Category Archives: news

Presbyterian Mutual Society — Payout Begins And The Cost Of The Failure

Leave a reply

There has been a flurry of activity in the Presbyterian Mutual Society situation in Northern Ireland over the last few days.  The Administrator’s web site provides a nice timeline in their press releases.  The Court approved the Scheme of Arrangement (Press Release, FAQ) back on 4 July.  Then last Thursday (28 July) they put up an “almost there” notice — they wanted everyone to know that with the complexity of the bailout they were making sure all the conditions were met for the transaction to proceed.  Finally on Monday ( 1 August ) they posted the cheques. (Translation for American readers: “The check is in the mail.”)  The investors were getting their money the next day.  Today the Administrator put a clarification up on the web site about a mistaken report regarding the recovery amounts to the different level investors.

Needless to say, the media is all over this including the Irish Times, Belfast Newsletter and BBC. And the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, is getting a lot of credit for making this happen.  The Presbyterian Church in Ireland has issued a statement welcoming the payments and saying:

In particular [Moderator of the General Assembly] Dr Patterson joined [Former Moderator] Dr Carson in expressing thanks to
those who had voluntarily deferred a return of some of their money so
that others would benefit. “I would express sincere thanks to every
Congregational Committee and every individual who has opted to leave an
extra amount in the PMS so that smaller savers could be paid off first.
It is evidence that there is a spirit of kindness and generosity and
compassion within our Church. It’s been heart warming to see that those
who could have left money in the society so that the small savers could
get all their money back,” he commented.

The statement also expresses continuing concern for the investors who have had to wait almost three years for the return of their money, in many cases the tied-up funds represented a good deal of their retirement savings.

Dr. Stafford Carson has his own comments on his blog. He includes this statement about how the distribution worked out:

The other area of interest is the actual percentage required from those
who opted to make an additional deferment. Individuals and congregations
were given the option of leaving an additional 5% or 10% of their funds
in the PMS so that smaller savers could get all of their money back. I
hear that the response to that appeal has been so good that the actual
amounts may be less than half of that which larger savers were prepared
to defer. That is a tremendous response and shows that there is a
reservoir of generosity and compassion within PCI in spite of the PMS
debacle.

This leads me to a moral of this story. While there are plenty of lessons in all this regarding denominations running investment funds or mutual societies straying too far from their stated purpose, an article in the Belfast Newsletter probably has the most important take-away for those of us in ministry — The headline is “Savers tell of dismay at losing trust in church.”

As you read the story you will see that where the church members lost trust was not in the failure in the first place but in the denomination’s response.  You had to be a member of the church to invest in the Mutual Society but the denomination at first tried to hold the investment failure at arms length.  The story has this extended quote from Mr. Mervyn Redmond of Ballywalter:

“The church disowned us from the start and it just didn’t want to know,” he said yesterday.

“They
deceived us and we were told lies by members of the Presbyterian
Church, and we have been so hurt that we can no longer call ourselves
Presbyterian.

“I’ve never given up my faith or Christianity, but I don’t belong to a church any more.”

It is interesting to note that two of those interviewed for this story specifically single out Dr. Carson for his advocacy and compassion. (And people are posting their thanks to him in the comments to his blog post.)  As Mr. Redmond put it:

“Dr Carson never turned his back on us at any stage,” he said.

“There
were times when he was wearing two coats – he had to be on the church’s
side and he had to be on our side. He was in a very awkward position on
our behalf.”

There are a total of four interviews in the article, each individual having a varying degree of estrangement from the denomination and some from Christianity in general.

But let me leave you with Dr. Carson’s closing line which adds some additional perspective to the situation.

It would be good if, on this day of thanksgiving, those who are in
receipt of PMS cheques remembered the really needy people in our world
and considered sending a thank offering to Tearfund or Christian Aid.

Two PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions On Ordination Standards — A Plate Of Polity, Doctrine On The Side…

4 Replies

Today the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) released their decisions in two closely watched remedial cases.  One reason for the high-profile nature of the cases is the fact that they began their lives with G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” language, in the Book of Order, but as of last month that language has been removed and modified in the new G-2.0104b. Does the change in language make the cases moot?  The GAPJC said yes… and no.

If you want the summary and outcomes, here you go:

The case of Session of Caledonia Presbyterian Church and others v. Presbytery of John Knox deals with the examination for ordination of Mr. Scott Anderson.  The key quote in this decision is:

The Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Moot is granted, and the Stay of Enforcement is lifted. The only alleged irregularities set out in Appellants’ Notice of Appeal cite G-6.0106b and Authoritative Interpretations of that section as the basis of their Appeal. The language of that section was removed from the Book of Order prior to the GAPJC hearing of the Appeal. In granting this motion, this Commission declines to rule upon the application of a provision of the Book of Order that no longer exists. Nothing in this Decision should be construed to interpret the ordination standards under the new Form of Government, as that issue is not before the Commission.

The second case is that of Parnell and others v. Presbytery of San Francisco and results from the examination to ordain Ms. Lisa Larges.  This case was not dismissed but eight of the specifications of error were not sustained for the same reason the Anderson case was dismissed. Where this was different is that doctrine was cited as an irregularity.  The decision says:

The record does not reflect that the SPJC ruled on the Appellants’ contention that Scripture and the Confessions prohibit certain sexual behavior. While the Appellants’ complaint was based primarily on G-6.0106b, the Appellants clearly and consistently presented arguments at trial on the basis of scriptural and confessional standards without objection by the Presbytery. Since the doctrinal issue is central to the Appellants’ case, it was error for the SPJC not to expressly rule upon the issue.

The case is remanded back to the Synod of the Pacific PJC and the SPJC is “encouraged to direct the Presbytery to reexamine the candidate under G-2.0104b.”

OK, that’s the bottom line.  Now polity wonks, lets do some more reading.

Regarding the Caledonia v. John Knox decision what is striking to me is that while the decision itself is just the dismissal and relatively straight-forward, I did after all give you the complete Decision in the quote above, this is a longer decision.  Of the 15 commissioners on the GAPJC (there is one vacant position) eight signed on to one of the three concurring comments and five signed at least one of the dissenting comments. (One commissioner signed both dissenting comments.) So a lot of the commissioners wanted to say something and these additional comments essentially triple the length of the decision.

The concurring comments included commentary on how the General Assembly had issued a flawed Authoritative Interpretation, how the Commission could not consider broader issues than G-6.0106b because they were not raised in the appeal, how the Presbytery should have started over with Anderson under the new Book of Order language as suggested, and how some commissioners would have preferred to have affirmed the SPJC decision rather than dismiss the case.

The dissenting comments focus on how the SPJC decision is flawed because it did not address the doctrinal arguments (like the SPJC decision in the Larges case) and the flawed nature of the GA AI.

The catch of course is that while these statements were made in the decision, since the case was dismissed they do not raise to the standard of Interpretation.  However, the tension over the AI from the General Assembly that allowed scrupling of practice as well as belief has been substantial and that issue is reflected in the concurrence by Copeland, Kim, Cramer and Cornman says:

While we find the “Knox AI” to be flawed, we believe that the Presbytery acted in good faith when it based its decisions on its interpretation of that Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108 adopted by the 218th General Assembly (2008). G-13.0103r of the Form of Government in force at the time of the contested ordination examination states, “The most recent interpretation of a provision of the Book of Order shall be binding.” In this case this would be the Knox AI. The flaw of the Knox AI, however, is that it fails to recognize that any AI, regardless of who issues it, cannot modify a specific requirement of the Book of Order. An AI can interpret the Constitution but the only way to modify such an explicit requirement (G-6.0106b) is through the amendment process.

The decision in Parnell v. John Knox is more extensive, but eight of the eleven specifications of error are dismissed because “the constitutional provisions under which the Candidate was examined are no longer part of the Constitution.”  A ninth was dismissed because they found that the record did not sustain the claim that the presbytery itself departed from the Essential Tenants of the Reformed Faith by approving the candidate. There were two specifications of error regarding the SPJC not dealing with the doctrinal issues raised and only dealing with process. These are the errors that were sustained.  I have quoted the relevant portion of the decision above where the GAPJC points out that “the Appellants clearly and consistently presented arguments at trial on the basis of scriptural and confessional standards without objection by the Presbytery.”  The GAPJC decision is careful to also note that “In sustaining this specification of error, this Commission is not ruling on whether doctrinal error or abuse of discretion occurred, but only that it is not evident from the language of the decision whether or not the SPJC ruled upon this matter.”

There is a concurring opinion by one commissioner who expresses caution that review of ordaining bodies decisions should be done carefully:

The protocol for review by an appellate body needs, therefore, to be very prudently limited to those cases in which either an ordaining body or a Permanent Judicial Commission has very clearly erred or the process is so defective as to have deprived one of the parties of due process, such that there are extraordinary reasons for reversal. The duty of a reviewing body is to be discharged with caution and great deference.

He says that the only reason he can concur is because the recommendation is to have the presbytery do the examination again under the new standard.

There is also a dissent by three commissioners who feel there are no grounds to have the doctrine arguments reviewed by the SPJC: “For an appellate body to be empowered to micromanage the ordination process without there being extraordinary reasons would be ill-advised.”  They conclude their comments with the economic argument:

Both parties urged this Commission not to remand this case for further hearings as they recognized that to do so would not only cause significant and unnecessary expense to the church, but would also result in no difference in outcome. This Commission is charged with securing th
e “economical determination of proceedings.” We believe that sending the case back to the SPJC does not accomplish that charge.

A couple of things jump out to me in these decisions:

1) Previous GAPJC decisions regarding ordination standards seem to have been crafted so that members of the GAPJC were unanimous, or nearly so, in the decision. The decisions give the appearance that this was done by focusing on the process.  The variety of voices heard in these decisions, particularly the Caledonia v. John Knox, strikes me as a shift in tone and there is no longer an emphasis on high-consensus decisions.  It may be the change in circumstances with the passage of 10-A.  It might have to do with the fact that these cases have reached a level of maturity that all the procedural issues have been beaten out of them and they are now down to the core doctrinal issues.  Or it may be that the church as a whole has reached a point where we need to start taking these issues seriously.  I don’t know if others agree but looking over these decisions I sense a change in tone from previous ones.

2) Related to that, these decisions appear to me to be sending a message that the GAPJC  is ready to start dealing with those issues, maybe even wanting to based on some of the writing.  The feeling is not unanimous, as a couple of the minority comments argue for leaving those issues to the presbyteries.  But one concurring decision in the Caledonia v. John Knox case says:

Additionally, the Appellants, while arguing on appeal a scriptural basis for overturning the Presbytery’s action, failed to include such arguments in either their original complaint or the specification of errors. These omissions meant that this Commission was unable to address issues broader than the application of G-6.0106b in its Decision.

They almost seem to be lamenting the fact that they wanted to deal with this but could not work on that problem because of the structure of the appeal.

Now, there is an opinion that differs from mine regarding this, but as I read these decisions it seems to me that the GAPJC is saying it might be time to examine the doctrine at the highest level.  The caveat they place is that it needs to be done decently and in order by properly arguing it at the court of first impressions and by properly appealing it in the brief.

So the bottom line – In Mr. Anderson’s case the process has concluded.  The stay of enforcement is lifted and he is cleared to be ordained.  As for Ms. Larges, the process continues.  There will be another trial before the SPJC on the doctrinal issues, there will probably be another examination for ordination before the presbytery based on the new Book of Order language, and I would suspect another appeal to the GAPJC following the new SPJC hearing.  While this extends a very long journey even further, the apparent benefit to many of us in this upcoming cycle will the the opportunity to actually have the GAPJC rule on the doctrine and not just the process.  Stay tuned…

[Update: Note the comment below by the Rev Mary Holder Naegeli who was in the midst of this case. 1) The remand does not necessarily mean a reopening of the trial, 2) doctrine was discussed by the PJC in the proceedings but not in the decision, 3) The GAPJC consensus seemed to be that they would not accept the case for review another time.  Thanks Mary.]

A Sign Of The Times – PC(USA) Charging For The PDF Of The New Edition Of The Book Of Order

10 Replies

The cost of being a G.A. Junkie just went up…

With thanks to @andyjames for bringing it to our attention, we are now aware that the electronic version of the new edition of the Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is ready for download as a PDF.  The catch… for the first time that I am aware of a Presbyterian Branch is charging for the downloadable PDF.  It will set you back $10US.  You can still get the previous edition, but with the major rewrite the Form of Government section will be out of date. And the unchanged Book of Confessions is still available for free as well.  We will have to see what is done with the on-line version of the Annotated Book of Order.

Of course, if you are interested in the constitutional documents of another branch I can point you to the following free downloads:

Well, I think you get the idea.  But if you know of another branch that charges for the download please let me know because I don’t know of another one.

Having said all that, it is reasonable to consider that there are preparation costs involved in the new edition and I can imagine that fewer paper copies are being sold so if the cost is going to be recovered on the distribution end the charges are necessary to fund the project.  None-the-less, there will be comments about those costs being something per capita is supposed to fund. But it does seem to be a sign of the times with the need to find other sources of revenue to fund the publication if hard copy sales and member giving are declining.

What we will have to see now is whether the PC(USA) will stand alone with this cost recovery or if now that one branch has crossed the line and charged for it will more follow?  From a personal point of view, if I had to purchase everyone of the documents in the above list it would make my hobby a more expensive one.  OK, time to get out the charge card I guess…

Update: A little more poking around this morning has not shed much more light on this.  The BOO will be available in several formats and with $10 the going rate for PDF download, single copies of the hard copy (quantity discounts available but also have to pay shipping), and a couple of eReader versions (technically $9.99). You want a CD with BOO and Book of Confessions? That will be $15. And the on-line annotated will still be available (and there was much rejoicing).

The big question I have been looking at is what are the licensing terms of the electronic version.  Can I put it on both my home and work computer or put it in the cloud? Can a church buy one PDF and distribute it to all the Session members or all the ordained staff?  I looked at the store and did not see this addressed pre-purchase. Presumably the PDF will contain this information and you can look at it after you buy it.

New Ordination Standards Language In The PC(USA) And The Discussion Of Standards

2 Replies

As the polity wonks in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are well aware we have to be studying up on the changes to the Book of Order that go into effect this weekend.  The biggest change is the addition of a new section, Foundations of Presbyterian Polity, and the rewrite of the Form of Government, but there are a few other amendments that changed language elsewhere in the constitution. While the paper copy is still at the printer and the electronic copies are in preparation, especially the annotated version, we do have the vast majority of the new Form of Government from the amendment booklet.

However, there are about 20 locations where other specific amendments have made changes to the Book of Order, and seven of these are in the FOG.

Of these changes the only one to have any substantial opposition in the presbyteries is the new wording of G-2.0104b, the standards for ordination. This is the new number and wording for what was previously numbered G-6.0106b and we will have to learn to have the new number roll off our tongue as the old one did.

Some may say that this debate is over and we can move on to other things so there is no need to get used to the numbering of that section.  I think the evidence is that in the short- to intermediate-term there will still be substantial discussion about what it actually means so I at least am getting used to it.

For some this weekend is an occasion for celebration and More Light Presbyterians have released a suggested opening liturgy for this coming Lord’s Day that begins

Common Beginning of Worship and of Church Life
July 10, 2011

Procession
(run free with banners, scarves, ribbons, streamers, etc)

I have not seen a liturgy for those who favored the previous ordination standards language, but I suspect that if there is one it is a bit less exuberant.

The reason that I don’t think the Book of Order citation number will soon disappear from our vocabulary is that there is now a substantial amount of discussion about how to live into the new verbiage.

For example, More Light Presbyterians have issued a guide with their recommendations about moving forward with the new language titled Ordination Guide: So That G-2.0104 Shall Be a
Blessing for our Church and World. On the introductory web page they say:

Fair, accurate interpretation and implementation of 10-A, now known
as G-2.0104 is our top priority. We have created Ordination Guides from
an affirming perspective and we have sent them to staff in all 173
presbyteries…

We need to get this
affirming Guide in the hands, hearts, minds and actions of every
Presbyterian congregation, every Committee on Preparation for Ministry
and every Committee on Ministry. We believe that G-2.0104 can be a
blessing for our Church and world. For 10-A to make the difference it
can make, we need to make sure that it is understood, honored and
followed by every church and presbytery. We know this is a tall order:
11,000 churches in 173 presbyteries. All of us doing our part can make
this happen. Together we are building a Church that reflects God’s
heart.

The guide is not very extensive and addresses all the primary audiences briefly. It frequently says something similar to this passage that is part of the advice to seminaries:

For polity professors and administrators handling placement, help your seminarians study the exact wording of G-2.0104. Help them become as familiar as possible with the theological contours of their own presbyteries, other potential presbyteries where they might come under care and the presbyteries where they might seek a call. Prepare them to be ready to ground their responses to questions from Committees on Preparation or [sic] Ministry and from Pastor Nominating Committees in Scripture, the confessions and the constitutional questions.

Depending on your perspective, this advice could be seen a either practical advice about discerning and living into their call or as “teaching the test” and making sure the candidate knows the right thing to say when the time comes to improve their chances in a presbytery with some differences of opinion.

From the opposite perspective there is an equally interesting document now posted.  With the change in the ordination standards language the PC(USA) has removed their “mandatory church wide behavioral ordination standard.” Now that the mandatory standard has been removed, what will become of judicial cases that are in the pipeline?

The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission is scheduled to hear two of those cases three weeks from today on July 29th. In an effort to argue that their case is still relevant even with the new language, Parnell and others have submitted a Supplemental Brief in their case against the Presbytery of San Francisco. (And thanks to the Presbyterian Coalition for making it available on their web site.) The brief begins with this:

The question is posed whether this case is still at issue, given the recent ratification of Amendment 10-A, and if so, whether any of the specifications of error are mooted by that revision to Book of Order section G-6.0106b. The basis of Appellants’ case from the beginning has been the clear and univocal mandate of Scripture. Scripture has not changed, so the case is not moot.

The suggestion of mootness implies that when 10-A deleted fidelity/chastity from the text of G-6.0106, something new was achieved, either a new standard or a new procedure. Neither is the case. Changing the sexual ethic standard requires changing Scripture, while the procedures described in 10-A merely restate current ordination process (G-14.0452 and G-14.0480). Since 10-A presents nothing new, the case is not moot.

I applaud the writers of this brief for taking on the issue as it now stands and not under the previous language.  In response to a motion by the Presbytery they argue:

The Presbytery has suggested that this case should be decided with reference solely to the former language of G-6.0106b and without regard to the subsequently certified Amendment 10-A, that is, by applying only the text that appeared at the time. If a new rule had superseded an old one because it contradicts the former, this suggestion would be debatable. But this is not the situation before us. Simply, 10-A is neither a new rule nor a new procedure. Thus, nothing is gained by this Commission excluding 10-A from its consideration. In any case, there is no authority that mandates that a matter must be decided using only the rule that existed at the time.

With appreciation for their efforts and respect for their argument, it is my opinion that this effort will not be successful.  While the GAPJC regularly decides cases regarding procedures and interpretation of the Book of Order, with the removal of the mandatory standard I am not seeing a lot that the GAPJC would feel obliged to weigh in on.  GAPJC decisions seldom address doctrinal questions that have been interpreted on the presbytery level generally showing deference to the presbytery’s decision. They have been clear in the past that beyond the mandatory standard the presbytery is the body to decide fitness for ordination as a teaching elder.  It will be interesting to see how the GAPJC addresses the argument that scripture and the confessions still provide a mandatory standard and that nothing has changed.

Speaking of standards, I want to finish up with some thoughts about the definition and application of standards for ordination in the PC(USA) today.

First, the Bush v. Pittsburgh decision (218-10) set the bar for what presbyteries can do, or more generally can not do, in the way of standards and ordination examinations.  Some of the more relevant sections:

3. Statements of “Essentials of Reformed Faith and Polity”: Attempts by governing bodies that ordain and install officers to adopt resolutions, statements or policies that paraphrase or restate provisions of the Book of Order and/or declare them as “essentials of Reformed faith and polity” are confusing and unnecessary; and are themselves an obstruction to constitutional governance in violation of G-6.0108a. [Headnotes, p. 1]

The constitutional process for amending ordination standards (or any other provision of the Constitution) is defined in Chapter 18 of the Form of Government. While the General Assembly and the GAPJC may interpret these standards, the Authoritative Interpretation did not (and constitutionally could not) change any ordination standard, including the requirements set forth in G-6.0106b. Similarly, no lower governing body can constitutionally define, diminish, augment or modify standards for ordination and installation of church officers. [p. 5]

Ordaining bodies have the right and responsibility to determine whether or not any “scruples” declared by candidates for ordination and/or installation constitute serious departures from our system of doctrine, government, or discipline; to what extent the rights and views of others might be infringed upon by those departures; and whether those departures obstruct the constitutional governance of the church. At the same time, attempts by governing bodies that ordain and install officers to adopt resolutions, statements or policies that paraphrase or restate provisions of the Book of Order and/or declare them as “essentials of Reformed faith and polity” are confusing and unnecessary. G-6.0108a sets forth standards that apply to the whole church. These standards are binding on and must be followed by all governing bodies, church officers and candidates for church office. Adopting statements about mandatory provisions of the Book of Order for ordination and installation of officers falsely implies that other governing bodies might not be similarly bound; that is, that they might choose to restate or interpret the provisions differently, fail to adopt such statements, or possess some flexibility with respect to such provisions. Restatements of the Book of Order, in whatever form they are adopted, are themselves an obstruction to the same standard of constitutional governance no less than attempts to depart from mandatory provisions. [p. 6]

The Presbytery’s resolution would define the “essentials” of Reformed faith and polity by restating the Presbytery’s intention to enforce mandatory provisions of the Book of Order, when it has no authority to do otherwise. At the same time, declaring “essentials” outside of the context of the examination of a candidate for ordained office is inappropriate. As was stated in the 1927 Report of the Special Commission of 1925 (Swearingen Commission Report) Presbyterian Church in the United States of Am
erica Minutes, 1927, pp. 78-79:

One fact often overlooked is that by the act of 1729, the decision as to essential and necessary articles was to be in specific cases. It was no general authority that might be stated in exact language and applied rigidly to every case without distinction. It was an authority somewhat undefined, to be invoked in each particular instance. . . . It was clearly the intention that this decision as to essential and necessary articles was to be made after the candidate had been presented and had declared his [or her] beliefs and stated his [or her] motives personally, and after the examining body…had full opportunity to judge the man himself [or woman herself] as well as abstract questions of doctrine.

[ p. 6 ]

It would be an obstruction of constitutional governance to permit examining bodies to ignore or waive a specific standard that has been adopted by the whole church, such as the “fidelity and chastity” portion of G-6.0106b, or any other similarly specific provision. On the other hand, the broad reference in G-6.0106b to “any practice which the confessions call sin” puts the responsibility first on the candidate and then on the examining body to determine whether a departure is a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity and the remainder of G-6.0108(a) with respect to freedom of conscience. The ordaining body must examine the candidate individually. The examining body is best suited to make decisions about the candidate’s fitness for office, and factual determinations by examining bodies are entitled to deference by higher governing bodies in any review process. [p. 7]

There is a lot there, but let me boil it down to the probably over-simplistic summary that “ordaining and installing bodies must examine candidates individually and can not set blanket standards for those candidates.” (And any polity wonk has to appreciate a decision that works in the report of the 1925 Special Commission which in turn refers to the Adopting Act of 1729. Sorry, its a polity wonk thing.)

So, if a presbytery has an issue of conscience regarding ordination standards and wants to be on record with a particular theological stance but can not officially declare standards what might be some options?  A few that I see:

1) Prominently maintain the status quo.  If you have that stance, under the Bush decision you can not declare it as a standard. But if your stance is clearly stated and advertised then candidates not in agreement are more than likely to find a more obliging presbytery.

2) Declare your standards anyway. While it might not be in agreement with the Bush decision, a presbytery could try this and wait and see if anybody complains, particularly in a judicial sense by filing a remedial case.  At the present time there is a lot of talk of mutual forbearance and not making further waves so a presbytery might be allowed to continue with this approach for a while.

3) Set it as a requirement for membership. The Bush decision has a suggestive footnote — “2. Governing bodies may impose other requirements on church officers, after ordination and installation, such as requirements to abide by ethics or sexual misconduct policies.” So what if these requirements were set outside of the examination process? What if fidelity and chastity were part of a presbytery’s ethics and sexual misconduct policies?

4) Sub-presbyteries. While flexible presbyteries are not a reality at the present time, what if we were to administer this on a smaller scale?  What if a presbytery were to become more of a “super-presbytery” with two administrative sub-groups?  Clearly certain constitutionally required functions, such as the moderator and the clerk, could not be sub-divided, but I think that the new Form of Government might just provide enough flexibility for some creative polity to make this happen.

There is another possibility that while not presently sanctioned by the PC(USA) does have a model in the new changes to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church‘s constitution that just became effective with the conclusion of their General Assembly last month.  In their case they needed a system to allow for differing understandings of ordination standards regarding women so they have modified their system to permit what I call “fuzzy presbytery boundaries.” It is set up so that a church with one stance that finds itself in a presbytery with the opposite stance can move to an adjoining presbytery that has a stance agreeable to them. This preserves a geographic component to presbytery membership as well as a respect for theological affinity.  It is not a fully flexible presbytery but an alignment based on both geography and ordination standards.

How the new language is implemented by each ordaining body is an issue that is just starting to develop and it will be interesting to see how this develops and what creative solutions may arise. Or maybe we will find out that creative solutions are not necessary but that the new language provides the flexibility for each presbytery to examine candidates regarding their own understanding of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the candidates gifts and talents. Stay tuned as this has a long way to go.

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Releases The Latest Membership Statistics

Leave a reply

Well, yesterday was July 1 – so a happy belated Canada Day to our friends north of the border.

It is also about the time of year that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) releases their annual membership statistics and right on schedule the Stated Clerk released them yesterday.  While the full comparative statistics will take a little bit longer, now we have the Summary Statistics, Miscellaneous Information, and the Press Release. In addition, you can find commentary on the numbers from The Layman, and I would expect the Presbyterian Outlook to have an article shortly and probably a few more entities will weigh in as well. 

Running through the numbers I don’t see much change in direction of any of the categories.  Here are a few of the numbers and their change from 2009 to 2010.

 Category  2010
Value 		 % change
from 2009
 Membership  2,016,091  -2.94%
 Churches  10,560  -0.91%
 Teaching Elders  21,161  -0.35%
 Candidates  1,189  +0.59%
 Ruling Elders  86,777  -3.62%
 Gain by
Profession of faith
17 and under 		 18,895  -7.83%
 Gain by
Profession of faith
18 and over		  40,106  -4.71%
 Gain by
Certificate 		 21,615  -13.34%

Yes, there are plenty more statistics but these are the ones related to membership that have a consistent trend, usually down, over the last three years. And yes, the PC(USA) is still above 2 million members so those that had numbers in the pool below 2 mil are out of luck, but at a loss of 61 thousand a year, we will see that next year.

The losses actually had some interesting variation this year.  For example, losses by certificate (transfer) have bounced around a bit but in this year the numbers bounced up 2,058 to 29,835.  That is still less than the 2008 losses by certificate of 34,340. Interestingly, the other losses, that is the people who left without transfer, hit a low for the last eleven years of 88,731, down from 100,253 last year.

So what does this mean in terms of breaking out the causes of decline.  The losses from transfer of members to the Church Triumphant (those that died) was 32,471 or -1.56%.  The internal replenishment rate in the form of youth joining the church was 18.895 or +0.91%. So our internal loss was 13,576 or  -0.65%.  By transfer the church gained 21,615 and lost 29,835 for a net of -8220 or -0.40%.  Adult profession of faith and other brought in 49,480 members while other losses were 88,731 for a net of -39251 or -1.89%.

Therefore, we can say that of the 2.94% decline, 0.65% is the deficit in internal replacement, 0.40% is the imbalance in transfers, and almost two-thirds is in the imbalance of those coming and leaving without formal transfer.

Regarding the ordained officers of the church there is a bit less clarity.  This first release always gives the total number of teaching elders (ministers) but we will have to wait a bit longer for the release of the bigger report to know how many are active ministers and how many are honorably retired. Last year, of 21,235 ministers 13,400 were listed as active.

The number of ruling elders listed I usually figure is the number currently serving on session.  With 10,560 churches and 86,777 elders that comes to an average of 8.22 per church.  (In case you are interested that is down from 9.26/church in 2001.)  The interesting thing of course is that while this is labeled “elders” we know it is not all the elders because the last Presbyterian Panel report says 21% of the members of the church have been ordained as ruling elders — so there should be closer to 423,379.  (An interesting juxtaposition with a workshop at Big Tent yesterday where the message was that “Being an elder is a ‘perpetual calling.'”)

Finally, I am never sure what to do with the candidates line because the full statistics always have a different number, a difference I have attributed to taking the “snapshot” at different times during the year.  For example, the new summary lists 1182 candidates in 2009 while the full comparative statistics list 1154. Another reason for the difference could be the data coming from different sources.

Anyway, for what follows I will just use the numbers as they appear in this preliminary release and the equivalent ones from earlier years.

I wanted to look at how all these categories are changing with time and relative to one another.  So taking the data back to 2001 I normalized each category to that year.  That is to say I took all the data in a category and divided it by the 2001 value so they all start at a value of 1 for that year and proportional changes can be seen more clearly.  Here is what I get:


Now we can see that the fastest declining category is the total membership of the church closely followed by the number of ruling elders.  One interpretation is that ruling elders are departing the church at almost the same rate at other members, but that would not be correct.  Remember that this number is actually a measure of those serving on sessions so it means that sessions are decreasing in size proportionate with the decrease in membership, not the decrease in the number of congregations.  I’m open to suggestions about why this might be – smaller sessions for smaller churches? smaller sessions to be more efficient? smaller sessions because the pool of ruling elders is decreasing?  An interesting topic for future thought.

For the other numbers, the number of churches has decreased slightly (5% over 10 years), the number of teaching elders has held very steady over that time, and the number of candidates has shown significant growth.  Clearly we have a window of opportunity with this abundance of candidates to revitalize congregations and develop those 1001 new worshiping communities.

At this point I think I’ll wrap this up leaving the finances completely untouched.  Echoing the sentiments of the Stated Clerk, I have found Presbyterians to be a very generous bunch, especially when the mission is compelling.  So the question is, with the denomination positioned in this present situation what compelling mission is out there for the financial and human resources that are at our disposal. There is apparently a lot of talent in the pipeline — I hope they are ready for some creative and out-of-the box ministry.

31st General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church

5 Replies

Coming up this Wednesday, June 22, the 31st General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church will convene in Cordova, Tennessee.  Here is the rundown of what I know about the meeting…

The GA will meet from June 22 to 25 at Hope Presbyterian Church in Cordova, on the eastern edge of the Memphis metropolitan area. The theme for the meeting is “Transformation,” taken from II Cor. 3:18.

The materials for the meeting can be found on the EPC GA web page, including the Overview of the Assembly Schedule (and an earlier version), the Workshop Schedule, and the Children and Youth Program Schedule.

Business reports for the Assembly can also be found on the GA web page, at the bottom. In the group of reports most are from permanent committees but there are two from Interim Committees, one on Constitutional Revisions and another on Presbytery Boundaries.  More on both of those in a moment.

And if you are looking for background material you can check out the Book of Order and the EPC Position Papers.

There is also a preview of GA in the latest edition of the EPC’s official online newsletter EPnews. That would also be the place to look for official updates, and maybe on the Press Release page. (And my thanks to the communication staff for the email copy of the press release they sent me.) In addition, Hope Presbyterian Church has their own GA web page with a welcome and links to information about the facility and the warning that it is easy to get turned around or get confused where you parked your car.

There is a preliminary Twitter presence with the EPC’s official Twitter feed @EPChurch and the hashtag is #31ga (and not #epcga). In addition, the Director of Communications and IS will let the Assembly know on Thursday which presbytery has the most tweeting churches.

As I mentioned above, the theme of the Assembly is Transformation and the highlight of the first day on Wednesday will be a workshop titled “Transformational Church… A Day With Ed Stetzer.” (He can be found on twitter at @edstetzer.) He is the Vice-president of Research and Ministry Development at LifeWay Christian Resources, an agency of the Southern Baptist Convention. The workshop appears to be based on his latest book, Transformational Church, and he is a noted author and speaker on missional thinking. This fits in with the EPC’s recent Missional Church Primer.

Moving on to business, let me highlight the two Interim Committee reports since they are a good reflection of where this Presbyterian branch finds itself at the present time.

The Interim Committee on Constitutional Revisions is in the process of doing what some other Presbyterian branches are doing right now — revising their constitutional documents.  The committee has been working hard since they were created by the 29th General Assembly and their report indicates that their goal is to complete a new Book of Government section by early September and distribute it for internal review.  They then plan to have the final revision completed for the 32nd GA next year. For the benefit of those of us who might not remember their guiding principles they have included them again in this year’s report:

1. “No bloating”: we will continually ask, “Does this belong in the Constitution or should it go elsewhere in a supporting document?”

2. Language and stylistic elements are to be governed by the “KISS” principle: seek straightforward language as much as possible for clarity, readability.

3. Standardize nomenclature: identify significant titles, terms uniformly and avoid synonymous descriptions.

4. Keep in mind, Jesus’ commands are not burdensome: maintain a clear delineation between the authority delegated to each level of our governance and the responsibilities incumbent upon officers, members as part of Christ’s Body.

5. Allow the Westminster Confession of Faith and its fundamental principles to guide our work.

6. Recognize and preserve those rights reserved in perpetuity by our standards.

7. Scripture is our law; the Westminster Confession is our interpretation of Scripture; the Book of Order is our application of both.

For this year they provide only a progress report with no items for action by the Assembly.

The second Interim Committee is on Presbytery Boundaries. This committee was created last year by the 30th Assembly and their report does a good job summarizing the dynamics of the EPC at the present time and the need for their work:

• Identifying immediate boundary issues, particularly those arising from progressive dynamics within existing presbyteries.

• Assessing the impact of a large number of churches having joined the EPC in the last 12-18 months and anticipating the impact of a large number of congregations joining in the coming 12-24 months. This assessment and anticipation also included the dynamics resulting from the expiration of the transitional presbyteries at the conclusion of the 32nd General Assembly in one year.

• Communicating proposed and potential boundary changes to those congregations
affected and incorporating responses into present and possible recommendations
to the General Assembly.

• Reviewing and revising the criteria for a viable presbytery.

This is a very nice succinct summary of the situation, but at the risk of being repetitive for some readers and using two words when one will do, let me unpack a couple of these statements and the “presby speak” in them.

In the first bullet point
about identifying boundary issues they are particularly concerned about issues around “progressive dynamics” within presbyteries — Remember that the ordination of women is decided by the ordaining body and with the substantial changes within some presbyteries due to forces listed in the next bullet point there are some developing differences over this issue.  The question is whether differences in scriptural understanding can be remedied by adjusting boundaries to aggregate like-minded presbyters and churches.  [Any application of this approach to one or more mainline branches and their new latitude in ordination standards is left as an exercise for the reader.]

Speaking of these changes, the second point about assessing the impact addresses this issue.  This is not about ordination standards but about sheer numbers of churches. There are many churches “in process” now.  If you look at the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery report you find their tabulation of these numbers:

• 29 congregations and their pastors who are in the NWEPC Transitional Presbytery. The Joint Commission is working with these congregations and pastors to assist them in being received into a EPC Geographic Presbytery prior to the 32nd GA.
• 8 congregations and their pastors who have “become one” with their geographical EPC Presbytery while still maintaining relationship with the Transitional Presbytery.
• 8 congregations and their pastors have “become one’ with their geographical EPC Presbytery and no longer have any relationship with the TP.

For perspective, the EPC About Us page describes the church as having “about 300 churches” so this transitioning group represents almost 15% of the congregations.  And note that this does not include any potential future influx resulting from recent changes in other Presbyterian branches.

Quite a task — I wish them well.  They are proposing two new presbyteries be authorized at this Assembly meeting:  Allegheny Presbytery would be formed from churches in western New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, eastern Ohio and a good chunk of West Virginia, the churches coming from three present presbyteries.  Pacific Presbytery would be created by dividing out the Pacific Coast states and part of Idaho from the Presbytery of the West.

It is worth noting that the report of the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery shows no sign of asking for a continuation of their group but lays out the steps they are taking to fold churches into the geographic presbyteries before, or upon, the presbytery’s dissolution next year.  In addition, they recommend changes to the Book of Order that would facilitate a transitional status for congregations and teaching elders into geographic presbyteries when extenuating circumstances would favor a transitional status of up to 12 months.

Let’s see — revising the Government section, questions about the form and size of presbyteries, implications of ordination standards, what does it mean to be missional?  Some of this sounds familiar and not just regarding one particular mainline branch in the Americas but for some non-mainline branches and for other branches around the globe as well. I venture to say that there is a great deal of theme and variation on these issues circulating at the moment.  So as the EPC approaches these topics I look forward to hearing how they work out their approach to them.  Prayers for their meeting and I will be watching to see how they discern God’s will together.

78th General Assembly Of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Leave a reply

I have been a little behind the curve on one more General Assembly currently meeting.  So with apologies for the delay, let’s have a look at the 78th General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.


J. Gresham Machen
(from Wikimedia Commons) 		This denomination was formed on June 11, 1936 when the first General Assembly convened in Philadelphia.  J. Gresham Machen, the first Moderator of the Presbyterian Church of America (as it was know at that time) wrote of that meeting in the Presbyterian Guardian:

“On Thursday, June 11, 1936, the hopes of many long years were realized.
We became members, at last, of a true Presbyterian Church; we
recovered, at last, the blessing of true Christian fellowship. What a
joyous moment it was! How the long years of struggle seemed to sink into
nothingness compared with the peace and joy that filled our hearts!”

This year’s Assembly took time yesterday to mark the 75th Anniversary of that event. An afternoon special program, hosted by the Committee on Christian Education, included comments from one of the founders, the Rev. John P. Galbraith, author of the well known 1939 paper Why the Orthodox Presbyterian Church?  In the summary of yesterday’s session, it is reported that Mr. Galbraith emphasized “that adherence to and proclamation of the Word of God is central to the task of the church.” The celebration includes events all weekend and was highlighted by a banquet last night. And for more on the anniversary there is a Facebook page.

As for the business meeting itself, it convened Wednesday evening, June 8 at the Sandy Cove Retreat Center in Maryland and will adjourn no later than noon on Tuesday June 14.  Most of the background information you will need, like the Standing Rules, Book of Church Order, and GA papers giving denominational stands on particular topics, can be accessed through the regular General Assembly Page.

The web page specific to the 78th GA has links to the Daily Summary page and the Photo Album. I have not found a docket or reports to the Assembly available online.

There is a Twitter presence for the meeting and while small they are yet faithful.  You can get info from the meeting from @dlwelliver and @camdenbucey with a few others commenting using the hashtag #opcga. One of the more amusing comments to come down the line this year, in a play on the nickname “Machen’s Warrior Children,” the GA has been going so smoothly and harmoniously this year that Moderator has referred to them as “Machen’s cuddly children.”

Speaking of the Moderator, from the three nominees from the floor, the Rev. Danny E. Olinger was selected as the Moderator of this General Assembly. He has been serving as the General Secretary of the Committee on Christian Education and is the editor of an anthology of writings by Geerhardus Vos. (Side note: if you are not familiar with Vos, he was the first professor of Biblical Theology at Princeton Seminary.)

Other business already heard includes the report of the Statistician, Mr. Luke E. Brown, who was pleased to report the continued steady membership growth of 1.51% so that the denomination ended 2010 with 29.842 total members. The Assembly also approved the request of the Psalter-Hymnal Special Committee to work together with the United Reformed Churches of North America Songbook Committee to produce a joint OPC/URC
Psalter-Hymnal. The Committee on Home Missions and Church Extension reported that although only four new churches were planted in 2010, there have already been ten new ones planted in 2011 with four more that will probably open this year.  And there was an unusually brief report from the Committee on Appeals and Complaints, a circumstance that possibly contributed to the “cuddly children” comment.

Finally, the annual census of the Assembly regarding the decade of ordination of the commissioners:

With nine minutes until the order of the day, the moderator took the
annual survey of when each commissioner was ordained. This is not merely
a matter of trivia but, rather, it shows the Lord’s faithfulness in
working through men at the Assembly from a wide age range. The older
commissioners often set the tone and exemplify good churchmanship, while
the younger men add a bit of energy to the Assembly. The results from
the poll:

2010s — 9
2000s — 45
1990s — 19
1980s — 18
1970s — 21
1960s — 18
1950s — 3

I am impressed with the relative uniform distribution of numbers ordained in the 1960’s to the 1990’s range.

The Assembly left much of Saturday to presentations and celebration and the Lord’s Day is left free for worship and fellowship.  Business will resume at 8:30 AM local time tomorrow.  We pray for the Assembly and its remaining work.

207th General Synod Of The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church

4 Replies

With all of the meetings of highest governing bodies of Presbyterian branches currently in progress one would think there would not be anyone left, but we need to add one more to the list…

The meeting of the 207th General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church began yesterday, June 7, at Bonclarken, near Flat Rock, NC, and it will adjourn tomorrow.

The Synod has combined most of the materials for the meeting available as a single large packet, but in three formats — Web, PDF, or ePub.  (Is that a first for an Assembly or Synod distributing an ePub of the reports?)  And as a single packet I will warn you that it is 191 pages long.  In my comments below I will refer to the page numbers in the PDF, trusting in the Grace of God that the ePub numbers are at least close.  (And the web version is one very long page)

Yes, there is Twitter activity for this meeting as well with the hashtag #ARPsynod11.  The major contributors to this stream are @ARStager and @jmcmanus76.  In addition, the official feeds @ARPMagazine and @ARPChurch are tweeting, usually without a hashtag.

As I looked through the packet a few things jumped out at me.

If I read Appendix E correctly (beginning on page 33) there are seven pages of unfinished business from last year’s General Synod which was the first item of business yesterday.

Beginning on page 41 of the packet is the preliminary report of the Strategic Planning Committee. The final report will be presented to the 2012 Synod. The Committee proposes the following Vision Statement for the ARP on which to base the Strategic Plan:

As sinners being saved by the mercy of God in Christ Jesus, Associate Reformed Presbyterians are compelled by His grace to give glory to God in worship, life and witness. By the power of the Holy Spirit, we aspire to be people gathered into churches, who are living obediently to the Word of God; growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ; loving one another as Christ has loved us; proclaiming joyfully the gospel of grace freely to all; making disciples among all the nations; and working in unity with all who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

From this the Committee says the Plan must 1) be gospel-centered and gospel-driven, 2) empower the people of God to accomplish God’s purposes in God’s way, and 3) marshal the resources of the church in a wise and prudent manner.

The Committee then gives a frank comment about where the ARP finds itself at the present time:

The shape of the emerging Strategic Plan is also conditioned by the peculiar circumstances of the ARP Church today. We are a small denomination with a preponderance of small churches, many of them located in rural areas and small towns. Because of this, humanly speaking, our resources are somewhat limited. As noted above, we continue to wrestle with identity issues and a lack of theological unity that complicate the task of ministry focus. We have also inherited a remarkable variety of denominational agencies and institutions with their own histories and traditions, and most of these agencies look to the General Synod for significant resources. Given that the ARP Church is but a small part of the Evangelical community and the church universal (see sec. I [“Where We Come From”] above), we must be mindful of duplicating the efforts of others who may be better positioned than we to carry on certain kingdom work, and open to creative partnerships with others where such efforts will advance the kingdom of God. As the 2007 “Report of the Vision Committee” identified, “the ARP Church is tolerant of mediocrity. Some have observed that we are ‘addicted to niceness,’ and that we tacitly condone a lack of excellence so that feelings will not be hurt.” These peculiar circumstances present both limitations and opportunities.

Based on all this they present a preliminary list of five things the church needs: 1) Powerful Gospel-centered preaching, 2) Church planting, 3) Christian education, 4) Multi-generational ministry, and 5) Culturally-responsive ministry.

Other branches are also considering what they will look like going forward and so I am looking forward to what this Committee brings back to the ARP next year.

Writing new Form of Government sections is another thing being done in other Presbyterian branches, and a Special Committee is bringing a new FOG to this Synod for a first read and for the church to consider this coming year.  If you are interested, the brief report begins on page 49 and the new FOG is available as a separate download. (If you want to see the current version that is available online as well.)  I simply mention this now and have put this on my list of possible topics for future writing.

A couple of other reports you might be interested in include ones on multi-cultural ministry and lay ministry.  I will conclude with the report on the topic that has garnered the most media attention over the last couple of years.

The report on the denomination’s schools, Erskine College and Erskine Theological Seminary, begins on page 75.  The report updates the progress in the schools and the denomination working together to ensure that the schools properly reflect the church’s doctrine while providing a strong education to their students.  The schools’ responses to four actions of the Synod are included, including an extensive response concerning the ways that the college board is restructuring to reflect the church’s concerns. There is also much more documentation about the changes in the college’s procedures and activities in consideration of the Synod’s actions.  Again, plenty there to reflect on if you are interested and with the high-profile nature of this issue there might be a variety of viewpoints expressed on this after the meeting.

So there are some things to be aware of regarding the General Synod meeting of the ARP.  However, having seen pictures of the Bonclarken center and having heard such great things about it, I sure admire the commissioners that can get work done while visiting such a beautiful area.  Our prayers are with you for your meeting.

General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Ireland 2011

Leave a reply

Beginning tomorrow, June 6, we have the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.

The General Assembly will convene with worship and installation of the Moderator at 7 PM local time on Monday June 6 in the newly renovated Church House in Belfast, and will continue to Friday afternoon.

The Moderator Designate is the Rev. Ivan Patterson, pastor at Newcastle Presbyterian Church.  For a good opportunity to get to know Rev. Patterson I recommend a video of an interview with him by Alan in Belfast. Alan has a great article on his blog with a discussion of this interview as well as the video and discussion of the interview with the outgoing Moderator the Rt. Rev. Norman Hamilton. (And a note that there is a slightly recast version of this article by Alan on the blog Slugger O’Toole.)

So where do you find the info on this meeting?  The PCI has put together a great narrative of the daily business on the same page as the official programme.  The links to all the Assembly reports can be found on the reports page.  For official announcements and press releases keep an eye on the Press Office page.

There will be live coverage of the meetings of the Assembly, but I don’t see a link available yet.  I will update here when it is announced, but keep an eye on the General Assembly page for the link and Twitter updates in the widget.

Speaking of Twitter, it looks like an active Twitter community is gathering for the meeting. Official tweets come from @pciassembly and the announced hashtag is #pciga11.  Other official accounts for the PCI include @PCIYAC (PCI Youth and Children) which have responsibility for the 12 youth delegates from the Youth Assembly known as SPUD (Speaking, Participating, Understanding and Deciding).  And keep an eye on @AlanInBelfast for his twitter insights. (I will update others as appropriate)

And if you want to refer to their polity document, you can have a look at The Code.

As I said already, if you are looking for a good review of the business you can do no better than the narrative from the PCI.  I will point out just a couple of items.

One of the traditional highlights of the Assembly is the Wednesday evening Celebration that is held in the context of worship.  This year the celebration will focus on the 400th Anniversary of the Authorized Version or King James Version of the Bible.  The theme is “The Word Is Life.”  More details are available on the worship poster for the meeting.  Based on the great worship at this event in past years even non-GA junkies might want to consider tuning in.  (I hope it is being streamed.)

A couple of other business items include the consideration of holding the 2013 Assembly in Londonderry. (Holding the meeting somewhere other than Church House in Belfast is rare but not unheard of.)  Another is a proposed change in the process of electing the Moderator that would accomplish it in one evening by having the presbyteries not adjourn until the first count is complete in case there is a tie so a second vote can be held that same night.  The Board of Finance and Personnel is presenting new formulas for ministerial pay and congregational assessments.

There is more so read the summary, and I might find time to say something about the Board of Christian Training’s Accredited Preachers Scheme. And there will be time to consider and respond in a couple of different ways to the approval of a plan to help out the savers and investors in the Presbyterian Mutual Society.

So tune in and join me in praying for the Assembly.  I’ll see you on the live stream.

137th General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Canada

Leave a reply

If you thought the last couple of weeks were busy, hang on because now it gets even more active for the GA Junkies, beginning later today with…

The 137th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada

The General Assembly will convene with worship at 7 PM local time on Sunday June 5 at the University of Western Ontario, in London, OT.  The schedule of events and the business agenda are available online.

The Moderator Nominee is the Rev. Dr. H. D. Rick Horst, pastor of St. Andrew’s, Barrie, and who has been active in community organizations, including currently serving as vice-chair of the board of Barrie’s Royal Victoria Hospital.  He has been active helping congregations with strategic planning workshops.

The PCC places almost all of their GA resources on a single page with handy named links to the different sections.  This includes the Reports and News.

There will be live coverage of the meetings of the Assembly.

There is also an active Twitter community for the meeting with the official account @PCConnect and the hashtag #ga137.  In addition Colin Carmichael (@ccarmichael), the Associate Secretary for Communications of the PCC, will be present and tweeting. (I will update others as appropriate)

Links to other items that may be of interest to GA Junkies can be found on the Office of the General Assembly page resource section including the Book of Forms, Acts and Proceedings archive, as well as policies and guidelines. There is also a list of the referrals that this Assembly will consider.

There is a lot of business in all the reports published on-line so I will not attempt a preview of them all.  I will highlight just one committee, the Committee on Church Doctrine, since it touches on a couple of polity issues I have highlighted in other branches.

The first of these is “Ministers ceasing to act as agents of the state.”  This came to the Assembly from an overture in 2007, was referred to the Committee, and the Committee says “The authors of the overture are to be thanked for provoking a stimulating conversation within the Church Doctrine Committee.”  As a personal aside, this topic was also seriously discussed on the Special Committee I was on and while little was actually mentioned in our report, we acknowledge some significant theological issues related to both sides of this issue.

Two years ago the Committee circulated to the church a document titled “Doing Weddings Better.” The Committee received responses from 18 presbyteries and 52 sessions. They conclude “The overwhelming view of the church across the country is ministers in The Presbyterian Church in Canada should continue to sign marriage licenses, and a more significant role needs to be played by sessions and congregations in celebrating the covenant couples make between each other and with God in their marriage vows.”

The Committee recommends that the response to the original overture be this report and no change in policy.

The second item that caught my attention is a notice of future work, not an action item for this Assembly, on “A study of Presbyterian Polity: Its Distinctives and Directions for the 21st Century.” It is found at the end of the report beginning on page 7 and is an interesting read for polity wonks and others musing on what Presbyterian polity will/should look like in the future.  Let me give one extended extract:

A second factor that must be considered is that Reformed or Presbyterian polity at its beginnings, was remarkably flexible. What gave Calvinism, not only its theology but also its polity, an international character was its ability to adapt to different conditions and circumstances in the various lands in which it gained acceptance. This can be seen in the different polities that took root in Reformed and Presbyterian churches in France, Switzerland, Hungary, the Netherlands, Scotland, England, Canada, the United States, South Africa and Korea, to name a representative number. There are common elements in these polities but practices vary on a wide variety of matters. In other words, there is no pure, near-perfect Presbyterian Polity which a national church can therefore claim to possess and of which it can boast…. At the same time, Presbyterian polity is not infinitely malleable. Being an essentially conciliar system it is therefore incompatible with the hierarchical systems of the papacy and monarchical episcopacy. It is true that Presbyterianism opts instead for a hierarchy of church courts but in these courts the movement is both from top to bottom and from bottom to top. It is also incompatible with thorough-going Congregationalism or Independency. While Presbyterianism emphasises the importance and role of individual congregations it stresses their connection with one another within presbyteries, synods and General Assembly in order to maintain the unity of the church.

A related issue that has also to do with flexibility is that originally Presbyterian polity consisted of a number of basic principles as is evident from the Scottish First and Second Book of Disciple and the Westminister Assembly’s Form of Church Government. Inevitably these principles gave rise to more detailed rules of procedure which were necessary. Our book of Presbyterian polity originally bore the name Rules of Procedure and Book of Forms. (The members of General Assembly must have been asleep when it was proposed and adopted that the long title should be shortened to Book of Forms. This misnomer has been perpetuated for decades.) Moreover, we keep adding new rules almost annually. Rigidity sets in and flexibility is cast aside. All too often our rules stand in the way of carrying out our mission and are used by so-called experts in The Book of Forms to intimidate those not so well informed or as clubs to clobber one’s opponents over the head with. We need to heed Jesus’ critique of the multiplication of laws formulated by the Pharisees and Sadducees: “They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear” (Matthew 23:4). What are the principles that lie behind the minute rules? How is it possible to keep them at the forefront and maintain a measure of flexibility in the application of these rules?

Fourthly and finally, an aspect of our new context is that many of our congregations, unlike in the past, are now made up of Christians from other church traditions, Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, United Church, etc. The Pew Foundation, a few years ag
o found that up to forty percent of USA Protestant congregations are now made up of Christians from other church traditions. This is equally true of most of our Canadian Presbyterian congregations…

I should also point out that there are reports from one Special Commission and two Special Committees.  The Commission was constituted to hear the appeal in a disciplinary case and they upheld the findings of the synod trial court.  The first Committee is looking at how the recommendations of a 2002 report regarding Han-Ca Presbyteries (Korean language) have been implemented and is only a progress report.  The second Committee reviewed the “Synod staffing formula” agreed to in 2009.  The Committee was formed when overtures questioning the formula were brought to the 2010 Assembly. The Special Committee found “We believe that the current funding formula, with its emphasis on an equal provision of resources to each region of the church, and its secondary provision for communicant membership is a fair and transparent approach.” They recommend no change in the formula.

So, the time is getting closer (and I got this done in time) for the Assembly will be called to order. Lots going on this week but we look forward to beginning it with the 137th General Assembly.  Our prayers are with you.