Category Archives: PC(USA)

Amendment 08-B One Vote From Failing With More Presbyteries Switching Votes Yesterday

It ain’t over until it’s over… But it is now very close with the unofficial vote at 68 yes and 86 no. That is one “no” vote away from being defeated.

The headline from yesterday is that of the four presbyteries voting, three switched votes from their previous position.

The part of that which is the real headline is that the first presbytery switched from “yes” to “no,” and the really surprising news is that it was San Francisco Presbytery that switched.

So, thanks to PresbyWeb, here is what happened yesterday…

National Capital voted “Yes” with numbers very consistent across the years: 222-102 yesterday, 220-116 on 01-A, 212-71 on 97-A, and 105-226 on 96-B. (For all of these remember that pro-equality is a yes except on 96-B when it is a no vote.)

Salem and Wabash Valley switched from no to yes.
Salem: 156-149 on 08-B, 160-187 on 01-A, 141-156 on 97-A, and 153-143 on 96-B. (Interesting to note the spike in turnout for 01-A. They other votes are strikingly similar in numbers, with the reversal on 08-B.)

Wabash Valley: 84-67 on 08-B, 83-102 on 01-A, 76-125 on 97-A, 116-100 on 96-B. (Wabash Valley has had a number of churches depart the denomination and the change in no votes from 01-A to 08-B may reflect that. It is notable that the switch occurred not because the yes votes increased, they are statistically identical. This may be one of the few cases that a significant decrease in no votes can be clearly tied to churches realigning.)

San Francisco: 167-177 on 08-B, 216-186 on 01-A, 207-167 on 97-A, 179-214 on 96-B. (The previous votes show a significant consistency, as does the no vote with the past vote numbers. In this case it appears that the yes voters were not there because it shows a decrease of 40+ votes from the typical level.)

Anyway, to have San Francisco vote no took many people by surprise. There is a lot of reaction on Facebook, which I won’t link to. The vote results must have been announced late because the news media has not picked it up yet. (The results had not been posted when this left-coaster went to bed at a later than normal hour.)

East coast blogs are starting to pick it up and you can count on John Shuck for a lively response:

This is an embarrassment. The presbytery of San Francisco

Home of the PCUSA moderator…

Home of out candidate, Lisa Larges…

Home of the Covenant Network…

Home of Jack Rogers…

And well it’s freaking San Francisco…

voted No on amendment B last night 167-177. San Francisco has the honor of being the only presbytery
to switch from equality to inequality in this year’s voting. Last time
the vote was 216-186. That means 40 commissioners decided they had
better things to do than to show up for the meeting.

Looks to me like they took it for granted while the opposition organized.

[Editorial note: We down here in SoCal claim Jack Rogers now. ]

As news and blogs respond to the vote I’ll add updates to this post.

Update:
The Layman has posted an article that Amendment 08-B has now failed with 86 negative votes. They say at the end of the article that 171 presbyteries are voting, which would require 86 on one side or the other. Not sure where they got that from because the official PC(USA) vote tally page sets 87 as passage.

In addition, and maybe I’m reading too much into this, the Layman seems to extract a bit of “turn-about” in the article, citing San Francisco as the home presbytery of GA Moderator Bruce Reyes-Chow. This could be interpreted as a “back at you” for John Edward Harris‘ observation that the first presbytery to switch, Western North Carolina, is the home of the Layman’s long-time editor. Or maybe I’m just too into conspiracy theories and reading articles for hidden meanings. I very well could be wrong and it is all innocent reporting.

Update: I must confess my surprise that now almost 24 hours out there is not more reaction in the news or on the blogs. The PC(USA) Presbyterian News Service did release an article about the vote in general that included yesterday’s votes in the tally but no reporting on any of the presbytery meetings themselves.

Probably the most interesting comment so far has been by Clay Allard on his blog The Right Side of the Trinity. (For those not familiar with the geography of Dallas, TX, the title is a clever turn of phrase on the Trinity River that flows through the city.) The best thing about Clay’s comments is that he takes a bigger view – “The amendment has failed, now what?” He writes:

Now That the Voting Is Over

What an interesting sense of humor God has. As Amendment 08-B moves to
defeat, I was sure that the Puerto-Rican presbyteries would deliver the
coup-de-grace. But instead– it’s SAN FRANCISCO?! I think that it’s
time to examine all the ideas and attitudes that have been slain by
this vote.

and he closes with

Let’s spend some time outside of our own echo chambers, not acting like
this is a football game and we are just “fans” of our side. Instead of
figuring out a strategy of beating “them,” why don’t we find out who
“they” are, and what they want? Why don’t we act like we are not
competing for some prize, but that we are trying to be faithful to
Christ? The voting is over– let the learning begin.

Also, More Light Presbyterians has an article up about the San Francisco vote and the significance of the presbytery meeting being held at Walnut Creek Presbyterian Church.

Elsewhere, Wrestling With Wrelevance and Life Along The Homeschooling Journey comment on the San Francisco vote and the almost-defeat of 08-B. The Reformed Pastor has reaction to both the San Francisco vote as well as the Layman article.

Reflections On The Amendment 08-B Voting — Preliminary Musings On The Text

6 Replies

While not quite finished, at this time the voting on Amendment 08-B to modify the “fidelity and chastity” section (G-6.0106b) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Book of Order is closing in on the conclusion. Yesterday there was a split vote, San Jose Presbytery voting “Yes” and the Presbytery of South Louisiana voting “No.” This brings the unofficial tally to 65 Yes and 82 No. (Presbyterian Coalition, PresbyWeb)

If you look at the remaining 26 presbyteries, there are five that have solidly voted against “fidelity and chastity,” and another six that have split votes in the last two votes (i.e. voted once for it and once against it). In addition, Boise tied on 01-A and Pacific was one vote away from a tie. Of the remaining 13 that voted no on the last two votes, five presbyteries did overwhelmingly in near or total unanimity. Those five, if they again vote “No”, should give the necessary 87 votes to defeat 08-B. So after yesterday’s results I, and some others (e.g. John Shuck), consider the passage of 08-B somewhere between highly unlikely and miraculous. I won’t say “impossible” because that word is not in God’s vocabulary.

This vote was much closer than I and many of those I talk with initially felt it would be. At the present time 25 presbyteries have changed their votes from 01-A. Why? This question has been rolling around in my head for almost two months now and I’ll give some numerical analysis when the voting concludes. Related to what I talked about a couple of weeks ago, and what I see in the numbers, there is probably no single explanation. Where there is truly a swing in votes why did the votes change? One explanation is a greater “pro-equality” sentiment — that is that commissioners have switched views from “pro-fidelity and chastity” to “pro-equality.” But I want to have a detailed look at something else first: The text of the Amendment.

Looking back at the history of G-6.0106b, and it is laid out in the Annotated Book of Order and Constitutional Musings note 8, you can see that attempts to add fidelity-like wording date back to 1986. The current wording was added from the 208th General Assembly, approved by the presbyteries 97-74. The next year the 209th GA sent out to the presbyteries an “improved” wording that would have left “fidelity and chastity” but removed the “which the confessions call sin” line. At that GA the Advisory Committee on the Constitution advised against making the change. The Assembly approved the change and sent it out to the presbyteries who did not concur by a 57-114 vote. The 213th GA sent out Amendment 01-A to strike G-6.0106b and add a line to the remaining G-6.0106a about suitability for office and the Lordship of Jesus Christ, but that too was not affirmed by the presbyteries, this time 46-127.

So here is my hypothesis: I wonder if Amendment 08-B is having more success because it is more of a compromise text. The previous two attempts to amend dealt with removing all or part of G-6.0106b. Amendment 08-B would replace G-6.0106b with new language:

Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.

The new language does have a number of theological points that make it attractive and that are being used by those advocating for 08-B as benefits. These include a pledge to “live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church,” and stating the hierarchy of Jesus, scripture and confessions, in that order. While the opposition argues that this now leaves important standards up for interpretation and heterogeneous application across the denomination, I can see how this would be a more palatable form of standards for many in the church.

So I do have to wonder whether comparing 08-B to 01-A or 97-A is comparing apples to oranges. While it is frequently viewed or portrayed as a battle of “good versus evil” (you define the sides for yourself), when it comes down to the vote by a particular commissioner in a given presbytery if the decision and vote is much more nuanced. How many commissioners have not changed their opinions but have changed their vote because the language has changed? Because the wording changes from one vote to the next do these black and white decisions have many more shades of gray than we want to admit.

Something to think over until my next post on this topic when I’ll put numbers on these shades of gray.

Presbytery Voting In The PC(USA) — All But B And I Have Passed

2 Replies

The Presbytery voting on amendments to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Book of Order and ecumenical statements continues. And while Amendment 08-B has gotten all the attention, there are actually 14 different items that need to be voted on — ten amendments and four ecumenical statements.

Well, the latest official vote count from the Office of the General Assembly shows that 12 of those 14 items have now been officially adopted. And while most proposals passed overwhelmingly, Amendment 08-A on membership vows and 08-F on Presbytery membership of Certified Christian Educators have 50 no votes each to about 88 yes votes on them, a sizable objection. For the ecumenical statements, while they all had strong support it is interesting to note that the statement with the Episcopal Church did garner 10 No votes to the 124 yes. A not overwhelming but noticeable objection. I have to wonder how much is a polity objection to their having an episcopal structure with bishops and how much is a dissatisfaction with their aggressive pursuit of property cases against congregations that leave to join other Anglican Provinces. Remember, this is nothing near a full communion document but a statement of mutually agreed principles.

Finally, while many think that the closely watched 08-B to modify the “fidelity and chastity” section will ultimately be a very close vote (currently 55 to 79 official and 64 to 81 unofficial), on the official tally 08-I on Certified Christian Educators is actually closer with only 17 votes separating the 77 yes and 60 no votes. In both cases, it could be until the very end of voting before the outcome is certain. Stay tuned…

Appointments To PC(USA) Special Committees And Task Forces

Economic Downturn Impacts The PC(USA)

1 Reply

I have a collection of drafts for posts where I am waiting for the proverbial “other shoe,” but I figured enough shoes had dropped here that I should put out an update.

This is not so much a new story as a developing story, and probably will continue as one for a while yet. I talked about it last fall, and one of the early casualties in the global Presbyterian family was the Presbyterian Mutual Society of Ireland.

Within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) the first agency I saw make a public statement was the Presbyterian Foundation Group which offered an early retirement program with a retirement date of last Monday, March 23, according to the Presbyterian News Service (PNS) article from February. I have seen no word yet on how many individuals took advantage of the offer or if the Foundation met its goal for cost reduction.

In the headlines this week was the General Assembly Council (GAC) meeting where they dealt with a shortfall of around $10 million on a $111 million annual budget. The GAC began working on this a while back and the first move, based upon employee suggestions, was to have a mandatory, unpaid furlough the week of May 17-23, 2009. This was accompanied by the announcement of salary freezes for the 2010 budget. (GAC Press Release, PNS Article) Going into the meeting this week the GAC staff had put together a recommendation to cut about $4 million and spend about $6 saved from previous years budgets. The recommendation was accompanied by the press release, the PNS article, and a video with Linda Valentine, executive director, and Tom Taylor, deputy executive director for mission, of the General Assembly Council.

It appears that the GAC accepted at least the outline of the staff recommendation because after their meeting they announced the approval of a revised 2009 Mission Budget with about $4 million in reduced expenses and the use of about $6 million in “prior year accumulations.” The Council message, both written and on video, emphasized that the revised budget with the savings was in line with the restructuring of the GAC over the last two years. The Summary of Budget Revisions gives more detail on the savings and lists events which are canceled and offices consolidated. The news is not just about elimination of positions and events, but in line with the “Grow Christ’s Church Deep and Wide” initiative new positions will be created in church evangelism and personal evangelism. One of the more far-reaching changes/cuts will be to the grants supporting new church developments and transformations. Only the first round of applications will be done in 2009 with no fall applications “as we evaluate a new program design and roll out a new funding structure and methodology by 2010.” There are also across-the-board reductions in travel spending by 15% and postage by 10%. There are also articles from the Presbyterian News Service and the Presbyterian Outlook covering the budget revisions.

Probably the hardest area is the staff reductions. As part of the budget revision announcement it was revealed that 14 positions had been eliminated since last October. In addition, another 14 were eliminated effective Friday, March 27. The budget revision includes nine vacant positions that were eliminated in the last few months and 19 more eliminated on Friday. And as I already mentioned, it is not completely elimination, but 12 new positions have been created. These are all detailed on a list of staffing changes. Peter Smith, religion reporter for the Louisville Courier-Journal, in his story on the budget revision also reports that local pastors were on hand at the headquarters to counsel with people in the wake of the layoffs.

Finally, for more thoughts on the GAC and the budget revisions I would encourage you to check out Michael Kruse and his Kruse Kronicle blog. He is in the unique position of being the vice-moderator of the GAC. (Or GAMC – General Assembly Mission Council as he calls it. That is the new name now approved by the vote of the presbyteries.) And while I would suggest his short post from the beginning of the meeting, he mostly links to the GAC material I have mentioned. He does say you can ask questions of him in the comments to his post, not that he’ll have answers. And keep watching because once he recovers from the meeting and his half-century birthday (Happy Birthday Michael, from an oldest child who is rolling his eyes (read his post if you want the context for that comment)) he might provide more commentary. UPDATE: Michael posted at almost exactly the same time I did and you can now find his reflections online.

So where does this leave the PC(USA)? The GAC is the largest single arm of the denomination with about 400 employees. I have already mentioned the Foundation that has revenues primarily on the management fees from the invested funds. With investments down they clearly take a hit on the fees. The Office of the General Assembly (OGA) and the Board of Pensions probably have fairly stable, or at least more predictable, revenue streams. While the GAC depends on more variable mission giving and investment income, the OGA has the revenue stream from churches’ per capita and the Board of Pensions from the employee pension contribution. The Board of Pensions does pay benefits from investment of the funds, and while it has taken a hit the Board reports this spring that the retirement plan “remains secure.” The Presbyte
rian Investment and Loan Program (PILP) deals in cash and CD’s so the securities downturn should not affect that, but I have not found information on their non-preforming loans. Finally, the impact of decreased purchases, if any, from Presbyterian Publishing Corporation is unknown but it is a self-supporting arm of the church and depends on sales alone.

And this is the 2009 budget. At the September meeting the GAC will have to project ahead to 2010. Stay tuned…

UPDATE: With the few extra days there has been more reflection and comments on the meeting. The ones that I have seen include:
GA Vice Moderator Byron Wade
GA Moderator Bruce Reyes-Chow
GAC Member Melissa DeRosia (h/t BRC)
I am expecting a few more as well.

In addition, there is a Presbyterian Outlook article on the OGA budget situation which will require about $400,000 in cuts for 2009 because of the decrease in investment income.

And the Louisville Courier-Journal has an article about a worship service recognizing all of those laid off.

Two Sign Posts On The Journey With Standards For Ordained Office: 1 – PC(USA) and the Synod of the Pacific

The Latest Issue Of Presbyterians Today

2 Replies

A couple of brief notes about the March 2009 issue of the magazine Presbyterians Today published by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

The first item concerns the regular column “What Presbyterians Believe,” this month written by Dr. Michael Jinkins from Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. The subject is “What Presbyterians Believe about Heresy.” (Interesting note that the article is about “heresy” while the URL says “heretic.htm”) Well, it turns out that between Mr. Jinkins’ original manuscript and the initial publication of the article an editor tried to improve on the headline and lede and, in Mr. Jinkins’ opinion, misrepresented his viewpoint. The misrepresentation was significant enough that Prof. Jinkins wrote an article published online by the Presbyterian Outlook stating his complaint and including the article as he originally wrote it. The online version of the Presbyterians Today article now displays Mr. Jinkins’ original version but presumably it is too late for the print version.

In the Outlook, Dr. Jinkins says this about the Presbyterians Today article:

Several months ago I was
asked to write an article on heresy for the “What Presbyterians Believe
Series” in Presbyterians Today.

When
the article appeared this week I was surprised and dismayed to discover
that the opening two paragraphs of the published article were so
clearly not my work that I have had to take the unprecedented step
(unprecedented for me at least) of formally distancing myself from
several key aspects of an article that appears under my name.

In
some thirty years of writing for church publications, this is the first
time I have ever had to do this. I have asked the magazine to retract
these paragraphs and to publish what I actually wrote because the
editors’ changes do not reflect my theology. I am frankly embarrassed
to have my name appear on the published article, and I do not want the
erroneous views attributed to me to reflect negatively on the
Presbyterian Church and the seminary I serve. I have informed the
publisher of Presbyterians Today that I am posting this blog to set the
record straight, and that I will refer readers to my original essay so
they can read it if they want to know what I actually wrote.

He goes on to discuss how the modification of the first two paragraphs made him sound sympathetic with “Arius, the arch heretic of the early church.” In addition, he says the new title “How to spot a heretic” is inappropriate because it “conjures up a predatory spirit that I find profoundly disturbing in the contemporary context.” Check out the Outlook article for the original text and the full discussion of these issues.

On a brighter note, it is a pleasure to welcome Elder Jody Harrington to Presbyterians Today and her new column “Best of the Blogs” which presents a few blogs each month with Presbyterian connections. And I would be remiss if I did not thank her for including this blog in her March article. Ms. Harrington is of course a blogger herself and her contribution to the blogosphere, Quotidian Grace, is a lively and wonderful mix of personal notes and reflections as well as her adventures in the Presbyterian church. It is one of my regular reads and her Presbyterians Today column will also become a regular read. Just when I thought I knew all the Presbyterian blogs, she lists another great one that is new to me. Thanks. Now we just need to get an RSS feed for “Best of the Blogs.”

As long as I am on the topic of Presbyterians Today, I will mention a piece of slightly older news, the January appointment of Jeffrey Lawrence as publisher of the magazine. (Presbyterian News Service article) Mr. Lawrence brings a wide variety of skills to the job including legal, business, and pastoral experience. I wish him well in his new position.

A Word Of Hope From The Amendment 08-B Voting Trends

PC(USA) Amendment Voting Update

4 Replies

The official vote tally on the amendments to the Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) was updated yesterday afternoon and enough presbyteries have now reported their votes that two of the amendments have passed. It probably goes without saying that these are the two least controversial amendments: 08-D – to change the name of the General Assembly Council to the General Assembly Mission Council; and 08-J – to clarify some language in the Book of Discipline section on Alternate Forms of Resolution. At my presbytery meeting yesterday, where we voted on the amendments, I had one person ask if there was an argument to vote against the name change. I don’t have one, my son who as a YAD at the last GA was on the committee that dealt with it doesn’t have one, the Association of Stated Clerks doesn’t have one, but the tally lists five presbyteries that voted against it so there is something that I am missing.

The other amendments are in a variety of places. Amendment 08-B is the only one listed as failing, more on that in a minute. The vows of membership (08-A) and the two Certified Christian Educators amendments (08-F and 08-I) all have similar votes with a significant number of no votes. In each case the vote is around 55 yes and 35 no. And I am still intrigued that these votes, and especially the vote on membership vows, are so close to the mirror image of the vote on 08-B. Again, some other time.

The remaining four amendments are all very close to adoption and we can expect to see those with the requisite number of presbyteries in the next update. That would include 08-C on replacing “sympathy” with “compassion,” 08-E regarding non-geographic presbyteries, 08-G about synod membership on permanent committees, and 08-H on ordination exams. The discussion yesterday at my presbytery was enlightening on some of these. For example, it was pointed out that while I had been thinking exclusively about having the proper academic preparation for the ordination exams, 08-H actually has the CPM consider all forms of preparation to determine if a candidate is ready to take the exams. Also, concern was expressed by members of my presbytery about 08-E mixing the non-geographic presbyteries issue with the unqualified reduction in the number of members necessary to form a presbytery. But my favorite comment of the day was regarding 08-C with “sympathy” and “compassion.” A friend asked if there was a significance to substituting the Latin form for the Greek form of words that mean essentially the same thing in their etymology. For the record, my presbytery voted non-concurrence, sticking with the Greek by 30-150.

In addition, three of the four ecumenical statements have been agreed to, and the statement with the Episcopal Church is only four votes from being adopted as well.

So where is Amendment B? While the official tally is 36 to 54, the “reliable sources” give the vote count at 42 to 69. There have now been 19 presbyteries change from a no vote on 01-A to yes on 08-B. And while last weekend had only one of eight previous no presbyteries switch, last night saw two of five presbyteries switch. I’m not going to do my geeky statistics thing for this post, just note that the trends continue and my previous estimate of a final vote of 72-101 still looks good. The other interesting occurrence statistically was that for the fourth vote in a row Eastern Korean Presbytery was unanimous in support of “fidelity and chastity.” I had to laugh because the total lack of yes votes caused havoc in my spreadsheet with division by zero errors in several of my normalization equations. Yeah, it’s a geek thing. Sorry.

Speaking of the sources of the data, it has been interesting to watch the various web sites update on a busy day of voting. My two favorite web sites are the chart at PresbyWeb (thanks Hans) and the results page from the Presbyterian Coalition (thanks for your hard work as well). The reason I like the Coalition site is easy: of the many charts out there it is the only one I know of in chronological order. I just scroll to the bottom and see what is new. The PresbyWeb chart has all four votes listed and has the color coding to quickly tell how each vote went. There are several other bloggers that have picked up the color scheme and talk about “switching from yellow to blue.” Following the various sites throughout the voting season these two sites seem to pick up the results first. For example, last night I was watching the two sites and the Coalition site had the Transylvania and Nevada votes up in the course of the afternoon. PresbyWeb and the Coalition updated this morning to have the rest, with the exception that as of this writing the Coalition is still missing the New Brunswick vote. Note: I mention this for comparison’s sake only and not as a criticism. There are a limited number of us G.A. Junkies out there who really care about it “as it happens.” For the most part both of these sites are fully updated the next day which is very reasonable for any sane person.

The other “as it happens” site seems to be the spreadsheet on YesOnB. The data there seems to lag the first two by a bit, but still usually has the data the next day. I will say that I don’t find the spreadsheet format as easy to read as the web page format, but the spreadsheet is intended for viewing the analysis and not the play-by-play. The “old reliable” is of course the table at The Layman, but it also seems to lag just a bit — for example, last night’s results have not been posted yet today. Finally, the Covenant Network has their vote count as well, which also has not been updated. All the sites will probably be current within the next few hours.

One positive from last weekend is that there seems to be a lot of encouraging comments about the presbyteries’ processes for debate. John Shuck comments “It was a good meeting with a good process” regarding the Holston Presbytery meeting. He also says “OK. I am glad I am here. One colleague said to me: ‘I disagree with you about almost everything but I like you.’ I like him, too. I think that matters.”

Over at The Corner Muffin Shop the pastor that writes it says of the Heartland Presbytery meeting

I have to give great kudos to my colleagues and friends on the Church
Order and Listening Division for their work in putting together today’s
Called Meeting of Presbytery to vote on the 14 Amendments to the Book
of Order. The meeting was designed around worship and it was an
excellent meeting if any Presbytery meeting can be described as
excellent.

I think most of the members of San Gabriel Presbytery were pleased with how our process went last night. This had been in the works since the conclusion of GA with some form of discussion about the amendments at every presbytery meeting in the last nine months. In fact, we had been laying the ground work with preliminary small-group discussions for the last two years.

There was a time of discussion before the business meeting began and I was the lead-off batter as the facilitator for a group discussion of all the other amendments. We then broke into groups and spent 45 minutes discussing three questions about ordination and how that informs our views of 08-B. The formal debate for 08-B was an order of the day, began with intro remarks by our EP framing our presbytery history and reminding us we are family, and then one speaker for and one against each spoke for five minutes. It helps to know that the 1996 overture that resulted in G-6.0106b came from our presbytery so there are references to that, implied and explicit, made throughout the debate. Debate was set, by previously approved rules, at 30 minutes and 12 individuals each made 2 minute speeches, evenly divided between for and against. There were a variety of arguments presented and arguing from scripture on both sides. Four of the six commissioners arguing against 08-B were from racial ethnic churches and more than one mentioned that passage of the amendment would harm ecumenical relations with partner churches around the world. There were no racial ethnic speakers for the amendment but at least one was waiting when debate was ended.

Probably the only glitch of the evening was the closing of debate. The previously approved rules of debate allowed for extending debate twice in 15 minute increments. The vote was taken and a slight majority, as viewed from my seat, favored extending debate. The moderator ruled that 2/3 was necessary and there was then no little discussion about whether 1/2 or 2/3 was needed as that was not spelled out in the adopted rules. The final ruling from our team of clerks, a high-powered brain trust if there ever was one, was that 2/3 was needed because the rules of debate required a 2/3 vote originally. (I hope this does not go down as “stifling the Spirit” because we did have 30 minutes of good, civil debate where much was presented.) The vote was taken and in the end we did not concurr with 08-B by a vote of 79-136. While the numbers are smaller this is fairly close to the ratio of the 97-181 vote on 01-A.

Regarding numbers, 215 commissioners voted on 08-B last night while 278 voted on 01-A. There were several people at the meeting last night that I had not seen for a while and attendence was clearly higher than usual. For example, in January there were 136 commissioners registered (75 ministers and 61 elders). Last night there were also a lot of observers, some of whom appeared to be students from our local seminaries watching the system work. Why the lower number than the last vote? In our case it is almost certainly due to a new policy. To lower our redress of imbalance our presbytery has adopted a policy that H.R.’s that have difficulty attending meetings may opt-out so they don’t need to be compensated for by an additional elder. Because of this, since the last vote the number of elder commissioners has been reduced by close to the amount that the vote was reduced. In addition, while the retired pastors that chose the non-participation option could attend and vote, they are still members of presbytery after all, I did not notice many of them last night so that would help account for the decrease. In our case I think the change to the redress policy can explain almost all of the drop and I did not discern any changes due to fatigue or departures.

The rejection of Amendment B is still not final by any means but the current trends continue to point in that direction. But, The Layman has worked out a scenario where passage of 08-B would be possible.

Time will tell. Stay tuned…

Decisions From The PC(USA) GAPJC

1 Reply

The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) heard cases in San Diego, California, last Friday, February 27, and published the decisions yesterday. Of the three cases, one is related to a higher-profile news item, but the decision does not settle the case, just overturns a specific ruling and the case is remanded back to the Synod PJC for trial. However, as with most GAPJC decisions there is something in each of these decisions to interest us polity wonks.

I will start with the better known of the three cases so casual readers can get the main point and move on to other reading.

219-08: David Bierschwale, David Lenz, and Carol Shanholtzer v. Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area
Bierschwale et al. v Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area is a remedial case that derives from the complaint to the PJC of the Synod of Lakes and Prairies about the procedures the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area followed in restoring Mr. Paul Capetz to the exercise of his ordained office. A lot more detail can be found on that last link and the links it contains, but here are the important facts for understanding the GAPJC decision:

Mr. Capetz was ordained a Minister of Word and Sacrament in 1991 but following the passage of G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” statement, asked, as a matter of conscience, to be released from the exercise of his ordained office in 2000. The Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area granted that release. Following the 217th General Assembly (2006) adopting the new Authoritative Interpretation about declaring a departure or scruple Mr. Capetz applied to the Presbytery for restoration to the exercise of his ordained office. In a meeting with the Committee on Ministry he stated his departure:

“I affirm the Constitutional Questions asked of me at my ordination. However, I have to raise a principled objection or scruple. I cannot affirm G-6.0106b. Nor can I affirm the position of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) on the question of the morality of homosexual relationships.”

At the Presbytery meeting in January 2008 the body took action on three motions. The first, referred to in the decision as the Departure Motion, was to affirm that his declared departure was not related to an essential of the faith. The second, the Restoration Motion, was to restore him to the exercise of his office. And the Third, the Validation Motion, was to validate his ministry teaching at a seminary.

Following the passage of these three motions a complaint was filed with the SPJC alleging the Presbytery acted irregularly in passing these three motions and requesting that they be nullified. The officers of the SPJC issued a Preliminary Order dismissing the case on the grounds that the relief requested was effectively the removal of Mr. Capetz’s ordination which must be done as a disciplinary case, not a remedial case. The complainants filed an appeal and amended their complaint asking “the SPJC admonish the Presbytery and order it to refrain from conducting further irregular ordinations, installations, restorations or validations.”

The SPJC decision was issued in August 2008. It dismissed the case on the grounds that no claim was stated on which relief could be granted. The case was appealed to the GAPJC. In the appeal there were twelve specifications of errors.

In their decision the GAPJC sustained only two of the specifications of error:

Specification of Error No. 4: The SPJC erred by not conducting a trial to determine whether there are facts that show: (a) Capetz stated a departure from G-6.0106b and (b) if so, whether that departure was a failure to adhere to the requirements of G-6.0108; and if the facts show that (a) and (b) occurred, whether the Presbytery’s action was irregular.

This Specification of Error is sustained.

Specification of Error No. 5: The SPJC erred by not conducting a trial to determine whether there are facts that would show the Presbytery waived the “fidelity and chastity” requirement of G-6.0106b in considering Capetz as a candidate or applicant for membership in the Presbytery; and if so, whether that action by the Presbytery was irregular.

This Specification of Error is sustained. This case is not remanded for a determination in the abstract as to whether any presbytery may decide that the “fidelity and chastity” requirement of G-6.0106b can be waived for any candidate or applicant for membership in a presbytery. Rather, the SPJC shall decide only on the basis of the facts of what the Presbytery did with respect to Capetz, and whether that particular action was irregular.

Before I go any further with the analysis of the decision let me remind you of a critical fact — Mr. Capetz never gave up his ordination. Almost all of the case law, precedents, and AI’s on this subject deal with candidates for ordination and therefore are mostly irrelevant to this case.

The critical section on the GAPJC reasoning says:

Bierschwale, et al. did not allege that there was any procedural irregularity in the manner in which the Presbytery took action on any of the three motions,including the Departure Motion. Any alleged irregularity in the process by which motions such as the Departure Motion are adopted is reviewable by the SPJC under the holding of Bush. In this case, Bierschwale, et al. complained that the Presbytery acted irregularly in adopting the Departure Motion because Capetz’s statements to the Presbytery were a serious departure from essentials of Reformed faith and polity and not a proper exercise of freedom of conscience under G-6.0108b.

This Commission finds that Bierschwale, et al. have stated a claim upon which relief may be granted, and the SPJC should determine whether Capetz’s statements and the Presbytery’s adoption of the Departure Motion are in violation of G-6.0108. The SPJC should address whether Capetz’s statements were a proper exercise of freedom of conscience under G-6.0108, and whether the Presbytery properly approved them in the Departure Motion. The standards for determining whether departures from essentials of Reformed faith and polity are permitted include whether a departure deviates from the standards in the Book of Confessions and the Form of Government, infringes the rights and views of others, or obstructs the constitutional governance of the church. (G-6.0108 a, b.) The trial of this case should include a presentation of evidence to determine whether these three requirements of G-6.0108 have been met.

So the Departure Motion is reviewable and a claim has been stated on which relief my be granted, and in a unanimous decision the GAPJC sends the case back to the SPJC for a hearing on the facts. And yes, there is a reference in there to the previous decision 218-10 – Bush v. Pittsburgh.

The Decision section makes interesting reading, even though this particular decision will have limited importance. (An appeal from the new SPJC hearing could set the landscape for deciding departures.) As I quoted above, the part on the Departure Motion is the pivotal part and the other ten errors not being sustained mostly hinge on the fact that Mr. Capetz was already ordained or that they were related to the Restoration Motion. It was po
inted out that if Mr. Capetz’s restoration were to be challenged based on his lifestyle that must be done as a disciplinary case, not a remedial case. Further, the decision says that the “undisputed record” of the case does not contain a basis for disciplinary process against Mr. Capetz, but that a disciplinary case could be filed based on other information regardless of the outcome of this case.

For the polity wonks, a couple more items of interest:
1) The additional requested relief in the amended complaint, the request to tell the Presbytery to not do this any more, was not sustained. As was made clear in Bush, there can be no blanket prohibition or standards but each case must be dealt with on its own merits.

2) There is an interesting and important footnote. I will let it speak for itself:

The question of whether the type of examination contemplated by G-11.0402 is required for restoration has not been raised in this case, is not before this Commission, and need not be addressed by the SPJC on remand. [Note: You probably know already but G-11.0402 is the section on examining ministers for membership in the presbytery.]

3) This decision specifically points out that if anyone is looking to this case to see if the 2008 AI overruled Bush you can forget that. Neither the AI nor Bush are related to the restoration to ordained office.

4) I am a little surprised that throughout this decision I did not find a reference to the 1992 decision 205-05 Sallade, et al. v. Genesee Valley Presbytery. This older decision is one of the very few that specifically deal with call standards for previously ordained individuals. As that decision says: “this commission holds that a self-affirmed practicing homosexual may not be invited to serve in a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) position that presumes ordination.”

Possible reasons for not referencing Sallade are numerous. Maybe the most obvious is that the current case dealt with validation of ministry while the previous case was about a “position that presumes ordination.” So there are questions of call process and nature of the ministry that separate these. It could have been an issue that the AI or G-6.0106b were not in affect then since those deal with ordination, but Sallade depends on the Definitive Guidance of 1978 which was in full force and effect when Mr. Capetz was examined, having not been removed until the 218th GA in June 2008.

So, this is just another step on the journey for this case. The complainants will have their day to present the facts on certain of their points. The case is remanded back to the SPJC for trail on the issues in specifications 4 and 5 only. We will see where it goes from there.

219-06: Hyung K. Yun, Yoon Soo Kim, Young Yoon Kim, Kwan Young Lee, Seung G. Ahn, In Bae Chun, Richard Yun, and Kee Ho Lim v. The Session of the Korean United Presbyterian Church of New Jersey.
This is a remedial case based on a complaint filed by members of the church regarding two congregational meetings in October, 2005. There were allegations made about irregularities in electing officers related to the nominating committee process and questions about the membership roles and who could vote at the meetings.

The Presbytery of Newark PJC issued a May, 2006, decision “reciting all parties’ acknowledgment that irregularities and delinquencies had occurred and stating that all parties had agreed to six specific remedies. The PPJC found that the church officer nominating committee had been properly formed. Those persons elected at the congregational meeting were later ordained and installed and have completed their terms of office or have resigned.”

Despite the decision saying “all parties had agreed” the PPJC decision was appealed to the PJC of the Synod of the Northeast which dismissed the case on the grounds that there was no basis for an appeal. That decision was appealed to the GAPJC which previously ruled that there were grounds for appeal and the case was remanded back to the SPJC. In April 2008 the SPJC ruled that the PPJC had erred in accepting the case because the complaint was made against the nominating committee and congregation which are not governing bodies. That decision was appealed back to the GAPJC.

In this decision, the GAPJC found:
1) The PPJC acted correctly in not invalidating the election and besides, that specification of error is now moot since the officers elected are no longer serving.
2) The PPJC did properly consider all appropriate evidence in the case. Furthermore, to complain that the decision was “unfair and unjust” goes against the fact that all parties agreed to the remedies.
3) The SPJC did err in its decision that the PPJC should not have accepted the case to the extent that in addition to claims against individuals and the congregation there were claims against the Session that should have been heard.

Bottom line: The previously agreed to remedies are to be enforced.

For the polity wonks the most interesting part is a concurring opinion signed by three members of the GAPJC. This opinion serves to point out a potential problem in PC(USA) polity related to deacons. They note that in 1997 Book of Order section G-6.0403, regarding the organization of deacons, was amended to add the “b” paragraph permitting deacons to be actively serving on a “commissioned” basis without the organization of a Board of Deacons. The previously existing section G-14.0223 about the composition of the nominating committee was never adjusted for this possible circumstance. Should we watch for this “housekeeping” Book of Order amendment coming soon?

219-07: The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) through the Presbytery of Wyoming v. Gordon R. J. King.
This is a 10 to 5 decision related to a disciplinary case filed against Mr. King. If you want the detailed history you can read the GAPJC decision, but in October, 2006, the PPJC filed its Final Decision. Mr. King appealed this decision to the SPJC and when they did not sustain any of his specifications of error he appealed again to the GAPJC.

This case is interesting because it revolves around the Presbytery’s Standard on Sexual and Ethical Conduct and whether the facts in the case match the standard. The GAPJC decision says

The application of a local standard for conduct (i.e., the Standard) does not relieve an appellate body of the obligation to determine whether that or any other legal standard has been properly applied. That determination is a question of law, not a question of fact.

It then goes on to overturn Mr. King’s conviction on the basis that the added “required” consideration of “proof of misuse of authority and/or power” was not present. As I read this, the implication of the “required” is that it is part of “any other legal standard.”

This would be the implication of the Dissent which says,

The undisputed facts match specific examples of the offense…contained in the charge on which King was found guilty listed in item number five of the Presbytery’s Standard

The Dissent goes on to say:

The SPJC decision includes a concern that this standard might be ambiguous. However, our task in this disciplinary action is not to critique the Standard as written by the Presbytery. Our task is to determine whether there is any basis for the PPJC to conclude that the facts
in the case constitute a violation of the Standard. We cannot substitute our legal conclusion for that of the PPJC unless we can find that there is no basis for the decision, based on a clear error in matching the facts to the offense charged.

The PPJC decision is overturned apparently based upon “other legal standard[s]” even though the presbytery’s standard was apparently met.

The GA Junkie

The Politics of Presbyterianism