Category Archives: news

EPC General Assembly, PC(USA) Membership Statistics, Ecumenical Relations — Yes, There Is A Thread There

It may sound like the set-up line for one of Johnny Carson’s Karmac the Great routines, but with the interesting timing of the release of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) membership numbers the week before the Evangelical Presbyterian Church’s 29th General Assembly some may see it as a Divine Comedy. (And I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out all the possible meanings of that.)

I will do a more focused run-down of the EPC GA in a later post, especially the interesting document that they adopted providing their formal definition and direction regarding what it means to be a missional church.  That, in my opinion, is the most exciting thing to come out of the Assembly.

But here I want to close the loop on all the EPC/PC(USA) issues that are on the table.  Even after this GA the issues are still on the table and this will not be any sort of final word.  In fact, they will probably keep going for a while yet…

For the EPC side with reports from the General Assembly I will go to my regular reads — Michael McCarty at Around the Scuttlebutt and David Fischler at The Reformed Pastor.  For the topics in this post it is mainly the Rev. Fischler.  (Thanks for all the detail.)

Actions at the EPC General Assembly
One of the topics that I discussed in my pre-Assembly summary was the polity dance that the EPC is working through to be able to accommodate both egalitarian and complimentarian churches in their structure.  Mid-America Presbytery brought an overture proposing a dual “affinity presbytery” structure but ahead of the meeting the PJC ruled the overture was out of order because structural changes like those proposed would require new language in the Book of Order.  The Presbytery said they would not contest the PJC ruling and the Assembly upheld it.  (For more details check out David’s Day 2 Report.)  What came out of this particular debate was a proposal for an interim committee to “to explore ways to provide a pathway to unity while protecting freedom of conscience.”  The committee was approved by the Assembly the next day.  The committee will include two elders from each presbytery including the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery and will report back at next year’s Assembly. (Day 3 Part 2 Report)

On the last day of the Assembly the Fraternal Relations Committee brought a recommendation, and it appears the Assembly concurred, “to continue to communicate with the PC(USA) according to biblical principles and to encourage ‘face-to-face’ talks.”  (Day 4 Report)

More on that in a minute, but first the PC(USA) item…

PC(USA) Membership Numbers — The Response
For anyone just joining the conversation this may seem like a strange jump, but while the churches realigning from the PC(USA) to the EPC are not the largest group leaving the denomination, it is the largest single “identifiable” destination.  That is in contrast to those who “drift off” and are removed from the rolls or individually transfer to a variety of other churches.  And as Scott comments on my discussion of the membership statistics, the departures to the EPC are just one component of the departures from the PC(USA) for people who are unhappy with the negative climate they see in the church.

The membership statistics elicited responses from the wide community of PC(USA) and other Reformed bloggers.  Among these:

  • The Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, Moderator of the General Assembly, comments that the denomination operates with an out-dated world view.
  • Jody Harrington at Quotidian Grace points out that this decline is bigger than just this one denomination.
  • On The Heidelblog R. Scott Clark discusses what the statistics mean about active members of the PC(USA) if you were to clear the roles and also the implications for the EPC.
  • Rev Kim at Called to be: The Pastor’s Wife and the Pastor reflects on what the decline looks like as a pastor serving a congregation.
  • And John Shuck of Shuck and Jive, in a post titled “Presbyterian Pruning” wonders whether this decline is actually a good thing for the denomination.  He has a number of interesting thoughts including “Maybe it is good news that the denomination is losing members. Perhaps it is a sign that people are growing up, thinking for themselves, and have no need of evangelists who want to save them from the pits of hell.” And “So I will expect more and more huge losses for the PCUSA until progressives and traditionalists part ways. I don’t think this will happen by design, but by attrition.”  (And if you did not catch it the reference to “no need of evangelists” is a direct response Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons’ call for us to be evangelists.)

As you can see, many of those watching the PC(USA) do not see the membership decline as isolated from other branches, although individual perspectives vary.

EPC and PC(USA) Ecumenical Relations
As you can see from the EPC response above, and my previous comments about the PC(USA) Investigating Committee, this is a sensitive topic right at the moment. 

To recap, the last PC(USA) General Assembly set up the investigating committee to check out charges that the EPC was actively recruiting churches away from the PC(USA).  Again, Viola Larson has some comments about this and the possibility that the meeting in her presbytery was not well publicized.

Now, Michael McCarty has some details of one encounter between the investigating committee and a church.  He relates the follow
ing:

But at the [EPC] GA, I met several folks whose congregations went directlyfrom the PC(USA) to a geographic EPC presbytery. Their congregationsdid meet with representatives of the “investigating” committee,although the committee members were surprised that ruling elders andmembers attended. (They had “invited” only the pastors.)

Theirexperience was telling. After the pastors, elders and members relatedhow their congregations initiated the move, and initiated the contactwith the EPC, the committee representatives interjected withdeclarative “questions” such as “Well, you knew that what you weredoing was wrong, correct?” or “You never proved that the PC(USA) wasapostate, so leaving was a violation of ordination vows, right?”

Whenthe EPC members asked their inquisitors “Wait, we thought you wanted toknow that we were not recruited. It sounds as if you have already madeup your mind that we were recruited, although we were not, and are justlooking for sound bites to support your position. Is that correct?”

Stunningly, the PC(USA)’s response was “That is correct.”

One polity point – I will accept the account here that only the pastor was invited to the meeting, but in our polity I don’t view that as appropriate.  While I could accept excluding at-large members, the meeting should be held with the Session since that is the governing body of the congregation.  After all, when the presbytery meets with the church every three years under G-11.0502c it meets with the full session.

Now, I must admit that I viewed this account with a certain degree of caution, this being the account from one side of a meeting.  Until yesterday…

At church yesterday, out of the blue and without prompting, I had a member of my congregation come up and describe to me a similar meeting that a family member of theirs was at.  Since it was in a different synod I did not know the details, but as described it seemed like one of these meetings.  To me one of the most fascinating aspects was that the church was a PC(USA) congregation that, while having sympathies for the New Wineskins churches, had chosen not to realign with the EPC but stay with the PC(USA).  Never the less, the description of how the presbytery/investigating committee came into the meeting was described as “adversarial.”  After hearing their description and how upset my friend was at what happened at their relative’s church I now have a lot more respect for Mr. McCarty’s account.

But I want to close with a sign of hope.  While some may debate if this news account can be looked at as a positive outcome from all aspects, at least if you want to look at the total number of people in the pews this is a win-win situation.  (And yes, I realize that there is a lot of painful history leading up to this point.) (Update: Michael McCarty has posted a discussion of this painful history at Londonderry and some info with slightly different numbers for membership and worshipers.)

The Eagle-Tribune of North Andover, Mass., has a story titled “Divided Congregation Flourishes as Two New Groups.”  It is about the Londonderry Presbyterian Church which divided in 2007.  The article relates that at that time there were 375 members of the congregation.  A large group left the church and founded the Orchard Christian Fellowship in the EPC.  In the nearly two years since the split the continuing PC(USA) congregation has grown from 39 to 224 members.  The EPC congregation has also flourished and now numbers 450 members.  Doing the math, what was a congregation of 375 is now two respectable churches with a combined membership of about 675, a number approaching double the original size. (1.82 times larger to be precise.)

Is there a lesson in here about finding ways to get past our controversies quickly for the sake of the Gospel?  I do realize some may only see the true Gospel or True Church in one or the other of these churches.  But maybe both sides can see the outcome as beneficial for them if they realize that getting the division done quickly, while it may not be the best display of Christian unity, at least sends a better message than long, drawn out court battles.  And maybe both sides would view it as “pruning,” but this particular example seems to suggest that getting the division out of the way lets a congregation get on with their life and better focus on the mission of the church.

Just some thoughts, but I was intrigued by the Londonderry example.  And yes, I realize that it is not so easy to just say “you go your way and I’ll go mine” because there is the children property to think of.  But it does provide something to think about.

And speaking of mission, I’ll return later with a look at the newly adopted EPC view of a missional church.

Seeing Double — Recent Developments in the U.S. Anglican/Episcopal Church

2 Replies

Yes, this is still a Presbyterian blog and I don’t plan on regularly covering the Anglican and U.S. Episcopal church.  But I do drift off in that direction on occasion, like now, when the developments either (1) intersect with Presbyterian politics, or (2) are interesting to a polity wonk or GA Junkie.  Both cases are true at the moment.

The major news with significant implications for hierarchical churches in the United States, including the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is that the St. James Church case from California has now been officially appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  This has been reported by Anglican Mainstream, Stand Firm, and VirtueOnline.  But as usual, if you want a detailed analysis you look to the Anglican Curmudgeon.  He has started a series of posts on the Constitutional arguments why the Court should over turn the California Supreme Court Decision on First Amendment Establishment Clause issues.  From the petition to the Court for review he quotes one of the arguments:

I. The California Supreme Court Has, By “Legislative Fiat,” Empowered Self-Proclaimed Hierarchical Churches to Unilaterally Create Trust Interests For Themselves in the Property of Affiliated Local Church Corporations, Impermissibly Preferring Hierarchical Religion and Infringing on the Free Exercise Rights of Local Congregations.

Now I need to think this through a bit more myself, and the root of this case is a specific section in the California Corporate Code that applies only to hierarchical churches, based on the 1979 Supreme Court decision setting forth “neutral principles.”  I do wonder if there is a logical conclusion if generalized further — If under the establishment clause the state can not make or enforce laws that relate to the hierarchical church being able to govern a congregation without that congregation’s explicit consent, then does it effectively reduce all congregations to being able to opt-out effectively reducing the denomination to a congregationalist government.  Again, I will say that I am thinking generally about something that, if accepted by the court, will be tried on very specific merits and that has gotten me in trouble before.

(In an interesting related case there is a brand new state appeals court decision that affirms that the Assemblies of God church is a hierarchical denomination.)

A second news item related to the PC(USA) is that the Episcopal Church will vote at its General Convention in two weeks on an agreement for full communion with the Moravian Church. A similar agreement with the Moravian Church was agreed to by the last PC(USA) General Assembly and affirmed by the vote of the presbyteries.  In reading Mark Harris’s endorsement of the Episcopal-Moravian agreement I also learned that the Episcopal Church has a full communion agreement with the ELCA, again like the PC(USA).

(Another aside – while the PCA may have had their General Assembly at the second “Happiest Place on Earth®,” Orlando, Florida, the Episcopal Church will have their Convention at the first “Happiest Place on Earth®,” Anaheim, California.  (And yes, the phrase is a registered trademark of the Mouse House.))

Now, in case you missed it, the big news coming from the Anglican/Episcopal branches in North America is the establishment this week of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).  This church is intended to be a parallel church to the Episcopal Church in the U.S. and the Anglican Church of Canada but with a conservative stance.  The inaugural assembly in Bedford, Texas, had all the attendant pomp and ceremony including the installation of an archbishop for this new province of the Worldwide Anglican Communion.  The problem is of course that while it has been recognized by several other Provinces, mostly in the southern hemisphere, it has not been recognized yet by the whole communion and certainly not by the currently existing provinces on these shores.  But, in one ecumenical relationship the ACNA was recognized by the leader of the Orthodox Church in America.  Another endorsement of the new province came from the Rev. Rick Warren who addressed the Assembly last Tuesday Morning.  To say “This could get interesting” would be an understatement.

And finally, the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin in California gives us our polity question of the week — If the vote of a diocesan convention is necessary to elect a bishop but that convention does not have a quorum what do you do?  Specifically, on March 29, 2008, 21 clergy were present at the meeting and 61 were absent.  Under the church canons a quorum for such a meeting is one-third plus one or 28.  The bishop’s answer was to go ahead and have the convention elect him, then depose the 61 who did not show up, sort of giving a retroactive quorum.  I have simplified this a great deal, but the situation is very real and plays into the California trial court case concerning the situation of property when not just a congregation but a significant portion of the diocese chooses to leave a denomination together.  As always, check out the Anglican Curmudgeon for the details and keep watching the news to see what the civil courts do with this.

The 29th General Assembly Of The Evangelical Presbyterian Church — Upcoming Next Week

Leave a reply

The 29th General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (in the U.S.A.) will convene in Brighton, Michigan this Wednesday June 24 and run through Saturday June 27.  For those following the GA these resources might be useful:

TE Nate Atwood (bio as Word doc) will be installed as the Moderator of the General Assembly when the meeting convenes and RE Rob Liddon (bio as Word doc) will be installed as the Moderator-elect at the conclusion of the Assembly, presuming neither committee nominee is successfully challenged..

Some of the important reports to watch for include a recommended definition of a “missional church” and a proposed Preliminary Position Paper on the Doctrine of Scripture in the Permanent Theology Committee report.  In addition, a referred overture from the last GA concerning creating the position of Co-pastors is being returned with a recommendation to approve from the Theology Committee but the recommendation to not approve from Ministerial Vocation Committee.  The Theology Committee gives no rational for approval but in their recommendation against the Ministerial Vocation Committee gives five arguments against which includes “The need for clearly identified leadership.”  For some of the other business and activities you can check out the GA Preview.

I have not seen anyone mention official Twitter messages or a hashtag.  Following this year’s trend a hashtag would be something like #epcga or #epcga09.  I will update here if either of these happen.
UPDATE:  In checking Twitter it appears that the hashtag people are using is #pcaga29.  Just when you think you have it figured out…

Overtures
There are four overtures for the Assembly to consider:

Overture 09-A from the Presbytery of the Mid-Atlantic requests that the EPC develop a position paper “setting forth the denomination’s beliefs and position regarding stem cells, the human embryo, and related questions of bioethics and human life.”  This was prompted by the recent Presidential Executive Order changing federal policy on funding stem cell research.

Overture 09-B also from the Presbytery of the Mid-Atlantic cites five examples from the Book of Order where they believe that the document is not clear and asks “the Moderator to appoint a committee to review the Book of Order with the input of the Stated Clerks of all presbyteries for the purpose of identifying terms, sentences, paragraphs, and/or sections which are not clear and/or may cause confusion when applied.”  It also asks that the review committee recommend appropriate revisions.

Overture 09-C from the Presbytery of the Midwest requests a change to the Book of Discipline which strikes me as possibly resulting from a recent experience.  Briefly, it would change the rules in a disciplinary case so that if the officer renounces jurisdiction before judgment is rendered the court would no longer need the individual’s permission to conclude the case and render judgment if “it is necessary for the purity of the church or the benefit of the offender.”  The condition of the offender’s approval was previously added in response to a state court decision in a case in another denomination and they point out that each governing body should determine the appropriate course of action based on their own state laws.

Overture 09-D from the Presbytery of Mid-America requests that it be allowed to form two affinity presbyteries, one permitting the ordination of women as teaching elders and the other not.  However, the Permanent Judicial Commission has ruled that this is not a request that the General Assembly can act upon but their interpretation of the Book of Order is that it would require amending the Book of Order.  Polity wonks would enjoy reading the basis for this ruling in the PJC Report.  Their first point about a presbytery having jurisdiction in a geographic area and whether two affinity presbyteries represent 1) Two presbyteries, 2) One presbytery with split jurisdiction or 3) Three presbyteries – the two affinity presbyteries plus the “mother” presbytery – is a well presented polity dilemma.

The Assembly will first have an opportunity to uphold this decision and if it wishes to not concur it may then move on to the overture as presented.  My read of the PJC decision is that they are on firm polity ground and the EPC will need to reason through how the diversity of opinions on the ordination of women as teaching elders should be handled.

This is a great segue to my next topic…

The EPC and the PC(USA)
When I discussed the PC(USA) 2008 membership numbers a couple of days ago I noted that for the PC(USA) the loss of ten churches and about 8000 members to the EPC in 2008 was a minor fraction of the total net loss of 69 churches and a bit more than 69.000 members.  The losses alone, not net, from the PC(USA) not counting deaths were close to 139,000 members.  The PC(USA) has other larger avenues of loss than churches realigning with the EPC.

But the EPC Statistical Report is fascinating reading and the same is not true for the EPC.  The EPC grew from 207 to 247 churches between 2007 and 2008, an increase of 19% and it grew from 77,482 to 92,864 members, an increase of  20%.  Most of this growth was in the transitional presbyteries, including the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery.  The total churches in transitional presbyteries grew from 17 to 36 and membership from 8014 to 19,178.  In all, the 36 churches in the New Wines
kins Presbytery represent 15% of all the EPC churches.  And looking through the list several churches were accepted directly into other geographic presbyteries.  Clearly the substantial growth in the EPC can be tied to churches realigning from the PC(USA).

Now, in case you are asking – if the PC(USA) only had 10 churches realign in 2008 according to the Layman’s list what about the other 30?  Two reasons:  The first is that the Layman’s list is not always clear when the church gets dismissed or unilaterally departs.  So there is some uncertainty in the numbers regarding which year to count.  But the explanation in many cases is the fact that 27 churches with about 16,000 members departed the PU(USA) for the EPC in 2007 but many were received by the EPC in 2008.  At some point I’ll find time to reconcile the two lists but a summary comparison makes clear that those listed on the departing list eventually appear on the EPC list.

Anyway, the bottom line is that while the departure of churches for the EPC is a disturbing but small part of the membership drop for the PC(USA), it is a major issue for the EPC.  Like it or not, the EPC is being PC(USA)-ized.  The clear implication for the EPC is the influx of churches with ordained women.  (Although, as I looked at it several months ago I found that very few of the churches had women as teaching elders so it is not as pressing for the denomination as it may at first seem.) I’ll take up the question of other transfers of PC(USA) culture another time.

From the PC(USA) side there has been extensive discussion, administrative commissions, civil law suits over the property, and judicial commission reviews of what has been happening.  I won’t cover that ground again here, but I do want to mention one other issue and that is the charge that the EPC is actively recruiting PC(USA) churches.

It needs to be pointed out that the EPC has on the front page of their web site a link to information for churches thinking of joining the EPC.  That combined with a perception in some presbyteries that the EPC was making inappropriate contact with churches thinking of leaving the PC(USA) led Peace River Presbytery to send an overture to the last General Assembly.  The overture asked for an investigation and action regarding the EPC actions by the Executive Office of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches.  Instead, the GA committee recommended and the General Assembly approved a referral to the PC(USA) Committee on Ecumenical Relations.  Their investigation is in progress now but not without controversy.  Viola Larson talks about missing a meeting with the representatives of the investigating team because the meeting was not widely announced and posted on the presbytery’s web calendar with very short notice (and if you read the comments to her post others checked cached copies of the calender that suggest it was actually posted after the meeting).  On the PC(USA) end we will have to see how this investigation develops.

On the EPC end the influx of PC(USA) churches puts stress on geographic presbyteries that do not ordain women.  The EPC does not consider whether or not to ordination of women as an essential of the Reformed faith so it is left up to the appropriate governing body.  (For more on that check out their position paper.)  To accommodate ordained women is one of the reasons for the transitional presbyteries.  But the transitional presbyteries are intended to be transitional and disappear in a few years and then have the churches move into the geographic presbyteries.  What then?

As mentioned above, Overture 09-D is one approach that the Presbytery of Mid-America would like to try.  The EPC will be struggling with that at this meeting.  And remember that back in February the Presbytery of the East approved new guidelines for the ordination of women.  The EPC is showing a movement in that direction.  We will have to see what else the former-PC(USA) churches bring into this branch of American Presbyterianism.

I will update as I find more sources of information on the EPC GA.

PC(USA) Releases 2008 Membership Statistics

2 Replies

Today the Office of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) released the general membership statistics for 2008.  There  is the full table of membership numbers and financial information, a table that breaks out the financial information, and a table of miscellaneous information, like the largest presbyteries and racial ethnic breakdown.

In addition there is a statement from the Stated Clerk, Gradye Parsons, another from the Director of Racial Ethnic and Women’s Ministries Rhashell Hunter, and one from the Director of Evangelism and Church Growth Eric Hoey.

I expect that we will have to wait a bit longer for the presbytery breakdowns on the Comparative Statistics site.

First the numbers:
Membership declined from 2,209,546 at the end of 2007 to 2,140,165 at the end of 2008.  That is a net decline of 69,381 members or 3.1%.  This is slightly higher than the 2.5% loss in 2007.

Gains by profession or reaffirmation of faith were 64,701.  Gains by certificate transfers were 28,691. And gains by other means were 10,136.  All of those categories showed a decrease from their 2007 numbers.

The church transferred 34,101 members from the Church Militant to the Church Triumphant (i.e. deaths), and transfered 34,340 members to other denominations that we are in communication with by certificated transfer.  An additional 104,428 were simply removed from the rolls.  And every one of these values was higher than in 2007.

The denomination had a net loss of 69 churches, or 0.64%, decreasing from 10,820 to 10,751.  And the denomination had a net loss of ministers of 82, or 0.38%, from 21,368 to 21,286.  The number of ministers per church stayed about even at 1.97 in 2007 and 1.98 in 2008.  The average number of members per church declined from 204.2 in 2007 to 199.1 in 2008.

In the financial numbers the contributions declined slightly from $2.162 billion to $2.137 billion, a decrease of $24 million or 1.1%.  However, on a per-member basis the giving rose from $978.54 to $998.94.  A ray of hope in though economic times.

The other significant improvement is highlighted by the Rev. Rhashell Hunter where she points out that racial ethnic membership has risen from 4.7% in 1998 to 7.5% in 2008.  Not the hoped for 10% but still a significant improvement.

Now, the reality check:  For those that are looking for an easy answer to the decline by saying that churches are moving to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church take a close look at the numbers.  From the Layman’s chart I count at most 10 churches and about 8,000 members that have left the PC(USA) in 2008 to find a better theological fit.  Interestingly the just-released 2008 statistics show 25 churches transferred in 2008 and 65 dissolved.  That leaves 59 churches and 130,768 members who left under other circumstances.  While theological differences may be one cause for membership decline the numbers don’t show a mass exodus to a sister denomination.  In fact in his piece Gradye Parsons correctly points out that people tend to drift away from the church.  That is where the PC(USA) must concentrate to stop the membership loss.

Now, down off soap box and on to other things.

The 37th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church In America — Moving From Committee To Plenary

2 Replies

The 37th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America began yesterday with their committee work and will continue with seminars and committee meetings most of today with the opening plenary session this evening.  They will be meeting all this week (June 15-19) in Orlando, Florida.

If you are following the GA you probably already know about these resources, but I will list them just in case:

Unfortunately there is no webcasting this year but there is a very active community on Twitter using the hashtag #pcaga. (Editorial note – I like the use of a hashtag that is not specific to a particular year so it can be continuing and reusable.  This does presume that Twitter will still be useful a year from now.)

Leading up to the Assembly there have been some good blog posts.  In particular I would point out Kevin Carroll’s post on “A Newbie’s Survival Guide To General Assembly” on Reformed and Loving It.  There is also an interesting “preview” article by Ed Eubanks, Jr., on General Assembly 2009 — Hopes and Expectations.

Overtures
The Overtures Page shows that there are now 22 overtures to the Assembly.  In my last post reviewing the overtures I left off at No. 15.  Of the remaining seven, six deal with new presbyteries or revising presbytery boundaries; and several of those are concurring with overtures already discussed.  The one additional overture, Overture 18, is titled “A Declaration Concerning Homosexuals In The Military.”  (byFaith news article) In this overture Eastern Pennsylvania Presbytery asks to have the Declaration endorsed and delivered to the President by the Moderator.  The Declaration lays out the Biblical prohibitions on homosexual behavior and asks that the Government observe scriptural morality and not normalize homosexual behavior in the military.

For many of the overtures the Assembly will be considering I would commend two blogs to you.  In each case these writers have taken the individual overtures and discussed them in greater detail than I have had the opportunity to do.  The first is Jordan Mark Siverd who writes necdum videmus.  He has written on Overtures 3, 6, and 7.  And Kevin Carroll also did a great job discussing most of the overtures with articles about Overtures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 22. (I hope I caught them all.  Apologies if I missed any.)

From the PCAbyFaith Twitter feed, and one news article, we do have information from yesterday’s meeting of the Bills and Overtures Committee about the committee’s recommended action on some of these overtures:

  • Overture 1 on Removal of Censure to answer in the affirmative as amended
  • Overture 2 on RAO debate of minority reports to answer in the affirmative
  • Overture 3 on Assumption of Original Jurisdiction to answer in the negative
  • Overture 4 on Adding “Interim Pastor” to answer in the negative
  • Overture 5 on Study Committee on the Role of Women to answer by Overture 10
  • Overture 6 on Marriage to answer in the negative
  • Overture 8 on Examination of Men from other Denominations be answered in the negative (reported vote 37-33 with 3 abstain)
  • Overture 9 on Judged differences from Confessional Standards for Men From other Denomination answer in the affirmative
  • Overture 10 (and 5) on Role of Women answer in the negative.  News Story.  May be minority report
  • Overture 13 on Adopt Danvers Statement answer in the negative
  • Overture 14 on Giving Notice on Intention to Withdraw answer in the negative
  • Overture 15 on Directing Philadelphia Presbyter to Adopt Specified Policy on Role of Women ruled out of order by Clerk and Overtures Committee
  • Overture 18 on Declaration on Homosexuals in the Milty answer in the negative.

And now we see what is the will of the full Assembly.

So I will be following by Twitter, blogs and news as best as I can.  I don’t anticipate any regular updates since I have some ecclesiastical functions that will be keeping me highly occupied the next few days.  But I will comment briefly if news warrants.

135th General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Canada — Summary And Comments

2 Replies

How can a GA Junkie not love a General Assembly with its own soundtrack…

For the 135th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada held this past week in Hamilton, Ontario, they introduced the CD Some Assembly Required – Songs about General Assembly by the Rev. Angus Sutherland.  They have been kind enough to post two tracks on-line.  The first, “The Clerk’s Rant” will bring a smile to any GA Junkie’s face as the singer raps on parliamentary procedure in a very appropriate tone, and the back-up singers provide a chorus with the delicious double entendre “wrap/rap it up Mr. Clerk, wrap/rap it up.”  The second is an Elvis-ish number titled “First Time Commissioner at the General Assembly Blues.”  I suspect that the name is self-explanatory.  For more info check out the Presbyterian Record page, and it is listed as available through the denomination’s book store, The Book Room.  (I don’t see a listing yet.)  Cost is CA$15 and proceeds go to Presbyterian World Service and Development.

On the General Assembly page you can find a nice photo gallery of the Assembly, and at the bottom of the page the GA 2009 News articles including the Daily Digest.  Minutes of each sederunt as well as the reports are available on the Documents Page.  There was a nice set of official Twitter messages (around 175 total), mostly posted by Matt Donnelly and some others chimed in on the hashtag #pccga09.  The Communications Office also had the Twitter messages with #pccga09 fed to a webpage using an application from Cover It Live.  The live feed was useful, especially for us who would just keep it in the corner of our screen and not want to keep reloading it.  While the coverage did not include webcasting audio or video the Twitter conversation went a long way in helping us feel like we knew what was going on.

There were 129 clergy commissioners and 121 elder commissioners at the Assembly, a number that was comfortably seated around round tables in the Assembly hall.  However, the opening worship and business were held at near-by Regent University College.  Following worship the Rev. A. Harvey Self, pastor of Tweedsmuir Memorial Presbyterian Church in Orangeville, Ontario, the selection committee’s nominee, was elected Moderator of the Assembly.  In his comments the Rev. Self described his upbringing as the son of a military chaplain and his intent to highlight the work of the chaplains in his moderatorial year.

The first full day of the Assembly was a Briefing Day where the commissioners have the opportunity to hear information about the reports they would be discussing later in the week.  That evening there was the traditional banquet that provided a time of fellowship and socializing before the full business sessions started.

Tuesday’s business sessions had a heavy emphasis on military chaplains with the presentation by the Rev. Dr. Brig. Gen. David Kettle who talked about chaplains as “agents of grace, offering a human face in inhuman situations.”  There was also a presentation on the Emmaus Project: Open Eyes, Burning Hearts that is planning an event for presbyteries next spring to help “refresh, renew and transform” presbyteries.  At the luncheon the E. H. Johnson Award was presented to His Excellency Archbishop Elias Chacour.  He spoke on the plight of Palestinians in the Middle East.  From the Twitter messages about his 30 minute speech I recognized several of the lines from the sermon he preached at the last PC(USA) GA.

Thursday marked the first anniversary of the Government of Canada’s Apology to
Aboriginal people for residential school legacy as well as the fifteenth
anniversary of the PCC’s Confession to residential school survivors. The day included a
“special program of reflection” to commemorate these anniversaries and continue the healing and reconciliation necessary.

In terms of polity business it is interesting to compare the personal reflection of a Young Adult Representative via the Presbyterian Record and a brief post from a church about the meeting.  Both highlight the discussion over Lay Missionaries and whether they should be authorized to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.  As Allyssa de Bruijn, the YAR, describes it the session had a spirited debate with motions, counter motions, and amendments with the result being that motion was referred back to committee for further study.  (For the record, this sounds like the PC(USA) Commissioned Lay Pastor position who may celebrate the Lord’s Supper if they are already an elder, trained to do so, and authorized by the presbytery.)

The other issue mentioned by Central Presbyterian Church, Vancouver, was the salary/stipend structure for National Employees on which a compromised was reached.

I found it interesting looking through the minutes and seeing the dispositions of the various overtures from presbyteries.  They are broken into two groups, overtures 1-9 which are referred immediately and overtures 10-18 which where sent to the full assembly and then most of them were referred.  While there are many interesting issues raised in the overtures I will highlight just two.  The first is overture 12 from the Presbytery of Prince Edward Island which asked to have the days of assembly changed to include a weekend to make it easier for elders to attend.  I personally am always interested in how we structure our business to best encourage elders to be a part of the process, especially younger elders who already have many demands on their time.  The Assembly adopted the recommendation of the Bills and Overtures Committee to refer it to the Assembly Council in consultation with the Clerks of Assembly.

As far as I can tell from the minutes the one overture to be directly decided by the Assembly was overture 16 concerning the definition of marriage.  It is also the only piece of business I saw with the possibility of being sent to the presbyteries for concurrence.  Specifically, the Session of St. Andrew’s, Ottawa, overtured the General Assembly:

[The Session] humbly overtures the Venerable, the 135th General Assembly, praying that the General Assembly make and ordain the following Declaratory Act, after remitting the same to the presbyteries:

1. Our understanding of the rite of marriage is the solemnization before Almighty God of the vows of commitment and loyalty of two persons, the one for the other, for the duration of their lives and to the exclusion of all others;
2. The subordinate standards of this church are to be interpreted in the light of this principle;
3. Ministers of Word and Sacrament may for reasons of religious understanding decline to solemnize a marriage;

And that on the website of The Presbyterian Church in Canada, those passages of the Westminster Confession and Living Faith that are contrary to the wording herein, in particular Chapter 24, Parts I and III of the Westminster Confession, each contain a footnote referring to the adoption of this Act, or to do otherwise as the General Assembly, in its wisdom, may deem best.

The overture was transmitted by the Presbytery of Ottawa without comment.  The Committee on Bills and Overtures recommended referral to the Committee on Church Doctrine in consultation with the Clerks of Assembly.  There was an amendment from the floor to also refer to Justice Ministries which was defeated.  The recommendation was amended from the floor to not receive the overture.  The Twitter posting is brief and I have found no other source about this action, but the Assembly agreed and the overture was not received.  There was clearly some strong feelings on this overture since 39 commissioners asked to have their dissents recorded in the minutes, including that by M.W. Gedcke who asked that his dissent be recorded with the following reason given:

Overture No. 16 raises important issues in regards to marriage that our church needs to discuss and seek God’s guidance in our discernment and decision making.

While similar issues have been discussed at other Presbyterian GA’s what I found interesting about this overture is the added wording to footnote the subordinate standards regarding this decision.  I am not aware of other branches considering the annotation of their confessional standards in accord with such a change in polity.

Finally, the Assembly considered switching to biennial meetings.  At the present time the Assembly Council has been undertaking a study and has produced several  benefits and recommendations if biennial meetings are adopted.   It appears that with the adoption of the Assembly Council report the issue will be sent out to the presbyteries for discussion.

Finally, a comment on following an Assembly as a GA Junkie.  This GA had no webcast but daily updates and a nice Twitter feed.  In addition there were a few more tweets from people both present at the GA and following at a distance, who commented using the hashtag.  What I have decided is that the webcast gives you the details, the twitter feed give you the play-by-play and maybe some colour commentary, but being present for the GA gives you the nuance and the “flavor” of the event.  The contrast in the Twitter feeds has been interesting this year for the three GA’s with a major twitter presence.  Now on the #pcaga starting to ramp up today.

General Assembly of the Church of Scotland — Reaction To The Judicial Case

Leave a reply

With about two days since the Assembly made its decision in the case of the Dissent and Complaint Against a Decision by the Presbytery of Aberdeen more information and reaction is now available on the web.

First, for the details of the Assembly session I have found no better source than the official audio summary from the Church of Scotland found on the Daily News Updates page.  For those interested in the polity details there is no other source that goes into the details of how the case proceeded and what was actually being decided.  This case was not about the particular individual or ordination standards in general, but whether the Presbytery of Aberdeen had specifically followed the procedures for reviewing the call to the charge as stated in Acts VIII 2003 (DOC Format).  (That is a church law reference, not a scriptural one.)

Specifically, the two points of complaint were:

Aberdeen Presbytery was therefore wrong to take a decision that was contrary to the stated position and practice of the Church in sustaining the call to a minister in a self professed active homosexual relationship.

The Presbytery of Aberdeen, in sustaining the call to a minister in an avowedly active homosexual relationship, has also acted contrary to the commitment to ‘prayerful dialogue’ urged on us all by the General Assembly of 2007.

The problem that the complainers had was that there is no specific section in the Church of Scotland polity that sets standards for these situations in the manner of the PC(USA) G-6.0106b.  (Hence today’s overture.)  The complaint argues from “the historic and orthodox position of the church,” and a 2007 GA report that says the Kirk does not see orientation as a barrier to service but that there is disagreement over homosexual activity.  The complaint also says “The ordination and induction of active homosexuals has never been the accepted practice of the Church of Scotland or the Church catholic, except where there has first been a clear debate and decision to ordain active homosexuals.”

A few other interesting details about the process from the audio update:  The commissioners from the presbytery against which the complaint is filed (Aberdeen) may not participate as commissioners or vote.  Being a judicial case the commissioners are to come to the case without “preconceived notions.”  This is a bit different than my previous comments.  In the discussion about the wider effects of this cases outcome the commissioners were informed that a decision in a judicial case does not set standards for the wider church and that whether a particular case sets a precedent can not be know at the time of the case but only when it is used as precedent in a future case.  Finally, the vote was not a yes/no vote but rather a vote on two different motions, one supporting and one denying the dissent.

There was plenty of comment about the decision, as you can imagine, but the two Scottish bloggers that seem to have the best read of the situation are Stewart Cutler and Chris Hoskins.  Neither disappointed in their analysis and comments on the day.  In addition to a brief post Saturday night with the results of the case Stewart posted on Sunday about being between the two votes and the fact the situation was unsettled.  (He also has a reaction to the motion passed today about the standards, but I’ll get to that another time.)

Chris Hoskins has an extensive post about Saturday and closes with a paragraph worth reading about the evening session to hear the case.  Here is what he wrote:

Saturday evening was interesting. At the start of the evening I wasn’t
that as bothered about the outcome as I was about how the debate was
conducted. I don’t want to talk here about the outcome, plenty of
people are doing that, I want to talk about attitudes (again). I was
worried that people would be hostile and disrespectful to one another
during the debate. I think the way that the moderator handled the night
was fantastic. He made it clear from the start that he would not
tolerate ungracious behaviour and that he would not tolerate people
cheering or jeering. Overall I thought everyone did a great job of
upholding this. I thought that both parties did a great job of keeping
focused on the actual issue, and not allowing themselves to be derailed
from that. I was so grateful and proud for the respect, grace and
dignity that was displayed for all those who were involved and by all
those who spoke during the debate. The attitudes displayed gave me hope
for the future debates that will be had on this issue.

A couple of other blog reactions worth noting.  John Ross at Recycled Missionaries has a long post on the theological decline in the Kirk titled A New Church For Scotland?  There is another long post at Clerical Whispers which looks at the Church of Scotland decision in the context of other churches, particularly the Church of England which is a bit closer to Clerical Whispers’ regular territory of the Irish Roman Catholic church.  Two other bloggers close to the controversy, Rev. Louis Kinsey at Coffee With Louis and Rev. Ian Watson at Kirkmuirhillrev have not posted any extensive or personal comments about the vote yet.  I am sure they will when the time is right and I look forward to their thoughts.

(UPDATE: Much of this post was written before the motion at the Monday session that now asks members of the church not to comment to the press or on-line about these issues.  In light of that new request we will have to see how individuals respond to the proceedings of the Assembly.  As I mention above, I am working on a post about the request for not commenting.)

At this time I have not seen any official statements yet from two of the groups that are part of the discussion, The Fellowship of Confessing Churches and Forward Together. OneKirk did issue a press release expressing their approval of the decision.  I am sure that more will be forthcoming now that the near-term situation is better known with today’s decision to study the issue.

Finally, I need not tell any GA Junkie that for the media the vote on Saturday night was simply about ordination standards and not process.  At least Ekklesia acknowledges the nature of the vote.  While the middle part of the article says “Although those campaigning against Mr Rennie purely because he is gay and in a faithful relationship…” they do have at the very end “The decision the Assembly took this evening was not specifically on the
question of sexuality, but about the rightness of the decision taken by
the local Presbytery in Aberdeen.”

I wish I could say much good about this Associated Press article published on the KXMC web site.  The AP headline is “Church of Scotland votes to appoint gay minister.”  The article begins with this line:  “LONDON (AP) There’s a new Anglican church conflict over
sexuality this time, in Scotland.”  I’m sorry, the Church of Scotland is Presbyterian, not Anglican.  (A similar mix-up is apparent in the news story headlined “Another gay appointment rocks Anglican Church” from On Top Magazine who claims to have gotten the story from The Guardian.  I could not find that error in the Guardian Story so at some point they will probably catch the mistake and correct the text.)

And the Herald had an interesting and extensive article about the debate titled “Landmark Victory or Ecclesiastical Fudge?”  This question of a “fudge” gets back to the polity issue that the case, in and of itself, does not set a precedent but must wait for future cases to evaluate it’s precedent-setting status, or lack there of.  The article is worth reading if for no other reason that it provides more quotes from the debate than I have seen in any other source.

There is certain to be more on this as everyone considers the two different actions taken as a package and snapshot of the Assembly.  In particular, the Herald has an article saying that conservatives think they may yet be able to stop the Rev. Rennie’s appointment.  We will wait for more developments.

General Assembly (2009) of the Church of Scotland Convenes

Leave a reply

OK GA Junkies — Game On!

The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland convened a few hours ago and so the GA season has begun.  As I am watching it now there is notable discussion on the report of the Council of Assembly and the charitable trustees.

If you are interested in this Assembly you can find more information on the web:

The Church of Scotland does not have a Book of (Church) Order like many other branches do.  (Or The Code in Ireland.)  You can find the church law in the Acts of Assembly and The Regulations of Assembly.  For an more user friendly document check out An Introduction to Practice and Procedure in the Church of Scotland.

That will give you a start.  Have fun!

Voting Trends For Amendment 08-B — Part 3 – Breakout Sessions

Leave a reply

Since I posted the analysis last week eight more presbyteries have voted with the unofficial tally at 77-94.  There are only two more presbyteries left to vote.  This past week there were two more presbyteries that switched from “no” to “yes” bringing the total of presbyteries to switch in that direction to 33.

In the first post I looked at the total votes without regard to presbytery groupings.  In the second part I discussed the distribution of voting patterns for the presbyteries.  In this post I want to focus on the groupings of presbyteries and a couple of interesting features that appear.

From the usual sources 154 of the 171 presbyteries that have voted have numbers reported for both the 01-A voting and the 08-B voting. 

In the following frequency distribution plots the vertical and horizontal axes are the same in all the plots (except the All Presbyteries/Total vote plot has an extended vertical axis) and the horizontal axes are aligned with a reference line through the 1.0 (no change) point.  Data are binned and counted on intervals of 0.05 with the number on the horizontal axis the upper inclusive limit of the bin.

To look at the details the presbyteries have been grouped by those that voted “Yes” on 08-B and those that voted “No” on 08-B.  There are also subgroups of each of these for the presbyteries that switched their votes from the previous round of voting.  Since the “Yes” to “No” subgroup has only two presbyteries those are briefly discussed but not plotted.

Total Presbytery Votes

First the note that the top chart has a vertical axis from 0-30 while the upper limit on all of the other vertical axes is 20.

Looking at these distributions it can be seen that the changes in the total number of votes cast was very similar whether you are looking at the total population or the split-out groups.  Total votes are slightly higher in “Yes” presbyteries but it is not much.  All have averages and medians in the 0.86 – 0.90 range and while the standard deviations show a bit more variation ranging from 0.15 to 0.24, the difference is not extreme.

Presbytery “Yes” Votes

Here is where the division into groups and subgroups shows the most interesting results.  Just splitting the population into “yes” and “no” presbyteries shows no significant changes in the population.  The total, “yes” group and “no” group all have averages a bit above 1.00, medians very close to 1.00, and standard deviations in the 0.35 – 0.47 range.  It is tough to make a case that much is different between the “yes” and “no” presbyteries.

But if we split out the “yes” presbyteries that previously voted “no” it is clear that these presbyteries had a clear increase in the number of “yes” votes.  Of the 29 presbyteries, 7 had no change or a decrease and the other 22 had in increase in the “yes” vote.  I’ll return to this group at the end and take a detailed look at the behavior.

Presbytery “No” Votes

While the patterns in the “Yes” vote were not seen and the differences in the Total was slight, there is a bit more difference to be seen in the break out of the “No” vote.  All the presbyteries together had an average no-vote ratio of 0.76 while the average in presbyteries that voted “No” on 08-B was 0.83 and the average for “Yes” presbyteries was 0.68.  The numbers for the presbyteries that switched were statistically close to those for all the “Yes” presbyteries.

So presbyteries that voted “No” on 08-B generally had a lower decline in “No” votes, presbyteries that voted “Yes” had a higher decline, and no appreciable difference from that was seen for the subgroup that switched from “No” to “Yes.”  In other words, as a group a “No” to “Yes” switch was characterized by a statistically greater increase in “Yes” votes with a “No” vote decrease characteristic of the other “Yes” vote presbyteries.  This in contrast to a possible switch due to no increase in “Yes” votes but a statistically greater decrease in “No” votes.

Details of the “No” to “Yes” Switch
Taking a look at the 29 presbyteries that switched votes, two (6.9%) appear to be pure swing with almost equal numbers of lost “no” votes and gained “yes” votes.  (In this discussion “almost equal numbers” means a difference of usually zero or one, but no more than two votes.)  Six (20.7%) show little to no change in the number of “yes” votes and only a decrease in “no” votes, and five (17.2%) show a notable decrease in both “yes” and “no” votes with a larger “no” vote decrease.  These 11 (37.9%) appear to be more related to differential losses.  One (3.4%) shows a significant increase in both “yes” and “no” with a more pronounced increase in “yes,” but looking at previous votes 01-A has a significantly lower vote total and this is probably a special circumstance for 01-A.  Half the presbyteries, 15, show a more complex behavior with a gain in “yes” votes and decrease in “no” votes.  Five of those have a “yes” gain greater than the “no” loss and ten of those had a larger “no” loss than “yes” gain.  These, plus the two pure swing, suggest that 17 (58.6% of the switches and 11.0% of the total) presbyteries changed their vote from “no” to “yes” at least in part by a significant switch of voters between those positions.

Details of the “Yes” to “No” Switch
With only two presbyteries making the switch in this direction it is impossible to make generalizations, especially since their patterns of change are totally different.  In the case of San Francisco Presbytery the vote went from 216-186 on 01-A to 167-177 on 08-B.  There was a significant preferential decrease in the number of “Yes” votes attributed variously to complacency or attendance at conferences.  The case with Sierra Blanca is exactly opposite with the number of both “Yes” and “No” votes increasing, but the “No” vote increasing dramatically and preferentially.  On 01-A Sierra Blanca voted 18-17 while on 08-B they voted 23-30.  Again, special cases, but when you look at the details of many of the presbytery votes you begin to think that there is a back story to the voting.

Changes Relative to Strength of Voting
I will do a lot more with multi-variant statistics later, but this one jumped out at me and I thought it appropriate to include here.  I have previously commented that looking for correlations between various factors has yielded little, but here is a case where something of interest does appear.


I hope that this graph is not too confusing.  On the x-axis I have the “yes” vote on 08-B in percent.  All of the blue squares represent presbyteries that voted yes and so are above the 50% line, and all the red squares are presbyteries that voted no and so are on or below the 50% line.  On the top plot I show the change in the number voting in opposition from one vote to the n
ext as a ratio of 08-B votes to 01-A votes.  So on the left is the change in the number of “Yes” votes in presbyteries voting “No.”  And on the right are the change in the number of “No” votes in presbyteries voting “Yes.”  For the subgroup of presbyteries that switched from “No” to “Yes” the plot did not differ significantly so I did not include that data as a separate plot.

In the upper plot the trend for “No” votes to decline in presbyteries voting in the affirmative is strong with an R-squared=0.32 for the correlation.  The trend for the other half is not as strong and while visually suggestive the higher scatter results in an R-squared=0.02.  But based on the grouping of points in the down-to-the-left trend an argument could be made for some presbyteries with similar behavior, but a closer look at the outlying points for special cases would be necessary to really verify that.  It should be recognized that changes in small numbers of votes as is found near the ends of the X axis are amplified more than similar changes near the middle of the axis.

In the lower plot the change in concurring votes is plotted and for both the trend is statistically indistinguishable from flat.  In the “No” votes in “No” presbyteries there is a slight, but statistically insignificant, upward trend to the lower percentage votes that if true, and combined with the decreasing “Yes” vote in the upper plot, would actually suggest a swing from “Yes” to “No” in the presbyteries with the strongest “No” votes.  It is clear, both visually and statistically, that no such conclusion is even hinted at in the “Yes” presbyteries.  So there is a trend seen in “Yes” voting presbyteries, and suggested in “No” voting presbyteries, for the greater the strength of vote is the fewer opponents showed up, or were still around, for the vote on 08-B.

Well, enough of this for now.
One of the things I keep getting asked about all of this is something like “Wasn’t the vote on 01-A ‘different.'” There have been several ways that people have suggested the last vote was different but the most often mentioned one is that presbyteries voted “No” because the PUP Task Force was beginning work and they wanted to let that process play out.

Well, in multiple respects the voting on 01-A was different and in my next installment in this series I will look at that quantitatively and show, well, that every presbytery is different.  Actually, I’ll show that there are several different sets of behaviors seen for 01-A voting of which a shift to vote “No” is just one of them.  Sometimes that “No” shift came with no change in total vote, a true swing.  And sometimes that shift in percentages came with a significant increase in the total number of commissioners voting, a behavior that looks like a “get out the vote” campaign for those favoring the retention of the “fidelity and chastity” requirement.  My point right now is that an “undoing” of either of these would support some of the behavior seen in the data for 08-B voting.  So next time I’ll lay out those numbers.

 

General Assembly of the Church of Scotland This Week — The Media Build Up Continues

2 Replies

The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland convenes in Edinburgh this Thursday.  I’ll post once more before the Moderator calls the commissioners to order so that I can talk about something else.

But if you only read the mainstream media on this side of the world you would think that the Assembly is about one thing, and only one thing — The suitability of the lifestyle of a partnered gay man for service as the pastor at a church in Aberdeen.

I would like to think that the Assembly will deal with this in its usual decently and in order fashion.  In fact, I expect that it will having followed these debates for a while.  What I don’t know about will be what will happen after that.

The other problem that I have is that I am following this from 8261.97 km away.  (That would be 5133.75 mi for those of us who only know the metric system as 2-liter bottles.)  I have been struck in the last week by the prolific, and frankly hyperbolic, coverage by the media.  They seem to be almost exclusively focusing on the conflict and “impending doom” that this controversy in the Church of Scotland will cause.  Yes, there is coverage of other issues, but usually in an “oh, by the way” manner.

The hot topic of the week was the sermon preached on the last Lord’s Day by the Rev. Ian Watson.  The title was “Jude: Fighting Truth Decay #3” and it is available on the Rev. Watson’s blog.  (And I must trust that what is posted on the blog is what was preached.)  From that the media got the following headlines

Anti-gay ‘Nazi’ slur causes Church of Scotland outrage – Ekklesia
Anti-gay Minister the Rev Ian Watson in ‘Nazi battle’ outrage – Times Online
Minister compares fight against homosexual clergy to resistance of Nazis – The Telegraph

Having read these articles and the sermon they are based on there is clearly a reference and implicit analogy to the run-up to the Second World War that would strike a nerve in many people.  Related to that, here is exactly what the Rev. Watson posted on his blog.  The Introduction:

There are very few people who enjoy conflict.  The vast majority of
decent people will do almost anything to avoid situations of
confrontation.  So, the soup may be cold, the meat tough and the
pudding inedible, but when the waiter asks us if we are enjoying our
meal we’ll smile and nod.  We don’t want to complain, we don’t want to
make a fuss.  We’ll even pay for the privilege. 

This is how bullies succeed.  They realize that no matter how
unhappy we are with their behaviour we’re not going to stand up to
them, because the last thing we want is a shouting match. 

That was the gamble Hitler took when he marched German troops into
the Rhineland in March 1936 in breach of a condition forced on Germany
after World War 1.  It was a huge gamble.  If the French army,
stationed on the other side of the border, had marched against him, the
Germans would have had to retreat and there’s no doubt Hitler’s regime
would have collapsed.  But he guessed correctly that the French had no
stomach for a fight.  If only they had, then the tragedy of a second
World War might have been avoided.

And from the Conclusion

Let me assure you, neither I nor like-minded minsters enjoy
conflict.  We long to be getting on with the work of the gospel in our
parishes.  It’s a distraction we could do without.

But have we learned nothing from history?  Remember Hitler and the
re-taking of the Rhineland.  He got away with it.  No one stopped him. 
So next it was Austria, then Czechoslovakia, and then Poland and only
then world war.

I can’t help asking myself: if we say nothing, do nothing at this
time, what next?  What scriptural truth is next for shaving?  The
uniqueness of Christ as our only Saviour?  The nature of God as Holy
Trinity?  

What moral standards will we depart from?  Can we expected unmarried
couples in our manses?  A line has to be drawn in the sand, or the
whole edifice will come tumbling down (now there’s a mixed metaphor for
you!)

In between he makes no further reference to these events but talks about various conflicts in church history and his scripture passage, Jude 3-4, particularly v. 3 where it says

Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation we
share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for
the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

While many people found Mr. Watson’s sermon illustration disturbing, the press reports that I have read focused on the Germany analogy and did not properly convey, in my opinion, the full sense of the sermon.  In addition the media states that many religious and political leaders have expressed disapproval, but are weak backing that up with quotes.  The Telegraph article does give two reactions:

Rev Peter Macdonald, the leader elect of the Iona Community and
minister of St George’s West, Edinburgh, told The Times he found the
sermon disturbing while Rev Lindsay Biddle, chaplain of Affirmation
Scotland, a pro-homosexual group, said: “If you don’t like homosexuals,
then get on with it – but don’t use the Bible to justify opinions.”

And a defense from Rev. Watson

Rev Watson defended his sermon: “There is no doubt that there is a
conflict,” he said. “I was trying to explain why I am engaged in this.
People say to me, ‘This is not a hill to die on’, but I think it is a
fight worth fighting. “Evangelicals seek to defend the historic and
orthodox Christian faith. If we don’t what are we? I am a man of
convictions.”

So while I can see Rev. Watson’s perspective and why some are offended and concerned by the comments, I still find the media reports as superficial and too focused on the most controversial aspects.  (And I would note that I have searched Rev. Watson’s posted text a couple of times and he does not actually use the term “Nazi” himself, instead referring to “Hitler” and “Germany.”  I don’t know if the media uses the term for brevity or impact?)

The other thread that is going around related to this story, and again promoted more by the media than in direct statements that I am reading, is the prospect of schism.  In the Telegraph article I have already quoted from the second paragraph opens with

His [The Rev. Watson’s] comments will widen divisions within the Kirk over the appointment of an openly gay minister to a parish church last year.

As far as I can tell this article is firmly in the News section, not the opinion, so I would fault the writer, Alastair Jamieson, for the inclusion of the “will widen” without a direct attribution.  Yes, in the next paragraph he writes

Rev Kenneth MacKenzie, the minister at Crathie Kirk, near Balmoral,
which is attended by the Queen, has warned a schism would occur if his
appointment was confirmed.

But the way the article is constructed it appears Mr. Jamieson is using the Rev. MacKenzie’s statement to support his own thesis rather than report on other people’s concerns about divisions.  And in many of these articles quotes from those who do not think there will be division are missing.

I should point out some good coverage of the issue.  Two good examples come from the BBC.  There is one story that tones down the headline a bit with “Church Split Warning Over Gay Row.”  It also contains a 15 minute video that has a very good conversation between two CofS ministers, the Rev. Randall and the Rev. Gilchrist, discussing the issue and theological viewpoints.  And they make the very important point that this controversy is about standards for ordained office, something that you could not tell from two of the three headlines I listed above.  (Style points to the Telegraph for bringing that out in the headline.)  The second article is on William Crawley’s religion blog Will & Testament.  I enjoy William’s writing because it is usually balanced, well informed and relevant.  This article is no exception.

At a news conference earlier this week the Moderator Designate, the Rev. Bill Hewitt, refused to answer questions about the issue, just saying it was his job to oversee the Assembly debate.

Finally, in another post William Crawley notes that religious leaders in Northern Ireland have added their names to the petition from The Fellowship of Confessing Churches that urges the restriction on those called to the pastorate.  He points out that the list of signatories includes several former moderators of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.

I expect not to address this issue again before it comes to the floor of Assembly at the end of this week.  Debate on the filed protest of Aberdeen Presbytery’s actions is docketed for Saturday evening.  I expect to be live blogging it.  I do want to finish one more post before the Assembly begins, especially since there is another important matter that won’t come to the floor until next year, but will have an influence on several other items of business.   (Update:  Thanks to Iain I have been informed that there are not plans to webcast the Saturday evening debate.  I guess I’ll have to depend on the reports after the debate.)