Category Archives: PC(USA)

Passings — Tom Gillespie

Over the weekend the Rev. Thomas Gillespie Ph.D., immediate past-President, of Princeton Theological Seminary passed away. If you want the formal notices and full biography you can read ones from Princeton and the Presbyterian News Service. I knew President Gillespie only through the good fortune of meeting and working with him on two different, and very Presbyterian, occassions. I found him to be a most gracious and humble individual, full of life and good humor, and truly a pleasure to work with. As you will see, both of these were formal occassions so he may have been on his best behavior. None the less, I came away from each with a very high regard for the gentleman.

In reading the Princeton news piece I did have to chuckle. Our Presbytery has a good-hearted standing joke about which is the best seminary – one of the two in our Presbytery, Fuller or Claremont, or Princeton. Well, Tom got his M.Div. from Princeton, his Ph.D. from Claremont, and then returned to Princeton as president. He covered the bases.

The first time I met and worked with Rev. Gillespie was when I was a commissioner to the 209th General Assembly (1997) and on the Theological Institutions Committee. One afternoon our committee broke up into a number of groups to meet with the presidents and students from the PC(USA) seminaries. It was a good discussion, lively and open, and a great chance to hear this informal reporting from our schools. I have to admit that I don’t remember who the other seminary president in our group was but I do clearly remember Rev. Gillespie and his participation.

The presidents met with us for much of the committee time, particularly since we were dealing with the tricky question of denominational doctrine in tension with academic freedom. In no small part it was Tom Gillespie who helped us navigate that issue and use the presbytery overture as a starting point for compromise action by the Assembly.

The second time I worked with Rev. Gillespie was almost a decade later when I was the Moderator of Presbytery and he was the preacher for an installation. In my time as Moderator he was probably the best known pastor that I shared the pulpit with at an ordination or installation. As we were preparing for the worship service he and I had a brief but wonderful conversation about the presbytery, our mission programs and what else what happening. He was not an “ivy tower” academic but showed a genuine concern for what was happening in the churches around the country. But the most enduring thing to me was his positive affirmation of my leadership position in the presbytery and his comments about the nature of shared leadership between teaching and ruling elders. It was clear from working with him that day that ruling elders are just as important in the Presbyterian system as the teaching elders and his affirmation of my work in the church is something I have carried with me since.

I give thanks for his life and the brief times that we have worked together in the life of the church. My deepest sympathies to his family and prayers in this time of loss. If others have had the same experience as I have the PC(USA) is a better denomination because of how he has encouraged and contributed to it. Godspeed.

Fourth Moderator Candidate For 220th PC(USA) GA (2012) Endorsed

Leave a reply

Last week a fourth candidate was endorsed to stand for Moderator of the 220th General Assembly (2012) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) when Palo Duro Presbytery endorsed Teaching Elder Randolph “Randy” Branson.

TE Branson is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Graham, TX, and currently serves as the Moderator of the Presbytery. According to the PC(USA) announcement, TE Branson is a graduate of the University of Oklahoma and San Francisco Theological Seminary. (SFTS has posted the PC(USA) announcement on their web site.) He has served churches in Texas and Southern California.

He has provided a quote to the Presbyterian News Service about his vision where he says:

“The middle of the church needs to demand and expect a culture of
respect and appreciation in the PC(USA). Palo Duro Presbytery has been through a lot and we’ve
figured out a way to get along across a lot of viewpoints. I’m hoping to offer that to the denomination. We can’t keep going the
way we’re going.”

In addition to the Presbyterian News Service article, there is also coverage from the Presbyterian Outlook and The Layman.

In looking around for links and chatter it appears that TE Branson has little in the way of a social media presence. He does have his sermons available on iTunes, but no immediate finding of blog, Facebook or Twitter handles. (Please let me know if I have missed these.)

I congratulate TE Branson on his endorsement and add him to my prayers for the 220th GA.

[ Additional note: It was interesting to find another pastor named Randy Branson on the web who is in the Pentecostal Church of God, actually just down the street from me. He does have a strong web presence with a web site and Facebook page and I am hoping his links have not kept TE Branson’s information from being found.]

Third Moderator Candidate For 220th PC(USA) GA (2012) Endorsed

Leave a reply

On Tuesday October 11 a third candidate for Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) joined the group when Teaching Elder Robert Austell was endorsed by the Presbytery of Charlotte.

TE Austell is the pastor of Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, where he has served for almost ten years. Previously he was an associate pastor in Lenoir, NC. His M.Div. is from Princeton Theological Seminary with some coursework at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He also has a D.Min. from Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte. His dissertation was on worship and music and is available through lulu.

The Presbytery of Charlotte has issued a two page press release that is full of quotes about Robert. Speaking of his own sense of call he is quoted as saying:

“I have challenged my congregation to stretch beyond their walls and answer the question, ‘What is God doing in and around you, and how can you be a part?’ With the discernment and blessing of my family, elders, and local congregation, standing for Moderator seems to be the clear answer of how God would have me answer that question. I see it as an extension of the calling and work which I have already been doing – loving ordinary and imperfect people and pointing them to the extraordinary grace of God in Jesus Christ. I believe I am being called at this time to remind the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) of the extraordinary God that has called us together into being and leads us out into the world with hope and Good News as a distinct, truth-and grace-bearing people.”

The chair of the presbytery’s nominating committee, Teaching Elder Lee Koontz, provides this quote:

“If I may be allowed some personal privilege here… I personally am excited to support Robert’s candidacy, and I recognize that he has substantial gifts that would serve the denomination well as Moderator. Among those gifts is the ability to speak authentically and faithfully to a wide spectrum of Presbyterians. During a time in which we’re discussing congregations potentially leaving the denomination, Robert is able to relate to those who want to leave, those who want to stay, and everyone in between, and he does so with compassion and understanding. That’s one of many reasons that I’m excited to support his candidacy for Moderator of the 220th General Assembly.”

His candidacy has been covered by the Presbyterian News Service, in an article in the Presbyterian Outlook about the second and third candidates, and by The Layman Online in their article about all three candidates.

The Rev. Dr. Austell has served as the Presbytery moderator, Presbytery Council Vice-Moderator and is the Moderator-elect of the Presbytery Council. He has served the presbytery in a number of positions and is known as a worship leader for conferences.

Robert was a commissioner to the 218th General Assembly (2008) and may be best known from that Assembly as one of the commissioners who co-sponsored the commissioner resolution On Urging a Gracious, Pastoral Response to Churches Requesting Dismissal from the PC(USA). More recently Robert created the well-known GA Help web site to help guide interested individuals through the 219th GA in 2010.

Needless to say, Robert is well represented in the virtual world with his Moderatorial web site, personal blog lighthouse/searchlight church, and on Facebook and Twitter (@gspcrobert).

So, best wishes and prayers for TE Austell as he stands for Moderator.

Now, how many more candidates are yet to come?

First Moderator Candidate For 2012 PC(USA) GA Endorsed

Leave a reply

Ah, the circle of ~~life~~ polity continues and as we roll out the new Book of Order completing the amendment process from the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), we now start to look ahead to the 220th. The sure signs of the new General Assembly are in the air with presbyteries working on overtures, PC-Biz has the category (but no content), the logo is out there, advocacy groups are rolling out web sites, and in a sure sign of a new GA season we have a sighting of the first ~~robin~~ Moderator candidate of the new season. Yes, all is right with the world.

So as we enter this new cycle we welcome Teaching Elder Neal Presa who was recently endorsed by the Elizabeth Presbytery where he is currently serving as the Moderator. His current call is as the pastor of Middlesex Presbyterian Church in Middlesex, New Jersey.

He has an extensive biographical sketch from the presbytery meeting that lists his education and service to the denomination. Following the meeting there was also a presbytery press release. Since then all the usual media sources have posted their articles including PresbyWeb, Presbyterian Outlook and the Presbyterian News Service. And one of his many alma maters, San Francisco Theological Seminary, has issued their own news story, and in what in my experience is record time for this sort of thing.

After looking through all of this material I have decided not to undertake the daunting task of consolidating all of Mr. Presa’s accomplishments into this story. Let me summarize his educational background by just saying that he has three different flavors of Masters’ degrees and a Ph.D. in liturgical studies from Drew University. In fact the PresbyWeb article quotes the presbytery info making note of his varied education saying:

1. Neal has diverse theological experiences through attending
Westminster Theological Seminary in California, then obtaining his M.
Div. from San Francisco Theological Seminary, later receiving a Th.M.
from Princeton Theological Seminary, and finally earning a M. Phil. and
a Ph.D. from Drew University. At this juncture in PCUSA history, we believe
Neal clearly understands different theological convictions and has the
acumen to bridge theological divides.

Have to agree there – WTS California to SFTS is a unique theological combination.

His service to the denomination is also extensive and among the many ways that he has been involved maybe the most timely one is as Chair of the General Assembly Special Committee on the Heidelberg Catechism which is due to report to the 220th GA. (Note a trend here – Ms. Bolbach was the Co-Moderator of the nFOG Task Force that reported to the 218th and 219th GA.)

It is also worth noting that he has authored multiple books, as well as being a Cub Scout leader and soccer coach.

As he stands for Moderator of the General Assembly he has launched his web site introducing himself and his thoughts about the denomination. On the front page are his bullet points “for such a time as this” we are called to:

A Renaissance of service for Christ’s mission.
A Recommitment to journey together.
A fresh sense of being Reformed and always being Reformed, according to God’s Word and Spirit.

He invites us to connect with him by means of Twitter (@nealpresa) or his Facebook page.

So we have entered the new cycle and we know that there is much more coming in the nine month we have until the 220th General Assembly convenes in Pittsburgh. I hope you will join me on the journey.

Reverberations From Ordination Decisions: Some Challenges In The Church Of Scotland

Leave a reply

[Ed. note: This is the second 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 another set of reverberations.

The second set of decisions was made by the Church of Scotland General Assembly towards the end of May. The Assembly took a full day, May 23^rd, to debate the report of the Special Commission On Same-sex Relationships and the Ministry. In that report the Commission noted:

9.14 As we have said in section 7, ordination and induction raise issues of the lifestyle of and the example set by leaders in the Church. The issue of whether to ordain and induct people involved in same-sex relationships depends upon a decision of the Church on the prior question of its stance towards committed same-sex relationships.

This is a complicated question and one which it tied to other theological understandings. Unlike the decision by the PC(USA), they acknowledge the linkage of these issues and in helping the church deal with them in a systematic manner they recommended the establishment of a Theological Commission to report back to the 2013 GA. The work of this commission is described in the Remits Report from the Assembly (pg. 20):

The Assembly has agreed to establish a Theological Commission of seven persons representative of the breadth of the Church’s theological understanding, who will address the theological issues raised in the course of the Special Commission’s work.

The Assembly also resolved to consider further the lifting of the moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship. This consideration will come to the General Assembly when the Theological Commission reports in 2013.

The Theological Commission’s report will also examine:

(i) the theological issues around same-sex relationships, civil partnerships and marriage;
(ii) whether, if the Church were to allow its ministers freedom of conscience in deciding whether to bless same-sex relationships involving life-long commitments, the recognition of such lifelong relationships should take the form of a blessing of a civil partnership or should involve a liturgy to recognise and celebrate commitments which the parties enter into in a Church service in addition to the civil partnership, and if so to recommend an appropriate liturgy;
(iii) whether persons, who have entered into a civil partnership and have made lifelong commitments in a Church ceremony, should be eligible for admission for training, ordination and induction as ministers of Word and Sacrament or deacons in the context that no member of Presbytery will be required to take part in such ordination or induction against his or her conscience.

This means that the Theological Commission has been given an instruction to explore the possibility of making significant changes to the Church’s present position; however, decisions about change will not be made before the Assembly of 2013, thereafter there may be the need for Barrier Act procedure, with final decisions on any matter more likely to be considered by the General Assembly in 2014.

The Theological Commission has now been appointed and the members are the Rev. John McPake (convener), Rev. Prof. Andrew
McGowan, Rev. Gordon Kennedy, Rev. Dr. Mary Henderson, Dr. Jane McArthur,
Rev. Dr. Alan Falconer and Rev. Dr. Marjory MacLean. All are prominent in the Church of Scotland (as evidenced by the fact that they are all easy to find using a search engine) and many have academic experience. As you might guess from the titles there are six clergy and one ruling elder, so not much balance there, but there is good gender balance and all the reviews I have read give high marks for theological balance.

Following the conclusion of the Assembly it did not take long for the reactions to begin. In fact, the planning for one meeting apparently began after the decision but while the Assembly was still in session. That meeting, a Ministers and Elders Meeting, was held about three weeks after the Assembly meeting at St. George’s-Tron in Glasgow and it bears strong similarities to the Fellowship Gathering in the PC(USA). This was a gathering of about 600 congregational leaders who listened to at least six presentations about what the future looked like and what the options are for Evangelicals in the Church of Scotland. (The six presentations are available on the web.)

On the one hand, these presentations use much of the same language (count how many times “like-minded” is used) and express the same feelings and perspective we have been hearing from conservatives in the American church. And there was talk about the next meeting to be held this fall where there would be less of the presentations from the front and more interaction of those gathered. There are some differences besides the fact that this was a much shorter meeting, being only an afternoon. One is that this is still a more informal group that is gathering for discussion. Another is that all the presentations foresee churches leaving the denomination if the trajectory continues as it is set and the question is whether to leave now or leave when, or if, the process has concluded. There was brief mention of the possibility of accommodation within the church but that was a single passing comment that I caught.

One of the other interesting things about this meeting was that the attendance was reported as about 600 individuals, representing 0.12% of the total church membership. Remember for the Fellowship Gathering the attendance was about 2,000 individuals or just slightly below 0.1% of the PC(USA). Both of these events had a similar draw on a percentage basis with right around one person attending for every thousand members of the church.

As I mentioned, the question addressed at the meeting was not “stay or go” but “go now or go later?” There is an interesting response to the meeting by Mr. James Miller on his blog Five Sided Christian. Towards the beginning of the piece he writes:

Having spoken to a number of ministers, elders and others, it is
apparent that there are many people who are deeply troubled by the two
options being put forward by St George’s Tron Church and some others. I
have to say that I share this dissatisfaction and have the sense that
evangelicals are being railroaded into a decision to separate. This
seems to be coming from a certain group of ministers and elders, who
give the impression that they have been wanting for years to leave the
mixed denomination they are in and have now found an issue through which
they can force their vision into reality.

He then goes on to counsel moderation, saying that while he thinks the decision of the Assembly was wrong he also considers the meeting “premature and pessimistic.” He holds out hope for the process, something that was lacking in the video presentations, arguing that this issue has a long way to go through the Theological Commission, the 2013 GA, and then the necessary approval of any changes by the presbyteries under the Barrier Act. Consideration of leaving should only happen once it has reached its conclusion. As he says:

…I think it much more likely that if we stay in and “wrestle, and fight,
and pray” that the “trajectory” can be turned back into an orbit around
the Bible’s teachings and historic, traditional and ecumenical Christian
views and that the current momentum for change will be sent crashing at
one or other of the four hurdles still to be crossed.

My prayer is that it will be so. But if it is, then the evangelicals
will face as big a challenge and one we must not shirk. We will then
have the enormous task of loving and caring for and serving every gay
and lesbian Christian, to help them live the life of celibate friendship
we say that they must follow. For if we will not do this as fervently
as we protest actively gay people being ordained then we risk being
condemned of hypocrisy and outright pharisaism with every justification.
I hope we are also planning with equal vigour how we do this now,
whatever structures or denominations we find ourselves in
ecclesiastically come 2014 or 2015.

But while there are these discussions going, as you might expect some churches are not waiting for the process or the discussions to play out. Almost immediately Gilcomston South Church in Aberdeen began the process to break away but according to the BBC the kirk session has postponed a final vote to allow time for discussion with Aberdeen Presbytery. Stornoway High Church did discuss and vote on leaving, but the kirk session set the necessary approval for the action at 80% of the congregation and the action only received 74% approval. A news article also mentions that St. Kane’s Church, New Deer, Aberdeenshire, is also contemplating the move but I have found no updates to the first news article. There was also a preliminary report of two ministers leaving the Kirk over the decision.

In addition to these actions many sessions and individuals – office holders, members, and members of other denominations – have expressed their disapproval of the Assembly action on a web site called simply Dissent. The dissent itself is a five point statement expressing support for “the traditional teaching of the church” and the intent to “commit ourselves to pray for the members and the work of the Theological
Commission; to work with all our strength for the evangelisation of
Scotland in partnership with all God’s people; and to depend upon the
renewing and reforming presence of God’s Holy Spirit within his Church.” Similarly, there is a page at Christians Together which announces this site and gathers other statements of concern and opposition to the GA action.

And lastly, in one of the more interesting reactions, the Westboro Baptist Church has announced that it would like to have members travel to Scotland to picket churches in protest of the Assembly action.

There was another significant decision the Assembly made as part of the Special Commission report. It reads:

4. During the moratorium set out in 8 below, allow the induction into pastoral charges of ministers and deacons ordained before 31 May 2009 who are in a same-sex relationship.

This has now moved from the hypothetical to the specific as a minister in Fife announced to her congregation that she is in a committed same-sex relationship and would like to marry her partner. After making this announcement at the end of August she has dropped out of sight and there are no further updates. The Scotsman article says:

A Church stalwart last night revealed that residents has been “stunned”
to hear of Ms Brady’s plans, adding that parishioners were at
loggerheads over whether or not she should be allowed to continue in her
current role.

He said: “The congregation is divided over the
issue of the minister’s sexuality. One elder has already resigned and
others are considering their position. I personally do not believe it is
right and I do not believe same-sex civil unions are right.

“Miss Brady has been a conscientious minister but this is going too far.”

Finally, there has been reaction to this decision from other denominations. I mentioned in the first part of this series the decision of the Presbyterian Church of Ghana to sever ties with partners who approved of ordaining active homosexuals and preforming same-sex marriages. While this was apparently aimed primarily at the PC(USA) following this trajectory of the Church of Scotland would also put them in the position of meeting those requirements.

Closer to home, the first speaker at the Ministers and Elders meeting mentioned concern expressed by the General Assembly of the United Free Church of Scotland. I am grateful for the full language of the UFCOS Assembly action sent to me by their Principal Clerk, Rev. Martin Keane, because the action is nuanced. The motion from the floor that became part of the agreed deliverance was:

“The
General Assembly noting recent decisions taken by the Church of
Scotland to consider further the issue of same-sex relationships and the
ministry, agree to suspend the review of the Covenant between our two
churches pending the outcome of their consideration of the matter.”

What is important to note is that the Covenant itself was not suspended. Rather the review of the Covenant, which would normally happen every two years and is due to be done in the coming year, has been postponed until after the Church of Scotland has come to a resolution on this issue. With the review of the Covenant would come any modifications and the renewal of the Covenant for another two year period.

I think it is safe to say that the reaction of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland was not as nuanced. Before both Assembly meetings four presbyteries asked the General Board to express concern to the Church of Scotland regarding the report of the Special Commission. The General Board agreed and passed the following resolution:

“That the General Board instructs the Clerk of the General Assembly to write to the Church of Scotland expressing appreciation of the long and valued relationship between our two Churches; indicating that the Presbyterian Church in Ireland strongly believes the scriptural position to be that sexual relations outside of marriage between a man and a woman are sinful and as such, in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, no minister or elder would be ordained or installed who continues to engage in such practices; and assuring the Special Commission of its prayers that wisdom and insight be given as it reports to the General Assembly in May.”

Then, at the meeting of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, three weeks after the Church of Scotland decision, the full Assembly passed a motion “That the General Assembly endorse the actions of the General Board and the Clerk…” The church also issued a press release concerning these actions and the report of the outgoing Moderator who was an ecumenical delegate to the Church of Scotland GA.

So, having now jumped over to Ireland let me stop here for now and pick up some of the related issues circulating on that island in my third, and final, installment.

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

2 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fellowship Gathering — Through The Tweets Dimly

9 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So back to Twitter and the meeting…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 Replies

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

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

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

What changed my mind? First, the size.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And they acknowledge that the landscape has changed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presbyterian Church Of Ghana And Their Stand On Homosexuality

2 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The GA Junkie

The Politics of Presbyterianism

Category Archives: PC(USA)

Passings — Tom Gillespie

Fourth Moderator Candidate For 220th PC(USA) GA (2012) Endorsed

Third Moderator Candidate For 220th PC(USA) GA (2012) Endorsed

First Moderator Candidate For 2012 PC(USA) GA Endorsed

Reverberations From Ordination Decisions: Some Challenges In The Church Of Scotland

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

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

Presbyterian Church Of Ghana And Their Stand On Homosexuality

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