Category Archives: news

Breaking news: PC(USA) GA PJC finds for Spahr in Same-sex Unions Case

Leave a reply

The decision in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission case 218-12, Spahr v. Presbytery of the Redwoods was issued shortly after noon Pacific Time.  The decision is posted.

Bottom line:  Rev. Jane Spahr was found not guilty of conducting “same-sex marriages.”

Quick and dirty summary of the legal reasoning:  The Book of Order prohibits same-sex weddings but permits blessing same-sex unions.  These were not weddings, there for Rev. Spahr should not be disciplined.  Here is a quote from the decision:

The ceremonies that are the subject of this case were not marriages as the term is defined by W-4.9001. These were ceremonies between women, not between a man and a woman. Both parties acknowledged the ceremonies in question were not marriages as defined by the Book of Order. It is not improper for ministers of the Word and Sacrament to perform same sex ceremonies. At least four times, the larger church has rejected overtures that would prohibit blessing the unions of same sex couples. By the definition in W-4.9001, a same sex ceremony can never be a marriage. The SPJC found Spahr guilty of doing that which by definition cannot be done. One cannot characterize same sex ceremonies as marriages for the purpose of disciplining a minister of the Word and Sacrament and at the same time declare that such ceremonies are not marriages for legal or ecclesiastical purposes.

Later in that section the PJC seems to reason their way out by saying “The charge was for preforming a marriage ceremony, which by definition cannot be preformed.”  It sounds like they are saying that no one can ever be found guilty of preforming a “same-sex marriage ceremony” because there is no such thing in Presbyterian polity.

Where does this leave us?  In my quick reading it appears that this decision has maintained the status quo:  no weddings but there may be blessings.

Reaction:  I have seen none yet but I suspect in the next couple of hours there will be a reasonable amount.  I would also guess that while there will be some approval on the progressive side that Rev. Spahr was acquitted, I also suspect that neither progressive nor conservative side will be satisfied because it appears that this decision dodges the issue of breaking ground and brings no additional clarity or precedent to what a “wedding” is.

My initial take:  The GA PJC seems to be operating in the same mode it has in other decisions by crafting a central body that the whole commission can sign on to.  This one appears a bit more frayed at the edges than the others because there are four minority reports, one of which dissents with regard to certain parts of the main decision.

Now, I’ll get back to work and analyze this decision in more detail on my commute home.  More later.

Synod of the Sun (PC(USA)) Establishes Administrative Commission for Presbytery of South Louisiania Property Cases

3 Replies

The big news over the weekend in the Politics of Presbyterianism was that the Synod of the Sun established an administrative commission to work with the Presbytery of South Louisiana regarding the Presbytery’s handling of church property cases.

Background
Back on October 28, 2007, the membership of First Presbyterian Church of Baton Rouge, LA, voted 422-60 to leave the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and transfer to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC).  It is interesting to note that the pastor of the church is the Rev. Gerrit Dawson, who is co-moderator of the New Wineskins Association of Churches along with the Rev. Dean Weaver.  Rev. Weaver’s church, Memorial Park Presbyterian Church in Allison Park, PA, just came to terms with Pittsburgh Presbytery concerning its release to the EPC.

The total number voting at the meeting, 482, represents only one-quarter of the membership of the church according to the article published by the Presbyterian News Service.

The significant piece of background noted in that article is that the Presbytery of South Louisiana had granted to First Presbyterian clear title to their property roughly a year before the vote so the church was free to take their property with them without further legal action or negotiation.

Synod Meeting
The published facts in this action are from a single source, a Synod of the Sun news story about the matter on the Presbyterian Neighbor News.  The action appears to have been taken at a twice-annual stated meeting of the Synod of the Sun but the packet for the meeting does not contain any advanced information about this business.

The news story says that in a letter to the Synod Executive dated April 8 presbytery pastors and elders “expressed a concern regarding our presbytery’s leadership,
particularly pertaining to the presbytery’s response to churches
seeking title to their properties.”  The letter “further stated that presbytery leaders gave insufficient
consideration to denominational protocols on such matters and gave
insufficient consultation with other churches.”  Finally, the letter is said to ask for an administrative commission to look into this.

According to the article the next step was a meeting:

Synod Executive Judy Fletcher met with members of the presbytery
council of South Louisiana, April 22, and said they concurred that
outside consultation would be helpful. The council sent a letter to
synod supporting an administrative commission but asking that the power
of original jurisdiction not be given.

The news story says that this past weekend those at the Synod meeting unanimously approved the administrative commission:

Synod commissioners established an administrative commission charged
with determining the “validity of the presbytery’s procedures and
decisions (past, pending, and future) regarding various congregations
and their properties.”

The synod document further stated that
“All pending and future decisions regarding property in the Presbytery
of South Louisiana shall require the approval of the commission.” The
commission shall also listen to expressions of concern regarding the
presbytery’s leadership and suggest ways the presbytery can move toward
a fuller expression of the ministry of Christ’s Church.

Reaction
I probably don’t need to tell you that from the conservative quarters of the PC(USA) the reaction has been swift and strong.  With the past history of the “Louisville Papers” and the perception of the Office of the General Assembly wanting to hold onto the property at all costs this appears as top-down punitive and corrective action on the Presbytery for being gracious and pastoral with churches that wanted to depart the denomination.  In particular Bill Crawford at Bayou Christian, Toby Brown at A Classical Presbyterian, David Fischler at The Reformed Pastor, and Michael McCarty at Around the Scuttlebutt have particularly negative views of this action and the possible conspiracy with Louisville it represents.

Comments
On one level this action can just be viewed as the way that our connectional system operates.  When there is a disagreement on one level we move up to the next-higher governing body to get help and direction from the collective wisdom of that body to help us get around a disagreement or rough patch.  Not knowing any facts from other sources, and ignoring that a controversial topic is in play here, the sequence of events, steps taken, and the unanimous vote, all would make it appear that this is our Presbyterian system working properly, decently, and in order.

But as the reaction in the blogosphere demonstrates this is a loaded topic.  It is my view that there has been a disconnect between the national structure of the PC(USA) and the “people in the pews” which makes an action like this, even if innocent, appear disciplinary and controlling.  And with the Louisville Papers in circulation this can also be interpreted as conspiratory.  The press release is carefully crafted and with no other sources to go on it appears that a concerted effort was made to put a controlled positive public relations spin on this.  The two areas of concern for me are the short lead time which prevented information from being in the advanced packet, and that the only governing body to speak on this is the Synod of the Sun and there is no comment from the Presbytery of South Louisiana.

But related to both the “innocent” and the “conspiratory” interpretations of this action is a question I always ask:  Is an administrative commission the best option?  I always keep in mind that an administrative commission like this one is the second most powerful action a governing body can take regarding a lower governing body.  It is only out-done by an administrative commission that is granted the power of “original jurisdiction.”  In a real sense this can be the “Ecclesiastical Nuke” that Rev. Fischler refers to it as.

For those readers who may not understand the full implications, in Presbyterian lingo a “commission” is a group elected and given certain powers and responsibilities to act on behalf of and with the authority of the governing body that created it.  When granted original jurisdiction, the commission can take full control of the lower governing body.  When a presbytery establishes an administrative commission to work with a church, if that commission has original jurisdiction they can set themselves up as the session of the church if they decide it is necessary.  In general Presbyterians have two types of commissions, administrative and judicial.

So, was an administrative commission the best option?  Not being there and having all the facts I can not say.  I will say that when I was working with my presbytery, particularly as the moderator of the Committee on Ministry, it was my view and experience that an administrative commission was a last resort.  Creating one to work with a church was often viewed as a power play by the presbytery much as this is viewed in some quarters as a power play by the synod.  Yes, there are cases were a body with the authority was needed and yes there are cases where an administrative commission is welcomed.  But I have found that beginning with task forces, listening teams, or discussion groups was at least a “kinder and gentler” way to begin the process.  Showing up at the door as an administrative commission, however well intentioned, was not always viewed as a friendly gesture.  “Hi.  We’re from the presbytery and we are here to help you.”

I was aware that in other presbyteries and other synods some of my counterparts felt that administrative commissions were the way to go.  The idea was to send in the big guns, get things cleaned up quickly, and get out.  (Commando Presbyterian governance?) 

Maybe they are right but it never sat well with me both from a connectional and pastoral perspective.  This is a view reaffirmed by a friend of mine at a recent presbytery meeting where the administrative commission he was chairing made their final report and was dismissed.  After delivering the final report he was allowed some personal comments in which he said that administrative commissions are a painful solution in many situations and while they sometimes may be necessary they should only be used as a last resort.

Preach it brother!

Upcoming PC(USA) General Assembly — Late April Update

Leave a reply

There have been enough events happening this week that I thought it worthwhile updating the preparations for the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

Probably the biggest single news item, one worthy of a Presbyterian News Service article, is that at least one individual, the Rev. Edward Koster, Stated Clerk of Detroit Presbytery, will challenge the search committee nominee, Rev. Gradye Parsons, for the job of Stated Clerk of the General Assembly.  Rev. Koster has served 13 years as a Presbytery stated clerk and in addition to his theological training he is also a lawyer.  The News Service article quotes Rev. Koster from a prepared statement as saying “I believe that while our leadership has been faithful and competent, it
has increasingly strayed from the core of the church. If I am called to
serve, I believe I can make a difference.”

The blogosphere has had some response to this challenge.  In particular the Rev. Bob Davis of San Diego Presbytery has an analysis of the process from his perspective and concludes that the process as it currently stands limits the commissioners’ exposure to the challengers and favors the committee nominee.  The Rev. Davis has some experience with this, having been one of the challengers to Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick when he was last re-elected by the 216th General Assembly in 2004.  In a follow-up post today Rev. Davis suggests some changes to the Standing Rules to improve the process.  Specifically, he wants more time for conversation between the candidates and the commissioners and delegates and so suggests establishing a commissioner committee to interview the candidates.  While I don’t have my materials in front of me, it is my memory that was the process at the preceding election at the 212th General Assembly (2000).  I would also note that the Rev. Davis appears to be a commissioner to General Assembly from San Diego presbytery so he may be in a position to do something about his suggestion.

There are some additional reactions on blogs to the Stated Clerk election, including Quotidian Grace and Spoiled Dinner Party that express concern about the choice of an insider as the committee nominee at this point in time and they welcome the challengers.  The other 12 applicants who were not selected by the nominating committee have until May 7 to declare if they also wish to challenge.

Another place there has been activity is on the business system PC-biz.  The big news is that overnight the members of the committees were added to the system.  In scanning through the lists I recognize a bunch of names, like the Rev. Davis who will be on Committee 8, Mission Coordination and Budgets.  For the candidates for Moderator and Vice-Moderator, Rev. Carl Mazza is on Committee 4, Church Polity; Rev. Byron Wade is on Committee 5, Church Orders and Ministry; Rev. Tamara Letts, Committee 13, Theological Issues and Institutions; Rev. Peter deVries, Committee 14, Review of GA Permanent Committees; Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow and Rev. William Teng, Committee 16, Worship and Spiritual Renewal (note: these are supposed to be random assignments so someone from Presbyterians for Renewal on the Spiritual Renewal Committee is coincidence); and Elder Roger Shoemaker on Committee 17, Youth.  Those that are elected Moderator and Vice-moderator will not serve on their committee so they may moderate the committee report impartially.

As far as the business is concerned, almost all overtures and recommendations have been assigned to committees at this point.  There is one new overture, 99, also known as business item 11-23, from the Presbytery of San Francisco.  The title is “On Divestment from Caterpillar, Inc., and Motorola, Inc., for Profiting from the Israeli Military Occupation of Palestine Territories” which pretty much says it all.  It is also interesting to note that two more overtures have been withdrawn:  Overture 4 on clarifying the Rules of Discipline about pronouncing censure and Overture 75 on temporary suspension of military aid to the State of Israel.  No reasons for withdrawal given.

In other news related to the Moderator election, the Candidates Forum at First Presbyterian Church of Lawrenceville, NJ, is tomorrow night and I look forward to comments and impressions from any of the candidates, from Mark Smith on his blog Mark Time. or from any other blogger who makes it to the event.  And thanks to Mark for putting this event together.  Being on the left coast I don’t think I’ll be making it myself.  Also, I continue to watch but have not seen word yet on Rev. Mazza’s nominee for Vice-Moderator.

Finally, the denomination has announced the prayer emphasis for the week before GA highlighted by a road trip by Tammy Wiens-Sorge, Associate for Spiritual Formation and Stephany Jackson, Coordinator for Congregational Leadership, traveling from Louisville to San Jose.  For six months now I have been steeling myself for all the upcoming references to that old song about San Jose and the title of this effort, Praying Our Way To San Jose, comes pretty close to the first authentic reference I have heard.  But I have to agree with Joan Gray, Moderator of the 217th General Assembly, when she says in her message on the web page “If you haven’t already, start praying now!”  I could not agree more.

Upcoming PC(USA) General Assembly — Mid-April Update

Leave a reply

The process continues as we move towards the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) which begins on June 21, 2008, in San Jose, California.  This week the big event was the release of the Moderator Booklet with the statements by each candidate and responses to questions from the four Moderator candidates.  Just to remind you, the four candidates are (in order of their inclusion in the booklet) Rev. Carl Mazza, Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, Elder Roger Shoemaker, and Rev. William “Bill” Teng.

I will have to take some more time to review the answers and see if I want to make any comments on the answers, but it is interesting to note which questions the candidates chose to answer.  The Office of the General Assembly provided a list of ten questions and the candidates were to chose five questions to answer in 500 words or less for each question.  What I found interesting was which questions the candidates answered and which they did not.  For example, all four candidates chose to answer the first question:

1. Our church’s Ecumenical Vision Statement reminds us that, “The unity of the Church is both God’s real gift and God’s effective calling.” How would you work for unity within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and how would this contribute to the unity we seek with other churches and Christian communities?

Three of the four answered thee questions:

5. What suggestions do you have for identifying new directions for partnership between congregations, presbyteries, seminaries, and the General Assembly in preparation for ordained ministry?

6. In what new ways can the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and its congregations place a focus on ministry to and with youth and young adults to ensure a church for future generations?

7. What is your sense of where God is leading the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) at this time in its history?

Carl and Bruce answered all three of these, Roger answered 5 and 7, and Bill answered number 6.

Three questions were answered by two of the candidates.  Roger and Bill answered both

2. The 208th General Assembly (1996) affirmed the goal of increasing racial ethnic membership to 10 percent by the year 2005, and to 20 percent by the year 2010. How do you assess the Presbyterian Church’s progress toward the fulfillment of this goal and what would you do during your moderatorial term to move the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) closer to realizing or exceeding this goal?

8. What should be the role of the Moderator during times of deep disagreements in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) about matters of faith and practice?

While Bruce and Bill answered the Form of Government question:

10. The Form of Government Task Force was created by the 217th General Assembly (2006) to propose a revised polity that would be more flexible, more foundational, and more appropriate for a missional Reformed Church in the 21st century. What do you think about these proposals?

There was only one solo answer and that was for Carl for

9. We are living in a war-torn world. What might the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and its congregations do to strengthen its ministry of peacemaking at this time?

Finally two questions went unanswered:

3. The General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical Relations held a Consultation on the Ecumenical Stance of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and identified ten priorities for our ecumenical commitment in the next ten years. What do you understand to be the greatest ecumenical challenge and ecumenical resource before the church in the next decade?

4. The General Assembly will be asked to act on a proposal to take the first step toward adding the Belhar Confession to The Book of Confessions. How do you think this addition to The Book of Confessions would impact the confessional and spiritual life of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)?

So, a quick conclusion is that all the candidates place a high priority on Christian Unity (question 1) and lower priority on ecumenical relations (question 3) and adding to the Book of Confessions (question 4).  As I have talked with commissioners and delegates to the GA these are themes that I have been hearing from them.  Also, the interest in partnerships between governing bodies and institutions as well as reaching out to youth and young adults is a pretty strong theme.  So it is not surprising that these four individuals have matched their priorities to the major themes in the PC(USA) today.  (Quick and dirty probability says that there is one chance in sixteen of all four choosing the same question and of nobody choosing a question if the choices are random so it appears that their selections are not random.)  I would also point out that Bruce was the only candidate to not answer the questions in the same order they are numbered.  And Bruce and Carl used one page per question, pretty much filling up the page, while Roger and Bill’s answers to any single question generally did not fill up a page.

Well, that is enough reading tea leaves for now.  I’ll probably have more comments about the individual responses later this weekend.  I’m taking my class on a field trip to the San Andreas fault and I’ll have a bus ride home to do some reading.  (Happy California Earthquake Day by the way. (102nd anniversary of the 1906 San Francisco quake and fire))

The other item of note in the candidates’ booklet is the announcement that the Rev. Teng has selected the Rev. Tamara Letts as his nominee for Vice-moderator.  Rev. Letts is an Associate Pastor at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Anchorage, Alaska and from her bio in the booklet appears to have worked with Rev. Teng on the board of Presbyterians for Renewal.  She has also worked with the Network of Presbyterian Women in Leadership (NPWL) and is listed in their speakers bureau.

Tamara joins the Rev. Byron Wade and the Rev. Peter C. deVries as the Vice-moderator nominees.  I searched the booklet several times and I hope that I am not missing it, but I don’t see the Vice-moderator nominee for Rev. Mazza.  And of these seven individuals, I would point out that Roger Shoemaker remains the only Elder in the group and Tamara Letts is the only women.  (Is there a COR in the house?)

With the processing of business on PC-biz following overtures has become a moving target since they get changed to committee items and lose their clear overture label.  The last time I addressed overtures we were at 86.  The numbering is now up to at least 98.

Since we are beyond the constitutional changes deadline most of the overtures deal with social justice issues.  These include Overture 87 from the Denver Presbytery “On Equal Rights for Families of Same-Gender Partners” which appears to be about the same as Overture 83.  There are a couple that address the Middle East.  These include 88 from National Capital Presbytery on  “Being a Voice for the Victims of Violence in Israel and Palestine,” and 93 from Newark Presbytery “On Supporting Israel’s Right to Exist, But Calling for Temporary Suspension of Military Aid to the State of Israel” that address the Israel/Palestine situation.  There is also 96 from Heartland Presbytery “On Ending the War in Iraq.”  Regarding Iraq overtures, Toby Brown has commented on the Mission Presbytery debate of a similar overture in his Classical Presbyterian blog.

Some of the more local social witness issues include overture 89 from National Capital Presbytery “On Addressing the Tragedy of America’s Gun Violence,” overture 95 “On Peaceful Relations Between the Christian and Muslim Communities” from Chicago Presbytery, and 98 “On Supporting Those Who Feel Called to Seek Status as Conscientious Objectors” from San Francisco Presbytery.  And there are a couple of other overtures like 91 from Scioto Valley Presbytery titled “Overture on War, Mercenaries, and Profiteering” and 94 “On Peacemaking in Columbia” from Chicago Presbytery.  I will generalize that these all call for some combination of raising awareness in the church, maybe studying the issue, and the Stated Clerk writing letters to politicians advocating on behalf of the church.

The remaining three overtures have more direct implications for the PC(USA).  Overture 90, from Beaver-Butler Presbytery, is titled “On Advocating and Funding Either Both Sides of the Abortion Issue or Neither.”  The title pretty much says it all and it would direct GA agencies to do one or the other in compliance with the 1992 abortion policy.  There are two related and some-what similar overtures from its neighbor Pittsburgh Presbytery (Mister Rodgers pun intended):  Overture 55 about the “Relief of Conscience Plan” and Overture 63 also about advocating both sides.

San Francisco Presbytery proposes an added office or agency in Overture 97 “On Creating a Presbyterian Office for the Prevention and Healing of Minister of Word and Sacrament Mis-conduct and Abuse.”  The overture asks for an ongoing presence that would be in the Office of the Stated Clerk and the General Assembly Council (GAC).  These are two different branches of the national structure and so it would be a rather unique presence if it does indeed cross between the two.  In addition, how does this fit into the reorganization of the GAC?  The overture specifies that oversight would be by the GAC.

And finally, there is overture 92 which is another call, this time from Newark Presbytery, for a “corrected” translation of the Heidelberg Catechism.  This joins overtures 36 from North Kansas Presbytery and 45 from Boston Presbytery which also request “Restoring the Heidelberg Catechism to its Historic Form.”

Well, that is plenty for now and I’m putting in way to many off-topic side comments.  This probably should have been two posts but I was on a roll so I just plowed through.  And there are a couple things hanging out there so I expect to be posting another update early next week with those items.  Have a good weekend.

Upcoming PCA General Assembly — Mid-April Update

Leave a reply

Heads up GA Junkies, Presbyterian polity wonks, and stated clerk wanna-be’s:  First thing last Monday morning the Presbyterian Church in America filled out its Overtures Page for the upcoming 36th General Assembly and there are some items in there that only a polity wonk and parliamentarian can fully appreciate.

In my first Assembly preview I mentioned that there were three overtures that we only had the titles for, and shortly after that post three new overtures were posted, of which only one had text provided.  Well, now the full text of the five title-only overtures is posted so now there is some interesting stuff to dissect.  If your eyes glaze over easily at the pure polity business, you can jump a bit further down for church membership overtures, or all the way to the end for the latest in the discussion of deaconesses.

There are two overtures from Potomac Presbytery that address changes to the PCA Rules of Assembly Operations (RAO).  If you want the current version you can find it bundled with the Book of Church Order, starting on page 246, towards the back before the Standing Judicial Commission Manual.

Overture 13 is simply titled: Revise RAO 14-6 k.; 14-9 g.; 15-8 e.; 14-9 e.; 15-8 c.  The overture begins with the observation that the revised RAO has basically been successful, but a few “minor adjustments” are needed.  If you look at the proposed changes it involves some pretty specific and subtle changes in the rules.  The first change, adding 14-6.k, would permit commissioner committees of Assembly to adopt resolutions commending persons or agencies.  This is a power the committees traditionally have had and was omitted in the new rules as an oversight according to the rational.  The second change, adding 14-9.g, makes explicit that the Assembly answers Presbytery overtures.  The first part declares that if the Assembly fails to adopt a recommended response to an overture then “the overture shall be considered to have been answered in the negative”  The second part says that if the commissioner committee proposal is a negative answer to the overture and the full Assembly does not adopt it, then a no to a no does not make a yes so the proposal is sent back to the commissioner committee.  And the next, 15-8.e, makes the same change in another place.

OK, that was warm up.  The other two changes deal with consequences of particular parliamentary motions.  Specifically, the changes to 14-9.e and 15-8.c clarify what the full Assembly can do with a committee recommendation.  The section specifies that the subsidiary motions the full Assembly can not use are postpone indefinitely, amend, and commit, as well as some incidental motions.  It does say that the Assembly can recommit, also know as refer, back to the commissioner committee that dealt with it.  This overture would specify that “recommit with instructions” would not be permitted since this could be a undesirable exercise for the full Assembly and possibly provide an end-run on the prohibited amending.  (If you want a good write up on these subsidiary motions from a slightly different venue there is one from the U.S. House of Representatives.)  The reasons for recommitting the recommendation would be implicitly known according to the rational for the change:

A motion to recommit with instructions would open the floor to the emendation process the new rules were designed to prohibit. The overtures committee will have sufficient information to address a recommendation recommitted from the debate on the motion to recommit.

As I said, language only a polity wonk could love.  Have you ever used or heard “emendation” in a sentence?  (Essentially changing the document trying to correct the mistakes.)  The last item in the overture would make the same change in a parallel section, 15-8.c.

There is also the closely related Overture 14, also from Potomac Presbytery, which addresses the RAO, connectionalism and the constitution of the church.  The overture points out that the RAO, adopted by the Assembly, has a section, 16-3.e.5, that has instructions for Presbyteries.  (In an interesting twist, or maybe what brought this to everyone’s attention, this is the section dealing with recording in Presbytery minutes the examination of elders and their departures from the Confessional Standards that was cited in one of the indictments against Louisiana Presbytery in the recent Federal Vision Controversy trial. (If you want to follow that thread check my last post on that))  The polity issue here is why are requirements that Assembly places on the Presbyteries contained in the Rules of Assembly Operations when they should be in the Book of Church Order since the RAO is adopted by the Assembly for its own procedures.  Procedures for Presbyteries must either be adopted by the Presbytery itself or adopted by the whole church through the process of amending the Book of Church Order.  This overture asks for the appointment of an ad interim committee to review the RAO and get rid of or move to the BCO any parts that place requirements on other governing bodies.  As a GA Junkie and polity wonk I think they are absolutely right.  Just open up the overture and check out the Where As sections.  For the PC(USA) folks, heads up on this for the Form of Government revision.

Now I will jump back to Overtures 1, 2, and 3 from Southeast Alabama Presbytery.  These all deal with sections related to membership in the church.  Overture 1 proposes changes to BCO Chapter 6 to more clearly define how individuals join the church, especially by letter of transfer or reaffirmation of faith.  The overture would add, among other language, two sections that define each of those.  It is interesting to note that there is also a line added to BCO 6-2, the section that addresses “children of believers.”  The added language says “It is [the children’s] duty and privilege personally to receive and rest upon Christ, to confess Him before men, and seek admission to the Lord’s Table.”  I won’t elaborate at this time but I could read this addition as a clarification of the covenant community in a way that opposes the Federal Vision Theology.

Overture 2 would make some changes to the “membership vows” in BCO 57-5.  To the current five questions it would add three more at the beginning that have the new members affirm the three sections of the Apostles Creed, one section per question.  But it would also completely rewrite qu
estion 6 from relying in the grace of the Holy Spirit to promising to “make diligent use the means of grace” to live peacefully in the community and with the aid of the Holy Spirit to be a faithful disciple to the end of your life.  A last question is added for those who are joining by affirmation of faith and baptism for them to explicitly declare their intent.  Finally, in an interesting touch this overture would add “I do” as the required response to each question.  Note that this is the same section that overture 4 proposes to change the line about the pastor asking these questions from a “may” to a “shall.”

And overture 3 appears to play clean-up in other sections of the BCO where the changes from 1 and 2 would need to be reconciled with current language.  It makes corresponding changes to parts about letters of transfer and the membership vows in other places and moves some sections, including the membership vows in 57-5, to chapter 46.

Finally, there is Overture 15 from Western Canada Presbytery which concurs with Overture 9 asking for study and clarification of the scriptural guidance concerning women serving as deacons, or a position very similar to a deacon.  This is the high-profile issue of the Assembly and the PCA web magazine byFaith has a note about it as well as continued low-level interest in the blogosphere, like recent posts on Post Tenebras Lux and Omnia ad Dei Gloriam.

And on a technical note, if anyone who works on the PCA web site sees this, you might want to do a check on your title meta-tags.  The overtures page says “Exhibitors” and many of the pages for this year’s GA still say 35th General Assembly.

So stay tuned.  Of the large-church GA’s this one comes before the PC(USA) but after the Church of Scotland.  We are getting closer.

Upcoming PC(USA) General Assembly — Another Early April Update

Leave a reply

Coming so close to my previous update I won’t update the business coming before GA, except to say that more items are being assigned to committees on PC-biz and to note that Kay Moore, the Manager of General Assembly Business at General Assembly Meeting Services, has been added as the sole committee member to all the committees.

The news today is the announcement that GA Moderator candidate Elder Roger Shoemaker has chosen the Rev. Peter C. deVries as his Vice-moderator nominee.  My hat tip to Bruce Reyes-Chow on this since none of my other feeds or alerts have picked this up yet, and in fact Roger Shoemaker’s web site, which I watch closely, does not have it there either.  But Rev. deVries does have his blog up and going so this is more of announcement by the selectee than by the selector.  I suspect that Bruce just got the word out faster than anticipated and that Roger’s site will be updated with the official news shortly and they just wanted all their ducks in a row first. 

Peter has put up a nice blog with four posts last Thursday on his background, mission, the Bible, and conflict.  There is a general overseas mission theme going here because Rev. deVries is the convener of the Ghana Mission Network; remember that Elder Shoemaker has been  in leadership in the Czech Mission Network.  Peter is the pastor of Old Union Presbyterian Church in Mars, Pennsylvania, in Beaver-Butler Presbytery.  He is working on a Ph.D. at the University of Pittsburgh Department of Religious Studies (note not Pittsburgh Seminary).  He describes his research as “His dissertation uses the hermeneutic theory of Paul Ricoeur to advance
an understanding of Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse of Mark 13.”  I did find it interesting, as you can tell from that quote, that his about post is written in the third person.  The other posts nicely outline his view of the other three areas.  In particular, he writes in the conflict post that:

The PC(USA) is not in a crisis. Christianity has experienced discord and conflict from its very inception. While
the intensity of our disagreements and the things we disagree about may
distress us, God calls us to persevere in our struggle together to
discern his way forward.

These posts also reflect his mission emphasis and academic perspective.  And the motorcycle picture is a nice touch.  Now wonder it got Bruce’s attention.

So, we await the remaining two Vice-moderator nominees.

Upcoming PC(USA) General Assembly — Early-April Update

Leave a reply

I was targeting my next update on the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly for about April 15, but within the last couple of days there have been two interesting developments worth mentioning.

The first is that the workers on the back side of PC-biz, the GA business web site, are now assigning action items to committees.  But in the on-line system there is an up-side and a down-side to this.  The positive is that we now see which committees will be dealing with what business, barring changes by Committee 2 – Bills and Overtures.  In particular, the “man behind the curtain” has been moving several items over to Committee 3 – General Assembly Procedures, and Committee 4 – Church Polity.  The problem is that in the assignment, while the back-end ID number seems to remain the same, the more user-friendly overture number or recommendation number gets removed and replaced with a committee item number.  For instance, Overture 86 on creating the Truckee Lutheran Presbyterian Church is now Committee item 04-10.  If you do the digging to look at the sponsor, it is then clear it came from a Presbytery, therefore it must be an Overture.  But there appears to be no reference kept to its overture number. C’est la vie

The second item of news is that Moderator candidate Bruce Reyes-Chow has announced that his Vice-moderator nominee is Dr. Rev. Bryon Wade.  Rev. Wade is the pastor of Davie Street Memorial Church (CitySearch calls it Davie Street Presbyterian Church as does the Presbytery congregations page) in Raleigh, NC, New Hope Presbytery.  While Bryon does not appear to match Bruce in “on-line presence,” (I’m now sure how many of us could) Bruce does list a Facebook page for him.  Rev. Wade is originally from Los Angeles and has served the denomination in a number of positions, including service on General Assembly Council.  Bruce comments that they have been friends for a couple of decades and share not only a history with the denomination but similar visions for it.

We can expect more Vice-Moderator information coming from the other candidates in the next few weeks.  At the latest, the Vice-Moderator nominees and the official bio and statements book will be out no later than May 7, the 45 day deadline before GA begins.

A few other developments:

Over on Presbyblog Bob Davies has his comments on many of the issues faced by General Assembly this year.  And Rev. Davies is taking these item by item so there is significent detail on several of them.  With so many significant pieces of business coming up we will see how many he gets through before GA begins.  However, one of the items he has commented on is the proposed General Assembly Council Mission Work Plan, currently knows as Recommendation 31.  Another fellow blogger, Michael Kruse, is on the GAC and is one of the authors of that work plan and has some comments on Bob’s discussion.

Finally, the PC(USA) General Assembly site has posted a Prayer for the General Assembly from the Book of Common Prayer on the GA Worship page.  Usually a couple of other organizations prepare prayer guides leading up to GA so we will keep watching for those.

News from the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Sudan

Leave a reply

About a month ago I had an update that included news from the Presbyterian church in northern Sudan, the Sudan Presbyterian Evangelical Church.  There is now news from a General Assembly of the southern branch, the Presbyterian Church of Sudan.  As a brief background, these two branches derive from different histories of establishment, not directly from theological or political differences.  However, each of these branches has split and has had to develop its own complex structure to continue ministry in areas that are on each side of the Sudan civil war.

Now an article from the Sudan Tribune brings us news that the southern Presbyterian Church of Sudan, at their 32nd General Assembly, took action to reunite the church and the church structure of their branch.  With the help of Dr. Riek Machar Teny, a member of the church and the Vice-President of the Government of Southern Sudan, the Assembly reconciled, united, and passed a new constitution decentralizing the church government to the ten presbyteries and establishing a General Headquarters lead by a new Moderator General.  The article makes it clear that additional presbyteries can be added as the church expands into areas of the country currently without a Presbyterian church.  And each presbytery will have equal representation of 34 commissioners each to the General Assembly.  (The article does not say if they will be evenly split between elders and clergy.)

But it is interesting to note that in the election for the four national officers, Moderator General, Deputy Moderator General, Secretary, and Treasurer, each of the two candidates for each office were clergy.  In addition, each election was close and they had almost identical vote counts:  179-161, 175-164, 175-165, and 172-168 respectively.  I don’t know if these are just coincidence, or if these similar numbers represent  particular groups.  The article says that the leaders pledged to work for unity and encouraged the church to do so as well.  They have my prayers for a united witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ for Sudan.

Update (4/9/08):  The Los Angeles Times has published an interesting article about the decision to not ask about religion or ethnicity in the upcoming census in Sudan.  The dynamics are complicated, as you might expect in a country with the civil war so recently halted and so many refugees.  But one dynamic that relates to the PCOS is that the non-Muslim southern part of the country is growing faster than the Muslim north.  It is an interesting article for more detailed background on the current situation in Sudan and implications for the church.

PC(USA) Stated Clerk Nominating Committee Selection — Rev. Gradye Parsons

1 Reply

The Presbyterian News Service has just broke the news that of the fourteen applicants for the job of Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) the choice of the nominating committee is current Associate Stated Clerk Rev. Gradye Parsons.

While we did not know the list of applicants, I think that most GA Junkies would figure Rev. Parsons to be the odds-on favorite if he wanted the job.  He has been in the Stated Clerk’s office for eight years and is presently the director of operations.  If you apply “kremlinology” to this choice, he is frequently seen seated close to outgoing Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick and at several events I have been to he has been the Stated Clerk’s representative to the event or meeting.  (Want to try it yourself?  Zoom in on this very high resolution image or note that Gradye is in the Stated Clerk’s seat in this picture.  Both are from the 217th General Assembly.)

To his credit, he has a great deal of experience in the office which will be helpful.  Some may view that experience and the hiring from within as a negative as well as Rev. Parsons’ participation with the governing board of the National Council of Churches of Christ.  I am encouraged that the article mentions one of Gradye’s goals is to do more to develop the ministry of elders and in my time with him I have found him very knowledgeable, friendly, and good natured.

But this is only the choice of the nominating committee and it is now time to wait and see if any of the other 13 applicants will chose to also run for election making this contested.  They have until May 7 to announce.  The election will be held on the Friday of General Assembly, June 27.

One interesting thing is that this was a coordinated web roll-out from the PC(USA) headquarters.  Within a short period of time this announcement appeared on the main PC(USA) web page, the Stated Clerk Nominating Committee web page, and the PC News service site as the highlighted article.  One has to wonder if it would have found as much penetration if the choice was an outside nominee.

Who owns the Web Site — A New Property Battle in the Web 2.0 Church

Leave a reply

Over the last couple months a number of events have transpired related to the Episcopal and Anglican Diocese(s) of San Joaquin in California.  Briefly, the Diocese voted to realign from the American Episcopal Church to the Anglican Southern Cone, the American Episcopal Church appointed a new provisional bishop to shepherd the remaining Episcopal faithful, and over the weekend The Episcopal Church held a service of healing and forgiveness Friday evening and a special convocation and service of celebration Saturday that included the confirmation and installation of Bishop Jerry Lamb as the provisional bishop of the diocese.  The Episcopal Diocese is now gearing up to get their property back from the realigned Anglicans.

While all of that was expected the surprise of the weekend, as reported by VirtueOnline, is that the web site of the Anglican group, www.sanjoaquin.anglican.org, has been replaced by a redirect to the Episcopal Diocese web site at www.diosanjoaquin.org.  Details of the switch are not clear yet, but the Anglican site is safe, now at the address www.sjoaquin.net.  Something happened at their web host, anglican.org and the details are not complete yet.

As a geek, web builder, and network administrator, I curious about some of the details and hope more come out.  However, it serves as a lesson that in the Web 2.0 world the church’s property includes not just brick and mortar but names, addresses, and on-line content.  You have been warned.