Category Archives: GA business

Where Did The GA Go?

6 Replies


I arrived at work this morning, fired up my computer and sat down to livestream the General Assembly the Church of Scotland in the background as I got ready to read my email. But there was nothing there! Oh no… This GA Junkie is going to go through withdraw having expected a hit of polity this morning.

It turns out that the Assembly finished its docketed work early today and took most of the afternoon off. At least a few of the young adults took the opportunity to toss recreational objects around in the park and I suspect that a few commissioners might have caught a nap.

(And don’t worry about me – The General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland was online and they have an evening session on missions and worship with Psalm singing that I am listening to as I write this.)

Now, I can fully appreciate the frustration of at least one commissioner who wishes the down time was better placed as he tweeted “how annoying when Sat session went on till 9PM so missed Scottish & Champions League Finals.” But this break in the action got me thinking about a couple of things.

The first is the difference in workloads between different Assemblies. In looking through the reports and docket for the Church of Scotland Assembly it did strike me that this year was a bit lighter and had fewer controversial items. Checking over the GA reports page you can see that this year there were 26 councils, committees and other entities reporting to the Assembly and a total of two petitions and one overture from presbyteries.

In comparison, at the present time the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has about 115 overtures, reports from about five special committees and a commission, about 10 reports from General Assembly entities and an as yet unknown number of commissioner resolutions. The Committee to Review Biennial Assemblies has made recommendations to streamline overtures and commissioner resolutions by requiring greater collaboration and support across presbyteries for each of these to be considered by the Assembly. In addition they recommend processes to make greater use of consent agendas. Will this pare down the PC(USA) GA business to the streamlined version of the Church of Scotland Assembly? Probably not, but it will be interesting to see if it does introduce some breathing room.

One of the other interesting things this year is how little contentiousness there is at the Church of Scotland General Assembly. It seems that today’s session wrapped up early because time was allotted for debate on various topics and the debate was short and generally harmonious. It struck me earlier in the week how both the Church of Scotland and the Free Church of Scotland considered their respective marriage reports and each was adopted smoothly with no changes. At their last GA the PC(USA) debated their marriage report for some time and through a series of interesting, to say the least, parliamentary actions the minority report was added to the distributed report along with the main report. I was struck by the difference in how the PC(USA) and Kirk reports were handled. (I will have a bit more to say about the Kirk and Free Church marriage reports in a day or two.)

The PC(USA) has a reputation for several late night sessions during it’s GA while every day this week the Church of Scotland has done all its work without an evening session and they are on track to adjourn tomorrow afternoon. While one afternoon recreation time would be nice at the PC(USA) GA I am not holding my breath. In the PC(USA) there is a particular ethos about the Assembly part of which encourages these long debates and tremendous work loads.  I don’t know how much the recommendations from the Review Committee will help, but they might help. In a couple cases I am not sure I agree with the recommendation, but that is a topic for another time.

The bottom line is that if your only exposure to a Presbyterian general assembly is the General Assembly of the PC(USA) I want you to know that it is an anomaly in the amount of business and strength and length of debate compared with the wide diversity of other general assemblies and general synods around the world. It is not that these other meetings are just an excuse to get together – most years they all deal with very important issues. And sometimes they do deal with an overwhelming amount of work, like a couple of years ago when the Orthodox Presbyterian Church was working on a new Directory for Worship and had to send it back to the committee to return the next year. But that is the exception and not the rule and usually a GA has a good balance of routine and celebratory work with a limited number of controversial items of business.

Your experience my be different and in spite of all this I am still looking forward to the 220th General Assembly of the PC(USA). But for the moment, my lunch hour is up and I think we are on the last report on international mission at the Free Church GA. And to all the Church of Scotland commissioners and delegates I hope you enjoyed your unexpected sunny afternoon in Edinburgh.

2012 General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland

Leave a reply

  Just down the street and around the corner from where one General Assembly has begun meeting you will find a second one convening tomorrow – the 2012 General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland.

The Assembly will begin at 6 PM on Monday 21 May at St. Columba’s Free Church and conclude its business on Friday 25 May. (Note, unless there is a time warp somewhere in there and the 25th of May is missing like the Order of Business says.   ) [Update: The time warp has been resolved.]

Now, you may have to chose, or be good at multi-tasking to do this, but to follow along with the Free Church GA here is what you need to know…

  • The General Assembly 2012 page has most of what you need
  • The Programme for the meeting gives the order of proceedings
  • Reports are available individually from the General Assembly 2012 page
  • The Assembly will be webcast through the facilities of the host church
  • This GA is not big on Twitter but if I spot consistent activity I will update here [Update: Yes, there is Twitter activity! The Free Church is now in the twitterverse at @FreeChurchScot and the meeting is using the hashtag FCGA2012.]

If you want to have the polity documents at the ready you can begin with the Acts of Assembly page.  Some more detail, a bit like a Book of (Church) Order, is found in the online Free Church Practice. In addition, for reasons I will discuss in a moment, it might be useful to have the Worship Papers – 2009 available.

Having just gotten back on the grid from a weekend in the desert I am still scanning the Free Church reports for items of interest.  For now, let me highlight the two special reports.

The first is the report of the Special Committee on Praise.  This Special Committee was formed by the Plenary Assembly of November 2010. After they decided to make the church’s requirements for worship music broader than just exclusive psalmnody, they formed this group to help them find additional music that would be appropriate. To to this the report says:

The Committee decided to draw up a list of hymns which, in its judgement, are “consistent with the Word of God and the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith”. After examining a wide variety of praise material, including hymnals and web-based resources, the Committee has produced, in the first instance, a list of hymns from the hymnbook Praise!, published by Praise Trust in 2000.

This list is not attached to the report but I am hoping it might be published elsewhere during the Assembly. The Committee does emphasize in their report the need for following copyright law noting that only 11 congregations have so far obtained a CCLI license. The Committee has also been selecting and editing Scripture passages for singing and a booklet will be circulated to commissioners.

The second report contains the final report on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage produced by a Study Panel on the subject. The report is 39 pages long and I will not review the document here. It is an interesting read and reflects the input received from the church following the release of the review version at the last GA.  The committee also notes: “In view of the Scottish Government’s current consultation about proposed legislation for “same-sex marriage”, the Panel thought it wise to include a section on this subject to explain the Biblical basis for the Church’s opposition to this proposed legislation.”

Both of these reports are docketed for Tuesday evening.

As always, our prayers for the deliberations and discernment of this General Assembly and for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

2012 General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland

Leave a reply

  Coming up this Saturday the first large General Assembly of the 2012 season begins as the 2012 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland is convened in the Assembly Hall in Edinburgh.

The Assembly will begin at 10 AM on Saturday 19 May and adjourn a bit after 3 PM on Friday 25 May. On Sunday afternoon 20 May there will be a large public festival in Prince Street Gardens called Heart and Soul 2012, inspired by the similar and successful Roll Away the Stone program last year.

So, to follow along with the GA here is what you need to know

If you want to have the polity documents at the ready you start at the Church Law web page and from there can get the Acts, Regulations, Standing Orders, and An introduction to Practice and Procedure in the Church of Scotland (2009 edition).

The business of the Assembly is not as high-profile and controversial as some years because issues regarding human sexuality are not on the docket — the Theological Commission dealing with issues related to same-sex relationships in the church that was created by the 2011 GA will report next year.

But based on the press release and some of the media attention the report A Right Relationship With Money will be interesting to watch.  This report, part of the work of the Special Commission on the Purposes of Economic Activity, is docketed as an Order of the Day at 2 PM on Monday and comes under the Church and Society Council.  This is the only Order of the Day that I see in the docket.

I will update this info as necessary and comment in other posts as the week progresses. Prayers for the guidance of the Holy Spirit as the General Assembly meets.

78th General Assembly Of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Leave a reply

I have been a little behind the curve on one more General Assembly currently meeting.  So with apologies for the delay, let’s have a look at the 78th General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.


J. Gresham Machen
(from Wikimedia Commons) 		This denomination was formed on June 11, 1936 when the first General Assembly convened in Philadelphia.  J. Gresham Machen, the first Moderator of the Presbyterian Church of America (as it was know at that time) wrote of that meeting in the Presbyterian Guardian:

“On Thursday, June 11, 1936, the hopes of many long years were realized.
We became members, at last, of a true Presbyterian Church; we
recovered, at last, the blessing of true Christian fellowship. What a
joyous moment it was! How the long years of struggle seemed to sink into
nothingness compared with the peace and joy that filled our hearts!”

This year’s Assembly took time yesterday to mark the 75th Anniversary of that event. An afternoon special program, hosted by the Committee on Christian Education, included comments from one of the founders, the Rev. John P. Galbraith, author of the well known 1939 paper Why the Orthodox Presbyterian Church?  In the summary of yesterday’s session, it is reported that Mr. Galbraith emphasized “that adherence to and proclamation of the Word of God is central to the task of the church.” The celebration includes events all weekend and was highlighted by a banquet last night. And for more on the anniversary there is a Facebook page.

As for the business meeting itself, it convened Wednesday evening, June 8 at the Sandy Cove Retreat Center in Maryland and will adjourn no later than noon on Tuesday June 14.  Most of the background information you will need, like the Standing Rules, Book of Church Order, and GA papers giving denominational stands on particular topics, can be accessed through the regular General Assembly Page.

The web page specific to the 78th GA has links to the Daily Summary page and the Photo Album. I have not found a docket or reports to the Assembly available online.

There is a Twitter presence for the meeting and while small they are yet faithful.  You can get info from the meeting from @dlwelliver and @camdenbucey with a few others commenting using the hashtag #opcga. One of the more amusing comments to come down the line this year, in a play on the nickname “Machen’s Warrior Children,” the GA has been going so smoothly and harmoniously this year that Moderator has referred to them as “Machen’s cuddly children.”

Speaking of the Moderator, from the three nominees from the floor, the Rev. Danny E. Olinger was selected as the Moderator of this General Assembly. He has been serving as the General Secretary of the Committee on Christian Education and is the editor of an anthology of writings by Geerhardus Vos. (Side note: if you are not familiar with Vos, he was the first professor of Biblical Theology at Princeton Seminary.)

Other business already heard includes the report of the Statistician, Mr. Luke E. Brown, who was pleased to report the continued steady membership growth of 1.51% so that the denomination ended 2010 with 29.842 total members. The Assembly also approved the request of the Psalter-Hymnal Special Committee to work together with the United Reformed Churches of North America Songbook Committee to produce a joint OPC/URC
Psalter-Hymnal. The Committee on Home Missions and Church Extension reported that although only four new churches were planted in 2010, there have already been ten new ones planted in 2011 with four more that will probably open this year.  And there was an unusually brief report from the Committee on Appeals and Complaints, a circumstance that possibly contributed to the “cuddly children” comment.

Finally, the annual census of the Assembly regarding the decade of ordination of the commissioners:

With nine minutes until the order of the day, the moderator took the
annual survey of when each commissioner was ordained. This is not merely
a matter of trivia but, rather, it shows the Lord’s faithfulness in
working through men at the Assembly from a wide age range. The older
commissioners often set the tone and exemplify good churchmanship, while
the younger men add a bit of energy to the Assembly. The results from
the poll:

2010s — 9
2000s — 45
1990s — 19
1980s — 18
1970s — 21
1960s — 18
1950s — 3

I am impressed with the relative uniform distribution of numbers ordained in the 1960’s to the 1990’s range.

The Assembly left much of Saturday to presentations and celebration and the Lord’s Day is left free for worship and fellowship.  Business will resume at 8:30 AM local time tomorrow.  We pray for the Assembly and its remaining work.

39th General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In America

6 Replies

Lots going on this week for GA Junkies.  Let’s add one more to the mix…

In a few hours the 39th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America will finish up their pre-Assembly committee meetings and activities and get down to business.  The formal meeting convenes at 7:30 pm local time today, June 7, in Virginia Beach, VA, with worship, the Lord’s Supper, and following worship the election of the Moderator.  The meeting is scheduled to adjourn at noon on Friday.

If you want to follow along these resources may be helpful:

The PCA is providing live streaming and has a Flickr stream as well.

The Twitter community is buzzing (is that a mixed metaphor?) already with the perennial hashtag #PCAGA. I am not aware of an official PCA GA Twitter account to follow but there is the official publication’s account for byFaith Online (@PCAbyFaith) which has been pretty quiet so far.  I am a bit hesitant to single out any of the many fine TE’s and RE’s tweeting the meeting so just follow the hashtag.  As things get going the tag may not trend but it will keep your reader busy.

I have to admit that in the past year the goings on in the PCA have been pretty weighty with the Administrative Committee funding plan push and continuing issues related to the Federal Vision theology.  I have been focused on some other issues and have not kept up with my updates here.  Maybe I’ll get caught up some day.

But looking at the Overtures to this Assembly it is worth noting that neither the Federal Vision issues nor the deacon/deaconess discussion is reflected there.  (There are other paths by which they could come before the GA this year.)  However, the AC funding plan is there in full view.

Three presbyteries have submitted alternate plans following the defeat of the Book of Church Order changes from last year that were necessary to implement that plan.

Overture 3 from Northwest Georgia Presbytery would create an Essential Budget for the AC of $1.5M which would have annual cost-of-living-adjustments and be reviewed every five years.  It would also set up an emergency relief fund that all permanent committees and agencies would be asked to contribute to. It would fund the capped budget with a $7 per capita assessment and churches that pay their per capita would receive discounted registration for their commissioners to GA. I would add that this is one of the most heavily footnoted overtures that I have ever seen.

Pittsburgh Presbytery has their recommendation in Overture 11 where they propose an amendment to BCO 25-13 that begins

Communicant membership in the church is voluntary, never to be founded on human coercion (John 3:3-7), and giving by members is always voluntary and never to be founded on coercion or compulsion (2 Cor. 9:7).  From this it follows that the church by its courts has no power to tax, nor to exclude from participation in the courts of the church, those officers who by ordination and/or election as a delegate are lawful delegates to any court of the church. The courts of the church through their committees, agencies and commissions may offer services, however, that are not of the essence of the office of elder, which may be denied to those who do not pay fees.

In line with this principle the BCO amendment calls for an assessment on a particular church of not more than 0.4% of their total budget to be used for specific committees and functions that are administratively related to the functioning of the denomination.  Failure to pay could result in the inability to access non-essential services but, as the language above suggests, the ability of commissioners to vote at GA would never be compromised.

Finally, Overture 15 from South Coast Presbytery takes a more detailed approach.  They present an extensive table that shows what each church would be expected to give to support the basic or essential administrative functions of the denomination based on their “tithes and offerings,” not the total budget as the previous overture did.  For making that payment in full a church could send its full contingent of TE’s and RE’s to GA for no additional registration fee.  For churches that only partially pay the asked amount there is no prorated registration fee and they would be expected to pay a $2000/person fee the same as a church that did not pay anything. Commissioners not affiliated with a particular congregation would register for $200.

Now, I suspect that the polity wonk’s will have something so say about this Overture:  At the beginning of the Therefore section the overture says “South Coast Presbytery overtures the 39th GA, other presbyteries, and the AC to join with us in embracing and approving the following numbered actions… or to improve them… Accordingly, we ask this Assembly to act as follows, without needing any BCO or RAO changes:” It sounds like this is intended as a voluntary consensus agreement.  However, point 5 of the Overture is “5. Any changes to the above table fee structure are to be approved by GA and 2/3 of the presbyteries in the PCA.”  So while the initial implementation is intended to be approved by only the GA, changes would require the same concurrence of the presbyteries as a BCO change. I await the debate on that polity point.

Finally this Overture asks for an item that three other Overtures ( 7, 13, and 14) ask for, and that is to discontinue funding the official publication byFaith magazine and byFaithonline.com and to make it self-supporting.  The contention is that this move alone would bring the Administrative Committee’s bud
get into balance.  (Overtures 7, 13 and 14 are essentially identical and probably written from the same template, as evidenced by the fact that in one instance the writers of 13 overlooked a point where they needed to change the name of the presbytery from that in Overture 7.)

The other category in which there are multiple Overtures are those where the presbyteries have been growing and now the number of congregations has reached a point that a new presbytery should be created to further the cause of the Gospel.  There is a request from Central Carolina Presbytery with a concurrence from Western Carolina and their agreement that an edge of their presbytery be moved to the new presbytery. There is also an Overture from Korean Eastern Presbytery to form Korean Northeastern Presbytery from it’s northern portion in New England and New York. 

The remaining six overtures contain some interesting business as well, such as a request to withdraw from the NAE and promoting a “faithful witness” in Bible translations and presentation of the Gospel among resistant peoples. I look forward to the Assembly’s discussion of these topics as well. [And in late-breaking news, I see that the Committee of Commissioners has recommended the approval of the “faithful witness” overture with some changes.]

So there is what stands out to me about this Assembly and I suspect there are a few more highlights that will emerge from the reports.  Keep on praying and stay tuned…

The General Assembly Of The Church of Scotland 2011

Leave a reply

Probably the biggest General Assembly meeting of the year begins on Saturday as around 850 commissioners gather in the Assembly Hall in Edinburgh to do the work of the Church of Scotland.  The meeting will adjourn the following Friday.

For those following along at home…

The complete book with the reports, overtures, docket, and other material for the meeting, know as the Blue Book, is available as a single download.  The docket and other essentials alone can be found in the main Order of Proceedings. The daily agendas and information on other events is linked to the General Assembly page. Links to the individual committee reports can be found on the Reports and Information page.

Once the Assembly convenes we can expect to have the live webcast and daily updates in written and podcast form available from the Webcast page.  I would also expect the usual Assembly press releases from the News page.

Update:  In addition to the Webcast page there are also the twice-daily updates from the church done by the Rev. Douglas Aitken.  In addition, they have posted the transcripts of speeches and the Webcast page has updates from the publication Good News.

The Assembly is on Twitter at @generalassembly.  While the hashtag #ga2011 was initially proposed there appears to be a trend to use the #ga11 hashtag instead.  In addition to the official Twitter account I would recommend following the Church of Scotland Youth – National Youth Assembly at @cosy_nya and their ga2011 list. The list probably has the best collection individuals who will be tweeting about it, but to highlight two in particular, there is the official publication of the Church of Scotland @cofslifeandwork and  cosy_nya worker/leader Chris Hoskins @chris_hoskins.  I will update with others once the Assembly gets rolling. 

Update:  I should have gone with my intuition and included Stewart Cutler in this list, as I have done in past years.  He can be found on Twitter (@stewartcutler) and his blog.  Others who are following closely on Twitter and the blogosphere (with thanks to @chris_hoskins for the suggestions and his including me in his list of who to follow) include @shunad (blog), Bryan Kerr @revbk (and how can you not like his blog “blessed are the cheesemakers” ), and Lynsey Martin @lynsey1889. These are but a few, so go to the hashtag #ga11 and see the whole group that is there.

I have already discussed what is probably the highest profile issue, the report of the Special Commission on Same-sex Relationships and the Ministry. A couple of more items of interest:

At the last Assembly meeting a report was approved that would begin “refocusing” the mission of the church and the Ministries Council report continues with that work and updates the progress. To tweak the report, the Presbytery of Ayr has sent up an overture asking that it be classified as an “urban-rural” presbytery and not an “urban” presbytery as the report does.  On the other hand, the Presbytery of Greenock and Paisley has sent up an overture challenging some of the basic findings of the report.  The second whereas says:

2. We do not believe that the Ministries Council’s 20:20 vision has the support of the Church, particularly when the full implications for local congregations are explained and understood. We do not believe that the 20:20 vision reflects the widespread desire of local congregations to have their own minister to lead, inspire and equip them in worship, mission and discipleship.

In this overture they ask for a suspension of the work and the establishment of a Special Commission to look into this further and consult with the church broadly.  This report and overtures are docketed for Thursday.

Another interesting report is always the one from Church and Society Council.  This year’s topics include Responding to Climate Change, Science and Ethics – The Internet, Suicide Among Young Men, and “Are We What We Wear? The Ethics of our Clothing Choices.”  Interesting to see that latter one come out of last fall’s National Youth Assembly.

But from a polity and church-growth perspective, the Church and Society Council topic that caught my eye was the report on The Involvement of Young People in Decision Making in the Church of Scotland.  In terms of what is already happening the report highlights the National Youth Assembly which I have particularly appreciated as a vehicle for involvement of young people and moving their concerns and deliberations upward to the General Assembly.  As I said above, several of the items from Church and Society bear the imprint of the NYA.  I am also intrigued how much of the report reinforces what I have been reading, especially the book Almost Christian, about the benefits of taking teenagers and young adults seriously in the church and integrating them into the multi-generational framework.

Look for Church and Society Council on Tuesday.

Finally, on Sunday afternoon (where the garden party used to be) will be a public festival called Roll Away the Stone. This event will “Celebrate the life of the church” with Celebration, Inspiration and Discovery.  And 5-a-side football.   The web page says

“Significance comes from the Cross and resurrection life flows from the
Tomb.” So celebration, inspiration and discovery will begin with
reflections around a huge cross in the garden area near the Ross
Bandstand. Meantime at the Bandstand itself, in the picturesque avenue
and fountain areas, and in St Cuthbert’s Church at the west end of the
[Prince Street] Gardens there will be space for worship, praise and singing amongst a
whole range of other things to see and do.

Looking forward to hearing how it goes.

So there we go — Lots going on at the Assembly.  But wait, there is more…  At the same time (Monday to Friday) the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland will be meeting near by.  Lots of interesting and important decisions there as well and I’ll review that in the next day or two.

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.

The 219th General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church (USA) — Further Reflection On Not Business As Usual

2 Replies

Back in July following the meeting of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I commented here about the one item that really stuck out to me as a point where the Assembly diverged from the expectations of “business as usual.”  This item of business was in response to an overture from the Synod of South Atlantic to create a new non-geographic Korean language presbytery.

I think most odds-makers would have considered this a routine item that would have flown through pretty much under the radar considering it was nearly unanimously recommended by the committee and how much other business the Assembly would be spending its time on.  However, two young Korean-American women pastors rose to speak against the item and when the vote was take it was soundly defeated (125-514) by the commissioners.

The first pastor to speak was the Rev. Theresa Cho from San Francisco and following the Assembly she posted a reflection on the meeting that included comments about this particular business item.  Today she has posted a follow-up titled “Both sides of the truth: Non-geographic presbyteries ” where she not only comments in more detail on the action at GA, but as the title suggests, points out that the defeat of the request has implications as well.  If the competing demands a denomination lives with in their non-geographic language presbyteries is of interest to you this is a must-read.  In fact, it is a great window into some aspects of racial-ethnic ministry in general.

The new article was prompted by deeper discussions around this overture and the related issues at a Pastor Theologian Consultation last week.  Rev. Cho writes about her situation and journey from GA to this Consultation.  Talking about her cultural background and the consultation she says:

At this consultation, I had the opportunity to be heard and to listen.As a 2nd generation, the younger doesn’t speak up to share differing opinions with the older. It is seen as disrespectful. At this consultation, I had the opportunity to speak up and to listen.

Then, regrading the contrast to GA she writes:

I’ll be honest, after GA, I had the luxury of going back to my wonderful life. I received the accolades of my colleagues and peers for having the courage to speak up. And although I did hear some of the “gossip” of the effects of how the defeat of overture 04-08 was impacting some of the Korean community, the only personal impact to me was hearing some of the difficult remarks being made to and about one of my colleagues and friend who also spoke against the overture. Besides that, I went back to my life, working in a non-Korean church where I am appreciated for my pastoral skills despite of my racial ethnicity, gender, and age.However, my time [at the consultation] shed a light on how what I intended to be life-giving actions were life-taking for another and vice versa.Throughout these discussions, I felt the extremes of both emotions: joy for speaking out and being heard and grief for knowing that it was at the expense of my parent’s generation; honor for being acknowledged as a voice that matters and shame for participating in “airing out the dirty laundry” and betraying my people; and empowered to know that a few voices can change a vote and powerless when it is perceived as disobedience and disrespect.

I will let you continue reading the article as she discusses the question “What is the real issue regarding non-geographic, Korean-language presbyteries?”  These are not easy issues but they are something any Presbyterian branch needs to consider in the light of modern cultural realities.  I encourage you to read Theresa’s whole article.