Category Archives: GA business

The 29th General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church — Working Out What It Means To Be Missional

Leave a reply

One of the most interesting items of business for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church at their General Assembly back in June was a statement on what it means to be “missional” and what that means for their structure and operations as a church.

Now, in the wider church these days it is the trend to be missional.  But what missional means is a bit like the statement in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone,” it means just what I choose it to mean –neither more nor less.”

For a good summary of the variability of the term there is an article from Christianity Today in March 2008.

Here is what the ECP GA adopted about being missional (taken from the Theology Committee report):

Our denomination wants to clarify for its member churches who we are and what we do as the United States becomes a mission field that is larger, more spiritually diverse and more antagonistic to the Gospel than ever before.

The term “missional” has become common and therefore highly nuanced. We desire to define missional in a simple and specific way so that each EPC church can commit to a unified, obedient pursuit of the expansion of the Kingdom of God.

  1. A missional church grasps that God is a missionary God and that “it is not so much that God has a mission for His church in the world, but that God has a Church for His mission in the world.”

  2. A missional church believes that the mission of God is rooted unalterably in the Bible, God’s infallible Word. Therefore, a missional church believes that the essence of God’s mission is to extend the reign of God and is summed up in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

  3. A missional church is a visible community of authentic disciples of Jesus Christ who gather for celebration, prayer and teaching and then disperse locally and globally as His missionaries to love and serve people. In so doing, a missional church both pursues and welcomes those who are searching as they are drawn into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. The greater purpose in all of this is that the earth will be filled with the worship of God.

  4. A missional church believes that it is more than just a collection of individuals, but that it is a community called together by God both to love Him and serve Him.

  5. A missional church is concerned with more than maintaining programs for existing members; it is called to mobilize itself both individually and as a community to daily self-sacrifice for the hurting world around them. A missional church is both inwardly strong and outwardly focused.

  6. A missional church perceives that the essence of these things is the essence of its existence. Therefore, a missional church will constantly seek to reevaluate itself as to whether or not it’s emphasis, organization, and activity effectively positions the church to partner with God in His mission.

  7. A missional denomination

    a. Believes that the location of ministry is the local church
    b. Is made up of local congregations committed to being missional
    c. Believes that the Presbyteries and General Assembly, being expressions of the larger church, have an important role to play in identifying, equipping and supporting leaders and churches. They are a key link in the principle of mutual accountability toward missional ministry and Biblical standards.
    d. Constantly examines whether its polity, structures and programs are supporting or inhibiting that missional commitment

First, this is clearly a very Presbyterian formulation of missional since it takes into account the full governing body structure of the denomination.  But, having said that it also affirms that the higher governing bodies are there to play a supporting role and for accountability.  The mission and ministry point of the church is the local congregation.

It has the sense of the sovereignty of God and the idea that God leads in mission and we in the church are participating with God.  To use my favorite phrase, “God acts first.”  It also reflects that God calls the church into being (“a community called together by God”).

In other business of the Assembly there was a very tangible result of the principles listed in #7 above.  The Committee on National Outreach proposed, and the Assembly approved, a change in their mandate that would reduce the size of the committee on the national level and move the responsibility for church planting to the presbytery level leaving the national committee to encourage and provide resources.  (It begins on the bottom of page 6 in this set of recommendations.)  The rational says:

Grounds: For the past three years the National Outreach Committee has engaged in a thorough review of its mission and ministry to the EPC. It has identified those activities that are best done at the national committee level and sought to “push down” to the presbyteries those activities that are best pursued at that level. During this time, the NOC met jointly with presbytery Church Development Committee chairs. Recognizing that the CDC’s are closer to the local level, NOC asked the CDC’s to experiment with meeting and taking care of those items focusing on church planting and church revitalization. Given the success of this experiment we are unanimous in proposing this change.

NOC has concluded that the best way to pursue church planting, church revitalization and evangelism is to support the presbyteries and churches as they take responsibility for these activities.

The adoption of this definition of a missional church did not spring out of thin air; there has been a build-up to this point.  It came out of the work of the Long Range Planning Committee which was formed by the 25th GA of 2005.  In 2006 they issued a white paper titled “Toward a Stronger Future” where they talked about evangelism and “recovering mission.”  They talk about their plan for the study and how they are basing it on the work of the Missional Leadership Institute and how “for real change to happen it must be owned from the
bottom up.”  (Although their links appear old and broken and the MLI has moved or folded.)  The Long Range Planning Committee wrapped up their work and presented to the 28th GA (2008) and based on their report specific actions of the Assembly were presented through the Theology Committee and the Committee on Administration.  While not having any action items directly deriving from the Long Range Planning Committee, the Committee on Administration does reflect in their goals the same approach as the National Outreach Committee where they list one of them as:

F. To “push down” activities historically directed out of the national office to Presbyteries and provide or recommend appropriate means of equipping and encouraging presbyteries in their mission.

And they share their vision for the structure and functioning of the EPC five years from now as:

Another way to describe our vision for the EPC is to describe what we hope to find as one examines our denominati
on five years from now. In 2014, anyone observing the EPC would find:

1. A General Assembly that oversees the work of the church by supporting the Presbyteries as they support the local churches.

2. Presbyteries that offer helps to local churches in such areas as evangelism, discipleship, training and other facets of Christian ministry.

3. The re-formation of the Great Commission in the form of the missional church widely accepted and firmly established in priorities.

4. A re-formation of the church – in our practice, not our doctrine.

I only share the first four items in the vision but there are 15 more for you to have a look at (it begins on page 8 of the committee report).

I think that give a good overview of what the EPC decided and where it sees itself going with the concept of “missional.”  If you want to look at it more take a detailed look at the Committee on Administration report as well as their 2007 “Missional Church Primer” and a series of reflections the stated clerk, the Rev. Jeff Jeremiah wrote leading up to their 2008 GA.

Now, on to missional from another vantage point…  Stay tuned.

Ordination Standards In The Evangelical Presbyterian Church — The Current Discussion

Leave a reply

In the Evangelical Presbyterian Church the discussion on ordination standards appears to me to be more of a speed bump than the litmus test it seems to have become in other Presbyterian branches.  The church is holding their stated position, that whether or not women should be ordained is a non-essential and therefore a local standard, in tension with the incumbent position of the churches coming in from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the conflict they may be in with the geographic presbytery in which they reside.  Because the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery provides a temporary location for these churches the issue is important but not immediately pressing.

At the last General Assembly the Presbytery of Mid-America proposed one solution for co-existence which did not meet constitutional muster.  Recognizing this as an issue that required a solution the PJC recommended that an Interim Committee be formed to look at the situation.  The Moderator has now named this Committee and they held their first meeting in Memphis, TN, last week according to the article in the EP News.  The committee is composed of 18 members — one teaching elder and one ruling elder from each presbytery.  Its charge is to “explore ways to include those pastors and churches with conflicting positions on Women Teaching Elders in the presbyteries of the EPC” and is to report back to the 30th General Assembly in 2010.

I have seen no reports from the meeting itself yet but it will be interesting to follow the path they take in working through this issue.  In closing I will leave you with the words of the PJC about the importance of this discussion from its decision last summer:

The PJC wants the record to reflect that it recognizes and deeply appreciates the serious nature of the issues prompting the Mid-America Overture, the historical background and self-described struggle in the Mid-America Presbytery, the extraordinary effort and prayerful attention exhibited in working in harmony and love with one another, and the heartfelt and deep concern for the peace, purity, and unity of their presbytery reflected by the Implementation Committee in their presentation. Here it must be added that the PJC is saddened by the possibility that there may come a time when wonderful children of God might decide to divide themselves over an issue now established in the Church as a non-essential.

Current News In The Ordination Standards Discussion In The Church Of Scotland

2 Replies

Compared to my two previous notes on developments in the PC(USA) and the PCA this recap on developments in the Church of Scotland will be relatively short since their process is much more focused at the moment.

You may remember that the last General Assembly dealt with a protest filed by a group of presbyters who considered their presbytery’s action to concur with a church’s call to a partnered gay man to pastor the church to be out of order.  The GA upheld the presbytery decision and denied the protest.  Along with the protest there was also an overture filed by another presbytery to establish some standards for ordained office regarding lifestyle and sexual orientation.  Instead of acting on that the Assembly chose to structure an environment to engage the church in discussion over this issue.  This environment includes a Special Commission to study the issue and report back to the 2011 Assembly, a moratorium on installations and ordinations of partnered same-sex individuals as officers of the church, and a ban on officers of the church talking publicly about the issue.  The moratorium and the gag order are for the two years the Special Commission will be working.

Well yesterday brought news that Lord Hodge will chair the special commission.  Lord Hodge is a Judge of the Supreme Court and was previously Procurator to the General Assembly, among other legal and judicial positions.  The news article also lists an additional four members of this nine member commission:

Other members of the commission include the Rev John Chalmers, former minister of Edinburgh’s Palmerston Place Church; advocate Ruth Innes, a member at Palmerston Place Church; former Moderator the Very Rev Dr Sheilagh Kesting; and the Rev Peter Graham, former clerk to the Edinburgh presbytery.

Thanks to the Edinburgh Evening News for this, but I look forward to a formal press release from the CofS Newsroom, or a more detailed media article listing the full membership of the commission.

A sidebar here, (pun intended) on the leaders of these Church of Scotland special commissions.  For those of you keeping score at home, this is the third special commission in three years that I am aware of.  The first of these, created by the 2006 General Assembly, was the Special Commission on Structure and Change which reported back to the 2008 Assembly.  What I find interesting was that commission was headed up by Lord Hodge’s colleague on the high court, Lord Brodie.  Not every commission is headed up by a distinguish justice because the third commission, and one that is currently working, the Special Commission on the Third Article is chaired by the Moderator of the 2006 Assembly, the Very Rev. Dr. Alan D. McDonald.  (And if you want more on the Structure and Change and Third Article stuff, you can check out my earlier discussion of all that.)  But in summary, you have to be impressed with the church’s integration in the culture to be able to get such secular leaders onto GA commissions.  (And you have to wonder how they have time to do it.)

Finally, I was looking back and I probably should close the loop on one more related item.  Back at the beginning of September the Presbytery of Hamilton voted to admit to training for the ministry an individual whose lifestyle was the subject of the new discussion in the church.  The issue at the time was focused on whether this presbytery action was a violation of the GA action, in spirit if not in letter.  Subsequently, the individual, Mr. Dmitri Ross, withdrew his application after the controversy erupted.  In a Time article he is quoted as saying:

“I do not wish, and have never sought, to be a cause of division within the Church I love so dearly. Therefore, after much heartfelt deliberation, and after much prayerful consideration, I have decided to withdraw as a full-time candidate in training for ministry of word and sacrament in the Church of Scotland.”

Like the other ordination debates, all of this is a point in the journey, or a step in a process, that will play out.  Stay tuned…

The Continuing Ordination Standards Discussion In The Presbyterian Church In America

1 Reply

I know, this ordination standards discussion/debate is getting old.  It seems to keep on going, there are overtures to every GA about it, some congregations seem to ignore or nuance the standards that are in the constitution, and we keep having judicial cases over it.

Well, I could be talking about the mainline and the recent developments there, but today I turn to the ongoing discussion in the Presbyterian Church in America over ordination standards.

For those from any of the Presbyterian branches who just wish that ordination standards debates would go away… don’t hold your breath.  The discussion over ordination standards has been with the American Presbyterians pretty much since its founding three centuries ago and was one of the factors in the Old Side/New Side split of 1741.  The concept remains constant and the particular contested standard shifts.

The discussion in the PCA of course is over women serving as deacons, or more precisely as deaconesses.  Everyone agrees that the PCA Book of Church Order does not allow women to serve in ordained office.  (A fact that seems a little irritating to a few who joined the PCA when the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod, which had female deacons, merged with the PCA back in 1982.)  But there appear to be many ways to nuance this from having men and women as non-ordained deacons sometimes with commissioning, to having a board of deacons but having men and women assistants that are not particularly distinct from the board that leads them.

Within the last couple of days this has become a fresh news topic because of developments on both sides of the issue.

On the side of flexible implementation of the diaconate come copies of the e-mail that Redeemer Presbyterian Church sent out to its members soliciting nominations for church office.  The text of this e-mail is posted on both the BaylyBlog and the PuritanBoard.

Maybe the most amusing part is their terminology.  Since there is a general understanding in the PCA that a deacon is male and a deaconess is female, Redeemer apparently uses the term “deek” as a gender neutral title for a deacon/deaconess.

But it is clear from the email letter and from the Redeemer web site that, at least publically, there is no distinction or acknowledgment of ordained deacons being only men in the PCA.  From both of these sources you would never know that is a standard of the church.

In the email it says:

There are 49 men and women currently serving on the Diaconate and 20 men serving on the Session as ruling elders. These men and women have been elected by the congregation and have gone through theological and practical training to master the skills and the information necessary for these positions.

At least in the email there is implicit recognition of elders being men, a distinction that is not on the church’s Officer Nomination web page:

Qualifications of Officers

The following are requirements for all nominations.

FOR DEACON/DEACONESS NOMINEES: Nominees should be a Christian for at least three years and a member of the Redeemer for at least one year; OR, a Christian for at least three years and a regular Redeemer attendee who has been committed to Redeemer as their primary place of worship for at least two years and a member for at least six months.

FOR ELDER NOMINEES: At the time of nomination, an elder nominee should have been a Christian for at least three years and a Redeemer member for at least one year.

And on the Diaconate page it says:

Who We Are and What We Do

The Diaconate, a group of men and women nominated, elected and appointed by the Redeemer members, exists to contribute to the building of a repentant and rejoicing community through loving, truth-telling relationships where practical, visible needs are being met while hearts are being changed through encounters with Jesus and one another. We express in practical ways Christ’s command to all believers to love our neighbor as ourselves.

As I said, from everything I have seen from the church the PCA requirement that ordained officers are only men is, at a minimum, obscured to the routine observer.

Contrast this with the overture to the 38th General Assembly of the PCA that was passed last week by Central Carolina Presbytery. (Reported by The Aquila Report.)

Amend Book of Church Order 9-7 by adding, “These assistants to the deacons shall not be referred to as deacons or deaconesses, nor are they to be elected by the congregation nor formally commissioned, ordained, or installed as though they were office bearers in the church.”

That seems to directly address the ambiguity present in the material from Redeemer.  If there is any doubt, consider the last three “Whereases” in the resolution:

4. Whereas while some RPCES congregations had women on their diaconates, the RPCES resolved as part of the J&R agreement with the PCA to “Amend the existing doctrinal standards and Form of Government of the Reformed Presbyterian church, Evangelical Synod, by substituting for them the doctrinal standards and Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America” ; and

5. Whereas several churches in the PCA currently elect and commission women to the office of deacon and call them by the title deacon or deaconess and allow them to serve on the diaconate; and

6. Whereas BCO 9-7, which states that women may be selected and appointed by the session of a church to serve as assistants to the deacons, is often cited as pretext for this practice of electing and commissioning female deacons;

In the past few years the GA has usually had overtures that would set up study committees to make recommendations about the situation and constitutional language.  This addresses the constitutional language head-on proposing a clarifying addition.

Finally, there are complaints filed against Metropolitan New York Presbytery for actions taken at their presbytery meeting last March.  (And thanks to the BaylyBlog for their publication of the full text of the actions.)

The presbytery action in March affirmed that the various flexible implementations of deacons, such as commissioning instead of ordaining or women serving as non-ordained deaconesses in the same capacity as ordained men, was not a violation of the BCO. The first complaint, filed in April, argues that the practices permitted by the presbytery are in fact a violation of the BCO.

At the May presbytery meeting the presbytery rescinded it’s March action but took no further
action regarding making a statement that some of the existing practices in the Presbytery were in violation of the BCO.  They did begin considering ways to discuss the issue.  A new complaint was made by two of the original complainants with the Standing Judicial Commission of the GA.  In September the officers of the SJC ruled that the complaint was filed prematurely since the Presbytery had responded by rescinding its action and was still in discussion about the other requested items in the original complaint.

That is where this issue sits at the present time in that Presbyterian branch.  With nine months to go before the 38th General Assembly there will probably be a few more twists and turns before the Assembly convenes.  However, whether it be the PCA or the mainline relative I find it striking the similarities in the two situations and how they keep moving along in such parallel manners.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — Synods: An Expanding Or Contracting Universe?

Leave a reply

It has been an interesting week for synods in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and not just because my own met a couple of days ago.

It is clear that the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) will have plenty to talk about next summer related to synods, if they want to tackle the subject.  We already knew about the optional changes to synods that the new Form of Government document would permit if it is approved.  In addition, two overtures have been posted that would reduce or eliminate synods.  Finally, there is a proposal from Presbyterians for Renewal to create a new non-geographic synod for churches and presbyteries to gather in based on theological affinity.

The PC(USA) has been in serious discussions for a while now about the usefulness of synods and whether it is a middle-governing body the church should do away with much like the Church of Scotland did away with them in 1992.  This discussion is recognized by both the original Form of Government Task Force Report as well as the updated nFOG report.  While the two reports do not get rid of synods, they both contain an essentially identical section (like most of the updated nFOG the new version reads a bit better than its original) G-3.0404 Reduced Function which says:

A synod may decide, with the approval of a two-thirds majority of its presbyteries, to reduce its function. In no case shall synod function be less than the provision of judicial process and administrative review of the work of the presbyteries (G-3.0401c). Such a synod shall meet at least every two years for the purposes of setting budget, electing members to its permanent judicial commission, and admitting to record the actions of its permanent judicial and administrative commissions. Presbyteries of such a synod shall assume for themselves, by mutual agreement, such other synod functions as may be deemed necessary by the synod.

Before going any further it is useful to look back at the history of synods in American Presbyterianism.  We usually put the beginning of the Presbyterian church in America in 1706 with the establishment of the first presbytery.  This was followed in 1717 with the first synod, the Synod of Philadelphia, which became the highest governing body until the first General Assembly in 1789.  In 1741 this main branch of American Presbyterianism had its first split into the Old Side and New Side and a second synod, the Synod of New York, was created for the New Side presbyteries and churches.  While the resolution of the split in 1758 returned the church to one synod, the Synod of New York and Philadelphia, the Old Side/New Side division persisted at the presbytery level, even to the point of having over-lapping presbyteries based on theological affinity in the New Side First Presbytery of Philadelphia and the Old Side Second Presbytery.  These would eventually be merged but it took over fifty years.

More recently, in the business before the 218th General Assembly the overtures included one to once again permit affinity presbyteries and now synods by allowing for flexibility in membership (Item 03-05), an overture to study the synod structure (Item 03-06), and the 217th GA was overtured to look into a Korean language synod.  All of these proposals were turned down by the full Assembly.  It is important to note there is historical precedent for racial ethnic synods with the Catawba Synod of the former PCUSA in the first half of the 20th century.

Since my last summary of the posted business for the 219th three more overtures have been added to the PC-Biz site.  One addresses Authoritative Interpretations and I will comment on that separately.  The other two new ones both address synods, specifically asking for a reduction or elimination of them.

Overture 4 from the Synod of the Rocky Mountains asks for changes to Chapters G-12 and D-5 of the Book of Order to decrease the responsibilities.  In fact, one of the parts of the overture would add to the current Government section the same language that is proposed in the nFOG about “reduced functions” for synods at the option of the constituent presbyteries.  But the overture goes on to proposed changes to the Government and Discipline sections that would allow two adjoining synods to form a joint Permanent Judicial Commission.

Overture 5 is more dramatic, proposing the elimination of Chapter G-12 all together eliminating synods from the PC(USA) structure.  The next part of this overture from the Presbytery of New Hope would set up a Synod Transition Administrative Commission, which would be the decently and orderly thing to do so as to wind up the work of the Synods.  There are a couple of polity issues I have with the wording in the overture.  (If this is something the Assembly decides to do the rewrite of the Commission mandate would be relatively straight-forward.)

Keeping in mind that a Presbyterian Commission is empowered to act on behalf of, and with the full authority of, the governing body that creates the commission, I would object to the members of a commission being named by the Stated Clerk and the Moderator of the Assembly.  That would be fine for a committee or task force, but if a commission is to have the power of the Assembly, than the members should be approved by the full Assembly itself.  This would necessitate the vote on the constitutional changes following the 219th GA and the naming of the commission and subsequent wind-down of the synods by the 220th GA two years later.

[For the polity wonks, GA Junkies, and those interested in the details:  It is interesting that the Book of Order keeps talking about “appointing” commissions.  But if you drill down into the Annotated Book of Order, under G-9.0503a(1) there is an annotation referring to an interpretation by the 217th GA that a presbytery may delegate the responsibility of naming a commission for an ordination.  So, by implication the naming of commissions for other purposes may not be delegated but must be approved by the full governing body.]

My second concern is, I believe, a polity problem and that is with the mandate of the Commission.  This part of the overture reads:

2.   If the presbyteries concur in removing synods from
the Book of Order or proposed Form of Government, that the Stated Clerk and Moderator of the 219th General Assembly (2010) be authorized to appoint a Synod Transition Administrative Commission by July 2011 to ensure that all matters related to the elimination of synods be addressed. This includes review of presbytery minutes, permanent judicial commissions, or other constitutional functions assigned to synods. The commission would be authorized to resolve all fiduciary functions related to synods and any regional groups that are currently functioning as part of synods.

There are several aspects to my concern.

First, there is no end date for the Commission.  Give it a two-year initial life and renew it every GA if its work is not done.

Second, the overture contains a reasonable list of things to do, but is the commission to do those things (minutes review, PJC cases) for what is in process at the time of the constitutional change or forever?  It seems that a more detailed plan for synod transition is needed, unless this commission becomes a permanent commission (and the name of the commission contains transitional so it is not intended to be the case).  Let me put this another way:  If the commission is to do review of presbytery minutes is that just once for the transition or on an ongoing basis.  And if just once, than there should be another section to this overture that describes how the GA will take on the review of the minutes of 173 presbyteries in the future.

And that is my Third concern, that while this overture covers the transition commission, what then?  There needs to be consideration of the transition process for the OGA and the GAMC if they are going to take over the essential functions of the 16 synods.

Yes, I am being picky here, but because of the nature of commissions you have to cover the details when it is created.  I don’t see any fundamental problem with this overture that can’t be overcome with some detailed rewriting by the Assembly, if this is the direction they chose to go.  And I am very curious to see the Advisory Committee on the Constitution’s comments on this overture.

Well, that is what is currently on the docket, but this past week also brought another proposal that we can expect to see on the radar in the next couple of months.  The organization  Presbyterians For Renewal (PFR) has published their solution for the PC(USA) going forward, which is to expand the synod structure by creating a 17th synod to serve as a non-geographic affinity synod.  Churches concerned about the doctrinal direction the PC(USA) is taking could chose to switch over to this New Synod.

The full proposal is 13 pages long, of which 9 are FAQ and 2 are the text of the proposed constitutional changes with a 2 page Appendix that appears to act much like the procedural manuals envisioned under the nFOG.

Since this is just a proposal and has not been transmitted yet, or at least posted, as a formal overture from a presbytery I am not going to dissect it line-by-line but will make some general comments and highlight a few specifics.

As you can imagine for something like this to work it contains a bit of creative polity, especially items granting the New Synod (the working name until it is created and formally named) a reasonable amount of autonomy.  It does however say that it has the “same responsibilities and powers as all other synods” which presumably means the ecclesiastical and administrative functions that include a PJC and records review.  However, it also says that the provisions in this new section supersede any other Book of Order provisions to the contrary and that the provisions in this section may not be changed by the rest of the denomination without a majority vote of all the presbyteries in the New Synod.

One polity point that quickly becomes apparent is that New Synod presbyteries lose a certain amount of authority under this plan.  On the one hand, the synod will control ordination standards instead of the presbyteries.  Presbyteries will conduct the examinations but the New Synod “has the responsibility and power to maintain the standards for ordination and continuing ministry.”  There appears to be little room for interpretation of the standards at the presbytery or session level.  On the other side dismissal of churches from the New Synod has been removed from presbytery approval to a vote of the congregation wishing to switch.  (And this applies to a church wishing to join New Synod or leave New Synod.)  However, while approval of the dismissing presbytery is not required the approval of the receiving presbytery is required in both cases.  (Under present polity for a church to switch the congregational vote is not required but it must be approved by both presbyteries, the synod or synods involved, and the GA.)

I had to laugh when I saw in the FAQ the comment about the church fighting over ordination standards for the last 3 decades.  While the current sexual standards have been the point of contention for 30 years, the Old Side/New Side split almost three centuries ago was over ordination standards, including subscription to the Westminster Standards.  Interestingly, this New Synod proposal brings back something that is very close to creedal subscription.  A couple of ways this will happen is outlined in the Appendix.  First, the New Synod will produce a list of some, but not the, essential tenets as areas that must not be overlooked in examining candidates for ordained office.  Secondly, in the New Synod any ordained officer of the church must affirm:

Along with the broader constitutional standards for manner of life (e.g. G-6.0106a), New Synod also holds to the standard that its officers will live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness.

It goes on to say “Those who can not make this affirmation for their own manner of life will not be approved for ordination or installation in an office, or for membership in a presbytery.

It is important to remember that the standards New Synod is interested in maintaining are the ones that are currently in force in the PC(USA).  Currently the church is debating if there is any flexibility in the standards either because they are  “non-essentials” or because the violate an office-holder’s conscience.  What the final version of this document needs to do is present the ordination standards for New Synod not so that it sounds like legalism, but instead in a way that it brings grace.

It will be interesting to see if this Assembly wants to tackle the present situation with synods.  And I await the wording of the New Synod proposal as an overture from a presbytery.  Stay tuned…

Considering the Belhar Confession — The PC(USA), RCA And CRC Are All In The Process

6 Replies

In an inter-denominational synergy (or maybe a cosmic convergence or providential parallel) it turns out that the Belhar Confession is currently under consideration in three Reformed churches in the U.S. — In addition to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) it is also being looked at by the Reformed Church in America (RCA) and the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) for adoption as a confessional standard.

If you have not had a chance to get acquainted with the Belhar Confession yet, it was written by the Dutch Reformed Mission Church of South Africa, under the leadership of the Rev. Allan Boesak, and it spoke to the concern that the concept of apartheid was at odds with the justice and equality of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  The Belhar Confession is now one of the standards of unity of the Uniting Reformed Church of Southern Africa.

Of the three denominations the one furthest along in the adoption process is the RCA which has been studying it in the wider church since 2000.  In 2007 it was provisionally adopted by the General Synod and this past summer the General Synod approved the formal adoption process and it must now be approved by 2/3 of the 46 classes (like a Presbyterian presbytery) to become their first new standard in over 300 years.  (OK, the three standards, the Belgic Confession, Canons of Dort, and Heidelberg Catechism were written over 300 years ago but adopted by the RCA in 1771.)

As it turns out the process in the CRC is a bit ahead of the PC(USA) but their study period will close at the same time as the PC(USA) in 2012.  The CRC has been in consultation with the RCA about this and their Synod 2009 recommended that the church study the Confession and that it be adopted by Synod 2012 as their fourth confessional standard, the same as the RCA.  For the CRC the approval by Synod 2012 is the final step and no vote of the classes is required under their polity.  (A unique feature in my experience.)

Concerning the PC(USA), if approval is gained at each of the planned steps then it would enter the PC(USA) Book of Confessions following the 220th General Assembly in 2012.  The specific steps are the formation of a study committee by the 218th GA, report back of the study committee recommending adoption to the next GA, the 219th, and approval of the confession by that Assembly.  It would then be sent to the presbyteries for approval requiring an affirmative vote of 2/3 of the presbyteries.  There must then be a final vote of the next GA, the 220th in 2012, to finish the process successfully.  The first and second steps, creation of the study committee and a positive recommendation of that committee have now been completed.  The committee’s work has included consultation with the CRC and the RCA, even holding their first meeting back in June in Grand Rapids, MI, a location chosen to better dialog with the CRC.

While this is not the hottest topic (maybe this, or this, or even this is) in the Reformed circles of the blogosphere, it does have pretty good coverage.  Bloggers from the RCA (e.g. Steve Pierce and Kevin DeYoung) and the CRC (e.g. Algernon Peak) are weighing in on the confession.  And of course, there is plenty of opinion from the PC(USA) as well (e.g. Toby Brown, Byron Wade, Viola Larson, and Mark Koenig).

There is general agreement that the Belhar Confession would bring a couple of new items to the Book of Confessions — its focus on equality and justice as well as its Southern Hemisphere perspective.  Those are aspects that you may or may not agree should be represented in the Book of Confessions.

Regarding the justice aspect there is a concern among many of the bloggers that it comes from the perspective of Liberation Theology.  In the fourth section of the Belhar Confession, the second bullet-point reads “We believe…that God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged.”  The current debates revolve around the phrase “is in a special way” and what that means.  In some varieties of Liberation Theology the scriptures are viewed as saying that God not only comforts the poor and oppressed but is inherently against the rich and powerful.  Algernon Peak comments on this saying:

The first aspect of the Belhar that makes me uncomfortable is that it makes the claim, “that God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged.”  While Scripture makes clear that God cares for the poor, and Christ says in Luke 6, “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God”, we go too far to say that God is in some special way God to those who are impoverished.  According to the Scriptures, God is God in a special way to his chosen people, to go beyond that truth is to say more than the Scriptures do.  This does really concerns me, because that particular portion of the Belhar seems much more indebted to contemporary liberation theology than it does to the Bible.  We are lost if we start allowing our confessions to say that which God’s revealed written testimony does not give us the right to say.

The aspect of the Belhar that is probably the focus of the greatest debate is how the pronouncements about justice and equality regarding racial divisions can be extended to current controversies of gender orientation equality.  That this extension can be made seems
to be acknowledged by all engaged in the debate.  In the case of the Rev. Joseph Small of the PC(USA) Office of Theology and Worship this is a good and legitimate extension.  The official PC(USA) press release says this about his comments to the committee:

Adopting the Belhar also means more than presenting a simple statement against racism, Small said.

“It does speak to the contemporary reality of racial discrimination in our church and the world,” he said. The church can’t ignore the situation of apartheid that led to the Belhar, Small told the committee, but also can’t limit it to that. “Belhar is something that speaks about the diversity of the church but doesn’t restrict it to one dimension.”

That openness to a wide range of social conflicts could also be a barrier to adoption for Belhar, which some could argue opens the door to gay and lesbian ordination. That issue was raised recently when the national governing bodies of the Reformed Church in America (RCA) and the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) also considered Belhar.

But the confession mentions only membership in the church — not ordination — and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people have long been welcomed as members in the PC(USA), Small said.

One of the people raising concerns about the extension of the Belhar Confession to this current debate is Dr. Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary.  His is an interesting voice in this discussion because, as he describes in his recent piece about it, he has significant experience with all three of these Reformed branches as well as the individuals and denomination that wrote the Belhar.  (He has an earlier article from last Spring raising concerns as well.)  In the article from last week he wrote:

So why am I opposed to our—the CRC, RCA, and PC(USA)— adopting Belhar as a confessional document? When I wrote about this earlier I mentioned that Allan Boesak, also one of the gifted anti-apartheid spokespersons in South Africa’s Reformed community, had recently appealed to Belhar in support of including active gays and lesbians in the church’s ministerial ranks. I might also have mentioned that many fear that Belhar will now be used to reinforce an unnuanced anti-Israeli stance.

I think those worries are real. But my critics, many of whom share my views about same-sex issues and Middle East matters, rightly insist that this is no reason to oppose Belhar as such. What we must do, they rightly argue, is to make sure that Belhar is understood as a prophetic word against racial and ethnic discrimination within the Christian community.

We will see to what extent Belhar is held up as a “particular stance” in particular circumstances at a particular time versus how it is applied as applicable today to any perceived injustice or inequality.

But Dr. Mouw continues on from there to express an even greater concern on his part — the nature of confessional standards in general and how this one fits into that framework.  The nature of confessional standards is something I have discussed before and this is of concern to me as well.  I encourage you to read the whole discussion, but here are some excerpts that I hope gives you the basics of what seems to me to be the strong case that Dr. Mouw makes:

My real concern about adopting Belhar has to do with the broader issue of the nature of confessional integrity in our Reformed and Presbyterian churches. I think I know all three denominations very well. I was raised in an RCA pastor’s home, and attended two of that denomination’s colleges and one of its seminaries. I was an active member of the CRC for 17 years. And for two decades now I have been similarly active in the PC(USA).

When I was studying at an RCA seminary in the 1960s, one of my more conservative professors explained the differing views on the status of the Reformed “Standards of Unity”—Heidelberg, Belgic, and Dort—in this way. The CRC, he said, takes them very seriously. If you are Christian Reformed you are expected really to believe what is in them. […] Some people in the RCA, on the other hand, said the professor, tend to see the book of confessions as a kind of museum. […]

I think the professor had it right at the time. But today all three of the aforementioned denominations basically endorse the museum approach. Or it may be a little more like a “Great Books” approach. The documents from the past are all there up on the shelf, and we all acknowledge their importance, but some of us really like James Baldwin and others of us prefer Jane Austen.

[…]

These days it is rather common for people—CRC folks included—who have taken ordination vows publicly to express their disagreements with what I take to be essential Reformed doctrines. Indeed, I am often treated as a curiosity of sorts when I make it clear that I still subscribe to the actual doctrinal content of the Reformed “Great Books”—predestination, individual election, substitutionary atonement, the reality of hell, Christ as the only Way.

So, let me put it bluntly. If we—for all practical purposes—don’t care about genuinely subscribing to the actual content of, say, the Belgic or the Westminster confessions, why would we think that adopting Belhar would be in any way binding on the consciences of persons who take ordination vows? When detached from the content of the rest of Reformed thought, many of Belhar’s formulations—as stand-alone theological declarations—are dangerously vague. Belhar deserves confessional status only in a community that takes the rest of its confessions with utmost seriousness.

To sum up this whole issue his concluding paragraph is concise and to the point.  I leave you with that:

The most compelling case being made for adopting Belhar is for me the pleas of underrepresented racial-ethnic minority groups in our denominations. They have a right to ask us to declare our firm conviction that racism and ethno-centrism are not only unjust, they are theological heresies. But I fear they are assuming that we are more committed to confessional integrity than we actually are. When all of this debate is over and Belhar—as is very likely—is on the confessional shelf, I hope they will push us hard on whether we really take that whole shelf seriously.

The PC(USA) New Revised Form Of Government — Introductory Thoughts And The Revised Foundations

7 Replies

I am sure that most of the G.A. Junkies in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) know that the Form of Government Task Force will be bringing their revisions to the New Form of Government  to the 219th General Assembly next July.  Having now had time to study the revisions I wanted to share my thoughts and observations.

It is important to keep in mind the goal and history of the revision of the Form of Government section of the Book of Order.  The goal is to make the Book of Order, or at least the Form of Government, a constitutional document that sets forth the basic principles but is not loaded up with the detailed procedures that the church is to follow.  In addition, it is to be a “missional” document reflecting the concept that the church exists for mission — to go out into the world and make disciples.

The first recent major revision to the Book of Order came from the 217th General Assembly when that Assembly sent a revised version of Chapter 14 to the presbyteries, and the presbyteries concurred.  (An interesting discussion at this time would be whether the presbyteries still think the new Chapter 14 is a good thing and how that will influence the outcome of the present decision.) What we have today in that chapter is the stylistic goal for the whole Form of Government section.  At the 218th General Assembly the Form of Government Task Force brought a complete revision to the rest of the FOG but the Assembly committee and the full Assembly decided it was “not ready for prime time.”  The tenure of the task force was extended, three Assembly commissioners were added to the task force, and given the opportunity one member of the task force opted out of the “extended mission.”  Just over a month ago the task force released their New Revised Form of Government for the review, consideration, and discernment of the church.  This revision is to reflect the vast amount of input the task force received both at the 218th Assembly as well as through the presbyteries and directly.

If you wish to follow my discussion closely, or you want to have a detailed comparison yourself, there are several documents that you might want to consult.  The first, of course, is the current 2009-2011 Book of Order.  From the 218th GA (2008) there is the Report of the Task Force as well as a great side-by-side comparison of the revision to the Form of Government section at that time.  From the extended mission we have Report of the Task Force with the full text, as well as the Foundations and Government sections separately.  As tempting as it is to refer to the first revision as the “revised version” and the new one as the “new revised version,” for my discussion here and in following posts I will refer to them as “nFOG 2008” and “nFOG 2010.”  (The dates are for the year of the GA that considers them, not the year of release.)

For those just joining the discussion, or those who wisely have better things to do between GA’s than remember all these details, I should point out that a major recommendation in the nFOG 2008, and maintained in nFOG 2010, is the division of the existing Form of Government section into two sections.  The first four chapters would be split out on their own, rearranged into three chapters, and called Foundations of Presbyterian Polity.  They would now be the “F” section of the Book of Order and their placement into a new section would emphasize their application to all the other sections of the Book of Order.

In this post I will focus on just the Foundations section and leave the remainder of the Form of Government section for another time.  If you are curious what I said two years ago about it you can check out my previous comments.  As I read back through them today, with the exception of one messed up sentence where I am not sure what I was trying to say, I think my attitude now is still the same as reflected in that post.

I would begin by saying that while the nFOG 2008 did a major reorganization of the first four chapters, nFOG 2010 leaves most of their reorganization in place and has done more modification of the text, mostly to improve readability.  To my ear the Foundations section reads better than before.  A good example of this language:

 Current nFOG 2008  nFOG 2010
G-3.0100 Form
The mission of the Church is given form by God’s activity in the world as told in the Bible and understood by faith.

G-3.0101 God’s Activity
a. God created the heavens and the earth and made human beings in God’s image, charging them to care for all that lives; God made men and women to live in community, responding to their Creator with grateful obedience. Even when the human race broke community with its Maker and with one another, God did not forsake it, but out of grace chose one family for the sake of all, to be pilgrims of promise, God’s own Israel.

God’s Covenant
b. God liberated the people of Israel from oppression; God covenanted with Israel to be their God and they to be God’s people, that they might do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with the Lord; God confronted Israel with the responsibilities of this covenant, judging the people for their unfaithfulness while sustaining them by divine grace.

  F-1.01 GOD’S MISSION
The sovereign mission of the one triune God—Father, Son,and Holy Spirit—gives substance and form to the Church’s activity in the world. The Church knows God’s sovereign work in creation and redemption through God’s Word in Scripture, the witness of the confessions, and the presence of Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. As the Church responds to God’s gracious call, it participates in the divine mission—proclaiming the time of the Lord’s favor, bringing good news to all who are impoverished, and announcing release to those who are imprisoned, sight to those who are blinded, and freedom to those who are oppressed. In its faithful mission, the Church is assured of God’s blessing and filled with hope in the fulfillment of God’s purpose. Along with Christians everywhere, Presbyterians have no higher goal in life or in death than to live in covenant fellowship with the triune God, to embrace and serve God’s mission, to glorify and enjoy God now and forever.		  F-1.01 GOD’S MISSION
The good news of the Gospel is that the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—creates, redeems, sustains, rules, a
nd transforms all things and all people. This one living God, the Scriptures say, liberated the people of Israel from oppression and covenanted to be their God. By the power of the Spirit, this one living God is incarnate in Jesus Christ, who came to live in the world, die for the world, and be raised again to new life. The Gospel of Jesus Christ announces the nearness of God’s kingdom, bringing good news to all who are impoverished, sight to all who are blind, freedom to all who are oppressed, and proclaiming the Lord’s favor upon all creation.

The mission of God in Christ gives shape and substance to the life and work of the Church. In Christ, the Church participates in God’s mission for the transformation of creation and humanity by proclaiming to all people the good news of God’s love, offering to all people the grace of God at font and table, and calling all people to discipleship in Christ. Human beings have no higher goal in life than to glorify and enjoy God now and forever, living in covenant fellowship with God and participating in God’s mission.

In this particular case I do think the nFOG 2010 reads better, theologically presents the might acts of God in a more logical manner, and I like the filling out of the nature of the triune God in the first line.

It does leave the question of whether this is the best opening for the Book of Order and as I argued before I still favor the current language for its force and gravity:

All power in heaven and earth is given to Jesus Christ by Almighty God, who raised Christ from the dead and set him above all rule and authority, all power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. God has put all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and has made Christ Head of the Church, which is his body. [G-1.0100a]

There are places where subtle changes were made that, to my reading, do have significant theological or historical implications.  One example is from the last line of F-2.02 on the confessions as subordinate standards:

 Current nFOG 2008  nFOG 2010
Yet the church, in obedience to Jesus Christ, is open to the reform of its standards of doctrine as well as of governance. The church affirms “Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda,” that is, “The church reformed, always reforming,” according to the Word of God and the call of the Spirit.
[from G-2.0200]		 Yet the church, in obedience to Jesus Christ, is open to the reform of its standards of doctrine as well as of governance. The church affirms “Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda,” that is, “The church reformed, always to be reformed,” according to the Word of God and the call of the Spirit.
[from F-2.02]		 Yet the church, in obedience to Jesus Christ, is open to the reform of its standards of doctrine as well as of governance. The church affirms Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei, that is, “The church reformed, always to be reformed according to the Word of God” in the power of the Spirit.
[from F-2.02]

First, I appreciate the extended Latin phrase being included as well as the use of italics rather than quotations.  But the change from the “call of the Spirit” to “power of the Spirit” is one that I currently am not persuaded of.  While I would fully endorse the power of the Holy Spirit, when used in the context of the church being reformed I would prefer referencing the initial action of God through the call of the Spirit in that reformation.  We affirm that reformation is not of human initiative but of God’s.

There is a similar change when the new version speaks of the Protestant Reformation:

 Current nFOG 2008  nFOG 2010
G-2.0400 Faith of the Protestant Reformation

In its confessions, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) identifies with the affirmations of the Protestant Reformation. The focus of these affirmations is the rediscovery of God’s grace in Jesus Christ as revealed in the Scriptures. The Protestant watchwords—grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone—embody principles of understanding which continue to guide and motivate the people of God in the life of faith.

 F-2.04 The Confessions as Statements of the Faith of the Protestant Reformation

In its confessions, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) identifies with the affirmations of the Protestant Reformation. The focus of these affirmations is the rediscovery of God’s grace in Jesus Christ as revealed in the Scriptures. The Protestant watchwords—grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone—embody principles of understanding that continue to guide and motivate the people of God in the life of faith.

 F-2.04 THE CONFESSIONS AS STATEMENTS OF THE FAITH OF THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION

In its confessions, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) upholds the affirmations of the Protestant Reformation. The focus of these affirmations is God’s grace in Jesus Christ as revealed in the Scriptures. The Protestant watchwords—grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone—embody principles of understanding that continue to guide and motivate the people of God in the life of faith.

Again, there are a couple of subtle changes that, to my thinking, make different theological and historical statements about the Reformation confessions.  The switch from “identifies with” to “upholds” is one that I think I disagree with, but I am still wavering.  On the one hand, “upholds” distances us from the confession like “it happened and we acknowledge it.”  On the other hand, while it has a greater sense of distance “upholds” does have, to me, a greater sense of affirmation or attachment than “identifies.”  I’m still debating these changes with myself.

One change that I am grateful for is the return of a paragraph related to the historical nature and “stance” of confessional standards:

 Current nFOG 2008  nFOG 2010
b. Thus, the creeds and confessions of this church reflect a particular stance within the history of God’s people. They are the result of prayer, thought, and experience within a living tradition. They serve to strengthen personal commitment and the life and witness of the community of believers.
[G-2.0500b]		 [not included] The creeds and confessions of this church arose in response
to particular circumstances within the history of God’s people. They claim the truth of the Gospel at those points where their authors perceived that truth to be at risk. They are the result of prayer, thought, and experience within a living tradition. They appeal to the universal truth of the Gospel while expressing that truth within the social and cultural assumptions of their time. They affirm a common faith tradition, while also from time to time standing in tension with each other.
[from F-2.01]

Well, if you have gotten this far in my post I thank you for caring so much about this.  As I said there are several subtle changes that have been made that may affect whether you do, or do not, like the revision.  I won’t give any more side-by-side comparisons, but another subtle change that jumped out at me was the opening paragraph of the Principles of Order and Government where nFOG 2008 talks about the historic principles of church order “which have been a part of our common heritage in this nation,” the nFOG 2010 drops the “in this nation.”  While I can appreciate an attempt to remove a nationalistic tone, I do want to affirm that the PC(USA) is only 25 years old and there are almost 300 years of American Presbyterianism before that.  In addition, I think the qualifier is useful since in my study of Presbyterianism globally there are certain distinctions to church order in the American branch that these principles reflect.

I would note that two additions I appreciate are the inclusion of more scripture references throughout the section as well as more attention paid to the triune God.  And while the changes in structure are few, I would also complement the task force on the few times they did move sentences and ideas around with putting them in places that they more logically fit.

I suspect that most G.A. Junkies have particular sections of the Book of Order that they appreciate and value for the precise wording as well as the doctrine behind the section.  I have three in the Foundations section that are dear to me.  In my post from the last go-round two years ago I ranted about the change to the beginning of Chapter 1 where Jesus Christ as the head of the Church has been moved one section later.  I am pleased to say that the Great Ends of the Church have remained untouched.  But between nFOG 2008 and nFOG 2010 they had to go and change the section [F-1.0301] that begins “The Church of Jesus Christ is the provisional demonstration of what God intends for all of humanity.” and ends “The Church is called to give shape and substance to this truth. The Church is further called to undertake this mission even at the risk of losing its life, trusting in God alone as the author and giver of life, sharing the gospel, and doing those deeds in the world that point beyond themselves to the new reality in Christ.”  In nFOG 2010 it is no longer the “provisional demonstration” but is to demonstrate the gifts through Jesus Christ.  Furthermore, it does not risk its life for the mission but for the community. No only do I miss the specific wording that I have memorized and love, but it gives the appearance that is intended to be a missional document is not quite as missional.  Then again you can’t please everyone.

I think that is more than enough for right now.  I am still working on the new Government section of nFOG 2010 and will post on that probably in a week or two.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — The Assembly Business Is Now Live

Leave a reply

While I have been anticipating the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) “going live,” I can now report that within the last week or so it has.

In this case, going live has two components:

1)  The anticipated official web site of the Assembly is now up and running complete with several sub-pages and lots of pictures of the 218th GA.  There is a greeting from GA Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons on the front page, a nice set of FAQ’s for commissioners, and the beginnings of an on-line commissioner orientation including a video tutorial of PC-Biz, the on-line business system.  A preliminary schedule is posted and the right navigation bar has a suggestive, but inactive, region titled “GA 219 Social Networking.”  There are still some broken and interesting links on the pages (particularly for the OGA graphic) but the web site represents a good start.

2) Speaking of PC-Biz, I had mentioned that it had been primed for the 219th but now when you check out the business there are three overtures posted.

Overture 1 asks the Assembly to issue an Authoritative Interpretation that essentially restores previous AI and General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission decisions regarding Book of Order section G-6.0106.  The previous AI’s on this section were removed by the 218th GA as part of the action that sent the ultimately unsuccessful Amendment B to the presbyteries for a vote.  This Overture comes from the Presbytery of San Diego with concurring overtures from Central Florida, Cherokee, Washington and Yukon.

Overture 2 is a fairly routine matter of transferring a church from one presbytery to another.  The original location of Community Church of Seattle Presbyterian Church was in the Presbytery of Seattle but in 2003 they relocated to a property that is in the Presbytery of North Puget Sound.  There is a bit of a twist because the transfer did not happen at the time of the move six years ago due to North Puget Sound not being in a position to accept a loan guarantee that would have transfered with the church.  As they say, now the way is clear.

Overture 3 requests a fairly substantial change to the position of Commissioned Lay Pastor (CLP).  At the present time a CLP receives basic theological training and can then be commissioned by the presbytery to serve in a specific congregation.  When the CLP finishes at that congregation they are available for work in another congregation but are not able to do freelance work.  This overture from South Louisiana Presbytery requests a change to the Book of Order G-14.0560 to allow a CLP to have “at-large” status between calls and be free to serve on an as-needed basis, even in their own congregation if requested by the session.  The rational section of the overture says this:

Given the current reality that many of our smaller membership congregations are unable to afford the services of a commissioned lay pastor, even if one were available in or near the community, much less a minister of the Word and Sacrament, it is incumbent upon the denomination to provide avenues where these congregations may be served by trained laity, especially for the celebration of the sacraments. Having adopted the essential tenets of the Reformed tradition, we should exhibit a visible expression of the Reformed tenet of “the priesthood of all believers” or what Scriptures call the “royal priesthood,” (1Peter 2:9; Ephesians 2:19–22; 1Corinthians 6:16–18).

The realities of ordained ministry in the PC(USA) are that many congregations can not afford ordained leadership and those that are seminary trained have less interest in serving small rural congregations.  This is a situation the church will have to address and this is one approach to it.  Personally, I’m not sure yet that this would be my preferred course although it is a very reasonable proposal.  On the other hand I was very much in favor of a parallel move about 12 years ago when the church changed the Book of Order to allow “commissioned” deacons so that individuals could serve in the ministry of the diaconate in a specified means of ministry without the particular congregation having a full board of deacons.

So hold on to your hats as this is only the beginning.  We have almost exactly nine months before the Assembly convenes, lots of overtures to go, I am sure, and several committee and task force reports to be issued.  In addition, I have gone through enough parts of the New Revised Form of Government that the 219th will have to address to begin making some comments, probably tomorrow.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — The Build-up Begins

5 Replies

Yes, you read that title correctly.  I hope you have caught your breath from the last General Assembly and all the amendment voting because the cycle for the next GA begins… NOW!

The 219th General Assembly (2010) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) will meet from July 3-10, 2010.  It will be hosted by the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area at the Minneapolis Convention Center and the Committee on Local Arrangements (COLA) has put out the call for volunteers. (I have not found the COLA web site yet.)  And as we found out from the ELCA this past summer, watch out for the tornadoes.

The sure sign that GA was coming was the change in the default setting on the electronic business tracker, PC-Biz, from the 218th to the 219th GA.  No business, including overtures, has been posted to the system yet.

However, there are overtures waiting in the wings to be posted and one, two, maybe three of them, are floating around on web sites.  And it would probably surprise no one that the visible ones are all related to ordination standards in general and G-6.0106b in particular.

While the Office of the General Assembly has no GA 219 web page yet, at least that I can find, if they keep naming conventions consistent I would expect to find it here.  They have however announced the scriptural theme, “Rivers of Living Water” based on John 7:38, and have presented the logo.

I know that entities are working hard to get their assigned tasks completed and the one that has now released its product is the New Revised Form of Government Task Force.  Remember that their report came to the last Assembly and raised so many questions and concerns that the Assembly decided a more extensive input process was needed and so continued the process for another two years while adding a few of the Assembly commissioners to the nFOG Task Force.  Well, the new report was released last week and the church is invited to study it.  In fact, there is a letter from Task Force member Elder Carol Hunley specifically addressed to fellow elders explaining some of the motivation for the revision and encouraging them to study the new report and to take it seriously.  I have too much on my plate at the moment to digest that report but I’ll study it myself in the next month or two.  You can have a look at the full report or each of the new sections, Foundations of Presbyterian Polity and Form of Government, separately.  For comparison, the report to the previous GA is still available on-line, or should that disappear it will be available in a less-readable form on PC-Biz.

I think that covers all the signs of the next GA that I have found.  As I have time and more overtures and reports appear we will begin again the analysis of the upcoming business.

Presbytery Judicial Decision In A Same-sex Marriage Case

Leave a reply

Two weeks ago, on August 22, the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbytery of Boston Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) heard the disciplinary case of Presbytery of Boston versus Jean K. Southard.  The Rev. Southard was charged with 1) conducting a public worship service that was effectively a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple and 2) by doing so violating her ordination vows.

The decision of the PJC was that the charges were not sustained and the Rev. Southard was found not guilty.  (Thanks to Church and World, aka PresbyWeb, for publishing the decision.)

The reasoning of the majority was expressed as follows:

The Prosecuting Committee has not proven beyond reasonable doubt that W-4.9000 contains mandatory language that would prohibit a Minister of Word and Sacrament from performing a same-gender marriage.
Since the Preface to the Directory of Worship (clause b) states that the Directory uses language that is “simply descriptive”, this Commission takes this to mean that the definition of Christian marriage in W-4.9001 is merely descriptive; there is no mandatory language in this article.

And continues

In addition, there is no mandatory language in the Constitution, nor in any Authoritative Interpretation, prohibiting Ministers of Word and Sacrament from performing same-gender marriages in states where this is allowed by law.

Note carefully the wording — The decision was not about whether a same-sex marriage was preformed, but given that it was preformed is that prohibited by the constitution and therefore cause for discipline?

There is a Dissenting Dpinion that begins:

In rendering this decision, the majority has taken the liberty of legislating change in the Constitution through the judicial process. W-4.9001 definitely does define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Later says

Because of this changed legal state in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (The General Laws of Massachusetts, Chapter 207), the importance of the definitions within the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) become more important, not less so. Further, the argument that the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman is only descriptive and reflects the ideals and mores of a bygone age cannot be sustained. The claim stands without proof, and can only be maintained through dependence on the argument from silence. This sets a dangerous precedent, that any part of the Constitution that has not recently been sustained by legislative action can be assumed to have lost validity. In the absence of that legislative action, the commission has substituted its judgment for the clear words of definition. This makes a mockery of the prescriptive language of W-4.9004, wherein the Directory for Worship orders that “The man and the woman shall declare their intention to enter into Christian marriage and shall exchange vows of love and faithfulness.”; and “In the name of the triune God the minister shall declare publicly that the woman and the man are now joined in marriage.”

And concludes:

We disagree with the commission decision and do not join in it. While we find that Rev. Southard found herself in a difficult position given the request of two valued elders of her church, we do not find that tension to be sufficient reason to grant release from the strictures of the discipline of the Constitution. Her action of social justice came at the cost of her obedience to her ordination vows, (W-4.4003e), and created a situation that worked against the peace, unity and purity of the Church.

Three other important points in this case:  1) According to the Dissenting Opinion the facts of the case were not contested.  Both sides stipulated and “provided and accepted evidence that this was intentionally a Christian marriage.”  2)  Note that the participants in this ceremony are both described as elders in that church, leading to…  3) This was a disciplinary case against the pastor.  While there is no indication that additional cases are contemplated, disciplinary cases against the two elders who were married and a remedial case against the session would be possible, but unlikely, especially in light of the decision in this case.

OK, that presents a summary of what I see as the key points of the decision.  If you are not a GA Junkie, you can probably stop reading now.  However, as a GA Junkie, I want to dissect this decision a bit and make some comments.

There seem to be two distinctives to this case that distinguish it from previous cases.  One of these is that the worship service was held in the church sanctuary and, as the charge implies, had all the distinctions of a wedding ceremony.  The second is that this is the first case brought to trial where a same-sex marriage was preformed in a state that allows civil same-sex marriage.  (But I would point out that one of the withdrawn charges in the Spahr case (218-12) was a same-sex marriage preformed in Ontario, Canada, where civil marriage is legal.)

Now I will acknowledge from the onset that the PC(USA) has a problem right now with its definition of marriage.  This case hinged on that section of the Directory for Worship (W-4.9001):

Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family. Marriage is a civil contract between a woman and a man. For Christians marriage is a covenant through which a man and a woman are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship. In a service of Christian marriage a lifelong commitment is made by a woman and a man to each other, publicly witnessed and acknowledged by the community of faith.

Clearly now with a few states permitting civil same-sex marriages the part that reads “a civil contract between a woman and a man” has certain problems.  That will have to be addressed by the next General Assembly.

That problematic phrase was the main point that the PJC appears to have focused on, and they did so in two ways.

Their first argument was that unless the Directory for Worship uses language making something mandatory, like the wording of vows or formulae for sacraments, then the Directory is “descriptive.”

That the Directory is in a sense descriptive is certainly true, and as they point out it says so in the Preface.  Section b reads:

b. In addition to the terms defined in the Preface to the Book of Order, this directory also uses language about worship which is simply descriptive.

But what does it mean to be descriptive?  Look at the preceding section a, which says in part:

A Directory for Worship is not a service book with fixed orders of worship, a collection of prayers and rituals, or a program guide. Rather it describes the theology that underlies Reformed worship and outlines appropriate forms for that worship. This directory suggests possibilities for worship, invites development in worship, and encourages continuing reform of worship. It sets standards and presents norms for the conduct of worship in the life of congregations and the governing bodies of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). As the constitutional document ordering the worship of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), this Directory for Worship shall be authoritative for this church.

Note some of the things that the Directory does:  “describes the theology that underlies Reformed worship,” “sets standards,” “presents norms,” and “shall be authoritative for thi
s church.”  The majority decision seems to equate “descriptive” with “optional.”  The first few lines I quoted would seem to equate “descriptive” with “not a service book with fixed orders of worship, a collection of prayers and rituals, or a program guide.”  In fact, a widely used book on Presbyterian polity co-authored by Joan Gray (former GA Moderator) and Joyce Tucker says “The Directory for Worship contains our standards relating to worship…” (Presbyterian Polity for Church Officers, p. 7) and later “…it has now become part of the standards of our church.” (p. 172)  I read and understand the Directory for Worship to be “flexible” not “optional.”  And that flexibility would be in form but not in function.

In the Dissenting Opinion section I quote above there is also a clear argument for the applicability and mandatory nature of W-4.9001 when the refer to W-4.9004 and the prescriptive nature of that section which does use the “shall” language and refers to “the man and the woman.”

Finally, the prescriptive nature of W-4.9001 is reinforce by the Spahr decision which regularly, including in the Headnotes, says that “Marriage is defined” by this section.  As this present decision points out there are certain procedural issues with leaning on the Spahr decision too heavily, but the Spahr decision presents this definition not as their conclusion, but as a given, the accepted starting point from which they draw the conclusion that in light of this definition there can be no such thing as same-sex Christian marriage.

The second part of the majority’s argument was that not only was it not mandatory to begin with, but since conditions in the civil sphere were not in alignment with one part of the section then the whole section could be safely ignored.  Furthermore, they argued that the situation in this case was different enough that the conclusion in the Spahr decision was not applicable.  This strikes me as saying that civil law will determine theology and doctrine.

The signatories to the dissenting opinion strongly disagreed with this assertion.  However, I think they overlook an important additional argument.  In response to the majority argument that the laws of the State of Massachusetts have rendered this section of the Directory for Worship moot, they say:

This sets a dangerous precedent, that any part of the Constitution that has not recently been sustained by legislative action can be assumed to have lost validity. In the absence of that legislative action, the commission has substituted its judgment for the clear words of definition. (emphasis mine)

I would argue that the definition of Christian marriage being between a man and a women was upheld twice by the most recent General Assembly, even after Massachusetts had adopted civil marriage.  In response to an overture from the Presbytery of Baltimore the assembly voted 540-161 not to change “a man and a woman” in W-4.9001 to “two people.”  And again, in the action that created the Special Committee on Civil Unions and Christian Marriage the Assembly added the sentence “This overtures advocates for equal rights and does not seek to redefine the nature of Christian marriage.”  To me this is strong evidence that even with the presence of same-sex civil marriage there was Assembly endorsement of the man and woman language for Christian marriage.  In light of that I have trouble accepting the argument that if one clause does not apply then none of it applies.

Regarding the Spahr decision, it is clear that in a legal sense it can not serve as precedent in this present case.  In the present case the alleged actions took place on March 1, 2008, which was almost two months before the GAPJC ruled in the Spahr case.  In addition, as both the majority and minority decisions point out, application of the Benton decision (212-11) to this case is tricky because this is a disciplinary case and Benton was remedial.

In my mind there are clear grounds for appeal on the basis of an error in constitutional interpretation.  However, I also recognize that the circumstances of civil marriages make the Directory definition a problem that the next General Assembly will have to address.  Therefore it may be advisable to simply let this constitutional issue be addressed legislatively rather than have a legislative and judicial interpretation proceeding in parallel.

I think that does it.  Those are my thoughts on this case.  Your mileage may vary.