Category Archives: news

Some Odds and Ends – September 2008

Leave a reply

I’ve set a couple of these aside to see if they would go anywhere, and seeing that they did not I decided to consolidate them into one post of Odds and Ends…

Football on Sunday:  No this is not a continuation of the watching the NFL on Sunday discussion, but this is about what we Americans call soccer.  It turns out that for the first time a professional football match was played in Northern Ireland on Sunday.  So, as the home team Glentoran struggled to a one-nil victory over Bangor in East Belfast, there were about fifty members of the Free Presbyterian Church outside the stadium peacefully protesting the match.  According to the BBC article this was not a sectarian dispute but rather found the Protestants on both sides of the turnstile.  The BBC also says that Glentoran striker Michael Halliday is “not comfortable” with the idea of playing on Sunday, but that for this mid-afternoon game he was able to attend worship in the morning.  The article also mentions that at least one fan passing the Free Church members questioned them if protesting was a violation of the Lord’s Day.

You have to believe in something:  Mollie Ziegler Hemingway has a very interesting op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal today available on their web site.  Titled “Look Who’s Irrational Now” she looks at a new study from the Baylor University Institute for the Studies of Religion, What Americans Really Believe by Rodney Stark.  She reports that the study found an inverse relationship between Christian faith and believing in the paranormal.

While 31% of people who never worship expressed strong belief in these
things [paranormal events], only 8% of people who attend a house of worship more than once
a week did.

And they broke it down by denomination:

Even among Christians, there were disparities. While 36% of those
belonging to the United Church of Christ, Sen. Barack Obama’s former
denomination, expressed strong beliefs in the paranormal, only 14% of
those belonging to the Assemblies of God, Sarah Palin’s former
denomination, did. In fact, the more traditional and evangelical the
respondent, the less likely he was to believe in, for instance, the
possibility of communicating with people who are dead.

And finally, at least to an academaniac like me, Ms. Hemingway throws in this is particularly interesting tidbit:

Surprisingly, while increased church attendance and membership in a
conservative denomination has a powerful negative effect on paranormal
beliefs, higher education doesn’t. Two years ago two professors
published another study in Skeptical Inquirer showing that, while less
than one-quarter of college freshmen surveyed expressed a general
belief in such superstitions as ghosts, psychic healing, haunted
houses, demonic possession, clairvoyance and witches, the figure jumped
to 31% of college seniors and 34% of graduate students.

(It may be important to note that among the paranormal beliefs listed, demonic possession can be compatible with Christian beliefs.)

So for those who consider “religion is the opiate of the masses” and that atheists are the rational ones, better look a bit more deeply.  People want to believe in something.

The clock is ticking: PC(USA) leaders who have not started fortifying themselves already had better start now — In four to six years a new Presbyterian hymnal is going to be ready and your church will have to figure out 1) if your members can accept it and 2) if you can afford it.  OK, seriously, the Hymnal Project took another step forward this week with the naming of the committee to compile it.  Best wishes to Presbyterian blogger Adam Copeland who landed on the committee.  But I figure this won’t be taking much time if a Presbyterian Seminary President can make room in her schedule to serve on the committee.  (Or maybe that says something about how much time it takes to be a seminary president?)

Congratulations:  Finally, congratulations and best wishes to the Truckee Lutheran Presbyterian Church as they look forward to their chartering celebration service next Sunday, September 28.  While any new church chartering is a cause for celebration, this one caught my attention since the approval of this joint ELCA/PC(USA) union church was one of the items of business at the 218th General Assembly of the PC(USA).  May God richly bless your ministry.

The General Assembly (2008) of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand

Leave a reply

This can’t be happening.  What happened to “decently and in order?”  Where is all that Presbyterian formality?  Hold on to your hat everyone because the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand has gone “user friendly.”

Well, I may be exaggerating a little bit, but for the GA set to begin on October 2 at St. Patrick’s College, Silverstream, in Wellington, some traditional language has been replaced and high-profile reports and proposals have less formal names.  But first things first.

The Rev. Dr. Graham Redding has been selected as the Moderator for the Assembly.  He recently became the director of one of the denomination’s training centers, the Knox Centre for Ministry and Leadership in Dunedin.  Previous to that he was a parish minister for 15 years.  He has served the church in a number of capacities and has written a book titled Prayer and the Priesthood of Christ in the Reformed Tradition.  He is married with three teenage children.  He has chosen “Reformed and Reforming” as the Assembly theme.

In reading through the Assembly business one of the major items will be the “Press Go” proposal.  This is an initiative to solicit and fund projects related to church growth.  Recognizing that the PCANZ attendance over the last 40-ish years has dropped from the 90,000 range to the 30,000 range, this project is looking for innovative ways to grow the church and for the money to fund it.  And the associated report comes with the rather informal and un-Presbyterian sounding title “The Great Big Growth Plan.”

This plan is based upon five assertions:

1. Decline is not inevitable.

2. The Church’s money is not ours. The resources we share, the money in the offering plate, our congregation’s bank balance and buildings are not ours. Those present and past have entrusted us with the resources we have for the purposes of glorifying God and fulfilling God’s mission for and in the world.

3. The Presbyterian Church is ruled by Elders. Every Elder makes a commitment to fulfil leadership responsibilities for the whole Church. No Elder can fulfil their role by basing their decisions on the singular interest of any particular congregation or group. When Elders do this they undermine what it means to be part of the Presbyterian Church. An Elder’s primary commitment is to God’s mission and their decisions need to reflect an earnest commitment to seek God’s wisdom and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

4. Growth is possible. It is happening. Experience tells us about the best ways to organise ourselves to support growth.

5. The changes advocated here are radical and costly and can only happen through a broad consensus and willingness by Church leaders. The changes are not for someone else to make- they require an ownership by each one of us.

So based on these assertions where does the report go?

The solutions offered here are on one hand very simple and on the other very complex. The simple idea is the release of church assets to fund growth. This is an idea which receives broad theoretical support. The complexity is that we are very very attached to these assets. They represent a place, a history and a security for us. It may be just too hard a decision to make.

(PC(USA) folk — Sound familiar? G-3.0400 – The Church is called to undertake this mission even at the risk of losing its life, trusting in God alone as the author and giver of life, sharing the gospel, and doing those deeds in the world that point beyond themselves to the new reality in Christ.)

The project requires money for leadership salaries and property acquisition.  The report also asks for money for a staff position to coordinate all this.  The report calls for the church to provide 10% of the return on their assets (property and investments) for this program as gifts of 2.5% per year for four years.  There are specific suggestions discussed in the report for different asset types, but for declining congregations with uncertain futures this could mean closing the church and selling the property.

So what will this be used for?  The report identifies five characteristics of growing and vital churches:

  • A strong pervasive commitment to focus resources on outreach based on Gospel imperatives. “We are not here first for ourselves but for others.”
  • An administrative structure which supports gifted and skilled Christian leaders to do the things that they are good at doing.
  • A readiness to support and fund innovation and to try new ideas.
  • Worship that reflects the culture and communication medium relevant to the congregation.
  • A resource base which allows for generosity, good hospitality, food and warmth in surroundings that are appropriate for the size and culture of the group.

With this in mind, the report advocates several steps.  For small churches a need to assess viability and appropriately support those that are in settings, particularly rural, where growth potential is minimal, but the ministry is vital.  There is a need to support new church plants in promising areas, particularly those the report considers “emerging” which it defines in a way many emerging church people might not agree with.  For medium sized congregations there is a need to evaluate solo pastorates and decide if a multi-leader team would help grow the church.  But the report really seems to rely on large churches, both for overall numbers growth as well as a resource to support the leadership of smaller churches in the area.  One model that I don’t explicitly see in the report, but derives from this large church idea, that the media has picked up, is a mega-church (my term, not theirs) auditorium style with small chapels associated with it that may accommodate the “traditional” existing congregations.

The report is 14 pages long and an interesting and easy read.  It is thought provoking and other church growth types might want to have a look at it.  It has been boiled down to a tri-fold brochure if you want an executive summary.  This proposal will be presented by the Press Go subgroup of the Council of Assembly.  In this final report there are a couple of changes, most notably the funding formula appears to have changed to having a $2 million contribution from the sale of a national property, a 1% contribution from churches’ investment return (as opposed to the 2.5% in the growth report), and additional fund raising.

Another item of business I would expect to be a major topic is a proposal to replace the Westminster Standards with a n
ew Statement of Faith and the associated commentary as the Subordinate Standards of the PCANZ.  The Westminster documents would join the Scots, Heidelberg, Second Helvetic, Apostles and Nicene documents in a “library of confessional documents which are central to the Church’s heritage.”  This recommendation comes from a body with the interesting name of the “Focal Identity Statement Task Group.”  This business is a follow up from the 2004 General Assembly where the Task Group report noted that the new confession had not been widely distributed in advance of the Assembly and that while the statement was originally included in the proposed new Book of Order, the commentary was not and should have been.  It is also possible that this report has been/will be withdrawn since the report from the July Council Meeting indicates there will only be a progress report.  If the report is presented and passed, it is my reading of the PCANZ Book of Order that this section is subject to the “Special Legislative Procedure” that requires the approval of the presbyteries.  I’ll keep researching this one.

It is probably worth noting at this point that this new Book of Order was approved by the previous GA in 2006 and then was approved by “the vast majority” of the presbyteries.  In the new Book the “Barrier Act” has been replaced by the similar “Special Legislative Procedure.”

This post is getting long so the one other major item I will put off until a follow-up post:  There is also a task group reporting on reforming presbyteries.  Briefly, the recommendations are 1) To restructure presbyteries to make them larger (they cite the PC(USA) as a model here) 2) separate the resourcing and governance functions and 3) separate the governance into core and discretionary.  It also wants to see what functions can be shifted to the central office.

In other business before the Assembly there are three presbytery “proposals.”  This is the first year with this new terminology and format and this is what most of the rest of the Presbyterian world would call an “overture.”  The first is a “clean-up” proposal designed to adjust the brand new Book of Order so that ministers in other validated ministries, not just in parish ministry, would be properly represented as GA commissioners.  The second proposal also addresses the new Book of Order, but asks for dispute resolution for certain lesser problems to be available quickly at a lower level as opposed to the new, central procedure.  The third proposal asks that the legislation of General Assembly be communicated not just to the presbyteries but to the parish councils/sessions directly as well so that the church is better informed.  Regarding this last one, I don’t read this as a request that sessions as well as presbyteries need to approve any legislation that GA has to send down to the church as “special legislation.”  It is also an interesting request in light of the new commissioner structure where each parish is supposed to have a commissioner, elder or pastor, to GA.

In reading through the rest of the business most is fairly routine that you would expect at most Assemblies.  The Council of Assembly has some business related to capital funds that appears to be coordinated with the funding models of Press Go.

So, with two weeks to go it will be interesting what lead-up there is to the Assembly and what coverage and commentary is like during the meeting.  And I’ll keep poking around and see what is actually supposed to happen with presbytery reform and the Focal Identity Statement.

Boundary Dispute Between CCAP Synods Continues in Malawi

4 Replies

One of the continuing news items that I have followed on this blog is a dispute between two Synods of the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian (CCAP).  I first mentioned this issue almost exactly two years ago and then did a follow-up in December of last year.  From recent reports it appears that this situation is no better, and has possibly worsened.

Some background:  The Church of Central Africa Presbyterian has five Synods: Zambia and Harare (Zimbabwe) are pretty much national Synods in those countries.  In Malawi there are three Synods – Livingstonia in the north, Nkhoma in the center, and Blantyre in the south.  From reading up on this it is important to note that these Synods have more autonomy than many American Presbyterians would expect, a legacy that derives from their missionary heritage.  As I read about the CCAP it seems that it might be better described as a “confederation” than a “denomination.”  It is also interesting to note that its confessional standard is not Westminster but the Belgic/Heidelberg/Dort standards.

Quick recap:  While Livingstonia and Nkhoma are supposed to be geographic Synods with specific boundaries, over the last several decades as workers migrated the Synods have followed and churches have been established among their respective language groups, Chewa for Nkhoma and Tumbuka for Livingstonia, even across Synod boundaries.

This week a new, detailed article in Nation Online titled Synod Fight Turns Nasty reports that the dispute continues and appears to be worsening.  The lede:

It started as a border dispute 50 years ago but
it is now much bigger. The battle lines have been drawn between
Livingstonia and Nkhoma synods of the CCAP. The former has since
declared a ‘Holy War’ while the latter wants its adversary to quit the
General Assembly.

and later in the article:

The [Nkhoma] synod also said it is not prepared to go to
war with its sister synod; it will continue pushing for discussions as
men of God but said if Livingstonia insists on its new stand then it
has to move out of the General Synod and stop using the name of CCAP.

Continuing to read through the article the point the writer of the article wants to make is that this is all about… Money.  The article says:

“All those areas such as Kasungu are just
scapegoats, the main target is Lilongwe. Money is central to the whole
issue,” said University of Malawi historian Professor Kings Phiri.

He explained that Lilongwe, being the capital and having a lot of
members from the North, gives Livingstonia Synod the feeling that if
they have a congregation in the Capital City there will be prospects of
beefing up the synod’s revenues.

Phiri, who once chaired a task force appointed by the General Synod
to look into the problem, also said the other factors to the issue are
tribalism and politics.

He said after the task force came with its
recommendations Nkhoma Synod accepted while Livingstonia rejected the
proposals and clearly showed that their minds had already been made to
plant churches in Lilongwe.

This situation is clearly getting heated and the article quotes Livingstonia officials as saying that they will continue development in Lilongwe to show Nkhoma “how it pains.”  In addition, a Deputy Minister of Education said that as a Northerner he would rather go to a Livingstonia church in the capital to keep his money in that Synod.  There are also warnings that a continuing church dispute could break down into a political dispute with the potential for violence.

The article concludes with a discussion about the General Synod getting involved, getting respected members of the church engaged as part of discussions to resolve the dispute, and making sure all the parties are at the table.  There is an acknowledgment by one theologian that it can not be a one-sided resolution on territory, implying that both Synods will need to stop their encroachment.  And there is also the necessity for a discussion about the status of the General Synod — Does it become a strong central unifying body, or do the individual Synods go back to their previous, fully autonomous status.

There is also a recent editorial in The Daily Times — Why Should Synods Forgo Boundaries?  The editorial argues that the CCAP is one church and members originally from a different synod should not have a problem worshiping in a different synod when that is where they live.  The editorial then says:

But probably we are working on the surface when
looking at the wrangle between the two warring synods. Probably, there
are other motivations for the synods to encroach into each other’s
territory beyond serving God’s flock. It appears the two synods know
why they want to operate in each other’s territory but cannot bring
these reasons to the public domain. And if this is the case, then they
are failing as God’s messengers because their first call should have
been to serve God and His people.

The editorial concludes with this:

How can the clergy be trusted to mediate between
fighting politicians when the clergy themselves do not reconcile and
resolve their conflicts?

The only way to solve the boundary issue is to establish why the
church’s forefathers created synods and assess whether by eliminating
these administrative boundaries, the church would become stronger or
weaker. Obviously, those who came up with the idea of synod, with each
operating in a specific designated area, had good reasons for it and
that is probably why some churches like the Catholics, Anglicans,
Seventh Day Adventists and others have their equivalents. All these
other churches can obviously not be in the wrong.

In doing the research on this the past few days I have found one other voice, a CCAP blogger who occasionally ventures into the topic of his church’s politics.  Mr. Victor Kaonga works for the Christian broadcaster Trans World Radio in central Africa and writes the blog Ndagha.  Back in February 2007 he had a post on this border situation where he presents his view as a member in that church.  In particular he writes:

Someone has said that the boundary dispute between the CCAP synods of
Nkhoma and Livingstonia is a very healthy situation for the Church in
Malawi. I somehow agree for several reasons:

It is helping us
ask questions we have never asked before. The questions about when this
issue started coming up. We hear it is an old story for about 50 years.
Was there a time when they disputed like it is now? How did they solve
it then? Why is it a big issue now? Is this a product of missionary
failure in handing over to Malawians? Is it another after-effect of the
postcolonial period in Africa?

He goes on to echo many of the themes from the other two articles: Christian unity, power politics, historical context, economics.  And while he is part of the broadcast media himself, he writes with the tone of an informed member of the CCAP.  His outlook is ultimately optimistic for the situation, at least at that time 18 months ago, as opposed to the more cautious tone of the other two current print articles.  His final conclusion is that while the situation is complex and there are many issues in play here, in the end the two arguing synods are concerned for, and committed to, spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

This is still a developing situation — The talks organized by the General Synod are to continue at least until December so we will see if any resolution and reconciliation is demonstrated in the near future.  Stay tuned.

Amendments A – N — It Is Not Just Amendment B

2 Replies

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has posted on it’s web site a PDF of the booklet with the proposed amendments to the Book of Order sent out to the presbyteries from the 218th General Assembly.  In a very nice touch, each write-up is followed by the URL to find the item on the PC-biz site.

To be a little bit more precise about the items that will be voted on, there are actually just ten amendments to the Book of Order, items A-J.  And, you guessed it, the ordination standards amendment to G-6.0106b and elsewhere is once again Amendment B.  At least it will be easy to remember.

The other four items are Ecumenical Statements with the Roman Catholic Church (08-K), Episcopal Church (08-L), Korean Presbyterian Church in America (08-M), and the Moravian Church (08-N).  These do not enter the PC(USA) constitution, but need to be adopted by a majority of the presbyteries for them to become guidance.  I have not been following these so I will just deal with the constitutional amendments in this post and return to those at a later date.

Amendment 08-A — Vows of Membership
This is what I refer to as a “Blood on Every Page” amendment since it derives from a specific controversy in a presbytery, in this case Mission Presbytery.  For some background on this you can check out my post back in September 2006 and coverage by Toby Brown (then a member of that presbytery) in June 2006 and September 2007.  This overture was covered by Daniel Berry a bit less than a year ago.

The causative incident was admission to membership in a PC(USA) church of an individual who did not acknowledge God, to say nothing of the lordship of Jesus Christ.  To clarify membership standards the overture asked for explicit vows of membership to join a particular church, these vows to follow the standards of declaring Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, renouncing sin, and participating in the church that are presently listed in the Book of Order.  The General Assembly took the advice of the Advisory Committee of the Constitution and is sending to the presbyteries a new section that does not specify language but says that new members “shall make a public profession of their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, as do confirmands (W-4.2003a, b, and c).”

It is interesting to note that the Presbyterian Church in America dealt with similar issues at their General Assembly this year as well.

Amendment 08-B — Ordained Officers
This is the amendment everyone is watching and that would replace the current G-6.0106b, “fidelity and chastity,” with a paragraph that includes that candidates for ordination will “pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church.”

Enough ink (and electrons and photons) have been spilled over this already so I will leave it at that.  There are also corresponding changes to G-14.0240 and G-14.0450.

Amendment 08-C — Replacing the Word “Sympathy” With the Word “Compassion”
This would change the description of the role of the office of deacon in G-6.0202b and G-6.0401 from a ministry including “sympathy” to one including “compassion.”  The original overture requested “empathy” but the GA chose “compassion” instead.

Amendment 08-D — General Assembly Mission Council Name Change
This would change the General Assembly Council’s name to the General Assembly Mission Council in four places in Chapter G-9, six places in G-13, and five places in G-14, as well as in seven places in the Discipline section.  This is in line with the new Organization for Mission adopted for the General Assembly (Mission) Council at GA.

Amendment 08-E — Non-geographic Presbyteries
No, not new non-geographic “affinity” presbyteries, but this amendment permits churches to join an existing non-geographic “language” presbytery in another synod as long as everybody involved (two presbyteries, two synods, and the GA) agree.  But remember, non-geographic presbyteries are temporary transitional structures and should not be considered permanent parts of our governing body structure.  (You may remember that this was complicated, or at least highlighted, at GA by an overture to extend the lifetime of the Hanmi non-geographic presbytery.)

Amendment 08-F — Presbytery Membership of Certified Christian Educators
This appears to be another “Blood on Every Page” amendment and simply clarifies that Certified Christian Educators have the privilege of the floor at presbytery “during the term of service in an educational ministry under the jurisdiction of the presbytery”  Read the rational for the request for clarification.

Amendment 08-G — Synod Membership on Permanent Committees
With reorganization of General Assembly Council, a desire for flexibility, and some unintended consequences from previous changes in the Book of Order, this amendment changes designated synod representation on “permanent” GA committees to synod representation on the Committee on Representation and the Council.  Rather than explicitly saying the synods put forth their representatives, committee members are now just selected through the nominating committee process.

Amendment 08-H — Five Ordination Examinations
No, this is not directly related to the controversy that has just arisen over the Biblical Exegesis Examination, but rather word-smiths some language in G-14.0431 to clarify the taking of the exams, not the exams themselves.  In particular, the group of four exams has changed from a “may” to a “shall be taken… after two full years of theological education,” and with the addition of “or its equivalent.”  In addition, not only must the CPM approve the candidate to take the exam, they “shall first attest that the inquirer or candidate has completed adequate
academic preparation in each examination area and adequate supervised experience in the practice of pastoral ministry.”  There is another change to make the Biblical Exegesis Exam explicitly open book.  The hope is that all of these changes will improve the pass rate on the exams.  (note that Biblical Exegesis has been open book, this just clarifies that)

Amendment 08-I — Certified Christian Educators
This is a “clean up” or “fix the problems” amendment arising from the complete rewrite of Chapter 14 from the 217th General Assembly.  It simply changes “certified Christian educator” to “Certified Christian Educator” since that reference is to a specific professional certification.  That’s it.  (Isn’t it amazing what we have to go through the amendment process for?)

Amendment 08-J — Alternative Forms of Resolution
As the Rational section of this amendment indicates, this is more word-smithing to clarify certain phrases in the Discipline section, specifically D-2.0103 and D-10.0202h.  Principally, it replaces “all parties” with appropriate references to the investigating committee and the accused.

And there you have the Book of Order changes.  If I had to handicap this assortment of changes, I’d say one controversial ( B ), three or four that will have some discussion (A, C, G and maybe E), four that will be pretty much formalities, and H (the ordination exams) that somebody on the floor of presbytery is going to want to rewrite in light of the recent changes.  But these can not be rewritten, only approved or disapproved.  For changes, write an overture to the 219th GA.  If you think I’ve missed a sleeper in here, or have gotten my description wrong, please let me know.  And I’ll try to tackle the four Ecumenical Statements shortly.

A Bit More On Property Cases

Leave a reply

First, my thanks to Lou for the additional info on the Kirk of the Hills case that he posted as a comment to my previous post.  He reports that there will be no written decision by the judge so I can stop watching for that and we won’t have any thing there to parse for the legal theory.  This will give us the state supreme court decision, when that is issued, as the next legal step in this case.

However, another case, that of All Saints Anglican Church of Rochester, New York, is a bit more advanced in the legal system.  The case, which I have mentioned before, is very similar to the Kirk of the Hills situation with a church that raised all the money to acquire the property and build the building before the “trust clause” and was then evicted from the building by the diocese.  Again, the church has lost legal decisions and the appeals are approaching the state supreme court.  In news reports today those associated with the case are suggesting that this could be the case that reaches the U.S. Supreme Court first.  It will be close since the California Episcopal Church Cases will go to that state supreme court in about a month so they might be the federal test case.

As always, stay tuned.

Summary Judgement in the Kirk of the Hills Property Case

2 Replies

In the case CJ-2006-5063

The District Court for Tulsa County, Oklahoma granted summary judgment in favor of Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) on September 9, 2008, and denied the motion for summary judgment of Kirk of the Hills.  Judge Jefferson Sellers enforced the decision of the Presbytery’s Administrative Commission and ordered Kirk of the Hills to convey the church’s real and personal property to Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery.  [from the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery Press Release]

Tulsa County District Judge Jefferson Sellers ruled today that the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) and the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery of the PCUSA (EOP) own the Kirk of the Hills property at 4102 E. 61st Street, under the denomination’s constitution. A constitutional provision inserted in 1983 provides that the denomination holds a trust interest in the property of a local church, even when the local church bought and paid for the property. The Kirk of the Hills paid for the property over the last four decades and the deeds are in the Kirk Corporation’s name. [from the Kirk of the Hills Press Release]

While I generally follow the property cases currently underway in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and The Episcopal Church, I usually leave the routine coverage of the cases to other sources.  (PresbyLaw, The Layman Online, Virtue Online)  The decision that was handed down yesterday in the case of Kirk of the Hills Church of Tulsa, Oklahoma (formally Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), now Evangelical Presbyterian Church) is notable in a couple of respects.

First, Kirk of the Hills is cited as the largest church, and one of the first churches, to depart from the PC(USA) following the 2006 General Assembly adoption of the PUP report.  This case was being watched by the churches as a test case of how the denomination and legal system would handle these cases.

This leads into the second interesting point, the legal theory of the decision.  The written decision has not appeared in the court database yet (if I’m checking the right database) but I’ll do a little reading between the lines of the press releases.  The Kirk press release is shorter (one page) and contains fewer legal details but the section I quoted at the beginning implies that their legal theory was that since the church has had deed to the property before the explicit trust clause then they own the property.  The Presbytery press release is richer in legal detail including part of the successful legal theory and says:

The Court followed the “hierarchical deference” approach in awarding the property to the Presbytery, which holds the property in trust for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  Oklahoma has been considered a “hierarchical deference” jurisdiction since the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling in 1973 in Presbytery of Cimmarron v. Westminster Presbyterian Church of Enid.

In reading through the press release it struck me that while the trust clause was mentioned above, it was always in the context of the church structure.  Furthermore, the Presbytery document places an emphasis on the Administrative Commission, like the opening quote above, as a demonstration of the PC(USA) hierarchical church.  It appears then, that the Administrative Commission and the process was a more significant legal argument than the trust clause alone and it seems to have worked in arguing against the Kirk’s argument about the trust clause.

While I look forward to reading this decision when made available somewhere, in skimming through the 1973 ruling, which relies heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Watson v. Jones (1871), it does not surprise me that with this legal precedent a District Court ruled in this way.  It seems that if Kirk is going to retain its property it will have to convince the current Oklahoma Supreme Court that this case differs from Cimmarron v. Westminster.

An appeal decision has not been made but is likely, according to the church press release.  Kirk and EOP have 20 days to make arrangements about the property under the judge’s order.

Beyond the legal arguments where does this leave everyone?  It seems that EOP will have a big empty box on its hands and a 2,400 member church with a 175 family preschool will be looking for a new location.  It is too soon to know what is going to happen here but I think both parties could use our prayers.  While this predates the GA action, maybe it is time to remember the “gracious, pastoral response.”

UPDATE 9/11/08:  The Presbyterian News Service has issued an article/press release on the decision which draws heavily on the Presbytery press release I also drew on.  But it is interesting that in News Service article they use the phrase “trust clause” and place an emphasis on that while I read the Presbytery’s release to emphasize the Administrative Commission process as being important.  I did find it interesting that the New Service article describes Kirk of the Hills departure with the more dramatic term “bolted” without any additional facts about the swiftness or legal proceedings to support the use of the term.  Terms like “departed,” “disaffiliated,” or “realigned” might have been more appropriate if the circumstances of the departure are not spelled out in the story to suppor the dramatic term.  I also found it interesting that the article describes the PC(USA) as a 2.3 million member denomination when at the end of 2007 the membership of 2,209,546 would round to 2.2 million members.  It could be habit, 2007 is the first year the PC(USA) would round to 2.2 million members, or it could be that we were 2.3 million members when the process started in 2006.

Also, I have still not found the full decision posted anywhere yet but…  PresbyLaw has info from the hearing where the decision was read and the report there is that the judge suggested that on appeal the court could go with “neutral principles” and that could go in favor of the church.

Finally, the word from other sources, included in PresbyLaw, is that the church will appeal.

Next Moderator of the Church of Scotland — The Process

Leave a reply

While I regularly blog the nominating process of the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, we have a different insight this year because another blogger,  the Rev. Louis Kinsey, is on the nominating committee for the Moderator of the 2009 GA and Louis is sharing his experience of serving on that committee on his blog Coffee with Louis.  The committee has had its first of two meetings and he shares with us his experience (but no names) from that meeting.

I look forward to hearing further from him.

Church of Scotland National Youth Assembly 2008

5 Replies

If you have not picked up on the buzz, the excitement level is rising for the annual National Youth Assembly of the Church of Scotland which begins on Friday in Dundee.  Among the blogs that I follow, Stewart Cutler and Margaret McLarty seem particularly excited and I kind of wish I could be there too.  I look forward to what they have to say after the event, and they are both presenters in workshops.

This annual youth event has its own blog, wiki, and its Twitter keyword is NYA2008.  No traditional web site that I can find so it sounds like a very Web 2.0 event.  Lots of Twitter.  Pictures on flickr?
The four day event includes Debates (sounds like discussion sessions) on Sustainable Living, Social Media (“If you’re not online you don’t exist”), Healthy Relationships, Future Church (including a discussion topic of “The Rights and Rites of the Church”).  And the featured speakers and seminars strike me as a great mix of typical church-related topics (Mission, Bible Society, The Book of Revelation) and realities of life (parenthood, mental health).  A good looking event that seems to know their target audience.
So have fun and be sure to write.  (Based on the Twitter search that won’t be a problem.)

The Changes in the PC(USA) Ordination Exam on Biblical Exegesis — Brief Observations and Comments

1 Reply

Last week the news broke, just in time for the latest round of ordination exams, that there would be changes to the grading of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Ordination Exam on Biblical Exegesis.  The Presbyteries Cooperative Committee on Examinations announced two changes: 1) “The demonstration of a working knowledge of Greek and/or Hebrew will no longer be a requirement in order to complete the examination successfully.”  2) The inquirers and candidates will be asked to offer a “faithful interpretation” rather than “a principle meaning” of the text.

According to a document from the PCCEC these changes come from input received during a self-study.  The committee has implemented the changes as a response to those concerns.

This one came in below my radar screen and I must thank the other bloggers I will reference below for alerting me to it.  They have all made their own comments about it, and most in more detail and focus than I will.  I simply wish to highlight a few issues in this discussion.

1.  The Future Is Now
Maybe the most important thing to come out of this, from my polity wonk viewpoint, is that this is the first highly visible change resulting from our new polity model.  While we may have been focused on the Form of Government revision (nFOG) from the Task Force and the 218th General Assembly that the Assembly referred to the presbyteries for further review, we need to remember that the revision to Chapter 14 of the current Form of Government, sent to the presbyteries by the 217th GA and approved by them, was in the same spirit as the nFOG.  This is a model that removes procedural details from the Book of Order and shifts it out to “manuals” to be written and approved by other agencies and governing bodies.  So now Chapter 14 simply says that there will be ordination exams and one of the topics that will be covered is “Biblical Exegesis” rather than giving specifics about the Exegesis exam and what particular details it will cover.

If the nFOG gets adopted expect a lot more of this.  Depending on how you look at it this is not necessarily a negative thing.  In this case, while the Cooperative Committee may have changed the grading of the exam, the door is now open for a presbytery’s Committee on Preparation for Ministry to adopt grading and interpretation of the exam that are stricter than previously specified in the Book of Order.

So, if the church as a whole does not like this change what do they do?  (I would note that between the many blogs I read and a Google search I have found only negative comments about this change by bloggers, but it is usually those objecting that shout loudest.  However, reading through the comments on the blog posts I reference there are positive comments about the change like this one from Adam Copeland.)  It is not clear to me that there is an established method for input and adjustment to these new manuals from the wider church other than expressing concern to the committee and supervising agency or council.  There are of course always Book of Order amendments.

For more on the change in polity regarding this I refer you to Pastor Bob.

2.  This Discussion Has Been Going On Throughout Global Presbyterian History
I won’t go into great detail here, but while Presbyterians have historically held higher education requirements than almost any other denomination, the exact nature of those requirements has been a topic of discussion from the very beginning and continues today.  Whether pastors can be trained at small specialized institutions instead of full-fledged universities was a topic of discussion in 18th century American Presbyterianism regarding the Log College and today in the Church of Scotland regarding Highland Theological College.

One of the issues that has been mentioned related to this level of theological training is the high failure rate, possibly related to uneven grading, for any of the more “subjective” or “interpretative” ordination exams.  (The polity exam also regularly comes up in this category.)  Again, read through the comments on some of the referenced blog posts for individual stories regarding conflicting graders’ comments.

3.  This Shifts But Does Not Necessarily Weaken The Standards
If the Cooperative Committee and their exam graders were the final word than a good case can be made that the standard is weakened.  There is a great series of posts by Mark D. Roberts (First, Second, Third, Fourth, Postscript) on the change and what the weakening of the original language requirement and the different meanings of “a principle meaning” versus “faithful interpretation” imply.  (There is more great discussion in the comments to these posts and Jim Berkley has a follow-up.)  I think we will have to wait a little bit to see how this change is actually implemented in the grading.

What this change has effectively done has highlighted the responsibility of the graders for interpreting that standard, and shifted the responsibility for judging the candidates ability with the original language to their Committee on Preparation for Ministry.  While the proficiency with the original languages will not be graded it will be commented on for the benefit of the CPM’s.  What will the CPM’s do with that?

In essence this change has moved some of the authority and responsibility from the central structure of the denomination back out to the presbyteries.  It is now up to the CPM’s to take this new responsibility seriously, but you can bet that through differing levels of oversight and differing philosophies there will be a less uniform standard for candidates certified ready to receive a call.

A personal reaction:  First, I am a ruling elder and never had to suffer through ordination exams.  (Want to trade for my doctoral exams?)  However, having had formal Latin training and a few “kitchen table” classes on Greek, I have a rudimentary knowledge of that original language.  (Sorry, no functionality for Hebrew.)  I do sometimes follow sermons in my Greek text and have done my best to work with both the Greek and transliterated Hebrew on the few times I have preached.  From this background I am sorry to see original language ability disappear as an explicit requirement for the exam and if the exam grading remains like this I hope the CPM’s will still seriously evaluate a candidate’s functionality with the original languages when deciding if they are certified ready to receive a call.

Women in Ordained Ministry in the Church — Current Discussion and Some Thoughts

Leave a reply

The first item, or actually two items, of news relates to the ongoing discussion in the Presbyterian Church in America about the role of women in the diaconate.  You may remember that at their General Assembly back in June there was a significant discussion about establishing a study committee to look at this issue and the various aspects of ordination versus commissioning versus participation.  In the end the Assembly decided not to establish the study committee but to continue the discussion in the denomination, including through the process of records review.

As part of that continuing discussion the PCA publication byFaith has just published on-line a pair of articles that do a great job of presenting two of the aspects of this issue:

The Case for our Current Policy on Female Deacons by Ligon Duncan

The Case for Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Deaconesses by Tim Keller

Each of the articles is well written for a knowledgeable but not scholarly audience.  For instance, they presuppose that you know a bit about the issue and are familiar with the concepts of complementarianism and egalitarianism.  But they do a good job of discussing relevant points in the history of the debate as well as theological and scriptural issues without your eyes glazing over when presented with the Greek vocabulary.

It is also important to point out that the articles are written by two high-profile and respected teaching elders in the PCA with somewhat different views, but who both acknowledge, if not affirm, the present constitutional standard of the PCA that only men may hold any ordained office.  They also affirm the constitutional standard that women are to be involved in the diaconate ministry.  The articles discuss two different approaches to that involvement.

For those of us not in the PCA this is not an unrelated issue.  Between the PCA, with no ordination of women, and the PC(USA), with full ordination of women, there is the Evangelical Presbyterian Church with “local option” ordination.

As the movement of churches disaffiliating from the PC(USA) began and these churches generally realigned with the EPC, there were concerns raised about the status of women’s ordinations in the realigned churches.  In particular, Presbyterians for Renewal had an article in their 12 reasons to stay in the PC(USA) on “The PC(USA) Affirms and Encourages Women.”  (All of my links to that original article are now broken but there is a post at Renewing.NewCastleFPC.org that has the original list of 12 reasons to stay in the PC(USA).)  There was also a series of articles by the Network of Presbyterian Women in Leadership titled “Has anyone asked the women?”

In thinking about this I wondered “How much of an issue is this at the present time?”

So in my morning coffee break and over lunch today I did a quick survey.  I took the EPC list of churches in the New Wineskins/EPC Transitional Presbytery and did a quick, and probably unscientific, look at all listed web sites to see how many had women on staff who were ordained as ministers.  I would first note that of the 30 churches on the list, there is only one with a woman as the solo/senior/head pastor.  In total I found about six women in what appeared to be ordained pastoral positions at these 30 churches.  (I gave one or two ambiguous names the benefit of the doubt as being women and on some church web sites technical titles that a GA Junkie would want were absent, so again I had to make my best judgment if the individual was ordained.  I also included one commissioned lay pastor.  Like I said, it was quick, “back of the envelope,” and unscientific.)  My best count from the web sites is that there are at least 66 total ordained ministers at these churches.  At six out of 66 there are about 9% ordained women serving in these churches.  So in reality, while six individuals may have an issue when the transitional presbytery dissolves (depends on the status of women in the presbyteries these churches will be transferred into), 91% will have no problem.  (Interestingly, I just called up the PC(USA) 2007 statistics, and while they break out male/female elders and deacons, they don’t for ministers.  But I would bet that the percentage of ministers in the PC(USA) who are women, while less than 50% is more than 9%.  I did a count of my presbytery membership and it is 15%.  For ministers serving churches it is 22% in my presbytery.)

It is interesting to consider the reasons for this low percentage of women in ordained ministry in these churches.  I am not aware of a departure of women from the church as the church departs for the EPC.  Maybe there is already a “corporate culture” at these churches that gives them an affinity for the EPC including the lower likelyhood of women in ordained office.  Or you could play thought games with the cause and effect:  “Because they have few women in leadership they have an affinity for the EPC” or “Because they have an affinity for the EPC they have few women in leadership.”  While not losing sight of the fact that these churches are realigning with the EPC for other reasons, the issue of women in ordained leadership, or not in leadership as the case may be, appears to be an associated factor.

But at another level it is an issue.  Over the last couple of months I’ve had conversations with two women attending my church about their sense of call to ordained ministry.  For both, because of “where they are,” ordained ministry in their present situation is not an option, whether it be denominational membership or seminary attendance.  They are still talking to God about whether the call is authentic and if so should they make a change in their situation.

And given time, maybe this will not be an issue with the EPC.  I have speculated that with a continued or increased realignment of churches from the PC(USA) to the EPC there can’t but help being a certain “PC(USA)-isation” of the EPC which I expect will include the spreading of women’s ordination under local option, if not the approval of the ordination of women across the denomination.  As I frequently say, time will tell.