[Ed. note: This is the first in a three part series that I hope to get written and posted over the next week.]
Over the last few months a couple Presbyterian branches have made decisions to make, or move towards making, standards for ordination more inclusive, particularly regarding the ordination of individuals who are in active same-sex relationships. These decisions have made waves in the international Presbyterian community and these waves will be reverberating in the community for a while to come. This is a look at one specific reverberation.
In a couple of widely publicized decisions the General Assemblies of the
Iglesia Nacional Presbiteriana de México (IPNM) (National Presbyterian Church In Mexico) and the Presbyterian Church of Ghana (PCG) have gone on record expressing disapproval of the passage of Amendment 10-A by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and warning that it jeopardizes the partnering relationship between the churches. However, each of these decisions have multiple nuances that seem to be getting lost in the media headlines and tweets.
The IPNM decision was made at a called Consultation of the General Assembly held August 17-19. This decision was then communicated to the PC(USA) in a letter to the Stated Clerk and the PC(USA) has posted an English translation. It says in part
In my position as Secretary of the H. General Assembly of the
National Presbyterian Church of Mexico, I [Presbyter Amador Lopez Hernandez] am sending the present
document to communicate the official decision made by our National
Presbyterian Church of Mexico, in the last extraordinary and legislative
Council meeting held at El Divino Salvador Church, in Xonacatlán,
Mexico, on August 17-19, 2011, regarding the partnership between our
Churches, which states:“To revoke Article 41, number 4 of our Manual of Procedures, which
entitles us to have official, covenant relations of work and cooperation
with the PC (U.S.A.) and terminate the official relationship with the
church, starting on August 18, 2011. As the General Assembly, we are
open to restore the partnership and work together in the future, if the
Amendment 10 A is rescinded.”
As I said above, this came from a special Consultation of the General Assembly and it is interesting to note that the primary purpose of the called meeting was ordination standards, but specifically the ordination of women. The Presbyterian Outlook article helps fill in the details:
The Mexican church, with close to two million members, held a special
assembly Aug. 17-19 specifically to discuss the ordination of women –
voting overwhelmingly, by a margin of 158 to 14, to sustain its policy
of not ordaining women. The assembly also voted 103 to 55 not to allow
any sort of grace period for presbyteries that had, on their own,
already begun ordaining women. That vote means that any presbytery which
has already ordained women must immediately revoke those ordinations.
They also let us know that the vote to end the relationship with the PC(USA) came on a vote of 116 to 22 and was only a small part of this meeting.
In light of the full scope of these decisions made by this General Assembly it is interesting to note that in the blogosphere and twitterverse the PC(USA) related decision seems to be held up with little to no mention made of the other one. To be fair only the one decision directly affects the PC(USA) so that is one possible explanation. (At least one blog (non-PC(USA) related) did highlight the decision about the ordination of women and only mentioned the other in passing.)
Now, my Spanish is not very good, but from what I can tell and getting translation help from a couple of different sources it seems that when this meeting is discussed on the IPNM Facebook page it seems to be the women’s ordination issue which gets the most attention.
There is of course a response from the PC(USA), first an official statement then a webinar (archived presentation available from the Mexico Ministry page) to help those involved in ministry with the IPNM understand the new lay of the land. In the webcast Dave Thomas (World Mission regional liaison for Mexico) gives a great description of the timeline and process for the decision. He concludes by saying “And I think it’s ironic to think that here’s a church in Mexico that has nearly two million members, do you know it is almost the same size as the PC(USA), and yet 116 men voting on one Friday afternoon changed things. And in spite of the fact that thousands of people on both sides of the border, thousands of people from both countries have been impacted, have been transformed by God’s grace and by the work that they have been able to do jointly through this partnership we have had with the National Presbyterian Church of Mexico.” There is clearly a tone of sadness and frustration in his voice as he says this but also a hint of condescension. My personal reaction is “this is what Presbyterianism is about” were a small subset of the whole church, be it 200 commissioners or 850, try to discern God’s will and make decisions for the whole church. And it seemed to me that throughout the webinar there were times when comments by panelists or questions from participants projected the expectations, process, standards or norms of the PC(USA) onto our sister Presbyterian church.
The webinar did offer an opening – As Maria Arroyo (World Mission area coordinator) said “…[The IPNM] would continue receiving the presbyteries in partnership that voted against 10-A and also were willing to sign something saying that they were against 10-A and they would conform to the principles of the Mexican Church.”
In his comments, Hunter Farrell (Director of Presbyterian World Mission) summarizes the situation and includes this comment, “Perhaps the most regrettable piece in this is that the Mexican Assembly in its action reduces us and our 139 year relationship to one question, our stance on a particular issue — It is critically important, and that is not to say the theology is not important, but the result is that we are reduced to yes or no on one particular question. And ironically that is what our church was trying to move away from by adopting 10-A — to broaden that understanding of ordained ministry.” He continues “At the same time our part in this, we understand from the perspective of Presbyterian World Mission, is to accept and respect the decision by the Mexican Presbyterian Church.”
This changed relationship will have to be lived into and there are still more questions than answers. The Mexico Ministry page does note that on September 8 an agreement between the two churches was reached to continue boarder ministry.
The second decision made and stance taken was from the Presbyterian Church of Ghana. This came from the 11th General Assembly recently concluded and can be found in both a communique from the Assembly as well as a summary page. But again, there appear to be nuances that are not reflected in the blogosphere and twitterverse.
For example, one article is headlined “Presbyterian Church of Ghana (PCG) severs ties with US partner over homosexuality.” Is the the situation? That is a definite maybe!
First, let’s take a look at what the church has actually publically said. The Communique is a bit longer and so I will focus on that. The section begins on page 21 and starts by echoing the announced stance from earlier this year. It also reaffirms the earlier announcement that “The General Assembly wishes to state that although it unreservedly condemns homosexuality as sin, the Church is prepared to offer the needed pastoral care and counseling for those wishing to come out of the practice, in keeping with the truism that, ‘God hates sin but loves the sinner.’” It is only in the last paragraph of this section that they address foreign partners and say, in total:
The Presbyterian Church of Ghana is further taking steps – a process which has began with its just ended General Assembly to sever relationship with any partner church local and foreign that ordained homosexuals as ministers and allowed for same sex marriages and wants to make it clear that we respect the decisions of our Ecumenical Partners abroad concerning gay and lesbian practice and same-sex marriages and believes that our position would also be duly respected by them.
Note that there is an “and” in there – that the conditions appear to be both “ordained homosexuals as ministers” AND “allowed for same sex marriages.”
Now unfortunately this appears to be all we have to go on. I have requested clarification from the General Assembly Clerk on this point but am still waiting for his response. (Will update if I get one) I am not aware that the church has sent official notification to any partners yet, but please point me in the right direction if I have missed something. It looks like we will have to wait until the church has worked out more of the details. It also raises the question about other partners like the Church of Scotland which has not approved ordination or marriages but has set a trajectory in that direction.
So all the headlines about severing ties? At the present time it appears that no specific action has been taken from this decision and since the PC(USA) does not currently permit same sex marriages it appears that the PC(USA) does not currently fit the stated criteria. It is interesting to note that the Moderator of the General Assembly of the PCG, the Rt. Rev. Prof. Emmanuel Martey, is currently touring the USA and we may get more clarification from his statements here.
Are there other partnerships in jeopardy? It does appear that there are. Without being specific, in the webinar Maria Arroyo does say that some partners in the Caribbean and Latin America will be considering their relationship with the PC(USA) at their upcoming General Assemblies or General Synods. In addition, Rev. Jim Miller gives us a five point declaration from the National Council of the Korean Presbyterian Church of the PCUSA. This is an entity within the PC(USA) but probably reflects broader attitudes within this ethnic community nationally and internationally.
I don’t think I need to stick my neck out very far to predict that over the next year we will see a variety of responses from PC(USA) international partners ranging from approval to acceptance to disapproval to dissolution of the relationship. And in cases like there, where a possible way forward is provided based on their standards, it will be interesting to see how all this develops. But in it all we do pray for God’s mission to be advanced in whatever ways God ordains.
Next, a look at what has been happening in the Church of Scotland over the last few months.