Category Archives: news

The Rev. William Hewitt Selected Moderator Designate for Church of Scotland General Assembly (2009)

Leave a reply

This past Monday the nominating committee selected the Rev. William Hewitt, minister of Westburn Church, Greenock, as the Moderator Designate for the next General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

Rev. Hewitt is a career pastor who was ordained in 1977 and served at Elderslie Kirk for sixteen years before his present call.  His resume is extensive with a lot of community involvement and chaplaincy as well as service to the wider church including serving as convener of presbytery and general assembly committees.  He has served as a Presbytery Moderator twice, first for Greenock Presbytery, and then as the first Moderator of the Greenock and Paisley Presbytery.

This Moderator selection is also distinctive not just for the individual selected, but for other connections in the Web 2.0 world.  Rev. Hewitt is a friend and colleague of Liz who writes the blog journalling.  Check out her brief comments on his selection.

But this year there is also some interesting discussion about the process:
Louis, who served on the selection committee but did not make the final meeting because of illness, asks “Does the Church of Scotland select the Moderator of its General Assembly fairly?”  While he considers Rev. Hewitt a worthy selection, he notes that the process favors those who have served on General Assembly committees and have received the wider visibility.  He suggests the process needs to be changed:

But what about the minister, for instance, who has served
in congregational ministry for 30-40 years, who has proved to be an
excellent pastor, who has faithfully preached God’s Word, who has
discipled many believers to spiritual maturity, who bears the scars of
long service and who has come through the lean years as well as the
fat?  What about such a minister?  Such a minister may not have
written books or articles or letters, may not have much of a record of
service in the central committees and councils of the Kirk, and as a
consequence, will not be sufficiently well-known to be nominated at
meetings of the Committee to Nominate the Moderator.  Our system needs
to be changed to give such ministers a better chance.  Their worth
would be inestimable in the pastoral visitation that is the most
important task of the Moderator once the General Assembly is done and
dusted.

Another interesting bit of commentary come from scotsman.com in their story headlined “Kirk stalwarts passed over for Moderator.”  The article is very brief and really does not develop this critique or add anything new, but the headline is interesting.

So, congratulations and best wishes to Rev. Hewitt and we look forward to hearing from you on the Moderators blog.  (And please consider doing the blog with RSS feed and comments.)

Presbyterian Controversies

Leave a reply

These two controversies have hit the news, or at least the web, but I just wanted to fill in the Presbyterian angle.

The first is in the campaign for the U.S. Senate seat from North Carolina.  Incumbent Elizabeth Dole has raised an issue, if not eyebrows, with the charge that her challenger, state Senator Kay Hagan, attended an event which was a “secret fund raiser” put on by leaders of the political action committee Godless Americans.  While the connection with Godless Americans is not necessarily denied, Ms. Hagan does deny that she herself is “godless” as the commercial says, and points out that she is a elder and Sunday school teacher at First Presbyterian Church of Greensboro, a PC(USA) congregation. (Boston Herald article)  I do not see her name among the elders currently serving on the Session, but I do see a Chip Hagan listed among the trustees.  And some may point out that just because you are at a PC(USA) church does not mean you are not godless, but we would expect that leadership in the church is a pretty good sign.

The second controversy is more humorous and probably well know to many of my readers:  The “All Dogs Go To Heaven” church sign battle.  It is in many places around the web but it is a hoax, although an amusing one, and you can read the discussion and see the signs over on snopes.com.  It was done with the Church Sign Generator. (an interesting piece of technology in its own right that has given my family several minutes of amusement)  But one of the interesting aspects of this piece is how it reflects the modern take on religion and spirituality.

There is an interesting additional piece, and that is the fact that in the pictures, the church taking it seriously is the Beulah Cumberland Presbyterian Church.  This resulted in the national office of the CPC to issue a statement that the signs are a “prank” and “that this is not a true Cumberland Presbyterian church sign.”  They don’t say if dogs do go to heaven.

PC(USA) Amendment Voting Begins

Leave a reply

At the present time Amendment 08-B, changes to the “fidelity and chastity” section, is going down to defeat… There are currently no presbyteries for and one against.

OK, humor aside, a couple of days ago I got a report from Josiah F who left the comment to another post with the news from Palo Duro Presbytery:

Josiah F wrote:
At the 111th stated meeting of Palo Duro
Presbytery. The amendment altering the ordination standards failed by a
29 for, 47 against. The bulk of the Presbyteries across the country
will be voting on this in February.

Even
though it was in Texas, the make-up of the voting body in this
Presbytery is very mixed and the majority are moderates (with just a
few far left and right). When it comes to the political make-up of the
voting body, this issue had a real shot.

In verifying the Presbytery vote I contacted Janne Brumbelow, the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery, who not only verified the vote, but included some helpful information about the process the Presbytery used.  I would remind you that the Assembly added a comment to this item, 05-09, which is not in the Amendment Booklet.  The comment reads “Presbyteries are strongly encouraged to consider this overture using a process of listening and discernment.”  With Ms. Brumbelow’s permission, here is her description of how Palo Duro did it:

Yes, the vote was 47 to 29 against but the process was very helpful for
all. 

We had two 15 minute presentations by respected ministers in our
presbytery — one for and one against.  Then we discussed the
presentations and amendment around tables of 6-8 persons.  All were
invited to speak even if they were not voting commissioners.  Then a
period of silence and a speakout time limited to 15 minutes total with 2
minutes per speaker.  Then silence and prayer and vote by only
commissioners by ballot.  There was little rancor and all appreciated
the process.  I think the way we handled it helped to build up
relationships rather than divide.

My own Presbytery is encouraging dialog and discussion on the issues and the amendment in a series of events spread over several months before we vote.

I know that voting will extend from now to March and one presbytery does not make a trend.  But, considering Josiah’s assessment of his presbytery this could be an up-hill battle for 08-B.  Within the next month several more presbyteries will probably be voting so we will begin to see if any trends develop.

I won’t be doing play-by-play on the voting but will provide “color” when warranted.  To follow the voting there is usually a chart over at the Layman Online and the Stated Clerk’s office has their official vote tally that is delayed since it needs the official report from each presbytery’s stated clerk.

[Update 10/28/08: The Layman now has the chart online.]

So stay tuned and we will see where this journey takes us.

Update:  No sooner do I post this than the Layman has their first article on the voting posted as well.  In addition to Palo Duro they also have the result from Presbytery of Central Washington which likewise defeated the amendment, in this case by a 55 to 7 vote.  The Layman does not have their chart up yet, as far as I can tell, but the Layman observes divergent results in these two votes relative to the previous vote in 2001:  for the votes in the negative the Central Washington vote was a few percentage points higher and Palo Duro was a few points lower.

The Legal Cases Over Property — Counting The Cost

2 Replies

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) came out of its 218th General Assembly with an interesting tension.  On the one hand, it created a $2 million dollar legal fund to help presbyteries with legal costs of fighting churches wanting leave the denomination with their property.  (PC-biz and my post)  On the other hand, it passed a resolution “urging a gracious, pastoral response to churches requesting dismissal.”  (PC-biz and author’s comments)

Much of the legal action that has happened in the last couple of weeks was in process at the time of GA and I find interesting the tension, or paradox, that each side had in the arguments before the California Supreme Court two weeks ago.  From the congregations’ point of view, in spiritual matters the congregation agreed to the denomination’s rules, but the property is not a spiritual matter.  From the denomination’s perspective, in this and other cases, if a church chooses to leave the denomination that is one thing, but they can’t take their property with them.  So we are getting the property separated from the spiritual and the mission aspects of the church.

As you have probably heard, in another current property battle Kirk of the Hill Presbyterian Church in Tulsa, OK, has decided by a narrow margin to buy back their property from Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery after the court awarded the property to the presbytery upon the Kirk’s departure from the PC(USA) to the EPC.  The congregation’s vote was 508 to 483 to pay the Presbytery $1.75 million for the property settlement.  (More details in the Tulsa World article)

In the midst of these court battles and financial settlements individuals are beginning to ask the question about the financial cost of these actions and how it diverts resources from the mission of the church.

One person who has publicly asked this question is Dr. Richard Mouw, PC(USA) elder and President of Fuller Theological Seminary.  In his October 13th Mouw’s Musings he talks about a conversation with a friend who suggests that the disputing sides should negotiate a compromise and contribute the amount they would have spent on legal costs to the care of AIDS orphans in Africa.  Dr. Mouw notes:

The mainline Presbyterian (PCUSA) denomination to which I belong is
experiencing many property disputes right now, as some congregations
are leaving for what they see as greener ecclesiastical pastures. When
you look at the issue historically, it is a bit ironic that the leaders
of major Protestant denominations are so adamant in their right to hold
onto church properties, against the claims of the dissenters. At the
time of the Reformation the Protestants grabbed hold of Catholic
properties with abandon—monasteries and convents as well as places of
worship—and they also simply destroyed much of the contents of those
buildings: statues, altars, and the like. And all of this was done
without any respect for the claims of those who had strong moral and
legal claims to ownership of those properties. To the “breakaway”
groups belonged the spoils.

And he closes with this:

Such an arrangement [the contributions to AIDS orphans] would have important spiritual benefits. It would
help both sides to see themselves as using our disagreements to
accomplish something together for the Lord’s work. And it could help to
reduce our anger toward each other, presenting all parties with an
opportunity to be gracious toward our opponents.

The second article along these lines comes from Jim Oakes on the blog VirtueOnline where he points out that in the Virginia Episcopal cases millions of dollars have been spent on both sides in the legal action when “so many alternatives have been available.”  While he notes that the issues are important and complex he also says “We can only hope and pray that Episcopal leaders will realize that the
high cost of this litigation has not done one thing to further the
mission of God’s church in any way.”

So what we as the church do is an important witness to the world about our faith and life.  Yes, I know that there are a variety of circumstances and in different cases different parties have exercised the legal option first.  But in this do we all consider the way the world views it and in the end, if the denomination is left with an empty building, what has been accomplished?  It is interesting that Dr. Mouw uses the phrase “opportunity to be gracious toward our opponents.”  Remember the central part of what the GA passed in June placing responsibility on all parties:

2.  
Believing that trying to exercise this responsibility and power through
litigation is deadly to the cause of Christ, impacting the local
church, other parts of the Body of Christ and ecumenical relationships,
and our witness to Christ in the world around us, the General Assembly urges congregations considering leaving the denomination, presbyteries, and synods to implement a process using the following principles:

  • Consistency: The local authority delegated to presbyteries is guided and shaped by our shared faith, service, and witness to Jesus Christ.
  • Pastoral Responsibility: The
    requirement in G-11.0103i to consult with the members of a church
    seeking dismissal highlights the presbytery’s pastoral responsibility,
    which must not be submerged beneath other responsibilities.
  • Accountability: For a governing body,
    accountability rightly dictates fiduciary and connectional concerns,
    raising general issues of property (G-8.0000) and specific issues of
    schism within a congregation (G-8.0600). But, full accountability also
    requires preeminent concern with “caring for the flock.”
  • Gracious Witness: It is our belief that Scripture and the Holy Spirit require a gracious witness from us rather than a harsh legalism.
  • Openness and Transparency: Early, open
    communication and transparency about principles and process of
    dismissal necessarily serve truth, order, and goodness, and work
    against seeking civil litigation as a solution.

National Youth Assembly 2008 — What Happened?

Leave a reply

It has been a bit over a month since the Church of Scotland‘s National Youth Assembly 2008 concluded on September 8, and there was some interesting news and reaction.

First, I want to mention the formal business of NYA2008, the debates, discussions and deliverances.  Yes, a formal report on the topics discussed was put together and you can view the deliverances on the NYA2008 wiki.  Four topics were discussed and I’ll briefly cover the recommendations of each, but check out the deliverances because this group of enthusiastic youth was talking about some serious stuff.

Healthy Relationships
This topic centered on mental health issues and the recommendations emphasize support and resources for those dealing with these issues.  And support is not just the formal variety, but trying to combat the stigma.  The recommendations include training, communications and awareness, not just for church workers but for all congregation members.  And it includes a recommendation to “Encourage the church to develop the role of Street Pastors in their work with the homeless and other disadvantaged groups.”

The Media
Recommendation 1: “Recommends that the Kirk explore and utilise appropriate technology to further the Gospel.”

Most of the other recommendations here encouraged the use of new technology and social media to reach out and further the work of the kirk.  But two of the recommendations were specifically relational:

4.
Endeavour to relate with others on line in an authentic way, mindful
that Christ calls us to love one another as we are loved.

7.Will
try to implement a weekly Sabbath from technology to ensure that
personal relationships continue to have their proper place at the heart
of the Kirk’s ministry and witness.

So #7 tells us that the church can not be 100% virtual; there should be personal contact.

Sustainable Living
This one started at home:

1.
The National Youth Assembly would like to consider how to develop ideas
of eco-consciousness within the running of the NYA. For example,
reducing mailings, enhancing transport links, encouraging car sharing
and providing buses.

This topic had the longest list of recommendations, fifteen total with one having extra bullet points, and most of them being the regular list of ways to be better stewards of the environment.  The list included global climate change and the NYA said this:

5.
The Youth Assembly affirms that action needs to be multi-faceted, even
though there is no conclusive proof of anthropogenic climate change, we
would regard the responsible attitude to be to continue current
measures and use revenue raised by taxation in humanitarian aid.

Future Church
So what does this group of youth of Scotland think about the church?

1.
The future church should be a 24/7 church, modelling itself on the
wider world which is increasingly operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week.

2.
The church should be identified as a community that discusses and
studies, rather than a community that listens. This should involve
shorter sermons, times of reflection and discussion within worship.

There are ten recommendations in this group and they are interesting and call the kirk to model the early church.  Everyone in the church is called to exhibit and work for Jesus Christ.  Barriers are to be broken down, including between social groups and sharing between financially well off churches and those that are struggling.  And small churches still have an important part in the work of the kirk and encourages pooling of resources to keep them operating.

As I said above, read through this page if you want to know what this group of youth of the church are thinking today.

Lest you think this was all work and no play, I would suggest you have a look at the photographs on the flickr site.  In those 767 photos you will see a lot of serious discussion, but you will also see a lot of less serious moments as well.  One of the “highlights” of the NYA2008 was when it made the top of the Twitter trending list.  In fact, Twitter got so popular during one of the debates that the screen at the front showing the Twitter comments got switched off so it did not distract from the debate.  And if you want a chronological rundown of the proceedings you can check out the official NYA2008 blog.

For individual reaction there are several bloggers who commented on the event.  In particular, there is Stewart Cutler who not only covered NYA2008 on his own blog but was responsible for much of the content on the official blog, flickr pool, and wiki.  The official blog has a sidebar with some of the other NYA2008 bloggers you can check out, but Shuna at “I am a Rag Doll” may give the most heart-felt summary of the event in Thank You Mark.  She, as well as all the others, especially appreciated Mark Yaconelli’s keynote messages.  If you want another extensive set of comments check out NYA2008 on the blog People Will Forget What You Say by Margaret McLarty.

From this vantage point, reading the accounts of the event and looking through the wiki it looks like an exciting event.  But more, I am impressed with the topics they tackle and especially that in doing so they speak to the whole church.  While youth delegates are involved in wider meetings of various Presbyterian branches, this appears to me to be the one that discusses and produces recommendations that most closely reflect the younger generation’s thoughts and ideas.  Furthermore, this appears to be, for four days, an intense and balanced mix of business, relationship, and technology.  Interesting stuff.

Property Cases Argued Before The California Supreme Court Today

1 Reply

[Update:  Thanks to Episcopal Café and the comment from Jeff in VA below, they provided the link to the archived Supreme Court session and I was able to watch it again.  Jeff is right, the first time I missed a significant grilling of the denomination’s lawyer on Neutral Principles.  I have added one marked update based on my second viewing and adjusted a couple of my other comments.]

I am probably way too much of a polity wonk for my own good.  (That noise you heard was my wife saying “Amen!”)

I arranged my morning around the webcast of the oral arguments before the California Supreme Court of the consolidated Episcopal Church Cases about churches taking property when they leave a denomination.  While this case may be about three churches leaving the Episcopal Church, the decision will clarify California state law and PC(USA) governing bodies have filed amicus briefs in this case.  As a polity wonk I found the hour of arguments fascinating.

Some general impressions:  All of the lawyers were well prepared as were the justices.  They were quoting cases and statutes back and forth at each other by case name and number and frequently left me in the dust.  However, much of the time the discussion was in terms that I could understand and it was an interesting argument.  And while the lawyers may have had presentations ready to give, they were quickly interrupted by the justices who wanted to question them about the detailed legal points.

One of the most interesting points was that both sets of lawyers argued that under either legal principle, those being principle of government which would favor a hierarchical denomination and neutral principles which would favor the individual church, their side should prevail.  I must admit that between the legal argument and the interruptions (I could not completely shut the world out) I had trouble following why the denomination should win under neutral principles.  It may also have something to do with the weakness of the argument because it was clear that at least a couple of justices had trouble buying it.  What was more interesting, and has a certain degree of logic, was the individual church’s argument that they still win under principle of government.  The argument was that the actual church government was not the Episcopal Church but the Worldwide Anglican Communion which they have not left but are still under its governance.  This clearly is not an argument that can be used by a church trying to leave with contested property from the PC(USA).

A point where the denomination’s lawyers did better than the congregations’ lawyer was regarding the law in other states.  When the justices asked what the status is in other states (I think this was a “never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to”) the congregations’ lawyer answered “mixed.”  The denomination’s lawyers answered that other states have favored principle of government.  (It is my understanding that there are few similar cases which have made it all the way to the state supreme courts in this current round but that the government principle has been favored so far.)

The congregations’ lawyer took a real beating over the fact that one church (St. James) was originally an Episcopal mission church and when if became chartered it agreed to be “forever bound” by the Episcopal Church canons and attached those documents to the state incorporation papers.  His argument was that the canons are ecclesiastical law and property is not governed there but under state law.  One of the justices flatly stated that she was in favor of neutral principles but she can’t see how they could be applied here when the church agreed to be “forever bound” by the canons.  The counter argument from the lawyer was that “forever bound” was a spiritual promise like “death do us part” and that property is not a spiritual matter.  That and the canons don’t apply to property, or at least did not until the trust clause was added which was after chartering and incorporation.  The denomination’s lawyer argued that even if the current language of the trust clause was added more recently, language that covered the property was in the canons even at the time of incorporation.  Under questioning the lawyer also acknowledged that an independent church that joined the Episcopal could not, under canon law, leave with their property at a later time.

I wish I could tell you what the denomination’s lawyers got hammered on but I unfortunately had to deal with another item at work and missed  a segment of their arguments.  As I mentioned above there was some sharp questioning about their contention that the denomination should still win under neutral principles.

Update:  On viewing the archived video it is clear that the denomination’s lawyers did take a grilling on neutral principles.  The justices pointed out that the principle of government was an old, Civil War era decision and that neutral principles was the “modern” decision.  The denomination’s lawyer was quick with the response that as recently as a few years ago the body she was arguing in front of, the California Supreme Court, had reaffirmed principle of government for the state.  In addition, she made the “interesting” argument that principle of government was really just a religion specific sub-case of neutral principles because by deferring to the church government a court avoids the entanglement in religion of neutral principles.

While the trust clause issues are familiar on the national level, since that goes back to a U.S. Supreme Court case. The local twist is corporate law and much of the argument, especially with the congregations’ lawyer, was regarding the state donation statute and how, under that statute as I followed the argument, the aspect of property in trust must be explicit not implied like the canons are.

In spite of that last issue, which I had trouble judging, the general impression I got was that the justices seemed more sympathetic to the denomination’s arguments so I would not be surprised to see this decision come out in their favor, not withstanding the justice who sided with neutral principles but was pointing out the “forever bound.”

I must admit that in listening to the arguments I was bothered by the way the argument was made that the property was somehow separate from the ecclesiastical law.  I do realize that this was an argument from a legal perspective, but it just hit me wrong that somehow the property was separated as different in the mission to follow and serve Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

As I mentioned, if I had to bet on this one hour alone I would expect the denomination to win.  However, there are a lot of other parts to this case and it was clear that different justices were focusing on different aspects.  When the decision finally comes down it will be interesting to see what of today’s proceedings is found in it.

Update:  The Episcopal Café article in the comments also has part of an article from a subscription site on California Law where a legal counsel that saw the arguments discusses the session and feels that the court is favoring the denomination, or “over arching church,” in this case.

(As a side note, I had the webcast on a few minutes longer and the following case had some hilarious moments in the arguments.  It was something about parolees needing to inform their parole officer 24 hours in advance if there is a change in status with their pet, any pet.  The most obvious justification was for the officer’s safety if the individual got a
dog, but there were comments about “silent” animals like turtles alerting the parolee to the officer’s arrival and questions how you would notify the officer 24 hours in advance of the death of a goldfish.  On the latter the state conceded that there would need to be “reasonable enforcement.”  But at times I thought a Monty Python sketch was about to break out.)

Disagreement Over The Belhar Declaration In South Africa — Implications For The PC(USA) Consideration?

Leave a reply

Over the last day or two news has come out of the General Synod of the Uniting Reformed Church of Southern Africa that a disagreement over the interpretation and intent of the 1986 Belhar Declaration will lead the Rev. Allan Boesak to resign from his church leadership positions, including the position of Moderator of Cape Synod.

I have seen each news story in multiple places and each is brief so I will reproduce them in their entirety.

Here is the first one, this copy from The Times:

Anti Apartheid activist, Allan Boesak is expected to resign from all
his positions in the Uniting Reformed Church, the SABC reported.

Boesak announced this in Hammanskraal outside Pretoria,
after the church’s General Synod discussed the question of
homosexuality.

The broadcaster said Boesak used the Belhar Declaration –
an anti-apartheid statement adopted by the then Dutch Reformed Mission
Church in 1986,to defend his view that it was wrong to discriminate
against homosexuals.

One of the delegates then accused him of abusing the declaration.

In response, Boesak reportedly told the synod that in the
light of the “serious” accusation, he would resign from all his
positions in the church.

He is currently the Moderator of the Cape Synod of the Uniting Reformed.

The second news story adds a few more details.  This copy from highveld.com:

Boesak justifies resignation 05/10/2008 09:53:05
Anti-apartheid
activist Allan Boesak says he could not continue serving as an official
in the United Reformed Church in good conscience.

Last week, Boesak resigned from all leadership positions he held in the church.

The
URC’s leadership recently rejected the findings of a report he compiled
on homosexuality and why gay people should be accepted as members and
preachers in the church.

Boesak says he was shocked by the views of the church’s leaders on gay people.

He says he had no choice but to quit.

From these two reports it sounds like the Rev. Boesak has extended the theological call of Belhar from just the apartheid conditions of the time of adoption to the present day exclusion of homosexuals from full participation in the church.  While the accusation of “abusing the [Belhar] declaration” does not specify the manner in which they thought it was abused, it is interesting to wonder if it was (1) extending it to situations beyond the original which are not logically equivalent, (2) extending it to current times and circumstances when the declaration was intended to speak only for that one circumstance, or (3) something else I’m not considering.

One of the ironies of this development is that the General Synod at which this occurred also decided on a “process of church unity.”

As you may be aware, the 218th General Assembly began the process of considering the Belhar Declaration for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Book of Confessions.  Either one of my above interpretations of the current South African situation has possible negative implications for the discussion in the PC(USA).

If the Belhar Declaration is now going to be used to argue for full inclusion in the church, is this the right time to open that discussion in light of the continuing reverberations from the most recent GA regarding these issues.  Are we, or will we be, ready for this discussion?  It would seem that the progressives in the PC(USA) would welcome a confessional document that could be used to argue for full inclusion.

Or, if the Belhar Declaration is to speak to a specific circumstance at a particular time, are we, as westerners, in a position to be able to understand that time and circumstance in a way that the declaration would make a meaningful addition to our collection of confessional documents.

How the study committee addresses these two possible interpretations will go a long way in helping the church decide if this is a meaningful document for the PC(USA).  Stay tuned…

UPDATE:  Overnight a more detailed article was published on news24.com that has interviewed, or gotten additional statements, from the Rev. Boesak.  In the article the disagreement over Belhar is blamed on the conservative theology of most members of the church where they do not view the anti-discrimination call of Belhar as applying to the exclusion of homosexuals from full inclusion in the church.  The article says that in presenting the homosexuality report Mr. Boesak said “…he confronted the Synod with an issue that they were neither
emotionally nor theologically ready to discuss.”

Action By The Pacific Northwest Presbytery, PCA, Related To Federal Vision Theology

Leave a reply

As long as I am on the topic of doctrine and judicial cases in the PCA, here is the latest on another…

This past Friday, at the regular stated meeting of the Pacific Northwest Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America, the Presbytery acted upon a report from a study/examining committee concerning the doctrinal views of one of its members related to Federal Vision Theology.  The controversy over this topic has been relatively quiet since things were settled last March in Louisiana Presbytery regarding the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, Louisiana.  However, the Pacific Northwest case has been active for over a year, it has just been progressing quietly in the usual Presbyterian “decently and in order” way.  Going forward from here it may gain a higher profile.

At this point there has been enough written about the Federal Vision Theology and controversy that I will not rehearse all of that.  A good starting point for that is the web site www.federal-vision.com, or check out what I have written over the last, almost, two years.  This particular case began in June, 2007, when the 35th General Assembly of the PCA adopted a Study Committee Report on “Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theology.” In accord with the report Teaching Elder Peter Leithart immediately sent a letter to his Stated Clerk in Pacific Northwest Presbytery outlining his doctrinal views. He simultaneously published the letter on his blog as well.  In our usual Presbyterian fashion a study committee was established to examine TE Leithart and report back to the Presbytery on how well his views align with the Standards of the PCA.  It is also important to point out that while TE Leithart is a member of the PCA, he serves at Trinity Reformed Church in Moscow, Idaho, which is a member church of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC), of which many of the other Federal Vision Theology churches are now members, including Auburn Avenue.

I will not go into details about the action of Pacific Northwest Presbytery since we have the good fortune that T.E. Jason J. Stellman, who gave the report to the Presbytery as the acting chairman of the study committee, has provided a wealth of information on his blog De Regnis Duobus.  To briefly summarize his most detailed post, the committee presented both a majority report and minority report, Mr. Stellman being a signatory on the minority report.

The majority report concludes:

In the committee’s view Dr. Leithart’s views are
compatible with the teaching of our standards though there are certainly some
differences in statement, emphasis, and elaboration. Our brief was to determine
whether he denied or contradicted the teaching of our Standards, not to object
if he wished to say more than they say or even, in confessing the same truth,
to improve upon their form of words. That his positive constructions may seem
in some respects difficult to reconcile with the language of our standards is
not itself evidence that he denies their teaching. The dialectical character of
biblical teaching famously produces tensions that remain difficult, if not
impossible to resolve. We further take note of the several assertions of
loyalty to the teaching of the Standards that are scattered among Dr.
Leithart’s published works. He explicitly confesses his agreement with the
Standards’ doctrine of decretal election, forensic justification, and so on.

So, TE Leithart has some differences in doctrine, but not enough to be at odds with the Standards.

It is interesting to note that the minority report is about the same length as the majority report, but the total length was doubled, 27 pages versus 13, by analyses included as Appendices.  The minority report saw things differently:

We recommend
the following:

1. That Presbytery find TE Peter
Leithart’s views, as summarized in the Minority Report, to be out of accord
with the fundamentals of the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards.

2. That Presbytery direct TE Peter
Leithart to reconsider his views, as summarized in the Minority Report, and to
report the results of this reconsideration to the next meeting of Presbytery,
with the understanding that if his views continue to be out of accord with the
fundamentals of the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards,
Presbytery will proceed to depose him from its ministry without censure.

The Presbytery adopted the majority report.  From Mr. Stellman’s account a major argument was “theological innovation:”

The real concern on the part of the presbyters who spoke in favor of
Leithart was that we not become overly narrow and that we do not
discourage bold, pioneering theology.

Since the detailed post came out Mr. Stellman has responded to a public allegation that this is part of a “witch hunt” to rid the PCA of the Federal Vision Theology.

What will happen with this case?  The next step, according to Mr. Stellman, is to formally complain
against the Presbytery and they expect the complaint to be dismissed at the next
regular meeting in January.  If dismissed the next step will be an
appeal to the General Assembly level where this case could look a lot
like the Louisiana Presbytery one.

Pittsburgh PJC Decision Appears To Be Based on Spahr v Redwoods

1 Reply

(See the evening update at the end of the post)

Word is being relayed on the internet that in the Pittsburgh Presbytery PJC case, where the Rev. Janet Edwards was being tried for conducting a same-sex wedding, the PJC unanimously acquitted her.  (More Light Presbyterians, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) While the full decision is not available yet the early indications are that this decision was based upon the confusing decision in the Spahr v. Redwoods case and I have trouble seeing how anyone can claim a real victory in this case.  (If you want the background check out my post from August on the topic.)

To quote the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s early report:

The court, meeting on the North Side in the second day of a trial for
the Rev. Janet Edwards, ruled that the constitutions of the church and
the state of Pennsylvania define marriage as an act between a man and a
woman. Therefore, judges said, the minister could not have done what
she was accused of doing.

This appears to be based on the decision rendered in the GA PJC Spahr v. Redwoods case that no minister in the Presbyterian Church can be found guilty of conducting a same-sex wedding ceremony because no such thing exists.  A wedding is between a man and a woman so a same-sex wedding is a contradiction in terms.  As you can probably guess this legal reasoning did not really satisfy anyone.

It seems reasonable to me that the lower Presbytery PJC relied on this legal decision, a reasonable thing to do even if it is not a particularly satisfying decision.  Hence, my feeling that there are no real winners in this case.  No new legal territory is broken and the situation is none the clearer.  From a personal perspective, the Rev. Edwards was cleared of the charges.  From a polity/legal point of view, the ceremony she openly admits conducting was not a wedding according to the PJC.  So guess what, we have to wait for another appeal, maybe not in this case though, to make its way to the top.

The Rev. Edwards, in her defense brief, said that she would invoke the Spahr v. Redwoods case, but certain of the other parts of the decision.  Be careful what you ask for because it looks like she got a clear decision that there are no same-sex weddings.

Finally, I see this case in the light of the previous GAPJC decisions.  Clearly the news media has not seen that yet and a lot of the “people in the pews” won’t see the connection either.  Because it lines up so closely with Spahr v. Redwoods I see this as pretty much a “non-decision” in terms of the big picture of resolving this issue.  But most of the Presbyterian world will not see the nuances in here.  Hold on tight for the stormy seas.

UPDATE – 8:30 PM:  The verdict has been posted by More Light Presbyterians and pretty much holds to my inference above with one significant exception:  The verdict makes it clear that the prosecution, with whom the burden of proof lies, did not prove their case.  The verdict does rely heavily on Spahr v. Redwoods and the says, in part:

“The Prosecuting Committee has failed to meet the burden of proof that the accused carried out a marriage ceremony at all.”

Pennsylvania
civil law defines marriage as male-female, so a marriage between two
women cannot be a marriage regardless of what occurred in the ceremony.
Because the Book of Order does not recognize a same-sex marriage, it cannot be an offense to attempt to do the impossible.

Therefore,
the commission does not find that the accused committed an offense by
performing a ceremony between two people of the same gender.

Also,
there is no evidence that the accused held out the ceremony as a
marriage. It could be inferred from the order of service, but it has
not been proved. The accused’s belief about whether the ceremony was a
marriage has not been proved, either.

The decision in Spahr
states that “one cannot construe same-sex ceremonies as marriages for
the purpose of disciplining someone, but not as marriages for ecclesial
purposes.”

It does leave open the question of whether this PJC would have convicted if better evidence had been presented, even though “it cannot be an offense to attempt to do the impossible.”

From reading this over if the evidence is not there I’m not sure that there are procedural grounds to appeal.  We will see if the prosecution thinks otherwise.

Watching the Pittsburgh PJC Trial and Inaccurate Media Headlines

Leave a reply

There is way too much to watch at the moment with the GA of the PCANZ and Presbyfest in the news at the moment, but the Pittsburgh Presbytery trial, or re-trial, of the Rev. Janet Edwards got underway yesterday and it is reasonable to expect a decision today.  (If you want background on this you can check out my previous post on the case.)

I’ll keep watching for a decision, but while watching I noticed that several news outlets have gotten good stories out, such as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and KDKA, among others.  But I must take issue with the news story, particularly the headline, in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.  The headline is:

State Court Backs Presbyterian Minister

If you read the article you find that this is not even close to the truth.  The real story is that a former State Superior Court judge, Justin M. Johnson, testified in the Rev. Edwards’ defense that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Constitution does not prohibit same-sex weddings.  That, to me, is a far cry from a state court intervening in a church trial.  To the article’s credit it does quote PC(USA) Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons as saying that the constitution does prohibit ministers from preforming same-sex weddings.

Anyway, just watching and waiting to see how the Presbytery PJC rules.