Category Archives: news

The 36th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America — Debate and decision on Deaconesses

3 Replies

The PCA GA has begun debate on the issue of deaconesses and women in the diaconal ministry.  There is a commissioner committee report that basically says “the Book of Church Order is clear, a study committee is not needed.”  There is a minority report to create the study committee.

The presentation began with a motion to rule the minority report out of order since the BCO is clear on the subject.  The Moderator ruled that the minority report was in order, he was challenged on the ruling, and in a counted vote his ruling was sustained by the Assembly 518 to 369.

The committee majority argument is 1) that the BCO is clear about only men serving as officers of the church and 2) creation of a study committee would produce “two strong reports” and would polarize the church.  “Now is not the time to raise to a higher pitch another controversy in the PCA.”  There has been enough controversy over the last several years.  The minority argument is that there are plenty of people on both sides of the issue who want clarity on the subject.  Also, the minority report is restrictive that the study committee would be specific to the question of women serving in diaconal ministry and would be pastoral in its recommendations leaving changes to the BCO to presbytery overture.

The presenter of the minority report also complimented the chairman for his leadership of the committee, and commented on how after heated debate there were apologies made by commissioners to one another for conduct during debate.

It is interesting that the first speaker in the debate on the minority report invoked the blogosphere.  His point is that this is not about the issue, but how the issue is dealt with — not in e-mail or blogs going back and forth, but gathered together face-to-face.  (Strike against the Church Virtual.)  Other comments included the idea that just because women can not hold offices they should not be treated as second-class citizens (my phrase).  Also that division is sometimes necessary and that all they do is create study committees.  At the first extension of debate the Moderator polled those waiting to speak and found many more wanting to speak for the minority report than speaking against it. One of the irony’s of the second vote to extend debate is that it took about as long to count the votes as the time that would have been added to the debate.  The moderator did get a laugh when he was informed that he had made a parliamentary blunder and to try to get it correct he said “We’ll have to study that.”  Debate was closed by a vote of 420 to 467 and the Moderator acknowledged the time irony. 

The minority report failed — it was close enough that a division of the house was necessary, but a counted vote was not.  In the debate on the main motion there were a few comments about the future, including the statement that this issue will come back to GA in the future.  It was noted that some elders are not against the ordination of women as deacons, but do not practice it due to the prohibitions of the BCO.

The debate on the main motion was not extended and the main motion was quickly passed on a vote using the cards.

I’ll post this now, but there are three more overtures on this topic that will presumably be answered by this action.

Update:  Overture 19, to decline to erect a study committee, was answered with comment that BCO changes were not in order in this matter.

Evangelicals and Evangelism

Leave a reply

Once again it is the time of year when my family events and teaching duties squeeze out the little time I do have for blogging.  I’ve got a bunch of half-written posts in the wings waiting for me to find serious time to finish them. A couple more that are “waiting for the other shoe to drop” running around in my head and will be put down on electronic paper when an anticipated event happens.  Similarly, I’ve got a few more that I’m turning over in my mind and sort of waiting for any one of them to reach “critical mass.” (What follows is one of those.)  Finally, there are a whole bunch that are just in the idea stage and 90% of them will never see the Publish button.  Well, this one finally reached critical mass in my mind…

When the “Evangelical Manifesto” came out on May 7 it was heralded by numerous media articles and blog postings.  Now, about a month later, I wanted to add a few comments of my own as well as reflect on a couple other things that have come out.

The Evangelical Manifesto itself is a 20 page document that is sub-titled “A Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment.”  If you want a summary there is a six page executive summary available.  In the third paragraph of the Manifesto they state their purpose:

The two-fold purpose of this declaration is first to address the confusions and corruptions that attend the term Evangelical in the United States and much of the Western world today, and second to clarify where we stand on issues that have caused consternation over Evangelicals in public life.

The italics on “Evangelical” are theirs and the point is made in a footnote that they use this as a proper noun, not as an adjective like in “evangelical Christian.”  More on that later.

The Manifesto’s definition of an Evangelical has seven points and covers much of what would be considered the traditional standards of Christian theology, often in general terms.  These include the fully dual nature of Jesus and the uniqueness of salvation through Jesus. Salvation by Jesus’ death and resurrection covering our human sinful nature and the saving power being “faith through grace.” New life through spiritual regeneration via the power of the Holy Spirit.  The authority of the Bible as “God’s inspired word.”  The lordship of Jesus means serving him in every aspect of our lives, including reaching out to those less fortunate.  The hope of the “personal return of Jesus” at the end of time.  And that followers are called to worship Jesus.  In the terms stated it is pretty general, but still basic Christian doctrine a lot of followers could affirm.

From these seven points come seven “defining features.” Among these are  the value of creeds and historic Christian faith from the “great ecumenical councils.”  But faith is also expressed in worship and deeds as much as in creeds.  Third, Evangelicals are not limited to certain churches or movements but can be found across the denominational spectrum.  Next, “Evangelicalism must be defined theologically and not politically; confessionally and not culturally.”  Also, the good news is “overwhelmingly positive and always positive before it is negative.”  The sixth feature is “Evangelicalism should be distinguished from two opposite tendencies to which Protestantism has been prone: liberal revisionism and conservative fundamentalism.”  And finally, Evangelicalism looks equally to both to the past and the future.  In these defining features there are concepts that more Christians might disagree about.

The Manifesto then goes on to sections on how these points and features force us to “Reform our Own Behavior,” “Rethink our Place in Public Life,” be neither “Privatized Nor Politicized,” be a “Civil rather than Sacred or a Naked public square,” and to look to “The way of Jesus, not Constantine.”

This gives you a flavor for the document which tries to claim public and political life as a response to the call to follow Jesus.  It is interesting that the authors have tied each of the seven definitional points to Jesus Christ in their statement of the point.  And reading through the Manifesto it is clear certain “typical elements” usually associated with evangelical Christians are missing.  Jargon, like “Born Again” is definitely not found in the definition section and it appears that it is nowhere to be found in the whole document.  And what is not said is probably telling:  The shortest of the definition sections is the one on Scripture.  Besides lifting it up as authoritative and the final rule since it is “God’s inspired Word,” it goes no further in discussing the nature of Scripture and avoids any of the inerrancy/infallibility questions.  Similarly for the part on the end times, there is no real detailing of the end times and Jesus’ return and in fact makes no mention, either by name or reference, to Heaven, Hell, Satan or the other characters you might expect. And  the Manifesto only mentions “an undying kingdom,” but not even a scripturally based description like “new heaven and new earth.”  In a similar manner the creation account and the fall of humans to a sinful state is not mentioned.  While this may disappoint some people, there is clearly a sense in the document of focusing on life in the here and now and only saying as much as necessary about other features.  If you want to go into the document in more detail the group has put together a study guide which is longer than the Manifesto and executive summary combined.

The driving force was a steering committee of nine members including Os Guinness, John Huffman, Rich Mouw, David Neff and Dallas Willard.  The comments seem to suggest lead authorship by Mr. Guinness with support by this team.

There were 72 other “Charter Signatories” of the Manifesto and the list of additional signatories now appears to be as much as ten times that.  While I will not reprint all 72 names, many did jump out at me for either their celebrity or their Presbyterian connections.  These include Kay Arthur, Mark Bailey, Leighton Ford, Jack Hayford, Roberta Hestenes, Max Lucado, Gordon MacDonald, Sam Moffett, John Ortberg, Vic Pentz, Mark Roberts, Marguerite Shuster, Ronald Sider, and Jim Wallis.  There are reports that Rick Warren helped draft it but chose not to sign the final product.

From these contributors and Charter Signatories it is clear that there was a presence of members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in the development and initial endorsement of this document.  And in the additional signatures many more PC(USA) individuals can be found and there are a few who self identify as Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Church in America, and one Reformed Presbyterian.  And it should be no surprise that with Rich Mouw on the steering committee there seems to be significant acceptance by individuals from Fuller Seminary and Princeton Seminary faculty and students are also evident.

So, while this is primarily marketed as a document for the American culture at large it might also be seen as a message to the Presbyterian, at least PC(USA), community.

A lot has also been made of the fact that many individuals who are closely associated with the title “Evangelical,” including James Dobson, Charles Colson, and Tony Perkins, were not invited to give input on the docum
ent and have not signed it.  And for the most part those in this category have not volunteered opinions or comments and have only issued terse statements when asked for comment.  But for a more interesting take on the document you can check out those that Deepak Chopra made on the Washington Post/Newsweek On Faith web site.  As you might expect his point-by-point discussion of the seven definitional points moved between new age universalism and references to points now being discounted by liberal Protestantism.  He apparently had not read the next section on defining features where this is discussed at length.  Well, if the document was too general for some it was too specific for him.

While I discussed the definitions for evangelicals before, and the Barna Group has their own nine-point definition that only a small percentage of Christians actually fulfill, with documents like this the attempt to pin down the term becomes even harder.  Among the signers, Rich Mouw, Mark Roberts, and Jim Wallis have talked about the Manifesto in their blogs, and Albert Mohler talks about why he did not sign it.  And I would note that a Google search turns up the fact that this was not the first Evangelical Manifesto, there being at least one other by the National Association of Evangelicals in 1996 discussed in a Christianity Today article. While I can not find reference to it on the NAE web site, it has been preserved on the Cephas Library web site. (I should note that the current president of the NAE was one of the charter signatories.)

One interesting tie-in is a recent post on the blog GetReligion.  (If you are not familiar with this blog it does a great job analyzing media reporting of religion and how those in the media often do not “Get Religion.”  It is a good read.)  Anyway, in a recent post they were analyzing an L.A. Times article about a zoning issue for a Chabad Jewish preschool.  What the author of the GetReligion article pointed out was that this Jewish Lubavitch sect is know for outreach, often viewed as “evangelizing.”

If the outreach is to bring people back into the church that is probably one thing, but the problem is related to recruiting people to the Jewish religion with its membership usually determined by birth.  Also, evangelizing has a bad connotation because of Christian groups trying to convert Jews.  And so the author says that the label of “evangelizing” is a “slur” in Jewish culture.

Now, I have made a jump here from “Evangelical” to “evangelizing.”  But in our American cultural mindset we so often associate the action of evangelizing with those who are evangelical Christians.  Maybe it is just because the words come from the same root.  In Europe this association is not necessarily so as demonstrated by the fact that in Germany and some other countries what we call the Lutheran Church is just know as the Evangelical or Evangelical Reformed Church.  This is a point that the writers of the Manifesto point out in a general sense.

Returning to the concept of Jews evangelizing, it should also be remembered that frequently in the early church “christian,” that is “little christ,” was used as a pejorative by those outside the church.  In the early church the term “Christian” was not a way the believers referred to themselves.  (I could not find which book of mine has this in but I’ll post the citation here as soon as I can locate it.)

Finally, there is a parallel mindset here about evangelizing between some of these Jews and some Christians in their view of Calvinism.  Just as some Jews believe that membership in God’s chosen people is decided by birth, for some Christians if in election or predestination God has already decided who will be saved why is there a need for evangelizing those outside the church.

Anyway, there is plenty out there on the Evangelical Manifesto, both in the media and in the blogosphere.  I decided not to try to pick and chose between the various takes on this that are available but rather just to look at it from my particular blogging niche.

General Assembly of the Church of Scotland — Wrap-up 1: General Thoughts and The British PM

4 Replies

The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland concluded their meeting today and while I had hoped to do some live-blogging during the sessions, life and work (pun intended) kept me busy with other things.  I will do a couple of wrap-up posts over the next few days since I will have the extended Memorial/Decoration Day holiday weekend to do some blogging.

My first reaction is that it was great to be watching a General Assembly, any GA, again.  While some terminology and issues may be unique to the Church of Scotland (CofS), there is much in their deliberations that overlaps with other branches.  In particular, the CofS is looking at a reorganization of their most basic constitutional document that has echoes of the PC(USA) Revised Form of Government debate (in structure and approach but not as much content).  There were also debates that involved interim ministry, pastoral searches, theological education, and the church in the 21st century.  I’ll talk about those debates in later posts, but the feel of the proceedings was very familiar to us GA Junkies.

One of the headline items of the General Assembly was an invited speech on Saturday by British Prime Minister the Right Honorable Gordon Brown MP.

Two items of background are helpful to know to appreciate the context of this speech.  The first is that Gordon Brown is a “son of the manse,” his father having been a Church of Scotland minister.  In his speech he looks back and comments on growing up and what he learned from his father including:

And all that I was taught then remains with me to this day. Like so
many here today, my father lived on a ministerial stipend. But he also
brought us up to study the great texts, to believe that the size of
your wealth mattered less than the strength of your character; that a
life of joy and fulfillment could be lived in the service of others; and
that to be tested by adversity is not a fate to be feared but a
challenge to be overcome.

The second piece of background is that this is the 20th anniversary of a speech given by then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to the General Assembly.  That speech is available from the web site of the Margaret Thatcher Foundation and is considered a key exposition of her moral and religious world view.  The Thatcher speech is known in Scotland as the “Sermon on the Mound,” a play on both the scriptural discourse of Jesus and the artificial hill where the Assembly Hall is located.  This is a name that the Thatcher Foundation frowns upon saying in the editorial comments with the speech text “Tastelessly, opponents nicknamed the speech ‘the Sermon on the Mound.'”  The speech caused an uproar for its proof-texting scripture, worship, and theology to justify her political theories.  The Wikipedia page on the speech describes the Moderator’s reply in presenting her with reports on housing and poverty “which was interpreted by the press as a polite rebuke.”

Mr. Brown’s speech politely walked a fine line between Church and State while never really doing much with either.  He does deal with the moral responsibility each person has for making the world a better place, the role that the church has for holding up issues and speaking truth to power, and he acknowledge the reports handed to the PM 20 years ago saying:

So just as twenty years ago this weekend the then Prime Minister was
presented with the Church and Nation Committees’ deliberations and
kindly invited to study a report entitled ‘Just Sharing’, I expect
nothing less than for you to ask me and the Scottish Parliament to
study in detail – and reflect upon – today’s report of the Church and
Society Council —- to reflect upon your demands, your priorities,
your call for action on homelessness, on child poverty, on the
shortfalls in the care of older people. And I agree also with what you
say about the misery caused by gambling and drug addiction, and the
scourge of alcohol abuse.

After talking about the human urge to work for justice he then spoke of the potential of cyberspace and its ability to bring together like-minded people even if they are on the opposite sides of the world.  His logical conclusion is:

And what I want to argue is that the joining of these two forces –
the information revolution and the human urge to co-operate for justice
– makes possible for the first time in history something we have only
dreamt about: the creation of a truly global society.

A global
society where people anywhere and everywhere can discover their shared
values, communicate with each other and do not need to meet or live
next door to each other to join together with people in other countries
in a single moral universe to bring about change.

As a true politician he did not embrace any distinctive theological issues but spoke of “universal truths” using Christian terms and references and talked of global issues in general terms.

Needless to say, a speech by an important politician received significant coverage in the media and the blogs.  There is coverage on the BBC Web Site with an article on the speech and a critical commentary in the Scotsman.  On the blogs there is plenty of commentary as well, but I would single out the comments by Alan in Belfast and Puffbox that highlight Brown’s comments about the value of the internet.  There is plenty more of both regular media and blogs if you do a web search on these.

OK, enough of the kids that have left home coming back to say “hi.”  Next, on to the meatier subjects of reorganization and the Articles Declaratory.

Synod PJC Lets Restoration To Ordained Ministry Stand

2 Replies

A few days ago the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of Lakes and Prairies dismissed the remedial complaint filed against the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area regarding their restoration of the Rev. Paul Capetz to the practice of ordained ministry.  The Rev. Capetz is on the faculty of United Theological Seminary, an independent theological institution with a UCC heritage.  He had asked to be released in 2000 because he could not agree with Book of Order section G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” standard.  With the passage of the PUP Report he asked to be restored while declaring a scruple.  The Presbytery agreed in January and restored Mr. Capetz.  The complaint was then filed with the Synod PJC.  I’ve held off a couple of days hoping to get official language, but I have not found it yet so I’ll discuss this decision based on what was first reported by the Witherspoon Society.

According to the Witherspoon Society piece, the Synod PJC ruled that the Book of Order and interpretations by previous General Assembly PJC decisions all deal with the ordination process and since Mr. Capetz was previously ordained there was no basis for complaint.  I would also note that the Authoritative Interpretation resulting from the PUP report also deals principally with the ordination process, and that another GAPJC decision deals only with a call to employment in a PC(USA) entity.  In light of this precedent and case law this is a reasonable decision by the SPJC, even if it seems counter-intuitive based on all these previous decisions.  To determine a new interpretation on this particular circumstance will require appeal to the GAPJC or action by the General Assembly.

If you are interested there are a whole series of GAPJC decisions on this which have carved the lines fairly precisely.  As I list these I will usually rely on the very brief description found in the Annotated Book of Order.   One series of decisions has dealt with the ordination process.  The decision in 205-4: Gary J. LeTourneau et al v. Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area in 1993 made clear that a “self-affirmed practicing homosexual” (SAPH) may not be certified ready for ordination.  The prohibition on ordination was reaffirmed in 206-3: Hope Church v. Central Church in 1994, and in 218-04: George R. Stewart v. Mission Presbytery in 2008.  However, the GAPJC also made clear that if you are celibate you may be ordained based on 212-12: John S. Sheldon, et al., v. the Presbytery of West Jersey. And then in a couple of decisions that bridge between the two extremes, 214-5: Ronald L. Wier v. Session, Second Presbyterian Church of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, and 215-8: Presbytery of San Joaquin v. The Presbytery of the Redwoods and Edgar T. Hart, Steve Nesheim, Larry Ballenger, Bill McDonald, Merle Wood, Rebecca Jordan-Irwin, and Kent A. Webber v. The Presbytery of the Redwoods, the GAPJC basically reaffirmed that orientation alone is not an impediment to ordination, but if there are reasonable grounds (not rumor) to believe the individual is a SAPH than the ordaining body is obligated to investigate this.

As far as ordination is concerned, these have all been related to the ordination process and the GAPJC has made it clear in 206-3: Hope Church v. Central Church in 1994, and reaffirmed in 211-2: Wier v. Session, Second Presbyterian Church of Fort Lauderdale, Florida that an ordination may not be annulled under these circumstances.  And the GAPJC did caution in 215-5: Daniel J. McKittrick v. The Session of the West End Presbyterian Church of Albany, New York not to rush the ordination or installation process to reach this end.

There is one other thread in the GAPJC decisions which is applicable here.  While an ordination may not be annulled in these cases, the GAPJC did say in 205-5: Ronald P. Sallade et al v. Presbytery of Genesee Valley in 1993, and reaffirmed in several of these other cases, that a SAPH, if ordained, may not be called to employment in a PC(USA) position that “presumes ordination.”  In the case of Mr. Capetz, he is employed by an independent theological institution and the presbytery validated that ministry.

As I skim through these previous decisions, it strikes me that there is no set precedent for restoration to ordained ministry.  (I’m sure you will let me know if I missed a paragraph somewhere.)  And while it does seem to go against the intent of many of these decisions, and of the recent 218-10: Randall Bush, Wayne Peck, and the Session of East Liberty Presbyterian Church v Presbytery of Pittsburgh, I see no reason under current decisions that the SPJC should not have dismissed it.  As I said before, the real test will be the GAPJC if it is appealed.  Time will tell.

Thoughts About Natural Disasters

1 Reply

In my day job I am an earthquake geologist working in an academic setting.  As part of my religious and spiritual life I obviously spend a lot of time thinking about Reformed theology.  So, in a week like this with a major deadly earthquake in China, how do the two halves of my life inform each other?

I have laid this all out, at least to my preliminary satisfaction, in a longer theological discourse that I have presented in multi-week adult education classes at churches.  Here is the executive summary:

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.  [Genesis 1:31]

At the beginning of the Bible we are presented with the situation that when God looked at “all that he had made” he found it to be “very good.”  So if we now have a “created order” that has the potential for natural disasters that can cause the loss of tens of thousands of human lives is that still “very good” or did something go wrong?  As Christians we believe that within human nature something did go wrong and that is the Fall in Genesis 3.  But when humans fell did the created order fall with it?  It seems clear to me that the created order was corrupted as well.  This is not in the sense that the creation is sinful the way humans are, but in the Fall and humans becoming sinful they had to leave the garden and the world we live in now is not the ideal that God originally created.  In the New Testament Paul writes in Romans 8:21 “that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay” and we see that release from bondage in Revelation 21 with a New Heaven and a New Earth, and the New Earth will be the dwelling place of humans with God.  Just as we have the image of humans being raised in a perfected form, this echoes the redemption of creation that Paul talks of with the earth being made new for the perfected humans to live in.  In a more controversial reading of the Greek, the argument could be made that John 3:16, “For God so loved the world…” could foreshadow this as well since for the word we translate “world” John uses the Greek word kosmos, which can mean the “created order,”  rather than using some term specific to human beings such as ethnos.

That is the first part, that the world we live in is corrupted just like us humans are.  So are earthquakes a curse in this corrupted world?  I’m not sure that they are.  While they have been viewed as God’s judgment or His hand upon the world at times through history, in the Bible they sometimes clearly are, and sometimes they are not, sometimes even being neutral phenomenon.  In this present world earthquakes are the mechanism by which mountains are built.  Mountains are important for providing new fertile soil in their erosion, for producing rain clouds, for renewing the surface of the earth, for providing many important mineral deposits.  The argument could probably be made that in a “perfect” world we don’t need mountains, or if we did need them that they could rise and fall aseismically without earthquakes.  But in this world it seems to me that we need mountains, and mountains and earthquakes are inseparably linked.

Therefore earthquakes as a class are not a curse or punishment from God, but a functioning part of a created order that was corrupted in the fall.  This means that when a large devastating earthquake happens, like the one that just hit southeast China, we are not looking for God’s punishment in it, or for a sign of the end times, but rather as a part of the renewing of the earth, the created order, that can have the unfortunate side effect of causing this destruction and loss of life because the created order is fallen and corrupt.

That is the approach from a natural history perspective.  This can also be considered from a human perspective which does more integration of the scriptures and a consideration of modern civilization.  That is for another time, but I would note that in times of devastation like this faith-based humanitarian organizations can have more access to otherwise controlled areas to bring in the Gospel, at least the Gospel enacted if not spoken.

I don’t know if this makes sense in an executive summary form.  When I do the six hour version people seem to follow me and it holds together.  As I said at the onset, this was a necessary formulation for me so that I would be able to understand my profession in the context of my faith.  Being in a field where I can work to reduce human suffering is important to me.  But at times like this my academic theological explanation only helps slightly when I see the death and destruction in the area of the earthquake and still ask God “why?” or “for how long?”  And I think that because of my professional ties to these events my heart aches a bit more for the victims of an earthquake than for any other natural disaster.

Upcoming PCA General Assembly — Role of Women in Ministry

A lot has happened in the last couple of days and my sincere thanks to Marshall for leaving the comments alerting us to the developments in the Presbyterian Church in America during that time.

These relate to the developing discussion over women as deacons, and more generally to the role of women in the church.  While I have mentioned this at various points in the past, I have particular posts in January and February that focus on this issue.  Up to this week, there were two overtures before the General Assembly asking for a study committee to clarify the scriptural, confessional, and polity basis of deaconesses.  The first is Overture 9 from Philadelphia Presbytery and the second is Overture 15 from Western Canada Presbytery.

In the last day four more overtures have been posted to the overtures page.  I will only mention that overtures 16 and 18 are matching procedural overtures from Piedmont Triad Presbytery and Western Carolina Presbytery to modify their shared presbytery boundary moving one church from Western Carolina to Piedmont Triad.  Overtures 17 and 19 deal with the question of women and ministry, the first to expand the charge of the study committee and the second asks the assembly to decline to establish the study committee.

In Overture 17, from Rocky Mountain Presbytery, the text cites the fact that this issue has not been addressed in this or a similar Presbyterian branch in 20 years.  It also notes that this issue has caused churches to leave the denomination, and while not naming names, a recent example is City Presbyterian Church of Denver which recently left (or is in the final stages of the process of leaving) that Presbytery and affiliated with the Reformed Church in America.  The overture concurs with overtures 9 and 15 and goes further to ask for clarification on the broader role of women in the church including what roles they may serve in as well as leading in worship and teaching when the group contains both men and women.

At the other end is Overture 19 from Central Georgia Presbytery.  Their overture, to paraphrase and summarize, says that 1) Scripture is clear and there is no dispute, 2) that “commissioning” in this case is a way to side-step the polity restrictions on ordination, 3) that titles must be scriptural, 4) that overtures 9 and 15 are challenges to the Westminster Standards and should be defeated, 5) that in the polity the status quo is appropriate, and 6) that sessions are free to appoint Godly men and women to assist the diaconate.

Well, the first two overtures that addressed the current understanding of the ordained offices were already looking to make the Assembly interesting.  Now with two more that stretch the discussion in both directions this should make this meeting one that will be talked about for a while, not to mention the Assembly where the Study Committee reports, if such a committee is established.

But it is not just the overtures that have appeared in the last few days.  Once again the Bayly Brothers have a blog entry addressing this issue and it also argues for the status quo and better Presbytery oversight and guidance because the church should never have gotten to this point in the first place.  As Tim concludes:

We’re repeating the endless error of American Presbyterians who trust
study committees to do nasty work that would better be handled by
loving, local, personal, compassionate, discerning, biblical church
discipline.

In a “variations on a theme” sense, this entry could be written about several of the Presbyterian branches that are debating ordination standards.  You could take this entry, fill in the PC(USA) for the church and practicing homosexuals for the group under discussion, and the entry would read like one side of the argument in that debate.  And while I can’t cite an example from the other side of the PCA debate right at the moment, the same could be done for that and with some word substitution it would cover the other side.  That is one of the reasons that I write this blog:  The issues that you see around the world in the church frequently take many variations on the same basic theme.  May God Bless Us.

Upcoming PC(USA) General Assembly — I Posted Too Soon

Leave a reply

In my post yesterday I said that I had no word of additional challengers for the position of Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA).  Well, this afternoon brings a Presbyterian News Service article that there are four candidates:

The search committee nominee, insider and heir apparent – Rev. Gradye Parsons

The initial challenger – Rev. Edward Koster

Newly announced – Rev. Winfield “Casey” Jones

Newly announced – Rev. William P. Tarbell

You can read about the Rev. Parsons all over the PC(USA) web site, such as his own GA page, as the official nominee, and there is the original Presbyterian News Service article and my initial comments.

While Rev. Parsons is currently featured on the Stated Clerk search web page, to be fair the page currently reprints part of today’s article and will soon have info on all the candidates now that the declaration deadline has passed.

I talked about the Rev. Koster when he first announced and he had a News Service article written about him as well.

The article says that both Rev. Jones and Rev. Tarbell filed their declarations at the deadline on Wednesday.  Also, both of these pastors challenged the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick for the job back in 2000. 

Rev. Jones is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Pearland, Texas, and the article says that his experience includes serving as a pastor in Texas in several congregations since 1979 and serving on Presbytery committees.

Rev. Tarbell has similar experience but his parish service has been much more traveled including South Dakota, Wyoming, Oregon, Missouri, and currently South Carolina serving as pastor of Saluda Presbyterian Church.

Now that all the candidates are know there will be a book with more information on each one published shortly.

Upcoming PC(USA) General Assembly — Early May Update

Leave a reply

Today, May 8, is an exciting day.  General Assembly is getting closer and I, an unrepentant GA Junkie, can hardly wait.  With only a week to go…  Only a week to go?  Yes folks, the General Assembly season begins one week from today in Edinburgh, Scotland, with the convening of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.  Did I say I can hardly wait?  (Yeah, I’m pretty hard core about Presbyterian General Assemblies.  But if you have not figured that out from this blog I’m not doing my job.)

I’ll do a preview of that GA in the next day or two, but first this is also an important day for the Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly.

Yesterday marked the 45 day deadline before the convening of GA and according to the Standing Rules there is lots of stuff that has to happen by that day.  First, while the usual cut-off for submitted business is 60 days before the start, under rule A.1.b the Stated Clerk has the discretion to include business submitted up to the 45 day point.  (Note, this is the postmark date so there could be business to still arrive in the next few days.)  Forty-five days is also the cut-off for overtures [A.3.c.(3)], but the deadlines for constitutional changes and those with financial implications has already passed.  In addition, nominees for Vice-moderator must be announced [H.1.c.(1)] and challengers for the Stated Clerk election must declare [H.2.b.(3).(k)].  And in general, most papers, communications, commissioner committee assignments, and a lot of other routine items needed to by done by yesterday.

Let me move on to the business.  Taking the easy one first, I have heard of no other applicants besides Edward Koster who have declared that they are challenging the nominating committee’s selection Gradye Parsons for the position of Stated Clerk.

As for the Vice-moderator nominees, thanks to Moderator candidate Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow we now know that the Rev. Diane Givens Moffett, pastor of St. James Presbyterian Church of Greensboro, NC, has been selected by the Rev. Carl Mazza as his Vice-moderator nominee.  I don’t see this announcement on his Moderator candidacy web site yet.  Rev. Moffett, according to the bio on her church web site, is a native of Oakland, CA, and her education was in the Bay Area as well with a degree from Berkeley and an MDiv and DMin from SFTS North.  She has been recognized for her preaching and if you Google her there are a lot of hits returned for her.  This rounds out the field of eight with seven clergy and one elder (way to go Roger!).  Now we wait for the election.

The committee leadership was formally announced earlier this week, but if you surfed around PC-biz, that has actually been posted there since my last update.  The committee leadership is very important, maybe the most important business aspect of GA.  Since all business is dealt with in committee first, and generally shaped there, how the committee functions is crucial.  In most cases the full assembly has neither the time nor the interest in doing anything more than fine-tuning a committee report.  In general, the committee report is adopted almost exactly as the committee presents it.  Pray for these people in leadership.

Well, that brings us to the business itself.  The total number of items in PC-biz is 283 and with 99 overtures last time the count now appears to be up to 109.  With numbers like that you can see why the Assembly must trust the committees.

I have been a bit connected to overtures 100, 101, and 102 which were submitted by my Synod and concern Hanmi Presbytery, a non-geographic Korean-language presbytery, and its churches.  Beginning with 102, which was assigned to Committee 3 – General Assembly Procedures, this overture asks for the continuation of Hanmi Presbytery on an indefinite basis.  The rational is interesting reading because it not only lays out the trials and tribulations Hanmi has been through, but it also describes the history of non-geographic presbyteries in the PC(USA).  Authorized in 1983 and established in 1984 Hanmi was to be a transitional presbytery (yes, the PC(USA) had transitional presbyteries, but that is another issue) with a ten year life time.  The status as a transitional presbytery was renewed for another 15 years, to expire in January 2009.  That was to be the last extension and instructions were given to develop a plan to transfer churches out.  In the mean time, non-geographic presbyteries were enshrined in the Book of Order by the church in 2001 by adding them to G-12.0102k so as to meet “mission needs.”  Now that non-geographic presbyteries are no longer a transitional structure, the request is for Hanmi to continue indefinitely.  But this is with the note that overtures 100 and 101 are requests to transfer churches out of Hanmi into Riverside and Pacific Presbyteries respectively.

It is interesting to note that the 217th GA in 2006 referred to the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly a request to study the feasibility of non-geographic synods, particularly Korean-American ones.  That referral is coming back as item 03-07 and recommends that when there are not enough congregations within the bounds of a synod for a non-geographic presbytery that congregations may join, with the permission of everyone in sight, a non-geographic presbytery in another synod.

Now, without financial implications or constitutional changes what is left?  Social witness policy of course.  Overture 103, from Pittsburgh Presbytery, is supporting single-payer universal health care.  Overture 105, from Santa Barbara Presbytery, asks that the PC(USA) becomes a non-partisan advocate for peace and would direct that the denominational offices not take sides.  And 106, also from Santa Barbara Presbytery, would have the 218th GA answer all overtures concerning Israel and Palestine with a single statement.  That statement says that the issues are complex and the PC(USA) will not take a position that favors one side or the other.  Furthermore, it calls on the church to pray for peace, render humanitarian aid, condemn terrorism, and advocate for a negotiated solution.

It is interesting that another group of overtures deal with disaster assistance in various ways.  Overture 104 from South Louisiana Presbytery asks the denomination to look into group wind and hail insurance policies.  Overture 107, from the Synod of the Sun, would thank Presbyterians throughout the country, and Presbyterian Disaster Assistance, for their help rebuilding the Gulf Coast communities.  And 108 addresses a current issue in the denomination, the incorporation of Presbyterian Disaster Assistance.  This overture, from Peace River Presbytery, instructs General Assembly Council to continue to move forward with the process of incorporating PDA.  At its meeting at the end of April the GAC voted unanimously not to incorporate PDA because they decided that things were good now and “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”  They did keep the task force in place until September 2009.  It is not evident if this overture pre-dates or post-dates that vote.

Finally, overture 109, from Heartland Presbytery, asks the Stated Clerk to gather resources and examples of ordination examination procedures and materials for use across the church.  This is of course related to the PUP report and we will see if it is affected by other action the GA may take on PUP issues.

That is it for now.  I’ll be focusing on the Church of Scotland GA for the next couple of weeks but will try to also update the PC(USA) business if anything arises.

PC(USA) General Assembly Moderator Candidate Events

2 Replies

Over the last week there has been some local activity for the four candidates standing for Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

The series of events began with the attendance of the candidates at the regular meeting of the General Assembly Council in Louisville.  This seems to not so much be a “moderator” event as it is a “reality check.”  It gives the candidates an opportunity to see the state of the denomination one last time before GA, and it lets the “inner circle” of the denomination check out the candidates.  From these two days Bruce Reyes-Chow has posted some of his reflections.

After Louisville, all four traveled to New Jersey for two “meet-and-greet” events, one in the afternoon at Bloomfield College and one that evening at First Presbyterian Church of Lawrenceville.  The evening one is well covered, complete with pictures, by lead organizer Mark Smith in his blog Mark Time.  For full details and impressions check it out, but it had a great format with time for candidate’s remarks to the whole group, breaking up into four groups, one with each candidate and then rotate candidates, and finally an informal time to mingle.  In addition to Mark, candidate Carl Mazza has his own comments on his blog.

Finally, Bruce Reyes-Chow and Bill Teng were able to continue the “whistle-stop tour” with an event the next day at New York Avenue Presbyterian Church, in Washington, D.C.  You can find reflections on this event by Carol Howard Merritt on her blog Tribal Church.

All the comments are positive about these events and it sounds like a useful exercise to get the candidates together out in the “real world.”  So often we hear about the election at GA, those that did not get elected fade from view, and the Moderator is now someone out traveling the world on our behalf that we may read about, but usually don’t meet and who also has pretty much faded from view when the next GA rolls around.  Now I realize that even with the new two year terms of moderators, for them to visit every presbytery would require visiting an average of close to two presbyteries per week.  So getting face time with each of the two-million-ish members is not realistic.  But we in the particular church need to be attentive to our connectionalism more than the one week every-other year that GA is in session.

PC(USA) GA PJC Decision in Spahr v. Redwoods Presbytery: Reaction and Analysis

Leave a reply

The publication Tuesday of the decision in the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission case 218-12, Jane Adams Spahr v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) through the Presbytery of Redwoods has had a variety of reactions.  Early popular media articles, like this Reuters article or this WHAM-TV piece, basically picked up the story that the Rev. Spahr was cleared of the charges against her.

However, as the day went on the sophistication of the popular media reporting increased and is catching up with the discerning comments of Presbyterians familiar with the issues.  Among the first out with a story was the Presbyterian News Service whose article referred to the decision as “complicated.”  In a statement about the decision the Acting Executive Presbyter/Stated Clerk of Redwood Presbytery, the Rev. Robert Conover, refers to the decision as “nuanced and lengthy.”  In her own statement, the Rev. Spahr expresses her gratitude for the GA PJC upholding the original decision by the Presbytery PJC.  Later articles, such as one by the San Francisco Chronicle, began to recognize that Rev. Spahr’s acquittal is only the easy part of the story and there is still more there. The Chronicle writes “The ambivalent ruling –
affirming the rights of gays and lesbians to have their relationships
sanctioned by the church but not considering them equal to those of
heterosexual couples – is likely to disappoint both sides in the debate.”  And on the KGO-TV web site they write “Tuesday’s ruling is a complicated, split decision. It essentially
clears Reverend Spahr of disciplinary charges, saying she can’t be
found guilty of doing that, which by definition, cannot be done — the
marriage of gay couples. However, they say no one should try it again.”

As for official reaction, the Office of the Stated Clerk on Tuesday updated the Advisory Opinion 7 on Ceremonies Blessing Same-Sex Relationships to reflect this new decision.

Reaction from the web and blogosphere is still developing.  Most progressive web sites that have posted something, like That All May Freely Serve and JustPresbys, are pretty much linking to or quoting other statements or reports.  In the next few days we are likely to see more official statements from these groups.  On his blog the Rev. Ray Bagnuolo recognizes this as a victory, but only a beginning for the cause of equality for LGBT individuals.  Finally, the Rev. John Shuck and the Rev. David Fischler on each of their respective blogs from very different ends of the theological spectrum call this an “odd” and “bazaar” decision.

After reading it through a few times I must agree with them.  After putting together the available pieces, it seems to me that this was a divided PJC and they made the effort to put together a central kernel that they could all affirm and then five of the twelve commission members put together a dissent to the other significant part of the decision.  In addition, there are three other concurring decisions that comment on other parts of the decision.

The real focal point of this decision is Specification of Error No. 1 and No. 2.  Error 1 is that the Synod PJC should not have concluded that same sex marriages are prohibited by Presbyterian polity and Error 2 is that Rev. Spahr committed a disciplinary offense.  The GA PJC recognized that the Book of Order in W-4.9001 and the 1991 Authoritative Interpretation (see Advisory Opinion 7) prohibit ceremonies that represent marriages between persons of the same sex but other commitment or blessing ceremonies are not prohibited.  They also cited that marriage is between a man and a women as stated in W-4.9001.  It would then appear that all of the members of the PJC agreed on the following statements:

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.

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.

The PPJC was correct in finding that by performing the two ceremonies at issue, Spahr did not commit an offense as charged. Therefore, the SPJC erred in determining that Spahr was guilty of violating W-4.9001 or the 1991 AI.

And at the end of the section the decision says:

In summary, Specification of Error No. 1 is not sustained because by definition, “marriage is . . . between a man and a woman.” (W-4.9001) Specification of Error No. 1 and Specification of Error No. 2 are sustained because W-4.9001 does not state a mandatory prohibition on performing a same sex ceremony. The charge was for performing a marriage ceremony, which by definition cannot be performed.

So, if I read this correctly the question is not whether you intend to conduct a ceremony that you are calling a marriage or view as being equivalent.  The question is whether you did conduct a marriage ceremony.  Since same-sex couples, by definition of W-4.9001, can not be in a relationship called marriage, it is impossible to conduct such a ceremony and therefor no charges can be filed.  (And it appears that by this logic can never be filed.) So “poof,” under PC(USA) polity there is now no such thing as same-sex marriage.

As I look at this decision, this seems to be the mental gymnastics that were necessary to get a unanimous decision.  In addition, the sentence “Both parties acknowledged the ceremonies in question were not marriages as defined by the Book of Order” appears to be carefully constructed to be conditional on the Book of Order definition because it is made clear in the history of the case that Rev. Spahr intended these to be marriages and the evidence includes the fact that she signed a “Certificate of Marriage” in each case.  Even now, in her statement following the decision, she consistently uses the term “marriage” to describe her ministry.

But if you look at the substantive parts quoted above the real emphasis is on Book of Order W-4.9001.  The dissenting opinion by five of the members of the commission takes issue with the additional verbiage in this section that tries to expand on W-4.9001 using the 1991 AI or a previous PJC decision.  W-4.9001 talks about marriage and always refers to it being between a man and a woman.  There is no reference to the ceremony itself in this section or to any other ceremonies that may be for same-sex couples.  Strictly the constitution does not prohibit or regulate same-sex ceremonies except to say they are not marriages.   The 1991 AI and the previous Benton decision do make reference to the ceremony, that it should not be the same as a marriage ceremony and that it would be improper to use the church for such a ceremony.  This decision in the Spahr case extends this by saying:

In holding that Spahr was not guilty as charged, this Commission does not hold that there are no differences between same sex ceremonies and marriage ceremonies. We do hold that the liturgy should be kept distinct for the two types of services. We further hold that officers of the PCUSA authorized to perform marriages shall not state, imply, or represent that a same sex ceremony is a marriage. Under W-4.9001, a same sex ceremony is not and cannot be a marriage.

The five members of the commission who signed the dissent take issue with this extension.  They argue:

In rendering its decision, the majority has taken the liberty of legislating in the guise of interpreting inconsistencies between W-4.9001 on the one hand, and the 1991 Al and this Commission’s decision in Benton v. Presbytery of Hudson River, Remedial Case 212-11 (2000), on the other hand. For the reasons stated herein, we respectfully concur in the result of the majority, but disagree with the decision of the majority to the extent that it rests on the 1991 AI or Benton.

This seems to hearken back to the recent GA PJC decisions on the 2006 AI concerning declarations of exceptions in ordinations.  The idea is that the constitution is primary and AI’s and PJC decisions should not be used to extend the reach of the constitution.

On the other side, three commissioners in a concurring opinion write, in total:

We join in the foregoing Decision and Order (Decision). We understand the Decision to be an authoritative interpretation of W-4.9001, to mea
n that officers of the PCUSA who are authorized to perform marriages shall not hereafter perform a same sex union ceremony in which or with respect to which such officer states, implies or represents to be a marriage or the equivalent thereof. While the Commission did not find Spahr guilty as charged herein, in part because her conduct occurred under prior authoritative interpretations, we understand that future noncompliance with the authoritative interpretation of the Decision will be considered to be a disciplinable offense.

So, now that it is in the books, you have been warned and don’t do it again.

For the polity wonks, an interesting polity point is that the GA PJC dismissed arguments base on Benton right from the start of the decision in the Preliminary Statement pointing out that Benton resulted from a remedial case and this was a disciplinary case so it was not relevant case law.  With the exception of reference to it in the dissent I have not found other reference to Benton in the rest of the decision section.

In the reasoning on Errors 1 and 2 the main opinion continues on for roughly another page discussing Rev. Spahr’s ministry and the part of marriage ceremonies in it.  It acknowledges her sense of call to “participate in a caring and compassionate ministry to persons who have been marginalized, who are faithful Christians, and who wish to be accepted in every way as full members of the body of Christ.”  It also says that the Rev. Spahr may consider herself acting in the role of a prophet to the church, and points out that the role of a prophet contains risks and carries consequences.  The decision goes on to say “It is the burden of a church officer to accept the consequences of his or her actions that are the ecclesiastical equivalent of civil disobedience.”  The third of the concurring opinions expands on this and the Book of Order basis for it, even further.

The rest of the decision is fairly routine, procedural, and straight-forward.  Most errors were rendered irrelevant once Rev. Spahr was cleared in the first section.  It was noted that for Error 3 there was no disciplinary action to be taken, but originally the Synod PJC was out of place imposing a punishment and it should have remanded the case back to the Presbytery PJC for the consequences.  And it noted that while Rev. Spahr on appeal had referred to the 2006 AI, that was irrelevant because that applied only to conscience issues related to ordination standards.  Error 6 also refers back to conscience but the decision replys “Submission to the current standards of the church may not always be comfortable, but it is not optional.”  Finally, Error 7 was about a member of the Presbytery PJC and whether they should have been disqualified from serving on the case.  The decision says it was correct to let them go ahead and serve but a concurring opinion says that while it may be procedurally correct, for the appearance of a fair decision disqualification would have been wise.

So that is the decision, but where does that leave us?  As one statement said, this seems to imply a “separate but equal” structure in the PC(USA).  The ceremonies just can not look the same.  Rev. Spahr says that she will continue conducting “marriages.”  It also seems like muddled case law that neither side in the debate will be comfortable with.  It seems ripe for clarification and expansion by a future GA PJC.  And the similar case of the Rev. Janet Edwards in Pittsburgh Presbytery is awaiting a trial date.  It will be interesting to see how this as case law influences that decision.