Category Archives: ordination standards

Remedial Case Filed Against Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area Over Restoration of Ordination

Leave a reply

The Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area yesterday posted on their web site and blog the announcement that a remedial case has been filed with the Synod of Lakes and Prairies claiming that the vote of the Presbytery at a special meeting on January 26 was irregular.  That vote, in the affirmative, was to approve a non-essential departure in beliefs therefore restore the Rev. Paul Capetz to the exercise of ordained office.  According to the announcement the claim was filed by the Rev. David Bierschwale, the Rev. David Lenz, and Elder Carol Shanholtzer.  Here are the claimed irregularities from the Presbytery announcement:

“Complainants believe that the action was irregular in the following
particulars and/or the governing body exceeded its authority and failed
to act as constitutionally required in the following particulars:

The PTCA determined that compliance with the behavioral requirements of G-6.0106b is non-essential;

and,

The PTCA restored to the ministry of Word and Sacrament a person who
admits and declares that he will not lead his life in conformity to the
historic confessional standards of the church, specifically the
requirement contained in Section G-6.0106b.”

While I don’t think that this filing was unexpected in light of the Presbytery’s actions, at this point in time it also must be viewed through the lens of both the recent GAPJC decision and any possible action by the 218th General Assembly that begins three months from today.

The announcement was that a claim has been filed so we must now wait for the process to work as the Synod investigates and the Synod PJC prepares to do its work.  Stay tuned.

Episcopal Church Update and their Polity Debate

1 Reply

“Blood on Every Page”

That is a phrase we in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) throw around to explain the volume, detail, and nature of our Book of Order.  The phrase is taken from one of our better know books on polity and expresses the fact that much of what has made its way into the Book of Order can be traced back to specific problems that arose and after the fact we decided that clarification or detailed rules were needed to address future instances.  One valid criticism of the proposed new Form of Government is that in the revision we will lose an accumulation of “institutional memory.”  It is also one of the strong arguments for the revision that the Book of Order is so cluttered with these reactive amendments that maybe it is time to start over with a clean copy and begin again.

If you have been following the drama in the American Episcopal Church the last few weeks you know that the recent developments have come down to an argument about applying their church, or canon, law.  I will return to that argument in a moment, but let me fill in the details from my last post  on the topic back in early December.  At that time the convention delegates to the Diocese of San Joaquin, California, had voted by a wide margin to change the diocese’s bylaws to change their oversight from the American Episcopal Church to the Southern Cone in South America. (Episcopal news story reporting that action)  The reason for the diocese’s departure, like in other mainline churches today, is the controversy over ordination standards related to practicing homosexuals.  Since then proceedings have been underway against the Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, John-David Schofield, for “Abandonment of the Communion.”  Well the proceedings reached their final step on March 12, 2008, when the House of Bishops voted to agree with the investigation board to the “deposition” (that would be removal, not testimony under oath) of Bishop Schofield as well as a retired bishop, William Cox, from Maryland.  (Episcopal news story)

For Bishop Schofield’s part, he sent, or at least posted on the Diocese web site, a letter of resignation from the House of Bishops on March 1.  Reception of this letter by the Presiding Bishop has not been acknowledged.  So we have “You can’t fire me, I quit.”

Also, the House of Bishops at their meeting approved Bishop Jerry Lamb to serve as provisional bishop to the Continuing Episcopalians in the Diocese of San Joaquin.  The appointment needs to be confirmed by the diocese on March 29.  (Episcopal new story)

While I am not sure what all the implications of deposition are, Bishop Schofield and the majority of the Diocese seem happy to have joined, and welcomed by, Southern Cone.  The deposition seems a formality at this point, unless the American Episcopal Church can find some muscle from either civil authorities or the Worldwide Anglican Communion, to get the realigned churches in San Joaquin back in the fold.

Now, here is the current controversy over polity:  The section of canon law related to the process of removing a bishop for Abandonment of Communion ( Title IV Canon 9 ) says in Section 2:

Otherwise, it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the House. If the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the Ministry, and pronounce and record in the presence of two or more Bishops that the Bishop has been so deposed.

The vote was taken by voice vote so the exact count is not known, but as the Living Church News Service reported on March 14, from their reading of this section the vote could not have been valid.  By their count there were 294 members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote on March 12.  That would require 148 bishops to vote in the affirmative to agree to the disposition.  However, they know that only 131 bishops were registered for the meeting and 15 of those left before this item of business.  By their reading “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent” had not happened and the deposition was not valid.

Needless to say, the church hierarchy disagrees with this interpretation and issued a response the next day.  Here it is in its entirety:

The Presiding Bishop’s chancellor has confirmed the validity of votes
taken in the House of Bishops on March 12, correcting an erroneous
report published online March 14 by The Living Church News Service.  

Chancellor David Booth Beers said votes consenting to the
deposition of bishops John-David Schofield and William Cox conformed to
the canons. 

“In consultation with the House of Bishops’ parliamentarian prior to
the vote,” Beers said, “we both agreed that the canon meant a majority
of all those present and entitled to vote, because it is clear from the
canon that the vote had to be taken at a meeting, unlike the situation
where you poll the whole House of Bishops by mail. Therefore, it is our
position that the vote was in order.”

A quorum had been determined at the meeting by the House of Bishops’
secretary, Kenneth Price, Bishop Suffragan of the Diocese of Southern
Ohio.

So the official interpretation, by somebody like the Stated Clerk, is that the vote was valid.  They interpret the phrase in Section 2 “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” to mean “a majority
of all those present and entitled to vote.”  I will say that I may be missing certain implications of the next line “because it is clear from the
canon that the vote had to be taken at a meeting” because I am a GA Junkie, not a HOB (House of Bishops) Junkie.  They appear to be saying that “since this vote must be taken at a meeting by implication Title IV.9.2 must refer to those at the meeting.”  But others who are more familiar with Canon Law still see problems with this, like this viewpoint expressed by the Anglican Communion Institute today.

In the midst of this it is interesting to note one final item in the Anglican controversy at the moment.  Coming up this summer is the Lambeth Conference in England, a once-a-decade gathering of about 800 bishops from the Worldwide Anglican Communion.  The conference is by invitation and participants do not come as specific delegates or representatives of their churches.  At the present time Bishop Schofield is on the invitation list, but Bishop Gene Robinson, the openly gay Bishop of New Hampshire, is not on the list and will probably only attend as an observer.

And after that diversion we now return you to our regular Politics of Presbyterianism.

UPDATE:  At about the same time I finished this up and posted it Virtue Online posted a detailed entry with quotes from several, presumably conservative, cannon lawyers that argue the interpretation of the Canon Law making the vote valid is not reasonable.  In particular one expert cites other places in the Canon Law where there are detailed specifics about which bishops need to vote.  This corroborates the interpretation that “the whole House of Bishops” means everyone eligible, not just those present.

UPDATE 2:  In looking over this polity issue I have found a post on the blog Father Jake Stops the World which takes the position that the vote was valid and tackles the canon law and the math to explain why.  His argument centers on the necessary quorum.  However, he closes with a comment I think a lot of people could affirm at this point: “The wording of that canon certainly needs to be cleaned up. That is quite clear.”

Variations on a Theme

Leave a reply

This June’s General Assembly is shaping up to be an interesting one as ordination standards are addressed by the commissioners.  The inconsistency between churches and the variation in ordination practices are raising concerns among conservative congregations that the church’s polity and confessional standards are being stretched and an overture is being sent to GA to look at this.

Sound familiar?  Well this is the Presbyterian Church in America’s General Assembly.  Last month I mentioned that the Presbytery of Philadelphia was wrestling with the role of women in the diaconate and had approved this overture.  Well thanks to David in an article on the BaylyBlog, we now know that the official overture is available and he has filled in a few more of the details.

As I mentioned when this first came up, the questions boils down to the role of women in the diaconate and if they have a role how that should be recognized.  In this situation the women were not “ordained” but “commissioned” by the laying on of hands.  But the PCA has no definition or service of commissioning in this sense and there is an understanding among some that anything that involves laying on of hands and prayer is an ordination.  So, if it looks like an ordination and contains all the elements of an ordination, but you call it something else, is it still an ordination?

Well, the narrative attached to the overture provides us with the details in this case that I was lacking before.  It seems that in the Presbytery of Philadelphia there is a licensee who has taken exception to the office of deacon being open only to men.  Furthermore, the records review of the Presbytery minutes identified an exception regarding the commissioning of deaconesses at this licensee’s church.  To sort this out the Presbytery created a study committee and the church involved submitted to the Presbytery a proposed overture to GA to allow both men and women to be ordained as deacons on equal footing.  (That’s pretty much the “whereas” section of the overture.)  In light of these charges the Presbytery overtured the General Assembly to form an ad interim study committee to sort out the theology and give the PCA clear guidance, and clarify the polity if necessary, about the nature of commissioning and the role of women in the diaconate.

The post on the BaylyBlog also points to the church in question, liberti Church, posting on their photo page the pictures of worship service where the church was chartered which includes three pictures ( Pict 1, Pict 2, Pict 3) of the “commissioning” with the laying on of hands.

So, the PCA has some distinctions to sort out as the PC(USA) is doing.  And while the PCA and PC(USA) may be dealing with similar questions but different issues, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland may be addressing the ordination of women at its GA but from the other side:  women can be ordained, but congregations need not recognize it.

Nothing Has Changed! Reaction to the PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions

4 Replies

I quite intentionally used “Nothing has changed!” as a double entendre in the title because watching the reaction to last week’s General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission’s decisions about ordination standards it seems that neither PC(USA) polity nor the various interest groups’ rhetoric has changed.  As far as I can tell, the PC(USA) is pretty close to where it was two years ago on this controversy.

I first want to highlight, acknowledge, and thank two other bloggers for their thoughtful and detailed analyses on the decisions.  Even though Rev. David Fischler at The Reformed Pastor and Mr. Mark Smith over at Mark Time approach these decisions from different theological perspectives they come to basically the same conclusions about these decisions and where it puts us.  And that they both came to a similar conclusion as I did encourages me that I was not off-base on my reading.  Both of these are wonderful blogs in their own right, and part of my regular reading, but you can check out the specific posts from Rev. Fischler and Mr. Smith on the GAPJC decisions.  In a few moments I’ll be turning to the reaction to the decisions of various interest  groups, but you can check through The Reformed Pastor for Rev. Fischler’s reactions to those as well.

There has been little “official” reaction to these decisions.  The Office of the General Assembly Department of Constitutional Services has issued Advisory Opinion 21 which contains only a summary of the GAPJC decisions and nothing new beyond that.  It appears that the Presbyterian News Service is not issuing a news article of their own, but rather they carry the article that Leslie Scanlon of the Presbyterian Outlook wrote for that publication. 

The Outlook also has another article by Scanlon about GA Moderator Joan Gray’s reaction to the decisions that she shared with the General Assembly Council at their just concluded meeting.  Rev. Gray is reported as sharing her theme from her moderator campaign that “I do not think polity is the way to the resolution of our issues in the Presbyterian church.  Polity will not fix our problems.”  The Moderator goes on to encourage three things: 1) Humble ourselves, “get off our high horses.”  2) Ask forgiveness of one another. 3) Accept unconditional love to reach out.  She also called this a kairos moment for the PC(USA).  Are we going to miss it?

Reaction from affinity and interest groups has started rolling in and I guess I would call it “predictable.”  Presbyterians for Renewal had one of the early statements (On their GA2008 web site).  To simplify their statement down to one line:  The rulings promote the Peace, Unity, and Purity of the church by affirming what has been in place and clarifying the confusing Authoritative Interpretation passed by the last GA.

On the other side of things there is reaction on the web sites of the More Light Presbyterians, That All May Freely Serve, Witherspoon Society, and the Covenant Network.  In addition, More Light Presbyterians has issued a more general reaction to the whole PC(USA) situation titled “It’s about time!”  I won’t quote and comment on them one-by-one since they all say about the same thing in varying degrees.  As a whole, they feel the GAPJC at best set things back and at worst made a serious error.  There is concern that the GAPJC is not interpreting the whole of the Confessions and the Book of Order but focusing on one line or section.  And that the GAPJC did not understand what the last GA wanted to accomplish.  They do agree with the GAPJC on one point:  As things stand now the only way to change things is to change the Book of Order.  As That All May Freely Serve puts it: “The decision, however, puts in stark relief the necessity for swiftly and finally removing the homophobic and heterosexist policies from the Presbyterian constitution.”  I think that pretty clearly states their position.

And the two individuals who have declared exceptions have indicated their disappointment in the decisions, Paul Capetz on the Witherspoon Society web site and Lisa Larges in an Alameda Times-Star article.

A couple of my own comments:

First, the three decisions were decided by the GAPJC with out a dissenting opinion.  All the GAPJC members were apparently in agreement.  Whether these were unanimous or consensus decisions, or all adopted the majority position so that they could present a united front in deference to the unity called for in the PUP report I don’t know.  But I find it difficult to say the GAPJC erred in light of this wide agreement.

Second, back in 1996-1997 when the “fidelity and chastity” section was being debated and ultimately adopted there was a report that one of the reasons that the amendment was needed for polity reasons was because the GAPJC was beginning to have concerns about upholding the Definitive Guidance of 1978 and similar interpretive statements without any clear corresponding constitutional language.  These current decisions, now from the situation of having the constitutional language but an additional AI interpreting it, seem compatible with the 1997 reports.  It is consistent that the GAPJC places more weight on the presbytery adopted language of the constitution then the interpretive language adopted by a General Assembly alone.  From a polity point of view that makes sense.

With the apparent return to status quo in the PC(USA) it does raise the question of whether there will be a slowing or suspension of congregations looking to leave.  I personally think that most of the churches looking to depart are trains that have “left the station” and there will be no discernible slow-down in requests for dismissal.  But if you want an interesting imaginary debate on the issue you can check out Toby Brown’s post today (and the real debate in the comments) o
n his blog Classical Presbyterian.

So in the realm of polity it does look like “Nothing has changed.”  From what I can tell in a strict polity sense the PC(USA) is now at almost the same point as about two years ago before the PUP report.  And having been one of the voices to express skepticism that “Nothing has changed” I acknowledge my haste and will try to be better at what I preach, to be patient and trust the system.

But as I thought about this more, I realized that the GAPJC decisions mean something has changed and that threatens That All May Freely Serve and More Light Presbyterians among others.  For a couple of decades churches that are part of these organizations have been effectively scrupling behavior.  There is now an explicit GAPJC ruling that you can not do that so the implicit permission (or lack of explicit prohibition) is gone.  And I suspect that with the 2008 GA approaching progressive advocacy groups are now reformulating strategy.  It seems everyone now agrees that the only way to reliably change the ordination standards is to change the constitution.  Looking at the proposed overtures concerning ordination standards there seems to be some that in the perceived success of the AI last time are proposing new AI’s.  I suspect that a bunch of those are now going to be off the table with this new GAPJC ruling that weakens the reach of AI’s.  We are back to needing to make a change that must be sent down to the presbyteries.  Don’t expect a resolution to this at the conclusion of General Assembly.

PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions — Walking a Center Line?

8 Replies

First, I need to clarify my previous post now that I have had a chance to more carefully review the three decisions.  While all three General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission decisions went against the presbyteries, I read too hastily and it now appears to me that these three unanimous decisions should be seen as a decision against “restating” the Book of Order, not as a decision in favor of declaring scruples and granting exemptions.

Executive Summary:  The three decisions can probably be best summed up with this quote from 218-10: Bush and Others v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh.

Restatements of the Book of Order, in whatever form they are adopted, are themselves an obstruction to the same standard of constitutional governance no less than attempts to depart from mandatory provisions.

My reading of this is that the GAPJC is waking a center line:  You can’t adapt the Book of Order in any special way, whether that be declaring provisions as mandatory or by granting an exemption.  It is what it is.

Full Discussion
With that summary out of the way, let me turn to a more detailed discussion of the cases.  Late last week the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) of the Presbyterian Church (USA) (PC(USA)) heard arguments on three cases that involved Presbyteries passing resolutions about Book of Order requirements, especially G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” requirement, being mandatory or “essential.”  For the sake of completeness I will list the cases here with full title and in the rest of the post will refer to them by number and presbytery.

218-09:
Barlow J. Buescher, Dave R. Brown, Mary D. McGonigal, Jeanne Howell,
Serena Sullivan, Eileen Dunn, Wayne H. Keller, Don E. Keller, Dwight W.
Whipple, David R. Kegley, F. Mark Dowdy, Brian Heath, R. Sidney Cloud,
Isaac H. Jung, Irene Van Arnam, Michael Baugh, Chuck Jenson, Donna Lee,
and the Session of Lakewood Presbyterian Church v Presbytery of Olympia (218-09 Olympia)

218-10: Randall Bush, Wayne Peck, and the Session of East Liberty Presbyterian Church v Presbytery of Pittsburgh (218-10 Pittsburgh)

218-15:
Session of First Presbyterian Church of Washington, 1793, Session of
First Presbyterian Church of Charleroi, Jeffrey A. Kisner, Frances
Lane-Lawrence, D. Jay Losher, Robert Miller, Kenneth E. Nolin, Charles
Puff, John Rankin, Susan Vande Kappelle, Robert Vande Kappelle, Betty
Voigt, Robert Randolph, and Linda Mankey v Washington Presbytery (218-15 Washington)

It should also be noted that 218-10 Pittsburgh was the lead decision and the other two reference it.  Also, while none of the decisions contain a dissent, 218-15 Washington contains two concurring decisions that comment on some details but not on the final decision.  However, 218-15 Washington did arrive at the GAPJC to have some procedural issues decided and the decision states that the other two decisions should stand as the answer to the validity of the Presbytery resolutions that are at the heart of the case.  Other than to say that reading the history of the case is a good lesson in why we keep detailed minutes, I’ll leave the discussion of 218-15 Washington at that and for the constitutional questions focus on the other two cases.

In all three cases the Presbyteries, in the wake of the report as adopted of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity and the associated Authoritative Interpretation, adopted a resolution that basically said that mandates in the Book of Order are binding, the implication being that they are not up for negotiation as “scruples” or “exceptions.”  One part of the Presbytery of Pittsburgh resolution reads:

Adopts the principle that compliance with the standards for ordination approved by the Presbyterian Church (USA) in the Book of Order is an essential of Reformed polity. Therefore, any departure from the standards of ordination expressed in the Book of Order will bar a candidate from ordination and/or installation by this governing body. Provisions of the Book of Order are signified as being standards by use of the term “shall,” “is/are to be,” “requirement” or equivalent expression

The Washington resolution is very similar and Olympia has the same sentiments in briefer form.

Well each was appealed to the respective Synod PJC  The PJC of the Synod of the Trinity heard 218-10 Pittsburgh and 218-15 Washington and overturned the presbytery resolutions in both cases.  The PJC of the Synod of Alaska-Northwest ruled on 218-09 Olympia and upheld the presbytery’s resolution.

The GAPJC ruled against the Presbyteries resolutions.  However, in the written decisions for Pittsburgh and Olympia the GAPJC appears to be saying “Nothing has changed so you don’t need to change anything.”  In addition to the lead quote above, the GAPJC also writes in 218-10 Pittsburgh:

As finally adopted by the General Assembly, the Authoritative Interpretation does not equate “polity” with “behavior.” Nevertheless, the church has required those who aspire to ordained office to conform their actions, though not necessarily their beliefs or opinions, to certain standards, in those contexts in which the church has deemed conformity to be necessary or essential… The candidate and examining body must follow G-6.0108 in reaching a determination as to whether the candidate for office has departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity, but that determination does not rest on distinguishing “belief” and “behavior,” and does not permit departure from the “fidelity and chastity” requirement found in G-6.0106b.

And later on they write:

While the General Assembly and the GAPJC may interpret these standards, the Authoritative Interpretation did not (and constitutionally could not) change any ordination standard, including the requirements set forth in G-6.0106b. Similarly, no lower governing body can constitutionally define, diminish, augment or modify standards for ordination and installation of church officers.

And finally:

Ordaining bodies have the right and responsibility to determine whether or not any “scruples” declared by candidates for ordination and/or installation constitute serious departures from our system of doctrine, government, or discipline; to what extent the rights and views of others might be infringed upon by those departures; and whether those departures obstruct the constitutional governance of the church. At the same time, attempts by governing bodies that ordain and install officers to adopt resolutions, statements or policies that paraphrase or restate provisions of the Book of Order and/or declare them as “essentials of Reformed faith and polity” are confusing and unnecessary. G-6.0108a sets forth standards that apply to the whole church.

So the decision is:

For these reasons, the Resolution is unconstitutional and in error. It is not permissible for a presbytery or a session to define “essentials of Reformed faith and polity” outside of the examination of any candidate for office. Such a determination must be made only in the context of a specific examination of an individual candidate.

It would be an obstruction of constitutional governance to permit examining bodies to ignore or waive a specific standard that has been adopted by the whole church, such as the “fidelity and chastity” portion of G-6.0106b, or any other similarly specific provision. On the other hand, the broad reference in G-6.0106b to “any practice which the confessions call sin” puts the responsibility first on the candidate and then on the examining body to determine whether a departure is a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity and the remainder of G-6.0108(a) with respect to freedom of conscience. The ordaining body must examine the candidate individually. The examining body is best suited to make decisions about the candidate’s fitness for office, and factual determinations by examining bodies are entitled to deference by higher governing bodies in any review process.

The GAPJC decides 218-09 Olympia by quoting long sections of 218-10 Pittsburgh, overturning that Presbytery’s resolution and overturning the Synod PJC decision that upheld it.

So what do these decisions mean?  It looks to me that the GA PJC is setting itself up to hear the Larges and Capetz case. If they hold to the reasoning in these decisions, as I read it, they look to overturn those presbytery actions as well.  Or, this could be viewed as setting the case law so that if the Synod PJC’s refer to this case and decide against the ordinations the GAPJC may have no reason to hear the cases.   But in the big picture, it looks like the GAPJC really is trying to walk a center line on this and to really show that “Nothing has changed.”  And I think the unanimity of the decisions may be a signal of this as well.

The issue of course is that those other two cases will take some time to work through the system and the Assembly meeting this June could change the constitutional and polity landscape, or the membership of the GAPJC for that matter.  However, in my opinion, the GAPJC has written reasonable decisions that set a precedent upholding the current PC(USA) constitution’s balance between conscience and standards that will be reviewed by upcoming cases.  Stay tuned for the next cases, and for other people’s views of these decisions.

PCA Overture about Diaconal Ministry and the Participation of Women

Leave a reply

Teaching Elder D. Marion Clark, the Executive Minister at Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, has posted on his blog DMC News a summary of one business item at last weekend’s presbytery meeting.  At this meeting the Presbytery of Philadelphia approved an overture to the Presbyterian Church in America‘s upcoming June General Assembly that would ask for a study committee to clarify the office and practice of deacon and the participation of women in that ministry.

First, it is useful to look at the “official” status of the office of deacon in the PCA.  The PCA understands scripture to teach that the office of deacon, like the office of elder, is open only to men. [ Book of Church Order (BCO) 9-3 and elsewhere]  The deacons of a church, in addition to the ministry of “sympathy and service,” also have oversight of the church property although approval by the session may be required of certain actions. [BCO 9-2]  In addition to those called to the office of deacon “It is often expedient that the Session of a church should select and appoint godly men and women of the congregation to assist the deacons in caring for the sick, the widows, the orphans, the prisoners, and others who may be in any distress or need.” [BCO 9-7]

This overture revolves around that last phrase and how it is implemented and individuals recognized in a congregation.  For example, at Tenth Presbyterian Church their web site lists, in addition Deacons, a group of Deaconesses.  From my understanding of PCA polity, and from checking over the BCO, I am aware of nothing that prohibits this position, it is just not an ordained office of the church.

Turning to the text of the overture that TE Clark has posted, it asks for “an ad interim study committee whose members are representative of various positions within the PCA with respect to women’s involvement in Diaconal ministry, to study and report back to the 37th General Assembly.”  The first task of the study committee would be to study scripture concerning women’s eligibility for election and ordination to the office of deacon and recommend any changes to the BCO.

If no changes are recommended the overture then asks for clarification of a number of issues.  These include: Must there be male deacons?  Could deacons, male and female, be commissioned instead of being ordained?  If you commission, what questions may be used?  May ordained men and commissioned women serve together on the Board of Deacons?  And can Teaching Elders be licensed to serve if they believe women should be ordained as deacons, but agree to abide by the BCO?

Interesting overture, interesting questions for clarification.  This could be a significant discussion at the GA.  Or it might be quickly dispensed with one way or another since it only calls for the study committee and not an actual BCO change yet.  I have been reading a lot between the lines from this overture and the Tenth web site, but it pretty much amounts to speculation, so I’ll save any of that for another time.  In light of what else is happening in Presbyterian branches right now this could say a lot about the PCA.

Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area Approves a Non-essential Departure

Leave a reply

First it was San Francisco Presbytery almost two weeks ago, yesterday it was the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area that approved a non-essential departure from the PC(USA) reformed standards.  This was in the case of Mr. Paul Capetz who in May 2000 requested and was granted release from the exercise of ordained office as Minister of Word and Sacrament since he could not in good faith affirm the PC(USA) “fidelity and chastity” amendment, G-6.0106b.  This was a postponed meeting that I wrote about the details back in November.

The web site of More Light Presbyterians is reporting that yesterday the presbytery accepted the departure by a vote of 197-84-2, that Mr. Capetz be restored to ordained office by a vote of 196-79-3, and that his position at United Theological Seminary was validated as ministry on a voice vote.

I would note that the vote was not as close as it was in the San Francisco case.  Because of that, and the fact that there does not seem to be a minority report, I am not as sure this will go to the PJC, although it could get consolidated into a PJC case, or a GA PJC decision could influence it, as could action by the GA in June.

San Francisco Presbytery Approves a Non-essential Departure

Leave a reply

At their meeting yesterday the San Francisco Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church (USA) discussed the request of Ms. Lisa Larges to declare a non-essential departure from the standards of the  church constitution and they approved the departure as non-essential by a vote of 167-151 making her certified ready to receive a call as a Minister of Word and Sacrament and to be ordained to that call.

What did he just say?  That is the “polity correct” description of the action taken by San Francisco Presbytery yesterday in the case of Lisa Larges, a self-acknowledged homosexual, who is seeking to be ordained as a minister in the PC(USA).  For the background on this and information on her two previous attempts and the associated GA PJC case I would refer you to my previous post on the subject.

Yesterday, the presbytery Committee on Preparation for Ministry brought her request to the whole presbytery for action.  The request was to agree with her declaration that her theology departed from the PC(USA) constitution’s prohibition on ordination of self-acknowledged practicing homosexuals (good old G-6.0106b in the Book of Order) but under the 2006 General Assembly Authoritative Interpretation she requested that the section be declared non-essential to the Reformed faith.  By doing that, the way would be clear for her to accept a call and be ordained.

I do not have much on the specifics of the report or the debate but I do know that there was a minority report.  Based upon the news accounts (such as this Contra Costa Times story) we know the vote was close – 167 to 151.  And based on other information I know the debate went late.  I’ll update as information is disseminated since the story is now starting to circulate on the news feeds and blogosphere.  The news has been posted on the web site of Ms. Larges’ employer, That All May Freely Serve.

What is next?  In the normal course of the ordination process Ms. Larges would receive a call and would be examined on the floor of presbytery for ordination.  So there is still another presbytery vote yet to come.  That examination and vote has been announced to be in April.  But this is now the test case for the 2006 Authoritative Interpretation (AI) so I would expect this ordination exam to be held up by the Synod PJC as a case is filed and whichever way the Synod PJC goes I would expect an appeal to the General Assembly PJC, unless developments at the June General Assembly, like the requested repeal of the AI, change the landscape.  The ordination and maybe the exam could be held up for a while.

Ordination Standards Post-PUP in San Francisco Presbytery Meeting this week

1 Reply

The next test case in the wake of the report on the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity is approaching the Presbyterian Church (USA) at the San Francisco Presbytery meeting this Tuesday, January 15.  At that meeting the Committee on Preparation for Ministry will ask the presbytery to declare Ms. Lisa Larges, a candidate and acknowledged homosexual, certified ready to receive a call and to undergo examination at the April presbytery meeting.

Like the other two cases ( Scott Anderson, Paul Capetz) this requested action comes with history.  Back in 1991, the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area voted to certify her ready to receive a call and informed the presbytery of her sexual orientation.  The decision was challenged in the Synod of Lakes and Prairies Permanent Judicial Commission who upheld the Presbytery action.  It was then appealed to the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission who overturned the Presbytery action and Synod PJC decision. ( LeTourneau vs. Presbytery of Twin Cities Area GA PJC Decision from the That All May Freely Serve web site since decisions before 1997 are not on the GA PJC Decision web site.)  So, Ms. Larges has been waiting since then, recently working as the Regional Partnership Coordinator for That All May Freely Serve.  Somewhere in that time of waiting Ms. Larges must have transferred to San Francisco Presbytery since there is a web page on the Witherspoon Society web site indicating that she asked the San Francisco CPM to certify her ready in April 2004 and it was denied at that time by a vote of 15-5.  So now, with the passage of the PUP report things seem to have changed and the CPM must have approved the status change since they are now bringing the business to the floor of presbytery.  There is an article in the on-line edition of the Oakland Tribune on InsideBayArea.com.

Two other notes:
First, regarding that particular presbytery meeting, this is also the meeting where I have previously noted that the Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow will be asking to be endorsed as a candidate for Moderator of the General Assembly.  I also found it interesting that the Rev. Joan Gray, Moderator of the General Assembly, will be present and preaching at the worship service.

Second, in a follow-up to the Paul Capetz case, the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area (note a trend here) canceled their called meeting of December 1, 2007, to consider his restoration to ordained office.  There is now a called meeting on January 26, 2008 to consider the matter and his “declared departure” and the presbytery’s Committee on Ministry has produced additional documentation on the case that you can presently download from a link at the bottom of the page.

Controversy over Women Ministers in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland

Leave a reply

A controversy has broken out in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI) over the ordination of women, particularly as ministers.

For background, the PCI has had female elders since the 1920’s and the General Assembly approved the ordination of women in 1973.

Now, in the Northern Ireland city of Portadown two PCI churches, First Portadown and Armagh Road Church have held a joint Christmas service for over 60 years.  However, this year the Rev. Stafford Carson, the pastor at First Protadown, which was scheduled to be the host church, extended the invitation for Armagh Road to join them, but specifically excluded their new female minister, the Rev. Christina Bradley, from preaching, as is the tradition.  The Armagh Road Church declined the invitation if it came with those conditions and for the first time in 60 years the two churches held separate services.

This has developed into a national debate in the PCI, as well as in Irish Society.  The news broke before Christmas, including an article in the Belfast Telegraph.  Since then the Belfast Telegraph has printed a well written opinion piece that outlines many of the details as well as setting out the implications going forward.

The Rev. Bradley says that she will bring this to the church’s 2008 General Assembly while those who oppose the ordination of women, welcome the opportunity to overturn the 1973 GA decision.  The Belfast Telegraph opinion piece seems to think there is a very real chance of a split in the PCI over this:

The Presbyterian Church may wish to prevent a split, but it cannot afford to sit on the fence. The General Assembly needs to decide its policy and implement it at the earliest opportunity.

Either it ratifies its policy of ordaining women – and instructs all serving clergy to fall in line – or it takes a step back into the dark ages and decides to banish women from the pulpit. Further equivocation will undermine the church’s credibility.

The Moderator of the General Assembly of the PCI, Dr. John Finlay, has gotten involved and met with the two ministers in Portadown over the last few days.  The Belfast Telegraph published an article with his comments in today’s edition.  In the article he suggests that this can be resolved quickly and locally and will not become an issue for the GA:

I am confident the two churches can resolve the issue between them. Both ministers are reasonable people.

I do not minimise the problem, but we must continue to reconcile the two schools of thought over women ministers in the Presbyterian Church.

However, the article goes on to quote Dr. Finlay to say:

But there are conscientious objectors who interpret the Scriptures differently and the Church allows their freedom of conscience,

This is the law of the Church. We have to accommodate both points of view, or the Church could be torn apart.

There has to be a counter-balance so that ministers have control of who enters their pulpit and Stafford Carson exercised that right according to his conscience.

Mrs Bradley may see it as discrimination against women, but I tried to reassure her it was simply to square a circle within the Presbyterian Church.

But in contrast, the article closes with Rev. Bradley’s comment that “I cannot see it otherwise than discrimination.”

That doesn’t make it sound like it will be resolved quickly and quietly.