Category Archives: ordination standards

Reverberations From Ordination Decisions: The PC(USA) And Her Global Partners

2 Replies

[Ed. note: This is the first in a three part series that I hope to get written and posted over the next week.]

Over the last few months a couple Presbyterian branches have made decisions to make, or move towards making, standards for ordination more inclusive, particularly regarding the ordination of individuals who are in active same-sex relationships.  These decisions have made waves in the international Presbyterian community and these waves will be reverberating in the community for a while to come.  This is a look at one specific reverberation.

In a couple of widely publicized decisions the General Assemblies of the
Iglesia Nacional Presbiteriana de México (IPNM) (National Presbyterian Church In Mexico) and the Presbyterian Church of Ghana (PCG) have gone on record expressing disapproval of the passage of Amendment 10-A by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and warning that it jeopardizes the partnering relationship between the churches. However, each of these decisions have multiple nuances that seem to be getting lost in the media headlines and tweets.

The IPNM decision was made at a called Consultation of the General Assembly held August 17-19.  This decision was then communicated to the PC(USA) in a letter to the Stated Clerk and the PC(USA) has posted an English translation.  It says in part

In my position as Secretary of the H. General Assembly of the
National Presbyterian Church of Mexico, I [Presbyter Amador Lopez Hernandez] am sending the present
document to communicate the official decision made by our National
Presbyterian Church of Mexico, in the last extraordinary and legislative
Council meeting held at El Divino Salvador Church, in Xonacatlán,
Mexico, on August 17-19, 2011, regarding the partnership between our
Churches, which states:

“To revoke Article 41, number 4 of our Manual of Procedures, which
entitles us to have official, covenant relations of work and cooperation
with the PC (U.S.A.) and terminate the official relationship with the
church, starting on August 18, 2011. As the General Assembly, we are
open to restore the partnership and work together in the future, if the
Amendment 10 A is rescinded.”

As I said above, this came from a special Consultation of the General Assembly and it is interesting to note that the primary purpose of the called meeting was ordination standards, but specifically the ordination of women.  The Presbyterian Outlook article helps fill in the details:

The Mexican church, with close to two million members, held a special
assembly Aug. 17-19 specifically to discuss the ordination of women –
voting overwhelmingly, by a margin of 158 to 14, to sustain its policy
of not ordaining women. The assembly also voted 103 to 55 not to allow
any sort of grace period for presbyteries that had, on their own,
already begun ordaining women. That vote means that any presbytery which
has already ordained women must immediately revoke those ordinations.

They also let us know that the vote to end the relationship with the PC(USA) came on a vote of 116 to 22 and was only a small part of this meeting.

In light of the full scope of these decisions made by this General Assembly it is interesting to note that in the blogosphere and twitterverse the PC(USA) related decision seems to be held up with little to no mention made of the other one. To be fair only the one decision directly affects the PC(USA) so that is one possible explanation. (At least one blog (non-PC(USA) related) did highlight the decision about the ordination of women and only mentioned the other in passing.)

Now, my Spanish is not very good, but from what I can tell and getting translation help from a couple of different sources it seems that when this meeting is discussed on the IPNM Facebook page it seems to be the women’s ordination issue which gets the most attention.

There is of course a response from the PC(USA), first an official statement then a webinar (archived presentation available from the Mexico Ministry page) to help those involved in ministry with the IPNM understand the new lay of the land.  In the webcast Dave Thomas (World Mission regional liaison for Mexico) gives a great description of the timeline and process for the decision.  He concludes by saying “And I think it’s ironic to think that here’s a church in Mexico that has nearly two million members, do you know it is almost the same size as the PC(USA), and yet 116 men voting on one Friday afternoon changed things. And in spite of the fact that thousands of people on both sides of the border, thousands of people from both countries have been impacted, have been transformed by God’s grace and by the work that they have been able to do jointly through this partnership we have had with the National Presbyterian Church of Mexico.” There is clearly a tone of sadness and frustration in his voice as he says this but also a hint of condescension. My personal reaction is “this is what Presbyterianism is about” were a small subset of the whole church, be it 200 commissioners or 850, try to discern God’s will and make decisions for the whole church. And it seemed to me that throughout the webinar there were times when comments by panelists or questions from participants projected the expectations, process, standards or norms of the PC(USA) onto our sister Presbyterian church.

The webinar did offer an opening – As Maria Arroyo (World Mission area coordinator) said “…[The IPNM] would continue receiving the presbyteries in partnership that voted against 10-A and also were willing to sign something saying that they were against 10-A and they would conform to the principles of the Mexican Church.”

In his comments, Hunter Farrell (Director of Presbyterian World Mission) summarizes the situation and includes this comment, “Perhaps the most regrettable piece in this is that the Mexican Assembly in its action reduces us and our 139 year relationship to one question, our stance on a particular issue — It is critically important, and that is not to say the theology is not important, but the result is that we are reduced to yes or no on one particular question. And ironically that is what our church was trying to move away from by adopting 10-A — to broaden that understanding of ordained ministry.” He continues “At the same time our part in this, we understand from the perspective of Presbyterian World Mission, is to accept and respect the decision by the Mexican Presbyterian Church.”

This changed relationship will have to be lived into and there are still more questions than answers. The Mexico Ministry page does note that on September 8 an agreement between the two churches was reached to continue boarder ministry.

The second decision made and stance taken was from the Presbyterian Church of Ghana. This came from the 11th General Assembly recently concluded and can be found in both a communique from the Assembly as well as a summary page. But again, there appear to be nuances that are not reflected in the blogosphere and twitterverse.

For example, one article is headlined “Presbyterian Church of Ghana (PCG) severs ties with US partner over homosexuality.” Is the the situation?  That is a definite maybe!

First, let’s take a look at what the church has actually publically said.  The Communique is a bit longer and so I will focus on that.  The section begins on page 21 and starts by echoing the announced stance from earlier this year. It also reaffirms the earlier announcement that “The General Assembly wishes to state that although it unreservedly condemns homosexuality as sin, the Church is prepared to offer the needed pastoral care and counseling for those wishing to come out of the practice, in keeping with the truism that, ‘God hates sin but loves the sinner.’”  It is only in the last paragraph of this section that they address foreign partners and say, in total:

The Presbyterian Church of Ghana is further taking steps – a process which has began with its just ended General Assembly to sever relationship with any partner church local and foreign that ordained homosexuals as ministers and allowed for same sex marriages and wants to make it clear that we respect the decisions of our Ecumenical Partners abroad concerning gay and lesbian practice and same-sex marriages and believes that our position would also be duly respected by them.

Note that there is an “and” in there – that the conditions appear to be both “ordained homosexuals as ministers” AND “allowed for same sex marriages.”

Now unfortunately this appears to be all we have to go on.  I have requested clarification from the General Assembly Clerk on this point but am still waiting for his response.  (Will update if I get one) I am not aware that the church has sent official notification to any partners yet, but please point me in the right direction if I have missed something. It looks like we will have to wait until the church has worked out more of the details.  It also raises the question about other partners like the Church of Scotland which has not approved ordination or marriages but has set a trajectory in that direction.

So all the headlines about severing ties? At the present time it appears that no specific action has been taken from this decision and since the PC(USA) does not currently permit same sex marriages it appears that the PC(USA) does not currently fit the stated criteria.  It is interesting to note that the Moderator of the General Assembly of the PCG, the Rt. Rev. Prof. Emmanuel Martey, is currently touring the USA and we may get more clarification from his statements here.

Are there other partnerships in jeopardy? It does appear that there are.  Without being specific, in the webinar Maria Arroyo does say that some partners in the Caribbean and Latin America will be considering their relationship with the PC(USA) at their upcoming General Assemblies or General Synods.  In addition, Rev. Jim Miller gives us a five point declaration from the National Council of the Korean Presbyterian Church of the PCUSA. This is an entity within the PC(USA) but probably reflects broader attitudes within this ethnic community nationally and internationally.

I don’t think I need to stick my neck out very far to predict that over the next year we will see a variety of responses from PC(USA) international partners ranging from approval to acceptance to disapproval to dissolution of the relationship.  And in cases like there, where a possible way forward is provided based on their standards, it will be interesting to see how all this develops. But in it all we do pray for God’s mission to be advanced in whatever ways God ordains.

Next, a look at what has been happening in the Church of Scotland over the last few months.

The Fellowship Gathering — Through The Tweets Dimly

9 Replies

Last week was an interesting week for me, what with the Virginia earthquake on Tuesday and the two day Fellowship of Presbyterians Gathering in Minneapolis on Thursday and Friday.

I did not make it to The Gathering so I have been trying to follow it from my vantage point over here on the Left Coast. News and blog articles about the event are starting to appear, but it was fascinating to track the Twitter comments and interactions during the meeting.  However, what I found was that while the tweets were interesting and helpful they were not enough to help me connect all the dots to understand what the Fellowship is and where it is going. (Guess you had to be there… )  What follows is not so much reporting on the Gathering but sharing my impressions from and about the social media content related to it. As Scott Keeble (@skeeble99) put it:

Gotta love overreactions to 140 char. summaries of a conference you aren’t at.

If you want to play along at home you need to check out the tweets with the hashtag #mn2011.  As the meeting was getting underway I did comment that I did not see a lot of use of the #pcusa hashtag and by implication there was a distancing from the institution. Several friends of different theological stripes informed me that it is indeed common practice to only use the conference hashtag and that nothing sinister should be seen in the use of hashtags.  I stand corrected and apologize for casting aspersions where nothing should have been read into it.

Now, if you want a good look at the best play-by-play of the event you need to check out the constant stream of tweets from Carolyn Poteet (@cvpotweet) who was the unofficial live-tweeter. Her stats say she is only at 1034 tweets ever — I would have sworn that she had 10,000 in one day last week! Of course, she hit her rate limit a couple of times and to get the complete picture you need to also check the tweets from @TomJHouston which she co-opted to keep the info coming while her account was in time-out.  Carolyn, thanks for all your efforts! Your tweets helped tremendously to follow along. (Generally tweets I quote but are not identified as from another source came from Carolyn and I trust that my quoting her in what follows does not stray from Fair Use.)

Also be aware that there were times when the participants split up into breakout sessions so if you see tweets sent at about the same time but on very different topics that is probably what is happening.

Moving on from the reporting to the “conversation” the first thing that impressed me was the theological breadth represented by those tweeting from The Gathering. In particular there are several people I know that I don’t think were at the meeting to sign up for the New Reformed Body but were checking out the Gathering for other reasons. I trust that they will provide their thought in the blogosphere in the near future. Based on the Twitter activity I make a back-of-the-envelope calculation that about 5-10% (100-200 people) of those present probably held viewpoints contrary to the view of orthodoxy the Fellowship seems to be promoting.

In addition, I was pleased to see at least three of the “big four” from the General Assembly at the meeting.  The GA Moderator and Vice-Moderator were there — Moderator Cynthia Bolbach made some well-received comments towards the end of the meeting, judging by the tweets, and Vice-Moderator Landon Whitsitt was his usual self providing a nice stream of insightful comments throughout the meeting. (More on this later) If I understood the tweets correctly, GA Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons was also in attendance and spoke briefly — as Seth Normington (@revnormsy) put it “Brief, rather opaque comments from ga stated clerk, gradye parsons. Nice of him to attend. Blessings, good sir.” There was no mention of GAMC Executive Director Linda Valentine being present and likewise but I saw no identification that anyone else from the GAMC was in attendance. [Update: Thanks to Jody Harrington’s comment below where she commented that Linda Valentine was at the conference. The text above has been adjusted appropriately.]

That leads me into a few observations about the meeting gleaned pretty much exclusively from the tweets:

  • Besides the breakout sessions there were also discussion groups. It looks like the higher governing body professionals and officers were grouped together in their own groups. I did not see an explanation of this and am curious why.
  • Carmen Fowler LaBerge (@csfowler2003) informs us “#mn2011 registration info: 950 clergy; 575 elders; 53 church administrators; 20 PCUSA staff; 68 presbytery execs. 300 didn’t indicate.” (That would be 1966 total)
  • Carolyn also tweeted the answer to one of the nagging questions I had: “Primary diff from New Wineskins – tone.” Another time a speaker is quoted as saying “I felt like New Wineskins got hijacked by angry people.”
  • Leslie Scanlon (@lscanlon) of the Outlook provides us with some of the descriptions of where the conservatives feel they or the denomination is – “Some metaphors used at #MN2011. Deathly ill. Stuck in a box canyon. Car sunk in swimming pool. #pcusa”
  • Because it is Twitter with a 140 character limit the acronyms were flying. Two that I had to recalibrate my brain for were NRB – which to this group means New Reformed Body but I normally think of as National Religious Broadcasters – and the FOP (or FoP) – which of course here means Fellowship of Presbyterians but in my day job is a professional organization.
  • There were questions from afar about the diversity in the Gathering but I did not see the questions answered.  However, at one point Carolyn tweets this telling comment “Potty parity at #mn2011! First time in my life I’ve ever seen a line at the men’s room but sailed through the ladies’!”

Going back to that bullet point about the tone of this group, I was struck by how positive the official portion of the meeting was.  That did not completely extend to the Twitterverse, but I’ll talk about that below. Based on the 140 character reports the leadership of the FOP is in communication with, and maybe even working with, the OGA leadership.  It was also made clear that  “we are not calling anybody apostate,” and “will not seek to demonize the #PCUSA in any manner.” And one final quote on this – “One of the ways this won’t be a spin off to a new denom (quickly), is b/c we don’t want to lose relationships w/people we love.”

Two big topics at this meeting that are inexorably linked are the New Reformed Body and theological beliefs, usually referred to as the Essential Tenets of the Reformed Faith.

Coming into the meeting the FOP had made it clear that the NRB (yes, I can throw acronyms around too ) was going to happen but that there were a lot of details to be worked out.  The impression I got from the Twitter reporting and discussion is that enough details have to be worked out and now this is a train that has left the station and is headed for the announced constitutional convention January 12-14, 2012, in Orlando. But the FOP clearly hopes for the NRB to continue in some form of partnership with the PC(USA).  One comment was “the degree to which the NRB can relate back to the PCUSA, and we hope it can, baptisms, ordinations, permeable boundary.” Another said “hopefully we can share some HQ functions – missions, theology and worship…” One of the themes I found most helpful was the description of what they are about in this sequence of tweets from Carolyn: “like-minded church to unite around a common purpose. from Phil 2:1-2,” “we’ve created such a broad tent that there’s no center pole. we need to establish essentials again,” and “need to make clear abt what’s at the center rather than police the
boundaries, so people can determine if it’s a good fit for them.”

Related to this is the question of standards.  At the Gathering the NRB was described as an “empty warehouse” waiting to be filled.  That is to be done this Fall when draft documents are posted on the web site, regional gatherings are held, and they are finalized at the constitutional convention in January.  There is a clear intent to define or state the Essential Tenets of the Reformed Faith. But this led to a lot of Twitter conversation about the standards.  There were comments about the return of subscription. While not necessarily advocating subscription, @BenjaminPGlaser, who was at the meeting, asked in a tweet “I wonder how many of the ministers/ruling elders at #mn2011 could affirm the WCF w/out major qualification…” (WCF is of course the Westminster Confession of Faith, a document that Presbyterians historically have included in the standards that needed to be subscribed to.) There were also references to Machen, particularly his final sermon recently republished in Theology Matters. To that TwoFriars commented “Machen’s fundamentals are NOT Reformed essentials, FYI.” Along a similar line Landon Whitsitt (@landonw) commented “I’m struggling to reconcile the fact that the “essentials of faith” being thrown out at #mn2011 are classicly Evangelical, not Reformed.” Craig Goodwin (@craiggoodwin) had a number of thoughtful comments about standards and in response to Landon asked ” …are Evangelical, not Reformed. Can’t be both?” It will be interesting to see what this discussion produces throughout the Fall leading up to the January meeting.

Going forward I suspect the real hard questions will not revolve around the theology, although they probably should, but around the “Three P’s”, yes pensions, property and power.  To put it bluntly – can you take it with you when you leave?  From the Q&A portion of a presentation on the NRB Carolyn tweeted “lots of Qs about per capita, pensions, etc. A – we’re not giving answers
at this point, don’t want to get tangled in the details.”  This turned out to be a bit deeper than it seems — they put off some of the discussion of details to a breakout on Friday but they are also putting off details until the relationship of the NRB with the PC(USA) is more clearly defined.

I want to look at this topic of the relationship between the NRB and the PC(USA) in more detail another time after the presentation videos are posted and I have had a chance to digest them.  Let me just say here that three possible models were proposed: 1) This might be accomplished with union presbyteries – a polity solution that already exists. [ed. note – I should have seen that before now!] 2) Create the category of affiliate churches or affiliate presbyteries like the current affiliate members. Requires new polity language. 3) Leave completely.  Regarding this, Carolyn quotes Jim Singleton: “Singleton – yes, this is gonna be messy!!”

Now, a couple of weeks ago in my pre-Gathering piece I suggested that this event was a Rorschach Test for those who had issues with the PC(USA).  Well, I see now that I was right in concept but wrong in scope.  This event was a Rorschach Test for the whole PC(USA) and maybe even for American Presbyterianism more broadly. But after the broad reaction that the very first Fellowship letter last February engendered I should have expected that.

Departing from Twitter for a moment it is important to note that groups with opposite views have posted very specific pieces on their web sites interpreting or making suggestions related to the Gathering.  More Light Presbyterians issued a call to prayer for the meeting and a related article.  Individually, Janet Edwards offered a suggestion to the FOP ahead of the Gathering, as did Shawn Coons, and Adam Walker Cleaveland wanted to make sure the elephant in the room got named. Clearly this meeting had a lot of people’s attention across the denomination.

So back to Twitter and the meeting…

First, in the interest of full disclosure I would comment that I (@ga_junkie) did not tweet much but did make the one comment I discussed above that could have been considered snarky, and also a second that could be taken that way as well.  Early on Andrew Johnson (@AndrewJohnsonYM) tweeted “New reformed body… no brand but Christ” which I retweeted adding “Starting to sound like the Springfield Presbytery”. (If you need the reference, Springfield Presbytery was part of the Stone-Campbell Movement that left the Presbyterians two centuries ago proclaiming “No creed but Christ” and led to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). )

The vast majority of Twitter comments I saw were constructive and contributed to the social media discussion.  Yes, a lot may have had a snarky edge to them, but I found few offensive and there was a general improvement in tone when the organizers made it clear that this new group was not about demonizing the PC(USA).

Yet most of the comments, my own included, seemed to clearly reflect the lens through which the writer was viewing the Gathering.  Exempli gratia:

DavidIvie1 David Ivie
#mn2011 why would a group convene to protest gay ordination and then on day one celebrate women’s ordination? no sense of irony?

David_Berge
David Berge
#mn2011 lots of people talk about “post-denominationalism” 4 better or worse #fellowshippres is actually doing something about it

rwilliamsonjr Robert Williamson Jr
If you want to leave, I will
bid you peace. If you want to stay, I will embrace you. But I can’t
relate to the leave-but-stay option

Stushie57
John Stuart
The future of the Church is in Christ’s good hands, not conferees nor ordinands.

joyousjava Lara B Pickrel
Sometimes our churches’ panicky attempts to keep people from leaving (for the sake of numbers) feels like idolatry.

craiggoodwin
Craig Goodwin
Pleasantly surprised by tone and focus of #mn2011. Did it take finally losing the vote for Presby evangelicals to get focused on mission?

Reading the events through our own lens or filter is not inherently an issue.  It is what shapes our diversity and understanding of the world and the conversation and listening process for others helps us to not only see alternatives but can help us refine, sharpen or adapt our own perspective.  Along those lines I have to point out and say how much I appreciated the tweets from Landon Whitsitt (@landonw) who was multi-tasking and reporting on the proceedings through both his open source lens as well as his progressive lens. This tweet captures his dual perspective:

Okay…I’m putting my cards on the table. Except for including GLBT
persons, I want a church that looks like what I’m hearing at #mn2011

Let me conclude by saying that in spite of some sharp comments in the Twitterverse I was generally very impressed by the depth, breadth, level, volume, tone, thoughtfulness and civility of the Twitter conversation around this event.  But the operative word here is “around.” While the live tweeting helped me know what was going on I still feel that I am looking through a glass dimly related to where this is going. The quotes that were passed on and the sessions reported on still seemed to reflect the influence of the core group of tall-steeple pastors. There seemed to be lots and lots of discussion of a New Reformed Body but I did not sense how that might have been informed or moderated by Dr. Mouw’s comments regarding why we need each other. And I am still left with the impression that tail number four may be wagging this dog. But this is only what I see from my remote vantage point via the Twitterverse.

So, as this moves on I am looking forward to several things. First, I want to see the videos when they get posted on the Fellowship site so I have the primary sources for much of this information and I can judge for myself. Second, I await written accounts from those who were there – something longer than 140 characters. (The Presbyterian Outlook has already posted several articles by Leslie Scanlon including ones on the lead off presentations, Richard Mouw’s message, the talk by Ken Bailey, and an initial summary. There are similarly one, two, three and four articles from the Presbyterian News Service.  In addition, it looks like Two Friars and a Fool are aggregating blog posts on the Gathering but I would single out Jim Miller’s which is getting a lot of Twitter recommendations.) Once I have a chance to view, read, think and digest I anticipate being ready to make some more comments about the content of the meeting.

Looking out a bit further the real test of this model as the open source community that Landon is looking at will be in the process for posting, consulting, editing and approving the new documents for the New Reformed Body.  At this point I am pretty much trusting Landon’s impression of the proceedings so far in its promise for development of a Covenant Community in a participatory environment.

Looking even further ahead, there is a good possibility that both the New Reformed Body’s partnership with the PC(USA) as well as developments in the other FOP streams will require actions by the 220th General Assembly and changes to the Book of Order. Leslie Scanlon captured this quote from Mark Brewer:

“This next General Assembly is going to be wild.”

I look forward to seeing how the development process works and what product it results in.  I also look forward to seeing how the broader church reacts as this progresses.  This has the promise of being new territory — I like an experiment and I hope you do too.  Stay tuned…

Fellowship PC(USA) Gathering — Some Things To Pay Attention To

8 Replies

I have to admit that for the purposes of blogging I was not really tracking the Fellowship PC(USA) Gathering too closely.  Yes, I knew it was coming up but I did not have it ranked too high on the news scale of the stories I was tracking. It struck me as a bit of a New Wineskins redo and instead I have been struggling to stay on top of other news items, especially in the midst of General Assembly Season.

Now, this may seem contradictory, but in the interest of full disclosure let me also say that personally I have been very curious about the Fellowship gathering and how it fits into the PC(USA) big picture at the present time.  In fact I was interested enough, and the questions in my own congregation were numerous enough, that I very seriously considered attending. However, family commitments are keeping me home that weekend and it seemed a long way to go for a two day meeting.

Having now put my cards on the table, I will continue by saying that I have changed my mind and now consider this something that all of us in the PC(USA) need to be watching.

What changed my mind? First, the size.

At the present time the Fellowship PC(USA) is saying that they have pre-registered an overflow crowd of 1900 attendees.  Checking some numbers, it seems that this will be the largest gathering in the PC(USA) this year, and I think it will make it one of the largest gatherings of Presbyterians in the world this year.

How big? Not as big as a PC(USA) General Assembly, but the PC(USA) Big Tent gathering had an announced attendance of around 1700.  The NEXT Church event was 350.  The PCA General Assembly had 1,183 commissioners and the Church of Scotland GA had around 800 commissioners.  For the GA’s, if we make a rough estimate that observers are about the same number as commissioners that puts their total attendance in the same ball park as the Fellowship PC(USA) is expecting. In the PC(USA), 1,900 members would represent almost one in every thousand of the total membership. If you want to consider congregations, the 830 congregations expected to have representatives make up about 8% of the PC(USA) churches.

Is it a minority? Yes. Is it significant? In light of the size of other gatherings I think it is.  The material from the Fellowship says “The initial planners thought there might be a few hundred people interested in new ways of ‘being church’…” This event has evolved into something bigger.

So lets be honest – to bring together the largest gathering of Presbyterians this year with a six-month lead time says something about the state of the PC(USA). However, I think it says more about the uncertainty some members of the PC(USA) feel than it necessarily says about the new organization itself.

Why do I say this?  Consider the developments in that time.  The Fellowship PC(USA) launched with a letter and a white paper which quickly needed some clarifications added to it. Early on there was a video by the Rev. Jim Singleton talking about a “new kind of fellowship” as a group mostly within the PC(USA), but maybe some outside it, and advertises it as an idea to be presented to the Fellowship gathering.  There is also an interesting video by Rev. Singleton where he takes credit for the “deathly ill” phrase and gives the explanation behind it.  Then in May, with the impending passage of Amendment 10-A, the Fellowship issued another letter that said “we are committed to starting a new Reformed Body without leaving the PC(USA).”  So having a portion of the Fellowship outside but in correspondence with the PC(USA) had been de-emphasized.  (Although it should be noted that one of the signatories to that letter is Head of Staff at a church that is now exploring dismissal, but keep reading because this letter has been superseded.)  The Fellowship also announced the hiring of the Rev. Dr. Paul Detterman as Administrative Consultant for the Fellowship.  On June 24 they announced that the main room had reached capacity and that registrations were going to be taken for an overflow room bringing the total possible registration to 1,450.

At about that time another letter was posted with new goals for the Fellowship.  They say:

The goal of the Fellowship is to form a new way for Presbyterian
congregations to relate, recapturing more of what it means to be the
body of Christ.  The mission of the Fellowship is to create an
environment in which these congregations can grow and thrive as
communities in covenant.

And they acknowledge that the landscape has changed:

While the original motivation for the Fellowship was a desire to
positively impact the decline and increasing dysfunction of the PC(USA),
the passage of Amendment 10-A has brought an enormous challenge into
the discussion.  Suddenly, a new reality has emerged in our
denomination, creating a crisis of integrity for Presbyterians who
remain committed to theological orthodoxy.

And the new Reformed Body outside the PC(USA) was back on the table:

One option under the Fellowship umbrella will be a new Reformed body
that, while desiring to maintain mutually helpful association with the
PC(USA) and its related institutions, will nonetheless provide a clear
and distinct identity beyond the PC(USA).  Documents required for the
creation of this new Reformed body are in process.

And in an interesting admission they say “We believe the new Form of Government (nFoG) provides specific options previously unavailable to us, and we are exploring these.” And somewhere about this time the name changed from the Fellowship PC(USA) to Fellowship of Presbyterians. (For reference, the new domain name fellowship-pres.org was acquired on August 11) [Update: The Fellowship discussed their new name and logo on August 16.]

The final step in this prologue to the meeting was a letter from the Administrative Consultant titled “What to expect in Minneapolis…”  I will return to this in just a moment.

It is important to also recognize that while this may be the most high-profile effort under way there are numerous other initiatives floating around.  One of these is the creation of Presbytery Committees of Correspondence. (News coverage by the Presbyterian Outlook, The Layman) (And for those not familiar with the term, “Committees of Correspondence” is a loaded term going back to the American Revolution)  In another development the Presbytery of San Diego has created an Administrative Commission to work with churches interested in moving their membership to them as a like-minded presbytery, “if the way be clear,” effectively forming a flexible, semi-geographic, or “fuzzy-boundary” (as I like to call it) presbytery.

So, in this present landscape what should we be watching for at the Fellowship Gathering? In looking this over I see a Rorschach Test in all of this – if there are 2000 people there will there be 2000 different opinions and expectations?  Has the Gathering come to represent a visible way of expressing protest or uncertainty about the PC(USA) without enough common vision?  In his recent letter Mr. Detterman admits as much:

As the spring progressed, however, and it became clear that ordination
standards and a significant portion of the Book of Order would be
changed, the August Gathering became the go-to place for many more
people with a wide range of different needs and concerns.  As the number
of registrations grew, so did people’s expectations.  Now with well
over 1,900 people attending, the “gathering” appears to have morphed
into a “happening.”

and

The 830+ congregations sending representatives have many different
needs.  Some are looking for a “safe” place in the wake of changed
ordination standards.  Others are looking for innovation and
opportunities for missional engagement.  Some are committed to
continuing long-term relationships with the PC(USA) while others will be
seeking assistance toward an expedient departure.  People who are
coming to Minneapolis looking for an ecclesiastical “silver bullet,” an
instant solution that calms the waters of their ministry will be
disappointed.

With that introduction the letter gives four things, or “tiers,” to expect:

First, for those happy, content, or accepting of where they are the gathering will be offering “ideas and options for nurturing Christ-honoring ministry in place.”

Second, some attendees will be interested in innovative and creative changes in presbytery structure. “A few of these models will be explained and explored.”

Third, for congregations not in a comfortable place in their presbytery “new possibilities for “affiliate” congregations will be introduced.” This will also include discussion of possible changes to be sent to the 220th General Assembly.

Finally, there is the option of a “new Reformed Body,” now explicitly distinct from the PC(USA). This goes on to say:

The idea is to recapture our core identity, believing that Reformed
theology has much to say to our contemporary culture, and that Calvin’s
original vision for the nature and role of presbyteries offers a better
way of relating to one another than most of us are experiencing now.  In
forming this new Reformed “body,” there is also the opportunity to move
with imagination and energy into the reality of a post-denominational
world.

The letter is clear that no votes will be taken at this meeting.  The letter says “We will be presenting a carefully-designed range of options, all covered
by a large “umbrella” of shared commitment to Jesus Christ, to God’s
mission in the world, and to each other.  Discernment and intelligent,
Christ-honoring discussion will be the heart and soul of our time
together.”

I have to think that there are a few more possibilities out there as well so it will be interesting what comes to the surface and what ideas and reports come out of the Gathering.

It will also be interesting to see what reaction there is from outside the Gathering.  There has been a bit so far from beyond the Fellowship’s sphere of influence.  Shawn Coons has written encouraging them to honor the statement on the web site that their actions be “mutually helpful association with the PC(USA) and its related institutions.”  An article from The Christian Century anticipates a strong preference for the fourth option above in a piece titled “Lull before another Presbyterian storm?“

I do want to point you to one more video before I go.  One of the keynote speakers at the Gathering is Dr. Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary.  He was gracious enough to take the time and speak with my presbytery and I understand that he has been speaking to others as well.  Los Ranchos Presbytery heard him and posted the video of his hour-long talk.  It is not exactly the same as what he discussed with us, but his perspective and passionate argument for staying together as a denomination make the video well worth watching.  (At our presbytery meeting he spoke more about practical ways that we could work out to stay together.)

So, I look forward to hearing about this gathering from a distance.  The official Twitter account for the Fellowship is @fellowshippcusa [Update: changed to @fellowshippres] and the announced hashtag is #MN2011. We will see who else is tweeting and blogging from the event. And as it goes, maybe we will have enough pieces of a large jigsaw puzzle to start finding a picture emerging.

[As a postscript let me point out that the Presbyterian Outlook was working on this event in very similar directions as I was and got their stuff posted over the weekend.  They have (at least) one article about the Gathering, another on the mixed signals, and an editorial.]

Presbyterian Church Of Ghana And Their Stand On Homosexuality

2 Replies

For those of you who follow things generally Presbyterian on your news or Twitter feeds you know that a recent development related to the Presbyterian Church of Ghana went viral, or at least high-profile.

The specific development is a news story about an announcement that the church “is to establish therapy centres
for homosexual victims for counselling and rehabilitation in the various
communities.” But what you might suspect is true, that this is not a sudden revelation and there is more to this story in the church and Ghanaian society.

Let me acknowledge right up front that this conversion or reparative therapy is a controversial topic and there are critics and defenders in professional circles, the community, and the church.  And it is worth mentioning that in “western” circles the critics currently outnumber the defenders in all these groups.  A week ago NPR ran a story on this and with the critical listener response the story brought the NPR Ombudsman wrote a great piece giving more background on the topic.

Having said that, let me move on because I want to focus more on the background to this announcement than on the announcement specifically.

On one level it is important to recognize that the level of discussion on the topic of homosexuality has risen a bit recently in the PCG because the it seems to be a topic of particular interest to the current Moderator of the General Assembly, the Rt. Rev. Prof. Emmanuel Martey, and he has been outspoken about it.  About a month ago he did a radio interview aimed at an international audience with Isaac Kofi Amissah, host of the program “Alpha and Omega Gospel” on “Volta Power FM.”  An article about the interview is long and covers most of the standard discussion regarding the view that homosexuality is sinful.  Rev. Martey does give a hint about today’s announcement when it is reported that the host asks about what he would do if he finds a member of the Presbyterian Church is gay or lesbian.  Martey is quoted as replying:

I will approach such a person and counsel him or her and offer my help
to make him or her change for the better to please God and feel
comfortable to live in society. But if such a person does not repent
after all such assistance, I will not hesitate to sack or give him the
marching orders from the Church because if such a person is allowed to
remain there, his immoral action could go a long way to affect other
members of the church.

Within the PCG the opposition to homosexuality has become a significant theme.  Other pastors are also preaching against it, including the Second Minister of a District and another District Pastor who told the Ghana News Agency that “homosexuality and lesbianism are against our culture, which the builds society” and “More importantly, it was against God’s rules as the bible clearly points out”.

But it is not just the PCG that is currently making statements. Almost a month ago on July 18th the Christian Council of Ghana, of which the PCG is a member, released a statement urging Ghanaians to vote against politicians who support LGTBQ rights.  The press conference to announce the stance was covered by Joy Online (story republished by Modern Ghana) and in an account published by Church Ministry Center and another by the Christian Post.  The Joy Online article begins “The Christian Council of Ghana has condemned in no uncertain terms the practice of homosexuality in Ghana.”  The article from Church Ministry Center is full of quotes including these from the Rev. Dr. Fred Deegbe, General Secretary of the Council:

“We call on all Christians to vote against politicians who promote and support homosexuality.”
…
“We Ghanaians and for that matter Africans cherish our rich and strong
values on issues such as homosexuality and we must not allow anyone or
group of people to impose what is acceptable in their culture on us in
the name of human rights.”
…
“[If] this detestable and abominable act is passed into law, the
passage of a law allowing the practice of homosexuality in the country
will bring the wrath of God upon the nation and the consequences will be
unbearable.”

The Rt. Rev. Martey was at the press conference and made similar statements, and the Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Church in Ghana, the Right Rev. Matthias Mededues-Badohu, received coverage for his remarks as part of an article in Changing Attitude.

This debate, brought to the forefront by statements by religious leaders, is one within the Ghanaian culture in general.  Just before the Christian Council statement there was a report that President Mills had made a comment to the press supporting the opposition to homosexuality but Ghana News Now reports that President Mills denies making those comments and demanded, and got, a retraction from the government owned Ghanaian Times. But last week President Mills encouraged the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Ghana to maintain “the moral sanctity of society” but apparently without mentioning homosexuality specifically. Others are weighing in against legalizing homosexual conduct, including an Imam in an op-ed piece in Ghana Web.  Finally, there is a long article from Daily Guide which provides a more balanced and comprehensive look at the issue as well as a bit of coverage from the Council announcement.

There is at least one prominent voice with a contrary opinion and a voice advocating for LGBTQ rights, Prof. F. T. Sai.  Prof. Sai is an expert on population and sexual-health studies, the former chair of the Ghana AIDS Commission, and an adviser to a former president of Ghana.  And in this piece from Ghana Web he takes on the statements made by Moderator Martey, with his response paraphrased like this:

If homosexuals are too filthy to meet the criterion of charitable
Christian acceptance, then wherein lies the authoritative designation of
the Church as an unreserved sanctuary for the bereft, deprived and
destitute? Of course, a confessing Christian may or may not accept the
lifestyle of the homosexually inclined, but does such acceptance or
rejection warrant any provocative name-calling on the part of those
fully convinced of their Christian moral self-righteousness?

Another article by VibeGhana.com provides a similar report, but Prof. Sai is not without his detractors and The Herald has a critical and negative op-ed piece about his position.

As you might expect there is a lot of negative reaction to these recent developments in Ghana, much of it coming from outside the country.  The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission has announced the Coalition Against Homophobia in Ghana. And while the blogosphere has been covering the issue for some time, such as Doug Ireland’s 2006 article “Ghana: Media Leads Anti-Gay Witch-Hunt,” new reaction comes from Behind the Mask, Str8talk, LGBT Asylum News, and South Florida Gay News. And three sites, African Activist, Youth and Human Rights Ghana, and gagelouis701 make a point of contrasting the PCG with its partner church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) which, at about the same time as the Council statement, made its ordination standards more flexible.  On the other side, Samuel Obour reports that the PCG “would decide later this year whether or not to continue relations with
churches which had decided to ordain homosexuals in any part of the
world.”

This is not an issue that will resolve itself quickly or easily, as many other Presbyterian branches know.  It is also important to realize that much of this increased rhetoric is aimed at having input and influence in the election process looking ahead to Presidential elections over a year from now. And it reminds us that in many parts of Africa the churches, and in this case the Presbyterian Church, is a major part of the country’s culture and politics. We shall have to wait and see where this goes.

Two PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions On Ordination Standards — A Plate Of Polity, Doctrine On The Side…

4 Replies

Today the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) released their decisions in two closely watched remedial cases.  One reason for the high-profile nature of the cases is the fact that they began their lives with G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” language, in the Book of Order, but as of last month that language has been removed and modified in the new G-2.0104b. Does the change in language make the cases moot?  The GAPJC said yes… and no.

If you want the summary and outcomes, here you go:

The case of Session of Caledonia Presbyterian Church and others v. Presbytery of John Knox deals with the examination for ordination of Mr. Scott Anderson.  The key quote in this decision is:

The Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Moot is granted, and the Stay of Enforcement is lifted. The only alleged irregularities set out in Appellants’ Notice of Appeal cite G-6.0106b and Authoritative Interpretations of that section as the basis of their Appeal. The language of that section was removed from the Book of Order prior to the GAPJC hearing of the Appeal. In granting this motion, this Commission declines to rule upon the application of a provision of the Book of Order that no longer exists. Nothing in this Decision should be construed to interpret the ordination standards under the new Form of Government, as that issue is not before the Commission.

The second case is that of Parnell and others v. Presbytery of San Francisco and results from the examination to ordain Ms. Lisa Larges.  This case was not dismissed but eight of the specifications of error were not sustained for the same reason the Anderson case was dismissed. Where this was different is that doctrine was cited as an irregularity.  The decision says:

The record does not reflect that the SPJC ruled on the Appellants’ contention that Scripture and the Confessions prohibit certain sexual behavior. While the Appellants’ complaint was based primarily on G-6.0106b, the Appellants clearly and consistently presented arguments at trial on the basis of scriptural and confessional standards without objection by the Presbytery. Since the doctrinal issue is central to the Appellants’ case, it was error for the SPJC not to expressly rule upon the issue.

The case is remanded back to the Synod of the Pacific PJC and the SPJC is “encouraged to direct the Presbytery to reexamine the candidate under G-2.0104b.”

OK, that’s the bottom line.  Now polity wonks, lets do some more reading.

Regarding the Caledonia v. John Knox decision what is striking to me is that while the decision itself is just the dismissal and relatively straight-forward, I did after all give you the complete Decision in the quote above, this is a longer decision.  Of the 15 commissioners on the GAPJC (there is one vacant position) eight signed on to one of the three concurring comments and five signed at least one of the dissenting comments. (One commissioner signed both dissenting comments.) So a lot of the commissioners wanted to say something and these additional comments essentially triple the length of the decision.

The concurring comments included commentary on how the General Assembly had issued a flawed Authoritative Interpretation, how the Commission could not consider broader issues than G-6.0106b because they were not raised in the appeal, how the Presbytery should have started over with Anderson under the new Book of Order language as suggested, and how some commissioners would have preferred to have affirmed the SPJC decision rather than dismiss the case.

The dissenting comments focus on how the SPJC decision is flawed because it did not address the doctrinal arguments (like the SPJC decision in the Larges case) and the flawed nature of the GA AI.

The catch of course is that while these statements were made in the decision, since the case was dismissed they do not raise to the standard of Interpretation.  However, the tension over the AI from the General Assembly that allowed scrupling of practice as well as belief has been substantial and that issue is reflected in the concurrence by Copeland, Kim, Cramer and Cornman says:

While we find the “Knox AI” to be flawed, we believe that the Presbytery acted in good faith when it based its decisions on its interpretation of that Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108 adopted by the 218th General Assembly (2008). G-13.0103r of the Form of Government in force at the time of the contested ordination examination states, “The most recent interpretation of a provision of the Book of Order shall be binding.” In this case this would be the Knox AI. The flaw of the Knox AI, however, is that it fails to recognize that any AI, regardless of who issues it, cannot modify a specific requirement of the Book of Order. An AI can interpret the Constitution but the only way to modify such an explicit requirement (G-6.0106b) is through the amendment process.

The decision in Parnell v. John Knox is more extensive, but eight of the eleven specifications of error are dismissed because “the constitutional provisions under which the Candidate was examined are no longer part of the Constitution.”  A ninth was dismissed because they found that the record did not sustain the claim that the presbytery itself departed from the Essential Tenants of the Reformed Faith by approving the candidate. There were two specifications of error regarding the SPJC not dealing with the doctrinal issues raised and only dealing with process. These are the errors that were sustained.  I have quoted the relevant portion of the decision above where the GAPJC points out that “the Appellants clearly and consistently presented arguments at trial on the basis of scriptural and confessional standards without objection by the Presbytery.”  The GAPJC decision is careful to also note that “In sustaining this specification of error, this Commission is not ruling on whether doctrinal error or abuse of discretion occurred, but only that it is not evident from the language of the decision whether or not the SPJC ruled upon this matter.”

There is a concurring opinion by one commissioner who expresses caution that review of ordaining bodies decisions should be done carefully:

The protocol for review by an appellate body needs, therefore, to be very prudently limited to those cases in which either an ordaining body or a Permanent Judicial Commission has very clearly erred or the process is so defective as to have deprived one of the parties of due process, such that there are extraordinary reasons for reversal. The duty of a reviewing body is to be discharged with caution and great deference.

He says that the only reason he can concur is because the recommendation is to have the presbytery do the examination again under the new standard.

There is also a dissent by three commissioners who feel there are no grounds to have the doctrine arguments reviewed by the SPJC: “For an appellate body to be empowered to micromanage the ordination process without there being extraordinary reasons would be ill-advised.”  They conclude their comments with the economic argument:

Both parties urged this Commission not to remand this case for further hearings as they recognized that to do so would not only cause significant and unnecessary expense to the church, but would also result in no difference in outcome. This Commission is charged with securing th
e “economical determination of proceedings.” We believe that sending the case back to the SPJC does not accomplish that charge.

A couple of things jump out to me in these decisions:

1) Previous GAPJC decisions regarding ordination standards seem to have been crafted so that members of the GAPJC were unanimous, or nearly so, in the decision. The decisions give the appearance that this was done by focusing on the process.  The variety of voices heard in these decisions, particularly the Caledonia v. John Knox, strikes me as a shift in tone and there is no longer an emphasis on high-consensus decisions.  It may be the change in circumstances with the passage of 10-A.  It might have to do with the fact that these cases have reached a level of maturity that all the procedural issues have been beaten out of them and they are now down to the core doctrinal issues.  Or it may be that the church as a whole has reached a point where we need to start taking these issues seriously.  I don’t know if others agree but looking over these decisions I sense a change in tone from previous ones.

2) Related to that, these decisions appear to me to be sending a message that the GAPJC  is ready to start dealing with those issues, maybe even wanting to based on some of the writing.  The feeling is not unanimous, as a couple of the minority comments argue for leaving those issues to the presbyteries.  But one concurring decision in the Caledonia v. John Knox case says:

Additionally, the Appellants, while arguing on appeal a scriptural basis for overturning the Presbytery’s action, failed to include such arguments in either their original complaint or the specification of errors. These omissions meant that this Commission was unable to address issues broader than the application of G-6.0106b in its Decision.

They almost seem to be lamenting the fact that they wanted to deal with this but could not work on that problem because of the structure of the appeal.

Now, there is an opinion that differs from mine regarding this, but as I read these decisions it seems to me that the GAPJC is saying it might be time to examine the doctrine at the highest level.  The caveat they place is that it needs to be done decently and in order by properly arguing it at the court of first impressions and by properly appealing it in the brief.

So the bottom line – In Mr. Anderson’s case the process has concluded.  The stay of enforcement is lifted and he is cleared to be ordained.  As for Ms. Larges, the process continues.  There will be another trial before the SPJC on the doctrinal issues, there will probably be another examination for ordination before the presbytery based on the new Book of Order language, and I would suspect another appeal to the GAPJC following the new SPJC hearing.  While this extends a very long journey even further, the apparent benefit to many of us in this upcoming cycle will the the opportunity to actually have the GAPJC rule on the doctrine and not just the process.  Stay tuned…

[Update: Note the comment below by the Rev Mary Holder Naegeli who was in the midst of this case. 1) The remand does not necessarily mean a reopening of the trial, 2) doctrine was discussed by the PJC in the proceedings but not in the decision, 3) The GAPJC consensus seemed to be that they would not accept the case for review another time.  Thanks Mary.]

New Ordination Standards Language In The PC(USA) And The Discussion Of Standards

2 Replies

As the polity wonks in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are well aware we have to be studying up on the changes to the Book of Order that go into effect this weekend.  The biggest change is the addition of a new section, Foundations of Presbyterian Polity, and the rewrite of the Form of Government, but there are a few other amendments that changed language elsewhere in the constitution. While the paper copy is still at the printer and the electronic copies are in preparation, especially the annotated version, we do have the vast majority of the new Form of Government from the amendment booklet.

However, there are about 20 locations where other specific amendments have made changes to the Book of Order, and seven of these are in the FOG.

Of these changes the only one to have any substantial opposition in the presbyteries is the new wording of G-2.0104b, the standards for ordination. This is the new number and wording for what was previously numbered G-6.0106b and we will have to learn to have the new number roll off our tongue as the old one did.

Some may say that this debate is over and we can move on to other things so there is no need to get used to the numbering of that section.  I think the evidence is that in the short- to intermediate-term there will still be substantial discussion about what it actually means so I at least am getting used to it.

For some this weekend is an occasion for celebration and More Light Presbyterians have released a suggested opening liturgy for this coming Lord’s Day that begins

Common Beginning of Worship and of Church Life
July 10, 2011

Procession
(run free with banners, scarves, ribbons, streamers, etc)

I have not seen a liturgy for those who favored the previous ordination standards language, but I suspect that if there is one it is a bit less exuberant.

The reason that I don’t think the Book of Order citation number will soon disappear from our vocabulary is that there is now a substantial amount of discussion about how to live into the new verbiage.

For example, More Light Presbyterians have issued a guide with their recommendations about moving forward with the new language titled Ordination Guide: So That G-2.0104 Shall Be a
Blessing for our Church and World. On the introductory web page they say:

Fair, accurate interpretation and implementation of 10-A, now known
as G-2.0104 is our top priority. We have created Ordination Guides from
an affirming perspective and we have sent them to staff in all 173
presbyteries…

We need to get this
affirming Guide in the hands, hearts, minds and actions of every
Presbyterian congregation, every Committee on Preparation for Ministry
and every Committee on Ministry. We believe that G-2.0104 can be a
blessing for our Church and world. For 10-A to make the difference it
can make, we need to make sure that it is understood, honored and
followed by every church and presbytery. We know this is a tall order:
11,000 churches in 173 presbyteries. All of us doing our part can make
this happen. Together we are building a Church that reflects God’s
heart.

The guide is not very extensive and addresses all the primary audiences briefly. It frequently says something similar to this passage that is part of the advice to seminaries:

For polity professors and administrators handling placement, help your seminarians study the exact wording of G-2.0104. Help them become as familiar as possible with the theological contours of their own presbyteries, other potential presbyteries where they might come under care and the presbyteries where they might seek a call. Prepare them to be ready to ground their responses to questions from Committees on Preparation or [sic] Ministry and from Pastor Nominating Committees in Scripture, the confessions and the constitutional questions.

Depending on your perspective, this advice could be seen a either practical advice about discerning and living into their call or as “teaching the test” and making sure the candidate knows the right thing to say when the time comes to improve their chances in a presbytery with some differences of opinion.

From the opposite perspective there is an equally interesting document now posted.  With the change in the ordination standards language the PC(USA) has removed their “mandatory church wide behavioral ordination standard.” Now that the mandatory standard has been removed, what will become of judicial cases that are in the pipeline?

The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission is scheduled to hear two of those cases three weeks from today on July 29th. In an effort to argue that their case is still relevant even with the new language, Parnell and others have submitted a Supplemental Brief in their case against the Presbytery of San Francisco. (And thanks to the Presbyterian Coalition for making it available on their web site.) The brief begins with this:

The question is posed whether this case is still at issue, given the recent ratification of Amendment 10-A, and if so, whether any of the specifications of error are mooted by that revision to Book of Order section G-6.0106b. The basis of Appellants’ case from the beginning has been the clear and univocal mandate of Scripture. Scripture has not changed, so the case is not moot.

The suggestion of mootness implies that when 10-A deleted fidelity/chastity from the text of G-6.0106, something new was achieved, either a new standard or a new procedure. Neither is the case. Changing the sexual ethic standard requires changing Scripture, while the procedures described in 10-A merely restate current ordination process (G-14.0452 and G-14.0480). Since 10-A presents nothing new, the case is not moot.

I applaud the writers of this brief for taking on the issue as it now stands and not under the previous language.  In response to a motion by the Presbytery they argue:

The Presbytery has suggested that this case should be decided with reference solely to the former language of G-6.0106b and without regard to the subsequently certified Amendment 10-A, that is, by applying only the text that appeared at the time. If a new rule had superseded an old one because it contradicts the former, this suggestion would be debatable. But this is not the situation before us. Simply, 10-A is neither a new rule nor a new procedure. Thus, nothing is gained by this Commission excluding 10-A from its consideration. In any case, there is no authority that mandates that a matter must be decided using only the rule that existed at the time.

With appreciation for their efforts and respect for their argument, it is my opinion that this effort will not be successful.  While the GAPJC regularly decides cases regarding procedures and interpretation of the Book of Order, with the removal of the mandatory standard I am not seeing a lot that the GAPJC would feel obliged to weigh in on.  GAPJC decisions seldom address doctrinal questions that have been interpreted on the presbytery level generally showing deference to the presbytery’s decision. They have been clear in the past that beyond the mandatory standard the presbytery is the body to decide fitness for ordination as a teaching elder.  It will be interesting to see how the GAPJC addresses the argument that scripture and the confessions still provide a mandatory standard and that nothing has changed.

Speaking of standards, I want to finish up with some thoughts about the definition and application of standards for ordination in the PC(USA) today.

First, the Bush v. Pittsburgh decision (218-10) set the bar for what presbyteries can do, or more generally can not do, in the way of standards and ordination examinations.  Some of the more relevant sections:

3. Statements of “Essentials of Reformed Faith and Polity”: 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; and are themselves an obstruction to constitutional governance in violation of G-6.0108a. [Headnotes, p. 1]

The constitutional process for amending ordination standards (or any other provision of the Constitution) is defined in Chapter 18 of the Form of Government. 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. [p. 5]

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. These standards are binding on and must be followed by all governing bodies, church officers and candidates for church office. Adopting statements about mandatory provisions of the Book of Order for ordination and installation of officers falsely implies that other governing bodies might not be similarly bound; that is, that they might choose to restate or interpret the provisions differently, fail to adopt such statements, or possess some flexibility with respect to such provisions. 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. [p. 6]

The Presbytery’s resolution would define the “essentials” of Reformed faith and polity by restating the Presbytery’s intention to enforce mandatory provisions of the Book of Order, when it has no authority to do otherwise. At the same time, declaring “essentials” outside of the context of the examination of a candidate for ordained office is inappropriate. As was stated in the 1927 Report of the Special Commission of 1925 (Swearingen Commission Report) Presbyterian Church in the United States of Am
erica Minutes, 1927, pp. 78-79:

One fact often overlooked is that by the act of 1729, the decision as to essential and necessary articles was to be in specific cases. It was no general authority that might be stated in exact language and applied rigidly to every case without distinction. It was an authority somewhat undefined, to be invoked in each particular instance. . . . It was clearly the intention that this decision as to essential and necessary articles was to be made after the candidate had been presented and had declared his [or her] beliefs and stated his [or her] motives personally, and after the examining body…had full opportunity to judge the man himself [or woman herself] as well as abstract questions of doctrine.

[ p. 6 ]

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. [p. 7]

There is a lot there, but let me boil it down to the probably over-simplistic summary that “ordaining and installing bodies must examine candidates individually and can not set blanket standards for those candidates.” (And any polity wonk has to appreciate a decision that works in the report of the 1925 Special Commission which in turn refers to the Adopting Act of 1729. Sorry, its a polity wonk thing.)

So, if a presbytery has an issue of conscience regarding ordination standards and wants to be on record with a particular theological stance but can not officially declare standards what might be some options?  A few that I see:

1) Prominently maintain the status quo.  If you have that stance, under the Bush decision you can not declare it as a standard. But if your stance is clearly stated and advertised then candidates not in agreement are more than likely to find a more obliging presbytery.

2) Declare your standards anyway. While it might not be in agreement with the Bush decision, a presbytery could try this and wait and see if anybody complains, particularly in a judicial sense by filing a remedial case.  At the present time there is a lot of talk of mutual forbearance and not making further waves so a presbytery might be allowed to continue with this approach for a while.

3) Set it as a requirement for membership. The Bush decision has a suggestive footnote — “2. Governing bodies may impose other requirements on church officers, after ordination and installation, such as requirements to abide by ethics or sexual misconduct policies.” So what if these requirements were set outside of the examination process? What if fidelity and chastity were part of a presbytery’s ethics and sexual misconduct policies?

4) Sub-presbyteries. While flexible presbyteries are not a reality at the present time, what if we were to administer this on a smaller scale?  What if a presbytery were to become more of a “super-presbytery” with two administrative sub-groups?  Clearly certain constitutionally required functions, such as the moderator and the clerk, could not be sub-divided, but I think that the new Form of Government might just provide enough flexibility for some creative polity to make this happen.

There is another possibility that while not presently sanctioned by the PC(USA) does have a model in the new changes to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church‘s constitution that just became effective with the conclusion of their General Assembly last month.  In their case they needed a system to allow for differing understandings of ordination standards regarding women so they have modified their system to permit what I call “fuzzy presbytery boundaries.” It is set up so that a church with one stance that finds itself in a presbytery with the opposite stance can move to an adjoining presbytery that has a stance agreeable to them. This preserves a geographic component to presbytery membership as well as a respect for theological affinity.  It is not a fully flexible presbytery but an alignment based on both geography and ordination standards.

How the new language is implemented by each ordaining body is an issue that is just starting to develop and it will be interesting to see how this develops and what creative solutions may arise. Or maybe we will find out that creative solutions are not necessary but that the new language provides the flexibility for each presbytery to examine candidates regarding their own understanding of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the candidates gifts and talents. Stay tuned as this has a long way to go.

31st General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church

5 Replies

Coming up this Wednesday, June 22, the 31st General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church will convene in Cordova, Tennessee.  Here is the rundown of what I know about the meeting…

The GA will meet from June 22 to 25 at Hope Presbyterian Church in Cordova, on the eastern edge of the Memphis metropolitan area. The theme for the meeting is “Transformation,” taken from II Cor. 3:18.

The materials for the meeting can be found on the EPC GA web page, including the Overview of the Assembly Schedule (and an earlier version), the Workshop Schedule, and the Children and Youth Program Schedule.

Business reports for the Assembly can also be found on the GA web page, at the bottom. In the group of reports most are from permanent committees but there are two from Interim Committees, one on Constitutional Revisions and another on Presbytery Boundaries.  More on both of those in a moment.

And if you are looking for background material you can check out the Book of Order and the EPC Position Papers.

There is also a preview of GA in the latest edition of the EPC’s official online newsletter EPnews. That would also be the place to look for official updates, and maybe on the Press Release page. (And my thanks to the communication staff for the email copy of the press release they sent me.) In addition, Hope Presbyterian Church has their own GA web page with a welcome and links to information about the facility and the warning that it is easy to get turned around or get confused where you parked your car.

There is a preliminary Twitter presence with the EPC’s official Twitter feed @EPChurch and the hashtag is #31ga (and not #epcga). In addition, the Director of Communications and IS will let the Assembly know on Thursday which presbytery has the most tweeting churches.

As I mentioned above, the theme of the Assembly is Transformation and the highlight of the first day on Wednesday will be a workshop titled “Transformational Church… A Day With Ed Stetzer.” (He can be found on twitter at @edstetzer.) He is the Vice-president of Research and Ministry Development at LifeWay Christian Resources, an agency of the Southern Baptist Convention. The workshop appears to be based on his latest book, Transformational Church, and he is a noted author and speaker on missional thinking. This fits in with the EPC’s recent Missional Church Primer.

Moving on to business, let me highlight the two Interim Committee reports since they are a good reflection of where this Presbyterian branch finds itself at the present time.

The Interim Committee on Constitutional Revisions is in the process of doing what some other Presbyterian branches are doing right now — revising their constitutional documents.  The committee has been working hard since they were created by the 29th General Assembly and their report indicates that their goal is to complete a new Book of Government section by early September and distribute it for internal review.  They then plan to have the final revision completed for the 32nd GA next year. For the benefit of those of us who might not remember their guiding principles they have included them again in this year’s report:

1. “No bloating”: we will continually ask, “Does this belong in the Constitution or should it go elsewhere in a supporting document?”

2. Language and stylistic elements are to be governed by the “KISS” principle: seek straightforward language as much as possible for clarity, readability.

3. Standardize nomenclature: identify significant titles, terms uniformly and avoid synonymous descriptions.

4. Keep in mind, Jesus’ commands are not burdensome: maintain a clear delineation between the authority delegated to each level of our governance and the responsibilities incumbent upon officers, members as part of Christ’s Body.

5. Allow the Westminster Confession of Faith and its fundamental principles to guide our work.

6. Recognize and preserve those rights reserved in perpetuity by our standards.

7. Scripture is our law; the Westminster Confession is our interpretation of Scripture; the Book of Order is our application of both.

For this year they provide only a progress report with no items for action by the Assembly.

The second Interim Committee is on Presbytery Boundaries. This committee was created last year by the 30th Assembly and their report does a good job summarizing the dynamics of the EPC at the present time and the need for their work:

• Identifying immediate boundary issues, particularly those arising from progressive dynamics within existing presbyteries.

• Assessing the impact of a large number of churches having joined the EPC in the last 12-18 months and anticipating the impact of a large number of congregations joining in the coming 12-24 months. This assessment and anticipation also included the dynamics resulting from the expiration of the transitional presbyteries at the conclusion of the 32nd General Assembly in one year.

• Communicating proposed and potential boundary changes to those congregations
affected and incorporating responses into present and possible recommendations
to the General Assembly.

• Reviewing and revising the criteria for a viable presbytery.

This is a very nice succinct summary of the situation, but at the risk of being repetitive for some readers and using two words when one will do, let me unpack a couple of these statements and the “presby speak” in them.

In the first bullet point
about identifying boundary issues they are particularly concerned about issues around “progressive dynamics” within presbyteries — Remember that the ordination of women is decided by the ordaining body and with the substantial changes within some presbyteries due to forces listed in the next bullet point there are some developing differences over this issue.  The question is whether differences in scriptural understanding can be remedied by adjusting boundaries to aggregate like-minded presbyters and churches.  [Any application of this approach to one or more mainline branches and their new latitude in ordination standards is left as an exercise for the reader.]

Speaking of these changes, the second point about assessing the impact addresses this issue.  This is not about ordination standards but about sheer numbers of churches. There are many churches “in process” now.  If you look at the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery report you find their tabulation of these numbers:

• 29 congregations and their pastors who are in the NWEPC Transitional Presbytery. The Joint Commission is working with these congregations and pastors to assist them in being received into a EPC Geographic Presbytery prior to the 32nd GA.
• 8 congregations and their pastors who have “become one” with their geographical EPC Presbytery while still maintaining relationship with the Transitional Presbytery.
• 8 congregations and their pastors have “become one’ with their geographical EPC Presbytery and no longer have any relationship with the TP.

For perspective, the EPC About Us page describes the church as having “about 300 churches” so this transitioning group represents almost 15% of the congregations.  And note that this does not include any potential future influx resulting from recent changes in other Presbyterian branches.

Quite a task — I wish them well.  They are proposing two new presbyteries be authorized at this Assembly meeting:  Allegheny Presbytery would be formed from churches in western New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, eastern Ohio and a good chunk of West Virginia, the churches coming from three present presbyteries.  Pacific Presbytery would be created by dividing out the Pacific Coast states and part of Idaho from the Presbytery of the West.

It is worth noting that the report of the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery shows no sign of asking for a continuation of their group but lays out the steps they are taking to fold churches into the geographic presbyteries before, or upon, the presbytery’s dissolution next year.  In addition, they recommend changes to the Book of Order that would facilitate a transitional status for congregations and teaching elders into geographic presbyteries when extenuating circumstances would favor a transitional status of up to 12 months.

Let’s see — revising the Government section, questions about the form and size of presbyteries, implications of ordination standards, what does it mean to be missional?  Some of this sounds familiar and not just regarding one particular mainline branch in the Americas but for some non-mainline branches and for other branches around the globe as well. I venture to say that there is a great deal of theme and variation on these issues circulating at the moment.  So as the EPC approaches these topics I look forward to hearing how they work out their approach to them.  Prayers for their meeting and I will be watching to see how they discern God’s will together.

The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland Chooses Their Trajectory

2 Replies

Yesterday, in a session on a single report that lasted all day, the 2011 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland chose the trajectory it would take regarding the service of partnered homosexuals in the ministry.  If all you want is the bottom line…

Executive Summary
By a vote of 351 to 294 the General Assembly chose to:

Resolve to consider further the lifting of the moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship, and to that end instruct the Theological Commission to prepare a report for the General Assembly of 2013…

In addition, the Assembly lifted the moratorium on “induction into pastoral charges of ministers and deacons ordained before May 2009 who are in a same-sex relationship.”

So it is a resolution to keep on discussing it with an eye in a particular direction.  The prohibition on ordinations has not been lifted yet, but the Assembly has chosen to point the church in the direction of permitting them in the future.  While the action today is not subject to the Barrier Act it is anticipated, but not yet decided, that the final action would be.

For those who are very familiar with the Deliverance, it is my understanding (I did not hear the morning session) that every point passed as written (no amendments approved) with the Assembly choosing option 7b over 7a.

The Rest Of The Story…
First I want to comment on the nature of the discussion itself.  All who followed it on Twitter, myself included, gave very high marks to the Moderator, the Rt. Rev. David Arnott, and the Convener of the Special Commission on Same-sex Relationships and the Ministry, Lord Hodge. Even though the debate was serious, and at times intense, the Moderator, Clerk and several of the commissioners helped control the tension with a nice amount of dry humor and quick wit.  The debate itself was courteous and respectful and I did not catch any personal attacks or snide remarks.  As for the content, having been through many of these debates before nothing jumped out at me as being a new argument for or against with all the usual scriptural and cultural appeals being made by both sides.  None-the-less, at least one commissioner commented that he had his mind changed by the debate, but as to which specific point or item he did not say.  It was an interesting morning (in my time zone) of listening and the debate usually moved along well and seldom got bogged down in polity or semantics.

I will point out that in the time I was listening, by my count not a single amendment was agreed to by the Assembly.  Similarly, the Convener declined to accept any amendment on behalf of the Special Commission. He regularly expressed the view that the Commission had worked hard at crafting a Deliverance that reflected the work of the group and wanted to honor that work.

Walking through the Deliverance, found at the beginning of the Commission’s report, the Assembly worked through the first two items before lunch.  They accepted the report (23/1), agreed to the necessity for pastoral care and that orientation is not in itself a barrier to holding office (23/2), and affirmed the unlawfulness of discrimination within the church and within the bounds of church law (23/3).

After lunch there was a spirited debate about part 23/4 which would “allow the induction into pastoral charges of ministers and deacons ordained before May 2009 who are in a same-sex relationship.”  In case you did not pick up on the magic date of May 2009, that was the Assembly at which the Special Commission was created. While there were suggested amendments the item passed as written 393 to 252.

Item 23/5, to continue the silent period for public discussion on this issue was agreed to, as was item 23/6 to create a Theological Commission to carry this work forward.

And then the core issue was reached…

The Commission brought to the Assembly a choice between two options.  The first, 23/7a began:

Resolve to consider further the implementation of an indefinite moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship thus maintaining the traditional position of the Church…

The alternate, 23/7b opened with:

Resolve to consider further the lifting of the moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship, and to that end instruct the Theological Commission to prepare a report for the General Assembly of 2013…

Another alternative, a “third way,” was moved by a former moderator, the Very Rev. Dr. Finlay Macdonald, it proposed that the Kirk was not ready to limit their choices and presented instructions to the newly formed Theological Commission to help the church continue the discussion.  Specifically it opened with “instruct the Theological Commission to continue the process of
discernment initiated by the Report received by the General Assembly of
2007…”  While respectfully received and favored by many, after discussion it was defeated by one of the closest votes of the day, 303 to 347.

The Assembly then debated the two original alternatives, another amendment to 7a was defeated, and a final vote was taken on the item with the commissioners favoring 7b, to move towards lifting the moratorium, by a vote of 294 for A and 351 for B.

The remaining two items, 23/8 to continue the moratorium on actions related to this issue and 23/9 to dismiss the Commission with thanks, were passed quickly.  The Assembly then thanked Lord Hodge for his leadership with generous words from the Moderator and a standing ovation. And with that the consideration of the report, which began at 11 AM local time concluded a bit after 6 PM (with a break for lunch).

So, with the moratoriums on speaking and action on these issues still in place, for the moment nothing has changed in the Church of Scotland.  However, with the creation of the Theological Commission and the agreed direction of their deliberations the Kirk has set a direction for the future that everyone expects will result in the lifting of the restriction on same-sex partnered individuals being ordained to office.  For completeness, here is the full text of 24/7b which was approved:

7(b) Resolve to consider further the lifting of the moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship, and to that end instruct the Theological Commission to prepare a report for the General Assembly of 2013 containing:

(i) a theological discussion of issues around same-sex relationships, civil partnerships and marriage;

(ii) an examination of whether, if the Church were to allow its ministers freedom of conscience in deciding whether to bless same-sex relationships involving life-long commitments, the recognition of such lifelong relationships should take the form of a blessing of a civil partnership or should involve a liturgy to recognise and celebrate commitments which the parties enter into in a Church service in addition to the civil partnership, and if so to recommend liturgy therefor;

(iii) an examination of whether persons, who have entered into a civil partnership and have made lifelong commitments in a Church ceremony, should be eligible for admission for training, ordination and induction as ministers of Word and Sacrament or deacons in the context that no member of Presbytery will be required to take part in such ordination or induction against his or her conscience; and to report to the General Assembly of 2013.

I want to wrap up here with two more items.  The first are links to several other blogs that discuss this change and give observations: Chris Hoskins, Stewart Cutler, Bryan Kerr, Stafford Carson, and Rev Shuna.

Second, I can’t leave this topic without looking at the numbers.  In the three votes I mention above the prevailing side in the vote had 60.9% of the votes on 23/4, 53.4% on the alternative amendment, and 54.4% on the selection of 7b.  For comparison, in my earlier post about the Commission report and the consultation they had with presbyteries and kirk session, they found that 48.9% of the responding presbytery members did not favor the church permitting partnered homosexuals in ordained positions while 41.4% did favor ordination.  The differences could be attributed to the fact one was a consultation and the other an actual vote.  There could also be differences in the populations sampled and as we see in other denominations the representatives to the national meeting being more progressive than the local members.  The differences could also be easily explained by the fact that the responses were to different questions.  Or, since this was only setting a direction and not making a final decision there may be an openness to continuing the discussion in this direction without the need to commit at this point.

In conclusion, it is worth pointing out the global community that was online for this session.  The Kirk streamed 1.7TB of data yesterday and those commenting on Twitter came from many corners of the world and stayed up late or got up early to follow the proceedings.  From my perspective it was a great social media community and a demonstration of how social media has enhanced Global Presbyterianism.  Thanks to all of you who were tweeting for the stimulating interaction.  But, this interest also demonstrated the “lightning rod” issue that I have talked about — This morning @generalassembly tweeted “We seem to be missing some several thousand viewers since yesterday. If you see them, please tell them we’re here all week!”  For those of you who could not join us, you missed another interesting day and some good discussion in the Assembly and on Twitter about youth and the church.  I’ll comment more on that at another time.

So, the Church of Scotland has more work to do, both in this Assembly and with their new Theological Commission to report back in 2013.  Stay tuned…

A Couple Of Changes In The PC(USA)

2 Replies

In the last few hours in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) there have been indications of a couple of interesting changes which I think are telling of the direction of the denomination.

Yes, the first one is the unofficial passage of Amendment 10-A — as of this evening the gahelp web site lists the vote as 88-68.  The official vote tally will require a bit of additional time for the current voting to be reported and recorded. From the buzz on the internet, especially Twitter, we know that today the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area became the 87th presbytery to approve the Amendment giving it the majority for approval, followed by Pacific Presbytery. The vote is not over, because this is about the discussion as much as the outcome, but unofficially it appears that its passage is assured.  It will be effective on July 10, 2011.

While that is a change, we must remind ourselves exactly what the change is.  What amendment 10-A does is remove a specific categorical restriction to the ordination standards by replacing the “fidelity and chastity” standards section with new language that calls on officers to “to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life” and for ordaining bodies to examine them on the Scriptural and confessional requirements.  But we must also remember that 10-A does not require a new inclusive standard when it comes to self-affirming practicing homosexuals.  The patch-work of interpretation I have heard over the last few days does regularly affirm the renewed importance of the ordaining body in the examination and the expected issues that will arise as different ordaining bodies reach differing conclusions from their examinations.  In short, the PC(USA) has allowed, but not mandated, the ordination of same-sex partnered individuals and passed the control to the lower governing bodies.

The second happening this evening I think is equally telling and that happening is the power of social media and the open source church.  Consider this – the Office of the General Assembly issued a news item, letter and Advisory Opinion, and some video messages within minutes of the announcement of the results of the vote in the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area.  In my experience, for the denomination to act this quickly or before official confirmation is unheard of.  Got to give them credit for 1) being prepared and 2) taking the social media crowd seriously.

Speaking of social media, at the height of the presbytery meetings this evening I was getting tweets with the #pcusa hashtag at the rate of about one per second.  While we were not trending, several people reported the “fail whale” (The Twitter screen for heavy system use) and so we may have been contributing to the server overload.

It was also interesting to note that the OGA was not the only ones ready.  Within an hour or two several groups had statements up including the Covenant Network, Presbyterian Outlook, Presbyterians for Renewal and More Light Presbyterians.

The point here is that the rapid response to this news shows how the denomination’s landscape has changed regarding social media and instantaneous communication.  Organizations were on-line watching and responded very quickly to the news with either new material or were ready with prepared remarks.

Finally, several mainstream news organizations were ready with stories but I think the first one out was from the Associated Press and writer Rachel Zoll is to be commended for a good article that gets our Presbyterian polity correct.  I’m sure we will see some good examples of the opposite tomorrow.

Well, I have lots more to say but it is late so no more tonight.  Over the next few days I’ll try to find time to crunch numbers and consider some more of how we got here.  But the heavy use and response on social media was to me just as interesting as the voting result itself and just as telling about what is happening in certain corners of the PC(USA).

PC(USA) Polity Implications Of Amendment 10-A Passage

7 Replies

Since the voting in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) on Amendment 10-A swung towards the affirmative I have had a number of people asking me, in one way or another, “So what will it mean?”  Well let me tackle that question with what I understand to be the knowns and the unknowns of the polity implications.

And as the voting gets down to just a few more votes required for approval there appears to be enough of this uncertainty circulating that the Office of the General Assembly has issued a Frequently Asked Questions paper.  The interesting thing is that I have not found it on the OGA web site yet, but it is being posted by presbyteries.

Now, this will become very polity wonkish very fast so if all you want is my opinion, and that is all that this discussion is, I do think that the new wording of the section we currently know as G-6.0106b shifts the responsibility back to the presbyteries and in doing so opens up the denomination for more local interpretation of ordination standards.  I also think that the moment there is more local interpretation there will follow the need for new GA Authoritative Interpretation, whether it comes from the Assembly or the Permanent Judicial Commission.

Let me first set out my presumptions that are going into the discussion leading to this conclusion:  1) Amendment 10-A becomes part of the Book of Order replacing the current G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” section. 2) The New Form of Government passes (currently leading 69-59 in the official tally and 72-65 on an unofficial one. 3) The Belhar Confession is not affirmed by 2/3 of the presbyteries. 4) The Authoritative Interpretation associated with the Report of the Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity is still in affect. 5) That procedural aspects of GAPJC decisions related to the PUP AI are still in place. 6) That other GAPJC decisions regarding (i) ordination standards (with the one exception noted below) and (ii) marriage are still valid.

The best place to begin is probably with the wording of the proposed G-6.0106b:

Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003).  Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”

First, some clean-up – Since the New Form of Government is being used for this exercise this is no longer G-6.0106b but is now G-2.0104b.  The reference to G-1.000 is now a little tricky since it refers to a whole chapter which exists in a new form.  The reference could be pointed to the beginning of the material that is in the old form which would now be at F-1.0200.  In general the wording has not changed but the change in position means the “Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life” has been pushed down in priority and the missional nature of the Church now gets top billing. 

Section G-14.0240 is now G-2.0402 and for this analysis appears to contain identical material regarding the examination for ordered ministry as a ruling elder or deacon.  The reference to G-14.0450 is regarding the final assessment for teaching elder and has been substantially reduced to remove the procedural items. However, I don’t see that these changes resulting in the new section G-2.0607 have substantial consequences relative to this amendment.  And the reference to the directory for worship (W-4.4003) remains the same.

Let me make just a couple of brief observations about the actual wording of the amendment.  The first is that it does explicitly make reference to installation, as well as ordination, of officers.  The second point is the inclusion of the phrase “shall examine.”  The old language was about the standards and the examination was left to other parts of the Book of Order, but always with the “shall” condition. Having said that, this adds a bit of required territory to the examination.  For ruling elders and deacons the Book of Order says in G-2.0402

…the session shall examine them as to their personal faith; knowledge of the doctrine, government, and discipline contained in the Constitution of the church; and the duties of the ministry.

And this section now adds

…shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and
suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall
include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s
ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the
constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003).

(Anybody want to submit an overture either consolidating this or adding the cross-reference to G-2.0402?)

The final point I want to make here is what I see as the awkwardness of the final sentence relative to our ordination language.  The new language says “Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions…” while the ordination questions in W-4.4003 uses slightly different language:

d. Will you fulfill your office in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and be continually guided by our confessions?

These may or may not be at odds with each other, but it will clearly be a point of discussion for some polity wonks.

The stated objective of this change, as expressed by the advice from the Assembly Committee on the Constitution is:

This overture seeks to restore the ordination practice and principles
affirmed in the Adopting Act of 1729, the paradigm through which the
tension between the differing points of view and the unity of the church
have been maintained through much of our denomination’s history.

And what is the Adopting Act of 1729?  This was an agreement by the members of the Synod of Philadelphia (at the time the highest governing body) about ordained officers agreeing to the Westminster Standards or being examined on their departures.  The preliminary notes to the Act include this:

And we do also agree, that all the Presbyteries within our bounds shall
always take care not to admit any candidate of the ministry into the exercise
of the sacred function, but what declares his agreement in opinion with
all the essential and necessary articles of said Confession, either by
subscribing the said Confession of Faith and Catechisms, or by a verbal
declaration of their assent thereto, as such Minister or candidate for
the Ministry shall think best. And in case any Minister of this Synod,
or any candidate for the ministry, shall have any scruple with respect
to any article or articles of said Confession or Catechisms, he shall
at the time of his making said declaration declare his sentiments to the
Presbytery or Synod, who shall, notwithstanding, admit him to the exercise
of the ministry within our bounds and to ministerial communion if the
Synod or Presbytery shall judge his scruple or mistake to be only about
articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship or government.
But if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge such Ministers or candidates
erroneous in essential and necessary articles of faith, the Synod or Presbytery
shall declare them uncapable of Communion with them.

Having that as a historical basis the 217th General Assembly adopted an Authoritative Interpretation recommended by the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity which said:

a. The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government of the Book of Order set forth the scriptural and constitutional standards for ordination and installation.

b.
These standards are determined by the whole church, after the careful
study of Scripture and theology, solely by the constitutional process of
approval by the General Assembly with the approval of the presbyteries.
These standards may be interpreted by the General Assembly and its
Permanent Judicial Commission.

c.
Ordaining and installing bodies, acting as corporate expressions of the
church, have the responsibility to determine their membership by
applying these standards to those elected to office. These
determinations include:

(1)
Whether a candidate being examined for ordination and/or installation
as elder, deacon, or minister of Word and Sacrament has departed from
scriptural and constitutional standards for fitness for office,
(2) Whether any departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108 of the Book of Order, thus barring the candidate from ordination and/or installation.

Whether
the examination and ordination and installation
decision comply with the constitution of the PCUSA, and whether the
ordaining/installing body has conducted its examination reasonably,
responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately in deciding to ordain a
candidate for church office is subject to review by higher governing
bodies.

e. All parties
should endeavor to outdo one another in honoring one another’s
decisions, according the presumption of wisdom to ordaining/installing
bodies in examining candidates and to the General Assembly, with
presbyteries’ approval, in setting standards.

At the present time this AI is still in effect, with certain modifications as noted below.

As presbyteries began working through this some of their procedures were challenged and several resulting remedial cases were summarized in the Bush v. Pittsburgh decision.  While this decision gave us several polity points, there are four relevant points, only the first of which will be nullified by the passage of 10-A.

  1. Candidates and examining bodies must follow G-6.0108 in reaching determinations as to whether the candidates for ordination and/or installation have departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity. Such determinations do not rest on distinguishing “belief” and “behavior,” and do not permit departure from the “fidelity and chastity” requirement found in G-6.0106b.
  2. The freedom of conscience granted in G-6.0108 allows candidates to express disagreement
    with the wording or meaning of provisions of the constitution, but does not permit disobedience to those behavioral standards. (quoted from the SJPC decision)
  3. Ordaining and installing bodies must examine candidates for ordination and/or installation individually.
  4. 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; and are themselves an obstruction to constitutional governance in violation of G-6.0108a.

With the modification of G-6.0106b the part of the Bush decision which says “The church has decided to single out this particular manner of life standard and require church wide conformity to it for all ordained church officers” will be out of date and irrelevant.

Regarding point 2 above, this has been a point of, shall we say “discussion,” between GA entities as  the 218th GA affirmed, in response to the Bush decision, that a departure can be in belief or practice.  And clearly point 3 from Bush is still applicable, as evidenced by the fact that the OGA FAQ makes repeated reference to needing to do examinations on a case-by-case basis.

There are several other relevant decisions on which the GAPJC mostly delivered procedural decisions that clarified that the examination regarding a declared exception must come at the same time as the final examination for ordination.  It would seem that this provision must still hold if a candidate sees a need to declare a departure in a particular presbytery.

Finally, it is interesting to note that the Sallade v. Genesee Valley decision may still be relevant.  This decision pre-dates the Book of Order “fidelity and chastity” language and was argued on the basis of the Interpretations of 1978 and 1979.  While the “fidelity and chastity” language appears to be gone, and the General Assembly has eliminated the earlier Interpretations, for a presbytery that finds that an active same-sex lifestyle does not reflect “…the desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life,” the GAPJC’s finding may still be applicable: “Therefore, this commission holds that a self-affirmed practicing homosexual may not be invited to serve in a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) position that presumes ordination.”  On the other hand, since this decision is based on Interpretations which are no longer in effect it may need to be completely relitigated. The other polity aspect that could make this decision irrelevant is the fact that it addresses call and 10-A is about membership.  While these two parts are closely linked, in our polity they are different steps in the process.

So, at this point the general agreement seems to be that there is no longer any specific prohibitions in the Book of Order to ordination and installation but that each ordaining body, Session or Presbytery, “…shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”

In that light I think we are all well aware that a particular governing body could come down on either side of the question as to whether a self-affirmed practicing homosexual would meet the church’s “standards.”  The arguments from Scripture are well rehearsed at this time and attendance at your presbytery meeting where Amendment 10-A was voted upon is probably all that is necessary if you want to get an introduction to them.  The confessions are a bit quieter on the question.  The Heidelberg Catechism revision is not completed yet so the controversial wording is still present there, but with the knowledge that the new translation will probably temper that language.  It appears we do not yet have the Belhar Confession officially adopted to provide a model of broader inclusion of individuals as an extension of the racial inclusivity it speaks of.  And when the confessions speak of marriage it is usually in the context of “one man and one woman,” (e.g. 5.246, 6.131 & 6.133 ) or as an eschatological image.

While the Book of Order is not cited as a source of guidance here, the argument for “fidelity and chastity” as a standard could be made by extension of the definition of marriage in W-4.9001.  On the other hand, those who are arguing for inclusion can appeal to new language in section F-1.0403 where it says:

The unity of believers in Christ is reflected in the rich diversity of the Church’s membership. In Christ, by the power of the Spirit, God unites persons through baptism regardless of race, ethnicity, age, sex, disability, geography, or theological conviction. There is therefore no place in the life of the Church for discrimination against any person. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall guarantee full participation and representation in its worship, governance, and emerging life to all persons or groups within its membership. No member shall be denied participation or representation for any reason other than those stated in this Constitution.

So, if an explicit reason for exclusion has now been removed from the Constitution and no specific reason is listed, an argument could be made that now there must not be a barrier to ordination.

(For reference, this section is based on the old section G-4.0403 which said:

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall give full expression to the rich diversity within its membership and shall provide means which will assure a greater inclusiveness leading to wholeness in its emerging life. Persons of all racial ethnic groups, different ages, both sexes, various disabilities, diverse geographical areas, different theological positions consistent with the Reformed tradition, as well as different marital conditions (married, single, widowed, or divorced) shall be guaranteed full participation and access to representation in the decision making of the church. (G-9.0104) )

I could go on, but suffice it to say that governing bodies will now have to wrestle with the ambiguity and different interpretations and understandings that the theological breadth of the PC(USA) embraces.  But lets tackle one more question…

What happens when a presbytery says “No!”?

I think that this is really the question that is on everyone’s minds and I think that over-all this will be an uncommon occurrence.  Most of the individuals and governing bodies are politick enough to try to defuse this before it becomes an issue.  However, I think that it is almost certain that there will be a case in the next few years that will be brought to a synod PJC as a remedial case.

It should be noted that the OGA FAQ is clear about this point:

6. What practical changes will we see?< br>

If pastors, elders, and deacons who are ordained in one area move to another location, they shall be examined by that ordaining body before being able to take up their office. That body may choose to apply ordination standards differently from the officer’s previous body.

7. Is the ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians mandated?

No, it is not required, but it is no longer prohibited by specific Constitutional language.

12. May a presbytery continue to function with the standard of “fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” when examining candidates for ordination?

Yes, as long as the application is on a case by case basis. The new language calls the ordaining body to be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying ordination standards to each candidate.

13. Is a presbytery required to receive, by transfer of membership, an ordained sexually active gay or lesbian minister?

No, each presbytery determines which ministers to receive into its membership.

But, this would be just an opinion expressed by the OGA.  This is not a binding interpretation since that can only come from the Assembly or the GAPJC and they could decide differently on these questions.  (In fact, the two entities have been issuing different Interpretations on declared exceptions relative to practice as well as belief.)  To resolve the uncertainty will require a test case to go through the judicial system, an Authoritative Interpretation from the Assembly, or more definitive language added to the Book of Order.

As I indicate above, I think that there are enough Interpretations currently in place that a presbytery’s decision against a candidate, provided that the presbytery actually followed the detailed procedures the GAPJC has laid down so far, would withstand the challenge.  I think that this is particularly true of a candidate for ordination.  There is a “wildcard” regarding the decision most likely to arise in regards to an ordained teaching elder who is a candidate for an installed position in a different presbytery.  The issue that the American Presbyterian Church has always had with presbyteries deciding standards going all the way back to the Adopting Act is what we now have as F-3.0203.

These presbyters shall come together in councils in regular gradation. These councils are sessions, presbyteries, synods, and the General Assembly. All councils of the church are united by the nature of the church and share with one another responsibilities, rights, and powers as provided in this Constitution. The councils are distinct, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate council. The larger part of the church, or a representation thereof, shall govern the smaller. (emphasis added)

So if ordination is an “act of the whole church” can a differently governing body “choose to apply ordination standards differently from the officer’s previous body” as it says in question 6 of the FAQ.

There are other unknowns here are well.  One is what the nature and authority of the definition of marriage (W-4.9001) will be in the next few years.  Another, is the inclusivity statement in F-1.0403 mentioned above and whether this new wording, combined with the removal of an explicit requirement, will provide the basis for a new Interpretation.

As I wrap this up let me move on to the item that half of you are probably saying “when is he going to get to it” and the other half are saying “don’t go there, don’t go there, don’t go there…”  As much as we would like to think of this as ancient history, in many of the discussions I have been in this has been hovering like a ghost in the background and I think no discussion of the topic can really avoid it. SO…

One word – “Kenyon.”

Yup, I went there. 

Now for those who have not picked up on this it refers to a GAPJC remedial case in the United Presbyterian Church in the USA branch back in 1975.  The case is officially known as Maxwell v. Pittsburgh Presbytery. It involves Mr. Walter Wynn Kenyon, a candidate for ordination as a teaching elder who declared an exception to the church’s stand that women should be ordained as teaching and ruling elders.  He stated his Scriptural basis for this matter of conscience, said that he would not participate in the ordination of a woman, and that he would let others know the basis for his belief.  However, he also said that beyond that he would work with elders who were women and would not interfere with their ordination if it were done by others.  (For reference, the mainline Presbyterian church had been ordaining women as ruling elders for 44 years and as teaching elders for 18 years.)  The presbytery accepted his departure as non-essential and sustained his examination but the Synod PJC found that the presbytery had erred and on appeal the GAPJC concurred.

The GAPJC wrote:

The United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and guided by its confessions, has now developed its understanding of the equality of all people (both male and female) before God. It has expressed this understanding in the Book of Order with such clarity as to make the candidate’s stated position a rejection of its government and discipline.

This is pretty much the same conclusion that the GAPJC came to in the Bush decision – that you can depart in belief but not in practice.  (It is argued whether or not Mr. Kenyon was departing in practice as well as belief, but the GAPJC decision rejects his argument that it is only in belief and provides their reasoning for that conclusion.)  But I find the language of the recent decisions an echo of this decision.  Consider one of the concluding paragraphs which makes no mention of the nature of the standard in question:

Nevertheless, to permit ordination of a candidate who has announced that he cannot subscribe to the cited constitutional provisions has implications for the Church far beyond that one instance. The precedent, if applied generally, would affect every session, presbytery, synod, and the General Assembly, and more than one-half of our Church’s members. The challenged decision of Presbytery was not unique or of but minimal significance. The issue of equal treatment and leadership opportunity for all (particularly without regard to considerations of race and sex) is a paramount concern of our Church. Neither a synod nor the General Assembly has any power to allow a presbytery to grant an exception to an explicit constitutional provision.

The implications of the Authoritative Interpretation from the Assembly permitting declaring departures in belief and practice is left as an exercise for the reader.

No, a Kenyon-like decision in the current debate regarding ordination standards is not very likely in the near or intermediate-term.  Before we get to that point additional Interpretations or explicit constitutional language will have to be in place.  But it is interesting the number of people on both sides of this issue that expect a similar decision sometime in the future.

Well, as you can see from the length of this article there is probably not a simple answer to what the polity landscape will look like in next few years.  It is why I am cautious in accepting the OGA FAQ as “the answer.”  There is plenty of room for new interpretations in the next few years even if no new language is added to the Book of Order. It will be interesting to see from whence the next refinement of this polity question comes.

Stay tuned…