Category Archives: PC Ireland

Presbyterian Mutual Society — Full Court Decision And Payout Plan

Leave a reply

It took about a month but the full decision from Justice Deeny of the Northern Ireland Courts has now been published in the case related to the request of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland to be allowed to transfer £1 million to an assistance fund for investors in the failed Presbyterian Mutual Society.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
CHANCERY DIVISION
IN THE MATTER OF THE TRUSTS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN IRELAND
-and-
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARITIES ACT (NI) 1964
BETWEEN:
THE TRUSTEES OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN IRELAND – Plaintiff;
-and-
HER MAJESTY’S ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND – Defendant.

Now, regarding the actual decision, that the church could contribute these funds, there is nothing new here.  However, there are some details that I found interesting that were not included in the summary.

For example, I did not pick up the rushed nature of this case. Mr. Deeny writes:

[2]        The plaintiff had
asked for this matter to be listed for early hearing before the court as an
urgent decision was required to facilitate the creation of the access fund
prior to the adjournment of the Assembly on 24 March.  The court was told at
the hearing on 9 March that the General Board of the Presbyterian Church was
actually meeting the next day 10 March and were anxious to have a judgment by
then.  This is far from ideal.  The court has been able to facilitate this
request by announcing it’s ruling on 10 March.

The judge also makes several comments about the Mutual Society and how investors might have thought they had more security than they actually did:

[3]        It is necessary, for
present purposes, to recall the factual background to this application.  The
Presbyterian Mutual Society Limited received monies by way of investments or
loans akin to deposits from persons, largely in Northern Ireland.  It was not,
but might have been mistaken for, a building society.  Rather it was a Society governed
by the provisions of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (NI) 1969. 
This meant that it was not covered by Government guarantees extending to banks
and similar institutions when there was a run on such institutions after they
had lost the confidence of the public.  The Society went into administration on
17 November 2008.

and

[4]        By the Rules of the
Society the persons who invested up to £20,000 in the Society were credited
with  shares in the Society…  Sums invested
over and above that level, attracted by the interest rates which the Society paid,
were treated as loan capital to the Society.  This had an unintended effect that
these different investments, without the original investors very largely being
aware of it, had a very different status in law once it became apparent that
the Society would be unable to recover all its loans…

and

[6]        The Presbyterian
Church in Ireland had no legal responsibility for the Presbyterian Mutual
Society Limited.  That is clear.  But I accept the averments of Rev Dr Donald
Watts, Clerk of the General Assembly and General Secretary of the Presbyterian
Church in Ireland that this distinction was not apparent to very many members
of the Church.  They tended to consider the Church responsible for the
Society. 

[8]        It is important to bear in mind… what the membership of the Society was…  “Membership shall only be available to members of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland over the age of 18 years and their families… Any Corporation or unincorporated body shall be admitted to membership if the Board is satisfied that the Corporation is representative of members of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.”  Therefore the perception that the Presbyterian Church owed a moral obligation for the Society is not only a matter of nomenclature or encouragement to invest but also because  members of the Society had to be Presbyterians. [emphasis in the original]

Regarding the legal tests it turns out that if properly structured by the Northern Ireland Government this hearing would not be necessary and the church would be free to make the contribution to “relieve the poverty of individual members.”  When the General Assembly originally authorized the use of the money it was termed a “Hardship Fund.”  In the rescue package put together by the government it is now a “mutual access fund.” Considering the nature of the arrangement even the Attorney General did not want to authorize the expenditure, something “He was empowered to but
he thought it “preferential” (ie. preferable) to put the matter before the court.” (paragraph 13).

Beginning in paragraph 14 the decision begins with the legal restriction that “a charity is not allowed to make disbursements for
non-charitable purposes” but goes on to consider the case law regarding the situation when a charity has “a moral obligation to do so.”  There is an interesting reference in para. 17 regarding the British Museum and the “moral obligation” to grant an exception “so as to permit
restitution of cultural objects of which possession was lost during the Nazi
era (1933-1945).”

Why the court is involved is then clearly outlined:

[19]      The
attention of the court has been drawn to the briefing note regarding the mutual
access fund which accompanied the Minister’s letter of 26 January 2011.  From
that one learns that “there has been extensive opposition from PMS members to
the use of means testing and lobbying that the fund should operate on a formula
basis and Ministers are now prepared to adopt this approach.”  It is the
absence of means testing which deprives the gift of the sum of £1m of its
charitable character. 

 The decision, having considered the situation and the case law, now focuses on the specific decision at hand:

[20]      What is a moral obligation?  …It might be said that a person or organisation is under a moral obligation to act in a particular way towards another not by reason of law or force but because, on account of some earlier promise or the relationship with that other person or some other reason, their own conscience or that of right thinking people generally would consider they behaved honourably and well if they acted in that way but badly and wrongly if they failed or neglected so to do.  How would that apply here?  In his affidavits [the Clerk] gave a few moving examples of the hurt felt by some of these small savers deprived of an investment, modest by some standards but substantial to them.  These people will benefit by the scheme proposed to a considerable extent.  If the Church does not contribute it may well be that the scheme does not proceed and therefore the persons exposed to poverty will not be assisted.  By operation of law and the realities of the state of the Society it is extremely unlikely that they would receive any of their money back without such external assistance.

[21]      It is interesting to note that the [General Assembly] resolution of 2010 referred to the gift going to a solution which included a hardship fund i.e. that it would not be exclusively for those in hardship.  I bear in mind that any saver who finds themselves deprived of money which they had invested in an apparently reputable financial institution in the United Kingdom may be aggrieved to find themselves deprived of it when others in apparently similar circumstances have been compensated or indemnified. 

[22]      Perhaps the matter goes further.  It can be seen that the contribution of the Church is a modest one compared to the contribution to be made by taxpayers in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom.  It would be paradoxical if the general body of taxpayers consisting of Anglicans, Catholics, atheists, agnostics, Moslems and Jews (as well as Presbyterians and many others) contributed to this solution but the only Church to which the members of the Society could belong did not make any contribution. I am satisfied that [the Clerk’s] apprehension that the Presbyterian Church would be considered very widely to have acted badly in such circumstances is a correct one.  I am satisfied that the surrounding circumstances, including in particular the promise previously given by this resolution, constitute a moral obligation on the Church which enables and allows the court to authorise the payment of up to £1m towards this mutual assistance fund.

The decision continues a bit further to distinguish between “convenient” and “expedient” and just at the end make an interesting observation about the impact on the ministry of the PCI.  It points out that not only does this contribution deprive other charitable work of needed funds but that the Mutual Society issue has negatively impacted financial contributions to the church and this use of the money might improve that perception:

…I [that is Justice Deeny] take into account that there is a loss to the funds of the charity
i.e. the Church by the disbursement of this money but that the disbursement
will lead to very considerable benefit to a considerable number of members of
the Church and thereby in both the reputational and in all likelihood financial
sense to the Church itself, bearing in mind [the Clerk’s] report of some diminution
in contributions which may be caused not by the current economic difficulties
but by the controversy over the Presbyterian Mutual Society. It is in the
broader interests of the Church.

So, not as easy of a read as the Summary but still a fairly understandable, straight-forward and interesting decision.

In the month since the decision was handed down matters have progressed with the resolution of this specific issue.  The Administrator sent out the proposed settlement last Friday and the shareholders have a month to approve the package and if they approve it must also be approved by the courts.  If everyone agrees savers may get their money by June or July.  In a press release the Administrator warns “if the scheme is rejected the offer of money from the government and the Presbyterian Church will be withdrawn and the alternative will be liquidation of the Society’s assets.”  In the event of liquidation those shareholders in the smaller category will get nothing and the creditors with larger amounts would get about 72% of their investment back.

The scheme is moderately complicated with a sliding scale and proposed deferment of some monies to the creditors for ten years to allow for the smaller shareholders to get nearly complete recovery of their investment.  The scheme ensures that all savers will receive at least 77% of their outstanding holdings returned to them and small savers should get at least 97% returned.

So, after 30 months this saga appears to be finally coming to a resolution and, for some, a close.  It is of course far from over since the series of approvals are needed and even after approval the Administrator will still be working to repay a government loan and larger savers will be waiting the return of their deferred money.  But considering how long this situation went on with little news and occasional rumors, this is very significant forward progress.

Court Date For The Presbyterian Church In Ireland And The Presbyterian Mutual Society

Leave a reply

The Hon. Mr Justice Deeny, sitting today in the Chancery Division of the High Court in Belfast, granted authority to the Trustees of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland to make an ex gratia contribution of £1m from its unrestricted charitable funds to an access fund which is being proposed as part of the Government’s “rescue package” in respect of the Presbyterian Mutual Society (PMS).

Last week the Presbyterian Church in Ireland and the Presbyterian Mutual Society (PMS) had a date in court to hear the decision about the hardship fund that the church would establish as part of the “rescue package.”  I am still waiting for the full decision to be posted, and appreciate the response I got from the court library that they would let the legal team know the decision is of interest and they should check it over promptly.

While I initially planned to wait for the full decision, my impatience got the better of me and I decided to post about the decision based upon the available information.  What we do have is the Summary of the decision — a document that is complete, concise, and clear enough that it was tempting to just post it without commentary.  The Summary has very little “legalese” in it and at two pages long makes for a quick and useful read.

To briefly cover the history of this situation, back in November 2008, when financial institutions were under pressure and failing, the Presbyterian Mutual Society experienced a “run on the bank” and could not liquidate its investment property fast enough or favorably enough to cover the demands for redemption.  The organization was put into administration and the investors took the administrator’s advice to “wind down” operations and try to recover some value from the real estate assets.  The situation is complicated or compounded on a couple of points.  First, the British Government has provided rescue packages for most kinds of financial institutions, but not the mutual societies.  A second complexity is that under British financial law there were two kinds of investors, with differing rights in receivership, based solely on the size of their investments.  The final question is what is the role and obligation of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland in this situation?  I will let the Summary pick up that thread.

The Court was told that the Presbyterian Church in Ireland had no legal responsibility for the PMS. This, however, was not apparent to very many members of the Church who tended to consider that the Church was responsible for the Society. Pressure has been put on the Church by those who have suffered hardship as a consequence of the PMS going into administration.

The legal situation is that the Mutual Society is a legally separate entity from the church but carried the church’s name, required investors to be members of the church, and was housed in the church’s offices and used the church’s web domain.  Throughout this situation the church has held to the claim that they have no legal responsibility but it has developed a realization and sense of moral obligation.  As part of this moral obligation, when a possible rescue package was developed last year the church agreed to participate in that package. Again, from the Summary:

The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment has described the Government rescue package as a “mutual access fund”. It will consist of some £25m from the Government of the United Kingdom, £25m from the Northern Ireland Executive and the £1m from the Church subject to the approval of the court. These grants are coupled with the offer of a loan from the Government of the United Kingdom of a further £175m.

Now, note the line above about “subject to the approval of the court.”  For me, this was the new twist on the story that I found out about from this present court decision.  The Summary continues:

On 13 April 2010 a Special General Assembly passed a resolution to contribute £1m from its charitable funds towards a hardship fund. This stated:

“That in the event of the Government failing to secure a “commercial” solution and the NI Executive bringing forward a final comprehensive proposal which includes a “Hardship” Fund element, the General Assembly agree in principle to contribute £1m while affirming their view that the members of the PMS are thrifty savers and not risk taking investors.”

The general principle under law is that a charity is only allowed to make disbursements for charitable purposes. To do otherwise would be inconsistent with the purpose for which the charity was set up. It would also be an abuse of the privileged tax position which a charity can enjoy. The fund now proposed went beyond the relief of poverty and was not in law charitable as a result.

Mr Justice Deeny referred to case law which stated that the court (or the Attorney-General) has power to give authority to charity trustees to make ex gratia payments out of funds held in charitable trusts if there is a moral obligation to do so. He noted that such a power should not be exercised lightly and only in cases where it can be fairly said that if the charity were an individual it would be morally wrong of him to refuse to make the payment.

So, to use the funds in this manner requires court approval of a moral obligation.  This is where I was reading some quotes, either from the decision or said by Justice Deeny from the bench, in articles like the one from the Belfast Newsletter which says “In all the circumstances a moral obligation does exist on the church.  I
authorise the payment of up to £1m towards the mutual assistance fund.”  The Summary says:

Mr Justice Deeny stated that [small investors] will benefit to a considerable extent by the proposed scheme: “If the Church does not contribute it may well be that the scheme does not proceed and therefore the persons exposed to poverty will not be assisted”. If the fund comes to reality it will bring substantial relief to those impacted.

Only members of the Church could be members of the PMS. It would be paradoxical if the general body of taxpayers funded all of the assistance without any contribution from the only Church whose members would benefit from the fund. Such an outcome would, if it occurred, reflect badly on the Church.

Those are the important points from the summary.  We still await the full decision and the Summary cautions that it does not take the place of the full decision and they should be read together.  I will update here if there are additional details or interesting sections of the full decision.

It should also be noted that according to a PCI press release, the afternoon following the court approval the General Board met and approved the transfer of £1m out of the unrestricted fund.  They also responded to the Norther Ireland Executive’s request for a larger contribution by noting the lack of any more money to contribute to the rescue package.

This court authorization and the board action are very hopeful signs that after almost two and a half years there is finally concrete progress on the rescue package.  This still has a ways to go before the resolution is complete, but after many months of negotiations and speculation about a commercial rescue or a complete British bail-out, a package with government and church participation is at hand.

Irish Presbyterians Chose Their 2011 GA Moderator

Leave a reply

For whatever obscure and personal reasons, today always feels like the beginning of the build-up to the General Assembly season to me.  There is something about the first Tuesday in February and the vote of the presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland for their General Assembly Moderator that perks up my interest and makes me look ahead to the upcoming GA season.  But enough waxing poetic… Let’s get down to business.

In the PC Ireland today the 19 presbyteries gathered in their traditional simultaneous meetings and elected…

Rev. Ivan Patterson, pastor of Newcastle Presbyterian Church. He was on the ballot last year
and received four votes in the first round.  This year he received a very strong 12 out of 19 votes. Rev. Patterson is quoted as saying “I am absolutely overwhelmed to be elected as Moderator. I am very
happy to serve the Church and to represent its members but am somewhat
daunted by the thought of the year ahead.”

There were four others on this year’s ballot:

From the PC Ireland press release in advance of the election, here is the brief biographical sketch for the Rev. Patterson.

Rev. Ivan Patterson

Minister of Newcastle, Ivan was born in 1949 and in 1980 was ordained as
Assistant in First Bangor. In 1982 he was installed as minister of
Bushvale before accepting a call to Newcastle in 1991. He convened the
Youth International and Inter Church Committee between 1984 and 1989,
the Youth Board from 1989 until 1993 and the Reception of Ministers and
Licentiates Committee in 2008. He is currently Clerk of the Iveagh
Presbytery, a post he has held since 1995.



Thanks to @cherylmeban for the first tweet.  The results were just announced with an official announcement and additional media reports should be released shortly.  I will update here.

My congratulations to Rev. Patterson and best wishes and prayers for his moderatorial year.

A “Glimmer Of Hope” For Presbyterian Mutual Society Savers

Leave a reply

The amount of “chatter” regarding a possible solution to the collapse of the Presbyterian Mutual Society in Northern Ireland (NI) has increased dramatically in the last few days and there are signs that an announcement could be just days away.

For more details on this continuing saga you should check out a previous post, but since last Spring and the Special Assembly meeting to consider the situation the biggest relevant development has probably been the change in the British Government.  In fact, in a post last week the Rev. Stafford Carson, the former Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland who has been staying close to the situation, talks about the visit of the Deputy Prime Minister and his comment “the new government is very mindful of the need to resolve the serious
hardship faced by members of the Presbyterian Mutual Society.”  Now in the past couple of days there have been very positive signs of a resolution.  While details are not known, Rev. Carson says

The Ministerial Working Group charged with resolving the PMS crisis met yesterday and the Secretary of State said that significant progress was made.

The Northern Ireland Members at Westminster continued to exert pressure at PMQs in the House today. It seems as though everyone is working towards an announcement being made next week. Could it be that the end is near for this long-running saga? We have had a number of false dawns before, and we hope and pray that a “just and fair resolution” will be forthcoming next week.

In addition to Rev. Carson this has been picked up by the NI media including the BBC, Belfast Newsletter, and the Irish Times.  But there are concerns about whether this will be a full rescue of savers or only partial restoration of their deposits, a sentiment expressed by an article from 4NI.

So we will have to wait for details to see how the promise and prospect of a “just and fair resolution” plays out.  But if nothing else, this is some of the best news that the savers have had since this two-year old saga began.  As usual, stay tuned… 

Presbyterians And The Pope — The Reactions Vary

Leave a reply

Well, the Pope begins his four day visit to the United Kingdom tomorrow and the news related to Presbyterian reaction continues to build up.  I have already commented on Head of the Church issues and the idea of having an actor portraying John Knox being in the group greeting the Pontiff.  But why stop there — the historic rejection of the papacy by the Presbyterians as well as concerns over the handling of the Irish child abuse allegations have arisen as issues that are also making news in advance of the visit.

Let me begin with the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.  The Rev. Norman Hamilton was initially quoted by the BBC as saying “Her Majesty will welcome the Pope and I am very content to go along with her welcome to the Pope to Scotland and England.”  In the same interview he is also said to have allowed that he would have no problem meeting the Pope in a “non-religious context.”

The recent news is that the Rev. Hamilton will attend an ecumenical worship service in Westminster Abbey but has declined an invitation to attend a reception afterward and shake hands with the Pontiff.  His announced issue is not the historical differences but the handling of the Irish abuse scandal.  A BBC article makes it clear that Mr. Hamilton wants to join his Catholic countrymen in showing respect for the Pope while still acknowledging that the issues related to the Catholic Church still require “substantive discussion back in Ireland”.  The individual in charge of overseeing the Pope’s visit from the British Government’s side, Lord Patten, has criticized the Moderator for his proposed action suggesting that he is living in the 16th and not the 21st century.

On the other hand we have the reaction of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster which is quite vocal in their opposition to the Pope’s visit on theological and historical grounds.  A while back they published a pamphlet titled Roman Catholicism Examined in the Light of Scripture.  On their web site they have a statement which begins “The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster views the state visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the United Kingdom with dismay and abhorrence.”  The statement goes on to say:

In light of this [the reception by the Queen] his visit can not be construed as simply pastoral. We therefore publicly disassociate ourselves from any welcome given to him and repudiate those protestant churchmen who will welcome the Pope, meet with him or refuse to publicly condemn his teaching or remainindifferent. By their actions they not only give credence to his spurious claims but are betraying the very creeds they once professed to believe teach and defend. Those historic creeds of the Protestant Churches have recognised that the Pope by his claims has placed himself in the place of Christ and therefore have termed him -‘The antichrist in the Church’ (‘anti’ means in place of).

and follows with the statement in the Westminster Confession of Faith, 25.VI, about Christ as the head of the Church.

Following along with this statement, in a BBC article the Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church criticises the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland for even attending the service.  The Rev. Ron Johnstone is quoted as saying:

I think it is very sad that he [Rev. Hamilton] would go to such a thing. The Pope claims that the Presbyterian Church in Ireland is a false church. He claims that we should recognise him as the head of all Christians. And surely the Westminster Confession that Mr Hamilton signed is totally opposed to the teachings of Rome. Both can’t be right: either Romanism is right or the New Testament is right.

In addition, statement on the web site announces a “solemn service” in Edinburgh on the day of the Pope’s arrival followed by a public protest.  This protest has received press coverage and it is interesting that in the BBC article the Rev. Ian Paisley, former Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church, indicates that protest is connected with both the present abuse concerns in Ireland as well as the historical aspects.

Among other Presbyterian branches, the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland has their own pamphlet, Pope Benedict XVI and the United Kingdom.  And an article from Slugger O’toole has excerpts from a resolution passed by their Synod critical of the visit.  These churches in association with many others have posted a Papal Visit Protest Site to help publicise and coordinate the different protests.

The visit begins a few hours from now with all this pomp and ceremony.  Stay turned to see how it all unfolds.

Past Meets The Present In Scotland — Rome Amidst The Reformed

Leave a reply

It has been interesting to observe the dances, sometimes delicate and sometimes not, that have been going on in Scotland, and to a lesser degree all across the British Isles, this summer.  We have the conjunction of two important events that each has implications for the other.  One is the 450th anniversary of the Scottish Reformation and the other the visit of the Pope in September.

A little while back I commented on this visit and the fortuitus timing that will find the British Monarch in Scotland to welcome the Pope so that she will only be acting as head of state.  If the Queen were to meet the Pope in England she would also be acting as the head of the Established Church.

There have also been rumblings about how the Scottish Parliament has been playing down the 450th anniversary.  Speculation as to reasons includes sensitivity to the Pope’s visit, but also mentions the secularization of the nation, consideration for other faith traditions, and just apathy to the anniversary.  Or, as one writer says about the Scottish Reformation and the anniversary “…a trail of violence, vandalism and destruction, from which Scotland’s heritage has never recovered, and  which is the possibly the real reason authorities can not touch the 450th anniversary of the Reformation with a rather long barge-pole.”

But in the last few days the plans for the Pope’s arrival have been announced and the spectacle is to include a parade in Edinburgh which will include actors portraying historical figures.  Amongst those characters will be John Knox, and that seems to be drawing all the attention.

Please note the irony, or down-right discordance, here.  It was not just that John Knox lead the reform that separated Scotland from Rome.  In the process he did not have a lot of nice things to say about the pontiff, specifically equating him with the antichrist.  He is quoted in one instance as saying “the papal religion is but an abomination before God” and “flee out of Babylon, that you perish not with her.” (source ).  Another quote from Knox says “The Papacy is the very Antichrist, the Pope being the son of perdition of whom Paul speaks.” (source )  Finally, the Scots Confession, of which Knox was a principle author, says this in Chapter 18:

So it is essential that the true kirk be distinguished from the filthy synagogues by clear and perfect notes lest we, being deceived, receive and embrace, to our own condemnation, the one for the other. The notes, signs, and assured tokens whereby the spotless bride of Christ is known from the horrible harlot, the malignant kirk, we state, are neither antiquity, usurped title, lineal succession, appointed place, nor the numbers of men approving an error.

Now, having gone through that background let me also add a few important points.  First, while the Church of Scotland is today the National Church, the Catholic Church is the second largest faith tradition in the country.  It is also important to know that the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland are involved in ecumenical discussions and their Joint Committee is talking and producing reports seeking to have the different faith traditions better understand each other and find points of commonality.  And while the Scots Confession is part of the Book of Confessions of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Book of Confessions also contains in the Preface this disavowal:

Specific statements in 16th and 17th century confessions and catechisms in The Book of Confessions contain condemnations or derogatory characterizations of the Roman Catholic Church: Chapters XVIII and XXII of the Scots Confession; Questions and Answer 80 of the Heidelberg Catechism; and Chapters II, III, XVII, and XX, of the Second Helvetic Confession. (Chapters XXII, XXV, and XXIX of the Westminster Confession of Faith have been amended to remove anachronous and offensive language. Chapter XXVIII of the French Confession does not have constitutional standing.) While these statements emerged from substantial doctrinal disputes, they reflect 16th and 17th century polemics. Their condemnations and characterizations of the Catholic Church are not the position of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and are not applicable to current relationships between the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Catholic Church.

In line with this stance an article in The Scotsman contains quotes from an unnamed spokesman for the Church of Scotland saying:

“When Pope John Paul II met the Moderator of the General Assembly on his visit to Scotland, it represented a milestone in relations between the two churches, which greatly improved as a result, and we would hope that the Pope’s visit later this year will strengthen the links even further.

“It is a sign of a healthy nation that diversity within the Christian community is something to be celebrated as opposed to a source of division and struggle.

“It is a gift to those of us of a Protestant persuasion that, by including this figure [Knox], the Catholic Church is contributing to the celebrations of the Reformation.”

Along the same lines, the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Rev. Dr. Norman Hamilton, approves of the visit and the Queen’s decision to invite him.  Will Crawley of the BBC quotes him:

As someone who is committed to Christ, I have no sense of threat or fear by the visit of any world leader to our country, whether he be a political or a faith leader or a cultural leader. I have to say I don’t feel undermined, I don’t feel diminished, I don’t feel undervalued by any visitor to these shores.

However, the welcoming attitude is not present in all of the Presbyterian branches of the UK.  The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland has published a short book with six essays critical of the Pope and his visit.  Similarly, the Rev. Dr. Ian Paisley, a political figure in Northern Ireland and founding member of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ireland , has called the visit a “mistake.”

Finally, it is important to note that there are other reasons besides the anniversary of the Reformation that this visit to the UK may feel a bit awkward.  One is the difficulties involved in resolving a major clergy abuse scandal in Ireland.  Another is the cost of this trip at a time when the economy is struggling to recover.  Finally, there are also the current controversies in the Church of England and the invitation that the Pope has extended for Anglo-Catholics to realign with the Catholic Church, a realignment that will be echoed during the visit in the beatification of Cardinal Newman who switched between these churches in an earlier century.

So, come September it will be interesting to see in what degree history leads to conflict or coexistence, or maybe just confusion.  If nothing else it will be a spectacle that will give us something to watch and ponder.

How Much Presbyterianism Can You Handle In One Day?

Leave a reply

How much Presbyterianism can you handle in one day?  While I think I could probably manage consecutive General Assemblies and Synods for a long time, it appears that my limit is two concurrent… the third I’ll have to handle by “tape delay.”

Yes, the last couple of days there have been three meetings of the highest governing bodies of different branches going on at the same time and I did indeed saturate.

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland finished up this morning.  I think that the notification of the conclusion of the Assembly on Twitter from @pciassembly – “The Overtures were agreed. The 2010 Assembly is over. Thanks for following.” – probably came none too early as I checked in on the live streaming and saw the numbers in the Assembly Hall steadily dropping as the final session went on.  I won’t speculate if they maintained a quorum and no one seemed ready to ask that question.

The session was prolonged by a significant amount of business held over from previously arrested reports.  In particular, I was curious about three items from the Panel on Ministries ( in the General Board report ) where the GA approved general schemes for part-time ministry, auxiliary ministry and the appointment and training of evangelists.  In one of the more interesting moments of the session the Assembly heard a request from the Presbytery of Monaghan which, after having its boundaries extended, requested to change its name to the Presbytery of Monaghan Plus.  There was a serious question asked “Is that the best you can do?” and the speaker outlined the geographic and theological basis for the presbytery committee’s choice of name.  The motion died for lack of a second so they will ponder anew a name change.

At the same time I was following the Presbyterian Church in Canada General Assembly on Twitter hashtag #ga136 and on their Cover It Live board.  No lack of interesting polity and parliamentary action there either.  Got to love the discussion board comment just now posted by GMRoss saying “book of forms revisions during the duldrums of the heat of the afternoon – Don’s checking them off. are we asleep, complacent, or making real changes?”  Sounds like the complaints about the heat in the Assembly Hall during the Church of Scotland GA a couple of weeks ago.

Like the Irish, there was a parallel discussion in the Assembly in Canada about flexible ministry.  The Assembly agreed to the plan put forward by the Clerks of Assembly to explore the possibility of commissioned ministry that I talked about earlier.  There was significant discussion about the Life and Mission Agency’s recommendation 15 regarding three overtures dealing with Educational Requirements for Candidates from Other Theological Schools.  The committee submitted a recommendation that they report back next year.  When an amendment was proposed that would specify certain requirements the Moderator, correctly in my opinion, ruled that it was a separate motion and therefore what was proposed from the floor was a “notice of a motion” ( see page F-9 in Practice and Procedure ) or as sometimes poetically referred to a “notion of a motion.”  This is part of the standing rules to give commissioners a chance to ponder the action before having to vote on it and requires that notice appear in advance of the debate itself.  The Moderator’s ruling was challenged, but the Assembly upheld the ruling of the Moderator with the result that there will be an extra session this evening to consider the motion.  (N.B. this would not have worked yesterday for there was clear indication on the Twitter feed that there was a more important event yesterday evening. )

Finally, I have not had a chance to keep up with the third meeting, the 206th meeting of the General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church finishing up today.  I’ll go back and have a look at that business later but for regular updates I would refer you to Brian Howard, Tim Phillips, and Seth Stark who are all at the meeting.

Yes, GA season is in full swing.  Enjoy it while you can all you G.A. Junkies.

General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church In Ireland

Leave a reply

I awoke this morning to find a flurry of tweets and checking in found that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland has convened.  If this year is anything like last year, and the the first day is proving that to be the case, the PCI GA meeting will generate the most official tweets of any of the Assemblies.  So far today alone we have had 137 tweets from @pciassembly since the session began including the tweet “Twitter got overloaded.”  No wonder.

The Assembly actually began last night with worship and the installation of the new Moderator the Rev. Dr. Norman Hamilton.

So if you want to follow along it helps to have the documents.

What has caught headlines so far is the address of the incoming Moderator last night where he condemned sectarianism.  He actually talks about this in a larger context involving the church.  After beginning by enumerating a number of pressures on the world at the current time he turns to the hope of the church:

All of this may seem rather downbeat and maybe even depressing — not what we all come to the opening night of the General Assembly for! Yet it is in this new context that there is great opportunity for the light of the Bible, the love of God and work of the Spirit to bring hope,encouragement and much needed grace to individual lives, local communities and indeed the whole land. So let me sketch out very briefly a little of what this might look like.

The OT prophet Jeremiah was quite explicit when he made it clear to God’s people that one of their key roles was to seek the welfare of the whole community where God had placed them, and that included the welfare of those who had even oppressed them. Jesus followed this through with his astounding command in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5.44) to ‘love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you’. The apostle Peter repeated the message when he wrote to a church under serious pressure that Christian people were to be a blessing to others as a pre-requisite to being blessed by God themselves. (1 Peter 3.9)

A bit later he goes on to say:

We really do need to resist the temptation — and it is a strong one –that man lives by politics alone. We do not. Politics is certainly important. Indeed democracy is one of the jewels of a good Christian heritage — and I want to say that publicly here tonight with some of our political reps present.

We value you personally, and we value the work that you do. But the privilege of choosing political leaders and representatives can — and often does — degenerate into passing the buck to them for every perceived problem and evil, and then criticising them when they appear powerless to fix them for us. How often do so many of us who are Christian people complain about our leaders – long before we even think it proper to pray for them and ask for the Spirit of God to guide themin their work. Giving in to the temptation to always expect Stormont or the Dail or Westminster or the local council or the doctor or the teacher or the social worker or the community group (the list is endless…) to fix things for us is to deny the power of prayer, the work of the Spirit and the Biblical imperative of active warm hearted Christian citizenship which was regarded as normal – right throughout the Scriptures. (emphasis added)

For the non-PCI reading this be sure to read that section, especially the part I put in bold, with the Presbyterian Mutual Society failure in the back of your mind.  But the Moderator’s primary concern here is not the Society situation.  He goes on to talk about Christians being engaged in their political world and says “we want to bring our best insights into scripture to public policy.”  He continues:

For the claims of atheists and secularists to have the truth themselves or to argue that they are in some neutral faith-free zone — such claims too need to be vigorously challenged and properly refuted. And, it has to be said, the church throughout this whole island is desperately short of people able and willing to do this… which is itself a terrible commentary on our spiritual and theological weakness.

But what he has in mind the problem of sectarianism.  Here is an extended portion of that section as he approaches his conclusion.

One of the most pungent areas where we desperately need a recovery of righteousness in public is in the area of community relationships, both inside communities and across communities.

You might expect me to say this, coming as I do from 22 years in North Belfast, but the healing of relationships is a real Christian priority for every single one of us here this evening, whether we live in the city, the town or in a rural area, – whether we live in Cork or in Coleraine — Dublin or Derry.

Let me give you an example from the areas OUTSIDE of Belfast.

The latest figures from the PSNI – and I have them here – show that in 10 of the 25 District Council area outside Belfast, there had been arise of over 25% in sectarian motivated incidents between 2008/09 and 2009/10. In only 2 of those councils had there been a reduction of more than 25%.

There is a problem with sectarianism right across much of Northern Ireland, and it is acute in what might be seen as some very surprising places.

The failure to agree a community relations agenda and community relations strategy is, in my view, a public disgrace, given our history.That disgrace is heightened by the apparent failure of much of wider society to even be concerned about it, never mind outraged by it.

And it is a huge discouragement to the many individuals and groups whose vision and work for a healthy and integrated society over the years continues to be so unappreciated and undervalued. Our apparent contentment with widespread social apartheid is, to quote again those words from the book of Proverbs, a disgrace to the nation.Made no less by the fact that this is not a new issue at all — St Augustine, 1600 years ago, wrote: ‘For it is one thing to see the land of peace from a wooded ridge, and another to tread the road that leads to it’

I would love to be part of a public discussion, carried out with grace and with rigour, as to how to face this demon in our midst. I might even be bold enough to say that I would like to help kick start the moribund, even non existent, public discussion about what a coherent,shared and healthy society looks like. And I would want to do so, on the basis of bringing my best understanding of Scripture to that discussion. Every generation, every society, every individual… we all need to bring our failures to the Lord and have them exposed — for as Jesus told us plainly in John’s Gospel (8.32) it is the truth that liberates… Isn’t it strange that such liberating truth from the lips of Jesus seems so unattractive at times? As does the call of Micah(6.8) in these profoundly discomforting words… He has showed you Oman, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

I look forward to seeing how he works with this theme in the Assembly and throughout his Moderatorial year.

Financial Implications — Decisions Coming To General Assemblies

Leave a reply

I am struck by the number of Presbyterian branches that have financial issues to deal with right at the moment.  I highlighted some of these a couple of weeks ago when I posted a large block of text from the new Strategic Plan from the Presbyterian Church in America .  A few brief excerpts that are relevant for today’s purpose say:

[D]espite our formal values of connectional polity and cooperative ministry, less than half of the churches of the PCA support any denominational agency or committee (less than 20 percent give at the Partnership Share level).
…
The cooperative efforts that do exist are often directed toward affinity gatherings or the ministries of large churches that have become missional expressions of the animating values of specific groups.
…
We remain an anti-denominational denomination – excusing individualistic ministry by re-telling the narratives of past abuses in former denominations, demonizing denominational leadership or movements to justify non-support of the larger church, or simply making self-survival or self-fulfillment the consuming goal of local church ministry.

I bring these up as a very good summary of where Presbyterian denominations find themselves today in these still-challenging economic times.  Compared to other branches the PCA finds itself in a relatively good financial position.  However, the GA will be considering this report and its recommendations for implementing a new formula for supporting the work of the Assembly.

A situation a bit more stressful is that of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland whose General Assembly held at special meeting at which they authorized raising £1 million for a special hardship fund for those impacted by the collapse of the Presbyterian Mutual Society.  While this is being raised through a special appeal and not general funds, the plan will be presented to next month’s GA for approval.

To the east across the North Channel the Church of Scotland General Assembly will be debating plans to reduce expenses by disposing of property, including church buildings, and reducing ministerial staffing, as measured by FTE’s, by 10%.  As the report of the Ministries Council says:

“Where there is no vision, the people perish”(Prov 28:19), declares the Wisdom writer. This was a sentiment most likely forged in crisis, addressed to people who found the pressures around too great to raise their heads and look around. These are words which speak into our current situation in the Church of Scotland, facing as we do a significant crisis in relation to ministries. A deficit budget of £5.7M is quite simply unsustainable. Given that the Ministries Council is responsible for 87% of the Church’s budget, this is a crisis for the whole Church, not just for the Ministries Council.

Which brings us to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and hard decisions that continue to be needed, right now by the General Assembly Mission Council but soon by the General Assembly itself.  As followers of the PC(USA) know this is not new — the Outlook Article reminds us that over the last eight years about 250 positions have already been eliminated.  Thirty of those were early retirement packages offered to staff following the February 2010 GAMC meeting.  At that meeting CFO Joey Bailey presented financial projections of 15 – 20% lower unrestricted funding for 2011.  The Council also approved a new set of Guiding Principles for Planning Decisions. Going into the GAMC meeting this week Leslie Scanlon of the Outlook writes:

This time, denominational leaders have warned that the cuts could mean the elimination of entire programs or areas of ministry. As council member Matt Schramm put it in February: “We may have to say goodbye to some long-treasured programs that no longer serve the needs of the church.”

Expect significant news to develop over the rest of this week as the GAMC wrestles with significant decisions.

But the 219th General Assembly will have review on some of these actions, responsibility for approving overtures with “financial implications” that will affect the GAMC’s proposed budgets, and setting per capita for the next two years.  In addition, there are overtures to the GA that not only have financial implications but address the financial practices directly.

One of these is Item 03-09 (overture 72) from Great Rivers Presbytery which would add a line to the section about special committees that says “Special committees and commissions should be appointed only in very rare and exceptional circumstances, i.e. national or denominational crisis.”  The rational makes clear that this is suggested for representational and procedural reasons, but knowing how the special committee I was on was constrained by budgetary considerations I know that carefully controlling the creation of special committees will put less strain on budgets.

Another more direct one is item 03-04 (overture 54) from San Diego Presbytery that would, for budgetary reasons, restore the number of GA commissioners to the lower levels before the switch to biennial Assembly meetings.

Finally, for today, there is item 09-02 (overture 34) from Sierra Blanca Presbytery requesting “the 219th General Assembly (2010) to consider that all undesignated funds flowing from the Presbyterian Foundation to the General Assembly Mission Council (GAMC), a Corporation, be allocated directly to individual presbyteries (by percentage of denominational membership) for direct dispersal to particular churches of that presbytery, as each presbytery determines.”  While this overture seeks to implement G-9.0402b (“The administration of mission should be performed by the governing body that can most effectively and efficiently accomplish it at the level of jurisdiction nearest the congregation.”) the rational acknowledges that it will impact the GAMC in unspecified ways.  (Although I am pretty certain someone in leadership on the GAMC has come up with at least some rough figures.)

So where does this take us?  It all depends on how you view and address the challenges.

In the PC(USA) there are two proposals, one from the Office of the General Assembly, the other overture 58 from Synod of the Southwest (with five presbyteries and one synod concurring), that would review the  middle governing bodies of the PC(USA) but neither of these would directly review the structure of the General Assembly and its agencies.

For the PCA the Strategic Plan suggests:

This Strategic Plan seeks to address these realities by helping the PCA identify its challenges, address them with strategies that are consistent with our biblical values, and build denominational support for implementing these strategies. The overall goal is to enable the church to work together to steward its blessings and resources to advance the cause of Christ according to the principles and priorities of his Word.

For the C of S Ministries Council they answer their opening statement that I quoted above with this statement:

Out of crisis, however, can come both vision and opportunity. The remit of the Council is: the enabling of ministries in every part of Scotland and elsewhere where appropriate, giving special priority to the poorest and most marginalized, through recruitment, training and support of recognised ministries of the Church and the assessment and monitoring of patterns of deployment of those ministries.  In fulfilling this, we want to take seriously the scale of work which needs to be done, initially to 2014, then beyond towards a revitalized ministry at the end of this new decade. 2020 Vision does not imply that we can wait until 2020 to sort things out! Far from it, change must begin now and continue as a full and natural part of life for the years ahead.

Now it is up to the Assemblies to each collectively discern God’s will and lead their respective branches in the mission that they decide on.  May the Lord bless them and guide them in this mission.

Update 5/24/10 – Corrected the spelling of Matt Schramm’s name.

Special Meeting Of The General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Ireland Regarding The Presbyterian Mutual Crisis

Leave a reply

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland just concluded an almost two hour Special Meeting to deal with the crisis at the Presbyterian Mutual Society.

I followed it closely on Twitter but only got the live video stream working at the very end of the meeting so my comments reflect the official tweets from @pciassembly and a couple of other news sources that got their impressions up quickly.

Since my last update two weeks ago when the Special Meeting was called the Northern Ireland Government has been working on a plan to rescue the savers in the Society.  According to today’s Belfast Newsletter the proposed £225m package from the government would include a £175m government loan to the Society Administrator to accelerate payments to investors, and a £50m hardship fund from which the small investors could withdraw up to £20,000.

The call for the Special Meeting says regarding the church:

While not in a position to share a full written description of what they describe as ‘Plan B”, the First and deputy First Minister indicated that it would include a ‘hardship fund’. In addition to a contribution from government, they anticipated that a sum of at least £1m would be forthcoming from the Presbyterian Church in Ireland towards this ‘hardship element’.

The documents for the meeting include the Report and the Supplementary Report for the Assembly — the latter contains the proposed resolutions.

The Assembly was convened by the Moderator, the Rev. Stafford Carson, who called the meeting to order just after 2 pm local time with scripture reading and prayer.  A press report says that about 800 of the 1200 commissioners were present.  According to the official Twitter messages the Moderator offered an apology “on behalf of PCI for the distress and anxiety that the PMS crisis caused to savers” and “The church has not abandoned these people. We hope that this painful experience will not be prolonged much longer.”  He thanked those who have worked hard on behalf of the savers and asked the church to stay united as they work through this.

The Moderator said that while they still hold out hope for a “commercial solution” the possibility is looking “increasingly less likely.”  Consequently, participating in the government plan, the “Plan B” that is referred to, is advisable since it may be the only hope.  He said “We want to ensure that our actions promote and advance, and do not inhibit or prevent, a just solution” and “We must show we are not a reluctant church, being dragged along by Government.”

The Assembly then turned to the business:

Resolution 1 to receive the report of the Panel on the Financial Crisis was received.

The Twitter messages suggest that Resolutions 2-6 were also easily adopted:

  1. That the General Assembly call on all congregations and members to continue in prayer and to offer practical support where possible for everyone who has been affected by financial hardship, including those caught up in the situation of the PMS.
  2. That the General Assembly are acutely aware of the continuing distress of many savers who have been unable to access their savings in PMS.
  3. That the General Assembly welcome the commitment of the Prime Minister to seeking a resolution of the PMS crisis and his acknowledgement of a moral obligation to do so.
  4. That the General Assembly regret the delay and reaffirm the importance of seeking urgently a solution which will, if at all possible, give a full settlement to all claims, whether from “shareholders” or “creditors” and welcome the assurance that the “commercial” solution is still an option.
  5. That the General Assembly commend the efforts of the Northern Ireland Executive, led by the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and encourage all politicians to work vigorously for a successful solution.

There was more discussion when they got to Resolution 7:

That in the event of the government failing to secure a “commercial” solution and the Northern Ireland Executive bringing forward a final and comprehensive proposal which includes a “Hardship” Fund element, the General Assembly agree in principle to contribute £1m.

One tweet quotes the Rev. John Dunlop – “The law does not necessarily serve justice – a hard lesson for us to learn” and then says that he “suggests creditors who are in line to get their money back plus 8% interest, forgo the interest and contribute to shareholders.” There were proposed amendments and word-smithing of the resolution and in the end the Assembly passed Resolution 7 and changed the wording so the end of the resolution now reads “…commits in principle to contribute £1m.”  Earlier discussion made clear that the concept for raising this money would be by voluntary contributions and not an assessment on the church.  (I will also note that the wording of the original in the tweets did not always correspond with the on-line text so there might have been a couple of different versions circulating.)

Finally, the Assembly passed Resolution 8

That the General Assembly instruct the Panel on the Financial Crisis to consider ways in which the necessary finance may be raised for the above contribution and to report to the June Assembly.

and concluded the meeting by singing that great Irish hymn “In Christ Alone.”

There are initial news reports from the Belfast Telegraph and the BBC about the meeting.  And clearly from Resolution 8 this will come back at the regular Assembly meeting in just under two months.

UPDATE:  The PCI has issued a summary of the meeting which contains the final text of the debated and amended resolution:

That in the event of the government failing to secure a “commercial”solution and the Northern Ireland Executive bringing forward a final and comprehensive proposal which includes a “Hardship” Fund element, the General Assembly agree in principle to contribute £1m, while the General Assembly affirm their view that the members of the PMS are thrifty savers and not risk taking investors.

Also, the Moderator has posted the full text of his remarks to the Assembly on his blog .