Category Archives: church order

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

2 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Statements of “Essentials of Reformed Faith and Polity”: Attempts by governing bodies that ordain and install officers to adopt resolutions, statements or policies that paraphrase or restate provisions of the Book of Order and/or declare them as “essentials of Reformed faith and polity” are confusing and unnecessary; and are themselves an obstruction to constitutional governance in violation of G-6.0108a. [Headnotes, p. 1]

The constitutional process for amending ordination standards (or any other provision of the Constitution) is defined in Chapter 18 of the Form of Government. While the General Assembly and the GAPJC may interpret these standards, the Authoritative Interpretation did not (and constitutionally could not) change any ordination standard, including the requirements set forth in G-6.0106b. Similarly, no lower governing body can constitutionally define, diminish, augment or modify standards for ordination and installation of church officers. [p. 5]

Ordaining bodies have the right and responsibility to determine whether or not any “scruples” declared by candidates for ordination and/or installation constitute serious departures from our system of doctrine, government, or discipline; to what extent the rights and views of others might be infringed upon by those departures; and whether those departures obstruct the constitutional governance of the church. At the same time, attempts by governing bodies that ordain and install officers to adopt resolutions, statements or policies that paraphrase or restate provisions of the Book of Order and/or declare them as “essentials of Reformed faith and polity” are confusing and unnecessary. G-6.0108a sets forth standards that apply to the whole church. These standards are binding on and must be followed by all governing bodies, church officers and candidates for church office. Adopting statements about mandatory provisions of the Book of Order for ordination and installation of officers falsely implies that other governing bodies might not be similarly bound; that is, that they might choose to restate or interpret the provisions differently, fail to adopt such statements, or possess some flexibility with respect to such provisions. Restatements of the Book of Order, in whatever form they are adopted, are themselves an obstruction to the same standard of constitutional governance no less than attempts to depart from mandatory provisions. [p. 6]

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

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

[ p. 6 ]

It would be an obstruction of constitutional governance to permit examining bodies to ignore or waive a specific standard that has been adopted by the whole church, such as the “fidelity and chastity” portion of G-6.0106b, or any other similarly specific provision. On the other hand, the broad reference in G-6.0106b to “any practice which the confessions call sin” puts the responsibility first on the candidate and then on the examining body to determine whether a departure is a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity and the remainder of G-6.0108(a) with respect to freedom of conscience. The ordaining body must examine the candidate individually. The examining body is best suited to make decisions about the candidate’s fitness for office, and factual determinations by examining bodies are entitled to deference by higher governing bodies in any review process. [p. 7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Couple Of Changes In The PC(USA)

2 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this section now adds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happens when a presbytery says “No!”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One word – “Kenyon.”

Yup, I went there. 

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

The GAPJC wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay tuned…

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.

Whither The PC(USA)? Wither The PC(USA)?

5 Replies

What next?  What does this mean?

I suspect that many of you have also been hearing these questions whispered and shouted as Amendment 10-A looks fairly certain to be approved by the presbyteries and replace the “fidelity and chastity” section of the Book of Order.  And I suspect that you are also hearing in the discussion of its passage the suggestion that there will be a resulting increase in the already high departure rate from the denomination or the comments that the next major Book of Order section to be changed will be the definition of marriage (W-4.9001) and then an exodus will really begin.

Well, as regular readers are aware, I have a particular interest in the dynamics of the realignments in Presbyterian branches (example 1, example 2, example 3).  Needless to say, I have been thinking about some of these questions in the larger context of the history of American Presbyterianism and what the church might look like in the near future.  So here is a back of the envelope calculation and a thought experiment related to what is next.  Because this discussion is currently gaining momentum in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I will be focusing on that branch, but I think a lot of this is easily generalized to other branches and denominations.

Experiment 1: Reality Check – The theological controversy is not the only membership decline issue
Frequently in the PC(USA) we hear that the denomination is losing members because of the internal controversies.  Well, it is probably a bit more complicated than that.

If we look at the summary of comparative statistics for 2009, the most recent year that is available, we can first make a rough estimate of the replacement capacity of the PC(USA).  In 2009 there were 20,501 individuals age 17 and under that joined the church by affirmation of faith. This is effectively the “internal gain,” that is the kids that come through the system from member families.  This represents a 1.0% membership gain for 2009.  This is offset by those that leave the rolls due to their new membership in the Church Triumphant, that is, those that have died.  For 2009 that was 32,827 or a loss of 1.5% of the membership.  So the net of -0.5% represents the church’s inability to replace its membership internally.

The other thing is that all of the mainline churches are declining in membership.  But within this decline there is a difference in the rates of decline relative to the strength of internal controversy in the churches.  For the six traditional “mainline” denominations that make the National Council of Churches 25 largest list, the less contentious United Methodist Church and American Baptist Churches in the USA declined by 1.01% and 1.55% respectively.  The three with more heated internal controversy had larger declines: PC(USA) declined 2.61%, the Episcopal Church declined 2.48%, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America declined 1.96%.  It would suggest that we could attribute at least 1%, and probably a bit more, of the PC(USA)’s decline to the internal controversy itself.  But that is only about half the total decline with the other half broken into about one-third the lack of internal replacement and about two-thirds the general decline in the mainline and the trend towards non-denominationalism.

Now the case can be made that these three factors are nothing more than different facets of the same general problem that the mainline faces — a younger generation shuns the “institutional” nature of the church with its continuing controversies in a hierarchical setting and their departure for the non-denominational or the “nones” raises the median age and decreases the birthrate.  However, the apparent correlation of membership declines with internal controversy is striking but not a complete explanation.

Experiment 2: Where could things go from here?
This is a fairly simple thought experiment — Let us begin with the question of the different paths forward and exploring a range of possible outcomes and then reflect briefly on the likelihood of each.  I’ll be structuring this a bit like a decision tree so at some point I can revisit it and place probabilities on the various outcomes. Also, I am trying to keep this as a generalization so it is applicable in other instances. And along the way here I have a notation to systematically label the different cases.

The first question is whether the denomination remains as a single body ( A ) or formally divides ( B ).

For branch A, where the denomination remains a single body, we could imagine one outcome where a unifying state is found (A1) and another where the church is internally divided (A2).

I think that taking this one more level is appropriate, and so let me suggest that the unifying state could be either a formal arrangement that resolves the issues and all sides accept as a solution (A1a) and maybe they are even happy with – a “win-win” situation” – or an acceptance to live by the decision of the majority submitting to Presbyterian polity that the church has gone through the discernment process to reach the decision and the church lives with that (A1b).

Now what if there is one body but with internal divisions – there could be either a formal and institutionalized arrangement (A2a) or a de facto division into clearly defined but not formally recognized divisions (A2b).

The other top branch is the formal division of a denomination into two distinct and separate bodies.  I must admit a bit more wrestling with this classification scheme and I’m not sure that always carrying it two levels further down works.  One form would be a formal division without specific action on the part of either side (B1). (More clarification on this in a moment.)  Another option would be division by action of only one side (B2).  For this we could consider two cases, one where the action is taken by the majority/dominant/controlling side (B2a) and the other where the action is taken by the minority/dissenting side (B2b).  Finally, there would be another case (B3) where the action is taken by mutual agreement of both sides.

Now, some clarifications of this system. First, this is a unary or binary system and only considers what is going on in one body that may be dividing into two bodies.  It does not consider a ternary system where some fraction is moved between two bodies.  In that case it would be viewed as a division of one and a unification of the second.  Second, as this example suggests, this system does not “map” the evolution of a division but only captures a description and classification of it at one point in time — a snapshot at an instant.  Third, it simplifies the situation of a whole body down to one category while a more complex description of different conditions at various levels may be better.  Finally, I have not yet reflected this classification system onto the reverse case of the merging of bodies.

So a quick check as to whether this scheme makes sense — here are some examples from Presbyterian history.

A1a – I would place the initial response for the Adopting Act of 1729 into this category where a solution was found that, at least temporarily, resolved the polity issue.  This was also the hope for the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Uni
ty and Purity (PUP Report), although it is not clear that this hope was ever realized.

A1b – The category of living with the present polity even if opposed to it probably describes much of Presbyterian history — to use a liturgical analogy this is the “ordinary time” of our history.  This category does not preclude working to change what is disagreed with, but it suggests maintaining the system and the discussion while also maintaining a sense of being the Body of Christ together.

A2a – While the body living with a formal internal division is not at all common, it is not unheard of either.  This was part of the solution to reunify the mainline back in 1758 to resolve the Old/New Side split.  The existence of the continuing Old Side/New Side presbyteries in the following years is a suggested prototype for some of the flexible presbyteries and New Synod proposals circulating currently.

A2b – The case can be made that this unofficial status of division represents the present state of the PC(USA) with individuals identifying more with the various affinity groups in the church than with the denomination as a whole.

B1 – This is the category that I have the most difficulty defining because I am not sure that it can easily apply to a denomination as a whole, but rather represents a subdivision of the body.  However, I was looking for a category to represent the present church-by-church migration away from the PC(USA) through the New Wineskins organization.  So here, rather than leaving en masse, maybe the church divides through incremental departures.

B2a – Probably the premier example of the controlling group (and not necessarily the majority) forcing the division is the PCUSA General Assembly of 1837 where the Old School commissioners “locked out” a portion of the New School commissioners and controlled the Assembly.  It can be argued that this quickly became category B3 where the two sides basically agreed that they wanted to go it alone without the other.

B2b – This may be the most common category in the formal divisions of branch “B” with the majority group making a decision or disciplining a group or individual and that action precipitates a formal departure by members of the minority.  Well known examples of this division include the Disruption of 1843 in Scotland where the Free Church of Scotland formed from the established Church of Scotland and the controversies in the PCUSA in the 1930’s that would lead to a division and formation of a branch that would later become the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

B3 – The best examples I know of in this category are related to Presbyterian reunions where a small group dissents and is permitted to not be part of the merger and usually continue are their own individual branch.  This includes the continuing Free Church of Scotland churches that did not join the United Free Church in 1900, the churches from the Cumberland Presbyterian Church that did not join the PCUSA in 1906, the churches in the Presbyterian Church in Canada that did not become part of the United Church in 1925 and the Australian churches that did not join the Uniting Church in 1977 but continued as the Presbyterian Church in Australia.  Even more recently, with the reunion that formed the PC(USA) in 1983, there was an opportunity for churches that were part of the Presbyterian Church in the United States to depart after the merger.  It may be appropriate to have subcategories B3a for a mutual division that is not merger related and B3b for the case of a merger where a group is allowed to opt out of the union.

So, if you were keeping score at home you can see that the scheme I set up initially is not hypothetical but has examples from throughout Presbyterian history for each of the categories I suggest.

Discussion
So at this point some of you may be wondering whether my two experiments are “apples and oranges.”  After all, the first involves changes on the individual level and the second involves categorizing ecclesiastical changes at the highest levels.  Let me suggest that they are related…

These two forces are the tension the PC(USA), and other mainline churches, struggle with today.  Those who still honor or understand denominational identity are looking at how that identity can be perpetuated and the modern ethos asks what the need for denominations is in the first place.  Maybe the question to ask at this point is whether some of these categories of divisions could even happen today?  To put it another way – As Western religious culture has transformed to a non-denominational model would we see a denomination divide in the same ways that it has in the past?  Would we see a denomination truly divide at all or would it just dissipate?

Many of the great reorganizations and realignments in the Presbyterian church were based on the conviction of those involved that they were Presbyterian, but in good conscience could not accept some particular doctrinal or polity issue and so they removed themselves to be the variety of Presbyterians they thought God was calling them to be.

In the discussion above about membership loss the point is that some of the loss is not related to what it means to be Presbyterian, it is about finding a church that fits my tastes or has a style I can relate to.  If we are now in a non-denominational age then being a Presbyterian means a whole lot less than it did even 40 years ago.

Related to divisions in the church, this raises the question of whether a dissenting group could get enough critical mass to form a new Presbyterian branch.  That is why I was so determined to find some description for B1, the incremental informal departure.

So based on the present conditions which of these categories are likely outcomes and which are not?  Group A1 is probably not likely since the PUP Report was apparently not accepted as a unifying solution and the ongoing discussion over ordination standards and the questions about the future if 10-A passes seem to imply that there are concerns in some quarters of the current or future polity.  If we are looking for a unifying solution is must transcend the polity debates.  So, unless a unifying solution can be found, if we want to keep the PC(USA) together we are considering branch A2 – somehow living with or working out an internal division.  So far the General Assembly has been reluctant to approve flexible presbyteries or a parallel synod.  Whether you want to identify our current state as A1b or A2b the bottom line is that the membership decline will most likely continue as long as the current state continues — I would suggest considering alternatives.

Following the other path, there is discussion of a division in the church if 10-A passes.  I’m not sure I want to place exact odds on explicit division, or any particular form of formal division.  But as I mentioned above, the B1 division continues with departures of individual congregations (another one last week) and so like status quo on branch A, there is no reason to expect this not to continue.  The problem with branch B of course is that any alternative means two smaller denominations.  The alternatives, after doing nothing, are 1) keep working to find a unifying solution, 2) create internal parallel structures, 3) by one method or another create two smaller denominations and see if that configuration is stable for both of them.

Now, as you can see from my list above you can’t use the seven last words of the church here: “We’ve never done it that way before.”  You could argue that its not the way its supposed to be done.  I can relate to that — remember I have a good friend who pretty accurately describes me as a “polity fundamentalist.”  I don’t like the notion of a flexible ecclesialogy at all. Its just not… well, ITS NOT PRESBYTERIAN!

Please don’t think that I am abandoning Presbyterian polity for the purely pragmatic p
urpose of reversing membership decline.  But, for those of us who value Presbyterian polity it appears that we have two choices – 1) Maintain the status quo and live with 50,000 member/year losses or 2) Consider what it really means to be Presbyterian (sovereignty of God, connectionalism, meetings, discerning the will of God together, etc.) and find creative ways to be the Church in modern society while holding on to our core beliefs and (I think this is important) letting people know why we value the essentials of our polity.  If being Presbyterian means something to us let people know why!

I pray daily for the Middle Governing Bodies Commission.  I am encouraged by Tod Bolsinger’s comments at our Synod Assembly that the Commission will be looking for ideas to try on a demonstration basis.  I hope that we all have the courage to try some creative ideas that may or may not work, but show that we can still be Presbyterian and do things in a new way.  Maybe they would be along the lines of unifying ideas or maybe trying to live under the same tent with polity that differs a bit.  I don’t know but I look forward to the suggestions.

So where is the denomination headed?  Whither the PC(USA)? I don’t know.  But I do know that if we keep doing what we are doing the PC(USA) will continue to wither.

Postscript: After posting and reflecting on this piece I realized that a part in my original outline that hit the cutting room floor provided a certain balance to the tension I develop.  Rather than go back and add it to the original (there was a reason it got pulled) let me add three sentences here: What I don’t develop, but have mentioned elsewhere, is the non-organizational aspect of the membership decline.  What studies are finding (Almost Christian, Vanishing Boundaries) is the need for mainliners to develop their spiritual focus, depth and expectations.  If we subscribe to that remedy than we need to take Deep and Wide, or similar initiatives, seriously.

Synod PJC Upholds the Presbytery PJC Decision In Spahr Case

2 Replies

The Rev. Jane Adams Spahr appealed the decision of the Presbytery of the Redwoods Permanent Judicial Commission in her disciplinary case to the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Pacific. The appeal was heard Friday March 25 and the decision released early last week.  The executive summary is that the Synod PJC, without dissent, did not sustain any of the 13 specifications of error and attached an interesting comment section which identifies two important points of polity for the General Assembly PJC to consider on further appeal.  The Presbytery PJC decision remains in force.

Briefly, the background in this case is that the Rev. Spahr was previously tried for preforming same-sex ceremonies that could be interpreted as a Christian marriage but the GAPJC found that, by the definition in the Book of Order, a same-sex union can not be a marriage and therefore she was not guilty because what she was charged with was not possible (Spahr(2008) decision).  The Rev. Spahr has since conducted more ceremonies and has been charged again with this offense.  The Presbytery PJC found her guilty, following the GAPJC precedent and interpretation, and gave her both a rebuke and an apology for having to find her guilty under current church law.

There is an important and pressing polity issue embedded in this case which is the situation of preforming same-sex marriages in a civil jurisdiction that permits them, in this case California during the “window period,” but when the church does not permit or recognize them.  In the recent Southard decision, which involved a marriage ceremony in Massachusetts, this issue was not addressed since the GAPJC dismissed the charges on appeal based on the fact that the Rev. Southard performed the ceremony before the Spahr (2008) decision was published.  [Correction: this issue was addressed – see the comment below]

In this present case the facts are not in doubt — all those concerned are clear that the ceremonies preformed were intended to be rituals of Christian marriage officiated by an officer of the church and were consistant with the laws of the State of California at the time of the ceremonies.  But as the SPJC notes at the beginning of the Preliminary Statement “…the outcome of this case depends upon the application of ecclesiastical precedent to those facts.”

The SPJC notes that the controlling precedent is the Southard decision and goes on to say:

The question is this: in the performance of these same-gender marriages, did Spahr’s participation in any way “state, imply or represent” that these ceremonies were ecclesiastical marriages, the standard set in Southard? This Commission concludes that it did.

After a summary review of the facts and testimony in the case the SPJC concludes with

The standard at the time Spahr conducted the weddings and the standard used by the PPJC in arriving at its decision was Spahr (2008), which held “that officers of the PC(USA) authorized to perform marriages shall not state, imply or represent that a same sex ceremony is a marriage.” Southard followed and offered a more narrow view. This Commission is compelled to follow Southard as the most recent decision by the GAPJC. There is no prejudice to the parties because the conduct prohibited by Southard is a subset of the conduct previously prohibited by Spahr (2008).

Because of the number of specifications of error, and the fact that none were sustained, I will not walk through all 13.  The key specification was number 2 — “The Presbytery Permanent Judicial Commission erred in constitutional interpretation when it determined the Rev. Jane Adams Spahr committed ‘the offense of representing that a same sex ceremony was a marriage.'”  The response to this specification is the longest, references back to the Preliminary Statement and wraps up with “Under both Spahr (2008) and Southard, the implication that a civil marriage is also an ecclesiastical marriage when performed for same-sex couples is a violation of the constitutional standard.”  The decisions in three other specifications refer back to this rational.

In three of the specifications of error (9, 10, and 11) the specification points to sections of the Book of Order related to inclusion and justice and makes the claim that the PPJC decision “…constitutes both error in constitutional interpretation and injustice in the decision.”  In all three cases the SPJC responded “The constitutional interpretations of Spahr (2008) and Southard by the PPJC are not inconsistent with the Book of Order when read as a whole.”

And for the polity wonks, the SPJC did their job fact checking the specifications of error because they note that one reference cited in a specification (G-5.0502) “has no application to this case” and that another (G-5.0202) does not exist.

The SPJC has included at the end of the decision a one-page Comments section where they make note of three important polity points in this case.

Let me jump to point 2 first, because this is the church-state matter I have raise before. The SPJC raises the concern for the pastoral role of Teaching Elders and here is their comment, in its entirety with my emphasis added in the last paragraph:

2. This Commission has a continuing concern about the pastoral role of a Minister of Word and Sacrament to those same-gender partners who wish to have a civil marriage. Spahr and Southard help to clarify the difference between civil and ecclesiastical weddings and the prohibitions required from PCUSA clergy in officiating at same-gender ecclesiastical weddings.

Our concern is for those PCUSA clergy who wish to officiate at a same-gender civil wedding. What would such a minister need to do to faithfully perform a civil wedding while conforming to PCUSA polity regarding ecclesiastical weddings? Would a Minister of Word and Sacrament be faithful to PCUSA polity, for example, if they officiated in a civil wedding outside a church plant, performed without any reference to the Directory for Worship, have the wedding license signed with no reference to a denomination or an ordination, or sans any other implication stated or unstated to the PCUSA? Or, is it a violation of church polity for PCUSA clergy to officiate at a civil same-gender wedding in all circumstances?

In a time when increasing numbers of states permit same-gender weddings and civil unions, it is important for the church to clarify how its clergy might pastorally participate in such secular occasions while honoring the PCUSA’s definition of Christian marriage.

I mention this first because I think their first points relates to this.  The first comment is about the role of the GAPJC in interpreting the constitution: “It is troubling that the GAPJC appears to have usurped the legislative province of the General Assembly when it created a new basis for discipline in Spahr (2008)… Whatever our opinion of the principle may be, it would appear that if the GAPJC has authority to proscribe specific behavior in this instance, it may do so in many other instances as well.”

An important and interesting observation, but one I do not entirely agree with.  I agree that any issue is best dealt with through the full General Assembly, but we also must realize the the Assembly has limitations in time.  At one time in the mainline church, and currently in some Presbyterian branches, the full GA sits as a judicial body deciding such cases. However, with typically a dozen cases now coming to the GAPJC between Assemblies there is no time in the full Assembly’s schedule for individually hearing these cases themselves.  For purposes of expediency and efficiency the GAPJC has been empowered as a commission to act with the Assembly’s authority in these matters.

Regarding legislative action on these matters the Assembly has had the opportunity to speak and has chosen not to.  Even regarding the formation of the Special Committee on Civil Union and Christian Marriage, on which I served, the Assembly charged us with writing a social witness document and explicitly charged us not to write a polity statement. Given this vacuum the GAPJC was in the position to fill it when a question arose.  While I fully agree that “The General Assembly and the presbyteries are more representative and better equipped to consider such matters by the usual practice of amending the Book of Order,” to date they have not, or are content to let the GAPJC decisions be the guiding authority.

Finally, the third comment is a message to us all and is important enough to quote it in full:

3. The Presbyterian Church (USA) has had a long season of discourse and debate regarding issues involving the participation of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons within the life of the church. Bound by the call of Scripture and Christ’s message of grace and love, many have chosen to stay in the midst of conflict to serve as advocates for those people and issues important to them. This Commission heard argument referencing the personal and poignant nature of this debate from participants on all sides who care at deep levels about the direction the church may go. The goodwill evidenced between the parties and their commitment to the church’s discernment process was an example of how members may remain faithful to their convictions yet further the resolution of conflict. In her decision to stay within the bounds of the PC(USA) and be subject to the church’s polity and discipline, Rev. Spahr’s ministry provides another example of engagement and commitment. May the church, as it continues this debate, find friends among colleagues in ministry and work with them, remaining subject to the ordering of God’s Word and Spirit.

So for the moment nothing has
changed in this debate.  The indication is that there will be an appeal to the GAPJC so we will have to wait for that to play out before we have an interpretation and guidance on the nature of marriage as described in Confessions and the Book of Order. Stay tuned…

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.

The Fog Around nFOG

2 Replies

[No, this is not about the questions arising from the differences in the official vote count on nFOG and the unofficial tallies.  (The official tally for this week is posted and the OGA has the count at 45-32 while the unofficial “word on the street” is 24-35.)]

This post is about my experience the last three days with the discernment process around approving a New Form of Government (nFOG) section of the Book of Order that is currently being voted upon by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) presbyteries.  But it seems that this amendment has left many people conflicted or confused.  And it seems that it is hard to work up any enthusiasm for or against this major change in polity.

As part of the discernment process for my presbytery the group planning the presbytery meeting where the Belhar Confession and the New Form of Government would be voted upon asked two individuals to be resource people for each of these issues.  Each of them had served on the committee (Belhar) or task force (nFOG) for that issue.  Unfortunately, the nFOG specialist was not available yesterday and I guess I got the call as the second choice.  So my job at the presbytery meeting was to give a pre-presbytery presentation on nFOG, a brief intro to the debate, and to answer questions during debate.  In agreeing to the request I did make it clear to the planners that they were not getting an nFOG advocate but a polity junkie who would try to give a fair and balanced presentation.  What I got out of it was a better understanding of nFOG myself, and a fascinating insight into the nFOG discernment in my congregation and presbytery.  So here it is as a story in three scenes.

Scene 1
I have the advantage that I have been following the progress of the New Form of Government since the task force was created over four years ago, so I know the history.  I have read, but not studied in detail, a lot of the material that is out there concerning nFOG.  And I have previously heard presentations at least five times by members of the task force, including the member who was not able to make it yesterday.  But that really only covers the history, charge, and over-arching view of the product — what about the details?

I set about to look more closely at the details of nFOG by first visiting the official documents.  The amendment as printed by the Office of the General Assembly runs 46 pages. (The booklet itself also contains an Advisory Handbook bringing the total length to 58 pages.)  There is also an eight page insert that provides some background material and a study guide.  That insert has a list of six additional printed resources and a link to a 21 slide PowerPoint presentation explaining the proposal.  All total, that comes to 352 pages of material.

BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!  If that is not enough for you there are many additional nFOG resources floating around out there.  The most useful, and what I drew heavily from, is the regular analysis from the Association of Stated Clerks.  There is also a blog by the nFOG task force folks.  Most of the rest of the resources are from advocacy groups promoting one side or the other and most of those promoting a negative vote.  I won’t go into detail, and I have not made any attempt to add up the pages, but if you are interested I’m sure the best list of all these items is over at GAHelp.  And if you want one more, I have a one-sheet, front and back, nFOG Summary I used for my presentation yesterday.

The point of all this is that there is plenty of material out there about nFOG, and arguments for and against, for your reading pleasure.  For me, the challenge was to figure out what to pack into a 45 minute discussion and then a 15 minute presentation.

Scene 2
My pastor, seeing that I was doing the presbytery presentation, invited me to present to our church’s Session on Sunday.  I welcomed the opportunity to not only educate them, but to practice my presentation.  It turned into a bit of a “focus group” experience for me.

I had my prepared materials and went through my presentation and at the end one of the elders commented “this is just as murky as before.”  Message or messenger?

Well we talked about nFOG for a while and in the end it was probably a bit of both that was causing the murkiness.  Specifically, for our elder commissioners to presbytery, I recommended the GAHelp site and they were going to check it out to prepare themselves for the discussion.

Scene 3
With the help of the focus group behind me I threw out my first presentation and handout and started over to try to construct a more helpful one.  It must have been successful because I got good feedback from members of presbytery about it.  But what I also got was a lot of feedback about how people were feeling about nFOG.  I spoke with almost no one who had strong feelings about it but rather they were leaning one way or the other but said they were still uncommitted.  And this was across the demographic spectrum – it included teaching elders and ruling elders of different ages, levels of experience and theological leaning.  In fact, in the debate on the floor of presbytery there was no debate – there was one speaker against who made some claims, another speaker who then asked the question whether what the previous speaker had said was really correct because that was not his understanding, I got called on to answer the question, and debate was over — no one else rose to speak.  In the last three days I have had contact with no one in my church or presbytery who expressed strong feelings either way about nFOG except the one speaker who seems to have been working with incomplete information.  (For the record, I am pretty sure that several commissioners attending my presentation had firm opinions on nFOG but did not express them in that session or later in debate.  Also, again for the record, the lack of debate could also get back to my rule of thumb that a governing body has in it “one good debate per session” and the body had already had that debate on Belhar.)

Some observations
So what do I gather from this little drama in three scenes?  First, that there is too much material out there about nFOG and it results in sensory overload.  OK, let me rephrase that – while it is good and useful to have the 352 pages of official material available for someone thoroughly studying the dynamics and implications of the New Form of Government, how that material gets presented needs to be carefully considered.  One approach would be to have tiers – general information on the first tier, more specific resources on the second, and the comparison charts (all 268 pages) and other very detailed material on the third tier.  As it is now, they are all listed together with no guide for the uninitiated as to what to read first.

But the corollary to this is the fact that when these issues are sent out to the congregations and presbyteries for study, it is my experience that we usually pass up the opportunity.  (Anyone out there studying the Marriage Report I helped write and put so much time, effort and sleepless nights into?)  As faithful teaching and ruling elders we need to be aware of these items the GA wants us to study and encourage each other to do so.  This is especially true when we will have to vote on making them part of the church constitution.

Second, the nFOG in and of itself is too long to be easily considered in one fell swoop.  Yes, it is easier from a polity standpoint to just do a rewrite of the whole thing rather than work with a hybrid document as it is revised in bite-size pieces.  But we did the hybrid thing with current Chapter 14, maybe it would work for the rest of the book.  And based on the “deer in the headlights” looks I saw in my presentation when we started talking about the work of producing the operating manuals, taking those incrementally as well might make the task seem easier.

Finally, there is a great deal of mixed feelings about the nFOG.  Many of the people I have talked with understand the goal of flexibility and concept of returning the Book of Order to a constitutional document by removing the operational details.  But many experienced elders I have talked with in the last three days, both ruling and teaching, know how much our polity hinges on a few words here or a sentence there.  That is the stuff that Authoritative Interpretations and GAPJC decisions are made of.  To lose some of those, particularly the one due process section, raises concern in this experienced cadre.  For both experienced and inexperienced elders I really sensed that they were looking at the “risk/reward” balance and it was pretty even – the rewards did not outweigh the risks by much if anything.  I can also say that I had input from very few that saw this as an ideological issue or that saw it as change for change’s sake.  There was a real and profound sense that everyone was deliberately weighing the pros and cons of the text itself and actively seeking God’s will in this matter.

A couple of additional observations:
1. It might be reasonable to take some of these observations and experiences and look at the Presbyterian Church in America and the defeat of the Administrative Committee’s funding initiative in the same light.  While that change to the Book of Church Order was much shorter, only two specific sections, it struck me that it had the same sort of “sensory overload” as large amounts of official material, including the video, were unloaded on the church to “help” them make a decision.  Similarly, there was a large amount of unofficial chatter about the amendments. Were these resources truly helpful or did they add to the sense of confusion and being overwhelmed?

2. On the nFOG vote the commissioners in my presbytery were not alone in being undecided or looking for strong reasons one way or the other.  Last week there was an interesting exchange when John Shuck in advance of the Holston Presbytery meeting asked on his blog “Should I Vote for the New Form of Government?”  He expressed an undecided position and lack of strong reasons in support of the document,  sentiments that were similar to what I heard from commissioners in my presbytery.  Mr. Shuck admits in the first paragraph “I really don’t see myself having a horse in this race.”  In terms of arguments either way, one of them is “I know the LayMAN and the various true
believers and biblical reclaimers are against it. That would give me
reason to vote in favor, but admittedly not much of a reason.”  After the vote he tweeted “Holston Presbytery approved nFOG. I ended up voting in favor. Time
for a new thing…”  Change for changes sake?

So this was an interesting experience with the New Form of Government.  I don’t know if it will be approved and therefore it will be over and dealt with, or if the presbyteries will not concur and another rewrite may be back for another round in the future.  But whether it is this issue, or another large and complex one, we as a denomination need to think carefully about what will happen to it after it leaves the General Assembly and how it is presented to the presbyteries so they are best positioned to be able deliberate, discuss, debate and discern the issue.

Oh, how did it turn out?  San Gabriel Presbytery did not concur with nFOG by a 47 to 99 vote.  They approved of the Belhar Confession by a 79 to 66 margin.  Each vote had one abstention.

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…

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.