers of the PCUSA authorized to perform marriages shall not state, imply or represent that a same sex ceremony is a marriage. Under W4.9001, a same sex ceremony is not and cannot be a marriage.”

and

We implore the Synod and General Assembly levels of our church to listen to these testimonies, which are now part of this record, to take them to heart, and to do what needs to be done to move us as a church forward on this journey of reconciliation.

The penalty imposed is censure with rebuke (D-12.0102) and she is “enjoined to avoid such offenses in the future.”  If the decision is appealed the censure is held until the completion of the process if this decision is upheld.  Censure with rebuke is the lightest option available to the Commission and is effectively a formal declaration that what she did went against the constitution of the PC(USA).

Addendum:  A couple of additional words of commentary on this decision.  I waited a few hours to add this both to give me time to think about it and because I thought the decision pretty much spoke for itself. But to cast this in light of our polity the members of the PJC walked the fine line between “God alone is Lord of the conscience” [G-1.0301a] and “It is necessary to the integrity and health of the church that the persons who serve in it as officers shall adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity as expressed in The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government.” [G-6.0108a]  Their commentary clearly, to me at least, reflects their personal frustration that while they agree with the pastoral care Rev. Spahr has carried out and disagree with the applicable sections of the Constitution and the current interpretations, the majority none-the-less recognized their obligation to abide by the current standards enacted by the majority.  One can object to the strength or extent to which the PJC majority expressed their personal beliefs, but one must admire and appreciate their faithfulness to the PC(USA) process and connectionalism.  So yes, they effectively said “These are the rules, you have broken the rules, we think the rules are wrong but we must still find you guilty.”  This was further expressed in the penalty, which is the lightest that can be imposed and is effectively saying “Go and sin no more.”

Also in contemplating this decision the question keeps coming round of what specifications of error could be cited as grounds for appeal?  Since the defense seems to have focused on the idea that W-4.9001 is descriptive and prescriptive, that is that there is no “shall” language in there, that is certain to be one of the points.  This has been discussed for a while now and it will be useful if the GAPJC does provide guidance on what it means for the Directory for Worship to be descriptive.  From what I have seen and heard I don’t think I can pick out any procedural points that would be grounds for appeal but I did not follow extremely closely.  I don’t think that either personal conscience or the difference between civil and ecclesiastical definitions of marriage would be strong points of appeal.

Expecting an appeal, or possibly a decision in the Southard case that could impact this one, it is far too early to say this is the final word on this decision and this issue.  However, it does highlight where the PC(USA) is right now with different understandings on marriage and the fact that there needs to be a recognition that same-gender marriages are legally recognized in some jurisdictions and countries.  As the Special Committee report said…

We can not agree

but

By the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, with the love of God, and in the communion of the Holy Spirit, we covenant together to:

• Honor the truth that Christ has called and God works through each member;

• Listen to one another with openness and respect;

• Support and pray for each other and for one another’s ministries;

• Earnestly seek and carefully listen to each person’s discernment of God’s will found in Scripture;

• Struggle together with perseverance to find God’s will for us even when the way is difficult;

• Love one another even when we disagree, and to commit ourselves to the reconciliation of any broken relationships we have with one another;

• Honor who we are as Presbyterians by respecting the fallible discernment of the body, bearing in mind that individual conscience, held captive to the word of God, cannot be thus bound.