Category Archives: ordination standards

Two Sign Posts On The Journey With Standards For Ordained Office: 2 – Church of Scotland and Aberdeen Presbytery

Today the Commission of Assembly of the Church of Scotland deliberated another case regarding standards for ordained office, this one regarding the call of a partnered gay pastor to Queen’s Cross Church in the Presbytery of Aberdeen.

The Rev. Scott Rennie was called to serve as pastor of Queen’s Cross Church and this call was approved by the Presbytery of Aberdeen back in January by a vote of 60-24. (For more details and reaction you can check my first and second posts from that time.) This is not an ordination question. Mr. Rennie is ordained and was in a heterosexual marriage previous to his current life style. The Church of Scotland does not have the case law that the PC(USA) has in the GAPJC Sallade v. Genesee Valley decision that says “this commission holds that a self-affirmed practicing homosexual may
not be invited to serve in a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) position that
presumes ordination.”

Following the vote twelve ministers and elders appealed the decision of Presbytery to the General Assembly and the appeal was debated by the Commission of Assembly today. One of those appellants was the Rev. Louis Kinsey who wrote about the appeal yesterday in his Coffee With Louis blog. The Commission of Assembly, not to be confused with the Council of Assembly, is a subgroup of the Assembly comprised of 10% of the commissioners to the last Assembly. It has interim authority to make decisions on many matters for the current Assembly.

Thanks to the Rev. Ian Watson for letting us know that today the Commission decided that this issue was significant enough that it should be decided by the full Assembly and not this subgroup. But it was by the slim margin of 42 to 41. The Rev. Watson’s take is that they decided not to decide. He is significantly closer to the situation both geographically and connectionally, so he may very well be right that the Commission decided not to wade into these waters but leave it for the next Assembly in May. But in light of the caution shown by 2007 General Assembly to invoke the Barrier Act and send the issue of blessing same-gender unions out to the Presbyteries, I interpret this decision similarly as the Commission deciding to involve the greater wisdom of the wider church and greater buy-in to the final decision. I would like to think that they are not ducking the issue but rather considering “discretion the greater part of valor.” And as always, I could be completely wrong. I have a lot less experience and no “boots on the ground” like Mr. Watson has.

So, this now goes on the docket for the 2009 General Assembly and we will have to see where it goes from there. Again, the journey continues.

Two Sign Posts On The Journey With Standards For Ordained Office: 1 – PC(USA) and the Synod of the Pacific

A Word Of Hope From The Amendment 08-B Voting Trends

PC(USA) Amendment Voting Update

4 Replies

The official vote tally on the amendments to the Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) was updated yesterday afternoon and enough presbyteries have now reported their votes that two of the amendments have passed. It probably goes without saying that these are the two least controversial amendments: 08-D – to change the name of the General Assembly Council to the General Assembly Mission Council; and 08-J – to clarify some language in the Book of Discipline section on Alternate Forms of Resolution. At my presbytery meeting yesterday, where we voted on the amendments, I had one person ask if there was an argument to vote against the name change. I don’t have one, my son who as a YAD at the last GA was on the committee that dealt with it doesn’t have one, the Association of Stated Clerks doesn’t have one, but the tally lists five presbyteries that voted against it so there is something that I am missing.

The other amendments are in a variety of places. Amendment 08-B is the only one listed as failing, more on that in a minute. The vows of membership (08-A) and the two Certified Christian Educators amendments (08-F and 08-I) all have similar votes with a significant number of no votes. In each case the vote is around 55 yes and 35 no. And I am still intrigued that these votes, and especially the vote on membership vows, are so close to the mirror image of the vote on 08-B. Again, some other time.

The remaining four amendments are all very close to adoption and we can expect to see those with the requisite number of presbyteries in the next update. That would include 08-C on replacing “sympathy” with “compassion,” 08-E regarding non-geographic presbyteries, 08-G about synod membership on permanent committees, and 08-H on ordination exams. The discussion yesterday at my presbytery was enlightening on some of these. For example, it was pointed out that while I had been thinking exclusively about having the proper academic preparation for the ordination exams, 08-H actually has the CPM consider all forms of preparation to determine if a candidate is ready to take the exams. Also, concern was expressed by members of my presbytery about 08-E mixing the non-geographic presbyteries issue with the unqualified reduction in the number of members necessary to form a presbytery. But my favorite comment of the day was regarding 08-C with “sympathy” and “compassion.” A friend asked if there was a significance to substituting the Latin form for the Greek form of words that mean essentially the same thing in their etymology. For the record, my presbytery voted non-concurrence, sticking with the Greek by 30-150.

In addition, three of the four ecumenical statements have been agreed to, and the statement with the Episcopal Church is only four votes from being adopted as well.

So where is Amendment B? While the official tally is 36 to 54, the “reliable sources” give the vote count at 42 to 69. There have now been 19 presbyteries change from a no vote on 01-A to yes on 08-B. And while last weekend had only one of eight previous no presbyteries switch, last night saw two of five presbyteries switch. I’m not going to do my geeky statistics thing for this post, just note that the trends continue and my previous estimate of a final vote of 72-101 still looks good. The other interesting occurrence statistically was that for the fourth vote in a row Eastern Korean Presbytery was unanimous in support of “fidelity and chastity.” I had to laugh because the total lack of yes votes caused havoc in my spreadsheet with division by zero errors in several of my normalization equations. Yeah, it’s a geek thing. Sorry.

Speaking of the sources of the data, it has been interesting to watch the various web sites update on a busy day of voting. My two favorite web sites are the chart at PresbyWeb (thanks Hans) and the results page from the Presbyterian Coalition (thanks for your hard work as well). The reason I like the Coalition site is easy: of the many charts out there it is the only one I know of in chronological order. I just scroll to the bottom and see what is new. The PresbyWeb chart has all four votes listed and has the color coding to quickly tell how each vote went. There are several other bloggers that have picked up the color scheme and talk about “switching from yellow to blue.” Following the various sites throughout the voting season these two sites seem to pick up the results first. For example, last night I was watching the two sites and the Coalition site had the Transylvania and Nevada votes up in the course of the afternoon. PresbyWeb and the Coalition updated this morning to have the rest, with the exception that as of this writing the Coalition is still missing the New Brunswick vote. Note: I mention this for comparison’s sake only and not as a criticism. There are a limited number of us G.A. Junkies out there who really care about it “as it happens.” For the most part both of these sites are fully updated the next day which is very reasonable for any sane person.

The other “as it happens” site seems to be the spreadsheet on YesOnB. The data there seems to lag the first two by a bit, but still usually has the data the next day. I will say that I don’t find the spreadsheet format as easy to read as the web page format, but the spreadsheet is intended for viewing the analysis and not the play-by-play. The “old reliable” is of course the table at The Layman, but it also seems to lag just a bit — for example, last night’s results have not been posted yet today. Finally, the Covenant Network has their vote count as well, which also has not been updated. All the sites will probably be current within the next few hours.

One positive from last weekend is that there seems to be a lot of encouraging comments about the presbyteries’ processes for debate. John Shuck comments “It was a good meeting with a good process” regarding the Holston Presbytery meeting. He also says “OK. I am glad I am here. One colleague said to me: ‘I disagree with you about almost everything but I like you.’ I like him, too. I think that matters.”

Over at The Corner Muffin Shop the pastor that writes it says of the Heartland Presbytery meeting

I have to give great kudos to my colleagues and friends on the Church
Order and Listening Division for their work in putting together today’s
Called Meeting of Presbytery to vote on the 14 Amendments to the Book
of Order. The meeting was designed around worship and it was an
excellent meeting if any Presbytery meeting can be described as
excellent.

I think most of the members of San Gabriel Presbytery were pleased with how our process went last night. This had been in the works since the conclusion of GA with some form of discussion about the amendments at every presbytery meeting in the last nine months. In fact, we had been laying the ground work with preliminary small-group discussions for the last two years.

There was a time of discussion before the business meeting began and I was the lead-off batter as the facilitator for a group discussion of all the other amendments. We then broke into groups and spent 45 minutes discussing three questions about ordination and how that informs our views of 08-B. The formal debate for 08-B was an order of the day, began with intro remarks by our EP framing our presbytery history and reminding us we are family, and then one speaker for and one against each spoke for five minutes. It helps to know that the 1996 overture that resulted in G-6.0106b came from our presbytery so there are references to that, implied and explicit, made throughout the debate. Debate was set, by previously approved rules, at 30 minutes and 12 individuals each made 2 minute speeches, evenly divided between for and against. There were a variety of arguments presented and arguing from scripture on both sides. Four of the six commissioners arguing against 08-B were from racial ethnic churches and more than one mentioned that passage of the amendment would harm ecumenical relations with partner churches around the world. There were no racial ethnic speakers for the amendment but at least one was waiting when debate was ended.

Probably the only glitch of the evening was the closing of debate. The previously approved rules of debate allowed for extending debate twice in 15 minute increments. The vote was taken and a slight majority, as viewed from my seat, favored extending debate. The moderator ruled that 2/3 was necessary and there was then no little discussion about whether 1/2 or 2/3 was needed as that was not spelled out in the adopted rules. The final ruling from our team of clerks, a high-powered brain trust if there ever was one, was that 2/3 was needed because the rules of debate required a 2/3 vote originally. (I hope this does not go down as “stifling the Spirit” because we did have 30 minutes of good, civil debate where much was presented.) The vote was taken and in the end we did not concurr with 08-B by a vote of 79-136. While the numbers are smaller this is fairly close to the ratio of the 97-181 vote on 01-A.

Regarding numbers, 215 commissioners voted on 08-B last night while 278 voted on 01-A. There were several people at the meeting last night that I had not seen for a while and attendence was clearly higher than usual. For example, in January there were 136 commissioners registered (75 ministers and 61 elders). Last night there were also a lot of observers, some of whom appeared to be students from our local seminaries watching the system work. Why the lower number than the last vote? In our case it is almost certainly due to a new policy. To lower our redress of imbalance our presbytery has adopted a policy that H.R.’s that have difficulty attending meetings may opt-out so they don’t need to be compensated for by an additional elder. Because of this, since the last vote the number of elder commissioners has been reduced by close to the amount that the vote was reduced. In addition, while the retired pastors that chose the non-participation option could attend and vote, they are still members of presbytery after all, I did not notice many of them last night so that would help account for the decrease. In our case I think the change to the redress policy can explain almost all of the drop and I did not discern any changes due to fatigue or departures.

The rejection of Amendment B is still not final by any means but the current trends continue to point in that direction. But, The Layman has worked out a scenario where passage of 08-B would be possible.

Time will tell. Stay tuned…

Decisions From The PC(USA) GAPJC

1 Reply

The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) heard cases in San Diego, California, last Friday, February 27, and published the decisions yesterday. Of the three cases, one is related to a higher-profile news item, but the decision does not settle the case, just overturns a specific ruling and the case is remanded back to the Synod PJC for trial. However, as with most GAPJC decisions there is something in each of these decisions to interest us polity wonks.

I will start with the better known of the three cases so casual readers can get the main point and move on to other reading.

219-08: David Bierschwale, David Lenz, and Carol Shanholtzer v. Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area
Bierschwale et al. v Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area is a remedial case that derives from the complaint to the PJC of the Synod of Lakes and Prairies about the procedures the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area followed in restoring Mr. Paul Capetz to the exercise of his ordained office. A lot more detail can be found on that last link and the links it contains, but here are the important facts for understanding the GAPJC decision:

Mr. Capetz was ordained a Minister of Word and Sacrament in 1991 but following the passage of G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” statement, asked, as a matter of conscience, to be released from the exercise of his ordained office in 2000. The Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area granted that release. Following the 217th General Assembly (2006) adopting the new Authoritative Interpretation about declaring a departure or scruple Mr. Capetz applied to the Presbytery for restoration to the exercise of his ordained office. In a meeting with the Committee on Ministry he stated his departure:

“I affirm the Constitutional Questions asked of me at my ordination. However, I have to raise a principled objection or scruple. I cannot affirm G-6.0106b. Nor can I affirm the position of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) on the question of the morality of homosexual relationships.”

At the Presbytery meeting in January 2008 the body took action on three motions. The first, referred to in the decision as the Departure Motion, was to affirm that his declared departure was not related to an essential of the faith. The second, the Restoration Motion, was to restore him to the exercise of his office. And the Third, the Validation Motion, was to validate his ministry teaching at a seminary.

Following the passage of these three motions a complaint was filed with the SPJC alleging the Presbytery acted irregularly in passing these three motions and requesting that they be nullified. The officers of the SPJC issued a Preliminary Order dismissing the case on the grounds that the relief requested was effectively the removal of Mr. Capetz’s ordination which must be done as a disciplinary case, not a remedial case. The complainants filed an appeal and amended their complaint asking “the SPJC admonish the Presbytery and order it to refrain from conducting further irregular ordinations, installations, restorations or validations.”

The SPJC decision was issued in August 2008. It dismissed the case on the grounds that no claim was stated on which relief could be granted. The case was appealed to the GAPJC. In the appeal there were twelve specifications of errors.

In their decision the GAPJC sustained only two of the specifications of error:

Specification of Error No. 4: The SPJC erred by not conducting a trial to determine whether there are facts that show: (a) Capetz stated a departure from G-6.0106b and (b) if so, whether that departure was a failure to adhere to the requirements of G-6.0108; and if the facts show that (a) and (b) occurred, whether the Presbytery’s action was irregular.

This Specification of Error is sustained.

Specification of Error No. 5: The SPJC erred by not conducting a trial to determine whether there are facts that would show the Presbytery waived the “fidelity and chastity” requirement of G-6.0106b in considering Capetz as a candidate or applicant for membership in the Presbytery; and if so, whether that action by the Presbytery was irregular.

This Specification of Error is sustained. This case is not remanded for a determination in the abstract as to whether any presbytery may decide that the “fidelity and chastity” requirement of G-6.0106b can be waived for any candidate or applicant for membership in a presbytery. Rather, the SPJC shall decide only on the basis of the facts of what the Presbytery did with respect to Capetz, and whether that particular action was irregular.

Before I go any further with the analysis of the decision let me remind you of a critical fact — Mr. Capetz never gave up his ordination. Almost all of the case law, precedents, and AI’s on this subject deal with candidates for ordination and therefore are mostly irrelevant to this case.

The critical section on the GAPJC reasoning says:

Bierschwale, et al. did not allege that there was any procedural irregularity in the manner in which the Presbytery took action on any of the three motions,including the Departure Motion. Any alleged irregularity in the process by which motions such as the Departure Motion are adopted is reviewable by the SPJC under the holding of Bush. In this case, Bierschwale, et al. complained that the Presbytery acted irregularly in adopting the Departure Motion because Capetz’s statements to the Presbytery were a serious departure from essentials of Reformed faith and polity and not a proper exercise of freedom of conscience under G-6.0108b.

This Commission finds that Bierschwale, et al. have stated a claim upon which relief may be granted, and the SPJC should determine whether Capetz’s statements and the Presbytery’s adoption of the Departure Motion are in violation of G-6.0108. The SPJC should address whether Capetz’s statements were a proper exercise of freedom of conscience under G-6.0108, and whether the Presbytery properly approved them in the Departure Motion. The standards for determining whether departures from essentials of Reformed faith and polity are permitted include whether a departure deviates from the standards in the Book of Confessions and the Form of Government, infringes the rights and views of others, or obstructs the constitutional governance of the church. (G-6.0108 a, b.) The trial of this case should include a presentation of evidence to determine whether these three requirements of G-6.0108 have been met.

So the Departure Motion is reviewable and a claim has been stated on which relief my be granted, and in a unanimous decision the GAPJC sends the case back to the SPJC for a hearing on the facts. And yes, there is a reference in there to the previous decision 218-10 – Bush v. Pittsburgh.

The Decision section makes interesting reading, even though this particular decision will have limited importance. (An appeal from the new SPJC hearing could set the landscape for deciding departures.) As I quoted above, the part on the Departure Motion is the pivotal part and the other ten errors not being sustained mostly hinge on the fact that Mr. Capetz was already ordained or that they were related to the Restoration Motion. It was po
inted out that if Mr. Capetz’s restoration were to be challenged based on his lifestyle that must be done as a disciplinary case, not a remedial case. Further, the decision says that the “undisputed record” of the case does not contain a basis for disciplinary process against Mr. Capetz, but that a disciplinary case could be filed based on other information regardless of the outcome of this case.

For the polity wonks, a couple more items of interest:
1) The additional requested relief in the amended complaint, the request to tell the Presbytery to not do this any more, was not sustained. As was made clear in Bush, there can be no blanket prohibition or standards but each case must be dealt with on its own merits.

2) There is an interesting and important footnote. I will let it speak for itself:

The question of whether the type of examination contemplated by G-11.0402 is required for restoration has not been raised in this case, is not before this Commission, and need not be addressed by the SPJC on remand. [Note: You probably know already but G-11.0402 is the section on examining ministers for membership in the presbytery.]

3) This decision specifically points out that if anyone is looking to this case to see if the 2008 AI overruled Bush you can forget that. Neither the AI nor Bush are related to the restoration to ordained office.

4) I am a little surprised that throughout this decision I did not find a reference to the 1992 decision 205-05 Sallade, et al. v. Genesee Valley Presbytery. This older decision is one of the very few that specifically deal with call standards for previously ordained individuals. As that decision says: “this commission holds that a self-affirmed practicing homosexual may not be invited to serve in a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) position that presumes ordination.”

Possible reasons for not referencing Sallade are numerous. Maybe the most obvious is that the current case dealt with validation of ministry while the previous case was about a “position that presumes ordination.” So there are questions of call process and nature of the ministry that separate these. It could have been an issue that the AI or G-6.0106b were not in affect then since those deal with ordination, but Sallade depends on the Definitive Guidance of 1978 which was in full force and effect when Mr. Capetz was examined, having not been removed until the 218th GA in June 2008.

So, this is just another step on the journey for this case. The complainants will have their day to present the facts on certain of their points. The case is remanded back to the SPJC for trail on the issues in specifications 4 and 5 only. We will see where it goes from there.

219-06: Hyung K. Yun, Yoon Soo Kim, Young Yoon Kim, Kwan Young Lee, Seung G. Ahn, In Bae Chun, Richard Yun, and Kee Ho Lim v. The Session of the Korean United Presbyterian Church of New Jersey.
This is a remedial case based on a complaint filed by members of the church regarding two congregational meetings in October, 2005. There were allegations made about irregularities in electing officers related to the nominating committee process and questions about the membership roles and who could vote at the meetings.

The Presbytery of Newark PJC issued a May, 2006, decision “reciting all parties’ acknowledgment that irregularities and delinquencies had occurred and stating that all parties had agreed to six specific remedies. The PPJC found that the church officer nominating committee had been properly formed. Those persons elected at the congregational meeting were later ordained and installed and have completed their terms of office or have resigned.”

Despite the decision saying “all parties had agreed” the PPJC decision was appealed to the PJC of the Synod of the Northeast which dismissed the case on the grounds that there was no basis for an appeal. That decision was appealed to the GAPJC which previously ruled that there were grounds for appeal and the case was remanded back to the SPJC. In April 2008 the SPJC ruled that the PPJC had erred in accepting the case because the complaint was made against the nominating committee and congregation which are not governing bodies. That decision was appealed back to the GAPJC.

In this decision, the GAPJC found:
1) The PPJC acted correctly in not invalidating the election and besides, that specification of error is now moot since the officers elected are no longer serving.
2) The PPJC did properly consider all appropriate evidence in the case. Furthermore, to complain that the decision was “unfair and unjust” goes against the fact that all parties agreed to the remedies.
3) The SPJC did err in its decision that the PPJC should not have accepted the case to the extent that in addition to claims against individuals and the congregation there were claims against the Session that should have been heard.

Bottom line: The previously agreed to remedies are to be enforced.

For the polity wonks the most interesting part is a concurring opinion signed by three members of the GAPJC. This opinion serves to point out a potential problem in PC(USA) polity related to deacons. They note that in 1997 Book of Order section G-6.0403, regarding the organization of deacons, was amended to add the “b” paragraph permitting deacons to be actively serving on a “commissioned” basis without the organization of a Board of Deacons. The previously existing section G-14.0223 about the composition of the nominating committee was never adjusted for this possible circumstance. Should we watch for this “housekeeping” Book of Order amendment coming soon?

219-07: The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) through the Presbytery of Wyoming v. Gordon R. J. King.
This is a 10 to 5 decision related to a disciplinary case filed against Mr. King. If you want the detailed history you can read the GAPJC decision, but in October, 2006, the PPJC filed its Final Decision. Mr. King appealed this decision to the SPJC and when they did not sustain any of his specifications of error he appealed again to the GAPJC.

This case is interesting because it revolves around the Presbytery’s Standard on Sexual and Ethical Conduct and whether the facts in the case match the standard. The GAPJC decision says

The application of a local standard for conduct (i.e., the Standard) does not relieve an appellate body of the obligation to determine whether that or any other legal standard has been properly applied. That determination is a question of law, not a question of fact.

It then goes on to overturn Mr. King’s conviction on the basis that the added “required” consideration of “proof of misuse of authority and/or power” was not present. As I read this, the implication of the “required” is that it is part of “any other legal standard.”

This would be the implication of the Dissent which says,

The undisputed facts match specific examples of the offense…contained in the charge on which King was found guilty listed in item number five of the Presbytery’s Standard

The Dissent goes on to say:

The SPJC decision includes a concern that this standard might be ambiguous. However, our task in this disciplinary action is not to critique the Standard as written by the Presbytery. Our task is to determine whether there is any basis for the PPJC to conclude that the facts
in the case constitute a violation of the Standard. We cannot substitute our legal conclusion for that of the PPJC unless we can find that there is no basis for the decision, based on a clear error in matching the facts to the offense charged.

The PPJC decision is overturned apparently based upon “other legal standard[s]” even though the presbytery’s standard was apparently met.

Brief Update on PC(USA) Amendment 08-B Voting — A Tale Of Two Weekends

3 Replies

One was the best of weekends, the other the worst of weekends — And which was which depended on which side of the Amendment 08-B debate you are on…

Well, bad literary parody aside (although I considered continuing like this and letting you count the clichés) I would not have had another update this soon, except that the voting patterns this weekend were so strikingly different from last weekend.

Last weekend many of us were marveling at the number of presbyteries that switched their votes – nine out of the sixteen presbyteries that had previously voted no. This strong trend in switched votes led the Presbyterian Outlook and The Layman to seriously consider the passage of 08-B.

Now the voting ending this weekend: With results in from the last few days of voting there were two yes votes and 12 no votes, and neither of the yes votes were switches. In fact a couple of presbyteries that were believed to be prime targets to switch votes went back to a stronger “no” vote. For example, Indian Nations was tied at 52 last time and voted 38-43 this time. (That could just be about the same vote ratio within the statistical variation.)

(And on another note, I was intrigued by the difference between there being some significant mainstream media coverage of the voting the last couple of weekends and none this week that I could find.)

With the drought in presbytery swings this week, the proportions in the current voting trend would mean another 11 presbyteries switch for a final vote of 72 to 101. At the moment, the amendment is sitting at 36-57. For Amendment 08-B to pass would require 51 more votes. There are still 25 presbyteries left to vote that voted yes the last time on 01-A. If they all vote yes again that means that 26 of the remaining 55 presbyteries that voted no last time would have to switch votes. That is by no means out of the question, but it means that all the remaining voting needs to have presbyteries switch at the same rate we saw in the week ending February 21 and not like this week.

I’m not sure I, or anyone else, is ready to announce the defeat of Amendment 08-B yet. But with these two weeks showing that the switching of votes was not necessarily a trend I do consider passage of 08-B fairly unlikely at this point. Its supporters have a major up-hill climb ahead of them. But we are only a bit more than half-way through and who knows how the Holy Spirit will move through the presbyteries as they discern the will of God. After all, it ain’t over ’till it’s over and that’s why we play the game. My prayers that God will help the remaining presbyteries discern His will.

Update: Responding to the discernment process in Newton Presbytery, Viola Larson wrote about “Spiritual Manipulation When Voting On 08-b.” After this weekend’s voting Bruce Hahne has a post on “Weekly 08-B Wrapup: The Anti-equality Deck Stacking Begins” highlighting how he views the process in Indian Nations Presbytery “Stifling the Spirit” because adequate debate was not allowed.

PC(USA) Amendment 08-B Voting At The Half-Way Mark

Additional Overture On Women In The Church For PCA GA Posted

7 Replies

I see today that Overture 10 for the 37th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America has been posted to the Overtures web page. This overture is essentially identical to Overture 5 but I want to take a moment to not just review the overture, but consider a couple of the alternatives for what is intended here.

News
At their Presbytery meeting on February 21 the Susquehanna Valley Presbytery approved and forwarded on an overture to General Assembly to “Appoint Study Committee on Role of Women in the Church.” This is now posted on the web site as Overture 10. If the title sounds familiar, it is. This is effectively a concurring overture to Overture 5 from James River Presbytery. In fact it is identical in content to Overture 5, with one minor exception.

To set the stage for my analysis comments below, let me review the overtures in detail. As I said, unless noted otherwise the wording is identical in both overtures.

The Whereas section sets forth the current situation in the PCA:

Whereas, The Book of Church Order follows Scripture in forbidding the ordination of women to positions of authority over men; and

That would be Book of Church Order (BCO) section 7-2

Whereas, the PCA has faithfully held to this standard; and
Whereas, the PCA has struggled with the question of how women in the local church are to exercise their God-given gifts within the framework of the BCO, and

This discussion has been going on for a while including four overtures to the last GA about women serving as deaconesses, including the 2008 Overture 9, Overture 15, and Overture 17, all three about creating a study committee on the subject. The 36th General Assembly chose to keep the standards as they were and not create the study committee. However, the discussion continues including articles in byFaith magazine with an article making the case for commissioning deaconesses by Tim Keller and an article arguing against by Ligon Duncan.

Whereas, many PCA churches are uncertain about how to use appropriately God’s gifts among the many capable women within the membership of those churches; and
Whereas, in many PCA churches those gifts are under-utilized;

So, the problem seems to be that in light of the prohibition on deaconesses, or some form of service for women that resembles an ordained office for men (such as commissioning), these Presbyteries are asking for clarification about what ministries women can be involved in and in what ways. Also, given that information how can they be encouraged in their ministries.

The overtures then go on to ask for a Study Committee to do four things:

(1) What sorts of roles may women fill in the life of the church?
(2) What are some models of local church practices that have developed as ways of employing the gifts of women in the lives of their congregations that might be exemplary and encouraging to other local churches?
(3) What elements of organization and accountability to ordained leadership can be commended to PCA churches that are consistent with the BCO?

And item number 4 is the only point that I can find a difference between the two overtures. Overture 5 is sort of the standard wording of the request and almost expects changes to the BCO:

(4) What modifications, if any to the BCO might be desirable for achieving the best utilization of the gifts of PCA women in light of the teaching of Scripture?

Overture 10 does not explicitly ask for recommended changes but asks if there is a problem:

(4) Does our BCO unnecessarily hinder achieving the best utilization of the gifts of PCA women in light of the teaching of Scripture?

Other than the names of the presbyteries and the formalities of transmittal this is the only difference in content of these two overtures that I can find in a side-by-side reading.

Finally, there is the section to limit costs to $10,000 and pay for it with private contributions.

Analysis
Central Pennsylvania and the Mid-Atlantic region are not typically regarded as the hot beds of agitation for deaconesses; that distinction usually goes to Philadelphia Presbytery of other metropolitan areas, like New York. However, last year’s GA did deal with a related issue from Northern California as part of the records review. (Interesting to note that they are also the most uniformly progressive areas in the PC(USA) ordination standards debates.)

But in researching this issue I came across an interesting historical note on the web site of The City’s Gate Presbyterian Church of Harrisburg, PA. They have an article on Deaconesses at The City’s Gate Presbyterian Church which says:

As a denomination, The Presbyterian Church in America does not
recognize the ordination of women to either of the two offices of the
Church: elder and deacon. Yet, within the separate branches of reformed
practices that have converged to form the PCA, there is a tradition of
recognizing women who serve the church in specific, public ways as deaconesses. This
tradition was—and still is—most notable among the churches in the PCA
which were formerly part of the Reformed Presbyterian Church,
Evangelical Synod (RPCES), several of whom are part of the Susquehanna
Valley Presbytery, where The City’s Gate enjoys its membership and
employs it for the extension of God’s Kingdom.

The wisdom of this historical recognition of women in ministry is
evident to growing numbers of churches within the PCA apart from the
RPCES tradition. Increasingly, PCA churches are officially and
formally affirming the importance, the contributions, and the value of
their women in significant, spiritual leadership roles within their
congregations. This recognition and honoring of the call of God on the
lives of godly women by the church is most frequently done through the
creation, organization, and implementation of the commissioned position
of Deaconess.

and concludes with

It is the desire of The City’s Gate Presbyterian Church to afford to
all its members the fullest expression of their gifts and calling to
private and public ministries within the church. It is the vision of
this church to carve out for its individuals in public ministry the
widest swathe allowable for them for the use and exercise of their
gifts and calling within the confines of the denomination’s
Constitution. As part of its pledge of loyalty and loving service to
the Lord Jesus in the greater PCA body, The City’s Gate will actively
seek to reform the church where those present confines are in conflict
with the clearest teaching of Scripture, through heart-felt adoption of
the Motto of the PCA as its own: “Reformed, and Always Reforming.”

I have not yet determined if this overture may have originated from the session of this church, but some tension between the two merged branches regarding this would be understandable. In fact, as PC(USA) churches realign with the EPC this is a current point of discussion within the EPC.

Having said that, how should we view these overtures?

The most straight-forward is to consider them at face value — They seem to be saying “As a GA you are not authorizing ordained or commissioned deaconesses, as is the historical tradition for some of us, so what are the acceptable roles for women in ministry?” That seems to be a simple and generally reasonable request. The GA can of course answer like they did last year that “The BCO is clear as it stands now; work within that framework.”

If you want to read more into it, especially if you like conspiracy theories, these overtures could be seen as a way to get the committee created with a more innocent request and then once the foot is in the door, or the camel’s nose under the tent, standards might get changed. It may be a little progress, nibbling at the edges of the current standards, or it could be a significant change in ordination standards. That is parallel to the current PC(USA) vote on Book of Order Amendment 08-B: The previous vote was to remove the “fidelity and chastity” section, this year it is just to modify it. But many conservatives see the proposed change as having about the same effect of eliminating the standards.

There is an interesting discussion of the issue and overtures at PuritanBoard with both views, “we need clarity” versus “this is an end-run on deaconesses,” being expressed and debated. No resolution there but we will have to watch and see what the Assembly ends up thinking.

Amendment 08-B Voting At The One-Third Mark

9 Replies

After several more presbyteries voted this past Saturday we are now at a total of 57 that are reported to have voted on Amendment 08-B to the Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). This is pretty close to one-third of the 173 total. Since my last update nothing has really changed but a few trends are becoming clearer. As always, the official word can be gotten from the Office of the General Assembly but the hot-off-the-press unofficial info can be found at PresbyWeb, Yes On 08B, Presbyterian Coalition, and the Layman.

1) Officially 08-B is running 9 yes and 25 no but the current reporting has the voting at 20 yes and 37 no as of Saturday February 14.

2) After this past weekend there are 6 of the 20 presbyteries voting yes that voted against the last proposal to change G-6.0106b. If this ratio of “flipped” presbyteries continues the final vote would be about 63 yes and 110 no. Some of the presbyteries that are on my “could switch” list, like Southeastern Illinois that voted this past week, have switched while others, like Pines and Cincinnati, were close but no change. (Cincinnati was a tie at 83 on each side so is in the “no” column.) And then there were surprises like Western North Carolina and Lake Huron that I don’t think were on anyone’s watch list.

3) The latest presbytery to switch was Charlotte this past Saturday. There was a lot of local press coverage of the meeting and vote and you can see some samples of the reports at the Charlotte Observer (complete with a slide show of five commissioners faces, but it has four ministers and only one elder (and by-the-way a great picture of you there Robert)) and WSOC-TV. It is difficult to gage the degree of shift in the presbytery since the vote last time on 01-A was a voice vote with out a reported count, but it passed this year 133-124 suggesting a notable shift.

Presbytery Moderator Robert Austell has posted a great piece on the process, discussion and the vote on his blog. There is a lot of good information in the piece and he has a lot of objective observations. For example, the first two of his overall observations:

1. Tone: on the whole, the pro-B folks
were warm, genuine, full of faith, and focused on Jesus, Scripture,
people, church unity, and justice (in that order); those against
Amendment B, on the whole, were saying what was wrong with the pro-B
folks and their arguments.

2. Content – Scripture: the pro-B
folks lived up to their declared attentiveness to Scripture; the pro-B
5-min. presenter demonstrated how she interpreted each of the nine
passages mentioning homosexuality and why she was voting consistent
with her beliefs; the rebuttal to that was dismissive (“that’s poor
exegesis”) rather than demonstrating equal or better attentiveness to
Scripture.

He reports that the presbytery used a process similar to what others report using by beginning with longer presentations, four in this case with two on each side, before going to open debate.

4) With each vote, particularly the close ones, reaction to the voting builds. The More Light Presbyterians web site announces each yes vote and celebrates the victories when one changes from last time. And you will find reaction among the letters to the Layman (an example) with criticism of the process and theology when a presbytery flips. By the same token there are progressive reactions when a presbytery shows no shift, as a blogger this weekend lamented the intransigence of her presbytery.

5) Finally, if you have been following my comments on the voting you know that I am intrigued by patterns that are developing in the vote counts. What is interesting is the decrease in the number of votes cast. Early on there was a parallel decrease in both the number of yes votes and the number of no votes. However, in the last couple of weeks the number of yes votes has rebounded and it is currently at 95% of the number of yes votes cast for 01-A. The number of no votes is now at 74% of those for 01-A giving 84% of the total number of votes cast last time.

What is interesting is that I can not find a correlation with presbytery membership declines over the last seven years. I tried correlating membership numbers for presbyteries against anything I can find and there is nothing statistically meaningful. For example, this past weekend Pines had 92% of the votes cast in 01-A yet has a large, 27% membership drop over that time. Eastern Virginia had a similar vote drop with 90% of the number of votes cast with only an 8% membership drop.

A trend is developing as more presbyteries vote — most presbyteries fall into two very distinct groups. In both groups there is a similar decrease in the number of no votes, but in one group the number of yes votes remains about the same while in the other the yes votes decrease by an amount similar to the no votes. An example of the first is Washington which voted 27-82 on 01-A and 27-70 on 08-B. An example of the second case is Cayuga-Syracuse which voted 54-21 before and 33-12 this year. That is 61% of the number of yes votes and 57% the number of no votes. And this is not just a feature of the yes presbyteries: Foothills was previously 41-132 and this time 34-99, that is 83% and 75% of the yes and no vote numbers respectively. In all, I would place about 22 presbyteries in the group with no decrease in yes votes and 16 presbyteries in the both-decrease category. That leaves 16 more scattered around and three that can’t be counted because there is no recorded numbers on 01-A. (I’m waiting to do a formal grouping analysis until I have more data.)

Once voting gets closer to the end I’ll put together all the numbers with statistical measures and plots so anyone with a similar geekiness can rip it apart and tell me what I did wrong as would happen with any peer-reviewed article.

But as I said above, the numbers don’t seem to support much attribution of vote decreases to PC(USA) membership decline. It would appear that commissioner fatigue and mental-resignation are a bigger factor in this. It is interesting that Robert’s article supports this with anecdotal evidence:

[T]he Presbytery of
Charlotte has a large number of rural and smaller town churches. Many
smaller churches are not involved (ever) in the life of presbytery, and
many did not send elders to vote. Additionally, the presbytery has
given almost all of the smaller churches who ever come to presbytery
meetings an additional elder vote in order to correct the imbalance
between ministers and elders. As many as 50-75 votes were not cast
because small or rural churches did not send two or even one elder.
Many of these would be more conservative. Conservatives did write,
call, and otherwise invite these folks… to no avail.

I am curious if others document this trend. Stay tuned.

Upcoming PCA General Assembly — Mid-February Update

7 Replies

The 37th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America will be held June 16-19, 2009, in Orlando Florida. I have made a few comments on the Assembly already, but while I have been reading the tea leaves about the EPC GA, the first overtures have been posted on the PCA GA Overtures page. So far it seems like the usual collection, some familiar, some new, and some of the “Blood on Every Page” variety. So, here is what is now reported:

Overture 1 is from Missouri Presbytery and at this time there is no text available yet and just the title “Amend BCO 37-7” We will await the text to say much more, but for information Chapter 37 in the Book of Church Order (BCO) deals with “The Removal of Censure” and section 7 addresses the removal of censure by the new presbytery or church when an officer under censure has relocated. Wait and see.

Update 2/19/09: Overture 1 has now been posted and it seems, to a point, a very reasonable clarification. The current wording refers to when an officer relocates to another “part of the country” and the overture points out that it implies the same country and second that the person could move geographically outside the PCA jurisdiction. The request is to replace that phrase with “location.” That helps the first, but I am still trying to figure out if a person moves out of the area of PCA jurisdiction what governing body would be there to receive the documentation, hear the repentance, and provide restoration?

Overture 2 asks for modification of the Rules of Assembly Operations (RAO) regarding the debate on minority reports and is from Potomac Presbytery. (The RAO can be found about 2/3 of the way through the BCO document.) The RAO was substantially revised a couple of years ago and this overture is part of the tweaking process to help adjust parts which may not have worked quite as well as hoped. In this case, it is to create a longer time for debate on motions with minority reports. The RAO sets the time of debate at 10 minutes for a main motion while this overture suggests 60 minutes of debate, extendable in 10 minutes increments by a simple majority, for reports or processed overtures with a substitute motion coming from the committee of commissioners. It seems that some extension of time is reasonable considering one of the points in the overture is:

Apart from the will of the majority, the current rules allow for only 10 minutes on the main question and three minutes per speaker—thus allowing merely three and a third speakers from among hundreds of commissioners on questions that are typically of great importance.

Overture 3 — In overture 3 we have a “Blood on Every Page” type of overture, one that seeks to change the constitution because of something that did, or in this case more appropriately did not, happen. This one, while not complex, is so loaded with nuances that maybe I should have split it out into its own analysis. It comes from Central Carolina Presbytery.

The overture seeks to change the BCO language about when a higher governing body may “Assume Original Jurisdiction” (AOJ) over a particular matter of dispute or complaint. (Note that this pertains specifically to the matter of dispute. For the PC(USA) readers to “assume original jurisdiction” usually has the connotation taking over the operation of a lower governing body and replacing the lower body with an administrative commission.) And specifically, this change refers to cases where the matter is about doctrine or cases of public scandal.

First, this overture wants to remove the condition “if the Presbytery refuses to act.” The argument is made that this is ambiguous, or at least not precise, language.

As presently worded, AOJ via 34-1 or 33-1 is essentially unachievable since the phrase “refuses to act” is vague – or at least it has been interpreted variously. Does it mean a Presbytery refuses to: (a) discuss the matter, (b) investigate informally, (c) investigate formally, (d) indict, (e) try and convict, (f) censure appropriately, or (g) something else? Some men plausibly interpret “to act” as “to indict” since the paragraph begins with the noun “Process” and process begins with indictment and appointment of a prosecutor. But that is not how the PCA’s highest court has interpreted the phrase in two cases.

This requirement would be replaced with GA action being postponed until the presbytery has concluded its action or “been afforded reasonable time to do so.” However, I can envision similar arguments about ambiguity over that phrase as there is over “refuses to act.”

Second, the overture “adjusts the bar” for GA stepping in on a
presbytery matter from two other requesting presbyteries to five. For
a presbytery to step into a session matter the bar is left at two other
sessions since some presbyteries are fairly small.

For changes to two paragraphs in the BCO, this overture comes with another 5 1/2 pages of rational arguing for the changes. This argument includes a review of two judicial cases, the recent one in Louisiana Presbytery and an older one in Tennessee Valley Presbytery, where other presbyteries wanted the GA to step in but the Standing Judicial Commission ruled that the presbyteries had in deed acted.

But there is also an interesting part that takes this issue back even further to the PCUS in 1940 when four presbyteries requested an investigation of the teachings of E.T. Thompson at Union Seminary in Richmond and the GA declined stating that jurisdiction over a member rest solely with the presbytery of membership. Two other legislative cases are cited as well.

And in an interesting argument, the Overture considers the constitutions of other Presbyterian branches, the ARP, EPC, RPCNA, and the PCUSA and notes that in each of these denominations original jurisdiction can be exercised pretty much unilaterally by a higher governing body (such as upon complaint by any party in the PCUSA). It also notes that the OPC has no provision for AOJ.

It will be interesting to see how this fares in the Assembly and, if approved by GA, then in the presbyteries. Remember, for the PCA changes to the BCO require a 2/3 approval of presbyteries.

Overture 4 from Heritage Presbytery seeks to formalize the usage of the term “Interim Pastor,” a term that currently does not exist in the BCO. In the index under Interim Pastors is says “see Stated Supply.” At the present time the BCO only provides for Stated Supply for a full-fledged temporary pastor, but the overture points out that people refer to them as Interim Pastors anyway. It is interesting to note that this is just being suggested as an alternate term with no definitional distinction being made between the two terms. I am curious to see if the Assembly thinks that these two terms refer to different types of temporary pastors. (Or that may just be a PC(USA) thing.)

Overture 5 from James River Presbytery is another request to “Appoint Study Committee on Role of Women in the Church.” This is more general than the four overtures related to this last year where two of those were specific to studying the role of deaconesses and the other two had deaconesses in mind as well. I had one post last spring that referenced all four of those overtures. I would describe the action taken at last year’s Assembly as saying that there was no need for further GA action at this time, but that the Assembly would be keeping in touch with the presbyteries on this through the review process. If you want more info from last year you can check out my post after the decision, but be sure to read the comments where my interpretations are corrected by ones closer to the action than I.

We will see if more overtures concerning the role of women are coming, but this one asks for a study committee that would report to the next Assembly and address:

What sorts of roles may women fill in the life of the church?
What are some models of local church practices that have developed as ways of employing the gifts of women in the lives of their congregations that might be exemplary and encouraging to other local churches?
What elements of organization and accountability to ordained leadership can be commended to PCA churches that are consistent with the BCO?
What modifications, if any to the BCO might be desirable for achieving the best utilization of the gifts of PCA women in light of the teaching of Scripture?

This overture does not ask for a study of the ordination of women but notes the sufficiency of the current practice. Whether intended or unintended this study committee, if approved, could open that door. I could see the Assembly adding another condition that would explicitly keep that door closed if this overture is approved.

Overture 6, another one from Central Carolina Presbytery, is the overture that has circulated already. It would decouple the BCO Directory for Worship section on marriage from the civil definition of marriage and begin the process to give the marriage section full constitutional authority instead of the advisory authority it has now. I have a more detailed discussion in my previous comments.

Overture 7 is another detailed, yet brief, overture that a GA Junkie would appreciate but could have a post of its own. In summary, Southeast Louisiana Presbytery argues that Section 16 of the Manual of the Standing Judicial Commission (found at the end of the BCO PDF) is unconstitutional. They consider there to be insufficient safeguards on due process and parts of the section to be in direct contradiction to the BCO. They keep the Overture brief by using a series of short “whereas’s” referencing other documents and precedents, but it also requires the reader to chase down the references to fully appreciate the nature of the complaint. The overture requests that the the section be declared constitutionally defective and that the Standing Judicial Commission amend the manual.

Overtures 8 and 9 are both from Ascension Presbytery and concern BCO section 13-6 that deals with the transfer of ministers into the PCA from other denominations. Specifically, overture 8 would adjust that section to make a distinction between ministers transferring from denominations with fraternal relations and those from other denominations. Those from branches which the PCA has a relationship with would only be required to stand for the same examination as a PCA minister transferring presbyteries. Those from other denominations would require a more extensive process and examination, up to the same as is required of PCA candidates for ministry if the presbytery deems it necessary. Overture 9 adds an aditional requirement to 13-6 that men transferring from other denominations state any specific instances that their doctrine differs from the Westminster Standards. Again, this is also required of candidates.

So, we await the text of overture 1 and I anticipate that there are a few more overtures coming. We will see how all this business develops. Stay tuned.

Footnote: My phrase
“Blood on Every Page” comes from the subtitle of a book on Presbyterian polity by William Chapman and embodies the concept that some of what is in our Book of Church Order results from learning through the conflict in the church. We are after all “Reformed and always reforming according to the Word of God.”

The GA Junkie

The Politics of Presbyterianism