Category Archives: ordination standards

The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland — Discussion Over Ordination Standards

1 Reply

One of the reasons that I started writing this blog was the objective to focus on Presbyterianism broadly — not just one branch or one region, but its ebb and flow as a global institution.  And one of the motivations for doing this was the fact that Presbyterian branches in different areas may be working through similar issues.

Well, as the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) nears the climax of its voting on Amendment 10-A regarding ordination standards the Church of Scotland is preparing for the 2011 meeting of its General Assembly where they will be addressing the same issue.

The issue came before the GA in the context of a specific case back in 2009 when a church called a partnered gay minister and while the presbytery concurred some members of the presbytery filed a protest and the full Assembly heard the case.  While the Assembly upheld the decision of the presbytery it took two additional actions.  First, it formed the Special Commission on Same-Sex Relationships and the Ministry which had the remit to “to consult with all Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions and to prepare a
study on Ordination and Induction to the Ministry of the Church of
Scotland” in light of this issue and a past report.  The Assembly also placed a broad moratorium on the church that prohibited both the induction and ordination of partnered homosexuals as well as restricting discussion of this topic to meetings of governing bodies.

The commission has been hard at work for the last two years and their report and study is coming to the 2011 Assembly.  The report has the deliverance, which I will get to in a moment, and contains the results of their consultations as well. The reports web page also has five additional resources, including spreadsheets containing their data.

There are nine items in the deliverance and the first and last are straight-forward — to receive the report and to discharge the commission with thanks.

Some of the remaining items are related to the church’s relationship to homosexual Christians in a broad sense and includes 2(i)(1) “It is contrary to God’s will that Christians should be hostile in any way to a person because he or she is homosexual by orientation and in his or her practice,” as well as 2(i)(2) that Christians are to be welcoming “regardless of [a person’s] sexual orientation and practice.”  In 2(i)(3) it also recognizes that the church needs to reach out pastorally to those “who find it difficult or impossible to reconcile their orientation with their understanding of God’s purposes as revealed in the Bible.”  And finally, there is a statement [2(ii)(4)] that it is not sexual orientation itself which is a barrier to membership or leadership roles in the church.  The deliverance also reaffirms discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unlawful in the church, with certain exceptions contingent on other parts of the deliverance.  But within this section, while it declares that “we view homophobia as sinful,” it clarifies this with the statement “We do not include in the concept of homophobia both the bona fide belief that homosexual practice is contrary to God’s will and the responsible statement of that belief in preaching or writing.”

As to the contentious part concerning ordination standards the Commission presents the Assembly two options in item 7 that would represent a step in one or the other direction.  Option “a” is “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.”  Option “b” is “the lifting of the moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship.”

As I said, each option is a first step and does not represent final language but comes with enabling language to have the Theological Commission, Ministries Council and Legal Questions Committee consider the position and propose the appropriate language to the 2012 Assembly if the prohibition remains and the 2013 Assembly if it is lifted.  In other words, if anything were to go to the presbyteries under the Barrier Act it would not be this year and probably not the next.  That Theological Commission I mentioned is a new entity proposed in item 6.

The deliverance, in item 8, would continue the moratorium on accepting candidates and conducting ordinations for at least another two years and item 5 would continue the moratorium on talking publicly about it.

That leaves item 4.  The language throughout the deliverance is generally related to “training and ordination” and induction and installation are not addressed except in this item.  In number 4 it is proposed to permit “the induction into pastoral charges of ministers and deacons ordained before May 2009 who are in a same-sex relationship.”

So that is the deliverance for the Assembly to debate. This is the only report docketed for Monday 23 May beginning at 9:30 AM Edinburgh time.

Now, taking a look at the body of the report it is interesting to see where the leaders of the Church of Scotland are on this issue.  The Commission sent out a series of questions to both Kirk Sessions and presbyteries to get feedback on this issue.  This was not a random sampling but an effort to get full participation in this consultation.   They got 1237 responses from 1273 sessions (some linked and neighboring sessions responded together) out of 1473 congregations.  There were 22,342 ruling and teaching elders that participated in this.  But the numbers come with this qualification:

2.4 We wish to state clearly that although exact figures are given in the following analysis this appearance of precision is to some extent illusory…

The report then goes on to detail certain data issues, such as how some questions have fewer responses than participants and how a few have more.  But they make the case that these are minor issues and while the results may not be ideal, or represent a truly statistical sample, the results are none-the-less pretty reliable and representative.

Regarding the presbyteries, the Commission received responses from all 45 presbyteries representing 2624 teaching and ruling elders.

The questions were divided into four sections and several of the questions gave a range of possible answers.  For example, question set 2 was on Approaches to same-sex relationships and the first question asked “Do you hold a clear position on same-sex relationships and how they should be regarded or do you find yourself uncertain as to the precise nature of God’s will for the Church on this issue?”  To this question 72.8% of members of Kirk Sessions and 77.5% of the members of Presbyteries responded that they had a clear position.  The section then went on to ask:

2b: Do any of the following descriptions help you to summarise your present position fairly and accurately?

i) We regard homosexual orientation as a disorder and homosexual behaviour as sinful. Gay and lesbian people should avoid same-sex sexual relationships, and, ideally, seek to be rid of homosexual desires. Unrepentant gay and lesbian people should not have leadership roles in the church.

ii) We accept homosexual orientation as a given, but disapprove of homosexual behaviour. We do not reject gay and lesbian people as people, but reject same-sex sexual activity as being sinful. Gay and lesbian people in sexual relationships should not have leadership roles in the church.

iii) We accept homosexual orientation as a given and disapprove of homosexual behaviour but recognise that some same-sex relationships can be committed, loving, faithful and exclusive – though not the ideal, which is male-female. However, because of the different standards required of those in Christian leadership, gay and lesbian people in sexual relationships, even if civil partnerships, should not have leadership roles in the church.

iv) We accept homosexual orientation as a given, and accept homosexual behaviour as equivalent morally to heterosexual behaviour. Civil partnerships provide the best environment for loving same-sex relationships. Gay and lesbian people, whether in sexual relationships or not, should be assessed for leadership roles in the church in an equivalent way to heterosexual people.

v) We accept homosexual orientation as a given part of God’s good creation. The Christian practice of marriage should be extended to include exclusive, committed same-sex relationships which are intended to be life-long. Gay and lesbian people, whether in sexual relationships or not, should be
assessed for leadership roles in the church in an equivalent way to heterosexual people.

Position (i) was favored by 8.8% of Session members and 11.3% of Presbytery members, position (ii) by 17.9% and 21.7%, position (iii) by 21.5% and 15.9%, position (iv) by 24.4% and 23.9% and position (v) by 19.4% and 17.5% respectively.

Question set 1 was about The Biblical Witness, set 2 Approaches to Same-Sex Relationships, set 3 about Ordination/Leadership in the Church and set 4 about the Unity of the Church of Scotland.  The section of the report that follows the enumeration of the responses discusses the findings.

As you can see from the responses to question 2b above, the church is evenly divided with respect leadership with the first three opinions, which argued against leadership positions, having 48.2% of the Session members responding while 43.8% favored one or the other of the last two responses which included leadership.

Question 3b specifically addressed the ordination of ministers (3b: Should a person in a same-sex relationship be permitted to be an ordained minister within the Church?) and members of Kirk Sessions answered 38.2% yes and 56.2% no.  It is interesting to compare this with the question on the Presbyterian Panel survey from the PC(USA) which asked “Would you personally like to see the PC(USA) permit sexually active gay and lesbian persons to be ordained to the office of minister of Word and Sacrament?”  In that 2008 survey 30% of ruling elders currently serving on sessions answered probably or definitely yes and 60% answered probably or definitely not.  For those classified as Pastors in that survey it was 44% yes and 48% no.  As another point of comparison, the vote at the 2009 General Assembly to refuse the dissent and complaint was 326 (55%) yes and 267 (45%) no – if that has any application to the present debate.  And in the PC(USA) the voting on Amendment 10-A is currently trending 55% yes votes by the presbyters.

When question 3b was reported as if it were a Presbytery vote on the issue it came out 7 yes, 37 no, and one tie.  However, question 3d, which asked about someone in an civil partnership being in a leadership position, did have majority support — 31-14.

Question set 4 asked about the Unity of the Church of Scotland with 4a giving a range of five responses ranging from changing the ordination standards would be heretical to not changing the standards being heretical with “deep-seated disagreement and personal disappointment” in either direction and not regarding the decision “particularly significant” for the church in the middle.  The session members responded with 9.7% saying it would be heretical to change, 28.1% would strongly disagree with the change, 19.6% did not consider it significant, 24.3% would strongly disagree if it did not change and 3.5% saying it would be heretical if it did not change.

In the discussion section the Commission notes this about the Presbytery responses:

3.13 In relation to question 4a: it is clear that a majority of Presbyteries opposed the ordination of a person in a committed same-sex relationship. If that vote were to be replicated in a vote on an innovating overture under the Barrier Act, that proposal would fail.

Question 4b asked “Would you consider it obligatory to leave the Church of Scotland under any of the following conditions?”  The conditions given include allowing the ordination of people in committed same-sex relationships to be ordained as ministers or to be in leadership, forbidding either of these, or if the GA were to make no clear statement.  The responses for each of the five are somewhat similar with between 8% and 20% answering yes and 73% to 78% answering no.

And finally, for the polity wonks, the last question asks about leaving the decision up to the lower governing bodies and 61.1% of session members and 71.2% of presbytery members say that the decision must lie with the General Assembly.

I hope this summary gives you a good idea where the leadership (remember, this was not a survey of the members but a consultation with the ruling and teaching elders) of the Church of Scotland is on these issues.  The section with the questions and the following section with the discussion have some other interesting points buried in them.

This study has a lot more in it besides the results of the consultation including the results of Consultation with Other Churches which gives a great summary of where other Presbyterian branches globally are on this issue.  (If you are wondering what it says about the PC(USA), it is not mentioned specifically but probably falls into the paragraph that says: 4.9 All the other responding churches continue in a process of discernment aimed at maintaining fellowship and unity.)

The study also contains the usual review of the scientific literature (Sexual Orientation: The Lessons and Limits of Science) and the web site has two additional review papers. There is also a section discussing the personal stories the Commission heard. And there is a section discussing the nature of ordained ministry.  But near the end of that section, and as transition to the next, the report says in paragraph 7.28: “Nonetheless, we see no basis for allowing the ordination of people in same-sex relationships unless or until the Church has resolved the broader question of the theological status of such relationships.”  As they note at the end, helping resolve this question would be part of the work of the Theological Commission.  (And this ordering is probably striking to me since the PC(USA) is taking it in the other order with marriage questions being debated but the ordination standards about to change.)

While the Commission report ends with a Conclusions and Recommendations section, the extended discussion in the second-to-last section attempts to synthesize all of the preceding work.  It is a good summary of the situation including what the church can agree on and where the members of the Commission, and by extension the church in general, disagree. It covers much of the same ground that similar reports have so I won’t attempt a summary of the 82 paragraphs over the 12 pages.  I will note that, as suggested above, the topic is considered in parallel with the consideration of the nature of marriage.

As I mentioned earlier, the Commission is proposing two options that offer a first step in a particular direction.  In the conclusion the Commission describes it like this:

9.2 In our recommendations we put forward as alternatives two options. In each case they are trajectories rather than firm decisions which can be reached now. This is because the divisions do not point to the adoption, here and now, of a radical stance in either direction. The General Assembly is therefore invited to express a view on the direction which it thinks the Church should take; but, if our recommendations are accepted, it will be the task of a future General Assembly in either 2012 or 2013 to determine whether or not to move in that direction, assisted by the further work which we propose that the Church should undertake.

9.3 Both trajectories recognise the need for further discernment and engagement between those of differing views. By working together for twenty months, we have learnt from each other; and we believe that the Church will benefit from such genuine engagement. Both trajectories also involve, among other things, the creation of a theological commission to assist the Church in deciding the direction it wishes to take. The Special Commission, of which we are the members, is not a theological commission as several of us have no theological training. We recommend that an authoritative theological commission should be composed of theologians of standing. This theological commission will ensure the
continuance of engagement and discernment under whichever of the trajectories the General Assembly may choose.

My only polity comment here is my bias to see both teaching elders (Ministers of Word and Sacrament) and ruling elders on the Theological Commission if it is created.

Let me return for a moment to question 4b, option (i).  The question asked if the elder would consider it obligatory to leave the Church of Scotland “if the General Assembly were to allow people in committed same-sex relationships to be ordained as ministers.”  To this question 19.4% of the members of Kirk Sessions answered yes, 30 Kirk Sessions were unanimously yes, 19.5% of members of presbyteries answered yes, and three presbyteries had a majority vote for this position.

I single out this question because much of the media coverage leading up to the Assembly seems to be on the Commission report, and many of those articles are questioning the unity of the church.  The Just Out blog has the headline “Church of Scotland fears schism over gay clergy.” Pink News says “Thousands could leave Church of Scotland over gay clergy.”  Of course, there are more moderate headlines and articles, like the Herald Scotland column “Church needs dialogue over gay ministers.”  How much these stories are trying to get attention with dramatic predictions is yet to be seen.  And in the end, the process will be as important as the final decision that is reached.

So mark you calendars for the Church of Scotland GA beginning on 21 May, and include the order of the day on Monday 23 May.  And pray for the body as it gathers to discern God’s will together.

The PC(USA) Does Appear To Have A “Lightning Rod”

3 Replies

I have two polity-heavy posts that I have been working on and decided to take a break from those to exercise the other side of my brain and crunch some numbers…

In the initial letter introducing the Fellowship PC(USA) the statement is made

“Homosexual ordination has been the flashpoint of controversy for the last 35 years.”

On most levels I take issue with this because in a larger sense Presbyterians around the world have throughout their history been debating scriptural and confessional imperatives and implications and this is only the latest specific detail over which the discussion is continuing.

But on a more practical level this statement seems to hold a fair amount of validity to me based on my personal experience.  For the last several votes on changing Book of Order section G-6.0106b it has always struck me that my own presbytery had significantly higher attendance for the amendment vote meeting than for regular meetings.  Even at the beginning of the debate, for our vote to include the current “fidelity and chastity” language in the constitution we had 284 commissioners vote.  A couple of meetings later a very contentious issue had 202 commissioners vote.  The pattern still continues today as I have had more than one commissioner ask me when our presbytery is voting and when I mention the different meetings for the different amendments they tell me they only want to know about Amendment 10-A.

Well, with the voting this year I have an ideal data set to test whether this observation holds in other presbyteries as well.  Short answer – YES!

First, the usual comments on the data I use:  My data is aggregated
from numbers from Twitter as well as vote counts at the Covenant Network, Yes on 10-A, Reclaim Biblical Teaching and the Layman.
This aggregation is available in my spreadsheet through this past weekend’s
reports.  Because I will be looking at voting on all three major issues — Belhar, nFOG and 10-A — the Layman and Reclaim Biblical Teaching charts provide the full data set.  (Note how this in itself is suggestive of my hypothesis about the focus on the 10-A voting as that is the only one followed by all four of these sources.)

Now there are 55 recorded votes for the Belhar Confession, 62 for the nFOG, and 115 for 10-A.  (Again, suggestive of the higher-profile nature of 10-A and the need for a recorded vote.)  Of these we have 39 recorded pairings of Belhar and nFOG, 36 pairings of Belhar and 10-A, and 45 pairings of nFOG and 10-A.

For those 39 presbyteries with recorded votes on Belhar and nFOG the ratios between the two range from having 31% more votes for Belhar to having 40% less.  But the average and median are right at 1.00 indicating that on balance the turnout is the same for those two issues with a fairly symmetric distribution around that.

For the 36 presbyteries that have recorded votes on both 10-A and Belhar there are, on average, 12% more commissioners voting on 10-A than Belhar with the range from 75% higher to 13% lower.  The comparison of nFOG to 10-A for those 45 presbyteries is very similar with the average 13% higher for 10-A and the range from 63% higher to 12% lower.  With medians at 7% and 5% respectively, the distributions are clearly not as symmetric, having extended tails at the higher end.

I am sure that several of you have already started complaining about the problem with the analysis that I just did – the three votes are not always three independent events but in many cases multiple votes are taken at the same meeting and so, with the exception of a few commissioners who only come for the one vote they are interested in, the total number of votes cast should be, and in several cases are, nearly identical.  (The other thing that could cause minor fluctuations is the fact that I don’t include abstentions.)

So, my first point is that in spite of not accounting for independent events the numbers are so robust that the upward shift is visible in this mixed data set.

Well, as much as I would like to separate these out into independent data sets, I have not personally kept a time history of the voting to be absolutely certain of which votes were take at the same meeting and which were not. (If any of you have that information please do the analysis of independent events and let me know how far off I am.)  I can tell you several votes were taken at the same meeting and in fact these are very obvious in the posted spreadsheet having only a vote or two variation in the numbers.  But let me try to separate out the different votes using my usual criteria that a 4 vote difference or a 4% difference is normal fluctuation and vote totals within this range will be treated as having happened at the same meeting.  Also, from here on I will only consider the comparison of the Belhar and 10-A votes for two reasons: 1) My earlier work showing the closer correlation of these two votes still holds, and 2) it is my impression, and only my impression, that presbyteries are tending to do these votes at different meetings more than splitting nFOG and 10-A. After the voting is over I’ll revisit this topic with the final data set and I suspect that we will find a bimodal distribution to help us answer this question.

So, of the 36 presbyteries with recorded votes on both Belhar and 10-A , 20 have noticeable differences in the number of votes.  Eighteen of those are higher for 10-A and two are higher for Belhar.  Of the ones higher for 10-A they range from 7% higher to 75% higher and have an average increase of 24% with a median increase of 18%.  While tempting to do the full frequency distribution analysis at this point, I will save that for a while until there are more data.

Now, accepting the fact that one of my analyses certainly includes dependent events and the other probably has unfairly eliminated independent events, it is still clear that a vote on “fidelity and chastity” brings out the commissioners more than a vote on changing the Book of Confessions.  Like it or not, we have to accept the premise from the Fellowship PC(USA) letter that there is a “flashpoint” or “lightning rod” in the denomination.

Before bringing this exercise to a close, let’s ask the obvious question – “Was the increase in commissioners who voted yes or voted no?”  The answer is both, but while there is significant variability between presbyteries, it was the no voters who tended to show up for the vote on 10-A.  And yes, this is based on the presumption that a commissioner that voted one way on Belhar was going to vote the same way on 10-A so the other way to look at this is that there was a trend for more uniform commissioner turn-out with some commissioners that voted, or would have voted, yes on Belhar to vote no on 10-A.

In terms of the specific numbers, the average number of yes votes increases 7% while the number of no votes more than doubles, rising 102%.  However, these are influenced by a couple of presbyteries with a small number of votes in a given column that when they pick up just a few more votes becomes a large ratio.  For example, North Alabama had 3 no on Belhar and 28 no on 10-A giving a nine-fold increase.  Another case is Central Washington which went from 7 yes on Belhar to 12 yes on 10-A for a 71% increase.  With the extreme values present considering the median value of each data set (the value for which half are above and half are below) is more reasonable.  Still, the median number of yes votes is up 4% and the median of the no vote increase is 28%.

So when presbyteries have important issues to discuss it appears from this data that commissioners are more likely to show up when the issue is G-6.0106b.  I have to agree that for the last few decades the “issue de jour” for the mainline Presbyterians has been sexual orientation and practice, particularly as it applied to those who hold ordained office.  But throughout the history of Presbyterianism other issues, such as church-state relations and confessional subscription and standards, have been the flashpoint over which we have debated, and divided. (It would be interesting to know if presbytery meeting attendance increased for votes on modifications to the Westminster Standards earlier in our history.)  It also leads to the interesting question of what will become the “issue de jour” if 10-A passes.  I think many would see the denomination moving on and rather than staying with modifications to G-6.0106b the next discussion point will probably be the definition of marriage (W-4.9001).  But maybe it is something else that does not come to my mind at the moment.  And the question of whether we Presbyterians need an issue as the focus of our debate is a topic for another time.  We will see what develops over the next few years.

Cross-Issue Correlation In PC(USA) Amendment Voting

2 Replies

OK, I need to get two things onto the table right at the beginning of this post:


  1. Yes, this is an extremely geekish and polity wonkish post, but that’s what interests me and this analysis is the one I have really wanted to do since the 219th General Assembly adjourned last July.  I do think there is something important about the PC(USA) in here so if you want to skip the data analysis and jump to the end you will find my discussion there.
  2. I posted a preliminary result on Twitter on Saturday but got the variables confused.  Sorry about that. I posted a correction on Twitter and will point out the error when I come to it in this post.
So, the question that has had me on the edge of my seat is the degree to which each of the three high-profile amendments is correlated with the other two.  I took an initial pass at this question a couple of weeks back and found a strong correlation.  That correlation has weakened a bit but is still present, stronger in some relationships than others.  While it still may be a bit premature to make strong conclusions from the data at this point in time, I think I’ve got enough data to do a preliminary analysis.

Now, if you are looking for just the vote results after last Saturday here is the “word on the street.” Belhar is still not getting the 2/3 it needs with 32 yes and 28 no.  The New Form of Government continues to have weak support and still trails, currently at 25 to 31.  The story of the last week is that support for Amendment 10-A continues at the pace we have seen throughout the month and with three more presbyteries switching their votes a total of 12 presbyteries have shifted to “yes” with only one shifting to “no.”  At this point enough presbyteries have shifted (a net of nine was needed) that with all the rest of the presbyteries voting as they did in the last round Amendment 10-A will be approved. At the end of the weekend the vote stood at 55 to 41.  No further analysis of that today, I’ll come back to that in another week or two. (Particularly in light of the question about the vote totals that is raised at the end of the next paragraph.)

First, the usual details regarding data:  For my data I have aggregated numbers from Twitter as well as vote counts at the Covenant Network, Yes on 10-A, Reclaim Biblical Teaching and the Layman. This aggregation is available in my spreadsheet.  I have also updated my cross-vote spreadsheet through Saturday’s reports.  The analysis below is more sensitive to the exact vote count and where the tally sheets sometimes differ a bit I have used either a majority among them, the Twitter reports, or a consistency in total votes to select a preferred number.  This is also probably a good place to add that the voting is not finished yet and this analysis is only preliminary based on the current data. And in a very interesting development today as I was finishing this up, the official vote tally from the Office of the General Assembly was posted.  It has caught the attention of several of us because it has numbers significantly different than the unofficial sites — nFOG 38 to 25, Belhar 38 to 18, and 10-A 47 to 33.  The difference is presumably due to reports by presbytery stated clerks not reflected in the unofficial counts.  Hopefully with time the two sets of lists will converge.

So, let’s take the three comparisons from strongest to weakest (and if you want to see the graphs in more detail they are larger in their original form and you can open them individually):

Belhar to nFOG
The strongest relationship between the issues is between the votes on the Belhar Confession and the New Form of Government. (This is the one I should have pointed out in the tweet on Saturday.)  So far 33 presbyteries have voted on both of these issues, and 27 of those have recorded vote numbers on both votes.  Looking at the numbers you can see the strength in both the cross-tabulation and the linear regression:

















 n=33 Belhar
yes
Belhar
no
 nFOG yes
  10
30%
  2
7%
 nFOG no
  1
3%
  20
60%



Bottom line: The strength of a presbytery’s vote on nFOG is going to be very close to the strength of a presbytery’s vote on Belhar.  The fit of the linear line is good with an R2 = 0.73  (a number very much like correlation that I talked about in a previous post with 1.0 as a good and 0.0 as not correlated, but this number is always positive), and a slope pretty close to 1 (the two vote percentages increase in the same proportion).  This is seen in the yes/no comparison where 30 presbyteries have voted the same way on both issues and only 3 (10%) have voted opposite on them.

Belhar to Amendment 10-A
The next strongest relationship between the issues is that between the votes on the Belhar Confession and Amendment 10-A.  (This is the one I incorrectly pointed to in the tweet.) So far 35 presbyteries have voted on both of these issues, and 25 of those have recorded vote numbers on both votes.  Here is what the numbers look like:
















 n=35 Belhar
yes
Belhar
no
 10-A yes
  17
49%
  3
9%
10-A no
  3
9%
  12
34%



Bottom line: The strength of a presbytery’s vote on Amendment 10-A is going to be related to the strength of a presbytery’s vote on Belhar, but not as strongly as for the last case and not in 1:1 proportion.  In this case, the fit of the linear line is not as good, but still moderate, with an R2 = 0.62 and a slope 0.51. There is also a significant upward shift in the trend line of almost 20%.  What this means is that for presbyteries not strongly in favor of Belhar, on average there is a 20% “base” in favor of Amendment 10-A.  On the other end, a presbytery strongly in favor of Belhar has, on average, a 30% “base” opposed to Amendment 10-A.  The yes/no comparison also shows that the linkage is not as strong and direct where 29 presbyteries have voted the same way on both issues and six (18%) have voted opposite on them.  From these results, the association of these two issues is only partial and the attitudes on one are not driving the other as strongly as might be suspected.

nFOG to Amendment 10-A
The weakest relationship is between the votes on the nFOG and Amendment 10-A. So far 36 presbyteries have voted on both of these issues, and 23 of those have recorded vote numbers on both votes.  Here is what the numbers look like:
















 n=36 nFOG
yes
nFOG
no
 10-A yes
  12
33%
  5
14%
10-A no
  5
14%
  14
42%



Bottom line: There is a weak, positive relationship between a presbytery’s voting strength on nFOG and the vote strength on 10-A.  However, as can be seen in the scatter of the data on the graph, especially at the higher end the relationship is weak.  The scatter in the data is evident with R2 = 0.39 and the lower slope of 0.46 also suggestive of a weaker linkage. The yes/no comparison supports  that the association is not as strong and direct with almost 1/3 of the presbyteries voting opposite ways on the two issues.

Discussion and Conclusions
I must admit that the strength of the Belhar/nFOG association was a bit of a surprise to me.  With the on-going discussion of the synergy between Belhar and 10-A I was expecting to that to have the strongest correlation. And the very nearly 1:1 association means that they two issues probably elicit the same response from any given commissioner.  One thought that occurred to me is the similar nature of these two issues in regards to their impact on PC(USA) polity.  While the impact of each is still being debated and is, to a certain degree, unknown, if approved they each would leave a significant mark on the constitutional documents.  There could also be a less tangible factor in the willingness to preserve the status quo — since these two amendments have similar impacts on the established order of things it is reasonable to presume that if a commissioner had a particular comfort level with changing one of them, they would have a similar comfort level changing the other. But whether it is related to those explanations, or other factors, the data appear to show that even if presbytery commissioners don’t necessarily explicitly link them, they still seem to think about them in the same way.

Having said that, and recognizing the vote tally differences from today’s announcement, I need to point out that it appears point twice as many presbyteries have voted against both of them as have approved them.  This raises a couple of questions when we look at the voting trends for the issues by themselves since the votes overall are more even.  The first thing is that as the double-issue voting catches up the close agreement could go away.  But if the close agreement continues, and considering that one currently has a majority and the other does not, we might expect the vote margins to narrow.  We also open up the possibility that Belhar might not even receive a majority vote if nFOG continues to not receive a majority.  The opposite could also be true – that nFOG will be pulled up by future positive voting on Belhar.

We could also ask the question about the strength of Belhar from the 10-A relationship.  Doing a back of the envelope calculation and extrapolating out the 10-A voting based on current proportions a 99 to 75 final vote (56.6% yes vote) would be a reasonable conclusion.  If we then mix apples and oranges and ignore whichis the the dependent and which the independent variables, plugging 56.6% yes vote on 10-A into the regression formula gives a 73% yes vote on Belhar.  Fun to speculate but I just violated too many mathematical and data rules to really believe that.  A more valid approach would be to take the presbytery yes/no vote cross-tabulation as a guide where we see that at the present time the opposite voting categories would off-set each other.  This would suggest that for presbyteries (apples to apples) the Belhar final vote could would be very close to the 10-A final count, in which case 56.6% won’t get it approved.

I’m not sure there is much to say about the weak correlation between nFOG and 10-A.  This is more of what I was initially expecting since the two issues do not have a lot in common polity-wise.  The weak linkage seen could be some polity point I am overlooking or a desire to preserve the status quo.  Either way, there is not enough strength in that correlation to risk making any conclusions about one from the outcome of the other.

So that is what I see at this point.  I will point out again that this is truly preliminary since at this time for each pairing only around 1/5 of the presbyteries have voted on both amendments.  I look forward to seeing how this progresses as the voting continues filling in the missing data.  Stay tuned…

PC(USA) Amendment 10-A Voting About To Reach Half-Way Point

1 Reply

There has been a flurry of presbytery voting this past week with some interesting developments.  Here is a quick summary and some observations.

Following presbytery meetings last Saturday it appears from the reports that 81 out of the 173 presbyteries have voted on Amendment 10-A, quickly approaching the half-way mark of 87 presbyteries.  A potentially bigger development is the flurry of presbyteries that have voted “yes” on 10-A after voting “no” on 08-B in the last round.  The number of presbyteries switching now stands at a net change of eight towards “yes,” with nine total switching to “yes” and one switching to “no.”  Since a net change of nine is necessary for the passage of 10-A (it was 78 “yes” and 95 “no” last time) if the current trend continues it is reasonable to expect that 10-A will be approved.  However, don’t take that as a done deal because 1) part of being Presbyterian is the process and 2) just as there was a flurry of “yes” changes this weekend there could as easily be a momentum shift with a number of “no” switches in the future.  Oh, and if you are keeping count I think the vote is 46 “yes” and 35 “no.”

One of the interesting things in the past few weeks was how the three votes were tracking together — That has changed somewhat.  The first observation is that while there was a burst of voting on 10-A, there was not a corresponding burst on Belhar or nFOG.  At the present time 51 presbyteries have voted on Belhar and 47 have voted on nFOG.  Breaking it down, I have 12 presbyteries that have voted on all three amendments, 14 that have voted on Belhar and nFOG but not 10-A, 15 that have voted only on nFOG and 10-A, and 13 that have voted on 10-A and Belhar only.  That gives a total of 61 presbyteries (including my own) who have not voted on any of the amendments yet.

The second thing that struck me was a bit of a weakening of the cross-issue correlation I commented on a little while ago.  While I have not done a full recalculation of my chart to include Saturday’s voting, looking at the numbers it seems there have been a few presbyteries who have voted “yes” on 10-A and “no” on nFOG, to the point that while 10-A is currently passing nFOG is trailing 21-26.  I don’t know if it is this trend, or just a coincidence, that a few days ago GA Moderator Cynthia Bolbach in her monthly column encouraged passage of the new Form of Government and pointed readers to the nFOG blog. ( And yes, Ms. Bolbach’s statement to avoid nFOG advocacy applied only to the sessions of the General Assembly and not the voting period.) And if you are keeping score at home, both Belhar (needs 2/3 to pass) and nFOG are currently trailing, the former 28 to 23 and the latter 21 to 26.

I will leave further analysis of Belhar and nFOG for another time as well as the cross-issue trends.  But taking a more detailed look at 10-A voting we have 73 presbyteries with reported numbers for their votes on both 08-B and 10-A.  I have aggregated these numbers from Twitter as well as vote counts at the Covenant Network, Yes on 10-A, Reclaim Biblical Teaching and the Layman. This aggregation is available in my spreadsheet.

At the present time the total reported number of voting commissioners is 8635, down 8% from the corresponding 08-B total of 9337.  Votes for 10-A have increased slightly from last time, 4602 to 4726, a 3% increase.  Votes against have dropped 17% from 4735 to 3909.

In the chart below I try to graphically show the different results from the presbyteries.  I use my usual margin of a 4% change (or 4 votes for small numbers) being random variation, and so the numbers in that range are considered equivalent for this analysis.  And for the chart below, the comparisons mentioned (Y>N, Y<N, Y=N) are the magnitude or the absolute value of the change in Yes and No votes.  For example, if Yes votes decreased by 15 votes and No votes increased by 6 votes, that would be counted under the “Y decrease, N increase, Y>N” box.  I hope that makes sense.

  Y increase
N decrease
Y > N

n=8
11%

Y increase
N decrease
Y < N 

n=13
18%

 Y increase
N decrease
Y = N

n=4
5%

N no change
Y increase

n=7
10%

Y increase
N increase
Y > N

n=1
1%

Y increase
N increase
Y = N

n=0
0%

Y increase
N increase
Y < N 

n=0
0%

 Y no change
N decrease

n=13
18%

 Y and N
no change

n=4
5%

 Y no change
N increase

n=3
4%

Y decrease
N decrease
Y < N 

n=4
5% 

Y decrease
N decrease
Y = N

n=6
8%

 Y decrease
N decrease
Y > N

n=4
5%

 N no change
Y decrease

n=3
4%

 Y decrease
N increase
Y = N

n=2
3%

Y decrease
N increase
Y < N

n=0
0%

Y decrease
N increase
Y > N 

n=1
1%

 

See any patterns?  There is a tendency for “no” votes to decrease — in 10% of the presbyteries they increase, in 19% the no votes are constant, and 71% of the time they decrease.  And there is a weaker tendency for yes votes to increase — in 45% of the presbyteries it increases, in 27.5% they remain the same, and in 27.5% they decrease. But if you are looking for patterns of no decreases or yes increases it is tough to make a strong argument for a consistent behavior across all the presbyteries.  The best we can say is that the two cases of decreases in “no” with stable “yes” and decreases in “no” with smaller increases in “yes” comprise about 1/3 of the presbytery vote changes.  The other 2/3 are more evenly distributed across a greater variety of cases.

OK, eyes glazed over?  The object of this extensive enumeration is to make the point that there is little in the way of strong trends that one can point at.  Is the trend for shifting from “no” votes to “yes” votes?  Yes, in several presbyteries like Central Florida where the total number was stable (a 3 vote/1% drop) but there were 17 more “yes” votes and 20 fewer “no” votes. And then there is Stockton where there were 50 votes each time but five votes shifted from “yes” to “no.”  Yes, we can say that there are fewer “no” votes overall, but sometimes that comes at no increase in “yes” votes, as in the case of Cimarron, and sometimes with a substantial decrease in “yes” votes as well, such as happened in Heartland.

Bottom line – there are a few trends but if you are looking for easy explanations (like “the conservatives are leaving” or there is a “shift to equality” ) it is hard to tease that out as a simple rule when you look on a case-by-case basis at presbytery voting.  Presbyteries are amazingly unique entities — that is what I have found in my years of tracking this stuff.  (And that does not even include consideration of weather conditions, wind direction, what show in on in prime time that evening, or who is having a conference in Phoenix.)  Believe me, I would love easy answers.  But I have lost count of the number of numerical models I have made that are either solvable but too simplistic or complex but underdetermined.

So we will see how the voting goes in the next few weeks.  We are getting enough data that I can start calculating robust statistics and frequency distributions like I have in the past.  And I will try to keep the cross-tabulation above updated as well as the cross-issue correlation chart.  So stay tuned…

Strong Cross-Issue Correlation In PC(USA) Amendment Voting To Date

Leave a reply

To give you fair warning right at the onset, this will be a fairly geeky post to go with the geeky title.  So let me begin with an executive summary for those that want to avoid the drill-down into the statistics.

Coming out of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in the summer of 2010 were three high-profile amendments to be voted on by the presbyteries:  addition of the Belhar Confession to the Book of Confessions, a new Form of Government section for the Book of Order, and Amendment 10-A which proposed new language for the “fidelity and chastity” section, G-6.0106b, of the Form of Government.  At the present time between thirty and fifty presbyteries have voted on each and the votes on each side are very evenly matched.  Furthermore, when you consider the relationship between votes on the different issues they are very strongly correlated.

While this is an interesting statistical result there are two practical implications of this.  The first is that if voting continues to follow the current trends and the correlation holds, the final votes on nFOG and 10-A will be very close but we can expect that the Belhar Confession will not be approved by the presbyteries since it requires a 2/3 vote for inclusion.  The second implication is the fact that presbyteries, and by that we really mean their commissioners, might see some sort of strong linkage between these three items.  It is not clear to what extent any particular factor generates a linkage, but potential reasons could be related to maintaining or rejecting the status quo, affinity group promotion of particular votes, and perception of the issues as all being promoted by the centralized institution of the denomination.

Got that?  OK, for the geeks, nerds and other curious readers here is where this comes from…

I am taking the correlations from my own tally sheet of the voting on these issues.  My spreadsheet is not original to me but represents an aggregation of data from posts on Twitter, and other vote sheets from the Layman, Covenant Network, Yes On Amendment A, and Reclaim Biblical Teaching.  It is important to note that only the first and last of those have info on all three issues and the other two are only for 10-A.

As of yesterday morning, the Belhar Confession was at 21 yes and 20 no, the nFOG was tied at 15, and 10-A was at 27 yes and 25 no.  In total, 88 presbyteries – just over half – had voted on one or more of the issues.  Of these 22 have voted on two of the issues — 9 on Belhar and nFOG, 7 on Belhar and 10-A, and 6 on nFOG and 10-A. Seven presbyteries have voted on all three issues, five of those voting no on all three and two voting no on two out of three with one voting yes on 10-A and one on nFOG.

I eventually plan to run correlations on voting ratios for those presbyteries that have recorded votes, but for this analysis I maximized the sample set by just looking at the bimodal yes/no outcome.  I have a master matrix which those familiar with statistics should be careful not to confuse as a joint probability chart since I have mixed the votes together.  (And I’m sorry if the 70’s color scheme annoys you, but it is just my working spreadsheet and not intended for final publication.)

So, here are the charted data:

 n=16  Belhar
Yes 		 Belhar
No
 nFOG Yes  2  1
 nFog No  0  13

 n=14  Belhar
Yes 		 Belhar
No
 10-A Yes  4  1
 10-A No  1  8

 n=12  10-A
Yes 		 10-A
No
 nFOG Yes  4  1
 nFog No  1  6



Statistics of small numbers? Clearly. But I find it striking that so far only one presbytery has voted cross-wise on each combination except that no presbytery has yet voted no on nFOG and yes on Belhar.  I also think it is noteworthy that in each case, and most pronounced in the Belhar/nFOG voting, there are more presbyteries that have voted “no” on both than have voted “yes.”  For Belhar/10-A and 10-A/nFOG this goes away, and even reverses, if you take out the presbyteries that have voted on all three.

Looking at the bigger picture, while the total vote counts don’t provide any definitive correlation data, their very close margins at the present time are completely compatible with the interpretation that the votes are correlated.  In other words, if the votes are correlated very similar vote counts would be expected (which we have).  But this observation is only necessary and not sufficient for the interpretation.  Additionally, when vote counts are recorded there are usually very similar vote distributions for each of these issues, giving additional evidence of their correlation.

Calculating the number is the easy part, figuring out if it is meaningful is more difficult.  With less than 10% of the presbyteries actually represented in any of of these correlation charts at this point I firmly acknowledge that this could all easily change around very quickly.  So, I don’t want to over-interpret the data, but I do think some corresponding observations are in order.

The simplest explanation is that while the voting may be correlated they are not linked.  In this case a commissioner would make up his or her mind separately on each issue independently and without regard for the other two issues.  The result is that most commissioners, after weighing the arguments and reflecting on information, would be guided to vote the same way on each of the issues.  This is a likely conclusion, especially for those presbyteries that schedule the voting at three different meetings.

But even with our best efforts to be thoughtful and treat each issue independently I have observed a few things around the denomination that tend to link these issues together.  In some cases this is fairly prominent and in other cases I suspect the influence may be at a subliminal level.

The first possible effect is that affinity groups, by recommending the same votes on all three issues, are having an effect and providing a linkage, even if only implied.  Resources at Theology Matters and the Reclaim Biblical Teaching site of the Presbyterian Coalition both recommend a no vote on all three issues.  Similarly, the Covenant Network and Presbyterian Voices for Justice are in favor of all three actions — although to be fair, PJV voices are not unanimously in favor of nFOG.  What has been set up, rightly or wrongly, appears to be a “party-line” vote where you vote yes on the slate if you are progressive or liberal or vote no if you are conservative or orthodox.  This linkage of Belhar and 10-A has been floating around for a while.  It is tougher to tell if there are real linkages of these two with nFOG or whether they are not linked but rather appeal to the same theological base, or possibly whether the issue is “guilt by association.”  Maybe another linkage between nFOG and Belhar is not theological but logistical and some of the negative sentiment simply stems from the church not having had the time to discuss and explore them enough yet. Yes, quite possible despite the fact that we were supposed to be doing that with both issues for the last two years between assemblies.

Beyond the third-party recommendations, let me put forward more subtle explanations – inertia & cynicism.  This is somewhat related to the lack of familiarity argument above but more about the seven last words of the church – “We’ve never done it that way before.”  The question I have is how many presbytery commissioners are opposed to all of them because this seems like change for change’s sake?  Or how many are for it because the church needs to change?  Or to put it another way – “if it ain’t broke why are we trying to fix it?”  A similar argument against Belhar and nFOG could be “if it comes from Louisville it must not be good.”  Remember, neither of these finally came as a presbytery overture but as recommendations from GA entities. (The nFOG has been talked about for a while but the recommendation to form the Task Force was the result of a referral to the OGA.  The request to study the Belhar Confession came from the Advocacy Committee on Racial-Ethnic Concerns.)

Now let me be clear before I am set upon in the comments: For each of these amendments there are very good arguments for and against them and as presbytery commissioners we set about weighing these arguments and discerning God’s will together.  I would expect few if any commissioners would vote solely on the idea that “nothing good can come from Louisville.”  What I do expect is that for some individuals the preservation of the status quo and skepticism of proposals that are top-down rather than bottom-up from the presbyteries are important factors, explicitly or implicitly.

Well, I am afraid that I have gotten too close to the great quote from Mark Twain – “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”  Considering we are still in the early stages of the voting I may indeed be guilty of over interpreting the data.  So rather than provide more conjecture, let me ask a question that may be hinted at but not answerable by these data or even the final data set:  Are we doing our deliberations and voting a disservice by having so many high-profile votes in a single year?  To put it another way – Is our explicit or implicit linkages of issues, valid or not, unfairly influencing the votes?  Something to think about and keep probing the data for answers.

So, until next time, happy data crunching.

A Very Preliminary Look At Amendment Voting In The PC(USA)

2 Replies

The holidays are now behind us and traditionally this is the time when voting on amendments to the Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) kicks into high gear.  So I thought that I would take the first, preliminary look at possible trends in the voting.  But first some preliminaries…

Let me first make a couple of comments about the question “why bother?”  Well, beyond the fact that crunching data is the sort of thing that I enjoy doing I also think that it gives one of the best windows into what is going on in the denomination at this time.  It is a widely accepted generalization that the decisions of the General Assembly do not necessarily reflect the thinking of the “people in the pews.”  The usual evidence that is pointed to is the fact that three times previously the GA has sent an amendment to remove or rewrite G-6.0106b in the Book of Order, and three times it has been rejected by the presbyteries.  Another example of a disconnect is the negative reaction from many churches to the GA decision to boycott companies who supply items linked to the Israel-Palestine conflict.  So, while Research Services gives us statistics based on opinion poles of sampled members, the vote counts, both the absolute and relative numbers, give us an insight into how ruling and teaching elders react to the issues the Assembly sends down to them.  In short, I think the vote numbers can give us an insight into how the PC(USA) is changing.

So what is different this year about the vote?  I think there are four things that need to be taken into account.

1) Each year the Assembly sends an amendment with a bit different wording and that might make a difference.  This year the proposed language speaks more about the examination, that the governing body is responsible for it, and that they are to be guided by the Scriptures and the confessions.   One of the more interesting lines is “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).” So while the confessions and the Scriptures are to guide the governing body, the candidate’s qualifications seem to be focused on the constitutional questions.  So, how will any individual commissioner view the proposed wording this time around?

2) This vote is coming right after another vote two years ago while the previous interval was seven years from 2001 to 2008.  There are a number of ways that this could manifest itself with two possibilities being the reduced turnout due to a “fatigue factor” and/or little change in the numbers due to less time for the church to evolve.

3) I will not develop this point here, but will just say that in looking at the numbers for the last four votes (96-B, 97-A, 01-A, 08-B ) I consider the vote on amendment 01-A to be a unique case with a turnout of conservative voters in proportions not seen in the other three votes.  I will say that so far for 10-A this observation seems to still hold with the current numbers looking a lot like the last round of voting.

4) Overall, the voting is not just about “fidelity and chastity” this year but there is also the addition of the Belhar Confession to the Book of Confessions and a whole new revision to the Form of Government.  The voting could have different dynamics this year due to this expanded slate and the dynamics of the timing of scheduling the votes.

OK, now the data.  While the official count is always kept by the Office of the General Assembly , it only gives the totals.  For the Amendment A vote I have been comparing the breakdown by presbytery from several sources: the Yes On Amendment A site, Covenant Network, Reclaim Biblical Teaching, and the Layman.  Voting on the Belhar and nFOG are covered by both the Layman and the Reclaim Biblical Teaching site.  Then for breaking news there is always Twitter.  I’ve got my own tally sheet shared online, but I don’t claim to have it updated as quickly as the others.  And if you want a detailed list of resources related to these votes you should start with Robert Austell’s GA Help web site.

So, at the present time the Belhar Confession trails by 17-12 (remember it needs 2/3 for a confession to be approved), nFog is passing 10-7, and after a flurry of voting yesterday Amendment A is currently failing 15-20.  In total, 67 of the 173 presbyteries have voted on at least one of these items, eight have voted on two and three have voted on all three.  You can see that so far the presbyteries are taking the votes deliberately and not usually taking more than one at a time.

Of the four that have voted on both the Belhar and 10-A the votes have been very similar: Alaska – 24% yes Belhar and 31% yes 10-A, Lackawanna – 45% yes Belhar and 40% yes 10-A, New Castle – 72% yes Belhar and 70% yes 10-A, Santa Barbara – 23% yes Belhar and 27% yes 10-A.  While this is not proof that commissioners view Belhar and 10-A as being closely linked, it is suggestive that many may view both of them through a common filter.

Correlations for nFOG with the other two are not as close.  Sometimes there is a similar proportion, like Alaska that had identical 7-22 votes on each, or Des Moines which had 64% yes on Belhar and 70% yes on nFOG. Sometimes it is not as close, such as Eastern Oklahoma that barely passed 10-A but passed nFOG on voice vote, or Northumberland which was 36% yes on Belhar but only 13% yes on nFOG.

But these are early trends of just a small number of votes so we will see what develops over the next six months.

I want to finish by taking a quick look at the repeat voting on G-6.0106b comparing Amendment 10-A to 08-B.  We have reports on 35 presbyteries having held their votes and so far two have moved from “no” to “yes” (Eastern Oklahoma, Eastern Virginia) and one has moved the other way (Lake Huron).  So the net change at this point is one to the yes column.

Looking at the total yes and no votes, we find that there are 6% fewer total votes (3848 versus 4101) for these 33 presbyteries.  It is interesting to note that this 6% decline in commissioners voting exactly matches the overall decline in membership in the PC(USA) over the last two years (3.1% plus 2.9%).  Taken as a whole, the
number of commissioners voting yes is up 5% (1875 this vote versus 1786
in the last vote) while those voting no have declined 15% (1973 down
from 2315).  If the decline in total votes were proportionally represented in the yes and no votes we would expect 88 fewer yes votes and 199 more no votes.  So the decrease in no votes can not be explained only by the increase in yes votes but there must also be a decline in the number of commissioners who favor “fidelity and chastity” who are voting.

For the 33 presbyteries with reported numbers (Northern NY and Cayuga-Syracuse had hand or voice votes without recorded numbers), 23 had a decrease in the number of votes, 9 had an increase and one was exactly the same.  Now, some normal fluctuation in the number of commissioners attending the meeting is to be expected and I have usually placed this at +4%.  Taking this into account,  eight lower totals and five higher totals for a total of 13 more are added to the unchanged category.  This total of 14 is just a bit less than half of all the presbyteries voting so far.  The greatest decline is from Elizabeth Presbytery which had only 76% of the commissioners present as they had for the last vote.  This could easily be attributed to the inclement weather in the northeast this weekend. However, Genesee Valley, which voted at the same time, had only a slight decrease of 3%.  The largest increase was in Newton Presbytery which had 1.14 times the number of commissioners as the last vote.  Of the four increases that I consider significant (in a statistical but only quasi-rigorous sense), there are three presbyteries that voted no and one voted yes.  Tempting but dubious to draw conclusions from such a small sample.

If we look at yes and no votes broken down by presbytery, on average there are 19% more yes voters and 13% less no voters.  For the presbyteries that voted yes there was only a 1% increase in the number of yes voters and 16% decrease in no voters.  For the presbyteries that voted no, the increase in yes voters was 31% while the no voters decreased by 11%.  That increase in no votes was pulled by a couple of large increases, but it suggests that the Yes on A get out the vote campaign is having an effect while the similar effort for No on A is not as effective.

Let me warp up this discussion with the general observation that I am seeing the whole range of behaviors in different presbyteries.  The three presbyteries that switched all had significant increases on the prevailing side with 12%, 21% and 22% increases.  On the other side were varying decreases from 5%, to 14% to 23%.  The switch in position was a two-way street apparently caused by both gains and losses.  There were a couple of presbyteries with uniform change, such as Great Rivers which had a 3% increase in both the number of yes and no votes, or Newton which had a uniform 19% increase in both columns.  There are also presbyteries, like Central Florida and Stockton, where the total number of votes was very constant and the votes shifted columns.  It was into the yes column for Central Florida and towards no for Stockton.  There is only one presbytery, Mississippi, where the no votes were stable (47 versus 49) but the yes votes increased (up to 11 from 2).  And there are two presbyteries, Boston and New Castle, where the yes votes remained constant but the no votes declined significantly.  And then there are the rest of the presbyteries which exhibit more complex changes that can not be explained solely with these simple end-member models.

So, that is what I am seeing so far.  As I said, this is preliminary because with only around 30-40 presbyteries having voted on each amendment drawing statistical conclusions would be a bit early.  However, there are interesting trends developing and we will see how those play out.  Stay tuned… I’ll get out the white board and draw geeky charts and graphs next time.

Constitutional Voting In The PC(USA)

Leave a reply

It will be a busy seven months for the presbyteries in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  The 219th General Assembly sent three high-profile constitutional changes down to the presbyteries for their concurrence and then there are all the rest of the amendments.

My first reaction was to take these as four different packages, each at a different presbytery meeting.  The problem of course is that while my presbytery has the meetings to do that most others do not.  So it looks like they will be doubling up on some of these debates.

It is still early in the voting on all the amendments so I’m not really ready to start drilling down into the data just yet.  But I will make some observations about the process so far.

First, where am I getting my data?  Well, with the proliferation of Twitter I think many of us are getting our own real-time updates on presbytery meetings.  But in terms of compiling the data for later reference, I know of two sources:  1) The Layman is publishing charts of voting on all three high-profile amendments:  Amendment 10-A, new Form of Government, and the Belhar Confession. 2) More Light Presbyterians is maintaining their own chart of presbytery voting at their Yes on Amendment A blog, but as the name suggests that is specific to that issue.  From these various sources I am compiling and posting my own spreadsheet for analysis with the emphasis on my preferred focus of correlations between the different issues and with no promise that the chart will be updated in a timely manner.  Finally, we can not forget the official voting report which does not have a break down by presbytery but which has been updated today to reflect that the Belhar Confession needs a 2/3 vote to pass.  (It was originally listed as simple majority.)

At this juncture it is interesting to note that with almost two months of voting behind us six presbyteries have voted on nFOG (4 yes, 2 no), fifteen have voted on 10-A (4 yes, 11 no), and nineteen have voted on Belhar (13 yes, 6 no).  While it is far too early to predict outcomes it is interesting to note that on 10-A no presbytery has switched votes yet from the last “fidelity and chastity” vote but for some presbyteries voting “no” the votes have been closer.  (Presbytery of the James had a 153-153 tie.)  It is also interesting to see that the Belhar is just barely making the 2/3 ratio it needs to pass.

In my mind it is easy to see why the nFOG has been tackled by the fewest presbyteries — It is the most complex and the longest and probably has the greatest long-term implications.  Extended time for study and discussion is warranted.  The Belhar being the furthest along?  I have to think that it is viewed as the last controversial of the three and a good one to begin with.  In a couple of presbyteries it has passed by an overwhelming margin, unanimously in Cimarron Presbytery .

It is also interesting to observe that two presbyteries, Alaska and Santa Barbara, each knocked out all three in one meeting and in both cases did not concur with all three.  No other presbytery has taken on more than one of these yet.

But with this many items in a time period in which we usually just track one high-profile amendment it will become very busy soon, probably just into the new year.  Stay tuned.

Synod PJC Ruling In The Case Of Caledonia And Others v. Knox

Leave a reply

This past weekend the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of Lakes and Prairies heard and decided the complaint of The Session, Caledonia Presbyterian Church, Paula Bremer, James Gunn, Alan Crandall, Jerry Indermark, James F Scaife, The Presbytery of Central Florida, The Presbytery of Prospect Hill, and Stockton Presbytery v. John Knox Presbytery.  (And thanks to the Covenant Network for posting a PDF of the decision)

The case involves the examination for ordination and declaration of an exception by Mr. Scott Anderson approved by John Knox Presbytery last Spring. Not a lot of intro needed here because the background, context, and implications are nearly identical to the Parnell decision I commented on a week ago.  Check that post out for the relevant polity comments. In this case there were three specifications of error regarding the process and the application of ordination standards.  By a 7-2 vote the PJC found that the Presbytery had followed the correct procedure:

The John Knox Presbytery acted within its authority following G-13.0103(r) using the most recent Authoritative Interpretation (Al) (2008)…
…
The SPJC finds that John Knox Presbytery properly took responsibility for that decision. Therefore, permitting Anderson to declare a departure or exception from Section G-6.0106(b) was within the authority of the Presbytery.

There was a dissenting opinion which said, in part:

The majority finds that as the Presbytery followed the provisions of G-6.0108 and the PUP and Knox AIs, it could vote to ordain Scott Anderson as he declared a scruple to the application at least some of the ordination standards as outlined in Section G-0106(b) [sic] to his own life.

This interpretation of the Knox Al, as it applies to Section G-0106(b), [sic] cannot be sustained under our polity. In this case, such an application has effectively allowed a Presbytery to invalidate or amend Section G-0106(b). [sic] We do not believe that any governing body, including the General Assembly, through the authoritative interpretation process as provided under G-13.0103(r) can, directly or indirectly, amend an express provision of the Book or Order.

The ordination standards as provided in Section G-0106(b) [sic] have engendered continuing conflict in our denomination and we acknowledge that Presbyterians in good faith have deep disagreement as to the wisdom if these standards. However, the only forum for a change to this Section is by and through our presbyteries, not through the use of authoritative interpretations.

(And in case you did not figure it out, for that persistent typographical error in the dissent the reference should be G-6.0106(b))

Not much more to say in this case.  The decision and dissent are both direct and concise and the reasoning is very similar to the Parnell decision.   Considering the timing, similarities, and parallel natures of these cases it is reasonable to expect that if they are both appealed, and the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission accepts them, that they would be heard and decided in the same session, probably next Spring.  Stay tuned…

Another Step In The Journey — Synod PJC Decision In Parnell And Others v. Presbytery Of San Francisco

1 Reply

It strikes many Presbyterians with surprise, that the General Assembly… should be largely occupied in discussing the question… They ask with displeasure, “Are fundamentals never to be settled among us? Is the church never to be relieved of these debates, which thus agitate the settled foundations of our theory?” We may answer to these indignant questions with an emphatic No. The good brethren who thus deplore these renewed discussions of first principles misconceive the nature of the human mind and of free institutions. While man remains the creature he is, such discussions are to be expected and desired. Each generation must do its own thinking, and learn for itself its own lessons in first truths and general principles. If we insist that this generation of Presbyterians shall hold our fathers’ principles on trust, and by mere prescription, the result will be that they will not hold them sincerely at all.

I will let you live with that quote for a few minutes.  (If the curiosity is killing you about who said it and when then jump to the end or do a web search for it.) In a sense this quote is timeless and maybe captures the unique nature of Presbyterianism better than any other I know.  And while there has been some recent discussion and lamenting about how slowly our polity can move, the truth is that for a church that is supposed to embody a covenant community we do move slowly because it is about discerning God’s will through the journey of the whole community.  You may remember that in the PC(USA)’s predecessors, women were not ordained as deacons until American Presbyterianism was into its third century (1906), it was another 24 years until women were ordained as ruling elders, and then an additional 26 for ordination as teaching elders.  Changes in ordination standards are slow in moving and as one widely-cited GAPJC ordination decision from 1975 testifies, these issues may still be unsettled decades later.

So, the decision from the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Pacific that was released last week should be viewed as one little step in the larger context of the community’s discernment that has been on-going and is not yet complete.

I ultimately want to comment on the decision, and while I hesitate to once again recite the background that this decision comes out of, let me at least briefly remind those that don’t follow this debate as closely as some of us polity wonks of a few of the important background points that are applicable here:

First, while there have been multiple amendments sent to the presbyteries to try to remove or modify the ordination standards section in the Book of Order, also know as the “fidelity and chastity” section, G-6.0106b still remains a constitutional standard for ordination.  Yes, another amendment is being sent to the presbyteries this year but to date the collective discernment of the denomination has been to keep the standard.

Second, with the adoption of the Report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity in 2006  the 217th General Assembly adopted an Authoritative Interpretation (AI) that included the following section on applying the standards to those seeking ordination:

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.

The AI then goes on to say that one governing body’s application of the standards is reviewable by higher governing bodies.

In response to this AI some presbyteries passed policies about what are essentials, but in the Bush decision the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) ruled that there could not be blanket policies, but rather candidates must be considered on a case-by-case basis.  However, in that ruling the GAPJC also stated that:

“Under our polity, violations of behavioral standards are to be addressed through repentance and reconciliation, not by exception or exemption. 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.” The fidelity and chastity provision may only be changed by a constitutional amendment. Until that occurs, individual candidates, officers, examining and governing bodies must adhere to it.

The 218th General Assembly (2009) chose to issue a new Authoritative Interpretation that clarified the intent of the PUP Report as expressed in the rational, which was not binding.  This AI contradicted parts of the GAPJC Bush decision and rendered those sections void.  The AI said:

The 218th General Assembly (2008) affirms the authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 approved by the 217th General Assembly (2006). Further, the 218th General Assembly (2008), pursuant to G-13.0112, interprets the requirements of G-6.0108 to apply equally to all ordination standards of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Section G-6.0108 requires examining bodies to give prayerful and careful consideration, on an individual, case-by-case basis, to any departure from an ordination standard in matters of belief or practice that a candidate may declare during examination. However, the examining body is not required to accept a departure from standards, and cannot excuse a candidate’s inability to perform the constitutional functions unique to his or her office (such as administration of the sacraments).”

This AI was based upon an overture to the 218th GA from the Presbytery of John Knox and has acquired the informal title “Knox Authoritative Interpretation” or “Knox AI,” a title propagated in the decision we are about to look at to distinguish it from the earlier “PUP AI.”  The original overture from Knox carries the title “On Adopting an Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108 to Ensure Proper Application of Ordination Standards.”

The third perforatory point I want to make is that although there have been several GAPJC decisions related to ordination standards all of them have dealt with procedural matters and issues of timing.  Specifically, the earlier cases have clarified that a statement of departure must be made by the candidate and assessed by the presbytery at the time of their examination for ordination.  Specific to this case GAPJC decision 219-11 (Naegeli and others v. Presbytery of San Francisco) specified that examination on a departure must take place at the time of examination for ordination.

While the brief (yes, for this issue that is brief) review above may be familiar to many of my readers, I include it here because in my discussion that follows there are points that refer to these pieces of the past history.

It is important to remember that up to this point all of the case history of all of the judicial cases dealing with declaring exceptions to ordination standards are related to the process of doing so and rulings have not been rendered related to a specific candidate’s declared exceptions and how the presbytery has dealt with them.  That is what makes this new decision different.

This new case, Eric Parnell, Bruce McIntosh, Cordelia Shieh, Margaret Gelini, Greg Roth, Marsha Roth, Randy Young, and the Session of Walnut Creek Presbyterian Church, Complainants, v. The Presbytery of San Francisco, Respondent, is a remedial case brought by the complainants following the November 10, 2009, examination for ordination of candidate Lisa Larges.  This was the court of first impression and the Synod of the Pacific PJC heard testimony on the case and in a 5-4 decision did not sustain any of the five specifications of error.  The minority submitted an extensive dissent in which they disagree with the majority on four of the five specifications.

The ruling of the majority can actually be summed up very succinctly:  The presbytery’s actions were consistent with the current Authoritative Interpretation and the previous GAPJC rulings.

The dissenting opinion is a bit more complicated but I would summarize that as: While the facts in the case are not in dispute there are essentials of faith and polity here for which exceptions should not be granted.

Now, if all you wanted was the executive summary you can move on and I invite the polity wonks to stick around and see if you concur with my analysis of the decision.

Let me begin with the fourth specification of error, the one everyone agreed not to sustain.  That specification was that the presbytery erred in granting a departure to G-6.0106b “because departures can only be granted with regard to the interpretation of Scripture, not conduct.”  The relevant section of the Book of Order here is G-6.0108b:

b. It is to be recognized, however, that in becoming a candidate or officer of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) one chooses to exercise freedom of conscience within certain bounds. His or her conscience is captive to the Word of God as interpreted in the standards of the church so long as he or she continues to seek or hold office in that body. The decision as to whether a person has departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity is made initially by the individual concerned but ultimately becomes the responsibility of the governing body in which he or she serves. (G-1.0301; G-1.0302)

This looks like a good call on the part of the PJC because while the most recent AI addresses behavior this section does not place Scripture and conduct in this context.

Now considering the specifications of error which the PJC disagreed on – The first was that the candidate’s refusal to abide by G-6.0106b, a constitutional requirement, was equivalent to answering “No” to the fifth constitutional question for ordination about being “governed by our church’s polity.”  The second was that wishing to be exempted from G-6.0106b is “a serious departure from Reformed faith or polity.” The third specification of error was that the the presbytery was wrong to grant the exception because “such an act obstructs the constitutional governance of the church.”  Finally, the last error was that the exception that was granted “exceeds the bounds of freedom of conscience for one who seeks to hold office in the PC(USA).”

In answering all of these the prevailing decision references the most recent AI, the “Knox AI,” to argue that the process the presbytery followed complied with the current interpretations of the Book of Order.  Regarding whether the declared objection was “a serious departure” the decision says, in part:

In the absence of a preponderance of evidence showing that Presbytery erred in its decision to accept the candidate’s departure, this SPJC accepts the Presbytery’s decision that the candidate’s departure did not constitute a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity. (p. 4)

So, given the evidence at trial, and lacking strong evidence to the contrary, the SPJC finds no errors in the presbytery’s process and finds no reason to overturn their collective decision on the matter.

While the actual decision portion of the prevailing decision takes up about two pages, the dissenting opinion takes just over four pages.  The heart of the decision is the discussion of the second and third error specifications combined.  They begin their argument from the testimony of the expert witnesses for both sides:

From the testimony heard we conclude that the preponderance and emphasis of scripture supports the conclusion that the unanimous witness of both Old and New Testament is that fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness are Reformed mandates to be applied to those called to leadership in the Church. “Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable…” [I Timothy 3:2]. Many other texts, Old and New Testaments, confirm this conclusion, such as Genesis 2:24, Genesis 18:20ff, Mark 10:10, Romans 1:26-31, I Corinthians 6:9-10, Jude 7, to mention only a few. No texts suggest that fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness are in violation of Scripture or that infidelity in marriage or sexual activity in singleness are consistent and supported in Scripture.

For the Candidate to separate her actions from Biblical truth is a serious departure from Reformed faith. (p. 7)

They then go on to review the PUP AI and then discuss the examination process:

In this case, the facts are clear and undisputed. The Candidate for ordination to the office of Minister of Word and Sacrament appeared upon the floor of the Presbytery of San Francisco, and during her ordination examination, declared a departure pursuant to G-6.0108 using the process described in the PUP AI, specifically in section c(2).

In her Statement of Departure, the Candidate declared that she was bound by her conscience to reject the authority of G-6.0106b, with respect to the “requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between and man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness.” She expressly declared, “By my conscience, faith, and theology, I cannot and will not accept the terms of this standard”.

Each party to this matter urges divergent scriptural and constitutional interpretations but neither party contests the operative facts of this case. In a like manner, neither party asserts any deficiency in the process of the presbytery in arriving at its decision in this matter.

We are therefore squarely faced with the determination as a matter of law or polity whether the departure of the Candidate was a serious failure to adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith as expressed in the constitution.

We find that it was.

When it comes to the living of one’s life there may be considerable divergence of opinion of what it means to live one’s life “in obedience to scripture and conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church.” We may not have, nor may it be desirable to have, an exhaustive list of what those standards are. But we know one of them. The second sentence of G-6.0106b emphatically declares that it is the “requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” [italics added]. The language of the Constitution specifically and explicitly declares that requirement to be among the historic confessional standards of the church. (p. 8-9)

They finish this section by arguing for, and concluding, that the most recent AI and the Book of Order are at odds here.  “G-6.0106b and the Knox AI cannot both be honored in this case.” (p. 9)  Without citing the Bush decision they echo Bush where that decision says:

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)

and again from Bush:

The SPJC correctly stated that the fidelity and chastity provision of G-6.0106b is a mandatory standard that cannot be waived…. Presbyteries do not have the authority to restate or define such standards. (p. 7)

As I said, that is the heart of the dissent.  For error 1 the minority briefly argues that answering a constitutional question by saying “yes, except for…” is essentially saying no.  For error 5 the dissenting opinion appeals to the preceding argument about essential standards to say that if something is indeed essential, than rejecting it does exceed the bounds of conscience.

Finally, it is important to note the comment attached to the decision that, in part, says:

Given the importance of these issues to the instant parties, this Commission and the larger church body, we look forward to the GAPJC’s guidance and direction. This Commission joins with the parties of Bierschwale II in imploring the GAPJC to rule on the continued authority of Bush v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh (Minutes 218-10, p.319) in light of the 2008 Authoritative Interpretation on G-6.0108b.

Well, the complainants have stated that they intend to appeal so a stay is in place for 45 days to give the complainants time to file the appeal and the GAPJC time to accept it.  This raises an interesting question about the appeal timeline and the voting on the amendment to G-6.0106b — Might an appeal be rendered moot and denied when no remedy is necessary if the amendment were to pass?  On the other hand, are these issues important enough and general enough that a GAPJC decision would be useful regardless of any changes to the constitution because the section at issue is actually G-6.0108 and not the “fidelity and chastity” language?

If you are interested in other coverage of the decision you can find it in all the usual places: Presbyterian News, The Outlook, The Layman , and the Covenant Network.

And two brief additional comments: 1) The 5-4 vote by the SPJC was in very similar proportions as the 156 to 138 presbytery vote to sustain the candidate’s examination.  (56% to 44% compared to 53% to 47%)  2) Counsel representing the complainants included Mary Naegeli who was the lead complainant on the earlier case I mentioned in this sequence, Naegeli and others v. San Francisco Presbytery.

So that is my take on this decision and the status of declared departures in the PC(USA).  Of course, declared departures and “scruples” are nothing new being almost as old as American Presbyterianism itself.  But once again, even as the denomination looks at adding to its confessional standards, there is the necessary discussion about what is an acceptable departure from the essentials of the Reformed faith.

And that quote at the beginning of this piece?  It may or may not surprise you that it is 150 years old – a point in time almost exactly half-way between the beginnings of American Presbyterianism and today.  We keep on arguing, but we have been for 300 years.  Polity takes time, struggle, and a willingness to be in discussion, discernment and prayer as we seek the will of God together.

And so for completeness I leave you with the full, unedited, opening line from Robert Dabney in his essay “Theories of the Eldership.”

It strikes many Presbyterians with surprise, that the General Assembly and our leading periodicals in this year 1860, one hundred and fifty years after the beginning of our church in America, should be largely occupied in discussing the question, “What is Presbyterianism?”

You Never Know Where A Story Will Take You — Finding The Presbyterian Connections

Leave a reply

you find the PC(USA) in the most interesting places…

So, during my morning coffee break I am skimming through one of my regular blog reads, Clerical Whispers , an Irish Roman Catholic blog at heart but one that does a good job of also covering Irish and Scottish Presbyterian news as well as Anglican developments.  And as I’m scanning through I find an article with not one, but two links to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

The story is about a group derived from the Roman church that is ordaining women as priests in the RC tradition.  Of course, as the article notes this is not the teaching of the wider church:

Noting that church law and teachings prohibit the ordination of women, Sister Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that ordinations of women are invalid.

“You don’t wake up and say, ‘I’m going to be a priest today,'” Walsh said.

This is not news to the group who clearly post on their web site

Yes, we have challenged and broken the Church’s Canon Law 1024, an unjust law that discriminates against women. Despite what some bishop may lead the faithful to believe, our ordinations are valid because we are ordained in the line of unbroken apostolic succession within the Roman Catholic Church.

OK, I’ll leave that for them to sort out.  We Presbyterians have enough questions of our own.

Anyway, over the weekend the group ordained (or is that “ordained”?) two women as priests and three more as deacons at Spiritus Christi Church in Rochester, New York, a church that “was established in 1999 in a split with the Rochester Diocese ” according to the article.  One each of the priests and the deacons are from Rochester with the other priest from New Hampshire and the other deacons from Pennsylvania and Maryland.

PC(USA) Connection #1:  In listing the work of the Rochester woman ordained as a priest it includes her work as a Peacemaker for the Presbytery of Genesee Valley.

PC(USA) Connection #2: It is also interesting to note that the church that hosted the ordination service, Spiritus Christi, is a church that now shares facilities with the Downtown United Presbyterian Church in Rochester.

So we Presbyterians are finding connections into all sorts of doctrinal debates and places the boundaries in other denominations are being stretched.