Category Archives: ordained office

[UPDATE] 220th General Assembly of the PC(USA) — Continuing Conversation Over Election of the Vice-Moderator

Leave a reply


[To cover the related events of today I thought it most appropriate to update this previous post and to place the new information here at the beginning. For the original article please jump down to the break.]

No dramatic build-up tonight — I will just jump straight to the unexpected news of the day:

Tara Spuhler McCabe, with all the controversy swirling around her, has resigned as the Vice-Moderator of the 220th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

At the beginning of the first post-committee plenary session the Moderator called upon Ms McCabe to make a statement. Thanks to Bruce Reyes-Chow for posting her complete statement. At the end of that statement she announced her resignation which was greeted by a chorus of “No” from many of the commissioners.

In her statement she says:

I am a pastor. That is who God has called me to be. As I reflect on
what’s happening now, I think I am embodying the reality of a growing
number of pastors who find ourselves caught. We are caught between being
pastors – being with couples in those sacred moments when they make
their vows to one another . . . and having a polity that restricts us
from living out our pastoral calling – especially in states where it is
legal for everyone to be married.

She continues

The tension over all of this is real, and clearly the energy and passion
about this issue runs deep – and isn’t going away. I am surprised and
saddened by the pervasive poisonous activity that has increased toward
the overall tenor of our General Assembly and toward the Office of the
Moderator. Individuals and groups with no personal relationship with me
and have made no attempt to have one-on-one conversations with me or the
Moderator are blogging and tweeting unhelpful and, frankly, divisive
comments.

In conclusion she said

So, bottom line: I care too much about this church and about this
assembly to let this situation continue. We have important work to do
here, and so let us get to what it is God called us here to do.

In response Moderator Presa said

It was with deep sadness that the stated clerk and I received this news. But as I listened to her, I was struck by her pastoral heart and her deep love for this church and General Assembly. It is clear that there are parties within the church
who would not let her split confirmation vote rest, who questioned her integrity and even the authenticity and veracity of our eleven-and-a-half year friendship. I absorbed those attacks and still stand by her while this pernicious poison reared its ugly head. And I have an even more steely determination to seek unity in the bonds of peace. I will deeply miss what could have been but am even more determined to seek the peace and unity of our Presbyterian family.

Then Moderator Presa announced that his selection for the new Vice-Moderator would be Teaching Elder Tom Trinidad from Colorado Springs.

Mr. Trinidad was elected in the evening session of the Assembly. But in the middle of his election process a commissioner made a motion to adjust the docket to add 20 minutes to talk about what had been going on that caused Ms McCabe to step down. (Technically, that is not what the commissioner moved but the ever-helpful Stated Clerk recast the motion into an appropriate form.)
When it came to a vote the proposed 20 minute discussion was defeated by a vote of 322 to 323.
Tom Trinidad was elected the Vice-Moderator with the support of 80% of the commissioners with 12% voting no and 8% abstaining.

To use Ms McCabe’s phrase – Clearly this has touched a nerve.

There is a pretty straight-forward story form the Presbyterian News Service. The story from the Presbyterian Outlook has a bit more context. And More Light Presbyterians has also issued a statement including a quote from their Executive Director Michael Adee:

We grieve that these personal attacks did not stop with that first
article. Rather, they escalated in person and online. It is a sad day
for the Presbyterian Church (USA) when some within it resort to nothing
less than ad hominem attacks and cyber-bullying. This is a sad day for
Christianity. This is a sad day for civility.

There has been a flood of supportive statements for Tara on Twitter and on Facebook.

I am expecting at least two things – First that there will be more reaction in the social media to these developments (Bruce has promised us something more and the StayPCUSA blog which published the open letter that was cited in the resignation comments has not published an update.) Second, I would not be surprised to see this raised in various references, direct and indirect, from the floor of the Assembly much like it was this afternoon.

But this also raises questions about how to best have a discussion about items legitimately related to a call while not letting them degrade into personal attacks or talking past each other in the public sphere.

We will see what develops and I will update here.

[Original post]

After the election of Tara Spuhler McCabe as Vice-Moderator of the 220th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) on Sunday afternoon I though that it would go down as a footnote for this Assembly and it would be remembered as a sore point. However when I got back to the Assembly today I found out that was not the case and it has become a bit of a lightning rod.

First the recap: As you may remember TE McCabe officiated at a same-gender marriage back in April. If you want more on that check out my summary from last week. In my writing yesterday about the Moderator election I added an update on this item.

Let me first add some detail to the election of the Vice-Moderator. When the item came up there was first a commissioner who asked if they could vote “No” on the nominee. The answer was that they could vote no and that if disapproved Moderator Presa would have to propose a new nominee.  Another commissioner then asked whether the Assembly could discuss the nominee. The answer was no, the Standing Rules do not provide for debate on this nomination but it could happen by suspending the Standing Rules. The commissioner then moved to suspend the rules and that motion, requiring a 2/3 supermajority, failed with 55% voting yes. That it even garnered that much support is an interesting sign. The Assembly then proceeded to a vote and TE McCabe was approved 60% yes, 37% no and 3% abstain.  She was then installed as Vice-Moderator.

Well, there were a few questioning comments on Twitter at the time but when I got to the convention center today and started talking with people I found that in some circles it was a non-event while in other circles it was still a very hot topic. A check on the web indicated the same thing.

So, if you want the news reports you can check out the official news story or the Presbyterian Outlook story.

One reaction was from a new group of evangelicals in the PC(USA) that have formed a group called StayPCUSA. They have issued an open letter requesting dialogue on this issue. One of the interesting lines in the letter is near the end where they say “See, most of us are pastors, and we would feel ill-at-ease accepting a call where 40% of the congregation voted “no”.” There is another commentary on the StayPCUSA blog from Jodi Craiglow, writing after the Moderator election but before the Vice-Moderator election. [UPDATE: There is a Twitter conversation suggesting that that the StayPCUSA folks have now sought out Tara in another communication channel, privately, and that they have apologized for jumping straight to the open letter.]

There are additional comments and commentary from

There are a bunch more that mentioned this, with or without commentary, as part of their recap of the day.

As the Assembly committees got to work today a number of hot-button topics were discussed probably leaving this as just the opening controversy of this Assembly.

“A Vast Diversity Of Interpretation” — Redwoods Presbytery Expresses Their Disagreement With The Spahr II Decision

4 Replies


The biggest news in the Presbyverse right now is the motion passed by the Presbytery of the Redwoods objecting to the decision and punishment and failure to overturn those on appeal in the most recent disciplinary case against the Rev. Jane Spahr (the Spahr II decision).

In case you have missed it, this past Tuesday was the first stated presbytery meeting of Redwoods Presbytery since the PC(USA) General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission heard the appeal in this case and upheld the decision from the Presbytery Permanent Judicial Commission trial. Teaching Elder Spahr was found to have committed “the offense of representing that a same-sex ceremony was a marriage by performing a ceremony in which two women were married under the laws of the State of California and thereafter signing their Certificate of Marriage as the person solemnizing the marriage.” In addition, she was accused of persisting in this since the first disciplinary action (Spahr I decision) and of violating her ordination vows by failing to be subject to the authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order.

At the Presbytery meeting, in the Stated Clerk’s report of the GAPJC decision, a motion was introduced that laid out a series of reasons the judicial decisions were wrong and concluded with this resolution:

Be it RESOLVED that the Presbytery of the Redwoods opposes imposition of
the rebuke set forth in the decision dated August 27, 2010, as
inconsistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Constitution of the
Presbyterian Church (USA), and the faithful life of ministry lived out
in this Presbytery.

The full text of the resolution is available from the Presbytery (with a follow-up letter from the Stated Clerk), MLP web site or Mary Holder Naegeli’s blog.

Let me begin with some polity observations.  We need to be clear at the onset that the Presbytery resolution is an objection or protest. The rebuke has been made and registered.  The Presbyterian News Service article about the resolution says this from the Presbytery Stated Clerk:

“Perhaps the majority, perhaps all of them, thought they had removed the
rebuke but I don’t see how it is in the power of the presbytery to do
that,” Conover said, adding that he had about 30 minutes notice on the
Clark motion before the beginning of the meeting.

The article goes on to say that Laurie Griffith, manager of judicial process in the Office of the General Assembly affirms this as well with the article saying that “The rebuke stands, whether Redwoods Presbytery reads it publicly or not.”

Let’s drill down on this for a moment. In Book of Order section D-11.0403e about the degree of censure it ends with this line: “Following such determination and in an open meeting, the moderator of
the session or permanent judicial commission shall then pronounce the
censure.” In the decision Charlotte v. Jacobs (GAPJC decision 215-09) the Commission clarifies that “Unless there is a stay of enforcement in place, censure takes effect immediately upon the pronouncement of the decision at trial…” The Presbytery PJC decision did specify a stay in the event of appeals so with the exhaustion of the appeals the rebuke pronounced at the conclusion of trial on August 27, 2010 would go into effect with the decision by the GAPJC on February 20th, 2012.

Bottom line – they can express opposition to the rebuke, but under our polity the rebuke decided upon and initially imposed 21 months ago by the Presbytery through their own judicial commission became effective earlier this year.

What have they done? First and foremost, the Presbytery by a 74-18 vote has effectively registered a protest to the current authoritative interpretation of the PC(USA) Constitution. And, if I understand the news reports correctly (and I would welcome someone who was there to provide more accurate information in the comments) the resolution did not stop the Stated Clerk from reporting and distributing the decision, but it stopped the decision, including the rebuke from being read. Based on usual practice the rebuke has been read at lease once and probably twice before after the PPJC trial and the SPJC appeal.

I have spent a good deal of time in the last 36 hours working through GAPJC decisions and the Annotated Book of Order to see if I can find a precedent. I am not aware of one but I invite anyone to comment if they are aware of a previous similar presbytery action. From reports on-line it appears that others are not aware of a precedent either. The Louisville Courier-Journal has this in Peter Smith’s column: “Jerry Van Marter, director of Presbyterian News Service, said he knows
of no other case where a presbytery has refused to carry out a court
directive.” And in her blog Mary Holder Naegeli, an experienced watcher of these things, says “I cannot recall in almost 25 years as an ordained minister ever witnessing open defiance of a direct PJC order.”

What next?  The PNS article says:

Laurie Griffith, manager of judicial process in the
Office of the General Assembly said there “are two possible options for
redress if anyone wanted to raise the issue” of the presbytery’s
refusal.

“Each presbytery submits a ‘compliance report’ to
the GAPJC, which is reported for information to each General Assembly,”
she told the Presbyterian News Service, but it’s always been just pro
forma.”

The other option, Griffith said, “could be a
remedial complaint against the presbytery, but remedial complaints are
not usually used to challenge disciplinary processes.”

My only comments on the remedial complaint is that 1) while they are not usually used to challenge disciplinary processes this resolution appears to be without precedent so “usually” is the operative word and 2) it strikes me that this is not so much an issue with the disciplinary process itself as with the Presbytery’s response to it and enforcement of it.

[Please see update at the end of this] Now, I want to mention one non-polity issue that – if correct – I do find disturbing. Reports have mentioned a significant media presence at the presbytery meeting for this item.  If the media were there just expecting the reading of the decision, that is one thing.  There seems to be a feeling, and I have no independent confirmation of this, that the media was made aware of the counter-motion in advance and were there for a sensational story. In itself that is still OK, we have open meetings… except note what the Stated Clerk said above – that he “only had about 30 minutes notice [of the motion] before the beginning of the meeting.” Presumably the same goes for the Presbytery Moderator who had to handle this business. (If the Moderator had notice but the Clerk did not then the Moderator and the Clerk need to talk more.) It strikes me as a break with our much-valued “mutual forbearance” and “peace, unity and purity” if the mainstream media was given notice to be there but those charged with the decently and orderly conduct of the meeting were not.
[Important update: Did get information from someone who was there and it was their impression that the media was there for the reading of the censure. In fact, they observed one reporter grumbling because they had already written the story and now had to rewrite it.  I stand down from my concerns expressed above.]

I might have a lot more to say about this later, but there are more pressing events for a GA junkie upon us now and I will postpone any further thoughts on this, possibly indefinitely. If you want more coverage you can get it from all the usual suspects including…

Enough for now — This will have reverberations for a while to come in many forms and on many levels. We will see where this leads.  Stay tuned…

Threading The Needle — SPJC Approves Standards Statement

2 Replies


No sooner do I get done reflecting on the tension between a presbytery having full authority to determine if candidates hold the necessary and essential tenets of the Reformed faith and the requirement that presbyteries don’t actually try to enumerate them in advance then we have a Synod Permanent Judicial Commission (SPJC) decision that confirms that a presbytery has appropriately threaded this needle.

This case goes back to last September when the Presbytery of Los Ranchos adopted a statement on “behavioral expectations” of officers. This statement reads

Affirming that ‘The gospel leads members to extend the fellowship of Christ to all persons.’ (G-1.0302) The Presbytery of Los Ranchos, meeting on September 15, 2011, affirms that the Bible, The Book of Confessions and the Book of Order (including G-2.0104b and G- 2.0105.1 & 2) set forth the scriptural and constitutional standards for ordination and installation. Los Ranchos Presbytery believes the manner of life of ordained Ministers should be a demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and in the world, including living either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness and will so notify candidates for ordination/installation and/or membership in the presbytery. In obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture and guided by our confessions, this presbytery will prayerfully and pastorally examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office, including a commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions of ordination and installation.

A remedial complaint was filed with the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii PJC – Gerald J . Larson, Gary L. Collins, Rebecca B. Prichard , R. Winston Presnall, Margery Mcintosh, Michal Vaughn, Lucy Stafford-Lewis, July Richwine, Jerry Elliott, Sara McCurdy, Gregory Vacca, Gail Stearns, Steve Wirth, Suzanne Darweesh, Jane Parker , Darlene Elliott, Frances Bucklin, Deborah Mayhew, James McCurdy, Judith Anderson, and Susan Currie, Complainants, vs . Presbytery of Los Ranchos, Respondent (with thanks to the Layman for making the decision available on-line). The complainants had three Specifications of Error which the SPJC wrote “can be disposed of by the following specification: Whether a presbytery has the right to pass a resolution concerning the manner of life for its teaching elders as part of the proper exercise of the presbytery’s authority within the powers reserved to presbyteries . (F-3.0209)” And the decision says – “This specification is answered in the affirmative.”

In stating that the resolution is proper the key line in the decision section says

It does not restate the Constitution in that it explicitly affirms the various documents without offering an interpretation of those documents.

They go on to first note that prior GAPJC decisions are based upon a prior Book of Order, although it is worth mentioning that the Report of the Special Committee on Existing Authoritative Interpretations of the Book of Order is recommending that all the cited Interpretations be retained. The decision then discusses these standards in light of the Bush and Buescher GAPJC decisions. Relative to Bush v Pittsburgh (218-10) they note that the Los Ranchos statement is in compliance with that decision as the “Resolution does not seek to offer an interpretation, paraphrase or restatement of any constitutional provisions.” Regarding the Buescher v Olympia decision (218-09) the Los Ranchos resolution specifically says that each candidate will be individually examined and so it does not have essentials that are mandated in advance.

Then, in what strikes me as an interesting use of this section of the Book of Order, the decision cites F-3.0102 where it says “[E]very Christian church, or union or association of particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion, and the qualifications of its ministers and members…” I have usually read this in the context of affirming denominational differences not standards for individual presbyteries or particular churches so its use here struck me as out of place. Just my reading of it and I’ve grasped at thinner straws myself.

The decision section concludes with this:

The Resolution does not obstruct any on-going interpretation or implementation of the constitution. It does not alter or interpret the standards for ordination and installation. The Resolution does not seek to define any tenet as an ‘essential’ doctrine of the P.C. (U.S.A.).

But the SPJC has more to say in the order, and while lifting the Stay of Enforcement the Presbytery was also, under order, admonished for the language that they chose:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Presbytery of Los Ranchos be admonished that while this PJC considers the resolution constitutional, the use of specific language known to be divisive and inflammatory flies in the face of the responsibility to seek the peace, unity, and purity of the church.

Now, the polity wonks probably picked up two items in the decision that seem a bit of an issue, one being the use of F-3.0102 that I just mentioned. Two commissioners dissented from the decision and highlighted these two items in their opinion. Their first point is this:

1. In using the statement, “living either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or in singleness” the Presbytery is using a direct restating of the previous Book of Order requirement which was replaced by the General Assembly action and the presbyteries’ vote. Therefore, it has no constitutional standing and cannot be used to determine a candidate’s ordination eligibility. Such a policy preempts the vote of presbyters meeting in the future for the examination of candidates who have met the current constitutional requirements.

They later write:

This language is purposefully taken out of the standards for ordained service (G-2.0l04b) by the action of the General Assembly and vote of the presbyteries. This renders the statement of the Presbytery of Los Ranchos unconstitutional in form and intent.

Their second point is what they consider the misapplication of F-3.0102 by the majority. Expressing the same understanding of the section I mention above they write, in part:

In F-3.0102 the Book of Order continues to speak of the Christian church [in all its denominations] by saying, “Every Christian Church or union or association of particular churches”[referring to denominations, not presbyteries] is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion, and the qualifications of its ministers and members. [Again, referring Reformed Tradition churches, not presbyteries.]

In fact, the Presbyterian Church (USA) specifically stresses in diversity as it states in the Book of Order: (F-1.0403)

The unity of believers in Christ is reflected in the rich diversity of the Church’s membership…

Let me make two brief points in conclusion:

First, the Presbytery of Los Ranchos is trying to walk a very fine polity line here and in the opinion of the majority of the SPJC they have successfully done so.  However, the decision I expected from this case was much, much closer to the dissenting opinion. I have to think that the verbatim inclusion of now-removed language from the Book of Order is a problem in light of the Bush decision. If appealed to the GAPJC I would think this decision has a high likelihood of being overturned. However…

Before the GAPJC will be able to hear this case, if appealed, the 220th General Assembly will be meeting and who knows what polity landscape will come out of that.  One possibility is that an Overture from South Alabama Presbytery (Item 07-08) will be sent to the presbyteries for concurrence providing for presbytery-specific behavioral expectations to be included in the presbytery’s operational manuals. Or maybe officers-elect who are being examined will be explicitly prohibited from being asked to commit on how they would view the fitness of future officers-elect they might be examining. This request for an AI comes from similar overtures from Genesee Valley and Albany.

Finally, just a reminder and in full disclosure that I am, and have been, active in the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii and know a good number of the people on both sides of this issue. The opinions expressed here are my own and do not reflect any sort of official disagreement or agreement with the faithful members of the SPJC. These are purely personal conclusions and remarks.

So, like much in the PC(USA) at the moment the future developments in this case will be interesting to see and heavily influenced by the moving target that is PC(USA) polity at the moment. Stay tuned and we will see what happens.

Musings On The FOP NRB Polity Document – 1. Can I Declare An Exception?

Leave a reply
Prologue
Regular readers have probably noted that my blogging productivity has decreased a bit the last few months. This is due to an increased number of personal, professional and Presbyterian commitments. While I always anticipate that I can find more time for blogging in the future, sometimes that does not come to pass.

I tell you that as an introduction to this particular post and probably a few to follow. (I won’t promise anything.) I have decided to classify these as “musings” – posts which are shorter, more spontaneous and less polished than what I consider my regular writing to be. I also consider musing about this particular topic appropriate since the Fellowship of Presbyterians’ New Reformed Body documents are also a work in progress and at a stage where a more informal discussion is probably most appropriate.

Well last weekend I “escaped” and backpacked to a campsite up in a canyon in the mountains above L.A. (picture right) It was a wonderful chance to get away and the weather was really great. (And then that campsite probably got a foot of snow in the storm that rolled through yesterday.) But being so close to the longest night of the year I brought plenty of reading material and had a chance to do a first read of the NRB Theology and Polity documents. (Anyone read them in a more unique location?) A couple of first impressions and thoughts from that reading…

 

The Fellowship of Presbyterians recently released their two organizational documents for discussion in advance of their Covenanting Conference in mid-January. To set the stage for anyone who has not reviewed the documents yet let me begin with a summary of the two pieces.

The Theology document is a three-part statement that begins by affirming that the confessional basis for the NRB will be the current Book of Confessions of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The second section then sets out what the NRB considers to be the Essential Tenets of the Reformed Faith. The third part is titled “Ideas & Questions for Immediate Consideration” and sets out a vision for the NRB as a group that actively does theology and has a “renewed commitment to sustained conversation.”

The Polity document is a Form of Government for the NRB modeled on the PC(USA)’s new Form of Government section.  There are no Foundations, Worship or Discipline sections yet.

One point that struck me as I read through the Polity was the reliance on the Essential Tenets section of the Theology.  I found nine references to it (numbers following are the FOG section number, italics as used in the original, text from the version posted now (expecting the obvious typo to be fixed soon)):

  1. (Regarding new congregations) …desire to be bound to Christ and one another as a part of the body of Christ according to the Essential Tenants [sic] and government of the NRB. [1.0200]
  2. (Regarding expectations of members) Those who are invited to take significant leadership roles in the congregation should ordinarily be members for at least a year, agree with the Essential Tenants [sic] of the NRB, be trained and/or mentored, and be supervised. [1.0305]
  3. (Regarding qualifications of officers) Ordaining bodies must ensure that all officers adhere to the Essential Tenets of the NRB. [2.0101]
  4. (Third ordination vow) Do you receive and adopt without hesitation the Essential Tenets of the NRB as a reliable exposition of what Scripture teaches us to do and to believe, and will you be guided by them in your life and ministry? [2.0103c]
  5. (Regarding the preparation of pastors) In addition to adherence to the Essential Tenets, presbyteries shall ensure that candidates for ministry are adequately trained for their task. [2.0400]
  6. (Regarding Affiliate Pastors) Affiliate pastors must adhere to the Essential Tenets of the NRB. [2.0401f]
  7. (Regarding the duties of the synod – note that in this FOG a General Synod is the highest governing body.) c. maintain the Constitution and Essential Tenets of the NRB. [3.0202c]
  8. (Regarding Union Congregations) Congregations, historically members of the PC(USA) or other Reformed denominations, who wish to maintain that membership while joining with the NRB and who recognize and teach the Essential Tenets may request to join a presbytery of the NRB… [5.0202]
  9. (Regarding other denominations) Out of our common Protestant heritage, partnership and joint congregational witness will be encouraged where mission, ministry, and collegiality can be coordinated and approved by the appropriate governing bodies, and where the Constitution and Essential Tenets of the NRB can be followed. [5.0300]

Clearly the Essential Tenets are put forward as the distillation of what is unique and special about the NRB. This is plainly presented as the litmus test of what it means to belong to this branch. For comparison there are only four uses of the term “scripture” or “scriptures,” three of them in the ordination vows, and two uses of “confessions,” one in the ordination vows.

In reading through this I did wonder about the variation in the language regarding the relationship to the Essential Tenets. The word most commonly used is “adhere,” so the intent is to stick to them. But the ordination vow preserves the current language of “receive and adopt” adding the “without hesitation” regarding the Essential Tenets. Are these the same or different? If my promise is to “receive and adopt” is asking me elsewhere to “adhere” to them asking more, less, or something different of me? Remember, I’m just musing about it here and don’t really have an answer at the moment.

I guess what really sticks out to me is that the language seems to be asking me to agree to 100% of what is in the Essential Tenets, even when I think it might conflict with my understanding of Scripture or the Book of Confessions. This is not an academic exercise.

A simple example:  For the sake of this example let’s say that I agree with everything the Essential Tenets say except that as I read them there is one little point that bothers me based on my theological framework. At the end of the document the Ten Commandments are used to summarize some of the points. This is a time-honored way of discussing theology and is used in many catechisms, along with the Lord’s Prayer, as a template for teaching the faith.  But the Essential Tenets summarize the fourth commandment like this:

4. observe Sunday as a day of worship and rest, being faithful in gathering with the people of God;

I honestly have a theological issue with simply taking this commandment and substituting “Sunday” or “Lord’s Day” for the term “Sabbath.” To explain briefly, I see the Sabbath as an Old Testament template or analogy for the celebration of the Lord’s Day in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. The theological connection is much more nuanced than can be expressed in a simple one-to-one substitution. The Westminster Confession of Faith [section 6.112ff in the Book of Confessions] takes a lot of words to expound on this analogy. Maybe the best brief discussion of the nuances is from the Heidelberg Catechism:

Q. 103. What does God require in the fourth commandment?
A. First, that the ministry of the gospel and Christian education be maintained, and that I diligently attend church, especially on the Lord’s day, to hear the Word of God, to participate in the holy Sacraments, to call publicly upon the Lord, and to give Christian service to those in need. Second, that I cease from my evil works all the days of my life, allow the Lord to work in me through his Spirit, and thus begin in this life the eternal Sabbath.

All this to say that on this point I have a small, but what I consider substantive, disagreement with the Essential Tenets. So what happens now? The Essential Tenets do not address how minor differences in theological understanding are to be treated. Taken on face value I guess I can not adhere to the standard as the Polity requires. (And please understand, I am not putting up a hypothetical disagreement here but one that I honestly and sincerely hold.)

Now, the polity wonks have surely figured out where I am going with this (even if they weren’t tipped off by the title). The American Presbyterian church has been struggling with how to handle these differences, big and little, throughout its entire history. We affirm in the Westminster Confession that “God alone is Lord of the conscience” and we understand that to a certain degree we can differ in belief but must be consistant in practice. That is what the Adopting Act of 1729 was basically about.

So how is the NRB going to approach this? At the present time I did not find a solution in the proposed Polity document.  One approach would be a highly structured method like the Presbyterian Church in America has where ordained officers are required to subscribe to the Westminster Standards and they must declare and explain exceptions like I have done above. As the Book of Church Order says [21-4f]

Therefore, in examining a candidate for ordination, the Presbytery shall inquire not only into the candidate’s knowledge and views in the areas specified above, but also shall require the candidate to state the specific instances in which he may differ with the Confession of Faith and Catechisms in any of their statements and/or propositions. The court may grant an exception to any difference of doctrine only if in the court’s judgment the candidate’s declared difference is not out of accord with any fundamental of our system of doctrine because the difference is neither hostile to the system nor strikes at the vitals of religion.

But this adds an additional layer of administration to a Form of Government which is intended to be simple and clean.  It also opens up the “slippery slope” or “camel’s nose under the tent” problem where a series of very small steps away from the Essential Tenets results in a cumulative substantial difference and heterogeneity in what is intended to be a fairly homogenous belief structure. As I pondered this it seemed to me that incorporating a way to relax a point in the Essential Tenets could be problematical for the NRB.

You can justly accuse me here of focusing too narrowly on minor details — Guilty as charged.  My particular point detailed above is pretty minor in the grand scheme of Christian doctrine. But let me ask these two questions: 1) If I have a tiny little difference of understanding can I still in good conscience adhere to the standard if no provision is made for variability? 2) If differences around tiny details are acceptable, where is the line between the tiny stuff and the big stuff?

Enough musing on this for now. As I continue musing to myself on other points in the Polity and Theology documents maybe a few more will find their way into this virtual space. So until next time I leave you with the sunset over The City of Angles that I watched last Saturday night.

Two Brief News Items From The Church Of Scotland

Leave a reply

In the last couple of days two simple, but important, news items have come out of the Church of Scotland.

First, you may remember that just before Christmas last year a burglary at the home of then Moderator John Christie resulted in the loss of the ceremonial ring of the Moderator.  Well, this week part of the ring was returned to the Church of Scotland in an anonymous envelope.  The stone from the ring, an amethyst engraved with the seal of the church, is now back in the possession of the Kirk.  It is presumed that the gold from the ring has been sold. The news and a picture of the ring as it was originally is in a story from the BBC.

The second news item is the announcement of the first ordination of a new variety of minister, an Ordained Local Minister, earlier today.

Congratulations to Dr. Fiona Tweedie, previously a university statistics lecturer, who will be serving at Barclay Viewforth Church. She is the first in a class of five that has been training for this position and who will all be ordained over the next month.

The form of service as an Ordained Local Minister was approved by the General Assembly back in May and is described in the press release like this:

The Ordained Local Ministry (OLM) was approved by May’s General Assembly, the Church’s decision-making body. Unlike parish ministry,
OLMs will be deployed by their Presbytery rather than being called to a
specific congregation and participate in around 10-hours of work a week.

With a flexible approach to training and serving, the new scheme is
expected to be popular amongst congregational members feeling a call to
ministry but unable to work full-time as a minister due to other work
and family commitments.

In line with that description, the article says Dr. Tweedie’s new responsibilities are:

She has been appointed as Edinburgh Presbytery’s mission facilitator and
researcher – an unpaid post in which she will contribute to the
Church’s strategy to engage with communities across the city.

Looking at the Ministries Council Report from the last GA, the concept of Ordained Local Minister (OLM) is described this way:

1.8.2.4 Concept of OLM: OLM is conceived as a nonstipendiary form of the ministry of Word and Sacrament, aimed at engaging those with an appropriately tested sense of call towards ordination, but who wish to serve primarily in a localised ministry. This would often, though not exclusively, be in support of those working in leadership roles as Parish Ministers (whether full-time or part-time). The normal expectation would be that OLMs would offer around 10 hours per week in an unpaid role, though it is recognised that some may find themselves in situations where they are able and willing to offer more time. It is also likely that in some circumstances OLMs will be appointed to work in other roles specifically designated by Presbyteries, for some of which they may receive payment (eg as a Locum).

In function, the report describes the OLM like this:

1.8.2.12 The function of the OLM would be a localised one. Appointments to OLM posts would be the prerogative of Presbytery, in a manner analogous to that of the existing Auxiliary ministry, to a particular locality or a specific role. If an OLM should move Presbytery for one reason or another, he or she would be eligible to take up an appointment in that Presbytery, but only able to do so as directed by Presbytery (and obviously where an appointment exists!). It is clear that existing Auxiliaries work in a wide variety of roles and there is no proposal to diminish the spheres of activity. On the contrary, it is anticipated that OLMs will gradually come to be deployed in creative and innovative ways by Presbyteries.

If you are interested in further details there is the full description of the OLM in the Ministries Council Report beginning on page 46. The Ministries Council is still refining the position and more adjustments are expected at the 2012 General Assembly.

In the mean time we congratulate Dr. Tweedie and her colleagues and offer our prayers for their ministry.

Reverberations From Ordination Decisions: Some Challenges In The Church Of Scotland

Leave a reply


[Ed. note: This is the second in a three part series that I hope to get written and posted over the next week.]

Over the last few months a couple Presbyterian branches have made
decisions to make, or move towards making, standards for ordination more
inclusive, particularly regarding the ordination of individuals who are
in active same-sex relationships.  These decisions have made waves in
the international Presbyterian community and these waves will be
reverberating in the community for a while to come.  This is a look at another set of reverberations.

The second set of decisions was made by the Church of Scotland General Assembly towards the end of May. The Assembly took a full day, May 23rd, to debate the report of the Special Commission On Same-sex Relationships and the Ministry. In that report the Commission noted:

9.14 As we have said in section 7, ordination and induction raise issues of the lifestyle of and the example set by leaders in the Church. The issue of whether to ordain and induct people involved in same-sex relationships depends upon a decision of the Church on the prior question of its stance towards committed same-sex relationships.

This is a complicated question and one which it tied to other theological understandings.  Unlike the decision by the PC(USA), they acknowledge the linkage of these issues and in helping the church deal with them in a systematic manner they recommended the establishment of a Theological Commission to report back to the 2013 GA.  The work of this commission is described in the Remits Report from the Assembly (pg. 20):


The Assembly has agreed to establish a Theological Commission of seven persons representative of the breadth of the Church’s theological understanding, who will address the theological issues raised in the course of the Special Commission’s work.

The Assembly also resolved to consider further the lifting of the moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship. This consideration will come to the General Assembly when the Theological Commission reports in 2013.

The Theological Commission’s report will also examine:

(i) the theological issues around same-sex relationships, civil partnerships and marriage;
(ii) whether, if the Church were to allow its ministers freedom of conscience in deciding whether to bless same-sex relationships involving life-long commitments, the recognition of such lifelong relationships should take the form of a blessing of a civil partnership or should involve a liturgy to recognise and celebrate commitments which the parties enter into in a Church service in addition to the civil partnership, and if so to recommend an appropriate liturgy;
(iii) whether persons, who have entered into a civil partnership and have made lifelong commitments in a Church ceremony, should be eligible for admission for training, ordination and induction as ministers of Word and Sacrament or deacons in the context that no member of Presbytery will be required to take part in such ordination or induction against his or her conscience.

This means that the Theological Commission has been given an instruction to explore the possibility of making significant changes to the Church’s present position; however, decisions about change will not be made before the Assembly of 2013, thereafter there may be the need for Barrier Act procedure, with final decisions on any matter more likely to be considered by the General Assembly in 2014.

The Theological Commission has now been appointed and the members are the Rev. John McPake (convener), Rev. Prof. Andrew
McGowan, Rev. Gordon Kennedy, Rev. Dr. Mary Henderson, Dr. Jane McArthur,
Rev. Dr. Alan Falconer and Rev. Dr. Marjory MacLean. All are prominent in the Church of Scotland (as evidenced by the fact that they are all easy to find using a search engine) and many have academic experience.  As you might guess from the titles there are six clergy and one ruling elder, so not much balance there, but there is good gender balance and all the reviews I have read give high marks for theological balance.

Following the conclusion of the Assembly it did not take long for the reactions to begin. In fact, the planning for one meeting apparently began after the decision but while the Assembly was still in session.  That meeting, a Ministers and Elders Meeting, was held about three weeks after the Assembly meeting at St. George’s-Tron in Glasgow and it bears strong similarities to the Fellowship Gathering in the PC(USA). This was a gathering of about 600 congregational leaders who listened to at least six presentations about what the future looked like and what the options are for Evangelicals in the Church of Scotland.  (The six presentations are available on the web.)

On the one hand, these presentations use much of the same language (count how many times “like-minded” is used) and express the same feelings and perspective we have been hearing from conservatives in the American church.  And there was talk about the next meeting to be held this fall where there would be less of the presentations from the front and more interaction of those gathered. There are some differences besides the fact that this was a much shorter meeting, being only an afternoon.  One is that this is still a more informal group that is gathering for discussion. Another is that all the presentations foresee churches leaving the denomination if the trajectory continues as it is set and the question is whether to leave now or leave when, or if, the process has concluded.  There was brief mention of the possibility of accommodation within the church but that was a single passing comment that I caught.

One of the other interesting things about this meeting was that the attendance was reported as about 600 individuals, representing 0.12% of the total church membership.  Remember for the Fellowship Gathering the attendance was about 2,000 individuals or just slightly below 0.1% of the PC(USA). Both of these events had a similar draw on a percentage basis with right around one person attending for every thousand members of the church.

As I mentioned, the question addressed at the meeting was not “stay or go” but “go now or go later?”  There is an interesting response to the meeting by Mr. James Miller on his blog Five Sided Christian.  Towards the beginning of the piece he writes:

Having spoken to a number of ministers, elders and others, it is
apparent that there are many people who are deeply troubled by the two
options being put forward by St George’s Tron Church and some others. I
have to say that I share this dissatisfaction and have the sense that
evangelicals are being railroaded into a decision to separate. This
seems to be coming from a certain group of ministers and elders, who
give the impression that they have been wanting for years to leave the
mixed denomination they are in and have now found an issue through which
they can force their vision into reality.

He then goes on to counsel moderation, saying that while he thinks the decision of the Assembly was wrong he also considers the meeting “premature and pessimistic.” He holds out hope for the process, something that was lacking in the video presentations, arguing that this issue has a long way to go through the Theological Commission, the 2013 GA, and then the necessary approval of any changes by the presbyteries under the Barrier Act.  Consideration of leaving should only happen once it has reached its conclusion. As he says:

…I think it much more likely that if we stay in and “wrestle, and fight,
and pray” that the “trajectory” can be turned back into an orbit around
the Bible’s teachings and historic, traditional and ecumenical Christian
views and that the current momentum for change will be sent crashing at
one or other of the four hurdles still to be crossed.



My prayer is that it will be so. But if it is, then the evangelicals
will face as big a challenge and one we must not shirk. We will then
have the enormous task of loving and caring for and serving every gay
and lesbian Christian, to help them live the life of celibate friendship
we say that they must follow. For if we will not do this as fervently
as we protest actively gay people being ordained then we risk being
condemned of hypocrisy and outright pharisaism with every justification.
I hope we are also planning with equal vigour how we do this now,
whatever structures or denominations we find ourselves in
ecclesiastically come 2014 or 2015.

But while there are these discussions going, as you might expect some churches are not waiting for the process or the discussions to play out.  Almost immediately Gilcomston South Church in Aberdeen began the process to break away but according to the BBC the kirk session has postponed a final vote to allow time for discussion with Aberdeen Presbytery. Stornoway High Church did discuss and vote on leaving, but the kirk session set the necessary approval for the action at 80% of the congregation and the action only received 74% approval. A news article also mentions that St. Kane’s Church, New Deer, Aberdeenshire, is also contemplating the move but I have found no updates to the first news article. There was also a preliminary report of two ministers leaving the Kirk over the decision.

In addition to these actions many sessions and individuals – office holders, members, and members of other denominations – have expressed their disapproval of the Assembly action on a web site called simply Dissent.  The dissent itself is a five point statement expressing support for “the traditional teaching of the church” and the intent to “commit ourselves to pray for the members and the work of the Theological
Commission; to work with all our strength for the evangelisation of
Scotland in partnership with all God’s people; and to depend upon the
renewing and reforming presence of God’s Holy Spirit within his Church.” Similarly, there is a page at Christians Together which announces this site and gathers other statements of concern and opposition to the GA action.

And lastly, in one of the more interesting reactions, the Westboro Baptist Church has announced that it would like to have members travel to Scotland to picket churches in protest of the Assembly action.

There was another significant decision the Assembly made as part of the Special Commission report.  It reads:

4. During the moratorium set out in 8 below, allow the induction into pastoral charges of ministers and deacons ordained before 31 May 2009 who are in a same-sex relationship.

This has now moved from the hypothetical to the specific as a minister in Fife announced to her congregation that she is in a committed same-sex relationship and would like to marry her partner. After making this announcement at the end of August she has dropped out of sight and there are no further updates.  The Scotsman article says:

A Church stalwart last night revealed that residents has been “stunned”
to hear of Ms Brady’s plans, adding that parishioners were at
loggerheads over whether or not she should be allowed to continue in her
current role.

He said: “The congregation is divided over the
issue of the minister’s sexuality. One elder has already resigned and
others are considering their position. I personally do not believe it is
right and I do not believe same-sex civil unions are right.

“Miss Brady has been a conscientious minister but this is going too far.”


Finally, there has been reaction to this decision from other denominations. I mentioned in the first part of this series the decision of the Presbyterian Church of Ghana to sever ties with partners who approved of ordaining active homosexuals and preforming same-sex marriages.  While this was apparently aimed primarily at the PC(USA) following this trajectory of the Church of Scotland would also put them in the position of meeting those requirements.

Closer to home, the first speaker at the Ministers and Elders meeting mentioned concern expressed by the General Assembly of the United Free Church of Scotland.  I am grateful for the full language of the UFCOS Assembly action sent to me by their Principal Clerk, Rev. Martin Keane, because the action is nuanced.  The motion from the floor that became part of the agreed deliverance was:

“The
General Assembly noting recent decisions taken by the Church of
Scotland to consider further the issue of same-sex relationships and the
ministry, agree to suspend the review of the Covenant between our two
churches pending the outcome of their consideration of the matter.”

What is important to note is that the Covenant itself was not suspended. Rather the review of the Covenant, which would normally happen every two years and is due to be done in the coming year, has been postponed until after the Church of Scotland has come to a resolution on this issue.  With the review of the Covenant would come any modifications and the renewal of the Covenant for another two year period.

I think it is safe to say that the reaction of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland was not as nuanced.  Before both Assembly meetings four presbyteries asked the General Board to express concern to the Church of Scotland regarding the report of the Special Commission.  The General Board agreed and passed the following resolution:

“That the General Board instructs the Clerk of the General Assembly to write to the Church of Scotland expressing appreciation of the long and valued relationship between our two Churches; indicating that the Presbyterian Church in Ireland strongly believes the scriptural position to be that sexual relations outside of marriage between a man and a woman are sinful and as such, in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, no minister or elder would be ordained or installed who continues to engage in such practices; and assuring the Special Commission of its prayers that wisdom and insight be given as it reports to the General Assembly in May.”

Then, at the meeting of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, three weeks after the Church of Scotland decision, the full Assembly passed a motion “That the General Assembly endorse the actions of the General Board and the Clerk…”  The church also issued a press release concerning these actions and the report of the outgoing Moderator who was an ecumenical delegate to the Church of Scotland GA.

So, having now jumped over to Ireland let me stop here for now and pick up some of the related issues circulating on that island in my third, and final, installment.

Reverberations From Ordination Decisions: The PC(USA) And Her Global Partners

2 Replies

[Ed. note: This is the first in a three part series that I hope to get written and posted over the next week.]

Over the last few months a couple Presbyterian branches have made decisions to make, or move towards making, standards for ordination more inclusive, particularly regarding the ordination of individuals who are in active same-sex relationships.  These decisions have made waves in the international Presbyterian community and these waves will be reverberating in the community for a while to come.  This is a look at one specific reverberation.

In a couple of widely publicized decisions the General Assemblies of the
Iglesia Nacional Presbiteriana de México (IPNM) (National Presbyterian Church In Mexico) and the Presbyterian Church of Ghana (PCG) have gone on record expressing disapproval of the passage of Amendment 10-A by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and warning that it jeopardizes the partnering relationship between the churches. However, each of these decisions have multiple nuances that seem to be getting lost in the media headlines and tweets.

The IPNM decision was made at a called Consultation of the General Assembly held August 17-19.  This decision was then communicated to the PC(USA) in a letter to the Stated Clerk and the PC(USA) has posted an English translation.  It says in part

In my position as Secretary of the H. General Assembly of the
National Presbyterian Church of Mexico, I [Presbyter Amador Lopez Hernandez] am sending the present
document to communicate the official decision made by our National
Presbyterian Church of Mexico, in the last extraordinary and legislative
Council meeting held at El Divino Salvador Church, in Xonacatlán,
Mexico, on August 17-19, 2011, regarding the partnership between our
Churches, which states:

“To revoke Article 41, number 4 of our Manual of Procedures, which
entitles us to have official, covenant relations of work and cooperation
with the PC (U.S.A.) and terminate the official relationship with the
church, starting on August 18, 2011. As the General Assembly, we are
open to restore the partnership and work together in the future, if the
Amendment 10 A is rescinded.”

As I said above, this came from a special Consultation of the General Assembly and it is interesting to note that the primary purpose of the called meeting was ordination standards, but specifically the ordination of women.  The Presbyterian Outlook article helps fill in the details:

The Mexican church, with close to two million members, held a special
assembly Aug. 17-19 specifically to discuss the ordination of women –
voting overwhelmingly, by a margin of 158 to 14, to sustain its policy
of not ordaining women. The assembly also voted 103 to 55 not to allow
any sort of grace period for presbyteries that had, on their own,
already begun ordaining women. That vote means that any presbytery which
has already ordained women must immediately revoke those ordinations.

They also let us know that the vote to end the relationship with the PC(USA) came on a vote of 116 to 22 and was only a small part of this meeting.

In light of the full scope of these decisions made by this General Assembly it is interesting to note that in the blogosphere and twitterverse the PC(USA) related decision seems to be held up with little to no mention made of the other one. To be fair only the one decision directly affects the PC(USA) so that is one possible explanation. (At least one blog (non-PC(USA) related) did highlight the decision about the ordination of women and only mentioned the other in passing.)

Now, my Spanish is not very good, but from what I can tell and getting translation help from a couple of different sources it seems that when this meeting is discussed on the IPNM Facebook page it seems to be the women’s ordination issue which gets the most attention.

There is of course a response from the PC(USA), first an official statement then a webinar (archived presentation available from the Mexico Ministry page) to help those involved in ministry with the IPNM understand the new lay of the land.  In the webcast Dave Thomas (World Mission regional liaison for Mexico) gives a great description of the timeline and process for the decision.  He concludes by saying “And I think it’s ironic to think that here’s a church in Mexico that has nearly two million members, do you know it is almost the same size as the PC(USA), and yet 116 men voting on one Friday afternoon changed things. And in spite of the fact that thousands of people on both sides of the border, thousands of people from both countries have been impacted, have been transformed by God’s grace and by the work that they have been able to do jointly through this partnership we have had with the National Presbyterian Church of Mexico.” There is clearly a tone of sadness and frustration in his voice as he says this but also a hint of condescension. My personal reaction is “this is what Presbyterianism is about” were a small subset of the whole church, be it 200 commissioners or 850, try to discern God’s will and make decisions for the whole church. And it seemed to me that throughout the webinar there were times when comments by panelists or questions from participants projected the expectations, process, standards or norms of the PC(USA) onto our sister Presbyterian church.

The webinar did offer an opening – As Maria Arroyo (World Mission area coordinator) said “…[The IPNM] would continue receiving the presbyteries in partnership that voted against 10-A and also were willing to sign something saying that they were against 10-A and they would conform to the principles of the Mexican Church.”

In his comments, Hunter Farrell (Director of Presbyterian World Mission) summarizes the situation and includes this comment, “Perhaps the most regrettable piece in this is that the Mexican Assembly in its action reduces us and our 139 year relationship to one question, our stance on a particular issue — It is critically important, and that is not to say the theology is not important, but the result is that we are reduced to yes or no on one particular question. And ironically that is what our church was trying to move away from by adopting 10-A — to broaden that understanding of ordained ministry.” He continues “At the same time our part in this, we understand from the perspective of Presbyterian World Mission, is to accept and respect the decision by the Mexican Presbyterian Church.”

This changed relationship will have to be lived into and there are still more questions than answers. The Mexico Ministry page does note that on September 8 an agreement between the two churches was reached to continue boarder ministry.

The second decision made and stance taken was from the Presbyterian Church of Ghana. This came from the 11th General Assembly recently concluded and can be found in both a communique from the Assembly as well as a summary page. But again, there appear to be nuances that are not reflected in the blogosphere and twitterverse.

For example, one article is headlined “Presbyterian Church of Ghana (PCG) severs ties with US partner over homosexuality.” Is the the situation?  That is a definite maybe!

First, let’s take a look at what the church has actually publically said.  The Communique is a bit longer and so I will focus on that.  The section begins on page 21 and starts by echoing the announced stance from earlier this year. It also reaffirms the earlier announcement that “The General Assembly wishes to state that although it unreservedly condemns homosexuality as sin, the Church is prepared to offer the needed pastoral care and counseling for those wishing to come out of the practice, in keeping with the truism that, ‘God hates sin but loves the sinner.’”  It is only in the last paragraph of this section that they address foreign partners and say, in total:

The Presbyterian Church of Ghana is further taking steps – a process which has began with its just ended General Assembly to sever relationship with any partner church local and foreign that ordained homosexuals as ministers and allowed for same sex marriages and wants to make it clear that we respect the decisions of our Ecumenical Partners abroad concerning gay and lesbian practice and same-sex marriages and believes that our position would also be duly respected by them.

Note that there is an “and” in there – that the conditions appear to be both “ordained homosexuals as ministers” AND “allowed for same sex marriages.”

Now unfortunately this appears to be all we have to go on.  I have requested clarification from the General Assembly Clerk on this point but am still waiting for his response.  (Will update if I get one) I am not aware that the church has sent official notification to any partners yet, but please point me in the right direction if I have missed something. It looks like we will have to wait until the church has worked out more of the details.  It also raises the question about other partners like the Church of Scotland which has not approved ordination or marriages but has set a trajectory in that direction.

So all the headlines about severing ties? At the present time it appears that no specific action has been taken from this decision and since the PC(USA) does not currently permit same sex marriages it appears that the PC(USA) does not currently fit the stated criteria.  It is interesting to note that the Moderator of the General Assembly of the PCG, the Rt. Rev. Prof. Emmanuel Martey, is currently touring the USA and we may get more clarification from his statements here.

Are there other partnerships in jeopardy? It does appear that there are.  Without being specific, in the webinar Maria Arroyo does say that some partners in the Caribbean and Latin America will be considering their relationship with the PC(USA) at their upcoming General Assemblies or General Synods.  In addition, Rev. Jim Miller gives us a five point declaration from the National Council of the Korean Presbyterian Church of the PCUSA. This is an entity within the PC(USA) but probably reflects broader attitudes within this ethnic community nationally and internationally.

I don’t think I need to stick my neck out very far to predict that over the next year we will see a variety of responses from PC(USA) international partners ranging from approval to acceptance to disapproval to dissolution of the relationship.  And in cases like there, where a possible way forward is provided based on their standards, it will be interesting to see how all this develops. But in it all we do pray for God’s mission to be advanced in whatever ways God ordains.

Next, a look at what has been happening in the Church of Scotland over the last few months.

Two PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions On Ordination Standards — A Plate Of Polity, Doctrine On The Side…

4 Replies

Today the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) released their decisions in two closely watched remedial cases.  One reason for the high-profile nature of the cases is the fact that they began their lives with G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” language, in the Book of Order, but as of last month that language has been removed and modified in the new G-2.0104b. Does the change in language make the cases moot?  The GAPJC said yes… and no.

If you want the summary and outcomes, here you go:

The case of Session of Caledonia Presbyterian Church and others v. Presbytery of John Knox deals with the examination for ordination of Mr. Scott Anderson.  The key quote in this decision is:

The Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Moot is granted, and the Stay of Enforcement is lifted. The only alleged irregularities set out in Appellants’ Notice of Appeal cite G-6.0106b and Authoritative Interpretations of that section as the basis of their Appeal. The language of that section was removed from the Book of Order prior to the GAPJC hearing of the Appeal. In granting this motion, this Commission declines to rule upon the application of a provision of the Book of Order that no longer exists. Nothing in this Decision should be construed to interpret the ordination standards under the new Form of Government, as that issue is not before the Commission.

The second case is that of Parnell and others v. Presbytery of San Francisco and results from the examination to ordain Ms. Lisa Larges.  This case was not dismissed but eight of the specifications of error were not sustained for the same reason the Anderson case was dismissed. Where this was different is that doctrine was cited as an irregularity.  The decision says:

The record does not reflect that the SPJC ruled on the Appellants’ contention that Scripture and the Confessions prohibit certain sexual behavior. While the Appellants’ complaint was based primarily on G-6.0106b, the Appellants clearly and consistently presented arguments at trial on the basis of scriptural and confessional standards without objection by the Presbytery. Since the doctrinal issue is central to the Appellants’ case, it was error for the SPJC not to expressly rule upon the issue.

The case is remanded back to the Synod of the Pacific PJC and the SPJC is “encouraged to direct the Presbytery to reexamine the candidate under G-2.0104b.”

OK, that’s the bottom line.  Now polity wonks, lets do some more reading.

Regarding the Caledonia v. John Knox decision what is striking to me is that while the decision itself is just the dismissal and relatively straight-forward, I did after all give you the complete Decision in the quote above, this is a longer decision.  Of the 15 commissioners on the GAPJC (there is one vacant position) eight signed on to one of the three concurring comments and five signed at least one of the dissenting comments. (One commissioner signed both dissenting comments.) So a lot of the commissioners wanted to say something and these additional comments essentially triple the length of the decision.

The concurring comments included commentary on how the General Assembly had issued a flawed Authoritative Interpretation, how the Commission could not consider broader issues than G-6.0106b because they were not raised in the appeal, how the Presbytery should have started over with Anderson under the new Book of Order language as suggested, and how some commissioners would have preferred to have affirmed the SPJC decision rather than dismiss the case.

The dissenting comments focus on how the SPJC decision is flawed because it did not address the doctrinal arguments (like the SPJC decision in the Larges case) and the flawed nature of the GA AI.

The catch of course is that while these statements were made in the decision, since the case was dismissed they do not raise to the standard of Interpretation.  However, the tension over the AI from the General Assembly that allowed scrupling of practice as well as belief has been substantial and that issue is reflected in the concurrence by Copeland, Kim, Cramer and Cornman says:

While we find the “Knox AI” to be flawed, we believe that the Presbytery acted in good faith when it based its decisions on its interpretation of that Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108 adopted by the 218th General Assembly (2008). G-13.0103r of the Form of Government in force at the time of the contested ordination examination states, “The most recent interpretation of a provision of the Book of Order shall be binding.” In this case this would be the Knox AI. The flaw of the Knox AI, however, is that it fails to recognize that any AI, regardless of who issues it, cannot modify a specific requirement of the Book of Order. An AI can interpret the Constitution but the only way to modify such an explicit requirement (G-6.0106b) is through the amendment process.

The decision in Parnell v. John Knox is more extensive, but eight of the eleven specifications of error are dismissed because “the constitutional provisions under which the Candidate was examined are no longer part of the Constitution.”  A ninth was dismissed because they found that the record did not sustain the claim that the presbytery itself departed from the Essential Tenants of the Reformed Faith by approving the candidate. There were two specifications of error regarding the SPJC not dealing with the doctrinal issues raised and only dealing with process. These are the errors that were sustained.  I have quoted the relevant portion of the decision above where the GAPJC points out that “the Appellants clearly and consistently presented arguments at trial on the basis of scriptural and confessional standards without objection by the Presbytery.”  The GAPJC decision is careful to also note that “In sustaining this specification of error, this Commission is not ruling on whether doctrinal error or abuse of discretion occurred, but only that it is not evident from the language of the decision whether or not the SPJC ruled upon this matter.”

There is a concurring opinion by one commissioner who expresses caution that review of ordaining bodies decisions should be done carefully:

The protocol for review by an appellate body needs, therefore, to be very prudently limited to those cases in which either an ordaining body or a Permanent Judicial Commission has very clearly erred or the process is so defective as to have deprived one of the parties of due process, such that there are extraordinary reasons for reversal. The duty of a reviewing body is to be discharged with caution and great deference.

He says that the only reason he can concur is because the recommendation is to have the presbytery do the examination again under the new standard.

There is also a dissent by three commissioners who feel there are no grounds to have the doctrine arguments reviewed by the SPJC: “For an appellate body to be empowered to micromanage the ordination process without there being extraordinary reasons would be ill-advised.”  They conclude their comments with the economic argument:

Both parties urged this Commission not to remand this case for further hearings as they recognized that to do so would not only cause significant and unnecessary expense to the church, but would also result in no difference in outcome. This Commission is charged with securing th
e “economical determination of proceedings.” We believe that sending the case back to the SPJC does not accomplish that charge.

A couple of things jump out to me in these decisions:

1) Previous GAPJC decisions regarding ordination standards seem to have been crafted so that members of the GAPJC were unanimous, or nearly so, in the decision. The decisions give the appearance that this was done by focusing on the process.  The variety of voices heard in these decisions, particularly the Caledonia v. John Knox, strikes me as a shift in tone and there is no longer an emphasis on high-consensus decisions.  It may be the change in circumstances with the passage of 10-A.  It might have to do with the fact that these cases have reached a level of maturity that all the procedural issues have been beaten out of them and they are now down to the core doctrinal issues.  Or it may be that the church as a whole has reached a point where we need to start taking these issues seriously.  I don’t know if others agree but looking over these decisions I sense a change in tone from previous ones.

2) Related to that, these decisions appear to me to be sending a message that the GAPJC  is ready to start dealing with those issues, maybe even wanting to based on some of the writing.  The feeling is not unanimous, as a couple of the minority comments argue for leaving those issues to the presbyteries.  But one concurring decision in the Caledonia v. John Knox case says:

Additionally, the Appellants, while arguing on appeal a scriptural basis for overturning the Presbytery’s action, failed to include such arguments in either their original complaint or the specification of errors. These omissions meant that this Commission was unable to address issues broader than the application of G-6.0106b in its Decision.

They almost seem to be lamenting the fact that they wanted to deal with this but could not work on that problem because of the structure of the appeal.

Now, there is an opinion that differs from mine regarding this, but as I read these decisions it seems to me that the GAPJC is saying it might be time to examine the doctrine at the highest level.  The caveat they place is that it needs to be done decently and in order by properly arguing it at the court of first impressions and by properly appealing it in the brief.

So the bottom line – In Mr. Anderson’s case the process has concluded.  The stay of enforcement is lifted and he is cleared to be ordained.  As for Ms. Larges, the process continues.  There will be another trial before the SPJC on the doctrinal issues, there will probably be another examination for ordination before the presbytery based on the new Book of Order language, and I would suspect another appeal to the GAPJC following the new SPJC hearing.  While this extends a very long journey even further, the apparent benefit to many of us in this upcoming cycle will the the opportunity to actually have the GAPJC rule on the doctrine and not just the process.  Stay tuned…

[Update: Note the comment below by the Rev Mary Holder Naegeli who was in the midst of this case. 1) The remand does not necessarily mean a reopening of the trial, 2) doctrine was discussed by the PJC in the proceedings but not in the decision, 3) The GAPJC consensus seemed to be that they would not accept the case for review another time.  Thanks Mary.]

181st General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church

2 Replies

A couple weeks ago there was a second General Assembly underway with its own business and exciting developments while I was preoccupied with another one.  Well, afterwards I got a really nice “what about us” message.  So here we go…

The 181st General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church was held in Springfield, Missouri, from June 20-24.  There was a highlights piece and the preliminary minutes (a large file) containing all the reports coming to the Assembly.

There was no live streaming but an effort was made to introduce the commissioners to Twitter with a Twitter screen running during Assembly business one day and an introduction to Twitter given by @tifmcclung.  If you want to go back and see the traffic the hashtag was #cpassembly.

It was noted by more than one person on Twitter that the Assembly ran very smoothly, especially as far as the business was concerned. As @mtndew05 put it “it has been a real smooth GA this year, way to go!!”

There were however several items of note that, while passed in a gracious and unifying spirit, are none-the-less important and newsworthy.

Chief among these is the action by this Assembly, as well as a concurring action earlier in the month by the 137th General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America, to begin the process of uniting. This was the one item that got a brief news update from the official publication The Cumberland Presbyterian where they said

The 181st General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church has
just adopted a resolution supporting pursuit of unification with the
Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America.  It is an historic move, and
was approved unanimously by all present.

My thanks to Dr. Daniel J. Earheart-Brown, President of Memphis
Theological Seminary, for a helpful communication highlighting some of the more significant actions of the Assembly:

There were several significant actions taken, including a commitment to
seek unity with the CPCA, approval of a plan for certifying youth
ministers, a resolution on welcoming churches from other Presbyterian
and Reformed denominations, a 10 year plan for evangelism and new church
development, a new covenant relationship with the CP Children’s Home,
and a decision for the GA to meet in Cali, Colombia, South America in
2015.

Let me develop a couple of these further from the Preliminary Minutes:

The CPC maintains their focus on evangelism and new church development through successive ten-year plans.  The Assembly adopted the next one and it can be found as Appendix C  of the Ministry report beginning on page 71 of the Preliminary Minutes. Here are some of the specific goals listed:

Local Church Goals
Each local church will:

• Hold training events for members on faith-sharing (Coordinated by Evangelism)
• Do evangelism through service outside their congregation, such as NCD and mission projects, in addition to local community evangelism efforts (MMT)
• Participate in a program to develop lay leaders which will help with NCD (PDMT & NCD Staff Person)
• Identify those with the gift of evangelism (Evangelism)
• Develop a prayer network for the evangelism emphasis (Evangelism)
• Establish an accountability group to maintain an emphasis on evangelism (Evangelism)
• Establish evangelism growth of 10% per year based on present active church membership. (Ambitious goals will reinforce evangelism as a priority.)
• Support a denominationally-endorsed missionary. (The modern model of missions requires CP missionaries to raise their own support.) (GMLT)

Presbytery Goals
Each presbytery will:

• Hold local churches accountable for evangelism to the Presbytery Board of Missions. (Evangelism)
• Promote among CP youth a vocational call to NCD, missions, evangelism and pastoral ministry through youth events and other means. (DMT/ PDMT)
• Consider planting churches where there are no CP churches. Presbytery boundaries should not be considered s a limiting factor to church planting. (NCD/ Cross-Cultural Ministries)
• Hold a fund drive for their NCD projects (NCD/BOS)
• Plant 10% of the present number of churches over the 10 year period. NCD Staff will conduct workshops for presbyteries to learn about different methods and styles of NCD. (NCD/ Cross-Cultural Ministries)
• Name one NCD task force that will work with all NCD projects in the presbytery, with task force members rotating. (NCD)
• Host Miniversities on Evangelism and NCD (DMT/ NCD)

The Ministry Council report contains a lot of interesting information including the new edition of Understanding the Process for Ordination beginning on page 76.  While it contains the usual information on education, examination and process, there are a couple of interesting companion pieces on Government and Theological Background including “Ministry in a Litigious Society” on page 101 and “‘The Call’ In Historical and Theological Perspective” on page 102. This nice piece by Dr. Earheart-Brown is widely applicable to the Reformed Church and in the historical development does reflect upon the idea of vocation as seen by Luther and Calvin that affect us all.

It is important to remember that the CPC is no longer a strictly “American” Presbyterian branch but has spread out in its global missions and presbyteries.  The Assembly accepted the invitation to hold the 2015 meeting in Cali, Columbia, but looking at the list of Assemblies (p. 9) you will see a previous international meeting in 2008 when the Assembly was held in Japan. And the evangelism plan that was just adopted calls for prayer and study as to where to open a new front for world outreach.

Finally, there was a commissioner resolution regarding the possible transfer of churches from the PC(USA) to the CPC.  Again, let me quote the message from Dr. Earheart-Brown for the proper context:

One item of business that is not in the preliminary minutes was a
commissioner-presented resolution on receiving congregations from other
Presbyterian and Reformed denominations. The original resolution was not
approved, but a substitute replicating much of the original content
written by the select committee on judiciary was. I have attached a copy
of the GA approved resolution to this e-mail. We in the CPC have been
very careful not to contribute to the conflicts in the PC(USA), but we
wanted to communicate in some way to churches that have made the
decision to leave that they may want to consider the CPC. I also believe
that some who have gone to the EPC may reconsider that decision at some
point, and if they are a fit for the CPC, we want them to know that we
are open to discussion.

As he said, he sent along a copy of the resolution. I find it interesting that this resolution provides for an internal review of the CPC polity regarding property.  And to emphasize the last point the final Resolved in the resolution says:

RESOLVED that this action is not to be construed as calling into question the theological, ethical, or polity decisions of any other body of Christians, nor as a license for any Cumberland Presbyterian to engage in any action that would promote division within the body of Christ, but is a simple invitation for other Presbyterian and Reformed churches who may be called by God to share with us the work of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to have time and space to seek God’s will in this matter.

Lots going on here and I look forward to seeing what God is doing in this Presbyterian branch. Next year in Florence, Alabama.

[Editorial note: I’m about to begin my annual time away in the wilderness off and on for the next few weeks.  Expect blogging and tweeting to be minimal for a while. Thanks and happy summer to you.]

New Ordination Standards Language In The PC(USA) And The Discussion Of Standards

2 Replies

As the polity wonks in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are well aware we have to be studying up on the changes to the Book of Order that go into effect this weekend.  The biggest change is the addition of a new section, Foundations of Presbyterian Polity, and the rewrite of the Form of Government, but there are a few other amendments that changed language elsewhere in the constitution. While the paper copy is still at the printer and the electronic copies are in preparation, especially the annotated version, we do have the vast majority of the new Form of Government from the amendment booklet.

However, there are about 20 locations where other specific amendments have made changes to the Book of Order, and seven of these are in the FOG.

Of these changes the only one to have any substantial opposition in the presbyteries is the new wording of G-2.0104b, the standards for ordination. This is the new number and wording for what was previously numbered G-6.0106b and we will have to learn to have the new number roll off our tongue as the old one did.

Some may say that this debate is over and we can move on to other things so there is no need to get used to the numbering of that section.  I think the evidence is that in the short- to intermediate-term there will still be substantial discussion about what it actually means so I at least am getting used to it.

For some this weekend is an occasion for celebration and More Light Presbyterians have released a suggested opening liturgy for this coming Lord’s Day that begins

Common Beginning of Worship and of Church Life
July 10, 2011

Procession
(run free with banners, scarves, ribbons, streamers, etc)

I have not seen a liturgy for those who favored the previous ordination standards language, but I suspect that if there is one it is a bit less exuberant.

The reason that I don’t think the Book of Order citation number will soon disappear from our vocabulary is that there is now a substantial amount of discussion about how to live into the new verbiage.

For example, More Light Presbyterians have issued a guide with their recommendations about moving forward with the new language titled Ordination Guide: So That G-2.0104 Shall Be a
Blessing for our Church and World. On the introductory web page they say:

Fair, accurate interpretation and implementation of 10-A, now known
as G-2.0104 is our top priority. We have created Ordination Guides from
an affirming perspective and we have sent them to staff in all 173
presbyteries…

We need to get this
affirming Guide in the hands, hearts, minds and actions of every
Presbyterian congregation, every Committee on Preparation for Ministry
and every Committee on Ministry. We believe that G-2.0104 can be a
blessing for our Church and world. For 10-A to make the difference it
can make, we need to make sure that it is understood, honored and
followed by every church and presbytery. We know this is a tall order:
11,000 churches in 173 presbyteries. All of us doing our part can make
this happen. Together we are building a Church that reflects God’s
heart.

The guide is not very extensive and addresses all the primary audiences briefly. It frequently says something similar to this passage that is part of the advice to seminaries:

For polity professors and administrators handling placement, help your seminarians study the exact wording of G-2.0104. Help them become as familiar as possible with the theological contours of their own presbyteries, other potential presbyteries where they might come under care and the presbyteries where they might seek a call. Prepare them to be ready to ground their responses to questions from Committees on Preparation or [sic] Ministry and from Pastor Nominating Committees in Scripture, the confessions and the constitutional questions.

Depending on your perspective, this advice could be seen a either practical advice about discerning and living into their call or as “teaching the test” and making sure the candidate knows the right thing to say when the time comes to improve their chances in a presbytery with some differences of opinion.

From the opposite perspective there is an equally interesting document now posted.  With the change in the ordination standards language the PC(USA) has removed their “mandatory church wide behavioral ordination standard.” Now that the mandatory standard has been removed, what will become of judicial cases that are in the pipeline?

The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission is scheduled to hear two of those cases three weeks from today on July 29th. In an effort to argue that their case is still relevant even with the new language, Parnell and others have submitted a Supplemental Brief in their case against the Presbytery of San Francisco. (And thanks to the Presbyterian Coalition for making it available on their web site.) The brief begins with this:

The question is posed whether this case is still at issue, given the recent ratification of Amendment 10-A, and if so, whether any of the specifications of error are mooted by that revision to Book of Order section G-6.0106b. The basis of Appellants’ case from the beginning has been the clear and univocal mandate of Scripture. Scripture has not changed, so the case is not moot.

The suggestion of mootness implies that when 10-A deleted fidelity/chastity from the text of G-6.0106, something new was achieved, either a new standard or a new procedure. Neither is the case. Changing the sexual ethic standard requires changing Scripture, while the procedures described in 10-A merely restate current ordination process (G-14.0452 and G-14.0480). Since 10-A presents nothing new, the case is not moot.

I applaud the writers of this brief for taking on the issue as it now stands and not under the previous language.  In response to a motion by the Presbytery they argue:

The Presbytery has suggested that this case should be decided with reference solely to the former language of G-6.0106b and without regard to the subsequently certified Amendment 10-A, that is, by applying only the text that appeared at the time. If a new rule had superseded an old one because it contradicts the former, this suggestion would be debatable. But this is not the situation before us. Simply, 10-A is neither a new rule nor a new procedure. Thus, nothing is gained by this Commission excluding 10-A from its consideration. In any case, there is no authority that mandates that a matter must be decided using only the rule that existed at the time.

With appreciation for their efforts and respect for their argument, it is my opinion that this effort will not be successful.  While the GAPJC regularly decides cases regarding procedures and interpretation of the Book of Order, with the removal of the mandatory standard I am not seeing a lot that the GAPJC would feel obliged to weigh in on.  GAPJC decisions seldom address doctrinal questions that have been interpreted on the presbytery level generally showing deference to the presbytery’s decision. They have been clear in the past that beyond the mandatory standard the presbytery is the body to decide fitness for ordination as a teaching elder.  It will be interesting to see how the GAPJC addresses the argument that scripture and the confessions still provide a mandatory standard and that nothing has changed.

Speaking of standards, I want to finish up with some thoughts about the definition and application of standards for ordination in the PC(USA) today.

First, the Bush v. Pittsburgh decision (218-10) set the bar for what presbyteries can do, or more generally can not do, in the way of standards and ordination examinations.  Some of the more relevant sections:

3. Statements of “Essentials of Reformed Faith and Polity”: Attempts by governing bodies that ordain and install officers to adopt resolutions, statements or policies that paraphrase or restate provisions of the Book of Order and/or declare them as “essentials of Reformed faith and polity” are confusing and unnecessary; and are themselves an obstruction to constitutional governance in violation of G-6.0108a. [Headnotes, p. 1]

The constitutional process for amending ordination standards (or any other provision of the Constitution) is defined in Chapter 18 of the Form of Government. While the General Assembly and the GAPJC may interpret these standards, the Authoritative Interpretation did not (and constitutionally could not) change any ordination standard, including the requirements set forth in G-6.0106b. Similarly, no lower governing body can constitutionally define, diminish, augment or modify standards for ordination and installation of church officers. [p. 5]

Ordaining bodies have the right and responsibility to determine whether or not any “scruples” declared by candidates for ordination and/or installation constitute serious departures from our system of doctrine, government, or discipline; to what extent the rights and views of others might be infringed upon by those departures; and whether those departures obstruct the constitutional governance of the church. At the same time, attempts by governing bodies that ordain and install officers to adopt resolutions, statements or policies that paraphrase or restate provisions of the Book of Order and/or declare them as “essentials of Reformed faith and polity” are confusing and unnecessary. G-6.0108a sets forth standards that apply to the whole church. These standards are binding on and must be followed by all governing bodies, church officers and candidates for church office. Adopting statements about mandatory provisions of the Book of Order for ordination and installation of officers falsely implies that other governing bodies might not be similarly bound; that is, that they might choose to restate or interpret the provisions differently, fail to adopt such statements, or possess some flexibility with respect to such provisions. Restatements of the Book of Order, in whatever form they are adopted, are themselves an obstruction to the same standard of constitutional governance no less than attempts to depart from mandatory provisions. [p. 6]

The Presbytery’s resolution would define the “essentials” of Reformed faith and polity by restating the Presbytery’s intention to enforce mandatory provisions of the Book of Order, when it has no authority to do otherwise. At the same time, declaring “essentials” outside of the context of the examination of a candidate for ordained office is inappropriate. As was stated in the 1927 Report of the Special Commission of 1925 (Swearingen Commission Report) Presbyterian Church in the United States of Am
erica Minutes, 1927, pp. 78-79:

One fact often overlooked is that by the act of 1729, the decision as to essential and necessary articles was to be in specific cases. It was no general authority that might be stated in exact language and applied rigidly to every case without distinction. It was an authority somewhat undefined, to be invoked in each particular instance. . . . It was clearly the intention that this decision as to essential and necessary articles was to be made after the candidate had been presented and had declared his [or her] beliefs and stated his [or her] motives personally, and after the examining body…had full opportunity to judge the man himself [or woman herself] as well as abstract questions of doctrine.

[ p. 6 ]

It would be an obstruction of constitutional governance to permit examining bodies to ignore or waive a specific standard that has been adopted by the whole church, such as the “fidelity and chastity” portion of G-6.0106b, or any other similarly specific provision. On the other hand, the broad reference in G-6.0106b to “any practice which the confessions call sin” puts the responsibility first on the candidate and then on the examining body to determine whether a departure is a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity and the remainder of G-6.0108(a) with respect to freedom of conscience. The ordaining body must examine the candidate individually. The examining body is best suited to make decisions about the candidate’s fitness for office, and factual determinations by examining bodies are entitled to deference by higher governing bodies in any review process. [p. 7]

There is a lot there, but let me boil it down to the probably over-simplistic summary that “ordaining and installing bodies must examine candidates individually and can not set blanket standards for those candidates.” (And any polity wonk has to appreciate a decision that works in the report of the 1925 Special Commission which in turn refers to the Adopting Act of 1729. Sorry, its a polity wonk thing.)

So, if a presbytery has an issue of conscience regarding ordination standards and wants to be on record with a particular theological stance but can not officially declare standards what might be some options?  A few that I see:

1) Prominently maintain the status quo.  If you have that stance, under the Bush decision you can not declare it as a standard. But if your stance is clearly stated and advertised then candidates not in agreement are more than likely to find a more obliging presbytery.

2) Declare your standards anyway. While it might not be in agreement with the Bush decision, a presbytery could try this and wait and see if anybody complains, particularly in a judicial sense by filing a remedial case.  At the present time there is a lot of talk of mutual forbearance and not making further waves so a presbytery might be allowed to continue with this approach for a while.

3) Set it as a requirement for membership. The Bush decision has a suggestive footnote — “2. Governing bodies may impose other requirements on church officers, after ordination and installation, such as requirements to abide by ethics or sexual misconduct policies.” So what if these requirements were set outside of the examination process? What if fidelity and chastity were part of a presbytery’s ethics and sexual misconduct policies?

4) Sub-presbyteries. While flexible presbyteries are not a reality at the present time, what if we were to administer this on a smaller scale?  What if a presbytery were to become more of a “super-presbytery” with two administrative sub-groups?  Clearly certain constitutionally required functions, such as the moderator and the clerk, could not be sub-divided, but I think that the new Form of Government might just provide enough flexibility for some creative polity to make this happen.

There is another possibility that while not presently sanctioned by the PC(USA) does have a model in the new changes to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church‘s constitution that just became effective with the conclusion of their General Assembly last month.  In their case they needed a system to allow for differing understandings of ordination standards regarding women so they have modified their system to permit what I call “fuzzy presbytery boundaries.” It is set up so that a church with one stance that finds itself in a presbytery with the opposite stance can move to an adjoining presbytery that has a stance agreeable to them. This preserves a geographic component to presbytery membership as well as a respect for theological affinity.  It is not a fully flexible presbytery but an alignment based on both geography and ordination standards.

How the new language is implemented by each ordaining body is an issue that is just starting to develop and it will be interesting to see how this develops and what creative solutions may arise. Or maybe we will find out that creative solutions are not necessary but that the new language provides the flexibility for each presbytery to examine candidates regarding their own understanding of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the candidates gifts and talents. Stay tuned as this has a long way to go.