Category Archives: ordination standards

Breaking News: PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions Published

2 Replies

The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has published their decisions on recently heard cases.

In my initial assessment I see no surprises in these two unanimous decisions regarding ordination standards:

219-08 – Bierschwale and others v. Presbytery of Twin Cities:  (Capetz case)  In my initial reading the important polity opinion rendered is that G-6.0106b and previous decisions like Bush v. Pittsburgh apply to the ordination process.  This case had to do with the restoration and validation of ministry, not ordination and call.  In that process there were no problems.  The sustained complaint was that the Synod PJC closed its proceedings.

219-11 – Naegeli and others v. Presbytery of San Francisco:  (Larges case)  This is a much more complex decision with several points being sustained in part and not sustained in part.  Bottom line for polity is that the question of when to declare an exception has been declared to be at the time of examination for ordination.  Practical result is that Ms. Larges has been cleared to be examined at the meeting next week on Nov. 10.  However, while not “instructing” the presbytery in this matter the GAPJC did emphasize the responsibility of determining if a declared exception is “a serious departure from essentials of Reformed faith and polity, and if it determines that she has, it must then decide whether the departure infringes on the rights and views of others or obstructs the constitutional governance of the church.”  The GAPJC appears to have left open the possibility of another case following the presbytery’s decision at that meeting.

Now, I’ll take some time and read every detail before commenting further.

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

5 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorting Out What The Actions Of The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland Mean

3 Replies

The General Assembly (2009) of the Church of Scotland dealt with a protest to a Presbytery approval of a church’s call to a partnered gay man to serve as pastor of the church.  For more details you can check out a couple of my previous posts, but to greatly summarize the actions of the Assembly on the specific case the policy of the CofS going forward they:

  1. Sustained the call and the Presbytery approval
  2. Formed a Special Commission to report back to the 2011 General Assembly with recommendations about such actions in the future.
  3. Placed a moratorium on ordination and induction (installation) of partnered same-sex individuals while the Commission is working
  4. Placed a gag order on all officers of the church urging them not to talk publicly about this whole issue while the commission is working

There has been much made about the gag order since the Assembly, including my comments in May and August. Up to this point that has been getting most of the publicity.

But this week brings news of some disagreement over the nature of the moratorium on ordination of partnered gay candidates.  Thanks to the Rev. Ian Watson for bringing this to our attention and all the important details are laid out in a post on his blog, with a brief follow-up.

His first post is extensive and complete enough that a GA Junkie can get a good idea of what the issues are.  I will summarize the recent action and then comment on the polity implications and the parallel to the PC(USA) working through this same question.

Rev. Watson reports that on September 1 the Presbytery of Hamilton “voted to nominate for training for the ministry of a man who is in a civil partnership.”

The question that arises is what is the scope of the Assembly’s action.  The specific deliverance says:

Instruct Presbyteries to observe a moratorium on ordinations and
inductions which might appear to prejudice the Special Commission before it reports.

Rev. Watson reports that as part of this decision the Presbytery received advice from the national CofS Ministries Council pertaining to the moratorium.  The complete advice is in his post, but it reads in part:

The decisions recently made should ensure that no applicant will be prejudiced, between now and the General Assembly of 2011, in the decision of their Presbytery whether to nominate them. That Assembly will determine the Church’s position, on receipt of the report of the Special Commission that has been established under the convenership of a Scottish judge.  No-one can predict at this stage what implications that might have for those who are applicants, candidates, or serving in the ministries of the Church at that point. 

So it is unclear if the moratorium applies only to the final step in ordination and induction, or applies to the whole ordination process.  This is a question that the Church of Scotland will have to wrestle with.

One of the reasons that I bring this up is because the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has had to deal with exactly the same issue, and the changes that the Report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity (PUP) brought.

Since adoption of G-6.0106b into the PC(USA) Book of Order there has been a discussion about at what point in the ordination process the “fidelity and chastity” clause needed to be applied.  The decisions of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, especially Sheldon v. West Virginia and Stewart v. Mission, set the pattern for handling these cases during the ordination process not at the point of the final examination for ordination by the Presbytery.

The Authoritative Interpretation adopted with the PUP Report allowed for declaring exceptions to the standards of the church but it does so in the context of examination for ordination, not entry into or during the preparation process.  Suddenly the ground shifted so that the review was no longer during the preparation process but at the time of examination.  This was the process affirmed by the PJC of the Synod of the Pacific in the case of Naegeli v. San Francisco, but has not been tested by the GAPJC yet.

So there you have some of the subtleties of this type of case.  Where is the appropriate point in the process to enforce standards or policy?  It is not clear that the Church of Scotland case will go any further, that would require a protest from members of the Presbytery of Hamilton and Rev. Watson does not suggest that is coming.  There does appear to be a need for a formal clarification from the Ministries Council to the whole church, not just on a case-by-case basis to Presbyteries.  But this would then start to drift into the realm of the prohibition on publicly discussing the topic. 

And what is the spirit of the actions that were taken by the CofS General Assembly?  The sense I got from listening to the debate was that they wanted to provide a level and neutral space for the Commission to work.  A space that was not biased or prejudiced by specific actions and statements within the church.  I must agree with Rev. Watson that this action by the Presbytery of Hamilton does seem to encroach on the spirit, if not the letter, of the Assembly action.  Time will tell how this develops.

Law And Gospel

2 Replies

It has been an interesting week in the Law and Gospel department.  The Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has been meeting in Minneapolis and the high-profile topics have been related to same-sex relationships, both regarding the church’s role in civil union and marriage as well as serving in church office.  It is interesting to listen to the Lutherans work through their business and note the similarities (getting hung up in parliamentary procedure, standing in line for microphones, the arguments on both sides of the same-sex relationships issues) and the differences (bishops, technical terminology, theological distinctives). 

One of the most interesting things to me is that in their arguments regarding same-sex issues there was a recurring theme of Law and Gospel.  While this argument always comes up in a variety of forms in these debates and discussions, my impression is that it is more prominent here than in Presbyterian discussions, probably because it was a major emphasis of Martin Luther‘s work.  We Reformed deal in Depravity and Election, Lutherans appear to wrestle with Law and Gospel.  We talk about translations and confessions, New Testament passages and Old Testament patterns.  They were discussing the various categories of Levitical laws and how they have been superseded or replaced by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the grace of God.

At the bottom line there is nothing really new in the arguments.  But what struck me was how our slightly different theological perspectives change the emphasis and focus of the arguments we make.

Maybe the most exciting (not necessarily in a good sense) external event at the Churchwide Assembly was a tornado touching down next to the convention center and damaging the far end of the building as well as the Lutheran church across the street.

Got to love the City Pages blog that writes:

So what happens when you crowd thousands of Lutherans in a convention center and a tornado comes along? Nothing. The humble folk of Scandinavian heritage took news of the storm as calmly as one would take news of a church potluck.

(Actually, Lutherans go nuts over potlucks. So that comparison is off a bit.)

But there was a predictable response, or at least the Twitter crowd predicted it, from certain quarters that this tornado was a sign or punishment from God related to the same-sex topics. (So PC(USA) be warned for your meeting there next year, although there was no such sign for the Presbyterians last year in San Jose or the Episcopalians this year in Anaheim.)  The most prominent of those declaring the possibility of God’s warning was Minneapolis Baptist minister John Piper writing in his blog.  And because of his high profile it did get news coverage in both the regular as well as religious press.  (And with 492 comments to that post, at the moment, it struck a nerve with readers as well.)

So another variation on Law and Gospel — The message of punishment is a message from God that His Law has been transgressed.  There is still a place for Law in the Law and Gospel tension.

But in the Law and Gospel debate this week there has been an even more widely and hotly discussed topic — the release of the Lockerbie bomber from Scottish prison on compassion grounds.  The Church of Scotland was in favor of the release and issued this statement:

The Church of Scotland today praised the decision that meant Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was released today on compassionate grounds by Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill.

Rev Ian Galloway, Convener of the Church and Society Council of the Church of Scotland said:

“This decision has sent a message to the world about what it is to be Scottish. We are defined as a nation by how we treat those who have chosen to hurt us. Do we choose mercy even when they did not choose mercy?

This was not about whether one man was guilty or innocent. Nor is it about whether he had a right to mercy but whether we as a nation, despite the continuing pain of many, are willing to be merciful. I understand the deep anger and grief that still grips the souls of the victims’ families and I respect their views. But to them I would say justice is not lost in acting in mercy. Instead our deepest humanity is expressed for the better. To choose mercy is the tough choice and today our nation met that challenge.

We have gained something significant as a Nation by this decision. It is a defining moment for all of us.”

I found it interesting that it was about being Scottish and not distinctly being Christian.  In an interview with CNN Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill echoes this.  Some of his responses:

MacAskill: Well, each and every compassionate release that has been granted, and there have been 30 granted since the year 2000, is done under individual circumstances. And as we were seeing, in Scotland, justice is equally tempered with mercy. Those who commit an offense must be punished and have to pay a price.

Equally, we have values that we seek to live by, even if those who perpetrate crimes against us have not respected us or shown any compassion. Here is a dying man. He didn’t show compassion to the victims, American or Scottish. That does not mean that we should lower ourselves, debase ourselves, or abandon our values.

He was justly convicted, but we’re allowing him some mercy to return home to die.

[snip]

And certainly this atrocity was a barbarity that we have never experienced before in our small country. And it’s a barbarity we hope will never be replicated here, nor would we wish it anywhere else.

But equally, the Scottish justice system is predicated upon justice being enforced, but mercy and compassion being capable of being shown.

Many around the world were not in favor of the release, including the U.S. Government, victim’s families, and airline pilots.

Scanning the news reports I see more objection from this side of the Atlantic.  But again, it challenges us as to how we hold Law and Gospel, judgment and mercy in this case, in tension.  This compassionate release appears to be a more accepted in the U.K. than in the U.S.  But it is not unheard of here as a California news item today shows.  Very different crimes, but both releases on compassionate grounds for terminally ill prisoners convicted of murder.

Update: T
here are now posts from or about Scottish pastors who have weighted in on the release.  There is a piece about Fr. Patrick Keegans,  who visited the prisoner in jail, believes he is innocent, and welcomes the release.  On the other side, there is a post by Church of Scotland minister the Rev. Ian Watson who argues that forgiveness and compassion are the place of the individual and not the state.  Maybe most interesting are his comments about how his thinking changed over the days following the release.

While you may come down on one side or the other of each of these examples, each is a strong reminder that our God is a God of both Law and Gospel.  God has set down laws and requirements for us to meet.  There are definite rules to be followed and consequences if we don’t.  But in the end, we as humans are incapable of fulfilling the Law and our only hope of salvation and eternal life is the Gospel.  Now, as the people of God, how do we model and balance the Law we are under and the Gospel that has ultimately saved us in our everyday lives.

Good luck and let’s be careful out there.

Developments In Scotland

1 Reply

Over the last two months there has been a slow but nearly constant stream of news coming out of the Church of Scotland and the Free Church of Scotland.  Having not posted on any of the individual bits and pieces I thought I would now try to go back and summarize the general flow of the news.

While one particular item is simmering, there have been a couple of  other interesting, and not completely unrelated, news items.  One of these is the initiation of Sunday ferry service to the Islands.  Earlier this month the ferry service between the Mainland of Scotland the Isle of Lewis began, leading to silent protests and discussion over the end of a way of life.  As an article in the Telegraph put it:

The staunchly Presbyterian island is one of the last areas of the country where the Sabbath is widely regarded as a day of rest.

and later

The Free Church of Scotland – the Wee Frees – claim the move will destroy a way of life, while supporters say it will drag Lewis and neighbouring Harris – which have had Sunday flights for seven years – into the 21st century.

Although the church has showed some skepticism with the explanation, in the article the ferry company says that by not running on Sunday they are in violation of a European law “if it followed the wishes of one part of the community on Lewis, while sailing to almost every other large island on a Sunday.”

This is just one in a series of protests by Presbyterians in the UK protesting activities moving onto the Lord’s Day, including a protest just under a year ago by members of the Free Presbyterian Church in Ireland when the first Sunday football (soccer) match was held.

Now, at about the same time last month the Isle of Lewis made the news again for the first same-sex partnership ceremony or wedding in the Western Islands.  Again, in that conservative corner of Scotland the locals were not enthusiastic about the news, reported in the Sunday Mail, especially the leadership of the Free Church.

And in an interesting twist a court ruling was returned this week over church property, but in contrast to the cases stateside, this was the conservative Free Church (FC) prevailing in the case against one of its congregations that had broken away in 2000 as part of the formation of the more conservative Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) (FCC).  This is reported as one of about 12 congregations where there is a property dispute.  In his decision the judge said:

The defenders admitted that they had left the structure of the FC and had set up their own structure. There was and is an FC and the body to which the defenders belonged took themselves away from that and set up their own structure. As the defenders did not aver that the FC no longer adhered to its fundamental principles they had lost their property rights. There was a sharp issue between the parties as to how the series of authorities had to be understood. The defenders’ analysis of the authorities was fundamentally misconceived: if they were correct chaos would result since the FCC had set up competing trustees. What the authorities clearly showed was that those who left a voluntary church and separated themselves from its structure lost their property rights in it unless they showed that they adhered to the fundamental principles of the Church and that those who remained within the structure did not. Neither group in the present case averred that the other did not adhere to fundamental principles.

In other words, at least as I understand it, since this was a disagreement over details of the faith and not the major substance of their doctrine the FCC has no legal basis for claiming the property as the “true church.”  (I welcome clarification and/or correction as I am not as familiar with Scottish legal decisions.)  My summary is echoed in articles from The Herald and the Stornoway Gazette.  And in the article in The Herald it says:

But Reverend John Macleod, principal clerk of the Free Church (Continuing), said: “Our legal committee will be studying Lord Uist’s findings and consulting our lawyers in early course.”

The FC spokesman says they hope this will set a precedent so that legal action against the other congregations will not be necessary to recover the property.  Variations on a theme, no?

Finally, the continuing “hot topic”:

When we last discussed the situation in the Church of Scotland the General Assembly had just concluded, the Rev. Scott Rennie had been approved for his call to a church in Aberdeen, a moratorium was in place on any new calls to same-sex partnered ministers, and a gag order had been placed on all officers of the church.  So where do we go from here?

On July 3 the Rev. Scott Rennie was inducted (installed) as the pastor of Queen’s Cross Church in Aberdeen Presbytery. (BBC)

On July 25 a Church of Scotland minister announced he would step down from his call in disagreement with the General Assembly decision (BBC) but did not announce plans to leave the Church of Scotland.  A few days later a member of one of the church councils announced that he was leaving the CofS over this. (The Press and Journal)

At about the same time the editor of the Free Church magazine The Monthly Record, the Rev. David Robertson, wrote an editorial in the latest edition that suggested that those leaving the Church of Scotland could find a home in the Free Church.  Titled “Ichabod — The Glory Has Departed” he criticized the action of the CofS General Assembly  and says:

Whatever happens, barring an extraordinary outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the Church of Scotland is crippled and dying and will find itself increasingly unable to bring the Living Water of Jesus Christ to a thirsty nation.

The editorial then goes on to suggest responses from the Free Church (highly edited for length):

We have to respond. This is the most significant event in the history of the Church in Scotland since the union of 1929. It affects us all. Again, we simply list some suggestions.

1) We need to repent as well. There must not be even a hint of schadenfreude, delighting in another’s misery in order to indulge in an ‘I told you so’ kind of self-justification. How eff
ective are we in reaching Scotland’s millions? Any form of pride or thankfulness that we are ‘not as others’ is utterly reprehensible and totally unjustified.

2) We must offer as much support we can to our brothers and sisters who are really hurt and suffering within the Church of Scotland. Not because we want to entice them to join us, but simply because they are our brothers and sisters. Many of them are faithful, hardworking and fine Christians who have served Christ for many years within and through the Church of Scotland. They are pained beyond belief. Now is not the time to stick the boot in. Now is the time to offer a helping hand, including to those who will stay.

3) We need to provide a home for those who cannot stay. If this means for the sake of Christian unity that we have to allow them to worship God in the way they are used to – then so be it. It is surely not a coincidence that the year before the Special Commission is due to report, the Free Church will be debating and deciding on whether to amend what forms of worship will be allowed within our bounds. We should not do what is unbiblical or sinful in order to facilitate Christian unity, but neither should we allow disagreement on secondary issues (disagreements which we have amongst ourselves already) to prevent us from uniting with likeminded brothers and sisters. [text deleted] It is time for us all to recognize that we are no longer in the 19th century, or even in the 20th. We are no longer a Christian society with a national church which just needs to be reformed. We are in a postmodern secular society where the vast majority of people are ignorant of the Gospel, ignorant of the Bible, and have little or no meaningful concept of the Church. For us this is a new beginning. We need new wine, and for that we need new wineskins.

4) We need to inform the Church of Scotland that the stumbling block in our negotiations with them has just become a mountain. We always knew that the issue of scripture was the major one, but now that the Assembly has decided that Scripture is not synonymous with the Word of God, it is difficult to see on what basis we can have any meaningful official discussions. [text deleted]

5) We need to seek realistic co-operation and build bridges to overcome years of prejudice and misinformation on all sides. At an official level, Free Church presbyteries could offer associate status to Church of Scotland ministers, elders and congregations. We should seek to form Gospel partnerships in areas where we share the same theology and understanding of the Gospel. We would support rather than compete with one another and perhaps plant churches and worship together…

While these are personal comments of the editor of the official magazine, point 4 reflects the concern expressed at the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland for the direction of the mainline Church of Scotland and the implications that had for the continuing talks regarding their ecumenical relations.

The editorial concludes with this:

These are dark days and the worst is yet to come. But these are also days of great opportunity for the light of the Gospel to shine all the more brightly… Where is the passion of Knox who declared, ‘give me Scotland or I die’? Where is the vision of Chalmers when he stated, ‘Who cares for the Free Church compared with the Christian good of Scotland’? Those who share that passion and vision must unite – across denominations – and make a stand to uphold and proclaim the wonderful full gospel of Jesus Christ. Who knows – it may be that these past days have been the shake-up that a complacent church in Scotland has needed. May the latter days of the Gospel in Scotland be greater than the former.

I have been looking for reaction to this editorial in either official statements or news coverage and have not seen any yet.  I’ll update when I do.

There are definitely rumblings of concern out there, and an article in The Herald today puts some of them in writing, but without naming a lot of names.  It mentions a church that is looking at withholding its annual contribution to the national church.  It says that there are 35 churches that have said “they will not accept gay ordination under any circumstances” with the report of more congregations to follow.

Finally, the restrictions on discussing the ordination standards in the Church of Scotland, particularly in public or to the media, are starting to be questioned.  In particular, the Rev. Louis Kinsey presented an argument last week on his blog Coffee With Louis about the problem with the ban on discussion, and the comments got picked up by The Herald.  He concludes his argument with this:

It is simply contrary to the spirit of the church, the church that worships the Word made public in Jesus Christ, to prevent its Courts, Councils and congregants from trying to talk this issue and its implications through in every way possible, including publicly, albeit with graciousness and respect.  It cannot be argued that further discussion can continue within Presbyteries.  It just won’t happen.  We all know that.  Life and Work?  The pages of Life and Work are sealed, as far as letters and articles on this matter are concerned.  That magazine just will not publish.  They are following the moratorium. 

There is, now, no arena in which this debate can continue, and yet it should continue, because God continues to have a strong view on the matter.  All parties to this debate can at least agree on that.

My hope is that the moratorium will be challenged.  It only serves to drive debate underground and it stifles the exchange of opinion.  It is patronizing because it infers that the Assembly simply cannot and will not trust the members and ministers of the Kirk to hold a public discussion in a spirit of respectful disagreement.  It was agreed without evidence, on the say-so of the proposer, and because it prevents Kirk members from hearing one another’s perspective, it only adds to the momentum towards disintegration.

This moratorium is hurtful not helpful and should be ended.  It is a mistake that needs correcting.  It is the absence of freedom of speech.

There is much going on here, most in initial stages, including the work of the Special Commission.  We will see how all of these facets of the situation develop.

The 37th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church In America — Moving From Committee To Plenary

2 Replies

The 37th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America began yesterday with their committee work and will continue with seminars and committee meetings most of today with the opening plenary session this evening.  They will be meeting all this week (June 15-19) in Orlando, Florida.

If you are following the GA you probably already know about these resources, but I will list them just in case:

Unfortunately there is no webcasting this year but there is a very active community on Twitter using the hashtag #pcaga. (Editorial note – I like the use of a hashtag that is not specific to a particular year so it can be continuing and reusable.  This does presume that Twitter will still be useful a year from now.)

Leading up to the Assembly there have been some good blog posts.  In particular I would point out Kevin Carroll’s post on “A Newbie’s Survival Guide To General Assembly” on Reformed and Loving It.  There is also an interesting “preview” article by Ed Eubanks, Jr., on General Assembly 2009 — Hopes and Expectations.

Overtures
The Overtures Page shows that there are now 22 overtures to the Assembly.  In my last post reviewing the overtures I left off at No. 15.  Of the remaining seven, six deal with new presbyteries or revising presbytery boundaries; and several of those are concurring with overtures already discussed.  The one additional overture, Overture 18, is titled “A Declaration Concerning Homosexuals In The Military.”  (byFaith news article) In this overture Eastern Pennsylvania Presbytery asks to have the Declaration endorsed and delivered to the President by the Moderator.  The Declaration lays out the Biblical prohibitions on homosexual behavior and asks that the Government observe scriptural morality and not normalize homosexual behavior in the military.

For many of the overtures the Assembly will be considering I would commend two blogs to you.  In each case these writers have taken the individual overtures and discussed them in greater detail than I have had the opportunity to do.  The first is Jordan Mark Siverd who writes necdum videmus.  He has written on Overtures 3, 6, and 7.  And Kevin Carroll also did a great job discussing most of the overtures with articles about Overtures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 22. (I hope I caught them all.  Apologies if I missed any.)

From the PCAbyFaith Twitter feed, and one news article, we do have information from yesterday’s meeting of the Bills and Overtures Committee about the committee’s recommended action on some of these overtures:

  • Overture 1 on Removal of Censure to answer in the affirmative as amended
  • Overture 2 on RAO debate of minority reports to answer in the affirmative
  • Overture 3 on Assumption of Original Jurisdiction to answer in the negative
  • Overture 4 on Adding “Interim Pastor” to answer in the negative
  • Overture 5 on Study Committee on the Role of Women to answer by Overture 10
  • Overture 6 on Marriage to answer in the negative
  • Overture 8 on Examination of Men from other Denominations be answered in the negative (reported vote 37-33 with 3 abstain)
  • Overture 9 on Judged differences from Confessional Standards for Men From other Denomination answer in the affirmative
  • Overture 10 (and 5) on Role of Women answer in the negative.  News Story.  May be minority report
  • Overture 13 on Adopt Danvers Statement answer in the negative
  • Overture 14 on Giving Notice on Intention to Withdraw answer in the negative
  • Overture 15 on Directing Philadelphia Presbyter to Adopt Specified Policy on Role of Women ruled out of order by Clerk and Overtures Committee
  • Overture 18 on Declaration on Homosexuals in the Milty answer in the negative.

And now we see what is the will of the full Assembly.

So I will be following by Twitter, blogs and news as best as I can.  I don’t anticipate any regular updates since I have some ecclesiastical functions that will be keeping me highly occupied the next few days.  But I will comment briefly if news warrants.

General Assembly of the Church of Scotland — Say What?

Leave a reply

To use the line from the old Westerns — “It’s quiet around here.  Too quiet.”

Yes, at least for the last day it does seem that office holders and members of the Church of Scotland have been observing the “urged” “quiet period” regarding public discussion of issues related to human sexuality.  One day down, 735 to go.  (For the record, I am an office holder and member in another Presbyterian denomination.  I can’t imagine our gang being so well behaved.)

Anyway, sarcasm, cliches, and snarky comments aside, I have to admit that I have been very impressed with how “all the usual suspects,” on both sides of the issue, have taken this to heart.  Stewart Cutler did comment on the “gag” order itself.  Ian Watson posted the text of a news story about the quiet period.  Danny expresses the concern that waiting another two years just allows each side to become entrenched.  And Chris Hoskins, in his reflection on Monday, says he’ll avoid that topic in his daily reflection.

What are the instructions?  The minutes have not been posted yet, and I don’t see a full read-back in the daily updates, but tracking back the changes (and checking it against Stewart’s text) it seems that the sections dealing with the quiet period say

2. Instruct all Courts, Councils and Committees of the Church not to
issue press statements or talk to the media or to make public comment,
whether in publications or otherwise, on decision-making in relation to
contentious matters of human sexuality, with respect to Ordination and
Induction to the Ministry of the Church of Scotland, until 31 May 2011;

and

3. Urge all members who are subject to the discipline of the Courts of
the Church of Scotland to act in accordance with the process outlined
in 1 and 2.

And it was understood in the debate that blogging was included in the prohibited communication.

The exact parameters are still not specifically understood and I am sure the boundaries will be worked out as people “test the limits” of the motion.  As people have a chance to think this through there may be official guidelines.  And while I consider it unlikely, there may even be a complete breakdown for individuals since the term is “urge,” not a strict instruction like “shall,” leaving little force for ensuring compliance.  In fact, the limits are being tested already, as reported by the Scotsman, with one minister writing a letter to that paper criticizing the Assembly’s earlier action in the Aberdeen case.  As a member of a presbytery it is being debated if he is representing the presbytery after being “instructed” not to comment, or acting as an individual after being “urged” not to.  As is customary in Presbyterian polity it will be up to the presbytery to decide on a case to discipline a member.

And what constitutes “public comment?”  Could the suggested actions of some sessions to withold their payments to the larger church in protest be considered a form of public comment?  This is a form of protest and comment that has been used in the PC(USA) and has clearly gotten the attention of some governing bodies there.

So there are many uncertainties and two years to go with this.  We will see what understandings develop as time goes on.

General Assembly of the Church of Scotland — Reaction To The Judicial Case

Leave a reply

With about two days since the Assembly made its decision in the case of the Dissent and Complaint Against a Decision by the Presbytery of Aberdeen more information and reaction is now available on the web.

First, for the details of the Assembly session I have found no better source than the official audio summary from the Church of Scotland found on the Daily News Updates page.  For those interested in the polity details there is no other source that goes into the details of how the case proceeded and what was actually being decided.  This case was not about the particular individual or ordination standards in general, but whether the Presbytery of Aberdeen had specifically followed the procedures for reviewing the call to the charge as stated in Acts VIII 2003 (DOC Format).  (That is a church law reference, not a scriptural one.)

Specifically, the two points of complaint were:

Aberdeen Presbytery was therefore wrong to take a decision that was contrary to the stated position and practice of the Church in sustaining the call to a minister in a self professed active homosexual relationship.

The Presbytery of Aberdeen, in sustaining the call to a minister in an avowedly active homosexual relationship, has also acted contrary to the commitment to ‘prayerful dialogue’ urged on us all by the General Assembly of 2007.

The problem that the complainers had was that there is no specific section in the Church of Scotland polity that sets standards for these situations in the manner of the PC(USA) G-6.0106b.  (Hence today’s overture.)  The complaint argues from “the historic and orthodox position of the church,” and a 2007 GA report that says the Kirk does not see orientation as a barrier to service but that there is disagreement over homosexual activity.  The complaint also says “The ordination and induction of active homosexuals has never been the accepted practice of the Church of Scotland or the Church catholic, except where there has first been a clear debate and decision to ordain active homosexuals.”

A few other interesting details about the process from the audio update:  The commissioners from the presbytery against which the complaint is filed (Aberdeen) may not participate as commissioners or vote.  Being a judicial case the commissioners are to come to the case without “preconceived notions.”  This is a bit different than my previous comments.  In the discussion about the wider effects of this cases outcome the commissioners were informed that a decision in a judicial case does not set standards for the wider church and that whether a particular case sets a precedent can not be know at the time of the case but only when it is used as precedent in a future case.  Finally, the vote was not a yes/no vote but rather a vote on two different motions, one supporting and one denying the dissent.

There was plenty of comment about the decision, as you can imagine, but the two Scottish bloggers that seem to have the best read of the situation are Stewart Cutler and Chris Hoskins.  Neither disappointed in their analysis and comments on the day.  In addition to a brief post Saturday night with the results of the case Stewart posted on Sunday about being between the two votes and the fact the situation was unsettled.  (He also has a reaction to the motion passed today about the standards, but I’ll get to that another time.)

Chris Hoskins has an extensive post about Saturday and closes with a paragraph worth reading about the evening session to hear the case.  Here is what he wrote:

Saturday evening was interesting. At the start of the evening I wasn’t
that as bothered about the outcome as I was about how the debate was
conducted. I don’t want to talk here about the outcome, plenty of
people are doing that, I want to talk about attitudes (again). I was
worried that people would be hostile and disrespectful to one another
during the debate. I think the way that the moderator handled the night
was fantastic. He made it clear from the start that he would not
tolerate ungracious behaviour and that he would not tolerate people
cheering or jeering. Overall I thought everyone did a great job of
upholding this. I thought that both parties did a great job of keeping
focused on the actual issue, and not allowing themselves to be derailed
from that. I was so grateful and proud for the respect, grace and
dignity that was displayed for all those who were involved and by all
those who spoke during the debate. The attitudes displayed gave me hope
for the future debates that will be had on this issue.

A couple of other blog reactions worth noting.  John Ross at Recycled Missionaries has a long post on the theological decline in the Kirk titled A New Church For Scotland?  There is another long post at Clerical Whispers which looks at the Church of Scotland decision in the context of other churches, particularly the Church of England which is a bit closer to Clerical Whispers’ regular territory of the Irish Roman Catholic church.  Two other bloggers close to the controversy, Rev. Louis Kinsey at Coffee With Louis and Rev. Ian Watson at Kirkmuirhillrev have not posted any extensive or personal comments about the vote yet.  I am sure they will when the time is right and I look forward to their thoughts.

(UPDATE: Much of this post was written before the motion at the Monday session that now asks members of the church not to comment to the press or on-line about these issues.  In light of that new request we will have to see how individuals respond to the proceedings of the Assembly.  As I mention above, I am working on a post about the request for not commenting.)

At this time I have not seen any official statements yet from two of the groups that are part of the discussion, The Fellowship of Confessing Churches and Forward Together. OneKirk did issue a press release expressing their approval of the decision.  I am sure that more will be forthcoming now that the near-term situation is better known with today’s decision to study the issue.

Finally, I need not tell any GA Junkie that for the media the vote on Saturday night was simply about ordination standards and not process.  At least Ekklesia acknowledges the nature of the vote.  While the middle part of the article says “Although those campaigning against Mr Rennie purely because he is gay and in a faithful relationship…” they do have at the very end “The decision the Assembly took this evening was not specifically on the
question of sexuality, but about the rightness of the decision taken by
the local Presbytery in Aberdeen.”

I wish I could say much good about this Associated Press article published on the KXMC web site.  The AP headline is “Church of Scotland votes to appoint gay minister.”  The article begins with this line:  “LONDON (AP) There’s a new Anglican church conflict over
sexuality this time, in Scotland.”  I’m sorry, the Church of Scotland is Presbyterian, not Anglican.  (A similar mix-up is apparent in the news story headlined “Another gay appointment rocks Anglican Church” from On Top Magazine who claims to have gotten the story from The Guardian.  I could not find that error in the Guardian Story so at some point they will probably catch the mistake and correct the text.)

And the Herald had an interesting and extensive article about the debate titled “Landmark Victory or Ecclesiastical Fudge?”  This question of a “fudge” gets back to the polity issue that the case, in and of itself, does not set a precedent but must wait for future cases to evaluate it’s precedent-setting status, or lack there of.  The article is worth reading if for no other reason that it provides more quotes from the debate than I have seen in any other source.

There is certain to be more on this as everyone considers the two different actions taken as a package and snapshot of the Assembly.  In particular, the Herald has an article saying that conservatives think they may yet be able to stop the Rev. Rennie’s appointment.  We will wait for more developments.

General Assembly of the Church of Scotland — Live Blogging The Lochcarron-Skye Overture Debate

Leave a reply

Greetings — I am semi-live blogging this session of the
General Assembly (2009) of the Church of Scotland.  I apologize to those with e-mail feeds or a feed
reader since you will probably only get the first section of the post
since I’ll be adding updates throughout the session.  Also, if you are
reading this on a browser live you will also need to refresh the screen
since I don’t have push technology on my blog.  It’s tough being Web
1.99999 in a Web 2.0 world.  Thanks for your patience.

This
blogging is semi-live since I am not there but only following on the webcast.  This session is to deal with the overture from the Presbytery of Lochcarron-Skye proposing specific standards for these cases.  It is being continued from Saturday evening from whence it was postponed because the judicial case ran until almost 11:00 PM.

4:00 PM local time – Right on schedule the Assembly turns to the order of the day, the Overture from Lochcarron-Skye.  There is a proposed motion to reverse the order of the motions in this section.  The Moderator asks for advice and when the Deputy Clerk begins a longer answer the Moderator reminds her “I was looking for advice, not a conversation.”  Based on the advice then given the Moderator says not to reverse the motion.

4:03 – The opening presentation by Rev Dr John L McPake moves the following:

For the sake of the peace and unity of the Church the General Assembly:
1. Appoint a Special Commission composed of nine
persons, representative of the breadth and unity of
the Church, to consult with all Presbyteries and to
prepare a study on Ordination and Induction to the
Ministry of the Church of Scotland in the light of the
issues (a) addressed in the report welcomed by the
General Assembly of 2007: “A challenge to unity:
same-sex relationships as an issue in theology and
human sexuality”, and (b) raised by the case of
Aitken et al v the Presbytery of Aberdeen, and to
report to the General Assembly of 2011;

2. Instruct all Courts, Councils and Committees of the
Church to observe a moratorium on issuing public
comment, whether in publications or otherwise,
and decision-making in relation to contentious
matters of human sexuality, in particular with
respect to Ordination and Induction to the Ministry
of the Church of Scotland, until 31 May 2011; and

3. Urge all members who are subject to the discipline
of the Courts of the Church of Scotland to act in
accordance with the process outlined in 1 and 2.

4:14 – Rev Dr Angus Morrison seconds

4:19 – The Assembly turns to Addendum.  There are three that are being read by the Deputy Clerk so commissioners know what is ahead.  In addition, the Deputy Clerk notes that the three addendum’s are no inconsistent with the main motion or the other addendum’s.

4:24 – Motion to amend so the Special Commission reports back to GA from 2011 to 2010.  Wants to minimize the time this process will take since it could be followed by an act sent to the presbyteries under the Barrier Act.  Another commissioner argues that this has been going on too long as it is.  Moderator asks him to speak to the amendment alone.  He says he will but continues on speaking to the whole motion saying that it should be denied and just adopt the presbytery overture and get a vote over with.  Give the presbyteries a vote not just a consultation.  Moderator stops him to commissioner applause.

4:30 – Other speakers on both sides of dates.  One speaker reasonably arguing for 2011 to take the time for real discussion and “cooling off.”  Commissioner in background can be seen rolling his eyes.

4:40 – Moderator calls for one more speaker on each side.  Speaker for 2010 speaks of media perception and “people in the pews” think the GA made a decision Saturday night on the whole subject not just that case.  Speaker against 2010 is convener of Special Committee on the Third Article — Committee was given two years and he wishes they were given three.

4:48 – Now there is an interesting polity question from the floor: Can this motion be taken outside the Barrier Act because it stops presbyteries from sending overtures to next year’s GA on this subject.  Deputy Clerk responds that this is a narrower focus (single issue) than the Lochcarron-Skye Overture so some reconciliation might be needed.

Motion to change to 2010 rejected overwhelmingly.

New addendum to include kirk sessions as part of the consultation, not just presbyteries.

5:03 – “and kirk sessions” agreed to
Section 1, as amended, is agreed to

Debate on Section 2
Active debate on exactly what the moratorium means:  no sermons?  no public comment at all?  how broadly is the topic of human sexuality to be avoided? what about discussion groups?  What about blogs?

The discussion tries to focus on “press statements” but there is concern about other statements which might be picked up by the press.  In deciding on the current amendment to the amendment the Deputy Clerk reminds commissioners that they are only voting on which version they prefer even if they dislike them both.

5:52 – This discussion continues, and there are still other motions and the overture to deal with this evening.  OK, I now see why the business from Saturday night was continued to today. 

Deputy Clerk weighs in that having made the decision on Saturday night it would not be advisable now to make a decision that would reverse that particular case.  [Editorial comment:  Then why was the specific dealt with before the general standard?]

The vote on Section 2 as amended by standing is ruled against, there is a challenge so they are now voting electronically.
Section 2 as amended is agreed to 314 to 285.  The Moderator apologizes for his previous incorrect call.

Section 3 – Motions for new Section 3’s

Motion to “instruct Presbyteries
to observe a moratorium on ordination and inductions which might appear
to prejudice the Special Commission before it reports.”  Moderator states that it is probably already agreed to based on the vote for Section 2.  Allows seconder to speak about how the Kirk now needs time and how the liberal side, which he is on, needs time to wait and maybe be uncomfortable.

While the Moderator acknowledged that this was already agreed to, he did call for a vote on this as a sign of support.  It was agreed to overwhelmingly.

New motion: For the avoidance of doubt, affirm that the provision of this whole
motion shall in no way be interpreted as offering grounds for
challenging the decision in the referred case Aitken and others against
the decision of the Presbytery of Aberdeen.

6:38 – The motion is approved

New motion to clarify other Assembly committees that may work during the discussion period.  Agreed to.

The Moderator declares the motion agreed to.  A commissioner protests that there was no vote on the whole motion.  The Moderator say that all the sections were agreed to but “for the avoidance of doubt” he calls for the Assembly vote.

6:46 – The Assembly turns to the Overture.  There is a request for the Presbytery to withdraw their overture.  One of the presbytery commissioners asks for time to consult with all the presbytery commissioners.  The Moderator suspends the meeting for 5 minutes.

6:55 – The Presbytery of Lochcarron-Skye agrees to withdraw the overture to a great round of applause.

6:58 – The Assembly adjourns with prayer.

So the Church of Scotland has a Special Commission to work on this for the next two years.  Blessings upon all those on the Commission.

General Assembly of the Church of Scotland — Saturday Night Session

Leave a reply

Greetings — I am semi-live blogging this session of the
General Assembly (2009) of the Church of Scotland.  I apologize to those with e-mail feeds or a feed
reader since you will probably only get the first section of the post
since I’ll be adding updates throughout the session.  Also, if you are
reading this on a browser live you will also need to refresh the screen
since I don’t have push technology on my blog.  It’s tough being Web
1.99999 in a Web 2.0 world.  Thanks for your patience.

This blogging is semi-live since I am not there and since only part of the session will be webcast.  This evening session is to deal with two related items of business.  The first is the protest of the call of the Rev. Scott Rennie to Queen’s Cross Church in Aberdeen.  This is the business titled “Dissent and Complaint Against A Decision of the Presbytery of Aberdeen.”  Since this is a judicial case the tradition of British judicial cases will be honored and there will be no webcast.  There will be no official twitter comments either but there may be some from inside the Assembly Hall on the Twitter subject #ga2009.  The second business item is a related overture from the Presbytery of Lochcarron-Skye proposing specific standards for these cases.  Webcasting is announced to resume for that portion.

10:45 PDT (6:45 PM local)-  At this point the business should have been going for about 15 minutes.  An earlier Twitter comment indicated that the gallery was full and that the overflow room was going to be used.

10:55 – There are some Twitters (or is that tweets) from the Assembly Hall including Stewart Cutler.  With Stewart in attendance I know of two bloggers, Stewart and Chris Hoskins at GA.  Watch their blogs after the session for thoughts.  UPDATE: My mistake, those tweets, including Stewart’s, are not coming from the Hall.  Still, Stewart has good connections so read what he has to say when this is over.

11:05 – With nothing else to talk about there is a Twitter discussion going on about the session not being webcast but having observers and the media in attendance in the gallery.  It seems to me the point is tradition, precedence, and the freedom for commissioners to speak freely in their debate as they try to discern the will of God on this matter.  There is  some question about impartiality of commissioners if they have already spoken out, but in the Presbyterian tradition they are now working together to discern the will of God.  In fact, their opinions can come into play in the debate.  They are not asked to be impartial.  They are asked to be open to the Spirit’s leading as they discern the will of God.

11:45 – The Assembly Hall continues to maintain “radio silence” with no updates yet.

12:33 PDT (8:33 local) – Stewart reports on Twitter that there is a break and the “motions are about to be called for.”

12:51 – Then again, another on Tweet implies a decision is not close.
12:53 – Update from Stewart that the parties have presented their cases and now discussion/debate begins

2:35 PM PDT – Twitter has come alive to report that the Assembly has voted to refuse the complaint and dissent regarding the Presbytery of Aberdeen’ approval of the Rev. Scott Rennie’s call to Queen’s Cross Church.

Conclusion:  The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland passed the following motion (from the Update page, but that will disappear at the next business session.)

The following motion is agreed by the Assembly:

a)
refuse the dissent and complaint of Aitken and others and sustain the
decision of the Presbytery of Aberdeen on the basis that the Presbytery
followed the vacancy procedure correctly in Act VIII 2003.

b) affirm for the avoidance of doubt that this decision does not alter the Church’s standards of ministerial conduct.

The business regarding the overture has been remaindered (postponed) until 4:00 PM Monday.

UPDATE:  A couple more thoughts
1)  In good Presbyterian manner the motion that was passed is really about the process not the candidate.  While I have not yet gotten info on the debate it appears that the GA, correctly in my opinion, separated the individual from the issue and at least acted only on the issue.  And the issue here appears to be the process.  The debate on the overture will deal with the issue of standards.

2)  According to an early article in The Herald the vote was 326 to 267.  It will be interesting to see how Monday’s vote compares.

It will be interesting to see both the reaction to this decision and the debate on Monday.  I will follow up on both.