Category Archives: ordained office

General Assembly Of The United Free Church Of Scotland

Leave a reply

Today was the first full day of business for the General Assembly of the United Free Church of Scotland.  The Assembly convened yesterday evening and will conclude tomorrow evening with worship. They are meeting in the Scottish city of Perth.  Here is some information if you are interested in the meeting and what they are discussing:

The Moderator of this Assembly is Elder George H. McRobb from Aberdeen.  The official press release tells us that he is only the ninth elder to serve as Moderator of the General Assembly in the 82 year history of the church.  He has extensive experience and has given significant service to the UFC serving as Session Clerk, and Moderator of the former Presbytery of Aberdeen and the North and the current Presbytery of the North. He has also served as an Interim Moderator of church sessions and has been involved in supporting foreign missions.  Best wishes to him in his moderatorial year.

The docket can be found on the last page of the report of the Administration and Finance Committee. 

All the reports to the Assembly are available from the reports page.

In reading through the reports I find a lot of the business that is generally being done by any Presbyterian Assembly.  But one topic that many Presbyterian branches have been working through is what ordained ministry looks like in this modern age.  There are a couple of interesting items in the Ministry Committee report that reflect on this.

One of these is regarding Readers, a position like a Commissioned Lay Pastor, licensed elder or lay preacher.  The report says this about the new process and focus of the position:

It is the committee’s view that presbyteries should take up a new responsibility for the training and deployment of Readers. Candidates will be interviewed by presbytery, and hopefully space will be made available for Reader candidates to engage in a short church placement within the denomination. The reason for this is that the committee intends to make it possible for Readers to be involved in local situations of team ministry.

Overall and final responsibility for the preparation and approval of Readers will remain with the committee. The training will have academic and practical aspects…

…

After appointment it is hoped by the committee that Readers might be available to serve in a team ministry context, serving in a cluster of UF congregations. This will be overseen by presbyteries, and would be a new departure for the church. The committee has made recent efforts to meet with presbytery representatives, who obviously have a much clearer view of ministry needs on the ground. In the past Readers have been contacted informally by individual congregations about preaching and leading of worship. There is no reason why this should not continue, and the committee is very grateful to Readers for this excellent ministry.

However our vision now is that Readers can and should be deployed in more creative ways, allowing them to exercise a more focused ministry role within the United Free Church of Scotland.

The second topic the report touches on is the Sacraments.  This is the result of a referral last year after the 2010 Assembly adopted a report from the Panel on Doctrine on conduct of the Sacraments.  (I have looked and not found this report on-line so if anyone can point me to it or provide a copy I would be interested in reading it.)  In these days of reduced roles for Ministers of Word and Sacrament and increasing alternate forms of worship leadership, the report adopted by the last Assembly makes the theological case for the Sacraments to be administered by Ministers called out and ordained to that ministry.  The question referred to the Ministry Committee was under what exceptional circumstances could another person conduct the sacraments.  The bring the following response for the approval of the Assembly:

“Except in exceptional circumstances, it is only those who have been set apart and ordained to the ministry of Word and Sacrament who are authorised to conduct the Sacraments. Where there is difficulty in providing sufficiently those so set apart and ordained, a Presbytery may also nominate an elder appointed to serve as an interim-moderator of the congregation to preside at the Lord‟s Supper. Before being so authorised these elders must satisfactorily complete a course of instruction provided by the Ministry Committee. Such authorisation must be granted annually and the names of such elders intimated to the Ministry Committee which shall include the names in the report of the Committee to the General Assembly. Any elder who ceases to be a bona-fide elder within his own congregation, or whose appointment to serve is cancelled or not renewed by the Presbytery, shall not be permitted to preside.”

It is a with the changing nature of the church, tighter budgets and declining membership that each branch is examining what ordained ministry means, how to be creative in providing that ministry, and in what ways the ministry can be broadened to include more people in the ministry.

So best wishes and prayers for the final day of the UFC General Assembly.

Background info:  You might of guessed that the UFC is one of the smaller Presbyterian branches.  Referring to our handy guide to Scottish Presbyterian Churches we can see that the UFC was formed back in 1900 with the merger of the two major branches outside the National church, the Free Church of Scotland and the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland.  (The Free Church that is active today descends from the minority that did not join in the merger.)  Then in 1929 the United Free Church merged with the national Church of Scotland and the UFC that continues today descends from the minority that did not join that merger.

[Editor’s note:  The pattern you see here is typical of Presbyterian mergers in that time period.  Other examples are the present Cumberland Presbyterian Church which is the part that did not join with the PCUSA in 1906 and the Presbyterian Church in Canada which are those who did not join the United Church of Canada in 1925.  But more on this sometime in the future.]

According to the report of the Administration and Finance Committee, there are three presbyteries with 62 congregations, one less than at the end of 2009 — a 1.6% decline. There are 51 ministers, of which half (25) are not retired.  Membership at the end of 2010 was 3394, down 5.8% from 2009.

One more distinctive of the denomination is that the ordained ministry is open to both men and women.

The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland Chooses Their Trajectory

2 Replies

Yesterday, in a session on a single report that lasted all day, the 2011 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland chose the trajectory it would take regarding the service of partnered homosexuals in the ministry.  If all you want is the bottom line…

Executive Summary
By a vote of 351 to 294 the General Assembly chose to:

Resolve to consider further the lifting of the moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship, and to that end instruct the Theological Commission to prepare a report for the General Assembly of 2013…

In addition, the Assembly lifted the moratorium on “induction into pastoral charges of ministers and deacons ordained before May 2009 who are in a same-sex relationship.”

So it is a resolution to keep on discussing it with an eye in a particular direction.  The prohibition on ordinations has not been lifted yet, but the Assembly has chosen to point the church in the direction of permitting them in the future.  While the action today is not subject to the Barrier Act it is anticipated, but not yet decided, that the final action would be.

For those who are very familiar with the Deliverance, it is my understanding (I did not hear the morning session) that every point passed as written (no amendments approved) with the Assembly choosing option 7b over 7a.

The Rest Of The Story…
First I want to comment on the nature of the discussion itself.  All who followed it on Twitter, myself included, gave very high marks to the Moderator, the Rt. Rev. David Arnott, and the Convener of the Special Commission on Same-sex Relationships and the Ministry, Lord Hodge. Even though the debate was serious, and at times intense, the Moderator, Clerk and several of the commissioners helped control the tension with a nice amount of dry humor and quick wit.  The debate itself was courteous and respectful and I did not catch any personal attacks or snide remarks.  As for the content, having been through many of these debates before nothing jumped out at me as being a new argument for or against with all the usual scriptural and cultural appeals being made by both sides.  None-the-less, at least one commissioner commented that he had his mind changed by the debate, but as to which specific point or item he did not say.  It was an interesting morning (in my time zone) of listening and the debate usually moved along well and seldom got bogged down in polity or semantics.

I will point out that in the time I was listening, by my count not a single amendment was agreed to by the Assembly.  Similarly, the Convener declined to accept any amendment on behalf of the Special Commission. He regularly expressed the view that the Commission had worked hard at crafting a Deliverance that reflected the work of the group and wanted to honor that work.

Walking through the Deliverance, found at the beginning of the Commission’s report, the Assembly worked through the first two items before lunch.  They accepted the report (23/1), agreed to the necessity for pastoral care and that orientation is not in itself a barrier to holding office (23/2), and affirmed the unlawfulness of discrimination within the church and within the bounds of church law (23/3).

After lunch there was a spirited debate about part 23/4 which would “allow the induction into pastoral charges of ministers and deacons ordained before May 2009 who are in a same-sex relationship.”  In case you did not pick up on the magic date of May 2009, that was the Assembly at which the Special Commission was created. While there were suggested amendments the item passed as written 393 to 252.

Item 23/5, to continue the silent period for public discussion on this issue was agreed to, as was item 23/6 to create a Theological Commission to carry this work forward.

And then the core issue was reached…

The Commission brought to the Assembly a choice between two options.  The first, 23/7a began:

Resolve to consider further the implementation of an indefinite moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship thus maintaining the traditional position of the Church…

The alternate, 23/7b opened with:

Resolve to consider further the lifting of the moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship, and to that end instruct the Theological Commission to prepare a report for the General Assembly of 2013…

Another alternative, a “third way,” was moved by a former moderator, the Very Rev. Dr. Finlay Macdonald, it proposed that the Kirk was not ready to limit their choices and presented instructions to the newly formed Theological Commission to help the church continue the discussion.  Specifically it opened with “instruct the Theological Commission to continue the process of
discernment initiated by the Report received by the General Assembly of
2007…”  While respectfully received and favored by many, after discussion it was defeated by one of the closest votes of the day, 303 to 347.

The Assembly then debated the two original alternatives, another amendment to 7a was defeated, and a final vote was taken on the item with the commissioners favoring 7b, to move towards lifting the moratorium, by a vote of 294 for A and 351 for B.

The remaining two items, 23/8 to continue the moratorium on actions related to this issue and 23/9 to dismiss the Commission with thanks, were passed quickly.  The Assembly then thanked Lord Hodge for his leadership with generous words from the Moderator and a standing ovation. And with that the consideration of the report, which began at 11 AM local time concluded a bit after 6 PM (with a break for lunch).

So, with the moratoriums on speaking and action on these issues still in place, for the moment nothing has changed in the Church of Scotland.  However, with the creation of the Theological Commission and the agreed direction of their deliberations the Kirk has set a direction for the future that everyone expects will result in the lifting of the restriction on same-sex partnered individuals being ordained to office.  For completeness, here is the full text of 24/7b which was approved:

7(b) Resolve to consider further the lifting of the moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship, and to that end instruct the Theological Commission to prepare a report for the General Assembly of 2013 containing:

(i) a theological discussion of issues around same-sex relationships, civil partnerships and marriage;

(ii) an examination of 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 liturgy therefor;

(iii) an examination of 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; and to report to the General Assembly of 2013.

I want to wrap up here with two more items.  The first are links to several other blogs that discuss this change and give observations: Chris Hoskins, Stewart Cutler, Bryan Kerr, Stafford Carson, and Rev Shuna.

Second, I can’t leave this topic without looking at the numbers.  In the three votes I mention above the prevailing side in the vote had 60.9% of the votes on 23/4, 53.4% on the alternative amendment, and 54.4% on the selection of 7b.  For comparison, in my earlier post about the Commission report and the consultation they had with presbyteries and kirk session, they found that 48.9% of the responding presbytery members did not favor the church permitting partnered homosexuals in ordained positions while 41.4% did favor ordination.  The differences could be attributed to the fact one was a consultation and the other an actual vote.  There could also be differences in the populations sampled and as we see in other denominations the representatives to the national meeting being more progressive than the local members.  The differences could also be easily explained by the fact that the responses were to different questions.  Or, since this was only setting a direction and not making a final decision there may be an openness to continuing the discussion in this direction without the need to commit at this point.

In conclusion, it is worth pointing out the global community that was online for this session.  The Kirk streamed 1.7TB of data yesterday and those commenting on Twitter came from many corners of the world and stayed up late or got up early to follow the proceedings.  From my perspective it was a great social media community and a demonstration of how social media has enhanced Global Presbyterianism.  Thanks to all of you who were tweeting for the stimulating interaction.  But, this interest also demonstrated the “lightning rod” issue that I have talked about — This morning @generalassembly tweeted “We seem to be missing some several thousand viewers since yesterday. If you see them, please tell them we’re here all week!”  For those of you who could not join us, you missed another interesting day and some good discussion in the Assembly and on Twitter about youth and the church.  I’ll comment more on that at another time.

So, the Church of Scotland has more work to do, both in this Assembly and with their new Theological Commission to report back in 2013.  Stay tuned…

PC(USA) Polity Implications Of Amendment 10-A Passage

7 Replies

Since the voting in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) on Amendment 10-A swung towards the affirmative I have had a number of people asking me, in one way or another, “So what will it mean?”  Well let me tackle that question with what I understand to be the knowns and the unknowns of the polity implications.

And as the voting gets down to just a few more votes required for approval there appears to be enough of this uncertainty circulating that the Office of the General Assembly has issued a Frequently Asked Questions paper.  The interesting thing is that I have not found it on the OGA web site yet, but it is being posted by presbyteries.

Now, this will become very polity wonkish very fast so if all you want is my opinion, and that is all that this discussion is, I do think that the new wording of the section we currently know as G-6.0106b shifts the responsibility back to the presbyteries and in doing so opens up the denomination for more local interpretation of ordination standards.  I also think that the moment there is more local interpretation there will follow the need for new GA Authoritative Interpretation, whether it comes from the Assembly or the Permanent Judicial Commission.

Let me first set out my presumptions that are going into the discussion leading to this conclusion:  1) Amendment 10-A becomes part of the Book of Order replacing the current G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” section. 2) The New Form of Government passes (currently leading 69-59 in the official tally and 72-65 on an unofficial one. 3) The Belhar Confession is not affirmed by 2/3 of the presbyteries. 4) The Authoritative Interpretation associated with the Report of the Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity is still in affect. 5) That procedural aspects of GAPJC decisions related to the PUP AI are still in place. 6) That other GAPJC decisions regarding (i) ordination standards (with the one exception noted below) and (ii) marriage are still valid.

The best place to begin is probably with the wording of the proposed G-6.0106b:

Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003).  Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”

First, some clean-up – Since the New Form of Government is being used for this exercise this is no longer G-6.0106b but is now G-2.0104b.  The reference to G-1.000 is now a little tricky since it refers to a whole chapter which exists in a new form.  The reference could be pointed to the beginning of the material that is in the old form which would now be at F-1.0200.  In general the wording has not changed but the change in position means the “Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life” has been pushed down in priority and the missional nature of the Church now gets top billing. 

Section G-14.0240 is now G-2.0402 and for this analysis appears to contain identical material regarding the examination for ordered ministry as a ruling elder or deacon.  The reference to G-14.0450 is regarding the final assessment for teaching elder and has been substantially reduced to remove the procedural items. However, I don’t see that these changes resulting in the new section G-2.0607 have substantial consequences relative to this amendment.  And the reference to the directory for worship (W-4.4003) remains the same.

Let me make just a couple of brief observations about the actual wording of the amendment.  The first is that it does explicitly make reference to installation, as well as ordination, of officers.  The second point is the inclusion of the phrase “shall examine.”  The old language was about the standards and the examination was left to other parts of the Book of Order, but always with the “shall” condition. Having said that, this adds a bit of required territory to the examination.  For ruling elders and deacons the Book of Order says in G-2.0402

…the session shall examine them as to their personal faith; knowledge of the doctrine, government, and discipline contained in the Constitution of the church; and the duties of the ministry.

And this section now adds

…shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and
suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall
include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s
ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the
constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003).

(Anybody want to submit an overture either consolidating this or adding the cross-reference to G-2.0402?)

The final point I want to make here is what I see as the awkwardness of the final sentence relative to our ordination language.  The new language says “Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions…” while the ordination questions in W-4.4003 uses slightly different language:

d. Will you fulfill your office in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and be continually guided by our confessions?

These may or may not be at odds with each other, but it will clearly be a point of discussion for some polity wonks.

The stated objective of this change, as expressed by the advice from the Assembly Committee on the Constitution is:

This overture seeks to restore the ordination practice and principles
affirmed in the Adopting Act of 1729, the paradigm through which the
tension between the differing points of view and the unity of the church
have been maintained through much of our denomination’s history.

And what is the Adopting Act of 1729?  This was an agreement by the members of the Synod of Philadelphia (at the time the highest governing body) about ordained officers agreeing to the Westminster Standards or being examined on their departures.  The preliminary notes to the Act include this:

And we do also agree, that all the Presbyteries within our bounds shall
always take care not to admit any candidate of the ministry into the exercise
of the sacred function, but what declares his agreement in opinion with
all the essential and necessary articles of said Confession, either by
subscribing the said Confession of Faith and Catechisms, or by a verbal
declaration of their assent thereto, as such Minister or candidate for
the Ministry shall think best. And in case any Minister of this Synod,
or any candidate for the ministry, shall have any scruple with respect
to any article or articles of said Confession or Catechisms, he shall
at the time of his making said declaration declare his sentiments to the
Presbytery or Synod, who shall, notwithstanding, admit him to the exercise
of the ministry within our bounds and to ministerial communion if the
Synod or Presbytery shall judge his scruple or mistake to be only about
articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship or government.
But if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge such Ministers or candidates
erroneous in essential and necessary articles of faith, the Synod or Presbytery
shall declare them uncapable of Communion with them.

Having that as a historical basis the 217th General Assembly adopted an Authoritative Interpretation recommended by the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity which said:

a. The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government of the Book of Order set forth the scriptural and constitutional standards for ordination and installation.

b.
These standards are determined by the whole church, after the careful
study of Scripture and theology, solely by the constitutional process of
approval by the General Assembly with the approval of the presbyteries.
These standards may be interpreted by the General Assembly and its
Permanent Judicial Commission.

c.
Ordaining and installing bodies, acting as corporate expressions of the
church, have the responsibility to determine their membership by
applying these standards to those elected to office. These
determinations include:

(1)
Whether a candidate being examined for ordination and/or installation
as elder, deacon, or minister of Word and Sacrament has departed from
scriptural and constitutional standards for fitness for office,
(2) Whether any departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108 of the Book of Order, thus barring the candidate from ordination and/or installation.

Whether
the examination and ordination and installation
decision comply with the constitution of the PCUSA, and whether the
ordaining/installing body has conducted its examination reasonably,
responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately in deciding to ordain a
candidate for church office is subject to review by higher governing
bodies.

e. All parties
should endeavor to outdo one another in honoring one another’s
decisions, according the presumption of wisdom to ordaining/installing
bodies in examining candidates and to the General Assembly, with
presbyteries’ approval, in setting standards.

At the present time this AI is still in effect, with certain modifications as noted below.

As presbyteries began working through this some of their procedures were challenged and several resulting remedial cases were summarized in the Bush v. Pittsburgh decision.  While this decision gave us several polity points, there are four relevant points, only the first of which will be nullified by the passage of 10-A.

  1. Candidates and examining bodies must follow G-6.0108 in reaching determinations as to whether the candidates for ordination and/or installation have departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity. Such determinations do not rest on distinguishing “belief” and “behavior,” and do not permit departure from the “fidelity and chastity” requirement found in G-6.0106b.
  2. The freedom of conscience granted in G-6.0108 allows candidates to express disagreement
    with the wording or meaning of provisions of the constitution, but does not permit disobedience to those behavioral standards. (quoted from the SJPC decision)
  3. Ordaining and installing bodies must examine candidates for ordination and/or installation individually.
  4. 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.

With the modification of G-6.0106b the part of the Bush decision which says “The church has decided to single out this particular manner of life standard and require church wide conformity to it for all ordained church officers” will be out of date and irrelevant.

Regarding point 2 above, this has been a point of, shall we say “discussion,” between GA entities as  the 218th GA affirmed, in response to the Bush decision, that a departure can be in belief or practice.  And clearly point 3 from Bush is still applicable, as evidenced by the fact that the OGA FAQ makes repeated reference to needing to do examinations on a case-by-case basis.

There are several other relevant decisions on which the GAPJC mostly delivered procedural decisions that clarified that the examination regarding a declared exception must come at the same time as the final examination for ordination.  It would seem that this provision must still hold if a candidate sees a need to declare a departure in a particular presbytery.

Finally, it is interesting to note that the Sallade v. Genesee Valley decision may still be relevant.  This decision pre-dates the Book of Order “fidelity and chastity” language and was argued on the basis of the Interpretations of 1978 and 1979.  While the “fidelity and chastity” language appears to be gone, and the General Assembly has eliminated the earlier Interpretations, for a presbytery that finds that an active same-sex lifestyle does not reflect “…the desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life,” the GAPJC’s finding may still be applicable: “Therefore, this commission holds that a self-affirmed practicing homosexual may not be invited to serve in a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) position that presumes ordination.”  On the other hand, since this decision is based on Interpretations which are no longer in effect it may need to be completely relitigated. The other polity aspect that could make this decision irrelevant is the fact that it addresses call and 10-A is about membership.  While these two parts are closely linked, in our polity they are different steps in the process.

So, at this point the general agreement seems to be that there is no longer any specific prohibitions in the Book of Order to ordination and installation but that each ordaining body, Session or Presbytery, “…shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”

In that light I think we are all well aware that a particular governing body could come down on either side of the question as to whether a self-affirmed practicing homosexual would meet the church’s “standards.”  The arguments from Scripture are well rehearsed at this time and attendance at your presbytery meeting where Amendment 10-A was voted upon is probably all that is necessary if you want to get an introduction to them.  The confessions are a bit quieter on the question.  The Heidelberg Catechism revision is not completed yet so the controversial wording is still present there, but with the knowledge that the new translation will probably temper that language.  It appears we do not yet have the Belhar Confession officially adopted to provide a model of broader inclusion of individuals as an extension of the racial inclusivity it speaks of.  And when the confessions speak of marriage it is usually in the context of “one man and one woman,” (e.g. 5.246, 6.131 & 6.133 ) or as an eschatological image.

While the Book of Order is not cited as a source of guidance here, the argument for “fidelity and chastity” as a standard could be made by extension of the definition of marriage in W-4.9001.  On the other hand, those who are arguing for inclusion can appeal to new language in section F-1.0403 where it says:

The unity of believers in Christ is reflected in the rich diversity of the Church’s membership. In Christ, by the power of the Spirit, God unites persons through baptism regardless of race, ethnicity, age, sex, disability, geography, or theological conviction. There is therefore no place in the life of the Church for discrimination against any person. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall guarantee full participation and representation in its worship, governance, and emerging life to all persons or groups within its membership. No member shall be denied participation or representation for any reason other than those stated in this Constitution.

So, if an explicit reason for exclusion has now been removed from the Constitution and no specific reason is listed, an argument could be made that now there must not be a barrier to ordination.

(For reference, this section is based on the old section G-4.0403 which said:

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall give full expression to the rich diversity within its membership and shall provide means which will assure a greater inclusiveness leading to wholeness in its emerging life. Persons of all racial ethnic groups, different ages, both sexes, various disabilities, diverse geographical areas, different theological positions consistent with the Reformed tradition, as well as different marital conditions (married, single, widowed, or divorced) shall be guaranteed full participation and access to representation in the decision making of the church. (G-9.0104) )

I could go on, but suffice it to say that governing bodies will now have to wrestle with the ambiguity and different interpretations and understandings that the theological breadth of the PC(USA) embraces.  But lets tackle one more question…

What happens when a presbytery says “No!”?

I think that this is really the question that is on everyone’s minds and I think that over-all this will be an uncommon occurrence.  Most of the individuals and governing bodies are politick enough to try to defuse this before it becomes an issue.  However, I think that it is almost certain that there will be a case in the next few years that will be brought to a synod PJC as a remedial case.

It should be noted that the OGA FAQ is clear about this point:

6. What practical changes will we see?< br>

If pastors, elders, and deacons who are ordained in one area move to another location, they shall be examined by that ordaining body before being able to take up their office. That body may choose to apply ordination standards differently from the officer’s previous body.

7. Is the ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians mandated?

No, it is not required, but it is no longer prohibited by specific Constitutional language.

12. May a presbytery continue to function with the standard of “fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” when examining candidates for ordination?

Yes, as long as the application is on a case by case basis. The new language calls the ordaining body to be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying ordination standards to each candidate.

13. Is a presbytery required to receive, by transfer of membership, an ordained sexually active gay or lesbian minister?

No, each presbytery determines which ministers to receive into its membership.

But, this would be just an opinion expressed by the OGA.  This is not a binding interpretation since that can only come from the Assembly or the GAPJC and they could decide differently on these questions.  (In fact, the two entities have been issuing different Interpretations on declared exceptions relative to practice as well as belief.)  To resolve the uncertainty will require a test case to go through the judicial system, an Authoritative Interpretation from the Assembly, or more definitive language added to the Book of Order.

As I indicate above, I think that there are enough Interpretations currently in place that a presbytery’s decision against a candidate, provided that the presbytery actually followed the detailed procedures the GAPJC has laid down so far, would withstand the challenge.  I think that this is particularly true of a candidate for ordination.  There is a “wildcard” regarding the decision most likely to arise in regards to an ordained teaching elder who is a candidate for an installed position in a different presbytery.  The issue that the American Presbyterian Church has always had with presbyteries deciding standards going all the way back to the Adopting Act is what we now have as F-3.0203.

These presbyters shall come together in councils in regular gradation. These councils are sessions, presbyteries, synods, and the General Assembly. All councils of the church are united by the nature of the church and share with one another responsibilities, rights, and powers as provided in this Constitution. The councils are distinct, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate council. The larger part of the church, or a representation thereof, shall govern the smaller. (emphasis added)

So if ordination is an “act of the whole church” can a differently governing body “choose to apply ordination standards differently from the officer’s previous body” as it says in question 6 of the FAQ.

There are other unknowns here are well.  One is what the nature and authority of the definition of marriage (W-4.9001) will be in the next few years.  Another, is the inclusivity statement in F-1.0403 mentioned above and whether this new wording, combined with the removal of an explicit requirement, will provide the basis for a new Interpretation.

As I wrap this up let me move on to the item that half of you are probably saying “when is he going to get to it” and the other half are saying “don’t go there, don’t go there, don’t go there…”  As much as we would like to think of this as ancient history, in many of the discussions I have been in this has been hovering like a ghost in the background and I think no discussion of the topic can really avoid it. SO…

One word – “Kenyon.”

Yup, I went there. 

Now for those who have not picked up on this it refers to a GAPJC remedial case in the United Presbyterian Church in the USA branch back in 1975.  The case is officially known as Maxwell v. Pittsburgh Presbytery. It involves Mr. Walter Wynn Kenyon, a candidate for ordination as a teaching elder who declared an exception to the church’s stand that women should be ordained as teaching and ruling elders.  He stated his Scriptural basis for this matter of conscience, said that he would not participate in the ordination of a woman, and that he would let others know the basis for his belief.  However, he also said that beyond that he would work with elders who were women and would not interfere with their ordination if it were done by others.  (For reference, the mainline Presbyterian church had been ordaining women as ruling elders for 44 years and as teaching elders for 18 years.)  The presbytery accepted his departure as non-essential and sustained his examination but the Synod PJC found that the presbytery had erred and on appeal the GAPJC concurred.

The GAPJC wrote:

The United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and guided by its confessions, has now developed its understanding of the equality of all people (both male and female) before God. It has expressed this understanding in the Book of Order with such clarity as to make the candidate’s stated position a rejection of its government and discipline.

This is pretty much the same conclusion that the GAPJC came to in the Bush decision – that you can depart in belief but not in practice.  (It is argued whether or not Mr. Kenyon was departing in practice as well as belief, but the GAPJC decision rejects his argument that it is only in belief and provides their reasoning for that conclusion.)  But I find the language of the recent decisions an echo of this decision.  Consider one of the concluding paragraphs which makes no mention of the nature of the standard in question:

Nevertheless, to permit ordination of a candidate who has announced that he cannot subscribe to the cited constitutional provisions has implications for the Church far beyond that one instance. The precedent, if applied generally, would affect every session, presbytery, synod, and the General Assembly, and more than one-half of our Church’s members. The challenged decision of Presbytery was not unique or of but minimal significance. The issue of equal treatment and leadership opportunity for all (particularly without regard to considerations of race and sex) is a paramount concern of our Church. Neither a synod nor the General Assembly has any power to allow a presbytery to grant an exception to an explicit constitutional provision.

The implications of the Authoritative Interpretation from the Assembly permitting declaring departures in belief and practice is left as an exercise for the reader.

No, a Kenyon-like decision in the current debate regarding ordination standards is not very likely in the near or intermediate-term.  Before we get to that point additional Interpretations or explicit constitutional language will have to be in place.  But it is interesting the number of people on both sides of this issue that expect a similar decision sometime in the future.

Well, as you can see from the length of this article there is probably not a simple answer to what the polity landscape will look like in next few years.  It is why I am cautious in accepting the OGA FAQ as “the answer.”  There is plenty of room for new interpretations in the next few years even if no new language is added to the Book of Order. It will be interesting to see from whence the next refinement of this polity question comes.

Stay tuned…

The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland — Discussion Over Ordination Standards

1 Reply

One of the reasons that I started writing this blog was the objective to focus on Presbyterianism broadly — not just one branch or one region, but its ebb and flow as a global institution.  And one of the motivations for doing this was the fact that Presbyterian branches in different areas may be working through similar issues.

Well, as the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) nears the climax of its voting on Amendment 10-A regarding ordination standards the Church of Scotland is preparing for the 2011 meeting of its General Assembly where they will be addressing the same issue.

The issue came before the GA in the context of a specific case back in 2009 when a church called a partnered gay minister and while the presbytery concurred some members of the presbytery filed a protest and the full Assembly heard the case.  While the Assembly upheld the decision of the presbytery it took two additional actions.  First, it formed the Special Commission on Same-Sex Relationships and the Ministry which had the remit to “to consult with all Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions and to prepare a
study on Ordination and Induction to the Ministry of the Church of
Scotland” in light of this issue and a past report.  The Assembly also placed a broad moratorium on the church that prohibited both the induction and ordination of partnered homosexuals as well as restricting discussion of this topic to meetings of governing bodies.

The commission has been hard at work for the last two years and their report and study is coming to the 2011 Assembly.  The report has the deliverance, which I will get to in a moment, and contains the results of their consultations as well. The reports web page also has five additional resources, including spreadsheets containing their data.

There are nine items in the deliverance and the first and last are straight-forward — to receive the report and to discharge the commission with thanks.

Some of the remaining items are related to the church’s relationship to homosexual Christians in a broad sense and includes 2(i)(1) “It is contrary to God’s will that Christians should be hostile in any way to a person because he or she is homosexual by orientation and in his or her practice,” as well as 2(i)(2) that Christians are to be welcoming “regardless of [a person’s] sexual orientation and practice.”  In 2(i)(3) it also recognizes that the church needs to reach out pastorally to those “who find it difficult or impossible to reconcile their orientation with their understanding of God’s purposes as revealed in the Bible.”  And finally, there is a statement [2(ii)(4)] that it is not sexual orientation itself which is a barrier to membership or leadership roles in the church.  The deliverance also reaffirms discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unlawful in the church, with certain exceptions contingent on other parts of the deliverance.  But within this section, while it declares that “we view homophobia as sinful,” it clarifies this with the statement “We do not include in the concept of homophobia both the bona fide belief that homosexual practice is contrary to God’s will and the responsible statement of that belief in preaching or writing.”

As to the contentious part concerning ordination standards the Commission presents the Assembly two options in item 7 that would represent a step in one or the other direction.  Option “a” is “an indefinite moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship thus maintaining the traditional position of the Church.”  Option “b” is “the lifting of the moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship.”

As I said, each option is a first step and does not represent final language but comes with enabling language to have the Theological Commission, Ministries Council and Legal Questions Committee consider the position and propose the appropriate language to the 2012 Assembly if the prohibition remains and the 2013 Assembly if it is lifted.  In other words, if anything were to go to the presbyteries under the Barrier Act it would not be this year and probably not the next.  That Theological Commission I mentioned is a new entity proposed in item 6.

The deliverance, in item 8, would continue the moratorium on accepting candidates and conducting ordinations for at least another two years and item 5 would continue the moratorium on talking publicly about it.

That leaves item 4.  The language throughout the deliverance is generally related to “training and ordination” and induction and installation are not addressed except in this item.  In number 4 it is proposed to permit “the induction into pastoral charges of ministers and deacons ordained before May 2009 who are in a same-sex relationship.”

So that is the deliverance for the Assembly to debate. This is the only report docketed for Monday 23 May beginning at 9:30 AM Edinburgh time.

Now, taking a look at the body of the report it is interesting to see where the leaders of the Church of Scotland are on this issue.  The Commission sent out a series of questions to both Kirk Sessions and presbyteries to get feedback on this issue.  This was not a random sampling but an effort to get full participation in this consultation.   They got 1237 responses from 1273 sessions (some linked and neighboring sessions responded together) out of 1473 congregations.  There were 22,342 ruling and teaching elders that participated in this.  But the numbers come with this qualification:

2.4 We wish to state clearly that although exact figures are given in the following analysis this appearance of precision is to some extent illusory…

The report then goes on to detail certain data issues, such as how some questions have fewer responses than participants and how a few have more.  But they make the case that these are minor issues and while the results may not be ideal, or represent a truly statistical sample, the results are none-the-less pretty reliable and representative.

Regarding the presbyteries, the Commission received responses from all 45 presbyteries representing 2624 teaching and ruling elders.

The questions were divided into four sections and several of the questions gave a range of possible answers.  For example, question set 2 was on Approaches to same-sex relationships and the first question asked “Do you hold a clear position on same-sex relationships and how they should be regarded or do you find yourself uncertain as to the precise nature of God’s will for the Church on this issue?”  To this question 72.8% of members of Kirk Sessions and 77.5% of the members of Presbyteries responded that they had a clear position.  The section then went on to ask:

2b: Do any of the following descriptions help you to summarise your present position fairly and accurately?

i) We regard homosexual orientation as a disorder and homosexual behaviour as sinful. Gay and lesbian people should avoid same-sex sexual relationships, and, ideally, seek to be rid of homosexual desires. Unrepentant gay and lesbian people should not have leadership roles in the church.

ii) We accept homosexual orientation as a given, but disapprove of homosexual behaviour. We do not reject gay and lesbian people as people, but reject same-sex sexual activity as being sinful. Gay and lesbian people in sexual relationships should not have leadership roles in the church.

iii) We accept homosexual orientation as a given and disapprove of homosexual behaviour but recognise that some same-sex relationships can be committed, loving, faithful and exclusive – though not the ideal, which is male-female. However, because of the different standards required of those in Christian leadership, gay and lesbian people in sexual relationships, even if civil partnerships, should not have leadership roles in the church.

iv) We accept homosexual orientation as a given, and accept homosexual behaviour as equivalent morally to heterosexual behaviour. Civil partnerships provide the best environment for loving same-sex relationships. Gay and lesbian people, whether in sexual relationships or not, should be assessed for leadership roles in the church in an equivalent way to heterosexual people.

v) We accept homosexual orientation as a given part of God’s good creation. The Christian practice of marriage should be extended to include exclusive, committed same-sex relationships which are intended to be life-long. Gay and lesbian people, whether in sexual relationships or not, should be
assessed for leadership roles in the church in an equivalent way to heterosexual people.

Position (i) was favored by 8.8% of Session members and 11.3% of Presbytery members, position (ii) by 17.9% and 21.7%, position (iii) by 21.5% and 15.9%, position (iv) by 24.4% and 23.9% and position (v) by 19.4% and 17.5% respectively.

Question set 1 was about The Biblical Witness, set 2 Approaches to Same-Sex Relationships, set 3 about Ordination/Leadership in the Church and set 4 about the Unity of the Church of Scotland.  The section of the report that follows the enumeration of the responses discusses the findings.

As you can see from the responses to question 2b above, the church is evenly divided with respect leadership with the first three opinions, which argued against leadership positions, having 48.2% of the Session members responding while 43.8% favored one or the other of the last two responses which included leadership.

Question 3b specifically addressed the ordination of ministers (3b: Should a person in a same-sex relationship be permitted to be an ordained minister within the Church?) and members of Kirk Sessions answered 38.2% yes and 56.2% no.  It is interesting to compare this with the question on the Presbyterian Panel survey from the PC(USA) which asked “Would you personally like to see the PC(USA) permit sexually active gay and lesbian persons to be ordained to the office of minister of Word and Sacrament?”  In that 2008 survey 30% of ruling elders currently serving on sessions answered probably or definitely yes and 60% answered probably or definitely not.  For those classified as Pastors in that survey it was 44% yes and 48% no.  As another point of comparison, the vote at the 2009 General Assembly to refuse the dissent and complaint was 326 (55%) yes and 267 (45%) no – if that has any application to the present debate.  And in the PC(USA) the voting on Amendment 10-A is currently trending 55% yes votes by the presbyters.

When question 3b was reported as if it were a Presbytery vote on the issue it came out 7 yes, 37 no, and one tie.  However, question 3d, which asked about someone in an civil partnership being in a leadership position, did have majority support — 31-14.

Question set 4 asked about the Unity of the Church of Scotland with 4a giving a range of five responses ranging from changing the ordination standards would be heretical to not changing the standards being heretical with “deep-seated disagreement and personal disappointment” in either direction and not regarding the decision “particularly significant” for the church in the middle.  The session members responded with 9.7% saying it would be heretical to change, 28.1% would strongly disagree with the change, 19.6% did not consider it significant, 24.3% would strongly disagree if it did not change and 3.5% saying it would be heretical if it did not change.

In the discussion section the Commission notes this about the Presbytery responses:

3.13 In relation to question 4a: it is clear that a majority of Presbyteries opposed the ordination of a person in a committed same-sex relationship. If that vote were to be replicated in a vote on an innovating overture under the Barrier Act, that proposal would fail.

Question 4b asked “Would you consider it obligatory to leave the Church of Scotland under any of the following conditions?”  The conditions given include allowing the ordination of people in committed same-sex relationships to be ordained as ministers or to be in leadership, forbidding either of these, or if the GA were to make no clear statement.  The responses for each of the five are somewhat similar with between 8% and 20% answering yes and 73% to 78% answering no.

And finally, for the polity wonks, the last question asks about leaving the decision up to the lower governing bodies and 61.1% of session members and 71.2% of presbytery members say that the decision must lie with the General Assembly.

I hope this summary gives you a good idea where the leadership (remember, this was not a survey of the members but a consultation with the ruling and teaching elders) of the Church of Scotland is on these issues.  The section with the questions and the following section with the discussion have some other interesting points buried in them.

This study has a lot more in it besides the results of the consultation including the results of Consultation with Other Churches which gives a great summary of where other Presbyterian branches globally are on this issue.  (If you are wondering what it says about the PC(USA), it is not mentioned specifically but probably falls into the paragraph that says: 4.9 All the other responding churches continue in a process of discernment aimed at maintaining fellowship and unity.)

The study also contains the usual review of the scientific literature (Sexual Orientation: The Lessons and Limits of Science) and the web site has two additional review papers. There is also a section discussing the personal stories the Commission heard. And there is a section discussing the nature of ordained ministry.  But near the end of that section, and as transition to the next, the report says in paragraph 7.28: “Nonetheless, we see no basis for allowing the ordination of people in same-sex relationships unless or until the Church has resolved the broader question of the theological status of such relationships.”  As they note at the end, helping resolve this question would be part of the work of the Theological Commission.  (And this ordering is probably striking to me since the PC(USA) is taking it in the other order with marriage questions being debated but the ordination standards about to change.)

While the Commission report ends with a Conclusions and Recommendations section, the extended discussion in the second-to-last section attempts to synthesize all of the preceding work.  It is a good summary of the situation including what the church can agree on and where the members of the Commission, and by extension the church in general, disagree. It covers much of the same ground that similar reports have so I won’t attempt a summary of the 82 paragraphs over the 12 pages.  I will note that, as suggested above, the topic is considered in parallel with the consideration of the nature of marriage.

As I mentioned earlier, the Commission is proposing two options that offer a first step in a particular direction.  In the conclusion the Commission describes it like this:

9.2 In our recommendations we put forward as alternatives two options. In each case they are trajectories rather than firm decisions which can be reached now. This is because the divisions do not point to the adoption, here and now, of a radical stance in either direction. The General Assembly is therefore invited to express a view on the direction which it thinks the Church should take; but, if our recommendations are accepted, it will be the task of a future General Assembly in either 2012 or 2013 to determine whether or not to move in that direction, assisted by the further work which we propose that the Church should undertake.

9.3 Both trajectories recognise the need for further discernment and engagement between those of differing views. By working together for twenty months, we have learnt from each other; and we believe that the Church will benefit from such genuine engagement. Both trajectories also involve, among other things, the creation of a theological commission to assist the Church in deciding the direction it wishes to take. The Special Commission, of which we are the members, is not a theological commission as several of us have no theological training. We recommend that an authoritative theological commission should be composed of theologians of standing. This theological commission will ensure the
continuance of engagement and discernment under whichever of the trajectories the General Assembly may choose.

My only polity comment here is my bias to see both teaching elders (Ministers of Word and Sacrament) and ruling elders on the Theological Commission if it is created.

Let me return for a moment to question 4b, option (i).  The question asked if the elder would consider it obligatory to leave the Church of Scotland “if the General Assembly were to allow people in committed same-sex relationships to be ordained as ministers.”  To this question 19.4% of the members of Kirk Sessions answered yes, 30 Kirk Sessions were unanimously yes, 19.5% of members of presbyteries answered yes, and three presbyteries had a majority vote for this position.

I single out this question because much of the media coverage leading up to the Assembly seems to be on the Commission report, and many of those articles are questioning the unity of the church.  The Just Out blog has the headline “Church of Scotland fears schism over gay clergy.” Pink News says “Thousands could leave Church of Scotland over gay clergy.”  Of course, there are more moderate headlines and articles, like the Herald Scotland column “Church needs dialogue over gay ministers.”  How much these stories are trying to get attention with dramatic predictions is yet to be seen.  And in the end, the process will be as important as the final decision that is reached.

So mark you calendars for the Church of Scotland GA beginning on 21 May, and include the order of the day on Monday 23 May.  And pray for the body as it gathers to discern God’s will together.

Strong Cross-Issue Correlation In PC(USA) Amendment Voting To Date

Leave a reply

To give you fair warning right at the onset, this will be a fairly geeky post to go with the geeky title.  So let me begin with an executive summary for those that want to avoid the drill-down into the statistics.

Coming out of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in the summer of 2010 were three high-profile amendments to be voted on by the presbyteries:  addition of the Belhar Confession to the Book of Confessions, a new Form of Government section for the Book of Order, and Amendment 10-A which proposed new language for the “fidelity and chastity” section, G-6.0106b, of the Form of Government.  At the present time between thirty and fifty presbyteries have voted on each and the votes on each side are very evenly matched.  Furthermore, when you consider the relationship between votes on the different issues they are very strongly correlated.

While this is an interesting statistical result there are two practical implications of this.  The first is that if voting continues to follow the current trends and the correlation holds, the final votes on nFOG and 10-A will be very close but we can expect that the Belhar Confession will not be approved by the presbyteries since it requires a 2/3 vote for inclusion.  The second implication is the fact that presbyteries, and by that we really mean their commissioners, might see some sort of strong linkage between these three items.  It is not clear to what extent any particular factor generates a linkage, but potential reasons could be related to maintaining or rejecting the status quo, affinity group promotion of particular votes, and perception of the issues as all being promoted by the centralized institution of the denomination.

Got that?  OK, for the geeks, nerds and other curious readers here is where this comes from…

I am taking the correlations from my own tally sheet of the voting on these issues.  My spreadsheet is not original to me but represents an aggregation of data from posts on Twitter, and other vote sheets from the Layman, Covenant Network, Yes On Amendment A, and Reclaim Biblical Teaching.  It is important to note that only the first and last of those have info on all three issues and the other two are only for 10-A.

As of yesterday morning, the Belhar Confession was at 21 yes and 20 no, the nFOG was tied at 15, and 10-A was at 27 yes and 25 no.  In total, 88 presbyteries – just over half – had voted on one or more of the issues.  Of these 22 have voted on two of the issues — 9 on Belhar and nFOG, 7 on Belhar and 10-A, and 6 on nFOG and 10-A. Seven presbyteries have voted on all three issues, five of those voting no on all three and two voting no on two out of three with one voting yes on 10-A and one on nFOG.

I eventually plan to run correlations on voting ratios for those presbyteries that have recorded votes, but for this analysis I maximized the sample set by just looking at the bimodal yes/no outcome.  I have a master matrix which those familiar with statistics should be careful not to confuse as a joint probability chart since I have mixed the votes together.  (And I’m sorry if the 70’s color scheme annoys you, but it is just my working spreadsheet and not intended for final publication.)

So, here are the charted data:

 n=16  Belhar
Yes 		 Belhar
No
 nFOG Yes  2  1
 nFog No  0  13

 n=14  Belhar
Yes 		 Belhar
No
 10-A Yes  4  1
 10-A No  1  8

 n=12  10-A
Yes 		 10-A
No
 nFOG Yes  4  1
 nFog No  1  6



Statistics of small numbers? Clearly. But I find it striking that so far only one presbytery has voted cross-wise on each combination except that no presbytery has yet voted no on nFOG and yes on Belhar.  I also think it is noteworthy that in each case, and most pronounced in the Belhar/nFOG voting, there are more presbyteries that have voted “no” on both than have voted “yes.”  For Belhar/10-A and 10-A/nFOG this goes away, and even reverses, if you take out the presbyteries that have voted on all three.

Looking at the bigger picture, while the total vote counts don’t provide any definitive correlation data, their very close margins at the present time are completely compatible with the interpretation that the votes are correlated.  In other words, if the votes are correlated very similar vote counts would be expected (which we have).  But this observation is only necessary and not sufficient for the interpretation.  Additionally, when vote counts are recorded there are usually very similar vote distributions for each of these issues, giving additional evidence of their correlation.

Calculating the number is the easy part, figuring out if it is meaningful is more difficult.  With less than 10% of the presbyteries actually represented in any of of these correlation charts at this point I firmly acknowledge that this could all easily change around very quickly.  So, I don’t want to over-interpret the data, but I do think some corresponding observations are in order.

The simplest explanation is that while the voting may be correlated they are not linked.  In this case a commissioner would make up his or her mind separately on each issue independently and without regard for the other two issues.  The result is that most commissioners, after weighing the arguments and reflecting on information, would be guided to vote the same way on each of the issues.  This is a likely conclusion, especially for those presbyteries that schedule the voting at three different meetings.

But even with our best efforts to be thoughtful and treat each issue independently I have observed a few things around the denomination that tend to link these issues together.  In some cases this is fairly prominent and in other cases I suspect the influence may be at a subliminal level.

The first possible effect is that affinity groups, by recommending the same votes on all three issues, are having an effect and providing a linkage, even if only implied.  Resources at Theology Matters and the Reclaim Biblical Teaching site of the Presbyterian Coalition both recommend a no vote on all three issues.  Similarly, the Covenant Network and Presbyterian Voices for Justice are in favor of all three actions — although to be fair, PJV voices are not unanimously in favor of nFOG.  What has been set up, rightly or wrongly, appears to be a “party-line” vote where you vote yes on the slate if you are progressive or liberal or vote no if you are conservative or orthodox.  This linkage of Belhar and 10-A has been floating around for a while.  It is tougher to tell if there are real linkages of these two with nFOG or whether they are not linked but rather appeal to the same theological base, or possibly whether the issue is “guilt by association.”  Maybe another linkage between nFOG and Belhar is not theological but logistical and some of the negative sentiment simply stems from the church not having had the time to discuss and explore them enough yet. Yes, quite possible despite the fact that we were supposed to be doing that with both issues for the last two years between assemblies.

Beyond the third-party recommendations, let me put forward more subtle explanations – inertia & cynicism.  This is somewhat related to the lack of familiarity argument above but more about the seven last words of the church – “We’ve never done it that way before.”  The question I have is how many presbytery commissioners are opposed to all of them because this seems like change for change’s sake?  Or how many are for it because the church needs to change?  Or to put it another way – “if it ain’t broke why are we trying to fix it?”  A similar argument against Belhar and nFOG could be “if it comes from Louisville it must not be good.”  Remember, neither of these finally came as a presbytery overture but as recommendations from GA entities. (The nFOG has been talked about for a while but the recommendation to form the Task Force was the result of a referral to the OGA.  The request to study the Belhar Confession came from the Advocacy Committee on Racial-Ethnic Concerns.)

Now let me be clear before I am set upon in the comments: For each of these amendments there are very good arguments for and against them and as presbytery commissioners we set about weighing these arguments and discerning God’s will together.  I would expect few if any commissioners would vote solely on the idea that “nothing good can come from Louisville.”  What I do expect is that for some individuals the preservation of the status quo and skepticism of proposals that are top-down rather than bottom-up from the presbyteries are important factors, explicitly or implicitly.

Well, I am afraid that I have gotten too close to the great quote from Mark Twain – “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”  Considering we are still in the early stages of the voting I may indeed be guilty of over interpreting the data.  So rather than provide more conjecture, let me ask a question that may be hinted at but not answerable by these data or even the final data set:  Are we doing our deliberations and voting a disservice by having so many high-profile votes in a single year?  To put it another way – Is our explicit or implicit linkages of issues, valid or not, unfairly influencing the votes?  Something to think about and keep probing the data for answers.

So, until next time, happy data crunching.

Constitutional Voting In The PC(USA)

Leave a reply

It will be a busy seven months for the presbyteries in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  The 219th General Assembly sent three high-profile constitutional changes down to the presbyteries for their concurrence and then there are all the rest of the amendments.

My first reaction was to take these as four different packages, each at a different presbytery meeting.  The problem of course is that while my presbytery has the meetings to do that most others do not.  So it looks like they will be doubling up on some of these debates.

It is still early in the voting on all the amendments so I’m not really ready to start drilling down into the data just yet.  But I will make some observations about the process so far.

First, where am I getting my data?  Well, with the proliferation of Twitter I think many of us are getting our own real-time updates on presbytery meetings.  But in terms of compiling the data for later reference, I know of two sources:  1) The Layman is publishing charts of voting on all three high-profile amendments:  Amendment 10-A, new Form of Government, and the Belhar Confession. 2) More Light Presbyterians is maintaining their own chart of presbytery voting at their Yes on Amendment A blog, but as the name suggests that is specific to that issue.  From these various sources I am compiling and posting my own spreadsheet for analysis with the emphasis on my preferred focus of correlations between the different issues and with no promise that the chart will be updated in a timely manner.  Finally, we can not forget the official voting report which does not have a break down by presbytery but which has been updated today to reflect that the Belhar Confession needs a 2/3 vote to pass.  (It was originally listed as simple majority.)

At this juncture it is interesting to note that with almost two months of voting behind us six presbyteries have voted on nFOG (4 yes, 2 no), fifteen have voted on 10-A (4 yes, 11 no), and nineteen have voted on Belhar (13 yes, 6 no).  While it is far too early to predict outcomes it is interesting to note that on 10-A no presbytery has switched votes yet from the last “fidelity and chastity” vote but for some presbyteries voting “no” the votes have been closer.  (Presbytery of the James had a 153-153 tie.)  It is also interesting to see that the Belhar is just barely making the 2/3 ratio it needs to pass.

In my mind it is easy to see why the nFOG has been tackled by the fewest presbyteries — It is the most complex and the longest and probably has the greatest long-term implications.  Extended time for study and discussion is warranted.  The Belhar being the furthest along?  I have to think that it is viewed as the last controversial of the three and a good one to begin with.  In a couple of presbyteries it has passed by an overwhelming margin, unanimously in Cimarron Presbytery .

It is also interesting to observe that two presbyteries, Alaska and Santa Barbara, each knocked out all three in one meeting and in both cases did not concur with all three.  No other presbytery has taken on more than one of these yet.

But with this many items in a time period in which we usually just track one high-profile amendment it will become very busy soon, probably just into the new year.  Stay tuned.

Officers Of The Church — Prepetual Or Three-And-Out?

5 Replies

In my recent reading I found a convergence of ideas that I want to spend some time musing about.  The basic theme of this is the nature of the ordained offices of Ruling Elder and Deacon in branches where the office is perpetual but the service on the local board is not.  I have not done a comprehensive survey of this point of Presbyterian polity but in my experience the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is the only branch I am aware of that has terms with limits as the only option, in their case six years, then requiring an individual to go off the board (session for elders, board of deacons for a deacon) for one year before serving again on that board.  For many branches, and historically for mainline American Presbyterians, once your are called as a Ruling Elder of the church you continue serving on the session without limit.  You can voluntarily step down due to personal circumstances, and if you move churches you remain an elder but you do not automatically go on to the new church’s session.  And usually there is a process to remove you from the session should circumstances warrant.  But it is not the case that you leave because “your time is up.”  (The exception there would be in the sense of joining the Church Triumphant.    )

Personally, my service as an elder on session lasted five years (I was first elected to fill a vacant partial term) and in the 12 years since I have not been invited back onto my church’s session.  I state this only as fact and not as complaint because in those 12 years I have never ceased serving the church in the capacity of a ruling elder in other governing bodies of the church.

But my experience, vis a vis the congregation, is not unique based upon the numbers in the Presbyterian Panel background summary. PC(USA) Research Services, in what I consider a misleading and inaccurate division, categorizes their sample population into “elders” and “members.”  If you dive into the data you find that when they refer to elders they mean elders currently serving on session.  Furthermore, they report that of what they classify as members, more than one-third (38%), are ordained Ruling Elders.  If you take all the individuals that have been ordained as Ruling Elders or Deacons (or both) it turns out to be more than half of the “members.” There is a very large population within the PC(USA) that have been ordained to church office.  As we will see in a minute this is such a large group that within a congregation it is difficult to effectively use them to serve on the session.  The Panel survey is silent on other ways that this large pool of ordained officers live out their call in the life of the church if they are not serving on session.

Now consider how the survey question is worded:

Have you ever been ordained an elder in a Presbyterian church?
Have you ever been ordained a deacon in a Presbyterian church?

I’m not sure if they are trying to capture those who have demitted and are no longer ordained officers, but in my experience that is a pretty small number, probably so small it would not be statistically significant.  I would think that they could better reinforce the perpetual nature of the ordained office by asking “Are you an ordained elder (or deacon) in a Presbyterian church?” Or maybe they are recognizing that individuals may not realize the office is perpetual and phrase the question so that it still captures the respondents correctly. In that case we need to do a better job of educating our ordained officers.  But either way, the nature of the survey questions do nothing to reinforce the perpetual nature of the office.

OK, that is a particular point in the ethos in the PC(USA) that really rubs me the wrong way (in case you couldn’t tell) and that I have ranted about before.  But it is not just me… In the resource piece by the Rev. Joseph Small that was posted for the Special Commission on Middle Governing Bodies I found this (as part of a longer section beginning on page 4 that is well worth the read)(my emphasis added):

What led to the bureaucratization of sessions and presbyteries? At root, it was the bureaucratization of American society, and the church’s endemic eagerness to follow culture’s lead. But there are proximate symptoms and causes. In the 1950’s, Presbyterian polity was changed at several points for the very best of reasons, but with unintended, unfortunate consequences.

First, the understanding of “elder” as a called ministry within the congregation was weakened by the introduction of a regulation stipulating that elders could serve no more than two consecutive three-year terms on the session. This mandatory rotation of elders was instituted for one very good reason and one of questionable intention. The ordination of women as ruling elders had been part of (northern) Presbyterian polity since 1930, but most sessions had few if any women serving. Limiting terms of service on sessions was one way of opening the eldership to new persons, notably women. The regulation had its desired result, but this appropriate motive was joined by another, less noble one. It was thought that mandatory rotation would break the hold of “bull elders” on the life of the church, reducing the capacity of sessions to thwart pastors in their attempts to modernize and renew congregational life.

The unintended result of mandatory rotation was the loss of an understanding of elders as persons called to one of the ordered ministries of the church. Term limits for service on the church session produced brief tenure by an ever expanding circle of members. In many congregations, one three-year term became the norm, and the understanding of the eldership was transformed from a called ministry to merely taking one’s turn on the board. Short-term, inexperienced elders also increased the influence of pastors by diminishing the ministry of called, knowledgeable elders. This imbalance, evident in sessions, became especially pronounced in presbyteries where well-informed pastors were accompanied by revolving elders who knew less and less about matters before the assembly.

My thanks to Rev. Small for including the historical context along with his concurrence on the effect that I have seen of rotating elders.  I’m glad to know that this is a recognized issue and not something I’m just reading into the polity.

What are the positives?  As Rev. Small points out it encourages (forces?) diversity and additional voices on the session.  What are the negatives?  Personally, I am especially concerned about the loss of the understanding of the roll of elders and on this I believe the other problems hinge.  And, in addition to the lack of experience and the loss, in some cases, of the joint governance, I have seen another issue where nominating committees have to find someone to “fill the position” and it becomes more of an issue of who will say yes as opposed to who has a sense of call.  I, and others I have met who are in congregations with similar happenings, would rather see the position left vacant until it can be filled by someone who does have the sense of call.  In some times and places the position of ruling elder has become just another position for someone to help out with.

In his 1897 book The Ruling Elder at Work, the Rev. J. Aspinwall Hodge captures the weight of the office and the nature of it as he writes as a fictionalized elder nominee in the opening paragraphs:

The Pastor of our church has just informed me, that the Session has decided
that the number of Elders should be increased. This has long been
regarded necessary. A meeting of the church will soon be called for that
purpose. I am troubled, because the Session desire to nominate me as
one of the new Elders. I wanted to decline at once, but the Pastor
informs me that I should with care and prayer consider what may be my
duty. He urges that, while the communicants have the privilege to
nominate and elect their own representatives, they have the right to
expect the advice of the Session, as its members are in a position to
consider the questions involved more fully than the communicants can.
They are required constantly to observe the christian character and
efficiency of the members of the church, and are thus prepared to judge
of the personal qualifications of those to be nominated. From their
intimate knowledge of the people, they should be able to propose those
who would be most acceptable to the various classes in the congregation, and
who can best represent them. And being well acquainted with the
peculiarities of themselves and of the Pastor, they can best select
those who are qualified to cooperate with them in maintaining the unity
of the church and the spirituality of the members. On the other hand,
the Session ought not to be a self-perpetuating body. It should impart
the information which it possesses, and give advice, but the
communicants can nominate and elect whom they please. Our Session,
feeling the responsibility, had, after long and serious consideration,
by a unanimous vote, determined to nominate me as one of the new Elders.

The question is, therefore, distinctly before me,
and I must consider it. The deliberate judgment of the officers of the
church demands respect, and my Pastor adds that he knows that the desire
is general in the congregation to have me an Elder.

I recently found out about a training program for ruling elders at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.  This program, designed to be completed in two years of full-time study, leads to a Master of Ministry for the Ruling Elder degree.  The program is described to “help the
Ruling Elder function on the Session, Presbytery, and General Assembly levels in a biblical fashion.”  But they do add the qualifier that “the fact that Greenville Seminary offers these programs for the training and/or continuing education of Ruling Elders in no way implies that a seminary education is needed for the Ruling Elder to function properly in his office.”  I wonder if SFTS or Fuller will every bring a program like this to the Left Coast? (Or if there are enough other interested ruling elders to make that worthwhile?)

Before I finish this post let me present a thought exercise:  Consider a congregation of 240 members.  If we use the Panel information and figure that one-third of the members are ordained elders that would mean that there are 80 elders in the congregation.  I modeled this exercise on a congregation roughly the size of my own and my first reaction was that 80 was way too high.  However, after thinking about it some more I am now inclined to think that it is high, but not by too much.  For this thought exercise I will continue to use it. (And you will probably figure out that while the numbers are pretty close to my church, for this exercise I have selected numbers that give round numbers for us to talk about.)

Now consider a session of 12 members.  This is a reasonable number for this size congregation.  It represents 5% of the members and would be organized into three classes of four.  If we have a situation where every elder serves only one term so four elders from our pool of 80 go onto the session each year then each elder in the pool would wait 20 years between their terms on the session.  (So I have another eight years to wait.)

Of course, the situation is not that simple.  In the case where each year two of the four were eligible to serve a second term and agree to do so, only two elders would need to be drawn from the pool so the rotation would be 40 years between terms.  To add one more level of complexity what if we say that of the two “open” spots each year, one is filled from the pool but one is filled by a new elder, someone who is ordained to the office that year, then it would be 80 years between terms for those in the pool and the pool would grow by one new elder each year.

Now, this model does not take into account those that leave the pool by death or transfer, and of course it does not include elders joining the pool by transfer into the church.  In addition, it does not include those who due to age, health, or other circumstance are in the pool but not up to the responsibilities of serving the church any more.  (And I know several very faithful and dedicated elders who have inspired me who are now in this category.)

The bottom line though is that, if the Panel data is correct, each congregation has an abundance of called and ordained individuals, ruling elders and deacons, sitting out there in the pews every week.  How does the congregation continue to give them opportunities to live out their call?  How do we reinforce to them, and the church as a whole, that the office is perpetual?  If we are going to limit service on the session, how do we intentionally find ways to uses elders in other appropriate roles?  Should the denomination’s polity include provisions for limiting the number of elders so such a large back-log does not build up and individuals are able to serve on the session, and thus more often use the spiritual gifts that were recognized in them when they were originally called to serve on the session?

I want to leave you with one last image:  In about a month-and-a-half at least a couple of the elders in my church who are going off of the session will have to give up their name tags that also identify them as “Elder.”   What message does this send to them and other ordained officers not serving on boards about the perpetual nature of the office?  What message does this send to the congregation about the nature of the ordained office?  Just because they are not on the session and have stopped wearing the name tag do they stop functioning as elders or stop thinking of themselves as such?  What does this mean for the PC(USA) as a whole?

Equipping Elders

14 Replies

A few days ago I was musing on the training and continuing education (or lack thereof) of ruling elders in Presbyterian churches.  This has been a continuing reflection of mine to try to figure out how to better equip ruling elders for not just their administrative duties but their polity and spiritual shepherding duties as well.  Being a good elder is not easy and takes work.

It is always worthwhile for ruling elders to be reading their branch’s confessional standards on a regular basis, and to be familiar with their polity documents (The Code, Book of Forms, Book of Church Order, Book of Order).  But there is a need for resources to fill in between those documents and to help understand their context.

For a broad overview of Presbyterianism for not just ruling elders but members as well, my church, and others I know, have used Donald McKim’s Presbyterian Questions, Presbyterian Answers with good response. For theological background I have enjoyed the “Armchair Theologians” series of books on religious figures like Augustine, Calvin and Barth.  These are easy reads that give a good overview of each individual’s life and theological thought (which are usually linked).  I could see that academic theologians might have problems with the details, or lack of details in the books.  And for some the illustrations might be a problem either because it always represents God as the stereotype man with the flowing beard, or because it portrays God at all in violation of the Second Commandment.  And the PC(USA) has a low-cost set of studies at ThePresbyterianLeader.com that are designed for leadership training and discussion of current hot topics.  I can not tell you anything further about these because I have not purchased any yet but I have seen good reviews from others in the PC(USA).

But that is a perfect lead-in to a brand new resource that is both comprehensive and free for download…

A big thanks to the Presbyterian Church in Canada for putting together Equipping Elders.  (And to Colin Carmichael, the Associate Secretary for Communications, for bringing it to my attention.) This 194 page resource is available as either the free download or for 20$CAN from the PCC Book Room. for a 3-hole punch loose-leaf version to put in a binder.  And what surprised me is how “platform independent” this is; it is very much about being a ruling elder and some, but not much, is directly tied to the PCC.

Probably what impressed me the most about this resource was how comprehensive it is – how much useful material is in one place.  It addresses important topics that ruling elders need to know to be good shepherds of their flocks:  Congregational care and home visitations along with suggested prayers for praying for members’ needs on those visits.  Understanding the implications of different sized congregations.  Why membership matters.  Stewardship.  And, relevant to this post, why and how elders need to keep on learning themselves.  The book says:

Ordination to ruling eldership in The Presbyterian Church in Canada is a lifelong commitment to a call to ministry in and with the church. Whether serving as term elders, experiencing periods as inactive elders, or attending session meetings monthly for 20 years, all elders are always elders.
     This ordination for life means that elders have responsibility for developing their skills, learning more about their ministry and growing in the faith. Elders need to be lifelong learners. Lifelong learning assumes that we all continue to learn new things over the years, whether this is through formal training, reading, discussions with others, experience, or picking up new information and ideas from a variety of sources.

Check it out, and if you know of any similar resource that puts that much practical information for ruling elders in one place, at any price, please let me know.

Seminaries Supporting The PC(USA) – How Are They Represented In The Congregations

2 Replies

Yesterday I finished up a look at the numbers of students that attend seminaries associated with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and noted that in the wider universe of seminaries there is one that actually has more Presbyterian students than any of the PC(USA) seminaries.

This is an interesting situation that has sometimes led to questions about a student’s preparation for ministry, perspectives on theology, and in some cases their loyalty to the denomination.  I could tell you stories but that is for another time.  The topic for today is how this statistical profile from the seminaries gets reflected in the congregations.

I now return to the Presbyterian Panel and their 2009-2011 Panel Profile. Actually, I am going to look at the last five panel profiles.

One of the questions the Teaching Elders on the Panel (Research Services calls them clergy) are asked is:

From what school and in what year did you receive your M.Div. or B.D. degree?

Before breaking this down by school consider the groupings of PC(USA) seminaries versus non-PC(USA).

   Panel Profile
1997-1999
 		  Panel Profile
2000-2002
 		  Panel Profile
2003-2005
 		  Panel Profile
2006-2008
 		  Panel Profile
2009-2011
 
 Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.
 PC(USA) seminary  69%  66%  70%  68%  68%  65%  69%  70%  66%  65%
 non-PC(USA) seminary  31%  34%  30%  32%  32%  35%  31%  30%  34%  35%

Let me also remind you that the margin of error is +4% and “Spec.” is short for “Specialized Clergy” which are active Teaching Elders serving in a ministry other than in a congregation.

Looking at this table we can say (1) that the percentages of specialized clergy and the percentages of pastors from PC(USA) schools are statistically the same for each panel, and (2) that over the five panels there is no statistically significant variation with time although there might be a suggestion in the most recent panel that more pastors are coming from non-PC(USA) schools.

Now, let’s break it down by the individually seminaries:

   Panel Profile
1997-1999
 		  Panel Profile
2000-2002
 		  Panel Profile
2003-2005
 		  Panel Profile
2006-2008
 		  Panel Profile
2009-2011
 
 Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.
 Austin  4%  3%  5%  4%  4%  4%  5%  4%  6%  3%
 Columbia  8%  8%  10%  8%  9%  5%  8%  8%  10%  7%
 Dubuque  4%  3%  3%  2%  4%  3%  3%  3%  2%  2%
 JCS/ITC  1%  1%  1%  0%  NR  NR  *  1%  1%  1%
 Louisville  8%  6%  7%  6%  8%  8%  8%  7%  7%  7%
 McCormick  5%  8%  5%  7%  6%  7%  5%  6%  4%  5%
 Pittsburgh  7%  7%  6%  10%  6%  6%  8%  5%  5%  5%
 Princeton  18%  17%  19%  17%  16%  18%  19%  20%  20%  20%
 San Fran.  6%  6%  5%  6%  6%  9%  5%  10%  4%  9%
 Union (VA)  8%  7%  9%  8%  9%  5%  8%  6%  7%  5%
 Evangelical  NR  NR  NR  NR  NR  NR  *

 *  *  *
 Fuller  7%  5%  9%  4%  7%  6%  10%  6%  9%  5%
 Gordon Conwell  4%  1%  3%  3%  5%  3%  4%  3%  4%  3%
 Union-Auburn  2%  5%  NR  NR  NR  NR  NR  NR  NR  NR
 Yale  1%  4%  NR  NR  NR  NR  NR  NR  NR  NR
 Other  17%  19%  19%  26%  20%  25%  16%  21%  20%  26%

Notes: 1) Evangelical is Evangelical in Puerto Rico, (2) JCS/ITC is Johnson C. Smith at the Interdenominational Theological Center, (3) NR is not reported on that panel so is included in “Other”, (4) * is less than 0.5% and is rounded to zero, (5) the PC(USA) seminaries are the first ten listed.

Looking at this table for trends what we can say is that statistically speaking each of the seminaries shows constant representation in the workforce over these twelve years.  There is the suggestion of a decrease in McCormick and maybe also Dubuque and Pittsburgh, and the slight suggestion of an increase in Princeton, Fuller and Other.  Again, while never present in statistically significant amounts, it is interesting to note that it is more likely for graduates of McCormick, San Francisco and Other  to be in the Specialized Clergy, while grads of Union (VA), Fuller, and maybe Austin, Columbia and Gordon Conwell are more likely to be Pastors.

What really surprised me about these tables, and the prime motivator for my quest for numbers yesterday, is the paradox that if Fuller has more Presbyterian students than any other school, why does it always have only half as many Teaching Elders in the workforce than Princeton grads?  One possibility is that while Princeton and Fuller consolidate all their Presbyterian students into the general category Presbyterian, there may be signifigantly different representation from the PC(USA).  It may be that Princeton has more PC(USA) students while Fuller’s Presbyterian students include more from Korean churches.  But I also have to wonder if fewer Fuller students from the PC(USA) enter the workforce as Teaching Elders in the PC(USA).  Do they go to other denominations?  Do they go into the workforce in non-ordained congregational or parachurch ministry?  Is the high number of Fuller students, while pretty constant across these reports, still a more recent development and its impact will be seen in the future?  More numbers and analysis are needed.

OK, next question: How does the pastoral workforce from PC(USA) schools correspond to their enrollment size as reported by the PC(USA)?

   Panel Profile
2009-2011
 		  Panel Profile
Normalized to
PC(USA)
schools
 		  PC(USA)
reported
enrollment
(number)
 		  PC(USA)
reported
enrollment
(percent
of total)
 
 Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.    
 Austin  6%  3%  9%  5%  273  8%
 Columbia  10%  7%  15%  11%  428  13%
 Dubuque  2%  2%  3%  3%  177  5%
 JCS/ITC  1%  1%  2%  2%  21  0.6%
 Louisville  7%  7%  11%  11%  217  6%
 McCormick  4%  5%  6%  8%  340  10%
 Pittsburgh  5%  6%  8%  9%  370  11%
 Princeton  20%  20%  30%  31%  703  21%
 San Fran.  4%  9%  6%  14%  459  14%
 Union (VA)  7%  5%  11%  8%  365  11%


Notes: (1) Due to rounding totals may not add up to exactly 100%.

There is clearly a considerable risk in comparing the numbers from the Panel with the total enrollment in the seminaries.  That is why I went on the unsuccessful quest I wrote about yesterday — to get more specific numbers.  In doing this comparison I assume that each seminary has the same proportions of M.Div. students and the same proportions of PC(USA) students in their total enrollment.  The indication from this table is that this assumption holds pretty well.  Within the confidence limits all that we can conclusively say is that there are more Princeton grads out in congregations than their proportional enrollment would predict.  There is the suggestion that Louisville is also over-represented and that Dubuque, McCormick and Pittsburgh are under-represented.

For comparison purposes, based on these numbers there are 3353 students at PC(USA) seminaries.  The PC(USA) statistical summary for 2008 lists 1164 candidates.  While it is a bit of a rough calculation, candidacy is usually the last of the three years at seminary, suggesting at least 3492 PC(USA) seminary students.  (On the one hand, since the care process is one of exploration of call we would expect candidates, the last stage, to be fewer than the other years so the number may represent a lower limit.  On the other hand, since
an individual would remain a candidate after graduation until they find a call the number might be pulled up by that.  I wonder how much those two effects balance out?)  Anyway, if 2/3 of students are at PC(USA) seminaries, that would give us a rough figure of 2328 PC(USA) students in M.Div. programs at PC(USA) seminaries or 69% of the total enrollment.  Seems a bit high from the numbers I wrote about yesterday so the pool of candidates may include a greater number seeking a call.

Finally, are there any trends seen in the year of graduation?

   Panel Profile
1997-1999
 		  Panel Profile
2000-2002
 		  Panel Profile
2003-2005
 		  Panel Profile
2006-2008
 		  Panel Profile
2009-2011
 
 Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.
 Prior to 1960  5%  19%  2%  8%  1%  2%  *  2%    
 1960-1969  20%  25%  16%  25%  11%  18%  6%  13%  3% #  10% #
 1970-1970  25%  23%  24%  26%  24%  28%  23%  24%  20%  23%
 1980-1989  31%  24%  32%  27%  32%  33%  32%  34%  30%  30%
 1990-1999  17%  7%  25%  13%  27%  19%  27%  23%  24%  26%
 2000-2009          4%  1%  11%  4%  22%  10%
 do not have degree  2%  2%  1%  1%  NR  NR  NR  NR  NR  NR

Notes: * – less than 0.5% and rounds to zero; # – number is for prior to 1970; survey is taken at the beginning of the panel time span.

The year grouping make these numbers a bit harder to track but accounting for that it is interesting to see the general distribution of graduation dates track across the panel surveys with little variation.  I don’t think that it is unexpected to see more recent grads in the pastor category and more older grads in the specialized ministry category where experience and flexibility are to be found.  It is interesting that this variation is in the tails of the distribution while in the center of the two distributions the shape is very similar.

So, looking at all of these number it raises the question of why we should care about them.  Reason number one is that they show a significant stability in the pastoral training in the PC(USA).  Yes, these are percentages of the number of graduates in the work force so it does not say anything about absolute numbers or changes in the quality or content of the education they are receiving.  In some respects this stability shows up in the PC(USA) annual membership numbers where the total membership is steadily declining but the number of Teaching Elders show little or no decline.

Another reason for having an interest in this is the question of PC(USA) seminaries versus non-PC(USA) seminaries.  This is the question that led me to have a closer look because I was trying to understand why Fuller did not appear stronger in the number of graduates.  I still don’t have a good answer for that but it is important to note that within the time range covered by these surveys there is no statistically discernable trend in graduates from Fuller, Gordon Conwell, or non-PC(USA) seminaries as a group.  These grads have been with us in fairly stable numbers so if you worry about how non-PC(USA) graduates impact the denomination we can’t say from this what the impact is but we can say that based upon the flat trend the effect should be constant with neither an increasing nor decreasing impact.

Well, I’m sure that is plenty of numbers for one day.  And hopefully in entering these tables I did not put in too many typos.  I’ll give the panel data a rest for a little bit as there is a bunch of other General Assembly related news to be found circulating right now.  And as always, if you see something in here that I missed I’m sure you’ll let me know.

Reflection On The Training Of Leaders

2 Replies

This is a brief sidebar on church leadership between the two posts I am doing on the training of Teaching Elders for the PC(USA).  A story on NPR this morning had an interesting quote about what makes a church:

“Is there public worship?” said the leader of the ministers group,Pastor Eric Williams, of the North Congregational United Church of Christ, in Columbus, Ohio. “Is it open to the public? Are there trained leaders who serve the church? C Street really has none of those marks that make it a church.”

This story is about the C Street Center in Washington, D.C., and a challenge by the Rev. Williams and 12 other clergy as to whether it meets the 15 requirements set by the IRS for classification as a religious institution for tax purposes.  That specific topic, or the center itself, is not what I wanted to discuss.  And no, I’m not going to run with that reference to the “marks that make it a church.”

What caught my attention were the two questions in that quote as to whether it is open to the public and has “trained leaders.”  Depending on what you mean by trained leaders, based on these two criteria the temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints would not meet this criteria (and therefore not eligible for tax exempt status).  Admission to the temples and to the temple ordinances are open only to members of the church by recommendation of their local bishop.

As for the training of leaders, the LDS church does not have specific individuals who take a graduate degree in theology and then are called by a church to be their pastor.  Does that mean they do not have “trained leaders?”  Rather, they have a model that a Presbyterian has to be impressed with that takes very seriously the idea of the priesthood of all believers and through their regular meetings from youth through adult they train all of the men in the church in the doctrine and theology of the faith so that, in theory, any of them are prepared to lead a congregation as the bishop.  For the LDS church, “seminary” is an early morning, before school, program to train the youth in their religion.

While the Presbyterian church is very attentive to the training and examination of our Teaching Elders do we put the necessary effort into the training of our Ruling Elders?  If we view the kirk session as a board of directors we look for Ruling Elders that have secular experience and leadership.  Leadership skills are always good and I don’t mean to discount those by any means.  But do we as a church also have regular ways of educating our Ruling Elders and future elders in the theology, doctrine and polity of the church?  In the PC(USA) elders vow to accept the Scriptures as authoritative — do we continually remind ourselves what the Scriptures say?  We “sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions” and agree to be “instructed and led” by the confessions — but how often do we read the confessions for their instruction?  We assent to be governed by the church’s polity — but how well do we understand that polity and the theological basis for it?

If a church is to have “trained leaders” to be a church we need to be intentional about training the leaders, Teaching and Ruling Elders alike.

Rant done; commentary over; soapbox put away. Now back to the training of the Teaching Elders…