Category Archives: news

Free Church Of Scotland General Assembly Moderator Designee

Leave a reply

The Free Church of Scotland yesterday announced that the Moderator of their 2010 General Assembly will be the Rev. David Meredith of Inverness.  The Rev. Meredith has pastored the Smithton Free Church for the last 25 years and is credited with building a tiny outreach congregation into a thriving one.  (That church name is from the announcement although the church web site lists the church as the Smithton-Culloden Free Church.  The church web site also brings news they had a 25 year celebration for Rev. Meredith just a couple of weeks ago.)

Mr. Meredith is a career minister having earned a degree in English and Politics at Strathclyde University before studying for the ministry at Free Church College.

I like the description that Rev. Meredith gives of his interest in ministry:

David says he has a desire to bring contemporary applications to
ancient truths, and to see vibrancy within a Free Church which is free
from parochialism and focused on the spiritual needs of Scotland.

In particular I like that idea of bringing “contemporary applications to ancient truths.”

The Free Church of Scotland General Assembly will convene in May in Edinburgh.  I look forward to Rev. Meredith’s leadership.

Church Property Case Not Accepted By Supreme Court… At This Time

Leave a reply

It is the first Monday in October and that means two things…

They begin announcing the Nobel Prizes for this year and…
The U.S. Supreme Court begins its new term.

Now, I will leave the Nobel Prizes (and their humorous cousins the Ig Nobel Prizes) to you.  (Although it does strike me that there is something theologically significant about the fact that cows with names give more milk than cows without names. See the Ig Nobel award for Veterinary Medicine.)

But with the start of the new Supreme Court year it brings a list of the cases that the court has agreed to hear, and the vastly longer list of those the Court will not hear.

For those looking for a Supreme resolution to the diversity of views and court decisions on church property, the trust clause, and neutral versus hierarchical principles, we won’t have it from the national court this year.  The Court has declined the request of St. James of Newport Beach to have their California high court decision reviewed.  If you look at the list of court orders you will see that their case, 08-1579, is just one in an approximately 80 page list of cases that the court has declined to hear, almost all with out comment.

What this means is that the case goes back to trial court as the California supremes ordered.  It also means that once the trial court has rendered a decision the case can once again make its way through the appeals system and possibly have another shot at the U.S. high court.  There is also a possibility that a different property case could make it there first.

As always, for the legal context, interpretation and decoding into plain English check out the Anglican Curmudgeon.

And the story continues.

Developments At Coral Ridge — What Does It Say About Confessional Standards?

1 Reply

If you have not been following this story…

A few months back Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Florida, a member of the Presbyterian Church in America, called a pastor to fill their vacant senior pastor position.  There were some concerns about how the vote of the congregation was presented and conducted so a couple of weeks ago the congregation voted again on the new pastor.  The call was reaffirmed by a 69-31% vote.  At the same time there have been some dissidents in the congregation who have been calling for the removal of the new pastor and disciplinary proceedings were begun against some of them.  That may be moot based on current developments.

Well the dissident group has now left and is starting their own worshiping fellowship at a local auditorium, having held one worship service on their own so far.

Something like this does not usually make the national news but in this case it helps that Coral Ridge was founded by the late TE D. James Kennedy, the new pastor is a grandson of Billy Graham, and some of the leaders of the splinter group are the children of Rev. Kennedy.  It is, as we sometimes say, “As The Pulpit Turns.”

That is the background information.  Now a few comments related to church polity, confessional standards, and church reorganizations.

Beginning at reorganizations:  As I have been working on the nature of church reorganizations I commented that the recent reaffirmation vote is close to the 2:1 ratio I have seen in multiple circumstances elsewhere.  Being only one church vote I am not inclined to put a lot of weight on it by itself.  A recent article on the dissident group says that attendance at the first worship service was about 400 people.  While it would be better to consider the number at some point in the future after the attendance stabilizes, or we at least have more than one data point, that number does fall very close to the 422 “no” votes in the recent vote.  Now, it could be a stretch to say that only congregation members that voted are now attending worship with the new group, but the number is still in the region of the 2:1 split.  It will be interesting to see what the ratios are in about a month.

Regarding polity — the article twice mentions a meeting of an organizational committee and that the meeting was “closed.”  I am going to make a jump here, but from the article this is sounding like the leadership of the new church, a proto-session if you will.  I would be curious to know the make-up of this body:  Are they ordained elders of the PCA?  Do they follow PCA leadership standards and so all the members of this organizational committee are male?  And while session meetings need not be open, are these leaders willing to discuss issues with the members of this developing congregation or is all the business being kept under wraps?

This brings me to a couple of lines in the news story that really drew my attention:

Denominational outlines of the embryonic congregation haven’t been
determined yet. However, one of the leaders, Jim Filosa, said they plan
to pattern it on the Westminster Confession of Faith, the backbone of
Presbyterian belief.

“We’ll do everything we did at Coral Ridge,” Filosa said. “What happens down the road depends on what denomination contacts us.”

This opens up all sorts of questions.  First, if they are patterning it on the Westminster Confessional Standards and doing what they did at Coral Ridge I would expect the leadership group to be exclusively male and conform to the PCA Book of Church Order.  And when they say “pattern” it on the WCF what does that mean?  Is it truly a confessional standard, or just a pattern or template that will provide guidance but not a subscription standard?

But, the line that sent a chill down my spine, as a confessional Presbyterian, was the comment that “What happens down the road depends on what denomination contacts us.”

Is this to say that their confessional standards are flexible or fluid enough to accommodate a range of interested suiters?  Would it not be more doctrinally sound to decide what exactly their standards are and then find the denomination that fits them best?  And I may be completely off the mark, but the way this quote comes across in the article it sounds like what they are saying is “Look, we are the true Coral Ridge.  You make us an offer.”

Anyway, I am curious to see how this develops in the coming weeks.

PC(USA) Committees And Task Forces Getting Ready For GA

Leave a reply

With nine months before the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) the pace of work is picking up and reports, preliminary and final, are being issued.

In particular, the PC(USA) has several special committees and task forces working on various tasks from the 218th GA or the General Assembly Mission Council.

Recent press releases about the various groups and their progress include:

At this time one committee, the New Revised Form of Government Task Force, has reported out in final form for the input of the denomination.  Their full report is posted and commended to the church for study ahead of the Assembly.  I have begun studying the 2009 version relative to the 2008 version and will have comments on the revisions in the near future.

But I have not gotten very far into that yet since I have been otherwise occupied, because…

The Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage met last week and has released their preliminary report for review and input by the church.  Input can be sent to civilunion.marriage@pcusa.org.  It should be 1000 words or less and received by Nov. 15.

The report begins:

As members of Christ’s church, we differ profoundly; but can we also see that those who disagree with us are seeking to love one another with God’s grace, advance the radical inclusiveness of the gospel, and promote biblical faithfulness? Though we reach very different conclusions, can we rejoice that our church is willing to wrestle together prayerfully with the question: How do we extend the grace of God to all, calling all persons—regardless of sexual orientation—to repentance and conversion, so that all will experience God’s gracious intention for humanity?

And the concluding section says:

What is the place of covenanted same-gender partnerships in the Christian community? The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) cannot agree. But the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is not ours. It is Christ’s. We did not choose Christ; Christ has chosen us, and appointed us—each and every one—to go and bear fruit that will last in this part of Christ’s vineyard. We have no right to destroy what is not ours. Knowing this, we believe that it is our Christ-given duty to stay at the table, especially when we disagree.

At the present time the report contains no recommendations to the Assembly — The committee will decide on those at their final meeting in January.

Now, I am going to take a step back and make some personal comments:  As many of you are aware I am a member of that Special Committee.  I have no comments about the content of the report — the committee worked very hard on it, was unanimous in support of the draft version, and that is our word to the PC(USA) at this time.  We have made our comment as a committee, we now welcome your comments back.

What I do want to say is that it was a privilege to work with the other 12 members of the committee.  I had to laugh yesterday when Peter Smith of the Louisville Courier-Journal referred to us as a “blue-ribbon” committee.  It has always felt more like I was a lowly sinner in need of God’s grace, mercy and salvation in the midst of a group of fellow sinners.  Yet, though we are all sinners, the members of the committee are a wonderful bunch of passionate, gifted, intelligent, thoughtful brothers and sisters in the faith.  And I would emphasize that Bruce Reyes-Chow did a great job of making the committee theologically diverse.  But despite our different viewpoints, when we speak in the report of “seeking to love one another with God’s grace,” we really do mean that.

I also want to commend the report to you because a lot of very hard work went into it.  Writing teams worked all summer, we read more than a thousand items of input that individuals sent in, and the four day meeting was a marathon.  (Sometimes revisions were posted to our collaborative software at 3 AM.)  In one of her good summaries of the meeting Leslie Scanlon of the Presbyterian Outlook picked up my comment about “the month of the last two days”.  (Leslie has a second article about the meeting as well.)  We did not sleep much, and when I did sleep it was not very soundly.  (Although I understand I was not alone in that regard.)  I can honestly say it was the most intense four days I can remember, even more intense than being a commissioner to GA.  And based on my notes, I would point out that in those four days every sentence in that report was reviewed by the full committee, page-by-page, and most of the sentences in there were modified in some way in the course of that review.  As I said, the full committee owns the full document.

I also want to thank the church for their input over the summer.  More than a thousand comments came in and we read them all.  Several of them were very moving – thank you for sharing your passions and hurts with us and I will carry those comments with me for a long time to come.

So read the report, let us know what you think.  And when you do there are a few things to keep in mind:

  • The landscape we are trying to describe was constantly changing as this report was written.
  • The content of the report reflects the
    mandate the 218th GA gave us    .  Don’t expect stuff that isn’t there.
  • That mandate includes the provision that we can not recommend modifying W-4.9001, the definition of Christian marriage.
  • And we have to do it in 10,000 words or less.     (It is like the standing joke in academics about reviewers of journal articles asking that you discuss this, that, and the other thing in more detail, and by the way, make the paper 10% shorter.

Thanks.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — The Build-up Begins

5 Replies

Yes, you read that title correctly.  I hope you have caught your breath from the last General Assembly and all the amendment voting because the cycle for the next GA begins… NOW!

The 219th General Assembly (2010) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) will meet from July 3-10, 2010.  It will be hosted by the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area at the Minneapolis Convention Center and the Committee on Local Arrangements (COLA) has put out the call for volunteers. (I have not found the COLA web site yet.)  And as we found out from the ELCA this past summer, watch out for the tornadoes.

The sure sign that GA was coming was the change in the default setting on the electronic business tracker, PC-Biz, from the 218th to the 219th GA.  No business, including overtures, has been posted to the system yet.

However, there are overtures waiting in the wings to be posted and one, two, maybe three of them, are floating around on web sites.  And it would probably surprise no one that the visible ones are all related to ordination standards in general and G-6.0106b in particular.

While the Office of the General Assembly has no GA 219 web page yet, at least that I can find, if they keep naming conventions consistent I would expect to find it here.  They have however announced the scriptural theme, “Rivers of Living Water” based on John 7:38, and have presented the logo.

I know that entities are working hard to get their assigned tasks completed and the one that has now released its product is the New Revised Form of Government Task Force.  Remember that their report came to the last Assembly and raised so many questions and concerns that the Assembly decided a more extensive input process was needed and so continued the process for another two years while adding a few of the Assembly commissioners to the nFOG Task Force.  Well, the new report was released last week and the church is invited to study it.  In fact, there is a letter from Task Force member Elder Carol Hunley specifically addressed to fellow elders explaining some of the motivation for the revision and encouraging them to study the new report and to take it seriously.  I have too much on my plate at the moment to digest that report but I’ll study it myself in the next month or two.  You can have a look at the full report or each of the new sections, Foundations of Presbyterian Polity and Form of Government, separately.  For comparison, the report to the previous GA is still available on-line, or should that disappear it will be available in a less-readable form on PC-Biz.

I think that covers all the signs of the next GA that I have found.  As I have time and more overtures and reports appear we will begin again the analysis of the upcoming business.

Sorting Out What The Actions Of The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland Mean

3 Replies

The General Assembly (2009) of the Church of Scotland dealt with a protest to a Presbytery approval of a church’s call to a partnered gay man to serve as pastor of the church.  For more details you can check out a couple of my previous posts, but to greatly summarize the actions of the Assembly on the specific case the policy of the CofS going forward they:

  1. Sustained the call and the Presbytery approval
  2. Formed a Special Commission to report back to the 2011 General Assembly with recommendations about such actions in the future.
  3. Placed a moratorium on ordination and induction (installation) of partnered same-sex individuals while the Commission is working
  4. Placed a gag order on all officers of the church urging them not to talk publicly about this whole issue while the commission is working

There has been much made about the gag order since the Assembly, including my comments in May and August. Up to this point that has been getting most of the publicity.

But this week brings news of some disagreement over the nature of the moratorium on ordination of partnered gay candidates.  Thanks to the Rev. Ian Watson for bringing this to our attention and all the important details are laid out in a post on his blog, with a brief follow-up.

His first post is extensive and complete enough that a GA Junkie can get a good idea of what the issues are.  I will summarize the recent action and then comment on the polity implications and the parallel to the PC(USA) working through this same question.

Rev. Watson reports that on September 1 the Presbytery of Hamilton “voted to nominate for training for the ministry of a man who is in a civil partnership.”

The question that arises is what is the scope of the Assembly’s action.  The specific deliverance says:

Instruct Presbyteries to observe a moratorium on ordinations and
inductions which might appear to prejudice the Special Commission before it reports.

Rev. Watson reports that as part of this decision the Presbytery received advice from the national CofS Ministries Council pertaining to the moratorium.  The complete advice is in his post, but it reads in part:

The decisions recently made should ensure that no applicant will be prejudiced, between now and the General Assembly of 2011, in the decision of their Presbytery whether to nominate them. That Assembly will determine the Church’s position, on receipt of the report of the Special Commission that has been established under the convenership of a Scottish judge.  No-one can predict at this stage what implications that might have for those who are applicants, candidates, or serving in the ministries of the Church at that point. 

So it is unclear if the moratorium applies only to the final step in ordination and induction, or applies to the whole ordination process.  This is a question that the Church of Scotland will have to wrestle with.

One of the reasons that I bring this up is because the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has had to deal with exactly the same issue, and the changes that the Report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity (PUP) brought.

Since adoption of G-6.0106b into the PC(USA) Book of Order there has been a discussion about at what point in the ordination process the “fidelity and chastity” clause needed to be applied.  The decisions of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, especially Sheldon v. West Virginia and Stewart v. Mission, set the pattern for handling these cases during the ordination process not at the point of the final examination for ordination by the Presbytery.

The Authoritative Interpretation adopted with the PUP Report allowed for declaring exceptions to the standards of the church but it does so in the context of examination for ordination, not entry into or during the preparation process.  Suddenly the ground shifted so that the review was no longer during the preparation process but at the time of examination.  This was the process affirmed by the PJC of the Synod of the Pacific in the case of Naegeli v. San Francisco, but has not been tested by the GAPJC yet.

So there you have some of the subtleties of this type of case.  Where is the appropriate point in the process to enforce standards or policy?  It is not clear that the Church of Scotland case will go any further, that would require a protest from members of the Presbytery of Hamilton and Rev. Watson does not suggest that is coming.  There does appear to be a need for a formal clarification from the Ministries Council to the whole church, not just on a case-by-case basis to Presbyteries.  But this would then start to drift into the realm of the prohibition on publicly discussing the topic. 

And what is the spirit of the actions that were taken by the CofS General Assembly?  The sense I got from listening to the debate was that they wanted to provide a level and neutral space for the Commission to work.  A space that was not biased or prejudiced by specific actions and statements within the church.  I must agree with Rev. Watson that this action by the Presbytery of Hamilton does seem to encroach on the spirit, if not the letter, of the Assembly action.  Time will tell how this develops.

Congregationalism Is Hierarchical? — Or — Who Controls What It Means To Be Congregationalist?

3 Replies

In my way of thinking the first part of my title is a contradiction.  After all, that great source of all knowledge, Wikipedia, opens their section on Congregationalist polity with this:

Congregationalist polity, often known as congregationalism, is a system of church governance in which every local church congregation is independent, ecclesiastically sovereign, or “autonomous.”

OK, so I don’t accept Wikipedia as a primary source for my college classes, but at least this statement agrees with my own understanding of that system of church government.  The individual congregations is 1) independent, 2) ecclesiastically sovereign, and 3) autonomous.  They join together in associations for the purpose of support.

So when I read this article I had to pause.  Now, there are clearly complicated legal issues related to the gift of the property and the trust involved.  And I have no vast knowledge of the nuances of UCC polity.  But it seems to me that the Rev. J.R. McAliley III, the pastor of Center Congregational Church has a valid argument in this letter where he writes:

The legal impact of our case – defining “the Congregational Denomination” – is one with implications for every Church and Organization historically associated with the Congregational Way. Center’s little ¼ acre of land in Buckhead, an upscale section of Atlanta, Ga, even at the current speculative market value of about $500,000.00 is not the goal of the UCC/SECUCC. Legal “ownership” of the designation as the true legal successor to “the Congregational Denomination” is and the implications will spread like a tsunami.

What I find interesting is how this concern that the pastor expresses is suggested in the Preface of the UCC Manual on Church:

Can there be a Manual on Church in the United Church of Christ? Can this denomination, which has honored with tolerance the traditions and polities of its various predecessor bodies, come to agreement on one set of guidelines or expectations for the characteristics of faithful churches of the United Church of Christ? Can Associations and Conferences, as concerned about their own practice of autonomy as are local churches, choose to forge a common path of exemplary practices by which to live out covenantal unity? Can Local Church Ministries channel the Spirit-filled diversity of interactive partnership among local, Association, Conference, and national settings of the Church so that each may feel the bonds of covenant that strengthen nurture and support, and offer responsibility and accountability?

And this is answered with:

We shall see. This is a beginning toward shaping the discernment of the covenantal partners of the United Church of Christ concerning what it means to be expressions of church within the Church.

This document, dated January 2005, is an attempt by the denomination to walk the fine line between covenant and autonomy.  If, through this manual, the denomination wants to define itself in a way that moves beyond the autonomy of the Congregationalist model then it moves towards an association with more hierarchical structure.  It is understandable that particular churches would start to get nervous.

And it is understandable in light of the fact that everyone seems to agree this case, legal and ecclesiastical, hinges on that phrase “the Congregational Denomination.”

The legal case is complicated and each side is probably presenting their side in the most favorable light for them.  From the denomination’s viewpoint, this case hinges on civil law regarding the conditions of the gift of the land a century ago that requires the land be used for purposes of “the Congregational Denomination.”  At the time there was only one, and it was not the UCC which was organized in the 1950’s.  Now the congregation wants to realign with the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches and the UCC is arguing that it is “the Congregational Denomination” and the realignment violates the conditions of the gift.  This is not an ecclesiastical dispute in their telling, merely contract or trust law.  (More in a May WSJ article)  As “the voice of one crying in suburbia” says – “Follow the Money.”

It will be interesting to see what happens if this case moves forward — and that is an if because the purpose of Rev. McAliley’s letter was an appeal for funds to help fight the legal case against the deeper pockets of the Conference.  But if it gets down to ecclesiastical structure it will be interesting to see if the civil courts view the UCC as a hierarchical denomination, or even “the Congregational Denomination.”

73rd General Synod Of The Bible Presbyterian Church

Leave a reply

For the GA Junkie today comes with mixed emotions.  On the one hand, the General Synod of the Bible Presbyterian Church opens today at Ryder Memorial Presbyterian Church in Bluff City, Tennessee.  And while it is great to have another one of the highest governing bodies in a Presbyterian branch meeting, this meeting does mark the end of the “GA Season” for this year.  But on to the business at hand:

The 73rd General Synod of the Bible Presbyterian Church Will be meeting from August 6 to 11 with the theme “The Sweetness of Prayer.”  In addition, many of the keynote talks and preaching will also celebrate the 500th anniversary of John Calvin’s birth.

Ryder Memorial Presbyterian Church is planning some of the programs for the Synod including a Ladies Day on Friday August 7 and Family Day on Saturday August 8.  As this suggests, the business of the Synod on Saturday is the participation with the families and on Sunday is worship and celebration appropriate for the Lord’s Day, including a memorial service.  Looking at the directions to the church I have now placed it on locations to visit because of its location well into the Cherokee National Forest.  It looks like a wonderful location.

At the present time I have not found anyone providing either blog or twitter updates beyond the official news reports.  I’ll update here if I find anything new.  There is mention made of the Synod on the Presbytery Missionary Union web site so that may be a source of additional information as well.

So my prayers are with the commissioners to the BPC General Synod and I look forward to word of your deliberations.

Developments In Scotland

1 Reply

Over the last two months there has been a slow but nearly constant stream of news coming out of the Church of Scotland and the Free Church of Scotland.  Having not posted on any of the individual bits and pieces I thought I would now try to go back and summarize the general flow of the news.

While one particular item is simmering, there have been a couple of  other interesting, and not completely unrelated, news items.  One of these is the initiation of Sunday ferry service to the Islands.  Earlier this month the ferry service between the Mainland of Scotland the Isle of Lewis began, leading to silent protests and discussion over the end of a way of life.  As an article in the Telegraph put it:

The staunchly Presbyterian island is one of the last areas of the country where the Sabbath is widely regarded as a day of rest.

and later

The Free Church of Scotland – the Wee Frees – claim the move will destroy a way of life, while supporters say it will drag Lewis and neighbouring Harris – which have had Sunday flights for seven years – into the 21st century.

Although the church has showed some skepticism with the explanation, in the article the ferry company says that by not running on Sunday they are in violation of a European law “if it followed the wishes of one part of the community on Lewis, while sailing to almost every other large island on a Sunday.”

This is just one in a series of protests by Presbyterians in the UK protesting activities moving onto the Lord’s Day, including a protest just under a year ago by members of the Free Presbyterian Church in Ireland when the first Sunday football (soccer) match was held.

Now, at about the same time last month the Isle of Lewis made the news again for the first same-sex partnership ceremony or wedding in the Western Islands.  Again, in that conservative corner of Scotland the locals were not enthusiastic about the news, reported in the Sunday Mail, especially the leadership of the Free Church.

And in an interesting twist a court ruling was returned this week over church property, but in contrast to the cases stateside, this was the conservative Free Church (FC) prevailing in the case against one of its congregations that had broken away in 2000 as part of the formation of the more conservative Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) (FCC).  This is reported as one of about 12 congregations where there is a property dispute.  In his decision the judge said:

The defenders admitted that they had left the structure of the FC and had set up their own structure. There was and is an FC and the body to which the defenders belonged took themselves away from that and set up their own structure. As the defenders did not aver that the FC no longer adhered to its fundamental principles they had lost their property rights. There was a sharp issue between the parties as to how the series of authorities had to be understood. The defenders’ analysis of the authorities was fundamentally misconceived: if they were correct chaos would result since the FCC had set up competing trustees. What the authorities clearly showed was that those who left a voluntary church and separated themselves from its structure lost their property rights in it unless they showed that they adhered to the fundamental principles of the Church and that those who remained within the structure did not. Neither group in the present case averred that the other did not adhere to fundamental principles.

In other words, at least as I understand it, since this was a disagreement over details of the faith and not the major substance of their doctrine the FCC has no legal basis for claiming the property as the “true church.”  (I welcome clarification and/or correction as I am not as familiar with Scottish legal decisions.)  My summary is echoed in articles from The Herald and the Stornoway Gazette.  And in the article in The Herald it says:

But Reverend John Macleod, principal clerk of the Free Church (Continuing), said: “Our legal committee will be studying Lord Uist’s findings and consulting our lawyers in early course.”

The FC spokesman says they hope this will set a precedent so that legal action against the other congregations will not be necessary to recover the property.  Variations on a theme, no?

Finally, the continuing “hot topic”:

When we last discussed the situation in the Church of Scotland the General Assembly had just concluded, the Rev. Scott Rennie had been approved for his call to a church in Aberdeen, a moratorium was in place on any new calls to same-sex partnered ministers, and a gag order had been placed on all officers of the church.  So where do we go from here?

On July 3 the Rev. Scott Rennie was inducted (installed) as the pastor of Queen’s Cross Church in Aberdeen Presbytery. (BBC)

On July 25 a Church of Scotland minister announced he would step down from his call in disagreement with the General Assembly decision (BBC) but did not announce plans to leave the Church of Scotland.  A few days later a member of one of the church councils announced that he was leaving the CofS over this. (The Press and Journal)

At about the same time the editor of the Free Church magazine The Monthly Record, the Rev. David Robertson, wrote an editorial in the latest edition that suggested that those leaving the Church of Scotland could find a home in the Free Church.  Titled “Ichabod — The Glory Has Departed” he criticized the action of the CofS General Assembly  and says:

Whatever happens, barring an extraordinary outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the Church of Scotland is crippled and dying and will find itself increasingly unable to bring the Living Water of Jesus Christ to a thirsty nation.

The editorial then goes on to suggest responses from the Free Church (highly edited for length):

We have to respond. This is the most significant event in the history of the Church in Scotland since the union of 1929. It affects us all. Again, we simply list some suggestions.

1) We need to repent as well. There must not be even a hint of schadenfreude, delighting in another’s misery in order to indulge in an ‘I told you so’ kind of self-justification. How eff
ective are we in reaching Scotland’s millions? Any form of pride or thankfulness that we are ‘not as others’ is utterly reprehensible and totally unjustified.

2) We must offer as much support we can to our brothers and sisters who are really hurt and suffering within the Church of Scotland. Not because we want to entice them to join us, but simply because they are our brothers and sisters. Many of them are faithful, hardworking and fine Christians who have served Christ for many years within and through the Church of Scotland. They are pained beyond belief. Now is not the time to stick the boot in. Now is the time to offer a helping hand, including to those who will stay.

3) We need to provide a home for those who cannot stay. If this means for the sake of Christian unity that we have to allow them to worship God in the way they are used to – then so be it. It is surely not a coincidence that the year before the Special Commission is due to report, the Free Church will be debating and deciding on whether to amend what forms of worship will be allowed within our bounds. We should not do what is unbiblical or sinful in order to facilitate Christian unity, but neither should we allow disagreement on secondary issues (disagreements which we have amongst ourselves already) to prevent us from uniting with likeminded brothers and sisters. [text deleted] It is time for us all to recognize that we are no longer in the 19th century, or even in the 20th. We are no longer a Christian society with a national church which just needs to be reformed. We are in a postmodern secular society where the vast majority of people are ignorant of the Gospel, ignorant of the Bible, and have little or no meaningful concept of the Church. For us this is a new beginning. We need new wine, and for that we need new wineskins.

4) We need to inform the Church of Scotland that the stumbling block in our negotiations with them has just become a mountain. We always knew that the issue of scripture was the major one, but now that the Assembly has decided that Scripture is not synonymous with the Word of God, it is difficult to see on what basis we can have any meaningful official discussions. [text deleted]

5) We need to seek realistic co-operation and build bridges to overcome years of prejudice and misinformation on all sides. At an official level, Free Church presbyteries could offer associate status to Church of Scotland ministers, elders and congregations. We should seek to form Gospel partnerships in areas where we share the same theology and understanding of the Gospel. We would support rather than compete with one another and perhaps plant churches and worship together…

While these are personal comments of the editor of the official magazine, point 4 reflects the concern expressed at the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland for the direction of the mainline Church of Scotland and the implications that had for the continuing talks regarding their ecumenical relations.

The editorial concludes with this:

These are dark days and the worst is yet to come. But these are also days of great opportunity for the light of the Gospel to shine all the more brightly… Where is the passion of Knox who declared, ‘give me Scotland or I die’? Where is the vision of Chalmers when he stated, ‘Who cares for the Free Church compared with the Christian good of Scotland’? Those who share that passion and vision must unite – across denominations – and make a stand to uphold and proclaim the wonderful full gospel of Jesus Christ. Who knows – it may be that these past days have been the shake-up that a complacent church in Scotland has needed. May the latter days of the Gospel in Scotland be greater than the former.

I have been looking for reaction to this editorial in either official statements or news coverage and have not seen any yet.  I’ll update when I do.

There are definitely rumblings of concern out there, and an article in The Herald today puts some of them in writing, but without naming a lot of names.  It mentions a church that is looking at withholding its annual contribution to the national church.  It says that there are 35 churches that have said “they will not accept gay ordination under any circumstances” with the report of more congregations to follow.

Finally, the restrictions on discussing the ordination standards in the Church of Scotland, particularly in public or to the media, are starting to be questioned.  In particular, the Rev. Louis Kinsey presented an argument last week on his blog Coffee With Louis about the problem with the ban on discussion, and the comments got picked up by The Herald.  He concludes his argument with this:

It is simply contrary to the spirit of the church, the church that worships the Word made public in Jesus Christ, to prevent its Courts, Councils and congregants from trying to talk this issue and its implications through in every way possible, including publicly, albeit with graciousness and respect.  It cannot be argued that further discussion can continue within Presbyteries.  It just won’t happen.  We all know that.  Life and Work?  The pages of Life and Work are sealed, as far as letters and articles on this matter are concerned.  That magazine just will not publish.  They are following the moratorium. 

There is, now, no arena in which this debate can continue, and yet it should continue, because God continues to have a strong view on the matter.  All parties to this debate can at least agree on that.

My hope is that the moratorium will be challenged.  It only serves to drive debate underground and it stifles the exchange of opinion.  It is patronizing because it infers that the Assembly simply cannot and will not trust the members and ministers of the Kirk to hold a public discussion in a spirit of respectful disagreement.  It was agreed without evidence, on the say-so of the proposer, and because it prevents Kirk members from hearing one another’s perspective, it only adds to the momentum towards disintegration.

This moratorium is hurtful not helpful and should be ended.  It is a mistake that needs correcting.  It is the absence of freedom of speech.

There is much going on here, most in initial stages, including the work of the Special Commission.  We will see how all of these facets of the situation develop.

You Have To Admit The Anglicans Know How To Do Schism

1 Reply
You have to admit, the Anglicans know how to do a schism.  Five hundred years ago, just a couple of months before John Calvin was born outside Paris, this guy assumed the throne of England and was married to the first of his wives.  Twenty five years later he would separate the Church of England from Roman authority so he could be in charge, or at least get what he wanted from the church. Henry VIII of England

 from Wikimedia Commons

Fast forward to today…

Now the church that Henry wanted to control is looking more and more uncontrollable by Rowan and accusations going back and forth about groups splitting off so they can get what they want.

I don’t know what the Anglican/Episcopal equivalent of a GA Junkie is, but they must be having a great time at this moment with both the U.S. Episcopal Church General Convention meeting in Anaheim, California, and the Church of England General Synod meeting in York.  And there is a conversation of sorts going on between the two of meetings.

Now I have enough going on in my life right now that I can’t keep close track of a whole different Protestant tradition, but I have been following both the Convention and the Synod at arms length because there are implications for Presbyterians in some of their actions.  And as I go forward here I will put in the disclaimer that because I am not up on some of the polity and nuances of their system some of what I mention below may be a bit inaccurate.  Also, as you can tell from the opening, this post may have a bit of a snarky tone so if that bothers you I apologize now.

The Anglican system of church government is at least doubly complicated compared to the Presbyterian form because they have at least two deliberative bodies, one of them being the House of Bishops.  In the Church of England there is a separate House of Clergy and House of Laity while the Episcopal church blends those two together into the House of Deputies.

For some time now there has been tension in the Worldwide Anglican Communion over the Episcopal church’s openness to ordaining practicing homosexuals as clergy, and especially as bishops.  Back in 2004 the Communion issued the Windsor Report which essentially asked the Episcopal church to stop doing that, at least temporarily, because there was not agreement in the Communion on those matters and it was straining relations between the member Provinces.  In response, the next Episcopal General Convention in 2006 passed resolution B033 (for the Episcopalians this has the recognition status that PUP or Amendment B has for those in the PC(USA)) that stopped the practice.

Well, within both the Episcopal church and the Church of England there is concern by conservatives who don’t like the direction they see the church going and are speaking out.  In fact, in North America a group has now set out on their own forming a new Anglican Province, the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA).

So with all that as backdrop the conventions began meeting…

In Anaheim the Presiding Bishop ( PB ) of the Episcopal church started things off with a bang in her opening statement by making a statement that a lot of those commenting seem to agree implies those with ACNA are heretics.  (Of course, other Anglicans worldwide have labeled the Episcopal church as heretical and abandoning the communion so the feeling is mutual.)  Her specific quote was:

The crisis of this moment has several parts, and like Episcopalians, particularly ones in Mississippi, they’re all related. The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of use alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of all being. That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention.

(Another time I might take this statement apart, particularly in light of the similarity is presents to the Federal Vision theology in the Reformed branches.  For now, I would just express the view that in a Reformed setting covenant community and individual salvation are held in a balance and tension.)

In addition, to try to smooth things over the Archbishop of Canterbury (ABC) made a brief appearance at the Convention before jetting back to England for his own meeting.  While there he made a plea for unity and was generally well received but things got a bit more testy when the CofE Synod started.  A motion was brought to the Synod to recognize the ACNA.  Before the resolution was even debated the PB made news by warning the CofE and the ABC that recognizing the ACNA would only encourage them and others and foment schism. (Yesterday the motion was tabled and it looks like it will be considered by General Synod in February.)  In addition, the ABC has commented that he regrets the decision of the House of Deputies at the Episcopal General Convention to overturn the restriction on gay ordination after he had asked them not to in his Convention sermon.

Although the General Convention is still going it is clear that the Episcopal church is now headed in a progressive direction.  The rules prohibiting the ordination of gay clergy have been repealed, or maybe not.  In addition same-sex marriage is being debated and there are signs of support and adding appropriate ceremonies to the Book of Common Prayer has been sent to the writing committee.  And it has been noted that there is a lack of conservative voices at the Convention, particularly in the House of Deputies, this being attributed to those dioceses that left to form ACNA.  The Convention still has a few days to run and at ten days long they have the PC(USA) seven days topped.  (Although, if you consider that their meeting is triennial and the PC(USA) is biennial, then they are about even on a pro-rated basis.) (And another thought, does this vote to go against the Windsor Report mean the Episcopal church as a body has an “individualist focus [that] is a form of idolatry”?)

With the direction that the Episcopal church is headed more and more commentators are considering schism likely, one headline calling it “inevitable.”  Of course, some said the same thing about the ACNA formation.  So for a Presbyterian, having gone through this a few times in the last 300 years, the parallels are interesting and it will be something to watch as this plays out.  I do admire ABC Rowan Williams for the work he is doing and the effort he is making to hold the communion together.

It is important to note that the CofE has its own conservative group, the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans which recently held its own meeting.  While not showing signs of realigning away from the mother church, they are becoming a recognized voice in the call for orthodoxy in the Anglican Communion.  They did get into a bit of a public argument over whether they have the support of The Queen based upon the reading of the tea leaves in the response from the palace to they letters.  While some interpret it as support there are also indications that they may be reading too much into the correspondence.

In all the discussions going on, I did learn something about the Episcopal church that casts some of this in a new light.  One of the things about Anglicans is that they are territorial — none of this non-geographic presbytery stuff for them.  So one of the arguments against the ACNA and some of the churches that have realigned with Anglican Provinces elsewhere in the world is that there can (should?) only be one Province in one locality.  It turns out that the Episcopal church has an international presence as well.  For example Province II, mostly New York and New Jersey, also contains Episcopal Churches in Europe and one in Haiti.  In all the General Convention coverage I now can not find the article that brought this to my attention but my thanks for that piece of information.

And a final word about General Convention and new media.  There has been a great deal of volume on Twitter but when the General Convention began there were two hash tags advertised for the tweets – both #ecgc and #gc09.  You have to check them both for info.  (Another sign of schism? )  I would also comment that the official “Media Hub” is a great resource for news, information and video, but a tremendous load on my computer because of its background network activity.  Wish there were a lower-overhead alternative besides Twitter.