Category Archives: GA business

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — The Power Of Interpretation

2 Replies

It is beginning to look like G-13.0103r is going to be a big deal at the PC(USA) GA this year…

This short item in the Book of Order currently says that the General Assembly has the responsibility and power:

to provide authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order which shall be binding on the governing bodies of the church when rendered  in accord with G-13.0112 or through a decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission in a remedial or disciplinary case.  The most recent interpretation of a provision of the Book of Order shall be binding;

Now, I am about to launch into a very polity wonkish review of this section and the role and nature of the Permanent Judicial Commission.  If you are just looking for the bottom line you can skip on down to the discussion of the individual overtures.

Probably the place to begin is considering the judicial process and judicial implications in Presbyterian government.  I am not a specialist on the history of judicial process but a bit of what I have found out is helpful to pass on here.

First, it should be kept in mind that most Presbyterian branches do not have Standing or Permanent Judicial Commissions.  As we saw last spring the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was presented a complaint and protest from members of a presbytery.  To consider the appeal in a timely manner the Commission of Assembly, not a judicial commission, reviewed it and while they had the power to hear the case and render a decision they decided by a close vote to have the appeal heard by the next General Assembly.  That full Assembly then took an evening and sat as the appellate court for the Kirk.  Likewise, the General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church has a time on their docket when they sit as the highest judicial court in their church.  This is the norm for Presbyterian branches.  Back in 2001 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Australia (the other PCA) changed their procedures to not have a judicial commission and now the full Assembly hears the appeals, dissents and complaints. (Thanks to The Rev. Dr. Paul Logan, Clerk of Assembly, for helping me straighten that history out.)

How the Judicial Commission developed in American Presbyterianism I would be very interested in knowing more about.  I give you a few parts to the story that I am aware of which will be useful as we consider the current news.  First, we know from Charles Hodge’s Constitutional History of the United States of America Volume II that while the highest governing body was the Synod, up to 1786, that body heard the judicial cases from the presbyteries.  However, in 1869, shortly after the north/south split in 1861, the constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. described synod and the General Assembly being able to refer judicial cases to a commission whose purpose it was to hear the case.  The suggestion of the wording is that these were not permanent or standing but I don’t know what happened in practice.  (As an interesting note, the 1867 wording said that “the cases of ministers on trial for error or heresy” could not be referred to a commission meaning that they had to be tried by the full Assembly.)

I am not aware of a resource to research on-line the constitutional history of the United Presbyterian Church USA/NA so I’ll have to go to the oldest resource I have close at hand and that is the 1970 Book of Order of the UPCUSA.  That Book makes clear reference to a Permanent Judicial Commission but the PJC could only render preliminary decisions and the decision did not become permanent until affirmed by a vote at the next Assembly.  It is interesting that the Presbyterian Church in America , which traces its polity to the Presbyterian Church in the United States, has the provision that its Standing Judicial Commission can file a final decision unless a large enough minority of the members of the Commission file a minority report and then it goes to the full Assembly for their consideration and final ruling.

What we can probably safely draw from this is that judicial commissions developed as a feature of American Presbyterianism between 1786 and 1867 and in the merger of 1983 that formed the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) they ended up with the power to render their own decisions in that branch.

Now if the polity wonks will excuse me let me also mention that a “commission” has a very specific usage in Presbyterian polity.  A commission is not a fancy name for a committee, or is that a name for a fancy committee, but rather is an entity created by a governing body to act with the full authority of that governing body to the extent that the governing body authorizes it.  That is why the PC(USA) GAPJC can interpret the constitution, because it is given that power by the General Assembly to do so on its behalf.  And in the UPCUSA that power was not unilaterally given to the PJC but rather all decisions needed to be reviewed and affirmed by the full Assembly.

Now, let me get very specific to the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  Checking section G-13.0103r in the Annotated Book of Order we learn a few interesting and relevant things about its history:

First, this section has more annotations than any other of the paragraphs in the responsibilities of the General Assembly section (G-13.0103) indicating that it has been regularly involved in Assembly discussion and GAPJC decisions.  We also find that this paragraph was added in 1987 to clarify the intent of G-13.0112, which this section references.  The other proposed modifications to this section run the spectrum from limiting PJC interpretation authority (1996 ) to making the GAPJC the only body to provide interpretation (1997 ).  That latter one seems to me to deny the inherent connection between the GAPJC and the full Assembly.  And there was a 1993 amendment rejected which would have returned to the UPCUSA system of the Assembly reviewing and affirming GAPJC decisions as well as rejected requests in 1992 and 2006 for GA interpretations to be ratified by the Presbyteries.  Bottom line as we look at this year’s overtures — We have been here before.

It is also important to keep in mind the recent history of back-and-forth interpretations from GA and the GAPJC.  In 2006 the 217th GA adopted the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity of the the Church .  That action included an authoritative interpretation that presbyteries needed to consider candidates’ declared departures from the standards of the church.  Some presbyteries developed their local standards and procedures and when challenged the GAPJC ruled that while each candidate must be considered on a case-by-case basis candidates were free to declare exceptions in belief but not practice.  The 218th GA clarified this AI in 2008 explicitly saying that candidates could declare exceptions in both belief and practice.  Since that GA there have been a couple more GAPJC cases that have clarified the procedures in these cases.  I have often referred to this as a game of ecclesiastical ping-pong.

Having outlined the background detail of this section let us turn now to what is on the docket for the 219th General Assembly of the PC(USA)?

As a reminder paragraph G-13.0103r now reads:

r. to provide authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order which shall be binding on the governing bodies of the church when rendered in accord with G-13.0112 or through a decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission in a remedial or disciplinary case. The most recent interpretation of a provision of the Book of Order shall be binding.

Overture 6 from Mid-South Presbytery would add to this a new last line that says “No authoritative interpretation shall be issued by a General Assembly which amends or alters a clear mandate contained in any provision of the Book of Order.” Their rational for this is brief (one sentence) and states that the intent is to be sure the Assembly has “proper limits to the use of authoritative interpretations.”  The implication in here is that G-6.0106b is a “clear mandate” and Assemblies should not be using a non-amending method to get around it.

On the other hand we have Overture 16 from Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area titled “On Amending G-13.0103r to Reduce Vexatious and Improper Litigation in the Church.”  With a title like that you could probably guess that this amendment asks to eliminate the GAPJC ability to interpret the Book of Order by striking the phrase “or through a decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission in a remedial or disciplinary case.”  Part of the rational for this overture says:

Judicial cases are extremely burdensome and costly to governing bodies of the church. When brought improvidently, they violate our biblical obligation to avoid vexatious or unnecessary litigation (D-1.0103) and are inconsistent with our fundamental theological conviction that we are most likely to discern the true movement of the Holy Spirit when we gather together in General Assembly (G-1.0400). Moreover, the GAPJC is woefully unprepared to do the work of the General Assembly, since it hears only from the parties to the case; does not have the wider perspective afforded by all of the persons and resources that inform deliberations by the General Assembly; and must prepare its decisions within very tight time constraints (a number of cases usually must be decided, immediately after hearings, in only one or two days).

The proposed amendment would affirm our historic polity of collective discernment under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and put an end to the “culture of litigation” that is growing in the church. It would do so by removing the incentive to pursue fundamental changes in church law through individual court cases. The judicial commissions of the church still could decide particular cases brought before them, as they do now. However, the authority to interpret the Constitution so as to bind the whole church would rest exclusively with the General Assembly.

I could write a whole polity discourse on these two paragraphs (and that might have something to do with why the Bills and Overtures Committee of the Presbytery recommended its disapproval ) but let me note one point here and some more later.  Yes, the litigation is costly not just to the governing bodies but to both sides in the judicial process.  At the present time governing bodies are on both the complainant and respondent (or prosecution and defendant) sides of high profile cases.  I could not agree more that it would be good to minimize costs — but if you want to reduce the cost work on the judicial process in the Rules of Discipline.  At the present time our polity permits, and always has, those that dissent on conscience to have their complaint heard.

Overture 77 from the Presbytery of Arkansas seeks to return the GAPJC interpretations to the process of the UPCUSA polity.  There are multiple changes so permit me to reproduce the proposed language in its entirety (proposed new language in italics):

r.  to provide authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order which shall be binding on the governing bodies of the church when rendered in accord with G-13.0112 or through a decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission in a remedial or disciplinary case,which is approved as an authoritative interpretation by the next plenary session of the General Assembly. The most recent interpretation of a provision of the Book of Order approved by a plenary session of the General Assembly shall be binding; …


Overture 55 from the Presbytery of San Diego does not deal directly with G-13.0103r but is related in a couple of ways.  It seeks to have the General Assembly get out of the business of dealing with controversy by striking G-13.0103q which says that one of the responsibilities of the General Assembly is:

q. to decide controversies brought before it and to give advice and instruction in cases submitted to it, in conformity with the Constitution.

Let me say this… Nice idea – I think many of us would appreciate it if the Assembly did not have to deal with controversy.  However, as the highest governing body in the Presbyterian church the Assembly has been dealing with controversies, with varying degrees of success, for practically the whole 300 year history of American Presbyterianism.  If the GA did not handle the various controversies the issues won’t go away.  We will either become frustrated in trying to deal with them at lower levels or connectionalism would break down and the controversies would have to be dealt with by middle governing bodies.  As much as everyone finds the time spent on these frustrating, our Reformed background says that controversies will arise because of our sinful human nature and it is the historic role of the highest governing body to collectively decide these through discernment of the community.

This overture is also relevant because if successful in the Assembly and the presbyteries concur the sections following will be re-lettered and paragraph r will become q.

Now having laid out the overtures let me make a few comments about the current situation in the PC(USA).  I have to agree that we, as a denomination, have a lot of ecclesiastical judicial cases to be reviewed.  Most Presbyterian branches have two to four a year that have to be heard by the highest governing body and these can be handled by the governing body.  Since the last meeting of the General Assembly the GAPJC has issued decisions in 13 cases.  So the first question is whether a full Assembly could handle that case load and further whether some of those cases could wait the two years between assemblies.

I realize that none of these overtures ask for the elimination of the GAPJC but two of them would modify its authority.  I must admit that taking all interpretation authority away from the GAPJC does not make sense to me.  In rendering some decisions it must interpret the Book of Order, especially if the new Form of Government is adopted and the “operations manual” elements are removed.  Judicial boards, be they civil or ecclesiastical, have the responsibility to “fill in the blanks” when the general nature of legislation must be made specific.  If the Assembly finds it desirable to have better congruence between the PJC and the full Assembly then Overture 77 is the way to go.

On the other hand, just as the PJC, as an extension of the Assembly, must be able to interpret so must the Assembly itself.  It is there to, among other things, resolve controversies so it needs interpretation authority too.  Overture 6 does not take away that power but there could be questions about what is a “clear mandate.”  At face value I have to agree with Overture 6 but have to ask if this needs to be specified and if the idea of a “clear mandate” is clear itself.  The important thing here is that the Assembly must only interpret and not use the power of interpretation as a substitute for the process of seeking presbytery concurrence in matters of faith and doctrine.

But there is a bigger picture here:  In looking at this issue we must not fall into the trap of viewing these entities as independent branches of Presbyterian government as there are sperate branches of civil government.  While the U.S. Government finds its system of checks and balances in three co-equal branches with individual responsibilities a Presbyterian government finds its accountability in its connectional nature as “…presbyters shall come together in governing bodies… in regular gradation” (G-4.0300c)  The horizontal structure of the church is to equip it for mission and it must be remembered that the OGA, GAMC, PJC, and standing committees are nothing more than parts of the General Assembly itself that the Assembly has seen fit to create to help it do its work.  Our accountability is of a vertical nature, as it should be with Jesus Christ as Head of the Church at the top.  And while Jesus is the Head the Book of Order tells us (G-9.0103) that the foundation is the presbyteries – “The jurisdiction of each governing body is limited by the express provisions of the Constitution, with powers not mentioned being reserved to the presbyteries, and with the acts of each subject to review by the next higher governing body.”

The bottom line here is that we should not view the GA/GAPJC relationship as adversarial for the GAPJC is merely a commission of the GA to help it do its work.  Likewise, the GA/Presbytery relationship is one of mutual support in our connectional system and just as the rational for Overture 16 suggests that GA is a larger body and there are greater numbers to discern the will of God than the smaller GAPJC, the same can be said of the GA sending items to the presbyteries for concurrence, not because we are democratic but because it provides an even greater group of elders, ruling and teaching, to discern together what God would have us do.

Post Script:
In this first footnote let me return to the probable cause of these overtures, the on-going ecclesiastical ping-pong game:
1) In the back and forth over Authoritative Interpretations and declared exceptions to the standards and belief and practice it is important to note that the GAPJC has not ruled on exceptions declared by any specific individual.  All of the legal decisions have so far dealt with procedures and timing in the ordination process, not with any candidate’s specific scruple.

2) If the GAPJC were to be denied the ability to provide interpretation, what about previous interpretations?  I presume they would be explicitly adopted or somehow grandfathered in.  But if previous interpretations are no longer binding does this mean that an officer can object to and not participate in, but not hinder, the ordination of women?

Special Meeting Of The General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Ireland Regarding The Presbyterian Mutual Crisis

Leave a reply

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland just concluded an almost two hour Special Meeting to deal with the crisis at the Presbyterian Mutual Society.

I followed it closely on Twitter but only got the live video stream working at the very end of the meeting so my comments reflect the official tweets from @pciassembly and a couple of other news sources that got their impressions up quickly.

Since my last update two weeks ago when the Special Meeting was called the Northern Ireland Government has been working on a plan to rescue the savers in the Society.  According to today’s Belfast Newsletter the proposed £225m package from the government would include a £175m government loan to the Society Administrator to accelerate payments to investors, and a £50m hardship fund from which the small investors could withdraw up to £20,000.

The call for the Special Meeting says regarding the church:

While not in a position to share a full written description of what they describe as ‘Plan B”, the First and deputy First Minister indicated that it would include a ‘hardship fund’. In addition to a contribution from government, they anticipated that a sum of at least £1m would be forthcoming from the Presbyterian Church in Ireland towards this ‘hardship element’.

The documents for the meeting include the Report and the Supplementary Report for the Assembly — the latter contains the proposed resolutions.

The Assembly was convened by the Moderator, the Rev. Stafford Carson, who called the meeting to order just after 2 pm local time with scripture reading and prayer.  A press report says that about 800 of the 1200 commissioners were present.  According to the official Twitter messages the Moderator offered an apology “on behalf of PCI for the distress and anxiety that the PMS crisis caused to savers” and “The church has not abandoned these people. We hope that this painful experience will not be prolonged much longer.”  He thanked those who have worked hard on behalf of the savers and asked the church to stay united as they work through this.

The Moderator said that while they still hold out hope for a “commercial solution” the possibility is looking “increasingly less likely.”  Consequently, participating in the government plan, the “Plan B” that is referred to, is advisable since it may be the only hope.  He said “We want to ensure that our actions promote and advance, and do not inhibit or prevent, a just solution” and “We must show we are not a reluctant church, being dragged along by Government.”

The Assembly then turned to the business:

Resolution 1 to receive the report of the Panel on the Financial Crisis was received.

The Twitter messages suggest that Resolutions 2-6 were also easily adopted:

  1. That the General Assembly call on all congregations and members to continue in prayer and to offer practical support where possible for everyone who has been affected by financial hardship, including those caught up in the situation of the PMS.
  2. That the General Assembly are acutely aware of the continuing distress of many savers who have been unable to access their savings in PMS.
  3. That the General Assembly welcome the commitment of the Prime Minister to seeking a resolution of the PMS crisis and his acknowledgement of a moral obligation to do so.
  4. That the General Assembly regret the delay and reaffirm the importance of seeking urgently a solution which will, if at all possible, give a full settlement to all claims, whether from “shareholders” or “creditors” and welcome the assurance that the “commercial” solution is still an option.
  5. That the General Assembly commend the efforts of the Northern Ireland Executive, led by the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and encourage all politicians to work vigorously for a successful solution.

There was more discussion when they got to Resolution 7:

That in the event of the government failing to secure a “commercial” solution and the Northern Ireland Executive bringing forward a final and comprehensive proposal which includes a “Hardship” Fund element, the General Assembly agree in principle to contribute £1m.

One tweet quotes the Rev. John Dunlop – “The law does not necessarily serve justice – a hard lesson for us to learn” and then says that he “suggests creditors who are in line to get their money back plus 8% interest, forgo the interest and contribute to shareholders.” There were proposed amendments and word-smithing of the resolution and in the end the Assembly passed Resolution 7 and changed the wording so the end of the resolution now reads “…commits in principle to contribute £1m.”  Earlier discussion made clear that the concept for raising this money would be by voluntary contributions and not an assessment on the church.  (I will also note that the wording of the original in the tweets did not always correspond with the on-line text so there might have been a couple of different versions circulating.)

Finally, the Assembly passed Resolution 8

That the General Assembly instruct the Panel on the Financial Crisis to consider ways in which the necessary finance may be raised for the above contribution and to report to the June Assembly.

and concluded the meeting by singing that great Irish hymn “In Christ Alone.”

There are initial news reports from the Belfast Telegraph and the BBC about the meeting.  And clearly from Resolution 8 this will come back at the regular Assembly meeting in just under two months.

UPDATE:  The PCI has issued a summary of the meeting which contains the final text of the debated and amended resolution:

That in the event of the government failing to secure a “commercial”solution and the Northern Ireland Executive bringing forward a final and comprehensive proposal which includes a “Hardship” Fund element, the General Assembly agree in principle to contribute £1m, while the General Assembly affirm their view that the members of the PMS are thrifty savers and not risk taking investors.

Also, the Moderator has posted the full text of his remarks to the Assembly on his blog .

Reformed Church In America Approves Adding Belhar Confession As A Standard Of Unity

Leave a reply

The Reformed Church in America (RCA) announced this morning that the classes have concurred with the General Synod 2009 to approved the addition of the Belhar Confession to the Standards of Unity of the church.

A two-thirds majority of the RCA’s 46 classes have voted to ratify
adoption of the confession, which General Synod 2009 voted to add as a
fourth standard of unity. 
Each classis has engaged in conversation and discernment around this
decision, which requires an addition to the Book of Church Order.
All votes have been reported to the General Synod office, with 32
classes in favor of ratification and 14 opposed.

Doing the math, two-thirds of the classes would be 31, so the approval was close.  And I should point out that a classis (plural classes) in the Reformed Church is a regional grouping of churches like a presbytery in the Presbyterian tradition although your local polity wonk can tell you about some interesting polity differences.

For those in the PC(USA) this is interesting since the Special Committee to Consider Amending the Confessional Documents of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to Include the Belhar Confession in The Book of Confessions is expected to recommend to the 219th General Assembly the inclusion of the confession in the PC(USA) Constitution.  The process in the PC(USA) will be the same as the RCA with GA approval first and then the concurrence of two-thirds of the presbyteries.  If the presbyteries concur there will be a final approval vote by the 220th GA.

Special Meeting Of The General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Ireland To Discuss The Presbyterian Mutual Society

1 Reply

Earlier this week the Rev. Dr. Stafford Carson, Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, issued the call for a special meeting of the Assembly to consider the plan recently proposed by the Northern Ireland Government.  The meeting is to be held on Tuesday 13 April at 2:00 PM, the first date possible with the requisite 14 day advance notice of the meeting.

The press release says:

The business of the Special Assembly, says the letter, is “to consider the present situation for savers in the Presbyterian Mutual Society andto respond to a recent initiative of the Northern Ireland Executive.”

“On Monday the First Minister and deputy First Minister announced that they had formulated proposals to resolve the PMS crisis which they intended to submit to both the Prime Minister and Treasury,” said the Moderator. “The Church recognises the substantial financial commitment of both the Treasury and the Northern Ireland Executive in this process and appreciates all that has been done by Executive Ministers, local politicians and their officials to reach this point.”

“We understand that part of these proposals will involve a financial contribution from the Presbyterian Church. In order to expedite the process we have called this special meeting of the General Assembly,whose decision would be necessary to raise any funds”

The press release says that the report and proposed motions are expected to be mailed out to commissioners next week.  This is only the third special meeting of an Assembly in the last 34 years.

Last Monday, the day before the notice of call was issued, the Rev. Carson issued a statement about the possible settlement:

We welcome the announcement from the First Minister and deputy First Minister that they will be meeting with the Prime Minister Gordon Brown to press for a resolution of the PMS crisis.

It’s encouraging to know that a solution may be possible but we are disappointed that everyone’s preferred option of a commercial solution does not now seem possible. From our perspective that was the only solution that would deliver 100 pence in the pound to all savers.

However, if the Northern Ireland Executive, in consultation with the Treasury has been able to devise a scheme that restores 100 percent of all savings then that will be an excellent outcome.

We have not seen details of the proposals and at this stage we need clarity. We have sought written information on the details of this package and await a response.

The details of the government proposal are not yet know but a Belfast News Letter article says “It is believed that First Minister Peter Robinson and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness are set to meet Prime Minister Gordon Brown imminently to discuss the deal.”  However, a Belfast Telegraph article reports on the dissatisfaction of some savers in the Society regarding the suggestion that even though the plan would pay them back most, if not all, of their deposits the funds would be returned over time and not immediately as they desire.

Stay tuned as details of the proposal and the church report are released.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — A Survey Of The Landscape

3 Replies

Over the last few days I have become refocused on the upcoming General Assemblies and trying to map out my strategy for blogging in advance of each one.  Needless to say, if I am going to blog about every overture submitted to the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) it will take some time.  Or maybe not…

At the present time there are 102 overtures, two committee reports, and 52 recommendations from standing committees of GA entities.  But of those 102 overtures, well over half fall into six predictable categories.  Here is the landscape we are looking at:

Ordination Standards:  It should be no surprise to anyone following the PC(USA) these days that the hottest topic for this GA, as measured by the number of overtures, is ordination standards.  There are seventeen overtures that directly address G-6.0106b or other sections of the Book of Order that deal with ordination standards.  In addition, there are a few more that address the way that the General Assembly does it’s business that could influence the ordination standards status as well.  And there is one, Overture 56, that proposes to change the Book of Order to require future changes to the Book of Order to have the concurrence of two-thirds of the presbyteries making it significantly harder to change the Constitution.  (For reference, there are other Presbyterian branches, such as the PCA, which do require a 2/3 vote.)

Marriage:  Second in the number of related overtures is the topic of Marriage.  Not counting the report of the Special Committee on Civil Unions and Christian Marriage and the minority report, which have not appeared on PC-Biz yet, there are eleven overtures asking for Book of Order changes or Interpretations related to this.

General Assembly operations and procedures:  This is the most “jello” category, a little hard to nail down, but I count about 15 overtures that address how the General Assembly does it’s business.  While a few ask for constitutional changes, like Overture 54 to reduce the number of commissioners that I mentioned yesterday, most are changes to the Standing Rules.  This assortment of overtures deals with who can speak, who can vote, what and when business can be transacted.  There are some interesting and attractive items in here, like Overture 38 to give priority to controversial items or Overture 74 which would have the standing rules require committee reports and votes on business items to all be placed ahead of dinner before commissioners get too tired.

But what is interesting about this category is that there are several additional items in the recommendations category.  One of these is Recommendation 38 from the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly which would add the requirement that when the Moderator is empowered to appoint a task force or special committee the Moderator consults with the Nominating Committee.  (Maybe Bruce was a bit too free wheeling and independent in his appointments and they don’t want that to happen again.  We just want to make sure it is done decently and in order.)

New Form of Government (nFOG): The three remaining categories are all close but this weighs in at number four with seven overtures.  Some try to perfect it while two, Overtures 44 and 95, ask for more time to consider it and one, Overture 98, wants to dismiss the task force and ask the presbyteries to roll back all the resent changes including the undoing of the Chapter 14 change made a couple of years ago.  And then Overture 95 invites more suggested changes from the church on the nFOG.  We could take one step beyond their suggestion, post it on a Wiki, and let the whole church work away at it for two years.  (And no, I am not being sarcastic but am seriously considering if it would be a worthwhile exercise.)  Overture 53 seems to say that the nFOG is only a starting point and after we approve it further revisions are still necessary to make it a manual of operations.

Middle East:  Again, this category is tied to both an ongoing discussion in the church and a just released task force report that is not on PC-Biz yet.  This is the area that seems to be receiving the most outside publicity and criticism from Jewish groups and the mainstream media.  There are six overtures in this area, most of which do not directly address the report since the report was so recently released.  In addition, there are three recommendations from GA permanent committees on this topic.

Middle Governing Bodies: Finally, there are five overtures and one recommendation to study or change the middle governing body structure.  These include two overtures to increase flexibility, one in presbytery membership (45) and one in synod membership (36), and the rest to decide if we need to cut some of them back.

Finally, across all the categories there are two overtures and four recommendations that request a task force, special commission, and even an Administrative Commission to get something done.  I am still trying to decide if the fact that twice as many of these recommendations come from the permanent committees means something significant, positive or negative, about the way the PC(USA) does business.

Those six categories cover 61 of the 102 overtures posted on PC-Biz.  So the landscape is dominated by these controversial issues.  But in between we find some interesting individual items.  There is Overture 12 “On designating May 1 every year as a Day of Prayer for Healing.”  (Interesting idea although I would have liked to hear the rational for that particular date since there are other things on May 1 as well.)  And Overture 48 which would add language about the Covenant Community to the section on membership.

At this point we are well past the 120 day deadline so no more overtures proposing changes to the Book of Order would be expected.  But there is plenty of time for other overtures before the 60 day (those with financial implications) and 45 day (all others) deadlines so the number should continue to grow.  At this point before the 218th GA there were only 75 overtures posted so we are well ahead of that pace this year and we can probably expect more than the 128 overtures there were for that meeting.  We shall see where it finally ends up.

Meetings Of A Presbyterian General Assembly — How Often?

2 Replies

How often should a Presbyterian General Assembly or General Synod meet?  For a couple of centuries now the answer has generally been annually, but in recent times that pattern has been up for discussion.  It is interesting to note that in the list of Moderators of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on Wikipedia in the early years there are multiple Moderators listed in a given year indicating not just multiple meetings, but multiple Assemblies per year.

The importance of the “how often” question is raised again today as the highlights of the meeting of the Assembly Council of the Presbyterian Church in Canada are released.  The Assembly action on an overture to the 133rd General Assembly (2007) asked the Council to consider biennial Assemblies and the Assembly created a task group to study the issue and consult with the other governing bodies.  The Council considered the report which included the responses to a model for biennial Assemblies that was sent to the church for comment.  In general, the church was narrowly in favor of biennial Assemblies with sessions favoring it 54 to 37, presbyteries opposed 11 to 13, and synods and committees were each 2 to 1 in favor.  But it is most interesting to see the commentary on this voting:

It was noted, for example, that there appeared to be a regional divide where courts in Quebec and the Maritimes were overwhelmingly opposed while support strengthened to west. It was also noted that those courts supporting the notion tended to not include reasons for their support while those opposed offered lengthy explanations for their decision.

The report recommended moving to biennial Assemblies but a motion to move that direction in principle failed in the Council vote.  The report tells us  “A new motion recommending that General Assembly ‘affirm the practice of annual assemblies’ was proposed and approved.”

So while the recommendation in response to this overture has been made, as the comment in the Minutes of the 133rd GA (p. 214) tells us, this matter has been before the church “many times in the past.”  As would be expected, the overture itself (p. 519-520) appeals to the time, effort and finances expended on annual Assemblies and the best use of those resources.

(A side note on a topic that I will be considering further in the future:  It is interesting to see that this matter was sent to the lower governing bodies for an advisory vote.  From what I have seen this is a practice that the PCC seems to do on a fairly regular basis but is much rarer in other Presbyterian branches.  One other place in the PCC history that this formal advisory vote is seen is in the early 20th century as the Presbyterians were considering their place in the Union movement and the presbyteries and sessions were consulted on multiple occasions about uniting with other Christian bodies.  In light of this, I find an overture to this year’s  General Assembly of the PC(USA) to require the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy to send proposed statements out to the presbyteries for “study, discussion, and comment” prior to the report to the General Assembly to be in a very similar spirit.)

There is another overture to a General Assembly to consider biennial Assemblies.  This one is to the 38th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America.  Overture 6, from Evangel Presbytery, asks the Assembly “to direct the Administrative Committee to conduct a study for the feasibility of conducting General Assemblies on a bi-annual basis.”

The Whereases do include the usual argument about the amount of time and financial resources it takes to make the Assemblies happen, but that is not the primary argument in this overture.  The principle argument is that with modern communications the Assembly no longer serves the purpose of getting reports out to the Assembly commissioners to take back to the lower governing bodies.  In that task the Assembly is now irrelevant.  But the overture goes on to say that efficient electronic communications has another impact:

Whereas, denominational issues that once were debated on the floor of GA are now resolved and presented in a refined and reasoned manner causing the floor process to lose much energy and interest with commissioners spending considerable time away from the meeting to visit the exhibitions during the presentations of Committees and Agencies; and

Whereas, in addition to declining interest in the conduct of business, travel and lodging expenses have affected GA and attendance during the last five years has declined annually while the ratio of Teaching Elders in attendance has increased and the number of Ruling Elders has declined;

Interesting rational — On the one hand very true but on the other hand this cuts right to the very essence of Presbyterianism.

Functionally, Presbyterian and Reformed polity is distinctive in two regards — joint rule of teaching elders and ruling elders and connectionalism of governing bodies.  This overture essentially says that modern electronic communication is at least changing, if not eroding, the way that both of these principles operate.  It has moved the governing of the church from face-to-face interaction to virtual interaction, reducing the importance of the meetings for the joint deliberations of elders in decision making and eliminating the need for meetings to facilitate the connectional flow of information.

The overture does request regional meetings in years that the Assembly does not meet that would involve…

…contiguous presbyteries to cooperate on an alternate years to join two or three day meetings that can be conducted in churches and smaller venues where travel and lodging are less expensive. During such regional meetings Committees and Agencies can participate with reports and ministries can present displays if so requested and approved by the Administrative Committee.

It will be interesting to see where this goes and the discussion it begins.

Finally, there are a couple of items related to biennial Assemblies coming to the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  The first is the fact that when biennial Assemblies were instituted it was specified that after this year’s Assembly meeting there would be a review of this practice.  The Presbytery of Giddings-Lovejoy has sent an overture (Overture 49) that would expand the review of the GA from not just the timing but to include…

…considering the form and function of our General Assembly meetings by expanding the action of the 214th General Assembly (2002)… instructing this study committee to consider the whole of the General Assembly meeting in its form and function.

This review is to include, but is not limited to, matters of financial stewardship, the use of alternative forms of discernment, the number of commissioners and advisory delegates as well as the role of advisory delegates, the schedule for moderatorial elections, the environmental impact of assemblies, the frequency of meetings, and models for governance for future generations.

Got all that?  The request is for a complete review, to put anything and everything about how General Assemblies operate on the table.

Another approach is taken by Overture 9 from Presbytery of Foothills.  I discussed this in more detail a while back, but this overture essentially states that the way the PC(USA) does business in the GA hinders our connectionalism and to promote our connectional nature the church should hold a General Convocation “for the purposes of worship, mission celebration, and building up relationships within the Body of Christ” for five years.  In the sixth year the General Assembly would meet to do business.

And in a final related overture, the Presbytery of San Diego notes that one reason for going to biennial Assemblies was to save money, but in changing the meeting pattern the number of commissioners to the Assembly was roughly doubled, not really saving that much money.  They have sent Overture 54 to the 219th General Assembly asking for a change to the Book of Order to restore the number of commissioners to their previous levels.

We are all well aware that in this age of Web 2.0 the technology and pressure is present to make face-to-face meetings unnecessary.  As we balance the use of technology and the stewardship of resources with the questions of how often and in what ways to meet, we also need to be mindful of the implications for our understanding of call, connectionalism, and discerning together in the Covenant Community brought together with Jesus Christ as its Head.

The Church Of Scotland National Youth Assembly — Looking Back And Looking Ahead

2 Replies

For the PC(USA)’ers who are going to GA this year, there is a joke about Minnesota (at least they tell me it is a joke) that Minnesota has two seasons: Winter’s coming and Winter’s here.

Right now I feel a bit like that with the National Youth Assembly of the Church of Scotland.  I still had my discussion of the last NYA sitting as a draft and I find the announcement of NYA2010 posted on the web.  So at this mid-point between NYA2009 and NYA2010 let me try to look back to get caught up and to look forward at what this year holds.

NYA2009 met back at the beginning of September last, and the final deliverances were posted about two months later.  As I say every time I discuss NYA, one of the things that impresses me about the National Youth Assembly is the fact that items from their deliverances move on to the General Assembly coming up in just about two months.

The NYA2009 deliverances were posted on the NYA Blog by Iain McLarty.  He includes this “cover letter“:

Hi everyone. Sorry it’s taken a while but you will now be able to find the final deliverance for each debate below. Both your General Assembly reps and I will try and make sure these are taken to the General Assembly and to its Councils and Committees but when you read through the statements you will find that a lot of them apply to local churches or to individuals and your involvement in these didn’t end on the Monday afternoon in Stirling. Remember that it’s up to everyone who was at the Youth Assembly to try and raise awareness of the deliverance and make changes happen, whether it’s just things you do yourself, your local church or your Presbytery. You could print them out and put them on your church notice board, or ask your minister to talk about a couple of points that your local church will take action on during a service. And if you have a blog you can copy them there and raise awareness of them.   Well done again on producing an excellent result to the long weekend of debates and if you have stories of your success in promoting the results during the year then come back and tell people here.

The NYA business addressed four specific topics:  Identity, Wealth, Spirituality, Inter-faith.  This is going to get long but I decided I could not do the deliverances justice by editing out what I thought were the most important points.  Therefore, I am going to give you the full text of each.

From the deliverance on Identity, here are the set of nine points that came out of the Assembly:

The National Youth Assembly…

1. Believes that we as a Church should seek to recognise and celebrate people as individuals with individual gifts and talents, and not to generalise.
We should:

(a) Seek to develop these gifts and talents
(b) Value building relationships over organising evangelistic events
(c) View people as works in progress and not the finished article

2. Would like the Church of Scotland to explore the emerging aspects of Positive Psychology as a way of forming relationships with people,particularly those on the edges of the church. We would encourage the church to develop resources and make these available to all groups and leaders working in the Church.

3. Believes that inappropriate responses by the Church of Scotland to the identity of individuals and groups has been a very real barrier to them feeling part of the church.

4. Urges the Church to explore ways of supporting growth in Christian identity for all ages, recognising the current work of COSY in this area.

5. Urges the Church of Scotland to continue supporting the young people of the church as they move through education and into the world of work.  We encourage the church to help with pastoral support,offering guidance both spiritually and generally, as young people develop their identity through these difficult challenges.

6. Believes that the Church of Scotland should respond positively to identity issues by providing opportunities for social interaction:

(a) Between young and old by creating ways for them to work together;
(b) By encouraging social and community events within churches to build relationships;
(c) By encouraging all local churches to engage with a partner church somewhere else in the world;
(d) By developing small group networks for folk to meet together, share their stories and build relationships.

7. Believes that the Church of Scotland should acknowledge that people within the church, despite the fact that they are Christians,experience identity problems.

8. Encourages churches to make spiritual support groups available for everyone in the parish regardless of whether or not they are a member.

9. Believes that the Church of Scotland should not make people conform to one identity. Instead it should embrace diversity, with its own identity being ‘Everyone is welcome’

The deliverance on Wealth made these points:

The National Youth Assembly…

1. Urges the Church of Scotland to take the lead in opening discussions on personal finance and to provide support in helping with issues of stewardship.

2. Recognise that while Western society encourages materialism, which is unacceptable, the Church should not condemn individuals but should work with them to combat materialism.

3. Would like the Church of Scotland to prioritise spending on people. Local churches should be encouraged to invite disadvantaged groups into their churches to use their resources in whatever way is appropriate.

4. Suggests greater discussion of collective tithing. There should be increased accountability and transparency from the Church as to where financial contributions go. Individual churches should have more of a voice in where their contributions go.

5. Urges the Church of Scotland to continue to work with people of other denominations and faiths in trying to eradicate poverty.

6. Believes that the Church of Scotland should continue to support the work of Christian Aid in its tax justice campaign and should build stronger links with projects tackling poverty.

7. Feels that the church should be at the forefront of tackling the structures that keep people poor and encourage people to see poverty as not being restricted to financial issues, with other factors including spirituality, health and education. Local issues should not be neglected in favour of international ones.

8. Would like to see the church make tackling poverty a priority and to see it as an act of worship. The use of biblical texts as a means of communicating the necessity and impetus for working to eradicate poverty should be encouraged.

9. Recognises that churches do a lot of good work in tackling poverty and encourage this to be fed back through stories about this.

10. Believes that the church should play a key part in tackling poverty through educating people and being active in the community. The local church should be key to identifying local needs in order to prioritise eradicating poverty in Scotland.

11. Would like churches to ensure that people in congregations who are struggling financially can be honest and receive help without having to feel they have to keep up a ‘respectable’ façade.

12. Encourage the Church of Scotland to be more involved in practi
cal work both at home and abroad (e.g. building projects) in charities and projects, other than just providing financial support.

13. Commend and encourage the continuation of ethical investment practices by the Church of Scotland.

14. Urge individual church members to review their giving with a view to giving more sacrificially in order that the good work of the Church may continue.

In this set I particularly admire that it calls the Kirk to action keeping the responsibility on the church and the individual members, not on secular institutions.

The deliverance on Spirituality says:

The National Youth Assembly…

1.    Affirms that spirituality is a crucial part of the Christian faith and believes that the Church of Scotland is not good at engaging with this. The Church should help people mature in their spirituality by openly confronting it and not hiding from it and by providing more accessible resources and pastoral care.

2.    Believes that every aspect of life has a spiritual dimension (e.g. use of money, relationships, values, suffering)

3.    Would like to see people in the church helped to develop a healthy relationship with silence, including during church services.Where practical, a dedicated space should be provided in churches for meditation and reflection, both in and out of “church hours” and open and advertised to the general public.

4.    Would like to see more emphasis placed on spirituality in preaching, possibly including questions for contemplation and discussion.

5.    Encourages the creative use of big posters/billboards in prominent public places, with messages to inspire people spiritually.

6.    Encourages church communities and individuals within those communities to share their stories and faith experiences, with the relevant support.

7.    Recognises that traditional services are of spiritual value,but would like to see more exploration of alternative worship both in and out of services for example, art exhibitions, film liturgies,poetry, i-pod reflections and labyrinths.

8.    Would like to see the promotion of opportunities for learning such as “Adult Sunday School” and programs like Alpha or Living the Questions.

9.    Thinks that spirituality should be spoken about and practised from Sunday school age so that children are aware of it, for example through “Godly Play.”

10.    Suggest that it is useful to look at spirituality in an Inter-Faith way.

11.    Would like to see an event exploring alternative worship and spiritual development, possibly on the theme of “Live faith and share life” [rather than live life and share faith]

Now I am viewing this through an “American lens” so I don’t know if some of the current tension in American religion over the general term “spirituality” is present in Scotland also.  If so this deliverance may be the most controversial or unconventional to some in the church, especially those that value orthodoxy.  It is interesting that the deliverance acknowledges this saying “the Church of Scotland is not good at engaging with this.”  In light of recent surveys that show that American “millennials” (those between the ages of 18-29) are “spiritual” but not “religious” this deliverance at times walks a fine line between the two, in places mixes them, and in other spots appears to advocate for what would be considered “new age” or “eastern” spiritual practices that some around here would argue should not be part of Christian worship or spiritual practices.  On the one hand, promoting Adult Sunday School, sharing faith experiences, and seeing a spiritual dimension to every aspect of life can be considered foundational Christian practices.  The large posters and billboards, healthy relationship with silence, and the alternative worship practices would be encouraged or discouraged depending on how they are focused.  But for some, looking at spirituality in an Inter-Faith way could be a concern.  This could be one of those issues where the details will be scrutinized.  But again, I don’t know if this is even the issue in Scotland it is in parts of the U.S.

The last deliverance was on Inter-Faith:

The National Youth Assembly…

1. Believes that the church should do more to combat stereo-typical views of what Christians are like and understand that all faiths have extremists, including Christianity. There is a need to extend education about all faiths to avoid stereo-typing based on biased media reporting.

2. Thinks that there should be more Inter-Faith gatherings and conferences at local, national and international levels, with better advertising to increase awareness of this work and its importance.

3. Consider consulting with local police forces and outside agencies to ascertain priority areas where Inter-Faith dialogue is required.

4. Encourages the use of Inter-Faith meals as a means of sharing faith and belief to build meaningful relationships while being sensitive to other customs.

5. Encourages the Church of Scotland to promote Inter-Faith Dialogue overseas in areas such as Israel/Palestine and Africa.

6. Challenges local churches to extend loving friendship and conversation to people of other denominations and faiths and to love their neighbours regardless of faith or absence of faith. We should accept people for who they are, treat them with respect, and never pity.  When talking with anyone we should have no agenda for converting them.

7. Encourages the Church of Scotland to offer more practical support to congregations engaging in Inter-Faith relationships. This could include an expansion of the role of Inter-Faith workers and the development of a volunteer network.

8. Encourages the Church of Scotland to recognise the values which we share with other faiths and which should inform and encourage practical work on issues such as poverty, conflict resolution and justice. Faith groups should work together for increased dialogue with all levels of government.

9. Are aware that ignorance breeds prejudice whereas knowledge breeds understanding.  It’s crucial to build lasting relationships before tackling religious issues. We need to be educated about other faiths and try to educate other faiths in what we believe and why we believe it, promoting mutual understanding.

10. Encourages the Church of Scotland to reach out to those who feel threatened and fearful of new cultures and religions in their area in the hope that such feelings won’t escalate.

11. Would like the church to consider ways in which communities can have dialogue with people of other faiths while being careful to avoid tokenism and condescension.

12. Encourage ongoing Religious Education programmes in schools with the involvement of churches and other faith groups, as part of commitment to promoting understanding about different faiths among wider society.

13. Encourage Inter-Faith dialogue at all levels of the church,including opportunities for people from other faith communities to speak to churches about their beliefs.

14. Want to encourage ecumenical discussions so that Christians of all denominations can work to improve inter-faith relationships.

Again, the church walks in a tension between supporting a pluralistic society where it is helpful to understand the cultural context of those around us of different faiths while not compromising, or appearing to compromise, the essential tenets of its own faith.  For the most part this deliverance does a good job walk
ing that line.

The next step is to see how these recommendations develop.  As the cover letter says, there is much in here that happens on an individual, congregational or presbytery basis.  But some of these items will come through to the General Assembly included in the deliverances from standing committees of the Assembly.  We will see these specifics shortly as the Assembly reports are posted.

Moving on, a short while ago the information for NYA2010 was posted on the COSY Blog.  Here is the lede:

Welcome to the National Youth Assembly 2010! Our theme for this year is To Boldly Go . . . and we’ll be thinking about mission – what does the word mission mean to you? How do we do mission in a 21st century Scotland and what might it look like?

The new Moderator of NYA is Kim Wood (note the spelling correction in the comment) and the discussion questions will be fashion, politics, and violence and peacemaking.  Those are three interesting, relevant and wide-ranging topics and I look forward to seeing where the debate goes on those.  Note also the emphasis on “mission in a 21st century Scotland” — not world mission, but local mission.

The event will be held at Stirling University, the same as last year, but apparently in a new venue on the campus.  It is the first weekend of September, Friday 3 Sept. to Monday 6 Sept. 2010.  And maybe the most important information: the conference is covered by the COSY Blog and will probably use the Twitter hashtag #nya2010.  If you need to register you can do so at MadStuff.biz.

Chris Hoskins over at What Is Freedom? has posted a brief note expressing his regret that he will be missing the Assembly this year and how meaningful the NYA has been in his life.  He says:

I will miss not being at the assembly, the 7 Youth Assemblies I have attended, as delegate or staff, over the last 10 years have been very important to me. I’ve made many good friends, been challenged, been inspired, at the assembly in 2000 I gave my life to Christ. Through my involvement in the Youth Assemblies, I’ve been opened to many other opportunities… I know this list seems a bit narcissistic, but I’m just realising how blessed I’ve been to be a part of all these things.

And he concludes with this advice:

If you’ve never been to the Youth assembly and you are eligible to go, I would recommend that you do, if you’ve been before, why do you share some memories with us? Those who are going this year – relish it, enjoy it, participate. Its the kind of event that is only as good as you make it, if you don’t put yourself into it and take part, it will never be as good as it could be – for you and for those around you.

I look forward to NYA2010, even if I will only attend in the virtual world.  My prayers for another meaningful Assembly.

Upcoming 38th General Assembly Of The PCA — Mid-February Update: Intro and Overtures 1-5

Leave a reply

The 38th General Assembly (2010) of the Presbyterian Church in America will convene in Nashville, Tenn., on June 29th.  The PCA is getting ready with the announcement of their 50 Days of Prayer for the General Assembly devotional, this year to focus on the Sermon on the Mount.  The web page for the Assembly is up (although sized a bit larger than I usually keep my monitors) with a link for registration and the overtures page.  There is no docket yet but the schedule is posted.

The theme for the Assembly is “Love, Sing, Wonder.” As the Organizing Committee web site explains, this is taken from the first line of a hymn written in 1774 by John Newton, “Let us love and sing and wonder.”  And these are words which have found a new audience in a contemporary musical arrangement.

There are currently five overtures posted:

Overture 1: “Ministry to Seniors” from New Jersey Presbytery.  This overture seeks to affirm and encourage both ministry to seniors as well as ministry by seniors.  It asks for five things: 1) Commending the Christian Education and Publications Committee (CEPC) for their good and ongoing work in this area. 2) And while commending them request their continued work in the area and this work be included in their reports to future GA’s and (3) that it be sure to include the Biblical importance of ministry by seniors as well as ministry to them.  4) That the Sunday following Labor Day be designated “Seniors’ Sunday” and (5) that the CEPC help promote the special Sunday and consider a week-long special event, as appropriate.

On the one hand the second Sunday in September has now become “Grandparents’ Day” in our secular society and this presents a way to turn that to the Lord’s purposes and recognize the wide variety of contributions made by seniors, not just their being grandparents.  On the other hand, how often are we to find special purposes for the Lord’s Day beyond the regular worship of God.  Are other Sundays throughout the year held up by the PCA for special recognitions like this?  For a strong argument against the hybridization of Sundays for purposes like this I suggest reading Andrew’s comments on Overture 1 at A Profitable Word. 

Overture 2:  “Amend BCO 9-7 to Prohibit Deaconesses” from Central Carolina Presbytery.  This overture asks the Assembly to send to the presbyteries an amendment to the Book of Church Order section 9-7 which would append to the end of that section about deacons’ assistants the following line for clarification:

These assistants to the deacons shall not be referred to as deacons or deaconesses, nor are they to be elected by the congregation nor formally commissioned, ordained, or installed as though they were office bearers in the church.

I don’t think it is news to any of my readers that this is currently a hotly-debated subject in the PCA and this is probably only the first of several overtures on both sides of this discussion.  Once all the overtures are in and we know the lay of the land I may have more to say.  In the mean time you can check out my comments about this overture (as part of a related discussion) from earlier this month and Kevin’s exhaustive analysis of the overture and broader situation over at A Profitable Word.

Overture 3:  “Expand Boundaries of Pacific Northwest Presbytery” from the Pacific Northwest Presbytery.  This overture asks the Assembly to approve the expansion of the Pacific Northwest Presbytery to encompass all areas of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska where there are PCA churches not yet within the bounds of a presbytery.  Specifically,

Therefore, the Presbytery of the Pacific Northwest overtures the 38th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America to expand the borders of the Presbytery to include the entirety of the states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.

First, where is the Presbytery now?  The Presbyteries web page tells us “All of Washington west of and including the counties of Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, Lewis and Skamania.”  According to the church directory page there are 24 PCA churches in the State of Washington, 19 in Pacific Northwest, three in Korean Northwest, and two in Korean Southwest Presbytery.  The directory also tells us that there is one church in Alaska, seven in Oregon (one of those in Korean Northwest), and one in Idaho.  Interestingly the directory associates all those churches with Pacific Northwest, if not already with Korean Northwest, even though this overture asks to formally expand the borders to include them.

In order to fully appreciate this overture it is also helpful to have a look at the Guidelines for Dividing Presbyteries since certain of the language in the overture’s whereases is referential to that document.  This document not only concerns dividing presbyteries but presents what are considered preferred parameters for a presbytery.  The first nine of the twelve considerations are:

  1. A radius of 2 1/2 hours maximum driving distance
  2. A minimum of 10 churches
  3. A total communicant membership of at least 1000
  4. Presbytery boundaries should not partition metropolitan areas
  5. A presbytery should have regional cohesiveness
  6. A presbytery should have at least three churches each having a membership of at least 125 communicant members
  7. Presbytery boundaries should be such that its member churches have a potential for shared ministries
  8. Presbytery boundaries should be such that its member churches have a common commitment to the region within the boundaries and sense their shared responsibility to cover the region with the Gospel
  9. When a presbytery reaches 30 churches it should consider whether subdivision would lead to more effective ministry

So where does this put the expanded Pacific Northwest?  It will clearly be larger than ideal in driving distance but with on
ly one church in Alaska there is not much that can be done there.  Yet even the Washington/Oregon/Idaho churches will be too far apart for that to be reasonable.  The expanded presbytery will have 27 churches, well more than the minimum and approaching the suggested upper limit.  Beyond that, without some more research I can not speak for the membership or church sizes but the expanded presbytery would probably still have the regional cohesiveness and potential for shared ministries.

In short, because of the distances involved and the potential situation of lots of churches in sparsely populated areas I can understand the objective of one large presbytery with many congregations.  However, under the established guidelines I would hope some study would be done to see if two presbyteries would provide a better arrangement “to cover the region with the Gospel.”

Overture 4: “Revise Boundary of Central Georgia Presbytery” from Central Georgia Presbytery.  This one is short and sweet – Central Georgia and Savannah River Presbyteries both agree that two counties now in Savannah River would be better served for spreading the Gospel if they were in Central Georgia.  A concurring overture from Savannah River Presbytery would be expected.

Overture 5:  “Amend BCO 26-2 to Clarify How Non-binding Sections of the BCO May Be Amended.” from Covenant Presbytery.  The requested change to the Book of Church Order reads:

Therefore be it resolved that BCO 26-2 be amended as follows (new text in bold and underlined):
26-2. Amendments to any portion of the Book of Church Order, whether constitutionally binding or not, may be made only in the following manner:

  1. Approval of the proposed amendment by majority of those present and voting in the General Assembly, and its recommendation to the Presbyteries.
  2. The advice and consent of two-thirds (2/3) of the Presbyteries.
  3. The approval and enactment by a subsequent General Assembly by a majority of those present and voting.

This seems straight forward, but let’s unpack this a little bit — The PCA Book of Church Order has binding and non-binding parts, as this overture recognizes.  The problem that arose was that the previous GA interpreted the BCO such that they went ahead and amended non-binding parts by themselves without sending the changes to the presbyteries for their concurrence.

So now we have this overture which provides a catalyst for interesting thought and discussion among polity wonks.  The issues involved touch on the intersection of two parts of Presbyterian polity: 1) When does a General Assembly action requires concurrence of the presbyteries, and 2) in what cases and to what degree the constitutional language is binding.

On the first question there are two general models.  The first are branches that require presbytery concurrence any time the constitutional language is to be changed.  This would include most American Presbyterian branches that have a Book of Church Order or Book of Order that has constitutional authority.  In this case for the PCA this overture requests to make it clear that this is the case for their BCO.

The other approach to requiring presbytery concurrence is usually referred to as a Barrier Act and is seen throughout much of the rest of the world including Scotland, Canada and New Zealand.  Part of the Church of Scotland Barrier Act says:

…that General Assemblies be very deliberate in making of the [Acts of Assembly], and that the whole Church have a previous knowledge thereof, and their opinion be had therein, and for preventing any sudden alteration or innovation, or other prejudice to the Church, in either doctrine or worship, or discipline, or government thereof, now happily established;

So the areas that an Assembly must seek the concurrence of the “whole Church” are “doctrine or worship, or discipline,” or ecclesiastical government.  In general, these branches have a collection of Acts of Assembly instead of a Book of Order and the Barrier Act is applied in an Assembly to specific acts that involve the four “core” areas.  But rules here are not hard and fast — the Presbyterian Church in Canada has the whole collection with the Barrier Act, Acts of Assembly, and the Book of Forms. And the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand has a Book of Order but has marked those sections subject to the “special legislative procedure,” which is their term for needing the concurrence of the presbyteries.

The second question that this overture touches on are what parts of our Presbyterian polity are binding and which are not.  For the PCA BCO this is clearly stated in the head note to the Directory for Worship:

Temporary statement adopted by the Third General Assembly to preface the Directory for Worship: The Directory for Worship is an approved guide and should be taken seriously as the mind of the Church agreeable to the Standards. However, it does not have the force of law and is not to be considered obligatory in all its parts. BCO 56, 57 and 58 have been given full constitutional authority by the Eleventh General Assembly after being submitted to the Presbyteries and receiving the necessary two-thirds (2/3) approval of the Presbyteries.

Those three specified sections that have full constitutional authority are ones dealing with the sacraments.

(This raises three slightly-related, and possibly frivolous, questions — 1) This preface uses “obligatory” and the overture uses “binding.” Should they be harmonized? 2) Is a “temporary statement” from 35 GA’s ago still truly a temporary statement.  (I have to laugh because my church got away with a building with a temporary use permit for about that long.) 3) Since this preface is in the Directory for Worship but not in one of the specified sections, is it not obligatory itself?  (I told you this was going to get frivolous.))

One of the reasons I do bring up that last frivolous statement is because there is a case on appeal in the PC(USA) regarding the binding nature of their Directory for Worship.  The PC(USA) uses terminology rather than itemization to determine what is obligatory and the preface to the whole Book of Order lays this out:

In this Book of Order
(1) SHALL and IS TO BE/ARE TO BE signify practice that is mandated,
(2) SHOULD signifies practice that is strongly recommended,
(3) IS APPROPRIATE signifies practice that is commended as suitable,
(4) MAY signifies practice that is permissible but not required.
(5) ADVISORY HANDBOOK signifies a handbo
ok produced by agencies of the General Assembly to guide synods and presbyteries in procedures related to the oversight of ministry. Such handbooks suggest procedures that are commended, but not required.

And as we saw in the Presbytery PJC decision in the Southard case there is disagreement over the role of the Directory for Worship and the authority of any specific paragraph if it does not contain one of these prescriptive words.  That will be settled by further judicial review.

So, getting back to the overture at hand — In the model of Presbyterians who operate with a Barrier Act, there is a tradition and logic to the interpretation last year that changing sections that are not “core” and obligatory need not have the concurrence of the presbyteries.  However, this overture would make the language clear, and hold it in line with American Presbyterian tradition, that if language in a constitutional document is to be changed it must be sent to the presbyteries for approval.

Now, I have used this overture as a platform to launch into a discussion of a couple related, but not necessarily germane, topics.  For a more focused discussion I again point you to A Profitable Word where Andrew has a post mostly discussing Overture 5, but touching on 3 and 4 as well.

(And I should say, in case you have not figured it out by now, that the blog A Profitable Word is a relatively new blog written by a team of four polity-knowledgeable elders from the PCA who know the PCA history, nuance and back-story to their polity better than I do.  A good blog for polity wonks to keep an eye on.)

So there is the start to this General Assembly business.  We know that more waits in the wings and I will return to that in a future post.  Stay tuned.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — Re-envisioning The Process

2 Replies

As I continue my exploration and commentary on the overtures being sent up to the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I want to focus today on three that deal with the operations of the Assembly.

But before I get down to the nitty-gritty of the overtures let me make some observations about the business and operations of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

If ask anyone who has been a commissioner to the General Assembly about the experience they will probably tell you that it was generally good and interesting but also an intense and tiring experience.  You begin on Saturday with some preliminaries and the election of the Moderator. You worship Sunday morning, socialize (or network) Sunday afternoon.  There might be a brief plenary business meeting and then the committees begin meeting.  The committee work begins in earnest on Monday morning and goes until whatever hour on Tuesday the committee gets it done — it might be at noon, it might be the wee hours of Wednesday morning.  The first part of Wednesday is devoted to reading committee reports, and then the marathon begins as the full Assembly starts working through the 15 or so committee reports.  On Friday night the Assembly goes until it is done because on Saturday everyone just shows up to formally adopt the budgets that resulted from their work over the last week, gets a pep talk about what a nice place the next Assembly will be held at, and then they are dismissed with a prayer.  They then get on their planes and collapse in exhaustion and it really doesn’t matter where the next Assembly will be held because the commissioners seldom see the light of day for that week.

Well, maybe I exaggerate a little bit because there is sunlight when you walk between the hotel and the convention center in the morning and again out to the restaurants for lunch.  Sunday usually provides an opportunity to see some of the neighborhood. And of course the YADs (now YAADs) need a nice place for their mid-week get-together.

But if you think I am being too sarcastic here I would argue that I am not.  If you have been a commissioner, or have had a long talk with someone who was, you will probably think or hear something like “Is this any way to run a church?”  When it gets to plenary there are just over two days to deal with the business from 15 committees, some of these items having great significance.  “Back in the day” when the material was all printed the business easily filled two three-inch binders.  And the reports you got before the Assembly convened were all in small print.  Any wonder the full Assembly usually trusts the work of the business committees.

Let me finish my commentary, more like a rant, with some hard numbers:  For the 218th GA of the PC(USA) there were 109 overtures from presbyteries and synods, not counting concurring overtures that got folded in, that the Assembly had to deal with.  On top of that there was business from the committees and entities of the national office.  For comparison, last year the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which also meets for one week, had two overtures and one ascending complaint.  The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, again a one week meeting, last year had nine overtures.  The Bible Presbyterian Church had seven overtures and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church last year had four.  The Presbyterian branch with the next closest number of overtures that I am aware of, and please let me know if you know of another with more, is the Presbyterian Church in America with 22 overtures, and eight of those were related to creating new presbyteries and redrawing presbytery borders — the remaining 14 dealt with polity, doctrine and discipline.  This is not to say that other GA’s have no controversy — far from it.  But from what I have seen most GA’s have no more than one or two spirited debates in the course of the whole GA.  The PC(USA) seems to have one or two per day.

All this to say that as I observe other GA’s around the globe and see how they operate it strikes me that something is significantly different about the way the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) operates.  And based on some of the overtures that are being submitted to the 219th General Assembly I am apparently not the only one who thinks so.

Let me begin with Overture 9 from Foothills Presbytery which proposes that the church get together annually in a convocation but only do business at the meeting every sixth year.  (Had to smile at the thought that this is almost a “reversed sabbatical year” – rest for six and work for one.)  With this overture they provide an extensive rational which includes:

  1. We believe the following:
    • The vast majority of Presbyterians are happy with their congregations, their presbyteries, their synods, and the ongoing work of General Assembly staff to ensure the smooth day-by-day running of the mission of the denomination.
    • On the other hand, we believe that Presbyterians of all theological perspectives find themselves frustrated with the manner in which discussions occur and decisions are made by the General Assembly, and that General Assembly in its present functioning, presents a significant threat in our beloved church and to its peace, unity, and purity.
  2. Further, based on our experience, and reports of General Assembly commissioners, we believe that
    • the volume of information presented to commissioners at the assembly, including, but not limited to annual reports, denominational positions on particular issues, repeated actions to amend the constitution, etc.,
    • the committee structure and process employed to introduce business to the floor of the assembly,
    • the lack of relationships between commissioners,
    • the lack of time to process issues that are often enormously complicated and multifaceted,
    • the consequent pressure to give in to the emotion of the moment,
    • the disparity of knowledge about specific subjects between commissioners, General Assembly staff, special interest groups;
  3. all often
    • lead to confrontation without reconciliation, (2 Cor. 5:18–19),
    • contribute to a heightened emphasis on winners and losers, rather than winners and winners (see 1 Cor. 6:7–8),
    • lead to a tendency for our national body to act legislatively rather than pastorally (see Paul’s approach to meat offered to idols in 1 Cor. 10:23–33),
    • promote stagnation rather than growth in our common life together (Eph. 4:15–16),
    • lead to the predominance of single-issue thinking (party-spirit, see Gal. 5:20)
    • reinforce a growing sense of anxiety in a significant number of our congregations every time assembly meets, (see John 14:27)
    • and erode denominational pride, loyalty, and commitment.

So the basic intent is to be relational and missional five years and based on that common foundation to address the detailed work of the denomination in the sixth year.  I have to commend them for identifying issues and providing a possible restructuring.  The overture does not give specific recommendations f
or the restructuring — Clearly a system such as they propose would shift a lot more authority and responsibility for operational details like budget and ministry to the GAMC and the OGA.  It would also be interesting to know if the Big Tent event this past summer would be a possible model for the convocations or if they are thinking about a more focused meeting.  This overture will definitely give this year’s commissioners something to think about and discuss.

The other operational overtures to date are not nearly as sweeping and only address specific operational points.

Overture 7 from New Harmony Presbytery asks for a specific change to the Standing Rules of the Assembly, a change that does not need presbytery approval but could be undone or suspended by a subsequent Assembly.  The proposal is to reduce the recurrence of similar Book of Order changes being sent to the presbyteries for vote by adding operational language that says:

b. Should an overture require an amendment to the Constitution that proposes substantially the same action as that which was approved by one of the two previous sessions of the General Assembly and subsequently failed to receive the necessary number of affirmative votes for enactment when transmitted to the presbyteries, it shall not be considered as an item of business unless and until 75 percent of the commissioners present and voting vote to do so,

The parliamentary point on this is that under the standing rules amending or suspending the rules (Section L) requires only a two-thirds vote, so if this is adopted it would be easier to suspend this rule than affirm a constitutional amendment under it.  In terms of how business would be dealt with under this rule, would an overture subject to this rule be automatically sent to the business committee for recommendation and then come back at the end of the week for the full Assembly vote to proceed, or would the rule be taken up at the beginning of the week so if the request is denied the business committee has one less item to deal with?  Probably just put on the consent agenda of the first Bills and Overtures Committee report.

It is worth noting however that this overture does address a comment/complaint that is regularly heard in some presbyteries about the fact that similar amendments keep getting sent down from the Assembly and keep getting defeated by the presbyteries.

(And a very picky polity wonk comment on the wording:  It speaks of the previous “sessions of the General Assembly.”  In Presbyterian polity the General Assembly is both a meeting and a group of people forming a governing body.  A given General Assembly, such as the 218th, has a stated meeting and may have called meetings. (I won’t go near that at this time.) Technically, the 218th General Assembly is still in existence but simply in adjournment and then will dissolve upon convening the 219th GA.  So more appropriate wording would be “one of the two previous General Assemblies.”  As I said, picky, wonkish, and I even catch myself not being strict using these terms.  But this is a difference with Reformed Church polity where their higher governing bodies, such as the class (=presbytery), do not “exist” between meetings.)

Finally, Overture 6 from Mid-South Presbytery sort of falls into this general theme of overtures because it would amend the Book of Order regarding the Assembly’s ability to make Authoritative Interpretations.  The overture asks that the Assembly send to the presbyteries a constitutional amendment that would add to the end of G-13.0103r the line:

No authoritative interpretation shall be issued by a General Assembly which amends or alters a clear mandate contained in any provision of the Book of Order.

While this seems pretty straight-forward, as we have seen in the Southard Decision from the Boston Presbytery PJC even the majority and dissenting members of the PJC differed on what the minority would consider “a clear mandate” in the Directory for Worship.

Well, that takes care of these three overtures.  At the present time there are 13 overtures posted on PC-Biz and I have now commented on eight of them.  It looks like the next batch to talk about are related to peacemaking and social witness polity.  For reference, looking back at my notes from two years ago there were 23 overtures posted by this time so if business processing by the OGA is running at the same pace there appears to be noticeably fewer overtures submitted so far.  (As a technical note, overture processing has gone from a dedicated web page to the PC-Biz system and so I could imagine that the efficiency of processing could be either higher or lower than last time depending on the complexity of the back-end technology involved.)  The number posted could also be lower because of the staff reductions we have seen or because the 120 day deadline is later this year.  We will just wait and see what the total comes to. Stay tuned.

Church Of Scotland Commission Of Assembly Meeting – Ordination Standards Debate And Manse Occupancy

This was an interesting meeting last Friday (Nov. 13) in a number of ways.  One way that it was interesting was because of the media attention that was paid to it.  I seldom see much, if any coverage, of the meetings of the Commission of Assembly.  But extending on that it was interesting in what the media coverage was about.  With two controversial decisions to be considered by the Commission, only one of them seemed to get any media attention, particularly in advance.  I will cover that item second, but a brief reminder of the role of the Commission and the other item that did not get much media attention.

In the Church of Scotland each General Assembly establishes a sub-group to act on important matters in the interim year until the next Assembly meets.  As a commission they are empowered to act with the full authority and power of the whole Assembly on many matters.  We are fortunate that the Rev. Ian Watson of Kirkmuirhill served as a commissioner to this meeting and brings us a lot of insightful details in his blog.

The first item relates to the continuing journey regarding ordination standards in the Church of Scotland, specifically as it relates to same-sex partnered clergy and candidates.  The short review is that after a church called a minister last spring the call was protested and the GA decided to deny the protest.  But, the GA also decided that the topic should be looked at by a special commission and during the two years the commission is working there are to be no calls or ordinations of same-sex partnered clergy.  But what about individuals starting the process?  An individual was approved by the Presbytery of Hamilton, a dissent and complaint was filed and the individual withdrew. However, that withdrawal did not halt the protest and there was a request for clarification whether the moratorium did apply to candidates.  That is the question brought to the Commission of Assembly last week.

In his detailed post about the meeting Rev. Watson tells us:

The end result was that the Commission decided to uphold the dissent and complaint against the Presbytery of Hamilton.  The practical result is that the deliverance brought in the name of Rev. Dr. John McPake at May’s General Assembly (amended after long debate)—the moratorium—is to be interpreted broadly and not restrictively.  When it instructs Courts, Councils and Committees of the Church not “to make decisions in relation to contentious matters of sexuality, with respect to Ordination and Induction” that includes training for the ministry, which, by its very nature looks towards ordination and induction.   Should a Court, Council or Committee be faced with making a decision in this regard they must decline to do so, sisting the matter if appropriate, until 31st May 2011.

In his description of the meeting he talks about the background to this presbytery’s decision and the advice they had received from the Principle Clerk’s office.  He also talks about what the intent of the moratorium was and how a literal versus intended interpretation was applied.  He sums up that section with this (emphases his):

While it might seem that the Presbytery had reached a wise compromise, it presented the wider church with a problem.  Was this indeed the outcome May’s General Assembly had in mind?  Some felt that this was too narrow an interpretation.  While Hamilton Presbytery might wish to add a rider to their acceptance of the candidate, other Presbyteries might not.   Were this decision to go unchallenged, it would appear that the Church of Scotland had not decided not to train sexually active homosexuals for the ministry. 

Many believe that the moratorium provided the church with the chance to calm down.  The relative peace which has descended upon the church would be endangered if it become known that the moratorium was being applied so strictly as to be null and void for all practical purposes.

In the end the Commission agreed 43-38 to the counter-motion, made by Rev. Watson, that the moratorium applied to those training for the ministry as well.

As I said at the beginning, outside of Rev. Watson’s account, and the blogs like this one that link to it, the coverage of this action has been limited.  I have seen no coverage in the mainstream media, but there is some in the alternative media.  One example is an article from PinkNews which mentions the meeting and decision in the first line, and then spends the rest of the article profiling the candidate who was approved and then withdrew.  In the blogosphere there are some interesting comments by John Ross at Recycled Missionaries.

The second item did get the coverage in the mainstream media leading up to the meeting including the Edinburgh Evening News and The Sun.

This question revolves around a provision in the Regulations of the General Assembly, specifically Reg VII 2007 item 2. (Reg. VII 2007 in Word Format.)  That item says:

2. A Minister has the right to live in the Manse and a corresponding duty to occupy it.

The question raised is “what does it mean to ‘occupy’ the manse?”

The specific situation is that the Rev. John Munro, pastor of Fairmilehead Church near Edinburgh, lives in his personally owned home about 1/2 km from the church.  He and his wife did live in the manse next to the church for about 5 years but moved about two years ago reportedly because his wife did not enjoy living in the manse.  However, Rev. Munro made a good-faith effort to “occupy” the manse by working there every day.  Edinburgh Presbytery ruled that using the manse’s library and having possession of the manse’s contents were not sufficient and that occupying the manse entailed living there.

The Commission of Assembly agreed with the Presbytery by a vote of 64 to 5 (as reported in the Edinburgh Evening News) and has sent the case back down to the Presbytery for its action.

At this point I, as someone outside the Church of Scotland, am scratching my head a bit.  First the action is reported but the reasons behind this regulation are not clear t
o me.  (Or maybe I should say that I can think of a dozen reasons for the regulation but I don’t know which one is correct.)  The best indication we have is one reference in The Sun article where an unnamed friend of Rev. Munro says “They fear if the Inland Revenue thinks manses are no longer necessary for the job, they will change its tax status. But they are being paranoid. Since 2003 only five people have asked to live out with their manse in Scotland.”

Here in the states many churches have done away with the manse for a variety of reasons.  These include the fact that a manse is “one size fits all” and the minister and their family don’t always fit the property.  Also, some view the opportunity to own their property outright as an investment to help when they reach retirement.  And in the recent “housing bubble” many new church plants could not afford to purchase land for the church, let alone a manse for their pastor.  Finally, in the states the tax codes generally allow a minister similar tax treatment if they are in a manse or receive a housing allowance for their own property.

So this case in Edinburgh goes back to the Presbytery and possible outcomes range from censure to full dismissal from the charge.  We will see what the Presbytery decides.