Category Archives: ordination standards

Santa Barbara Presbytery Action

Leave a reply

I have previously reported on the action of Santa Barbara Presbytery at their February 10 Presbytery meeting passing a resolution that calls on the churches in the PC(USA) to return to focusing on Jesus Christ.  While the Layman Online reported on the the action at the meeting I admitted in that previous post that I was not completely clear from their reporting exactly what was adopted.

Well, Santa Barbara Presbytery has updated their web site and the uncertainty has been cleared up.  On their Resources Page there is now a link to “Appropriate Response” which is the word document of A Declaration of Theology and Action that was approved at that meeting.  As far as I have been able to tell it is the unmodified (with the exception of the endorsing body) document sent to the Presbytery by the Session of Community Presbyterian Church of Ventura.  So, my uncertainty is cleared up:  The Presbytery did adopt the heavily footnoted (barely) 21 page document from Community Pres.

The first 15 pages are are the theology part, much of it structured on the “We believe…, We reject…” formulation of the Barmen Declaration.  At this time I have only skimmed the document but it appears to cover the usual ground, e.g. the Lordship of Jesus Christ, authority of scripture and the PC(USA) deviation from these.  It is interesting to note that the last section in this part, “V. Faith as Response” starting on page 14, comes almost word-for-word from Community Presbyterian’s “Faith, Membership, and Discipleship” statement that appears to be necessary to affirm with your signature in order to join the church.

The final pages of the document are the action part putting forth resolutions, all adopted by the Presbytery.  There are about 18 resolutions (it sort of depends on what you count as sub-sections) in four groups dealing with PUP, Stewardship, Property and the Future.  Again, if you are following these resolutions there are few surprises here.  The resolutions cover adherence to Book of Order ordination and membership requirements, being pastoral about churches considering leaving the PC(USA) and not taking coercive action, to honor a church’s withholding of per capita in protest, to not rigidly enforce the property trust clause by legal action, to form a task force to consider the future and renewal of the PC(USA), and to mail the document out to all congregations and governing bodies.  One resolution did catch my eye as a bit different and that one deals with correcting congregations that do not hold to the Book of Order ordination standards.  I may have missed it in other similar documents, but I don’t remember seeing anything quite like this before.  In the “Towards Peace, Unity and Purity” section resolution 4 says:

In its discernment of the essentials of Reformed polity and for the sake of the peace, unity, and purity of the church, the Presbytery of Santa Barbara adopts the principle that compliance with the standards for ordination adopted by the whole church in the Book of Order is an essential of Reformed polity. Since every pastor has vowed at ordination to be governed by our denomination’s polity, any conscious and deliberate departure from the essentials of Reformed polity is a sign of spiritual rebellion and/or illness. The presbytery has the express power (a power that only the presbytery can exercise) to provide pastoral care for the members of presbytery, visiting sessions and ministers on a regular basis (G-11.0103g). Therefore, the presbytery will counsel, guide and, if necessary, correct any pastor that is spiritually ill or in rebellion.

I will be reading the document in more detail this weekend and if anything else is unique enough I will update.  Otherwise, look for the document in a church mailbox near you.

Want a distraction from Presbyterians? Try the Anglicans.

2 Replies

Things are heating up at the meeting of 38 global primates (Anglican national or regional leaders) in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.  The meeting, which began yesterday, has the controversy in the American Episcopal Church over ordination standards and same-sex unions front and center.  Many conservative African primates are concerned about the liberal drift of the American church.

One item yesterday was an evaluation of the Episcopal Church’s response to the Windsor Report, a statement put together by a commission appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury after the Rev. V. Eugene Robinson, an openly active gay man, was ordained a bishop.  A report was prepared by the Communion Sub-group for presentation at this meeting indicating that the Episcopal Church had fulfilled the requests of the Windsor Report.  According to an Episcopal News Service press release about the present meeting the gathered primates concurred with the report that although the General Convention of the Episcopal Church did not use the precise wording of the Windsor Report the statements it approved expressing regret for offending Anglicans and declaring a moratorium on ordination of active homosexuals were “sufficient.”  Regarding this matter and the general controversy in the Episcopal Church the primates heard from three bishops besides the Presiding Bishop of the church.  These three bishops span the theological spectrum on the issues.  The Episcopal News Service statement says that all parties have been asked to withhold comments until after the meeting adjourns on February 19 but I’ll bet we get an earful then.  However, a statement by the American Anglican Council calls the Sub-Group Report “highly inadequate in its assessment of the U.S. Episcopal Church’s response to requests made of the church by the Anglican Communion primates.” A statement by Robert Williams, aide and spokesperson for Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori, (reported widely, here by the Globe and Mail) says “The spirit of Anglicanism will prevail here and there will be a middle way forward” but that the Presiding Bishop “will not waver in her stand for justice and inclusion of all people in the body of Christ.”

Well, things got more interesting today when the primates gathered for Holy Communion and the service was boycotted by seven conservative primates from a group known as the Global South.  These bishops posted a statement on the Church of Nigeria web site that says in part:

We each take the celebration of the Holy Eucharist very seriously. This deliberate action is a poignant reminder of the brokenness of the Anglican Communion. It makes clear that the torn fabric of the Church has been torn further. It is a consequence of the decision taken by our provinces to declare that our relationship with The Episcopal Church is either broken or severely impaired.

The Global South Primates took similar action in 2005 at a summit in Ireland.  The seven primates represent the churches in Nigeria, South East Asia, Kenya, West Africa, Uganda, South America, Rwanda.

Final decisions will be made later in the meeting but it looks like it may be interesting.

EPC preparing transition process for PC(USA) congregations that want to transfer

1 Reply

With the Evangelical Presbyterian Church appearing to be the denomination of choice for congregations that are choosing to leave the PC(USA), the EPC is beginning to make arrangements for congregations that are interested in joining their denomination.  This development was announced in a December 20th letter from their stated clerk, Jeff Jeremiah.  In it he talks about a proposal to be brought to the 2007 General Assembly to create one or more “transitional presbyteries” that will be non-geographic bodies for congregations wishing to join the EPC to reside in for up to five years.  There is now a web page linked from the EPC home page about “Information for Churches Interested in Becoming Part of the EPC.”

Another interesting development discussed in the letter was the fact that Mr. Jeremiah and four others from the EPC leadership met with leaders of the New Wineskins Association of Churches about their possible relationship with the EPC.  The meetings were held in Tampa, FL, December 12-13.  I have found no formal statement from the New Wineskins Association yet.

So where is the PC(USA) in the ordination standards debate?

Leave a reply

With a growing number of presbyteries discussing the adoption of policies affirming the Book of Order wording, specifically G-6.0106b, as their standards for ordination I have not been keeping this blog up-to-date on these happenings.  I will comment on two specific and noteworthy developments in a moment.  However, if you want to keep up on what is happening the Layman Online has been following this closely and is compiling a table showing the status of these resolutions in the different presbyteries (Current table embedded in today’s article).  According to the Layman’s count as of today the topic has been raised in 36 presbyteries with 16 “affirming constitutional standards,” three disapproving, one disapproving but to vote again, and the rest still in process.

In new developments, I wanted to note that the affirmative decisions by five of these presbyteries have been challenged as remedial cases in Synod PJC’s.  Specifically the actions of Sacramento Presbytery (mentioned in the summary of their December 5th presbytery meeting) and Presbytery of San Joaquin have been appealed to the PJC of the Synod of the Pacific.  The actions of the Presbytery of the Mid-South have been appealed to the Synod of Living Waters.  And a case has been filed with the Synod of the Trinity over Pittsburgh Presbytery’s actions and with the Synod of Alaska-Northwest over Presbytery of Olympia’s action (mentioned in the Full Court Presbyterian blog).  In the case of Pittsburgh Presbytery the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette mentions in their article on the refiling of charges in the Edwards case that the Synod PJC has issued an injunction stopping enforcement of the policy.

On the opposite end of the activity, we have a refreshing second or third-hand report of planned non-action.  In the article from the PC(USA) news service about the confirmation of the Rev. Tom Taylor as Deputy Executive Director of GAC for Mission there is the following paragraph:

(GAC Executive Committee Members) Asked… about the efforts of some presbyteries to adopt
their own “essential tenets,” including in San Gabriel’s neighboring
San Diego Presbytery, Taylor said such a list has not come to floor of
San Gabriel. “One pastor was trying to push it, but a group of us
evangelicals don’t agree and told him so it’s dead in the water.”

So at least for the moment there appears to be one presbytery, San Gabriel, where essential tenets will not be brought up for debate and a vote.

Ordination Standards: Conservative Jewish Council goes for “local option”

Leave a reply

The announcement yesterday that the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly (the international organization of conservative rabbis) adopted three position papers (technically “answers” or “teshuvot“) on gay ordination and same-sex unions has been widely reported and I do not intend to recycle the news in a general sense.  In presbyterian teams the rabbis adopted what in PC(USA) jargon has become known as a “middle way” or “local option.”  The three statements are at odds with each other and one of the three permits gay ordination while prohibiting the sexual act of sodomy.  Which, if any, position to adopt is left up to the local rabbi or seminary.  If you want to read some of the coverage I have found detailed articles from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, The Combined Jewish Philanthropies, and the Jerusalem Post.

Now then, some comments from a presbyterian perspective:

First, if you are not familiar with the branches of Judaism, the “Conservative” branch is actually moderate as opposed to the traditional (and what would normally be thought of as conservative) “Orthodox” branch as opposed to the liberal “Reformed” branch.  Unlike presbyterians where orthodox is conservative and we are all reformed.  (I see a “Who’s On First” routine in here somewhere.)

Second, the Conservative branch has been losing members and whether they admit it or not there is a lot of buzz in the news stories and the blogs that this decision was influenced by that.

Third, the old “two jews three opinions” situation.  On this committee of 25 it only takes 6 affirmative votes to adopt an answer which is advisory to seminaries and congregations.  Two of the interpretations were adopted by 13 votes and the third by the six vote minimum.  You want something binding?  That would be a takanah, or an amendment to Jewish Law, as opposed to the teshuva, or interpretation.  If it takes six members to adopt an interpretation it takes the rest of the committee plus one, that is twenty, to adopt takanah.

Finally, after the meeting four rabbis opposed to gay ordination resigned from the committee and there is talk about this splitting that branch of Judaism.  There have also been interviews with prospective seminary students who are waiting for the new standards to pass and the seminaries to then adopt them so they can apply.

Reading through some of this the similarities to the situation in the PC(USA) is striking.  Did he have the PC(USA) and the Episcopals in mind when one of the pro-gay ordination members, Rabbi Elliot Dorff, president of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, said:
“We would hope that this would be a model for other
religions to learn how to deal with this topic seriously and be able to
agree to be one and yet have disagreements”
(Quoted in the Jerusalem Post article)

Updates on December 8
The Rabbinical Assembly has issued a press release on the meeting.  (Be warned, it is an MS Word file.)

The Jewish Chronicle of Pittsburgh has posted a news article which includes comments by Rabbi Alvin Berkun, president of the Rabbinical Assembly of the Conservative movement, who was present for the discussion but not a voting member of the committee. 

First “middle governing body” begins withdrawl process in American Episcopal Church

Leave a reply

There have been numerous reports of individual churches withdrawing from the American Episcopal Communion and requesting to come under the supervision of more conservative African bishops because of disagreements in ordination standards.  These withdrawals have led, like in the PC(USA), to disputes over property with a variety of different results in civil courts.

Now the Diocese of San Joaquin has voted over the weekend at their Annual Convention, by a vote of 176 to 28, to change their “Anglican Identity” to a world-wide view rather a strictly American identity.  This is the first reading and will require a second affirmative vote at the next convention.  This convention is expected to be in a year but Bishop Schofield has said that some factors could advance or delay that vote, basically challenging the American Church that if they are aggressive against the diocese the diocese will bolt earlier.  There are press releases from both the diocese and the national office.

Leading up to the convention there was an interesting exchange of letters beginning with a letter of November 20 from The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop and Primate of the Episcopal Church with a response from the Bishop of San Joaquin Diocese, the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled debates in reformed circles.

Updated Resource from the Covenant Network on “Guidelines for Examination”

Leave a reply

The Covenant Network of Presbyterians has recently released an updated version of their resource “Guidelines for Examination.” (alert: it is 2.6 MB in size so be careful clicking this link to down load it)  I am not familiar with any previous version(s) of this document so I can’t speak to the revisions other than to say that it does include the results of the 217th GA in 2006.  But I found this to be an interesting read (at least for a GA Junkie).  It is 64 pages long, well written and footnoted (six pages of them) and presents their side of the debate well.  I probably could have done without the abundance of stock photos illustrating it, but it would make it more appealing to more casual readers.

On the one hand this document contains nothing new.  If you have followed the debate in the PC(USA) for any length of time now you will find all the usual material on the pro-ordination side:  Sessions and presbyteries can neither add nor ignore standards; the question of essentials, subscription, and scruples; the “chastity” versus “celibacy” question; what practices the confessions call sin; whether homosexual orientation is “natural”; what was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah; is the PC(USA) version of the Heidelberg Catechism accurately translated.  Their viewpoint is clearly discussed and documented.  (If you are a casual reader remember there are opposing arguments on all of these, which is why the PC(USA) and its predecessor denominations have been discussing this for 30 years without a mutually satisfactory resolution.)

I would commend to anyone active in this debate chapter 6 which has a series of case studies covering a variety of interesting examples and asks whether the individual described is involved in a “self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin”  and whether or not they should be  ordained as an officer in the church.  These cases are well developed and cover a variety of modern situations which do raise questions about our behavior and how it is, or is not, informed by scripture and confessions.  Only two of the cases specifically relate to ordination of GLBT persons but also include environmental responsibility, recreational gambling, active military service, literal interpretation of scripture, and divorce to name a few.

I did find these case studies thought provoking and challenging to think about although I did feel that at times I wanted more information or to engage the fictional individual being examined for ordination in conversation about their position.  These case studies are a good reminder that while we have some generality in our ordination standards we tend to focus on one standard: sexual orientation.

However, as much as I found the case studies interesting and thought provoking, as I read through them I could not help but wonder if these presented a red-herring distracting the reader from the real controversy being addressed.  The book contains a whole chapter on “GLBT Disclosures” and another on “Considering Sexual Practice” as well as the chapter on “Putting it Together.”  There are no chapters on divorce, military service, or recreational gambling.  No one can say that this resource is not about ordination standards relating to sexual practice.  And while several of the study cases do present situations with scriptural basis for discussion (divorce, observing the sabbath), most are more confession oriented and/or deal with scripture in much more general terms (environmental responsibility, scriptural literal interpretation).  This is not to say that they are not important theological and ethical questions that have been dealt with for centuries, like military service.  But I felt that in a direct comparison few if any of the cases really had the gravity and relevance of the present debate.  (Yes, I do realize that there will be arguments with me on this one.)

So, here is a resource that presents one viewpoint well, that contains some challanging information, and that can generate good discussion.  But keep it in perspective.  For an alternative view the Presbyterian Coalition has prepared a response to a 2003 document from the Covenant Network.

Ordination standards – with a twist

1 Reply

The Layman Online is reporting that there will be a candidate coming to the stated meeting of John Knox Presbytery next week to be admitted to the candidacy process as an inquirer. The individual is a self-avowed practicing homosexual and understands that his present life style is in conflict with the ordination standards in the Book of Order, G-6.0106b.  The letter to the presbytery from the Committee on Preparation for Ministry, included in the Layman article, takes the polity view that the candidacy process is a time for the presbytery and candidate to investigate and discern the call and that the ordination standards in the Book of Order apply to the final ordination.  This is the same view that San Gabriel Presbytery took several years ago and Mission Presbytery took earlier this year, and that has so far been upheld by the Synod PJC.

The twist:
(Actually two of them.)

1)  The CPM letter also makes it clear that this request to be admitted to inquirer status will also include the new authoritative interpretation.  This is the first direct challenge to the ordination standards by a candidate for minister since the PUP report and it is clear that this candidate will declare “scruples” about whether the ordination standards are “essentials.”

2)  The big one!  The candidate in question is Mr. Scott D. Anderson, the same Scott Anderson who was the only openly homosexual member of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity.  Mr. Anderson was previously an ordained minister of word and sacrament in the PC(USA) but renounced jurisdiction in 1990 when he acknowledged his present life style.

Commentary:  So much of this commentary seems to write itself, especially since the CPM does make a point of the fact that Mr. Anderson will be challenging what is essential.  I want to leave it at the point that if “nothing has changed,” as we are constantly being told, why is a member of the PUP Task Force the first to challenge the ordination standards?

Latest case in the PC(USA) ordination standards debate – Mission Presbytery

1 Reply

Greetings,

    I am trying to verify this news via “official sources” but I noticed today on the blog “A Classical Presbyterian” that another PJC case will be heard regarding ordination standards and examination for candidacy in Mission Presbytery.  Whether this will end up being a “test case” for the new authoritative interpretation will have to be seen since the presbytery meeting where the disputed action occurred was in October 2005.  According to the blog the presbytery, in a very heated and unruly debate (what happened to “decently and in order”) admitted to candidacy a woman who is a “self-affirming practicing homosexual.”  I encourage you to read the comments on “A Classical Presbyterian” posted today (July 31).  I will see if any “standard” news sources pick this up.

Switching from news to commentary…
Test case?  I’m not sure this will end up being that but it will be interesting to see if the new AI does play into this.  I think the date being pre-GA 217 and the fact that it is an argument over being admitted to candidacy will make this case a bit different.  I know that in a similar situation in my presbytery a few years ago that the presbytery did not view this as a test of G6.0106b or G6.0108 since the advancement to candidacy did not involve ordination.  The general feeing among people in that debate seemed to be “we will approve it, this is not ordination, we will approve candidacy so that the individual can continue to work out their sense of call, but if this examination were for ordination the answer would be no.”

Trial by the Synod PJC is set for Sept. 9th.  Stay tuned.