Category Archives: GA business

136th General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Canada

4 Replies

The 136th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada convenes in Sydney, Cape Breton at 7:30 pm this Sunday, 6 June 2010.  (Some preliminary meetings and activities will begin the day before.)  Here is what you need to know to follow along:

Business before the Assembly
As I look through the reports I have not seen anything that strikes me as a high-profile or “lightning rod” issue.  I could easily be wrong because I read it too fast or I am not familiar with the current concerns in the church.  (And I am sure that someone will let us know if I did miss something.)

There are a lot of interesting items coming to the Assembly.  One of those is the recommendation against having biennial assembly meetings.  Some of the committee reports weigh in on the question but one of the most interesting, at least to me, is the response from the Committee on History.  In their extended response they cast it in the historical perspective and legacy of the church and one of their sections says:

2. The legacy of church union has something to teach us about the unique situation of The Presbyterian Church in Canada. As Prof. Keith Clifford says in The Resistance to Church Union, 1904-1939 (p. 142), the Presbyterian Church Association worked around the courts of The pre-Union Presbyterian Church in Canada appealing to the membership directly and suggesting an inbred hostility to the clerical establishment which was regarded by many lay people opposed to Union as having predetermined Church Union. After 1925 there was an inbuilt suspicion of the centralization of authority resulting sometimes in an inchoate democratization (and laicization) of the power base of The Presbyterian Church in Canada. One can only imagine what the Presbyterian Church Association would say today about biennial Assemblies.

Another very interesting item is the revisions to the judicial process.  The judicial process chapter of the Book of Forms was modified in 2006 and will be reviewed in the future after there has been more experience with it.  However, the Clerks of Assembly are recommending (recommendation 17) an immediate addition that would permit an investigating committee to make the determination that insufficient evidence exists and they could unilaterally decide not to proceed with a disciplinary case.  The other interesting recommendation related to judicial process is that the Assembly Council is recommending (recommendation 7) the Clerks of Assembly be instructed to consider recommending to the Assembly appropriate legislation to establish a standing judicial commission.  I was disappointed to see that the Life and Mission: Communications unit is considering closing down the Being Presbyterian blog, but I do personally know the work involved in keeping multiple blogs active and can understand the concern.  And where the PC(USA) has developed a Social Media Policy for its GA, the Life and Mission Agency report contains a proposed (recommendation 4) General Assembly Digital Images Policy.  And in another parallel, I found an interesting response in the Clerks of Assembly report to Overture 14 (recommendation 16) asking for the elimination of synods:

The framers of Overture No. 14, 2010 suggest that the synods of our church have become ineffective, expensive in terms of both time and money, and a source of disenfranchisement for many elders and ministers.

The Clerks of Assembly remind the Assembly that across the country synods function in different ways. Some provide an important source of collegial community for ministers and elders who are serving in remote parts of the country; some provide strong governance oversight; and some play substantial roles in overseeing the work of thriving camping ministries and that of regional staff.

Synods, that would like to reduce the scope of meeting both in terms of the number of individuals attending and costs involved, now have the option of functioning as commissioned synods.

There are two items that particularly jumped out at me.  The first is interesting because of my being a polity wonk and the issue raises an interesting polity question at the intersection with the effort to be more flexible in how the church does things.  In the Clerks report there is a response to an item that began as an overture in 2008 requesting the option to commission lay missionaries to administer communion in hardship situations such as in remote and rural churches.  The Life and Work Agency returned a recommendation concurring with the overture and the 2009 Assembly then sent it on to the clerks to have the polity wording worked out.  The recommendation from the Ministry and Church Vocations unit in 2009 was against this course of action. (And the report notes that some presbyteries, based on the 2009 approval, had begun commissioning missionaries which the clerks quickly let them know that this has to be done decently and in order and it was only approved in concept and the Assembly had yet to approve the details.)

In their report the clerks note that they find themselves in a bit of a polity dilemma — while it was the will of the 2009 Assembly to move forward with this action this was in conflict with previous Assemblies, as recently as 2008, affirming as a theological doctrine of the denomination that only Ministers of Word and Sacraments celebrate the sacraments.  So here is their proposal:

While hearing the need articulated for an alternative method of providing the communion in areas where ministers of Word and Sacraments are not readily available, the Clerks believe it would be highly irregular to reverse this aspect of the church’s doctrine and practice by creating what could be deemed a new order of ministry without the usual theological reflection by the denomination. Normally, a document outlining a new position is sent to the church for study and report. The responses to the study and report are taken into account and the “new position” may be modified according to wisdom received by the process.

Therefore, while the Clerks have proposed legislation as requested, they, together with the Life and Mission Agency: Ministry and Church Vocations, offer a study paper that is designed to encourage the church to contemplate this important issue from a theological perspective. Before guidelines for education or other requirements are proposed, the Clerks would like to hear from the church through responses to this document.

The formal recommendation (recommendation 3) is that the study paper and proposed legislation be sent out to the church for study and comment and the clerks will return in 2011 with their recommendation, revised according to the responses.

The other item that caught my attention was the study paper reported by the Committee on Church Doctrine and posted as a separate document on the web site.  This sixty-page study paper titled “One Covenant of Grace: A Contemporary Theology of Engagement with the Jewish People,” is also being recommended for study and comment by the church in advance of formal adoption by the 137th Assembly in 2011.

It should be no surprise that this caught my attention because of all the publicity that the Report of the Middle East Study Committee to the 219th General Assembly of the PC(USA) is causing.  But, let me be clear that these are two very different documents in scope and purpose.  While the PC(USA) report would be characterized in the peacemaking and social witness focus, the PCC document is focused on doctrine, specifically the issue of supersessionism, that is, how Christians and Jews are related as God’s chosen people.  The PC(USA) report focuses on modern relationships between ethnic groups and biblical implications for the land.  The reports are related to the extent that they each have an extensive discussion of the biblical background of the Jewish nation and how the biblical narrative demonstrates their special relationship with God.  The two discussions provide nice compliments to each other in many ways.

The concluding doctrine statement in the PCC report, which will be studied this year and considered for adoption by the 2011 Assembly reads in part:

In stating our relationship with the Jewish people we reaffirm a central tenet of our Reformed faith expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, that there is one covenant of grace embracing Jews and Gentiles and therefore, not “two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations” (VII, 6).
Accordingly, we affirm that the Jewish people have a unique role in God’s economy of salvation and healing for our world. Jesus himself taught that “salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22) and the Apostle Paul stated: “to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen” (Romans 9:4-5). The Jewish people have a pre-eminent place in God’s covenant, John Calvin, finely said, for they are “the firstborn in God’s family.”

We affirm that God has graciously included Gentile Christians, rightly called “posthumous children of Abraham” (J. Calvin), by engrafting them into the one people of God established by God’s covenant with Abraham. This means that Jews have not been supplanted and replaced by Christians in the one covenant. As Paul teaches, God has not rejected or abandoned them: “I ask, then has God rejected his people? By no means!” (Romans 11:1).

Lots of interesting stuff here.  I look forward to the discussion of these and other topics at the Assembly.  Stay tuned.

The PCA Strategic Plan — How Do You Grow Larger?

3 Replies

The 38th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America will be considering the new Strategic Plan for the PCA.  The church is putting significant effort into presenting and interpreting the Plan including the main report with the narrative of the Plan, an executive summary dealing mainly with the funding proposals contained in the Plan as well as a slightly longer detailed description of the funding formula, and a concise summary of the changes to the Book of Church Order that would be necessary to implement one part of the Plan.  On the interpretation side, there is a five part video on the Plan web page that I think does a good job explaining the situation and what the Plan includes to address those issues.  There is also an FAQ  and a page of comments about the Plan from “PCA leaders” (a note that all the comments are positive, a fact noted in the file name which contains the word “endorsements”).  The PCA publication byFaith has articles about the committee approving the Plan, reaction to the Plan (again positive) from pastors,  and responses to questions/criticisms that have been raised.  Speaking of criticisms, the PCA blogosphere has been buzzing about the Plan and from what I have read it has generally been doubtful or critical of the plan.  For a collected list of all these responses keep an eye on the blog Johannes Weslianus where Wes White has been keeping track of all this.  He posted his latest list yesterday where it is instructive to note that there are no unofficial positive responses to the Plan but 10 (some in multiple parts) “cautious/skeptical” responses and two “opposed” — But that is the nature of the blogosphere which, interestingly, is something the Plan comments on ( pg. 13 ).  Wes also includes his picks for “Best Concise Summary” of the Plan.

I have made selective general comments about the Plan twice now, but before I launch into my more detailed analysis I think it is important to remind you of the lens that I read the Plan through.  On the one hand I am a ruling elder in a denomination other than the PCA so as I read the report I can miss some of the history, nuances and subtleties that it contains, references, or includes implicitly from the ethos of the denomination.  On the other hand, I am an observer and student of “big picture” Presbyterianism and some of the conclusions I have drawn from the report are similarly big picture and I have not seen them mentioned in the comments on other blogs (although I have fallen behind in my reading so if this is bringing the observation to the party late I apologize).

Let me begin with my two general observations about the Strategic Plan.  The first is that it does a very good job of describing the situation and circumstances that the PCA finds itself in today.  In fact, the point of my first post was that the insight of the report is so good that their observations and isolation of the issues can be applied to not just the PCA but to may of the Presbyterian and Reformed branches at this time.  While I previously highlighted the opening section of Identifying Our Challenges (p. 7) I found the whole section, including the North American and European Challenges, Global Challenges, and Internal Challenges to be comprehensive and useful.  I also found the sections on Identifying Opportunities and Identifying Strengths to be good.  More on some of those specifics in a moment.

The other thing that struck me was that as I read through the report, and especially the recommendations, I kept thinking “that is something a ‘large denomination’ does.”  After thinking that enough times it struck me that what the report seems to be proposing, intentionally or not, are ways for the PCA to make the structural leap from a medium sized denomination to a large denomination.  Let me explain…

There are widely recognized and described styles of congregations based upon their size — one of the most widely used, the Rothauge system, has Family, Pastoral, Program, and Corporate churches from smallest to largest in size.  While the styles and boundaries between them are not hard and fast (I would say that my own congregation well into the Program size still has strong characteristics of the Pastoral style) it is a useful general scheme for understanding congregational dynamics.  A similar system could probably be developed based on denomination size although I am not aware of one.  And while the congregation size system has some variability, I would expect the denomination system to be even more variable depending on where a particular church falls in the congregational-hierarchical polity spectrum.  But having said that, the PCA is one of a few Presbyterian branches in the vicinity of 300,000 members and I have suspected that for Presbyterian branches there may be a transition point there.  One indication of this may be the slowing growth the PCA has seen recently (although there are numerous other possible explanations as well).

Why is there a transition point?  As the Report itself identifies (p. 13) “Our organizational cohesion has not primarily been achieved by shared mission goals, ministry practice, organizational support, worship style, ethnicity, political perspectives or economic status – but by doctrinal agreement.”  To go forward the Report describes the evolution of the denomination in this way:

Our values are well identified in the “motto” of the PCA: Faithful to Scripture, True to the Reformed Faith, and Obedient to the Great Commission.

The phrases of this motto also provide insight into the missional development of the PCA. It is fair to say that commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture was the driving force of our founding and that the churches who initially came into the PCA immediately united in this value. Determining what it meant to be true to the Reformed faith was not as unifying, and created significant debates among us for the next 30 years. These debates both clouded understanding of our mission and inhibited cooperative participation in it. While progress has been made in defining how we will hold each other accountable for being true to the Reformed faith, relational tensions wax and wane around this issue. Thus, the next stage of PCA development likely relates to the last phrase of our motto. How we do mission together, and whether we can do mission together, is the key to our future. If we are able to unite in missional purpose, we have much to contribute to the future of the Kingdom; if we cannot, then our future is likely incessant, inward-focused pettiness.

To put it into general terms – when small a branch can be held together by a strong common tie, probably historical or doctrinal, but as it grows the increase in size creates enough diversity that at a certain point a “critical mass” is reached where well-intentioned and sincerely held doctrinal differences threaten the cohesion of the group and unity needs to be found in something other than shared history or doctrinal conformity.  At least that is my perspective on denominational size and where I see the PCA as I read this report.

So as I read through the report I saw several items that I would identify with a “large denomination.”  These proposals include advisory delegates, representation/quotas/places at the table, pro rated and progressive assessments for Administrative work, and “safe places” to talk.  And when I say “large denomination” I’m sure that many in the PCA would rightly think PC(USA) , but I would also include the few other large Reformed branches, like the RCA and the Church of Scotland as well.  Therefore, to emphasize the generality of my argument I use the generic label rather than a specific denomination.

Now, let me also say that in a general sense the proposals for growth are in and of themselves neutral.  It will be how they are implemented and used that determines their usefulness and missional applicability and validity.

One final comment about the report in general:  As I read it I had to agree with many of the other commentators that when it got to the actual plan portion it got very specific and business-like and it was tough to tell that this had anything to do with a church.  Taking from one of Wes White’s Best Concise Summaries, David A. Booth says this:

Addressing specific details in the PCA’s proposed strategic plan that one Elder or another objects to still leaves the denomination approaching Christ’s Church like a non-profit organization that simply needs to be managed better. This is not to imply that the men involved in crafting the PCA’s proposed strategic plan have anything other than good motives. Furthermore, some of the problems that the report is wrestling with are very real problems for the PCA. What should be called into question is the very idea of grand strategic planning within the Church of Jesus Christ. We cannot manage-in the Kingdom of God.

There is a tension in how we use human means to organize ourselves to do God’s work.

As something of a counter argument I would recommend watching the five part video posted on the web page.  It not only adds substantial and much-needed theological depth that the printed report itself lacks, but provides an interesting commentary on the challenges the church in general faces and the changes in society.  Even non-PCA members might find the first three segments of this presentation interesting where the general challenges are discussed.  (It is about the first 30 minutes of this 49 minute presentation.)

Having now expended a substantial number of words on my general observations I will only briefly touch on just a few of the specifics of the report.

In the report it talks about “animating values” (what gets us interested) and “formal values” (stated standards of the church).  There is a list of 27 animating values of local churches (p. 5) and I did not see where those came from and whether there was a particular order to them.  I must admit that if ordered I would have “Right administration of the Sacraments” and “Good Bible preaching” higher than their respective 8 and 10 on the published list.  I was also a little surprised for a Reformed branch to include “Revival thru viral repentance and faith” in the list but maybe I’m not interpreting that correctly. (Or maybe I’m too T.R. for my own good.)

There is a great list on page 6 related to the animating values of groups that I think does an good job of classifying the various identities within the PCA and how they are viewed by others.  One thought that crossed my mind as I read the report, and that seems to be a sub-text in some of the discussions in the PCA, is how the churches from the former RPCES are, or are not, part of this group identity?  While “Southern Presbyterianism” seems to be a factor in places in the report, the RPCES heritage is not.

Another great list is that of Internal Challenges (p. 12-14) which, as I noted above, transcends the PCA.  I was particularly interested to see item 6 on the list:

6. Pervasive Disregard for Eph. 4:15 and Matthew 18 in Discussions of Differences
Our organizational cohesion has not primarily been achieved by shared mission goals, ministry practice, organizational support, worship style, ethnicity, political perspectives or economic status – but by doctrinal agreement. The downside of so valuing doctrine is that we have little tolerance within or without the church for theological variance. Our tendency is not simply to consider those who differ with us wrong – but to consider them bad (because they are obviously “compromisers” or “unbiblical”). It is easy for us to give moral status to our theological perspective – even on secondary issues, and thus rationalize uncharitable characterizations of those who differ (esp. on blogs)

I think this is an issue that has not been vocalized enough but will have to be in the future as more of our interaction goes into the virtual world.  A topic for another time and nice to see listed, but we must be careful not to uniformly demonize the web.

On that same list item 18 had me scratching my head a little bit: “Lack of Desire among Young Leaders to Assume Positions with PCA’s Most Significant Pulpits and Organizations (perception that they are moribund and dangerous for families)”  If read at face value this is interesting because the “clergy crunch” currently is typically described as small rural churches, not flagship or tall steeple.  But maybe with my lack of connection to the PCA I am missing something here.

Let me move on to the specific recommendations.

Theme 1. Safe Places – This would provide open forums for expressing any opinions regarding the selected topic at GA meetings and encourage similar forums in a presbytery context.  The goal is to provide a safe, non-judgmental environment for bringing up differing viewpoints on Biblical Belief, Ministry and Mission.

Theme 2. More Seats – These recommendations relate to getting representatives at the table from currently unrepresented groups: younger generation, women, ethnic leaders, global church representatives.  Some of this involves participation on committees, in forums, and mentoring.  This theme also includes identifying, credentialling, and encouraging non-ordained vocational ministries.

Theme 3. Global Mission – This is more of a mixed bag and more controversial.

Means 1 – I would describe this as being more intentional about working in Gospel outreach outside the PCA.

Means 2 – “Develop a unifying funding means” – This is the revision of the funding model for the Administrative Committee and the only part of the report that requires a change to the Book of Church Order.  For the details here see the Rules Changes document, but the change to BCO 14-1 would empower the GA to collect the mandatory assessment, and the change to 14-2 specifies that TE and RE commissioners to the Assembly are only in good standing if their congregations have paid the fees.  Otherwise they have voice but not vote.  The last action would change the Rules of Assembly Operations 14-11 to describe the fee, proposed to be capped at 0.4% “of local church Tithes and Offerings.”

Means 3 – To develop a method to evaluate GA level ministry to support only those “critical to our calling.”

Means 4 – “Partner with national & international ministries with whom we can most effectively participate in God’s global mission.”  This would have the church be selective in who they partner with and withdraw from organizations with whom they do not share “ministry priorities,” and NAPARC is mentioned by name to withdraw from.  In other words, put resources of gifts and talents towards ministry and not doctrine.

Well, that is a summary of the document.  There is plenty of reading there for you as well as in all the various responses. At great risk of being too selective I am going to highlight one particular response that seems to have gotten referenced around the blogosphere as much as any of them have…

On the Aquila Report William M. Schweitzer has a commentary titled “Thoughts on the PCA Strategic Plan: Is It Presbyterian?”  In this article he highlights three areas where the Strategic Plan would compromise ecclesiastical standards as Presbyterians understand them.  First, the provisions for future planning and implementation decision making shifts power from the presbyteries to the Cooperative Ministries Committee.  Second, the use of non-ordained vocational ministries would circumvent the process of call, exploration, and response understood in our process of certification and ordination and derived from the Pastoral Epistles.  And finally, the idea of more “seats at the table” compromises the role of “biblically qualified and ordained elders” and shifts power from elders to advisory delegates.

Well, as I said, the on-line response has been very concerned to negative but what will ultimately matter is the discernment of the body through the debate and vote on the floor of the Assembly.  Is the question whether the PCA has reached a point in their size where structural changes are needed to grow?  Or does the church go back to “being the church” and concentrate on spreading the Gospel. (Which is one of the theme of the Plan.)  There are well known names on both sides of this issue at the moment and it will be interesting to hear from the broad range of commissioners as they discuss this.  I’m sure there are a lot more viewpoints out there that have not been expressed yet.  Stay tuned.

Church Of Scotland/Roman Catholic Agreement On Baptism

3 Replies

In reading through materials for the Church of Scotland General Assembly that will convene its meeting in just over a week my attention was caught by an item contained in the report of the Committee on Ecumenical Relations.  It seems that although the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops did not sign off on an ecumenical statement on baptism with some American Reformed churches, a similar agreement is in place in Scotland.  The deliverance of the Committee on Ecumenical Relations asks the Assembly to “4. Encourage the use of the Liturgy for the Renewal of Baptismal vows on appropriate ecumenical occasions as part of the fruits of the Joint Commission on Doctrine’s study on Baptism.”

Within the body of the report they say this about the agreement and the liturgy:

5.3 The Joint Commission on Doctrine (Church of Scotland – Roman Catholic Church) published a joint report on baptism as a study guide for local congregations in 2008. This booklet could not have been written 20 years ago and harvests the fruits of decades of faith and order discussion within the World Council of Churches and between the WCC and the Vatican in the Joint Working Group. Though some may dismiss this important aspect of the ecumenical movement as “old fashioned”, the faith and order agenda continues to provide the platform on which local developments can grow. The Joint Commission has followed up its study on Baptism by producing a PowerPoint presentation that gives the framework out of which the study has come and by commissioning the production of a joint liturgy for the reaffirmation of baptismal vows. All three resources belong together as the fruit of the Joint Commission’ study on Baptism and it is hoped that they will be widely used. The liturgy has been drawn up by a small group that included representation from the Scottish Episcopal Church. This liturgy is now available for general use on appropriate ecumenical occasions.

Now, while the report says the “liturgy is now available” I have not found it in electronic form in the report, on the Committee’s web pages, including the resources page , or in their extranet area .  (If it is there and I missed it please let me know.)

The bottom line here is that while I am not currently in a position to see how the two forms of agreement differ, it is interesting that one Reformed/Roman Catholic dialogue was able to craft a mutually agreed statement while another has not been able to do so yet.

The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland — What Is Making The Rounds Of The Press (And What Is Not)

1 Reply

I will admit that I do use the reports that crop up in the media to help track the news from a particular Presbyterian branch.  The news from the Scottish media in advance of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland is no exception.  But it also needs to be recognized that the Kirk itself is driving the reporting with their own press releases and associated news conferences about the business of the Assembly.  (Maybe they would consider putting an RSS feed on their press releases and I could track them directly.)

I have already mentioned two reports to the Assembly that have had accounts circulate in the mainstream media.  The first chronologically (second in my posting ) was the Ministries Council report with the Panel on Review and Reform.  What got picked up was the reduction in staffing with coverage by many national and local news outlets including the Scotsman, Herald, Aberdeen Press and Journal, and Inverness Courier among many.

The other one that I have talked about is the second report on the Third Article Declaratory which got some coverage, but usually in association with the Ministries Council report like this article from the Herald.

While my counting of media reports is not scientific, my informal count places the second most covered story as being the third press release about the General Trustees’ report and goal of a strategic plan for buildings in the church.  The coverage of this issue includes a good report from The Herald which goes well beyond the press release, as well as the Aberdeen Press and Journal and the religious news outlet Ekklesia.

It is interesting to note how the coverage spun on the fourth press release .  The church gave it the headline “Women make up half of Kirk’s eldership” but the media picked up on the “sexism” (a word that does not appear in the press release but comes from a verbal response at the associated press conference) related to some congregations having no female elders and only 20% of the ministers of word and sacrament being women.  Outlets that picked this up include the Aberdeen Press and Journal – “Minister Hits Out At ‘Sexism'” – and the Scotsman – “Kirk admits it is still sexist towards women ministers.”  It would be interesting to know if the headlines and stories are more sensational than the press conference made this point out to be.

It is interesting that press release five on HIV/AIDS and press release seven on solidarity with persecuted Christians have gotten almost no press coverage that I can find but they have only been released yesterday and today respectively.  (I will update here if a flurry of articles appear in the next day or two.)

However, yesterday’s press release on new models of church has been quickly reported on by a number of outlets including the Press and Journal, Ekklesia, and Christian Today.  The new models of church part is actually not new, but is part of an on-going Ministries Council program named the Emerging Ministries Fund.  What is new is the plan expressed in the Joint Report of the Mission and Discipleship and Ministries Councils on the Emerging Church to leverage this funding and study the projects underway to identify the most important features in these new models.  This report to the GA is a progress report and a final report from this Joint group is not due until next year’s Assembly.

That is what the church has identified so far but two other items have been making the news.  The biggest story related to the Church of Scotland right now is the British elections later this week in which it is looking likely that “son of the manse” Prime Minister Gordon Brown, will likely lose that position with seats in parliament for his party.  But throughout the campaign he has appealed to his religious and humble roots with frequent references to his father, the late Rev. John Ebenezer Brown, maybe to a fault as one columnist views it.

The other item appears to have started with a story in the Aberdeen Press and Journal and has been picked up in some specialized media is regarding the work of the Special Commission on Same-sex Relationships and the Ministry.  The news story appears to be trying to discern the possible outcome of the consultation with the church based on the Consultation Paper.  In particular, they are looking at the section on the “Context of the Civil Law” (p. 4-5) and seeing how that could force the church in a particular direction.  The section says, in part:

The regulations allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in relation to an occupation for the purposes of an organised religion in two circumstances.  They are where the employer applies a requirement related to sexual orientation (i) so as to comply with the doctrines of the religion or (ii) because of the nature of the employment and the context in which it is carried out, so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion’s followers.

The legal advisers suggest that the courts will interpret the exceptions to the prohibition against discrimination narrowly and that it will not be easy to satisfy the tests…  The legal advisers disagree on whether it would be easier for the Church to defend a ban on all sexual relations outside marriage. If the Church were of one mind on the issue of homosexual practice, it might be possible to argue that the ban was a proportionate means of complying with the doctrines of our religion.  But having regard to the divided views of the Church, which the 2007 Report recorded, it may be that an employing organisation within the Church would have to rely on the second circumstance (ie. circumstance (ii) above).

Our legal advisers are agreed that, if the Equality Bill is enacted, there is a problem in that the civil law requires any occupational requirement which involves discrimination to be proportionate. In that context there may be greater scope for compliance with the civil law if the Church were to leave the decision whether to require celibacy of a homosexual candidate to each Presbytery and Kirk Session rather than to impose a Church-wide rule, which might be held to be disproportionate and therefore illegal. But this is not clear and it may be possible for the Church to defend a prohibition on any sexual relations outside marriage in the civil courts.

(On a side note the suggestion in there on local option would return the ordination decision to the presbytery and session as the ordaining bodies.  The irony is that the civil context may end up mirroring our polity understanding.)

The newspaper may have properly assessed this situation and the way it fits within UK civil statutes and the very last line I quote from the report is the solution they predict will at least be presented to the church for their consideration as a possible resolution.  But, that is not for this GA and rather it will be waiting in the wings for the 2011 meeting.

PC(USA) Ecumenical Statment Not Approved By the USCCB

3 Replies

Continuing with the theme of the previous post on Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and Roman Catholic connections, I discovered recently that one of the Ecumenical Statements approved by the 218th General Assembly and having the concurrence of a large number of the presbyteries, did not receive the approval of one of the ecumenical partners, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops ( USCCB ).

Now this is not recent news, but in reviewing the report of the General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical Relations (GACER) to the 219th General Assembly as I was researching another issue, I found that just about a year ago the USCCB declined to approve the “Mutual Recognition of Baptism with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops” that came out of the Catholic-Reformed Bilateral Dialogue.  On the PC(USA) side this document was overwhelmingly approved by both the GA (voice vote) and the presbyteries (169-2).  On the USCCB side, they announced in May 2009 that it was not acceptable as it stood.  No specifics were given in any of the information I could find but the web site of the Ecumenical and Interfaith News Network – PCUSA [sic] says:

In May 2009 the chair of the Catholic bishops’ committee on ecumenical
and interreligious affairs reported that the
bishops had examined a Common
Agreement on Mutual Recognition of Baptism growing out of the
Catholic-Reformed dialogue and had “voted not to approve it in the form
in which it had been adopted.”…  In order for the document to have become
acceptable to the bishops, changes would have been necessary that were
not acceptable to the Reformed dialogue partners.

The Reformed partners issued a Statement in Response to the refusal.  Having failed to be mutually agreed upon this statement gets no second chance and it is “archived,” as the terminology goes, as a historical note in this dialogue.

What I find interesting is that for most of the PC(USA), dare I speculate 99% or more, this document is voted upon and then shelved since, as the FAQ indicates , it has no substantive effect on our practice, only on how we understand the practice.  Reinforcing this non-concern for the ecumenical statement is how “under the radar” the non-approval was.  Yes, it was there if you were looking for it on the EIF-PC(USA) web site, or until recently on the GACER page, but both using search engines as well as checking over the press release pages for the PC(USA) and the USCCB from that time period I found nothing that “average” Presbyterians or Catholics would see in the normal course of events.  (It might be hiding behind some cleaver headline that did not catch my attention.) I think this is relevant because the report has a section on “Pastoral Recommendations: Tangible Expressions of Mutual Recognition of Baptism.”  Without the “mutual recognition” part do any of these “tangible expressions” change?  In reading through the recommendations they appear pretty generic so I’m not sure anything changes there, but it would be nice to know.

Anyway, the Ecumenical Dialogue is off to bigger and better things… The Eucharist.  If there are still differences on Baptism I’m not sure what the next round will produce, but that is for a future GA.

The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland — Review And Reform And Ministries

Leave a reply

Nothing like starting off with a “bang.”  But Mike gave us the heads-up on this…

Monday the first two reports to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland appeared on the Kirk web site and you know they are significant when the Kirk also issues a press release .  The two reports are for the Ministries Council and the Panel on Review and Reform .  And I intentionally let the names run together in the title since there is a great deal of review and reform in the Ministries report.

As anyone who has served on a ministries board would expect, the Ministries Council report contains a varied set of action items (25 total) dealing with various aspects of the ordained ministry from the system of tenure, to the process of training for the ministry, to the new Priority Areas Action Plan.  While all important items I will concentrate today on the part of the report that is the high-profile section, the proposal to reduce the ministerial work-force in the Kirk to “1,000 full time equivalent” posts.  And this is not central office staff but parish ministers and remember that all parish ministers are paid from the General Assembly level out of their budget, not at the congregation or presbytery levels.  Key among the reasons for this proposed change is the budget situation which due to the combination of economic factors and declining membership will leave the Ministries Council with a deficit of £5.7 million in 2010.  Because of the payment of salary to clergy through the Ministries Council it’s budget represents 87% of the total budget of the church.  The report has recommendations with both 2014 and 2020 target dates.

But as the report says “Out of crisis, however, can come both vision and opportunity.”  Specifically, the Council says of their work:

Undoubtedly the most urgent part of the 2020 Vision in terms of decision-making this year will be Building for Sustainable Future Patterns of Ministries, Finance and Presbytery Planning (1.4). In presenting the overall vision for the future, the theological and economic challenges contained in the proposals for reshaping ministries, planning for variety and achieving a sustainable pattern for the future through pruning for growth, the Council recognises the size of the task ahead for all of us. In the overarching context of 2020 Vision, however, it is a task which is full of opportunity if we can grasp the vision together. The task is both theological and financial: there is a budget to be balanced and that is a financial challenge. There is also, of more lasting theological significance, the need to establish patterns of ministry for the 21st century which see the stipendiary ministries of the Church more clearly in their proper context, the ministry of all God’s people. The Council invites the General Assembly to step forward into the future boldly and with hope.

The bottom line for this assembly, and almost certainly the next few as well, will be the summary of the report of the Special Commission on the Third Article Declaratory that the church has a call from Jesus Christ to bring the Gospel to the whole of Scotland, but not an obligation to keep doing it the same way.

To this end, the section on Building for Sustainable Future Patterns of Ministry (1.4) begins with this introduction:

1.4.1 Introduction
To address the issues facing the Church in terms of ministries will require both vision and discipline. The Council has offered such vision to the General Assembly in successive years… In receiving these reports the General Assembly affirmed ‘the concept of a “mixed economy church” within the Church of Scotland, where both existing and fresh expressions of church co-exist, not at the expense of the other, but for the benefit of the whole.’ (Deliverance 4, 2008).

In reality there is nothing new in this. This is the story of the church through two millennia. In dependence on the Holy Spirit every generation has gratefully accepted the best that exists and supplemented it with fresh ideas. Change is the norm rather than something surprising in the life of a Church which moves in tune with God’s Spirit.

As we embark on a process towards balancing the budget of the Council, it is crucial to see this in context. The theological work which has been ongoing to enable a rethinking of patterns of ministry is not an innovation to try and give some positive ‘spin’ to bad news about financial cuts! Far from it: the Council has been urging serious thinking about the shape of ministries since at least 2006 because it believes this is right for the mission and growth of the Church in the new millennium. That it is now also urged upon us by the economic circumstances should not allow us to lose sight of the genuine opportunity to find a future shape for ministry which recovers more strongly our historical and reformed commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ as a ministry of all God’s people.

And the Council points out they can not do it alone and there is no single “fix.”  The major “levers,” as they call them, that must work together are territorial ministry, presbytery structure, presbytery planning, training for ministries, and congregational resourcing.  The report then goes on to discuss the new staffing model:

The Council is absolutely clear that the issue of creating sustainable ministries is both a theological and an economic question. Theologically, we are being challenged to create new patterns of ministry which can carry the mission of the Gospel forward in the communities of Scotland and, where appropriate, beyond. Economically, there is the stark reality of a £5.7M deficit which must be addressed at once.

Having looked carefully into this, the Council has concluded that the Church can now afford 1000 full-time ministries and 75 two-day locums.

For reference, the report says that there are currently 1,234 posts although roughly 10% are usually vacant at any time.  The report allocates ministry posts across the presbyteries (Appendix 1) and explains:

It is the intention of the Ministries Council to move towards allocating each Presbytery a ministries budget which relates to the number of FTE posts. It wants to encourage Presbyteries to think creatively about ministries and believes that giving each Presbytery responsibility for its own ministries budget will help it do this.

The body of the report paraphrases the action requested in the deliverance (items 7 and 8) like this:

The Council invites the General Assembly to instruct all Presbyteries to review their plans with a view to achieving 1000 ministries by 2014. The intention is that all Presbyteries will begin this process at once seeking to implement the figure in column 4 of the table as soon as possible.

But as I quoted at the beginning “Out of crisis, however, can come both vision and opportunity.”

The need to create sustainable units in non-urban areas has often resulted in a series of linkages and/or unions, so that a minister today is often serving an area that four people might have served 50 years ago…

Now is the time to turn that notion on its head. Instead of asking, what area constitutes a viable unit that can justify the employment of a full-time minister, we should ask, what form of ministry is appropriate for the people of faith in this distinct community. If effective ministry and mission occurs in community networks we need to find ways of fitting ministry into existing communities, rather than creating artificial communities that fit a particular model of ministry.

Our planning has essentially worked with a single model of ministry, full-time Parish Ministers. While there are many places where this is the appropriate model of ministry and therefore should continue, in others places it is not.
…
While it is possible for paid and unpaid, ordained and lay people to work together, current structures do not encourage this. Those who try to work in this way often feel they are fighting against the structures rather than being assisted by them.

To this end the report lists several different types of pastoral ministry.  These would include non-stipendiary ministers, bi-vocational ministers and ordained local ministers which would all be filled by individuals “assessed, trained and qualified” for Ordained National Ministry but serving at different levels of church employment possibly with additional non-church employment.  In addition there are Readers who are locally trained and assessed and would receive payment just for pulpit supply.

To reach this goal the report notes the “chicken and egg problem” of planning and training.

The Ministries Council is currently engaged in a thorough review of training. Serious thought is being given to an approach to training that would lead to people serving not simply as full-time ministers of word and sacrament, but also in all the different styles mentioned. It thus makes sense for Presbyteries to begin thinking about how their mission might be enhanced if they could use people in these roles alongside full-time ministers of word and sacrament, and also to begin encouraging people to consider offering themselves for service in these roles.

Change is not easy, and at the end I’ll return the Ministry Council’s comment on that, but additional evidence for this is provided in the report of the Panel on Review and Reform where their first action item (after receiving the report) is

Approve the request for an extension of time to develop the proposals for reform set out in section 2 of the report and instruct the Panel to report further to the General Assembly of 2011.

The Panel has been involved in consultation and gathering input on at least five different models of presbytery restructuring and implications for devolved powers, resourcing, and the role and size of presbyteries, among other things.  The Panel comments on the complexity of the process saying:

2.1.4 There is no one single or normative model of church life. The Panel believes an agreed model for an alternative structure should take into account the particular circumstances in which a presbytery may find itself at any given time. For example, Highlands and Islands, central belt, urban, suburban, priority area and rural charges will have a common operating structure but require sufficient flexibility according to regional and local need. The Panel recognises that one size does not fit all and invites Presbyteries to work with them on a more dynamic model for the Church.

So to develop models the Panel proposes forming “Presbytery Pilot Regions [PPRs] to plan and prepare the Church for reform.”  To implement this the report says:

2.1.9 The Panel proposes a progressive implementation of these proposals to begin in September 2010. Those presbyteries choosing to participate in the pilot will work with the Panel to develop their own structures and procedures that support mission. During 2011 and 2012, more presbyteries will be encouraged to join the pilot.
…
2.3.1 The Panel proposes to test a new model of regional church by establishing a scheme the purpose of which is to encourage presbyteries to focus on mission in the local context and to experiment with different forms of operation appropriate to their own situations…This is not about structural change for the sake of it but about renewal and engagement within and beyond existing structures where the presbytery is the regional resource and support for delivery of local mission initiatives.
…
2.3.4 The Panel’s consultations with Presbyteries demonstrated their wish to be mission-oriented rather than administration-driven. The primary objective of the pilot scheme is to strengthen presbyteries in ways that enable them to further the mission of the Church, to share the Gospel with all, and to provide resources and effective encouragement for the total Christian effort within the region. They would need to be adaptable to change and continual review, flexible enough to be aware of the possibilities for different forms of ministry, and open to exploring new directions where missional imagination could be realised.

The report then goes on to discuss at great length the vision of the church and the role of presbyteries as well as aspects of implementation of the pilot plan.  It does not discuss the structure or plan for any pilot region since that is to come from the pilot region itself.  This section of the report concludes with this:

2.20 A Church under reconstruction and unafraid of change

The Book of Nehemiah
is an important one for church
leadership. It is a significant model for the church
today: the origin of vision through prayer, the need to
share vision, and enable and empower others to become
involved in making it happen, and the need to maintain
leadership through periods of conflict and opposition.
(Panel on Review and
Reform, Strategy Paper, 2009)


2.20.1 Nehemiah challenged his people with a compelling vision to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. He created an atmosphere which encouraged people to speak up. He recruited the leaders of the city to do the work. He used forty leaders with their teams working side-by-side and shoulder-to-shoulder to rebuild the wall. Some built large sections; others built next to where they lived. They each did according to their ability and resources.  The wall was just the pilot project for Nehemiah’s plan to restore the nation. He had mechanisms in place to enable feedback about progress.

2.20.2 The Panel has tried to follow Nehemiah’s model as it works to

1. offer a method to determine an alternative presbytery structure
2. ensure that enough time is allowed to do the task thoroughly
3. highlight the financial implications of reform
4. ensure the appointment of staff with the appropriate skills
5. provide training in place for those who need it
6. create an opportunity for all presbyteries to participate throughout the process.

2.20.3 It is our reformed tradition that we have been able to improve – sometimes quite radically – yet we retain our identity and our sense of calling and purpose as God’s people. We must constantly seek to re-articulate our vision, re-interpreting what it means to bring the ordinances of religion to the people in every parish of Scotland through a territorial ministry.

2.20.4 The whole witness of the Bible points to a God who calls his people out and on from where they are, not knowing where they are to go, and the true image of the Church is of the community of the future and not of the past.

2.20.5 The Panel offers a vision for taking measured steps to reform the regional structure of the Church to align with a mission strategy. We are excited by the challenge and opportunity that lies before us and trust that the wider Church will become enthused by the prospect of together reforming a church whose structures would be more focused on bringing the kingdom closer to the people of Scotland.

Similarly, the penultimate part of this section of the Ministries Council report is titled “It can’t be done!”  It echoes the need for a model of ministry appropriate to the local situation.  I leave you with this section:

In many Presbyteries there is a belief that it will not be possible for charges to continue to serve their communities if there is a further reduction in ministries numbers. This belief is found from cities to islands. Each Presbytery faces particular issues and each Presbytery believes the issues it is facing are unique and merit special dispensation. Through its contact with Presbyteries the Ministries Council is aware of the challenges facing the Church across the country. The Council does not believe that the answer is to give one Presbytery additional ministries, which can only come at the expense of all the other Presbyteries. Instead the Council believes that the answer lies in tackling ministry using these different models.

The Council has for some time been casting a vision of a different approach to ministries. Rather than having a single model of ministry (the full-time, professional minister serving a charge whose size is determined by the need to be sustainable as a full-time post), the Council believes there needs to be a range of ministry models, some full-time and some part-time, some paid and some not. The proposal to allocate each Presbytery a ministries budget based on FTE posts will gradually allow each one to determine what patterns of ministry are best suited to serve all the communities for which it is responsible.

The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland — Reaffirm The Third Article Declaratory

Leave a reply

The report of the Special Commission on Third Article Declaratory to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was posted on the reports web page today.  The decision to reaffirm the Third Article Declaratory is a big deal because it essentially says the church has a “commitment to maintain worshipping, witnessing and serving Christian congregations throughout Scotland.”  (I stole that from the report.)  This has been under study for two years and the 2008 National Youth Assembly suggested change saying that Territorial Ministries were an “unnecessary burden.”  In contrast the Special Commission recommends keeping the Third Article as is, effectively saying “we must remember our mission from Jesus Christ, but find new ways to do it.”

First, for reference here is the Third Article from the Articles Declaratory :

lll. This Church is in historical continuity with the Church of Scotland which was reformed in 1560, whose liberties were ratified in 1592, and for whose security provision was made in the Treaty of Union of 1707. The continuity and identity of the Church of Scotland are not prejudiced by the adoption of these Articles. As a national Church representative of the Christian Faith of the Scottish people it acknowledges its distinctive call and duty to bring the ordinances of religion to the people in every parish of Scotland through a territorial ministry.

Now here are excerpts from the report.  I think it speaks for itself so I won’t be adding much additional commentary.
The deliverance itself:

1. Receive the Report

2. Pass a Declaratory Act anent the third Article Declaratory of the Constitution of the Church of Scotland in Matters Spiritual in the following terms:

The General Assembly declare as follows:

(1) The Church of Scotland reaffirms the principles enshrined in the third Article Declaratory and declares anew its commitment to be a national church with a distinctive evangelical and pastoral concern for the people and nation of Scotland;
(2) The Church of Scotland asserts that, while this commitment is recognised by Act of Parliament, namely the Church of Scotland Act 1921 and Articles Declaratory appended thereto, its true origin and entire basis lie not in civil law but in the Church’s own calling by Jesus Christ, its King and Head;
(3) The Church of Scotland remains committed to the ecumenical vision set out in the seventh Article Declaratory and, in pursuit of that vision, stands eager to share with other churches in Christian mission and service to the people of Scotland;
(4) The Church of Scotland understands the words “a national church representative of the Christian faith of the Scottish people” as a recognition of both the Church’s distinctive place in Scottish history and culture and its continuing responsibility to engage the people of Scotland wherever they might be with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
(5) The Church of Scotland understands the phrase “bring the ordinances of religion to the people in every parish of Scotland through a territorial ministry” to mean a commitment to maintain worshipping, witnessing and serving Christian congregations throughout Scotland.

3. Call upon the whole Church to give heed and respond with a sense of real urgency to the challenges coming from the Ministries Council, the General Trustees and those charged with the Church’s stewardship and distribution of resources.

4. Affirm the key role of Presbyteries in the delivery of the commitment expressed in the third Article Declaratory as understood by the Church and instruct Presbyteries anew to engage with the process instructed by the General Assembly of 2008 to create a Presbytery structure which can more effectively manage the deployment of the Church’s ministerial and other resources.

5. Instruct the Ecumenical Relations Committee, in consultation with the Ministries Council and relevant Presbyteries of the bounds, to seek discussions with sister churches with a view to identifying areas where a sharing of ministries and buildings would enable a more effective ministering to communities throughout Scotland and to report to the General Assembly of 2012.

6. Instruct the Ministries Council to give consideration to the establishing of arrangements similar to the Shetland arrangements for other remote areas and to report to the General Assembly of 2011.

7. Urge ministers of word and sacrament to give prayerful consideration to serving urban priority area and remote rural parishes.

8. Instruct the Ministries Council, as it takes forward the Presbytery planning process, to engage with the General Trustees and Presbyteries on the development of a strategic plan for church buildings and to report to the General Assembly of 2012.

9. Instruct the Ministries Council in consultation with the Worship and Doctrine Task Group of the Mission and Discipleship Council to consider authorising identified and appropriately trained individuals to celebrate the sacraments in the absence of an ordained minister and to report to the General Assembly of 2011.

10. Instruct the Ministries Council, in consultation with the Legal Questions Committee, to review the helpfulness of Act VI, 1984 anent Congregations in Changed Circumstances with regard to ministerial flexibility and to report with proposals to the General Assembly of 2011.

11. Thank and discharge the Special Commission.

And here are excerpts from the 31 page report that help explain the recommendations.
I will include the very first paragraph because I really like it and because it seems any committee struggles with this — I know the special committee I was on really struggled with how to have people read the report, not just jump straight to the recommendations.  This commission says:

1.1 The tradition of placing the proposed deliverance at the very beginning of a General Assembly report is rather like opening a novel with the final chapter in which all is revealed. To read the deliverance is to see, before reading any further, precisely where the report is heading.  Nevertheless, the Commission trusts that commissioners will read on and follow the reasoning which has led to the conclusions reflected in the deliverance.

The report continues:

1.2 The Special Commission believes that the Church does indeed have a divine call and duty in this regard and holds with passion to the commitment enshrined in the third Declaratory Article. The Commission also dares to hope that the General Assembly will capture its enthusiasm for rising to the challenges and embracing the opportunities which the spirit of the Article lays upon the Church today. These include a readiness to take difficult decisions on the distribution of resources, an acceptance of the need to develop fresh models of ministry and mission, a new willingness to work ecumenically and a refusal to adopt some kind of “supermarket model” which maintains a Church presence only where there is the “customer base” which makes it economically viable to do so.

1.3 In the course of one meeting of the Commission all the ministerial members acknowledged that the parish dimension was an integral part of their calling and a crucial aspect of their ministries. Along with the other members they are grateful for the opportunity which the work of the Commission has given over the past two years to test those convictions. It is now the Commission’s earnest hope that the General Assembly will judge that it has exercised due diligence and accept the recommendations which it brings.

The report then continues with a discussion of the Commission’s remit and the history and background of the Articles Declaratory.  It notes that the language used is “national” and not “established” church and within that it refers to it as not “the” but “a national church.”  Regarding their consultation with the presbyteries they comment that “It is noteworthy that in every response, though with varying degrees of emphasis, Presbyteries were in favour of the retention of the Third Article Declaratory. It is clear that Presbyteries viewed the Third Article not as an onerous obligation but as a Gospel imperative.” (5.2)

There is an interesting comment on the cultural significance of the Kirk in the section on Ecumenical Relations:

7.4.4 The Commission was also informed of a recent conversation amongst denominational Ecumenical Officers which indicated that, were the Church of Scotland to depart from its territorial responsibility, the whole church in Scotland would lose something important. In such circumstances it would be likely that other churches would feel a need to rise to the challenge. However, it is recognised that their resources are also stretched. Certainly there is a willingness amongst Scottish churches to explore the concept of ecumenical team ministry (not necessarily exclusively clergy), to provide ministry in a given area.

Another paragraph caught my eye which discusses a tension we are now seeing in the States with what we call “designated giving” where individuals control what their giving is used for.  This is an issue for us not just in the church but in the culture in general:

7.7.7 The meetings with office-bearers from a number of south Glasgow suburban churches threw into sharp focus the issue of wealthier churches contributing significant sums of money… to support work such as that carried out in priority areas parishes. There was a ready recognition of the need for this work, a concern that it should be encouraged and expanded and a willingness to support it. At the same time there were voices which indicated that those congregations which were significant net contributors to the Ministries and Mission Fund should have some kind of say in how “their money” was being spent. The Commission also heard a challenge to this approach on the grounds that, as one minister put it, “once the money is in the plate it’s the Lord’s, not yours”.

There was considerable recognition of the need for “shared ministry,” how one congregation had resources of location and knowledge to work in a high priority area but depended on others to provide the financial resources.  The concept of “twinning” was mentioned in this regards noting that “when these work well they provide a valuable two-way flow of information and enrichment.”

The consultation phase was very wide in every sense including many parts of Scotland, the Ecumenical Partners, and input from communities and secular organizations.  The deliberations of the commission were just as wide ranging considering the Ministries, Review and Reform (I will post on those next), General Trustees and their oversight of buildings, Finance and Stewardship and the financial situation of the Kirk, the Church Without Walls initiative, the trend towards a secular society, the feeling of a “sense of place” as well as a “sense of call.”  They also noted the extensive process of amending the Articles Declaratory — approval by three sucessive GA’s and two-thirds of the presbyteries in between.  They also say of the phrase “ordinances of religion”:

8.7.1 The Commission is quite clear that the task of bringing the “ordinances of religion” to the people of Scotland cannot simply be understood as the passive supplying of the religious needs of the population on request in terms of ‘matching, hatching and dispatching.’ The phrase must be interpreted dynamically in missional terms, not statically in reactive terms. Our calling is nothing other than the challenging of the people of Scotland with a vision of God’s kingdom and asking them to respond to it in faith and love.

The Commission recognizes that this will not be easy and as the deliverance shows it will require doing new things in the areas of Ministry, Finances and Stewardship, property through the General Trustees, ecumenical partnerships, and individual congregations.

To get a real taste of what territorial ministry means I will close with the words of the members of the church printed in the report. First, the report contains two letters from pastors.  The first is from the Rev. George Cringles who has a linked ministry that includes the only church, with 15 members, on the Island of Coll, almost three hours by ferry when the ferry runs.  He describes the church and its ministry saying:

The Basis of Linking with Connel requires that I visit the island and conduct worship there at least four times in the year. Depending on circumstances the nature of the services will vary. I try to include communion on two occasions (sometimes three) and also have a family service that will include the island Choir – the Coll Singers, and the children of the local primary school on special Sundays – e.g. harvest thanksgiving. I have made it my policy to try and visit the island for one of the main festivals every second year. So far this has included Easter, Harvest, Remembrance and Pentecost. I have yet to pluck up the courage to go over at Christmas! At other times I will visit for funerals and weddings or other pastoral needs as required.
…
Two of the elders have undergone basic training in leading worship and they will readily conduct worship if no one else is available.  Indeed they sometimes have more than one service in the winter months if there is sufficient demand.

Provision is made in the basis for weekly worship between Easter and the end of September. This is normally provided by visiting preachers – ministers (quite a few who have retired), readers and lay people, who enjoy a holiday in the manse in exchange for the Sunday service… This system seems to work quite well. There are the regulars who like to return every year, and others who find that once is enough! … It is a system which seems to be advantageous to all parties – the visitors enjoy a cheap holiday while the congregation doesn’t have to worry about paying pulpit supply and travelling expenses, which they simply could not afford.
…
There is no other active church on the island. The Free Church is effectively closed and there are very few Free Kirk folk left. I am delighted to say that one of them has even been joining with us for worship. The Parish Church is therefore the only remaining source of Christian work, witness and worship on the island. I feel it is vital to do all we can to maintain that work and encourage the Lord’s people in what is a far from easy situation.

The second letter is from the Rev. Ian Galloway from the Gorbals inner city area of Glasgow:

I understand the financial pressures being experienced by those congregations who are the net financial givers – and appreciate that to give beyond the bounds of the parish substantially is costly in terms of what local mission can be pursued. However I also consider that supporting local mission in other, poorer, places is a high calling worthy of our financially strongest congregations. The return on such investment will sometimes be hard to determine, though I know that within Priority Areas a range of examples can be given that enable measurement in both financial and human terms.

Of course Gorbals is the place I know best, and here we can point to Bridging the Gap – 11 years on with a budget of £200k and making a measured and evaluated difference to hundreds of lives each year… None of this would happen without the support of the wider church for ministry here.

We also have a few people who have chosen to belong here though they live in more affluent places. In a way they embody the same issue but this is not possible or indeed appropriate for many people.

When I look round our congregation I am, as always, aware of vulnerability and suffering as well as resilience and strong character. Lone parents and their children, kinship, caring granny, unemployed men, recovering alcoholic, gambler deep in debt, people with chronic diseases and cancers to manage, elders still faithfully taking decisions in their late eighties not through choice but necessity. The odd thing is that, even in transition without a building (though one is getting nearer) the congregation may even
be growing………

I am deeply grateful to the Church of Scotland’s redistributive model which is, I think, a real and lasting witness to the God we serve and is so deeply counter-cultural as to be more radical now than ever.

All in all, I think we need to develop clear priorities and find better ways of enabling congregations to take pride in the way their financial giftedness is put at the service of the whole church.

If we are to depart from the parish model – and by that I mean across Scotland – I think that we have to do so because there is a strong sense of God’s call – to all of us – to discover how our discipleship will evolve in a new shape.

That has to be about much more than money, and until we hear the debate move in that direction I have some difficulty in recognising God’s hand on the tiller of this particular change.

Finally, the body of the report closes with these words from a kirk session which appropriately sums up the whole report:

There are no disposable parts of Scotland and no disposable people in Scotland. The Kirk has an obligation to the whole country and all its people. It does not have an obligation, however, to do things as we always did them, and in particular to stick to one model of paid, full-time ordained ministry. The third Declaratory Article should remain, but radical rethinking of how we fulfil it is essential.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — Recommendations Of The Committee On Ecumenical Relations Regarding The Evangelical Presbyterian Church

3 Replies

The report from the General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical Relations with their Recommendations Regarding the Evangelical Presbyterian Church has been released and it is “interesting” reading in a number of senses of the word.  This report to the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) resulted from a referral from the 218th GA .  The opening paragraph of the report probably does as good a job as I could summarizing how we got here:

This report comes in response to an overture from the Presbytery of Peace River to the 218th General Assembly (2008) of the PC(USA) that would have asked the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC) to investigate the role of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) in persuading PC(USA) congregations to disaffiliate from the PC(USA) and be dismissed to the EPC. The assembly referred the overture to the General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical Relations, which appointed a task group to make recommendations.

So it is looking at the “role” of the EPC.  Going back to the original overture it asks of the Assembly:

The Presbytery of Peace River respectfully overtures the 218th General Assembly (2008) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to request the Executive Office of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches to investigate the actions and conduct of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, as described below, and to take appropriate action.

The described “actions and conduct” are:

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church is actively pursuing a strategy to persuade Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) churches to disaffiliate with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and be dismissed to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church has created a transitional presbytery to facilitate the process.

So this began not with the “role” of the EPC but with two specific complaints – “a strategy to persuade” and creating “a transitional presbytery.” The report addresses this in the Findings section at paragraph VI.4.l:

l.    There was no evidence that the EPC took the initiative in entering PC(USA) congregations to speak against the PC(USA), for the EPC, or about affiliation with the EPC. However, there was ample evidence that when invited by a session or pastor, EPC representatives went in without consultation with the appropriate judicatory within the PC(USA) and spoke freely.

OK, there is the answer that the presbytery asked for in the overture – The Evangelical Presbyterian Church did not initiate but did not discourage.  So now that we have the answer we can now turn off the lights, lock the door, and go home, right?  “By no means” — we are Presbyterians so there are 15 pages of report to document this and present recommendations to try to patch up relations with the EPC, acknowledge the pain of separation within the PC(USA), and try to find ways to do better in the future.

OK, having gotten my snarky comments about “mission creep” out of the way, let me begin again by saying that I found a lot to like in this report.  It is precise and accurate about many historical and polity points, a feature I appreciate.  That said there are some aspects that bother me but these are mostly in what was left unsaid.

It is worthwhile to begin the detailed analysis with the remainder of the Preface which makes a very important distinction in this:

The task group met with presbyteries in which congregations had departed the PC(USA), with pastors and members of congregations who had departed or were considering departing the PC(USA) including those affiliated with the New Wineskins Association of Churches, and with leadership of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. In listening to people’s stories and in reviewing documents, the task group sought to distinguish between actions of Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and actions of the New Wineskins Association (which consists of PC(USA) pastors and members, as well as former PC(USA) pastors and members who are now affiliated with the EPC).

The distinction is important in that the actions of the New Wineskins members can be considered matters internal to the PC(USA), at least at their root. Actions of the EPC, on the other hand, are matters between churches—churches that are both members of WARC. It is this latter category that is the focus of the original overture. The report that follows presents the findings of the task group regarding activities that are internal and external to the PC(USA), and presents recommendations on how the PC(USA) should move forward in its relations with the EPC.

I very much appreciate the tone throughout this report that this is a very complicated issue and that the EPC as a denomination must be viewed as an independent player despite the fact that it has the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery.  It is also important to remember, and this is one of the points that I think is passed over too lightly in the report, that the New Wineskins Association of Churches is a broad organization with members, individual and congregational, that have a wide range of opinions about departure from the PC(USA).  Any categorization of the NWAC should be done carefully.  The disaffiliation portion of the strategy report must not be viewed as the guidelines for all the members.

Maybe the historical point I most appreciate is the honest appraisal of the origin of our two denominations (V.1):

The histories of the EPC (with its organizing General Assembly in 1981) and the PC(USA) (with its organizing General Assembly in 1983) are deeply woven together, particularly since a large number of the congregations and ministers making up the EPC in its formative years had previously been a part of the PC(USA) or its predecessor bodies. Both the EPC and the PC(USA) lay claim to deep roots within the Presbyterian and Reformed traditions of the larger Christian family tree.

Yes, the EPC and the PC(USA) share the same root stock in American Presbyterianism, we are not some distant cousins but very close siblings.  And yes, the EPC predates the PC(USA).  And the report shares the vision of the EPC from its founding – “From those beginnings, however, the EPC was determined to grow by planting new congregations.” (V.3)

This section goes on to discuss the “trust clause” and I must compliment the Task Group on their historical footnote on the legal basis for it.  (And some of the members of the special committee I was on thought one of mine was long )  The report says of the differing perspective of the two denominations (V.3):

The EPC had developed a denominational understanding of property that is substantively different from the understanding in the PC(USA). The EPC and its leadership see no reason for holding onto congregations, ministers, or real property if those assets will help those persons to be more effective in their mission. In this area, the EPC’s ecclesiology differs significantly from the PC(USA)’s.

And later (VI.5.b) the report says this about the disagreements over the trust clause:

b.  During the task group’s visits, the issue that garnered the most theological—and legal—disagreement was that of the PC(USA)’s property trust provision in Chapter 8 of the Book of Order. What was debated among the NWI/NWAC’s national leadership played out “on the ground” in local congregations regarding property. Those desiring to leave saw this as a violation of their conscience, and their understanding of the nature of the church. The PC(USA) loyalists defended the ownership of property under the trust provision as biblical and held in Presbyterianism long before the explicit Book of Order clause. The different ecclesial understandings of the two denominations led to disagreement not only around ordination standards, property, and theology, but also around the meaning of congregational independence and connectionalism/congregationalism.

As I read this report I kept thinking that the task group, and often the denomination as a whole, seems to miss the tension inherent in the trust clause and only concentrates on the ultimate communal ownership of the property.  Yes, we have the trust clause (G-8.0200)

All property held by or for a particular church, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)… is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

But the question that I don’t hear asked as loudly, here or anywhere, is why do we have the concept of the trust clause to begin with?  While the language of the trust clause itself was inserted to make the concept explicit following a U.S. Supreme Court Decision (see that historical note ) the report and a PC(USA) OGA Advisory Opinion (#19) are correct in pointing out that it intrinsically flows from our view of the church as a connectional system.  We belong to each other not because we chose to belong but because Christ calls us together.

But this is then viewed in the light of why Christ calls us together and in Chapter 3 of the Book of Order titled “The Church and Its Mission” it says (G-3.0400) “The Church is 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.”  And regarding the list of responsibilities of the presbytery all relate back to the opening statement that (G-11.0103) “The presbytery is responsible for the mission and government of the church throughout its geographical district.”  The tension of holding property is to be good stewards so it does the most good for building the Kingdom and furthering the mission given us by Jesus Christ.  I’m not sure we are as good as we could be about “a time to keep and a time to let go.”  In light of the ultimate call to forward the Kingdom, and acknowledging the theology behind the trust clause, I see no reason that the line from the report could not be rewritten to say “The PC(USA) and its leadership see no reason for holding onto congregations, ministers, or real property if those assets will help those persons to be more effective in their mission.”  In both branches the property is for the purpose of mission, the branches differ as to which governing body has responsibility for discerning the best use of the property in furthering mission.

Following from that the most meaningful part of this report, to me, is the section of the findings that demonstrate how our “keeping” and “letting go” need some work.  Here are excerpts from the report:

j.    In several cases, both New Wineskins representatives now in the EPC as well as PC(USA) representatives said that when presbytery processes were followed, the outcomes were better than if a congregation entered into litigation against the PC(USA) presbytery. In every instance where the civil courts were involved, representatives of both New Wineskins and loyalist PC(USA) leaders said it became extremely painful. (VI.2.j)

b.   The size of the congregation was often a driving factor in the approach to discussions and the process for departure. Smaller congregations with fewer human and real property assets were often more easily resolved. In other cases, especially when the congregation was larger, the presbyteries recognized the need to be immediately engaged, and the situation often led to civil litigation, resulting in very large costs—emotionally and financially—for all involved. (VI.4.b)

c.   In general, those congregations that followed an ecclesiastical process… fared better. Although it depends upon the state, courts generally have sided with the PC(USA)’s understanding of Chapter 8… In some cases, departing congregations relying on a legal strategy alone or in concert with an ecclesiastical one, lost additional money or property, and would have been much better off without civil action. Situations that involved a higher degree of trust and communication usually resulted in a negotiated settlement with which all parties could live and still feel respect for one another. Some of these situations even seemed to result in what was perceived by many as a “grace-filled” process. (VI.4.c, emphasis mine)

Friends, the single most important thing I took away from this report was those two final lines.  We need to remember the “trust clause” is ultimately there for advancing mission and nothing else.

Having said that I want to highlight one more plus and one more negative I see in this report and then get on with the recommendations to the 219th GA.

First, looking beyond the trust clause and discussing Presbyterian connectionalism in general, the report does a good job of developing the concept that congregations must be dismissed to another body.  There is no such thing as an independent Presbyterian church within the Presbyterian understanding of the church.  For those not familiar with the issue at hand, the EPC New Wineskins Presbytery is a transitional presbytery and is simply a place that a congregation can momentarily stop on their journey.  While there may be an intent to join a geographic presbytery there is also the possibility of being released as an independent congregation.  Unless the relationship is fixed and not transitional the PC(USA) understanding of the relationship finds it wanting.  (Now I want to go back and look at how churches transferring into PC(USA) non-geographic presbyteries were handled since those were also intended to be transitional presbyteries with limited life times.)

Second – On the one hand I found the report refreshing in the acknowledgement of the existence and role of what have come to be called the “Louisville Papers.”  These are documents put together by the Stated Clerk’s office to help guide presbyteries in the legal work of property disputes.  It is important to remember that they are legal memos and read as such.  They are strongly worded and have the touch of a lawyer out to win his/her case.  I talked about all this back in August 2006 when they were made public by the Layman.

The report also makes a big deal of a document that in some ways serves a similar role produced by the New Wineskins Association of Churches, New Wineskins Initiative: A Time for Every Purpose Under Heaven.  It is a publicly released document that talks about the future of the NWAC and in part acts as a guide for NWAC churches for the disaffiliation process.  Section VI.5 of this task group report says “The task group’s findings in local situations regarding a desire for ‘theological clarity’ mirrored the language of the New Wineskins Initiative’s national spokespersons.”  The report also constantly refers to the various disaffiliation options mentioned in the strategy paper.  What I did not see in the report was the view from the other side — when viewed from the perspective of a church trying to depart the PC(USA) the legal action taken by a particular presbytery followed the advice in the “Louisville Papers.”  Now I agree that the legal documents covered the full range of responses so basically anything the presbytery did could be seen as following that guide, but what the report does not say is that each side saw the other as having their own strategy piece.

Most of the Findings in the report were gathered from visits to presbyteries where members of the task group spoke to the presbytery leaders as well as leaders and members of churches, including disaffiliated churches, in that area.  It is worth noting that the group visited nine presbyteries out of around 40 that one list shows having churches that disaffiliated or considered doing do.

There is a lot more in the report but having covered the major points I got out of it let me turn to the recommendations.

1.   Affirm that

a.   the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is in correspondence with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, by virtue of our common membership in the World Alliance of Reformed Churches;

b.   our common membership in the World Alliance of Reformed Churches is a visible sign of our oneness in Jesus Christ; and

c.   as members of the body of Christ, we are all called to treat one another as followers of Jesus Christ.

2.   Request the World Alliance of Reformed Churches to create guidelines offering basic protocols for interactions and behaviors between its member denominations.

3.   Call the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to

a.   confess to the rich tradition of freedom of conscience that we claim as Reformed, Presbyterian Christians, and

b.   recognize that this same tradition causes us to be prone to separation, demonization of those with whom we disagree, and a captivity to insistence on our own rightness.

4.   Invite the Evangelical Presbyterian Church to enter into such a season of confession with us.

5.   Acknowledge the unique complexity of the relationship between the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, given the fact that the ecclesial roots of many churches, members, and ministers now in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church lie in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and its antecedent denominations.

6.   Invite the General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church to engage in bilateral dialogue concerning various dimensions of the relationships between the two denominations and its member churches, members, and ministers; and that a report from this dialogue be made to the 222nd General Assembly (2016), with an interim report made to the 221st General Assembly (2014).

7.   Direct the Office of the General Assembly to develop resources to support presbyteries with congregations and/or ministers engaged in a process of discernment or undergoing the process of dismissal, in light of denominational learnings in the recent past.

8.   Acknowledge the deep pain caused by the experiences of congregations departing or going through schism and of ministers departing, and call upon synods to consider developing care teams to listen to people’s stories, thereby enabling healing, with presbyteries also urged to extend extra care during such vulnerable times of congregational and presbytery life.

9.   Encourage presbyteries, congregations, and individual families who experience the pain of separation to recognize that there is more than one way to understand the same event and to pray for one another through our shared faith in Jesus Christ.

I will not analyze these recommendations on a point-by-point basis but take an overview of them generally.  It is important to note that they all reflect a sense of restorative and not punitive church discipline.

Having said that, I have to admit that after reading the report I am very surprised at the nature of the recommendations.  The first six recommendations, some with sub-points, of the nine total (two-thirds of them) in one way or another touch on the PC(USA)’s relationship with the EPC.  While the report discusses the NWAC very heavily there is only a light treatment of the EPC role in the text as a whole and the findings in particular.  The process says there was a meeting with four representative of the EPC but I did not see any discussion of how that meeting went, specifics of the discussion, or any formal or informal agreements mentioned in the text and therefore don’t see from where these recommendations derive.  After having had bi-lateral contact why do the recommendations have such a unilateral nature to them?  While I don’t expect a specific agreement with the EPC in the recommendations, I was searching the text for some indication of how these invitations would be received.  Yes, at present the PC(USA) GA action would be an invitation from us, but the body of the report characterizes the current situation only from the perspective of the one side.  Can it give us an indication of how the EPC would take the invitation “to enter into such a season of confession with us”?

So I don’t see the same proportionality of rational in the text as I see in the recommendations and from the information in the body of the report I have having trouble “connecting the dots” to arrive at what is asked in the recommendations.

I really like recommendation #2 that would have WARC create the “guidelines offering basic protocols for interactions and behaviors between its member denominations.”  As the history of this situation shows the PC(USA) and the EPC have been operating with different expectations and procedures for the exchange process and to somehow come to a standard understanding would be helpful for all involved and may help relieve pain and confusion that result when different bodies have different expectations.  The report says (VI.3.a)  “In various conversations with PC(USA) presbytery representatives, their expectation that normal, standard ecumenical courtesy would be extended by local or national EPC judicatory leaders was repeatedly frustrated.”  Is “normal, standard ecumenical courtesy” something that is codified somewhere (Miss. Manners for the Ecclesiastical?) or an unwritten set of expectations that can vary from denomination to denomination even in the Reformed stream?  It appears to be the latter if WARC is being asked to develop these.

Similarly, I appreciate #7 which would have the church develop resources that are pastoral rather than legal.

Finally, I think the task group did a good job with recommendations 8 and 9 that acknowledge the pain involved in these events and encourage everyone to recognize that “there is more than one way to understand the same event” and to deal with this in a pastoral manner.

UPDATE: The EPC has now issued a press release saying it is “grateful” that the task group find the accusation unsubstantiated.  It with holds additional comments until after the GA acts on the report.

So this report took 15 pages to not only answer the original question but to look at the whole mess, and yes it did get messy, and to provide us with a perspective and lessons from what has happened and recommendations to help heal the pain and move on with being the Church.  With that in mind let me return to, and close with, one of those quotes that made the report for me.  Remember, the 218th GA also called us to a “Gracious Separation” and it is not just what we do but how we do it that is a witness to the world.  This report has much to support that Gracious Separation —  And the world is watching .  From section VI.4.d:

In those situations where matters went to civil court… the time, energy, and money expended on both sides was enormous. Some New Wineskins leaders who sought membership in the EPC expressed that if they had it to do again, they would likely follow an ecclesiastical process with the presbytery. Likewise, the presbyteries that had to respond to civil action, or that chose to initiate it, regretted the court costs and intervention into the life and work of the presbytery. Court proceedings were universally perceived as draining of the financial and other resources of the presbytery. Also, what trust might have been present prior to legal proceedings was often ruptured once those proceedings began.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — Brief Updates For Late April

2 Replies

Just a few news headlines that have come up recently regarding the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  No analysis now but maybe later:

  • The leadership for the 19 committees has been named .  I have gone through the list and recognize a few of the names and think I see some interesting trends.  If I get around to doing the analysis statistically then I’ll report on what I find.

  • Speaking of committees the 19 committees are posted on PC-Biz and business is being assigned to each of them.  In what I consider a good move there are two “Social Justice Issues” committees, one for “Promotion of Social Righteousness” and one for “the Exhibition of the Kingdom of Heaven to the World.”  In the past the Social Justice committee always had a heavy and controversial work load.  Good move to split it up.  However, these committees are not to be confused with the separate committees on Peacemaking Issues and the Middle East.  In addition there are a bunch more on all the usual suspects including Church Orders, Marriage, Form of Government Revision, Church Polity.  I think you can tell a lot about a Presbyterian branch by the committees it keeps.

  • Business keeps getting added to PC-Biz.  We are at 108 Overtures and 77 recommendations.

  • Twitter is starting to come alive.  Moderator of the 218th GA, the Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, has put together a list of twerps twitter users who will be tweeting from the 219th GA.  It appears that the hashtag will be #ga219.  (Note that the hashtag #ga2010 will be used at least for the Church of  Scotland GA next month and maybe others.)  The official tweeps include Bruce (@breyeschow ), Randy Hobson (@randyhobson ), Thomas Hay the Director of Operations (@DirofOp ), and twitter handles for @PresbyGA and @ga219tracker. And there is a great article by Robert Austell on “What is Twitter and what could it mean at the Presbyterian General Assembly .”

  • Speaking of Twitter, there is a report I have found only there via @DirofOp that there is a third candidate for Moderator.  I will write more once I have been able to confirm this. (Looking at the timing I suspect that the individual has session but not presbytery endorsement.)  UPDATE: As I was writing this the Layman published an article about the Rev.
    Maggie Lauterer     from the Presbytery of Western North Carolina who will become the third moderator candidate if elected as a substitute commissioner and endorsed for moderator at their meeting on Tuesday April 27. Anticipating the fourth candidate will be endorsed the following week by Northern Waters I will comment on both following the second endorsement.

  • Finally, at the present time I am pretty sure that I will not be attending GA in person this year, only in the virtual world.  I have been given the opportunity to teach Summer Session and have accepted that offer because if there is anything I like more than a General Assembly it is Earthquakes.  I still plan on posting as much as possible here on the blog and will be commenting on Twitter as well @ga_junkie .

More shortly…

EPC Report Of The Interim Committee On Women Teaching Elders

2 Replies

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church has released the Report of the Interim Committee on Women Teaching Elders1 and it is a document that polity wonks will want to have a look at.  It lays out a rational for the EPC to structure itself in light of its motto “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things charity”2 to accommodate the ordination of women in some congregations and presbyteries. Now you may not agree with the committee’s analysis and recommendations, and in fact the report acknowledges that some people won’t when it says:

The interim committee does not advocate running from this potential conflict but heading into it with humility and a conviction that we will honor God by treating one another respectfully. The unique ethos of the EPC on women’s ordination intrinsically implies that not all Presbyterians will be comfortable with our ecclesiastical arrangement.

The report begins with a review of the situation in the EPC.  The first line says “A guiding principle of the EPC from its beginning has been our declared intent to allow liberty on the women’s ordination question.”  The second paragraph sets out the polity basis for this stance:

At the beginning, we must acknowledge the fundamental principles that inform the EPC’s liberty on women’s ordination. The Biblical Principle: The Holy Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice. This authoritative Word is true in all that it teaches. The Ecclesiastical Principle: Women’s ordination is a non-essential issue about which faithful believers may have honest differences of biblical interpretation and practice. One’s view of women’s ordination is not an essential element to the catholic faith, Evangelical Protestantism, or the Reformed Tradition. The EPC has always affirmed that women’s ordination is a matter of biblical interpretation, not biblical authority.

So the committee sets forth at least two important Presbyterian principles here — The primacy of Holy Scripture and the freedom of conscience in the matters of non-essentials.  (Whether this issue falls into the category of essential or non-essential we will return to later.)

Another Presbyterian principle the committee bases their recommendations on is the right and responsibility for electing officers:

“The particular church has the right to elect its own officers” (§BOG 7-2). This right is guaranteed in perpetuity to all churches in the EPC. Similarly, the authority of presbyteries to determine their membership is granted in the constitution.

So given these principles as the doctrinal basis the committee makes three recommendations:
 
1) Reaffirmation of the EPC Position on Women’s Ordination
The committee recommends making the denomination’s stance as set forth in the Position Paper explicit in the constitution :

Recommendation: That BOG §2-2 be amended by adding an excerpt from the EPC Position Paper on the Ordination of Women to the existing statement. The amended BOG §2-2 would read:

The Officers of the Church as set forth in Scripture are: Teaching Elders (designated by many titles in Scripture, including Ministers and Pastors), Ruling Elders, and Deacons. The Evangelical Presbyterian Church does not believe that the issue of the ordination of women is an essential of the faith. Since people of good faith who equally love the Lord and hold to the infallibility of Scripture differ on this issue, and since uniformity of view and practice is not essential to the existence of the visible church, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church has chosen to leave this decision to the Spirit-guided consciences of particular congregations concerning the ordination of women as Elders and Deacons, and to the presbyteries concerning the ordination of women as Ministers.

The rational argues that while the Position Paper has functioned as justification of BOG §7-2 “it would be appropriate to insert these succinct excerpts from the Position Paper into the constitution.”  They also point out that there is precedent for doing something like this from when the document Essentials of Our Faith was incorporated into the constitution.

2) Transfer of Congregations to Adjacent Presbyteries for Reasons Regarding Women as Teaching Elders

The interim committee recognizes the tension inherent in our polity regarding the ordination/election of women as Teaching Elders. Basic polity rights can actually compete with one another in presbyteries on this issue. The right of the congregation to elect its officers and the authority of the presbytery to examine persons for a position as Teaching Elder can create conflict. A congregation may elect a woman as a Teaching Elder while a presbytery may decline that call due to the majority interpretation of Scripture on this issue. This creates an obvious tension that we would like to resolve.

The committee goes on to recognize the situation of a congregation transferring into the EPC through the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery with a female TE in place.  So how does the denomination provide this liberty within the structure of the geographic presbyteries?  The committee writes “We desire to provide freedom for these congregations without compromising the constitutional authority exercised by presbyteries.”

In this section the committee provides only general guidance for changing the BOG not specific wording like Recommendation 1.  For this recommendation part A suggests “In specific cases, for reasons related to the prohibition of the ordination or reception of women as Teaching Elders, a church may petition a geographically adjacent presbytery for membership.”  This would require all the usual approvals that we Presbyterians are familiar with for transferring presbyteries — request by the session with explicit reasons regarding this ordination issue, approval by the receiving presbytery and approval by the dismissing presbytery, both by majority vote.  And the wording of the recommendation is clear that congregations with positions on either side of the issue could request to transfer.

The second part of this recommendation addresses churches entering the denomination through either transitional presbyteries or directly.  The proposal is that the BOG would provide for the church to first consult with the geographic presbytery they would be within and “If, after such consultation, the presbytery discerns the need for relief for the entering congregation on this issue, then it will contact the adjacent geographic presbytery and recommend admission of the church”

3) Immediate Relief for a Presbytery in Conflict
Finally, this committee arose from a specific overture at the last General Assembly by Mid-America Presbytery to permit the Presbytery to act as two parallel presbyteries in the same geographic area.  The committee recommends dividing the Presbytery into two geographic presbyteries roughly along the Mississippi River with the expectation that one would permit ordaining/electing women Teaching Elders.

Discussion:
If you are tracking the debates in the PC(USA) and the PCA over ordination standards you have probably already read this document with one or the other or both of those branches in mind.  Here are my thoughts…

The issue of presbytery membership is the easier one to discuss and for the EPC with their tradition of “local option” the recommended relief seems to make a lot of sense.  I have not analyzed the pattern of presbyteries to see how far a church would have to “reach” to find a compatible presbytery, but one could envision the membership patterns becoming a checker board with fuzzy boundaries between the “yes” and “no” presbyteries.  If this recommendation is adopted it will be interesting to see how much this becomes a point of consideration in the future in forming new presbyteries like it is part of the thinking in Recommendation 3.  In other words, will there be consideration of whether a “permissive” or “restrictive” presbytery is needed in a particular geographic area.

It is interesting to compare this with the proposals coming to the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) that call for flexible presbytery membership and an alternate synod structure.  It strikes me that this EPC proposal tries to preserve the geographic nature of presbyteries to the maximum extent possible, something not a prominent in the PC(USA) proposals.

The other issue in this proposal is what is essential, or how ordination standards are “Biblical Principles” and not subject to “honest differences of biblical interpretation.”  The Presbyterian Church in America is clear that the ordained offices of elder and deacon are open only to men based upon the witness of Scripture.  The discussion that is ongoing in that branch is about interpretations and practices that are nibbling around the edges of that doctrine regarding the participation of women as commissioned helpers of deacons.

The situation in the PC(USA) is the opposite and they have inherited a stance from the former United Presbyterian Church that the ordination of women is an essential.  Knowing that this post was in the works, at the very end of my last post I made a cryptic, and probably snarky, comment that referred back to the 1975 General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission decision in the case of Maxwell v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh, now universally known as the Kenyon Decision.  In that case Mr. Walter Wynn Kenyon was denied ordination as a Teaching Elder because he disagreed with the ordination of women.  He was clear about his declared exception and the fact that he would not participate in the ordination of a woman, but he also said he would not hinder someone else doing it.  Pittsburgh Presbytery approved his exception and cleared him for ordination but the Presbytery decision was challenged.   In the end the GAPJC decided:

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

In the PC(USA) accepting the ordination of women is an essential according to the GAPJC decision.

So what if you read this report and try to imagine it as applying to the PC(USA) and its current controversy which has been cast to be about biblical interpretation of non-essentials and the presbytery’s authority to decide who can be ordained? An ordination standard currently in the Book of Order (G-6.0106b), seen as a “clear mandate” by some , is included in a General Assembly Authoritative Interpretation as something that can be declared by a presbytery as a non-essential.  The overlap and parallel nature of these discussions is striking.

But this discussion in the PC(USA) is not an independent one because it has the shadow of the Kenyon decision cast across it — how is a 1975 decision about what the Book of Order says is essential applicable to the denomination today?  I am not the first to consider this juxtaposition and the Kenyon decision has been cited as one of the reasons for churches leaving the PC(USA) for the PCA and EPC in the 70’s and 80’s over the disagreement of not just the essential itself but over the GA, and not the presbytery, being able to specify that as essential.

On the other hand this new report points to the principle advocated by the recent PC(USA) AI that presbyteries have the right and responsibility for deciding on the suitability of candidates for ordination or election.  Essentially all leadership decisions are to be done under “local option.”  (And again it is noted by some that the Kenyon decision and G-6.0106b properly or improperly raised certain ordination standards to the level of denomination-wide essentials.)

So as I said at the beginning this report crafts a resolution suitable for the “ethos of the EPC,” but a resolution that will not have the concurrence of all Presbyterian polity wonks.  I believe that the committee has done a good job of crafting a solution that fits the circumstances and polity of the EPC.  How the overtures in the PCA and PC(USA) that includes facets of the EPC report recommendations will fare will be interesting to see.  At the present time the EPC model does not fit the polity of these other branches which have some significant internal challenges.  Going forward it will be interesting to see how essentials and non-essentials and unity and liberty are balanced in each of these.  And of course, “In All Things, Charity.”

Footnotes
[1] This link is to a PDF format version I created for easier download. The original is a Word document file available from the EPC web site .
[2] An interesting discussion on the origin of this phrase can be found at http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/augustine/quote.html