Category Archives: PC(USA)

PC(USA) Presbyteries Considering Ecumenical Statements

It suddenly occurred by me that (1) I had to get together a presentation for Sunday afternoon about what the 218th General Assembly sent out to the presbyteries to be voted on and (2) I had not really pondered the Ecumenical Statements which are included in the voting this year. In fact, when I put together my previous comments on the Book of Order amendments I said I would get this together and then proceeded to set it aside and forget about it. So here they are, at least for my benefit if not yours.

Technically, these four ecumenical statements are not being approved for inclusion in the Constitution but as statements of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) that need to be ratified by a majority of the presbyteries. They can be found in the back of the Amendment Booklet beginning on page number 28, which is the 33rd page in the electronic version. In general, these statements come from dialogues that are overseen on the PC(USA) side by the General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical Relations.

08-K Ecumenical Statement with the Roman Catholic Church On Ratifying a Common Agreement on Baptism
This is item 07-08 in the electronic business system for GA and comes from a continuing dialogue with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

This is a fairly straight-forward statement which simply seems to contain those basic doctrinal points about baptism which Presbyterians and Roman Catholics share. As the rational section says “This statement basically affirms what is already the PC(USA) practice of recognizing the baptism of persons who have been baptized in the Roman Catholic Church.” I would note that it contains one of my favorite points about doing sacraments in covenant community:

3. Together we affirm that incorporation into the universal church by baptism is brought about by celebrating the sacrament within a particular Christian community.

I would also note that point 5 requires the Trinitarian formula “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” in agreement with the amendment the 217th General Assembly made to the Trinity study paper restricting substitution of alternate Trinitarian language for that sacrament.

The GA also directed a study guide be developed for this statement.

08-L Ecumenical Statement with the Episcopal Church On Adopting an Agreement
This is a bit more complex statement and is a step towards the eventual goal of “full recognition of our ministries and interchangeability of our ministers” (point 7). It was item 07-11 at the GA and although it was passed on voice vote, a comment was added in the committee that says:

In
recognizing the spirit of cooperation already present in the agreement,
the 218th General Assembly (2008) suggests that further dialogue
between the PC(USA) and the Episcopal Church give special attention to
mutuality in language regarding both church governance and worship
practice.

It is probably for these issues of “governance and worship practice” that this is the one Ecumenical Statement that has, at this early stage, garnered negative presbytery votes, according to the official vote tally.

Specifically regarding governance, the statement says:

4. We acknowledge that personal and collegial oversight (episcope) is embodied and exercised in our churches in a variety of forms, episcopal and non-episcopal, as a visible sign of the Church’s unity and continuity in apostolic life, mission and ministry.

08-M Ecumenical Statement with the Korean Presbyterian Church in America On Adopting a Covenant Relationship Agreement
It is interesting that these Statements are included in the booklet in order of length. The first two were roughly a page in length. This one is a bit longer at three pages. The GA approved this as item 07-04 with a comment added by the Assembly. Approval of this Agreement would make the KPCA a “full communion” church with the PC(USA) the same as the three churches that are part of the Formula of Agreement with the PC(USA).

It begins with a one-page history of the relationship between the two Presbyterian branches and a call for a deeper relationship. The document goes on to list the points for mutual recognition of each other, including as churches faithful to Word and Sacrament, recognition of each others’ sacraments and ordained offices, and each other’s mission. And in the section on ordained office there is the acknowledgment of “men and women” called and set aside by ordination.

In the Covenant section the two churches covenant to support each other, develop a process for the “orderly exchange of ministers,” and a process for the “orderly transfer of congregations,” and finally to find areas for cooperative mission. The GA directed the OGA and the GAC to develop the framework necessary to implement these covenants. The attached comment directs these bodies to consult with synods and presbyteries that have experience working with the KPCA for their input.

08-N Ecumenical Statement with the Moravian Church On Adopting a Covenant Partnership Agreement
This is another covenant partnership agreement but this one runs nine pages in length. Among the reasons it is longer is because three other churches, the United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, and Reformed Church in America, are also covenanting with the Moravians. It is also complicated by the fact that the Moravians use episcopal oversight, but in a reformed manner. For a taste of this, check out this footnote:

In practice, denominations mix and vary these elements of collective and individual oversight. Moravian bishops, while standing in historic succession, do not exercise judicial oversight; rather such oversight is exercised by the Provincial Elders Conference, a representative body of clergy and laity. The PC(USA) and RCA, on the other hand, vest oversight exclusively in representative bodies (presbyteries and classes) of clergy and laity.

Once you get to the actual points of covenant they are very much like those mentioned above for the KPCA, with some additional elaboration in the areas of resources, mission, and continued discussion and fellowship. Again, the GA’s directives for implementing the agreement are similar to the previous one. In the GA business, this is item 07-10 and passed committee on a unanimous vote, the assembly on a voice vote, and has no additional comments. One thing that did jump out at me was that the participants in the dialogue listed in the GA business report were almost all clergy with only one or two ruling elders or laity.

So there you have it. I’ve got my homework for Sunday afternoon done and I hope any other GA Junkies found this helpful as well. Have a Happy Epiphany today.

California Supreme Court Decision: Denomination Controls The Property

1 Reply

The California Supreme Court decision has been issued: In a unanimous decision on the outcome they upheld the appellate court decision which found in favor of the national Episcopal Church and against the local churches. The majority found that under “neutral principles of law” the property resides with the denomination because the churches agreed from their founding to be part of the greater church and abide by their documents. (The appellate court used “principle of government” in its reasoning.)

The majority decision, written by Justice Chin, goes on to present the legal rational for this finding. In a very interesting concurring and dissenting individual opinion Justice Kennard says, and I paraphrase here, “I agree the higher church body gets the property, but you are really stretching California law in finding for neutral principles when this should be based on principle of government.”

So we basically have a unanimous decision, but a 6-1 split on the legal reasoning.

Now some details, and I’ll quote extensively from the very readable introductory summary to the decision.

Near the beginning of the summary it says:

When secular courts are asked to resolve an internal church dispute over property ownership, obvious dangers exist that the courts will become impermissibly entangled with religion. Nevertheless, when called on to do so, secular courts must resolve such disputes. We granted review primarily to decide how the secular courts of this state should resolve disputes over church property.

State courts must not decide questions of religious doctrine; those are for the church to resolve. Accordingly, if resolution of the property dispute involves a doctrinal dispute, the court must defer to the position of the highest ecclesiastical authority that has decided the doctrinal point. But to the extent the court can resolve the property dispute without reference to church doctrine, it should use what the United States Supreme Court has called the “neutral principles of law” approach.

The decision summary continues with this important paragraph, the one Justice Kennard takes issue with:

Applying the neutral principles of law approach, we conclude that the general church, not the local church, owns the property in question. Although the deeds to the property have long been in the name of the local church, that church agreed from the beginning of its existence to be part of the greater church and to be bound by its governing documents. These governing documents make clear that church property is held in trust for the general church and may be controlled by the local church only so long as that local church remains a part of the general church. When it disaffiliated from the general church, the local church did not have the right to take the church property with it.

Within the full discussion the majority say that important in the reasons they were favoring neutral principles is because “that is the [U.S.Supreme] court’s most recent on this subject and, hence, is of critical importance to the instant dispute.” They also quote the U.S. Supreme Court decision about the dangers of neutral principles including that it requires a court to examine church documents, such as a constitution, for a trust clause but the court must avoid deciding based on any associated doctrine in the document. And the decision notes that this is the first case the state supreme court has had to consider neutral principles since its development.

Related to this the decision notes that the Appellate decision in this case criticized previous appellate decisions because those decisions used neutral principles when the state supreme court’s previous rulings had used principle of government. This current decision responds:

We disagree. As explained in the Court of Appeal opinion containing the most thorough examination of this question… the principle of government method… and the neutral principles method… are not mutually exclusive, but can be reconciled. In any event, this court unquestionably has authority to adopt the neutral principles approach. [citations removed for length]

This makes it sound like another reason the majority went with neutral principles was to help set the record straight on the previous decisions.

It is also important to point out that in response to the 1979 U.S. Supreme Court decision detailing neutral principles the California Legislature, in 1982, added a section to the California Corporations Code recognizing a denominational trust clause. And the decision reaffirms that under this California statute a hierarchical church can unilaterally impose a trust clause if “the governing instruments of that superior religious body so provide.” There is an argument in the Episcopal Church that the trust clause was not properly adopted in the first place. The court literally says that “it is a bit late” to argue that point.

It is also interesting that in the full decision the court points out that most of the decisions in other states have favored the hierarchical church.

In the separate decision, Justice Kennard writes of the majority’s reasoning regarding the California Corporate statute:

But that conclusion is not based on neutral principles of law. No principle of trust law exists that would allow the unilateral creation of a trust by the declaration of a nonowner of property that the owner of the property is holding it in trust for the nonowner. [citation removed] If a neutral principle of law approach were applied here, the Episcopal Church might well lose because the 1950 deed to the disputed property is in the name of St. James Parish, and the Episcopal Church’s 1979 declaration that the parish was holding the property in trust for the Episcopal Church is of no legal consequence.

But under the principle of government approach, the Episcopal Church wins because that method makes the decision of the highest authority of a hierarchical church, here the Episcopal Church, binding on a civil court. This result is constitutional, but only because the dispute involves religious bodies and then only because the principle of government approach, permissible under the First Amendment, allows a state to give unbridled deference to the superior religious body or general church.

In my view, Corporations Code section 9142 reflects the principle of government approach. That statute allows a hierarchical church, such as the Episcopal Church here, through its bylaws to unilaterally impose a trust on the
property of a local member parish. The statute does not state a neutral principle of law; rather, it creates a special principle applicable solely to religious corporations.

In my common sense way of thinking Kennard’s argument makes more sense to me as a path to ruling for the denomination.

Finally, a couple of polity and legal observations from this GA Junkie, who is not a lawyer.

1) It is interesting that neutral principles was the legal theory that prevailed because one of the internal arguments among PC(USA) denominational people was whether trust clause (neutral principles) versus administrative commission process (principle of government) was a stronger argument. At least in this state it appears trust clause prevails. Personally, I favor process. It seems so much more Presbyterian to me.

2) In reading through the detailed decision it seems to me that the court has tried to position its decision so that it will be upheld on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, should there be one. It seems that great effort is taken to lay out the legal history in U.S. Supreme Court decisions to show how this decision is completely compatible with that court’s
existing decisions. Maybe another reason the majority went with neutral principles. And being a lowly physical scientist by training, maybe this is what all legal decisions look like.

3) There are clear winners and losers. But one of the winners may be those churches which have been already been gracefully dismissed by their presbyteries. If principle of government had prevailed I could imagine an increase in the pressure to use PJC’s and AC’s at higher levels to chase down and pull back congregations dismissed by their presbyteries. This decision does, of course, only apply to California.

Lastly, I do expect a lot of spin and discussion on this. But out of all the responses, I appreciate the detailed and disagreeing analysis of an authentic church lawyer over at Anglican Curmudgeon. We will see what others have to say. Stay tuned…

Updates: A few details I missed the first time around…
1) The case is not over — If nothing else the cases are sent back to the trial courts. And if the local churches are unsuccessful there some are suggesting that it will be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court.

2) In comments that I am trying to decide suggest a true sense of victory or just making the best of this outcome, some associated with the local churches are happy the majority relied on neutral principles since that is how they were arguing their case. As the article from VirtueOnline says:

The California Supreme Court today ruled in Episcopal Church Cases that
church property disputes must be resolved by “neutral principles of
law,” not by civil courts merely deferring to the decrees of church
“hierarchies.”

This ruling has wide and favorable impact for
churches throughout California that seek to change their denominational
affiliation. While adopting this “non-religious” method of resolving
property disputes between churches, the Court seemed to defer to the
Episcopal Church’s alleged “trust canon,” which purports to create a
trust interest in church property owned by local congregations.

And the press release from the Episcopal Church quotes the local churches lawyer, Eric Sohlgren:

What’s good about the decision from the perspective of St. James is
that the court has adopted a rule of neutral principles of law in that
church property disputes will be resolved by neutral, nonreligious
factors.

Interesting to see how this goes from here.

3) And on my commute home last night I heard one radio station give the following “teaser headline” that seems to miss the point of the “neutral principles:”

California Supreme Court rules for Episcopal Church in dispute over gay bishops and property

Looking Ahead To Monday

2 Replies

It’s Saturday, but Monday’s coming…

The holidays are over, I’m still trying to keep Christmas in my heart and soul while recovering from New Years and the distraction of medical issues in my family over the break. I will need time to reflect on how “real life” intrudes into the divine. It seems like I should be seeing it the other way around since God takes the initiative. And my wife commented to me today that this is the first day she has really seen me since her father was hospitalized. (The situation is better, he is home, but the issues are not over and it will be a long road ahead for everyone.)

So, with the end of the holidays will come Monday and a return back to work. And with the return back from Christmas break we anticipate some news.

First, and scheduled, is the decision on the Episcopal Church Cases from the California Supreme Court. Notice was posted on Friday that the decision would be handed down at 10:00 AM PST on Monday. I have discussed this case before (see the tail end of this post) because even though this decision is specifically about Episcopal churches, it will set the “lay of the land” for all the hierarchical churches in California, including the Presbyterians. In light of that several Presbyterian entities submitted amicus briefs. The case was argued back in early October (my observations on the oral arguments) so now being close to 90 days the decision was expected this week. With the imminent decision the Anglican Curmudgeon has started a detailed series of posts on the cases and he promises to finish up with his prediction of the outcome. The first article is very good background piece, and the rest should be just as good. Even after almost 90 days I am sticking with my impressions from the oral arguments: I’m not sure if Neutral Principles or Principle of Government will specifically prevail but I’m still leaning towards Government. However, based on the tone of the jurists in October, I’ll stick my neck out that the hierarchical church will prevail in this one. (And from some of the arguments I could see the denomination prevailing even if a majority favors Neutral Principles.) I’ll post a brief summary as soon as I can find time in my work day to review the decision.

Second, and hinted at, is the appointments to the Special Committees, Study Groups, and Task Forces created by the last General Assembly of the PC(USA). In his Moderator Monday from December 15, GA Moderator Bruce Reyes-Chow gave an update on the appointment process and said he hopes to have it finished up “by the end of the year.” With the realities of the Christmas season I am not surprised that the announcement has not been made yet, but based on that goal I anticipate seeing announcements this coming week, maybe as early as Monday. And Bruce’s comment that “not everyone is going to be happy with all the choices made” and for people to “trust the Spirit” has raised my curiosity about their composition. Again, we await developments, maybe this week.

So my Christmas break is over. As I promised myself before the holidays I did some blogging but did not get consumed in any major analysis pieces. However, I’ve got a couple outlined and with breaking developments, and a slightly lightened work load with no teaching this quarter, I anticipate a resumption of my obsession with The Politics of Presbyterianism. So Happy (Gregorian) New Year (as opposed to the liturgical one was a month ago) and hang on for the ride.

Passings — Jane Parker Huber

Leave a reply

It is said “you can’t judge a book by its cover,” but I find that a glance at the indexes of a hymnal give a rapid assessment of the nature and tone of the book. In particular, I look at the most frequently included authors and translators in the volume.

It should come as no surprise that the longest list of entries in the index of a Methodist hymnal is for the Wesley brothers, up to one-tenth of the hymns even for a current hymnal. And while a Lutheran hymnal also has a significant contribution from the good Dr. Martin, as well as other German writers, frequently the single greatest source is Catherine Winkworth, a prolific translator of Western European hymns into English. Likewise, an Anglican hymnal like Hymns Ancient and Modern will often be dominated by translations of classic Greek and Latin hymns by John M. Neale (such as O Come, O Come, Emmanuel). And if you are looking at an independently published non-denominational hymnal, don’t be surprised if it comes from the revival tradition and has Fanny Crosby as its single largest source.

It is probably no surprise that in the classic 1933 Presbyterian Hymnal the single largest source is Isaac Watts, who alone is responsible for about 4% of the hymns in the book.

All this introduction to explain why I find it significant that in the current Presbyterian Hymnal Jane Parker Huber is in the top ten individual writers of hymns in the volume with ten, just slightly behind the numbers from Issac Watts and Charles Wesley. The recognition is mutual — her work helps define the denomination’s worship and the church recognizes her gifts and talents to God’s glory and praise.

Jane went to be with the Lord on November 15, but leaves the church with both an advocacy and literary legacy.

I will not repeat the various tributes to her — for those check out articles from the Presbyterian News Service and the Witherspoon Society. There is also an earlier article when she was honored in 2002 for her work in the Women’s Ministries program. She would fit the description of being a “Presbyterian of Presbyterians,” having been born to missionary parents, served the church for many years along side her husband Bill, and in her own work with Women’s Ministries, Presbyterian Women and her hymn writing. And it is significant that her work was with the Women’s Ministries and the song writing was something that flowed out of that, originally writing many of the songs for Presbyterian Women events.

While time will be the judge of which of her hymns is the most enduring, my choice is “Called as Partners in Christ’s Service.” This is a hymn frequently used across denominational lines that has had its first line used as the title of a book on PC(USA) missions. I last used it as the concluding hymn of the closing worship service for our Synod Assembly meeting just over a month ago. It is a great “sending” hymn. But however her musical work is remembered we can give thanks for a life lived in service to God through service to the church.

[Postscript: Various sources, including the Witherspoon article above, cite Jane with eleven hymns in the Presbyterian Hymnal. In the index of my copy I count ten so I can’t account for the discrepancy. In the end it really does not matter because the beauty and solid writing of her hymns make her works significant whatever the final count.]

A Look At Some Details In the PC(USA) Membership Changes

4 Replies

I have long had a curiosity about some of the nuances of the changes in the membership of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). I mentioned this in my analysis last June when the 2007 statistics were released and again in a discussion I had in the comments section of a recent post.

The questions is: How much of the PC(USA) membership decline can be attributed to churches departing to other denominations versus how much is individual departures?

To attack this question I used as my basis for churches departing two complimentary lists. The first is the one published by the Layman Online. The second comes from the PresbyLaw site. The Layman List is a bit more up-to-date than the PresbyLaw list. The PresbyLaw list goes back much further, further than I wanted to check, and has the events broken out and linked in a more detailed fashion. But in major details there are no significant details that differ between the two lists. The information on these lists was checked against the PC(USA) Congregational Directory. I checked a few other web sites and articles to try to refine some of the information. And in my working with the numbers below I did not include membership changes due to deaths — membership transfers to the Church Triumphant are an acceptable loss. However, the “net” membership changes do have the deaths included.

First, the results for 2006 and 2007 as best as I could piece them together. While it is tempting to reproduce my research into another table in this blog I’m not sure my time or your patience justifies it. So what is listed are summary statistics.

2006
According to the official statistics, from 2005 to 2006 there was a net loss of 56 churches. Within the loss in churches there were 56 dissolved and 6 dismissed.

From the Layman and PresbyLaw lists there were 7 churches that left the denomination. While these were usually marked as “dismissed,” from looking at the individual statistics it is often not clear or consistent how the members were lost so I lump the two together throughout.

So, with 62 churches gone, of those 7 “departing” for other denominations, 11% of the church loss can be accounted for in departures of this nature. That means that 89% are churches dissolved for other reasons. Around my area it is declining membership.

Between 2005 and 2006 the net loss in membership was 46,542. In the losses column there were 27,900 certificate losses, that is transfer requests to other denominations, and 102,125 “other” losses. The total of these two is 130,025.

Based upon the seven churches listed as departing their total membership was 901, or 0.7% of the total and 1.9% of the net.

To this we can add the churches on the list which I will call “distressed.” I did not research the circumstances of each one, but some of these show a year-after-year decline and some have a one-time decline when the church was declared in schism, a group left the church and the PC(USA) could identify a “continuing” church. There appear to be two of these on the list for a total loss of 261 members.

So, the total loss in 2006, as best as I can reconstruct, from “denominational concern,” is 1126 members.

2007
From 2006 to 2007 the net loss of churches was 83 on the official rolls. In the loss column there were 71 dissolved and 12 dismissed for the total of 83.

From the lists there were 16 fewer churches so in 2007 19% appear to be denominationally related.

Total denominational membership dropped by 57,572. In the loss column 30,329 were certificate losses and 102,714 were “other” losses for a total of 133,034, or 3018 higher than in 2006.

From the 16 departing churches there are some significantly higher memberships than in 2006 with the total being 6832 or an average of 427 per church. The average church size, according to the PC(USA) statistics, is 205 members, so these include larger than average churches, the largest being 1900.

There are also nine “split” churches in the list that have listed a loss of 965 members between transfers and other. That brings the total losses on these lists to 7797 or 5.9% of the PC(USA) total for transfers and losses and 13.5% of the denominational net.

Discussion and Conclusions
Well, the first conclusion seems to be that the vast majority of people who leave the PC(USA) are not leaving with a particular church or splinter group but are just leaving as individual families. Based on these lists, even a major flaw in my methodology would not increase the numbers dramatically relative to the totals.

So this seems to bring good news and bad news. The good news is that the defections to other denominations are not a major outflow. The bad news is that there are much larger issues to consider in the loss of membership.

One interesting finding is the relatively close correlation between the
official number of churches dismissed and the number on the lists.
While some of the departing congregations were dissolved it is good to
know that a majority were dismissed.

Two interesting items about the PC(USA) methodology did jump out at me. The first is that as far as the membership numbers are concerned a church and its members have not left until the PC(USA) says that it has left. While a church may vote to leave the presbytery or civil legal process may hold up their “recognized” departure for months to years. This means that churches appear in both the PC(USA) membership directory and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church directory simultaneously. For example: First Presbyterian Church, Thibodaux, LA — PC(USA) and EPC.

The second is that reporting of membership statistics for churches in schism is sometimes, shall we say, questionable. While some churches were clearly showing the sudden drop in membership from those that moved on with the departing group, in other cases the membership is being kept level, sometimes just filling in the static number with no gains or losses. Examples: Londonderry, NH and First PC Torrance, CA.

It would be expected that in both of these cases the statistics would get caught up at some time in the future.

One area these do not address, and I do not presently have the time to pursue, is the concentration in specific presbyteries. There are some concentrations, such as Pittsburgh, Heartland, and Sacramento Presbyteries, so departures will have more impact on a local level.

A final observation: In several communities where churches departed and the vote was not overwhelming I looked at the membership statistics for near-by PC(USA) churches. In no case could I find any membership increase in a local church corresponding to the departure of the other church. If not all the members went with the departing group they did not transfer to local PC(USA) churches.

This is not a problem with record keeping at Louisville, but a problem at the local level where the membership reports come from. On the one hand it makes me wonder how far off some of the other numbers are. But I am also thankful for numbers at all since the PC(USA) is one of the few Presbyterian branches there has generally reliable reporting that they make available to the general public.

Commentary
Why do we care about this? Personally it has been a curiosity to me and I did this to see how large of an affect this is on the PC(USA) membership statistics. While it is noticeable it is not significant.

In a larger sense we care because the loss of members is not a good thing. If this tide can be stemmed it will not in itself stop the denominations slide, but it will be a step in that direction.

But maybe the thing I personally find troubling is how small a contributing factor this really is. How much time, money, energy, polity, and concern has been poured into 6% of the lost membership. In so many conversations this has been the focus. What if we took the same energy for the other 94% who just leave the church? Could we get a better return on our efforts there?

I’ll keep playing with these numbers and it will be interesting to see if the trend continues to accelerate. It probably will because I stopped my 2008 list after the first six months and I already had 12 churches on the list. And if you see a flaw in my methodology please let me know where I slipped up.

Being Synod-cal

1 Reply

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses,
let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely,
and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us,
looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith [Heb. 12:1,2a]

Or

“What a long, strange trip it’s been”

I
started this post just over two years ago and since that time have
returned to it and revised it three other times, not counting this final one. Such is my faith journey and evolving
thinking on the place of synods in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
Well, my thinking is still not complete or fixed, but I figured that I
was at a milepost that probably needed an annotation. So here it
goes…

Over a decade ago I had my first introduction to the
Synod of Southern California and Hawaii as a commissioner to its annual
Assembly. At the time the Synod was working through some financial
challenges, especially with its camps and conferences program. At that
meeting the Assembly concurred with the recommendation to sell a
conference center many considered the “crown jewel.” (Think property
near Malibu.) While that was clearly not the beginning of the decline,
since the program was becoming tight on cash and the objective was to raise some, in the Synod it is still
remembered as a major mile-marker in the history of the organization’s
slide.

Fast-forward to 2006 and I’m back at Assembly as a
commissioner. The Synod is in the midst of a transition process and
there are concerns among many commissioners about the slow pace and nature
of the transition. The office building is probably going to be put on
the market. Mission giving has declined and per capita monies are dropping.
The Synod is under stress and it is the view of many, correctly or
incorrectly, that the transition is simply reorganizing to do things
the way they have always been done. (I stepped into this in progress
so do not personally have a good feel for what was actually happening in that transition work
but a couple of people I trust highly were not optimistic about the progress and direction.) At the Assembly a substitute motion was adopted that
would hand the transition back to more direct input and control of the presbyteries for a series of
consultations and visioning meetings. As the Moderator of my
Presbytery I was one of those to participate in the consultations. All
of this is the background that got me thinking about the place and
future of synods as middle governing bodies of the PC(USA). And based upon my past experience and the information I had received from others I entered the process with more than a little cynicism about the value of synods.

There are currently sixteen synods in the PC(USA) and as
many of you are probably aware, the place of synods in the denomination is
not just something that I am thinking about but is a topic of
discussion for the PC(USA) as a whole. Over the last few years there
has been national activity to study, and possibly do away with synods. There was an overture to the 218th General Assembly. Part of the national funding system for synod support will change, if not disappear. And the Synod of the Southwest and two of its
presbyteries had serious issues resulting in a national consultation
in February 2007 about the nature and financial viability of the present Middle Governing
Body system.

It is interesting that in the midst of this there
are groups. principally Presbyterians for Renewal, that are looking at
a model for coexistence in the PC(USA) that would have like-minded groups move into a “Seventeenth Synod” that is national and parallel to
the present structure. (Analysis by Pastor Lance at Full Court Presby)

On the one hand, there are several
strikes against synods in their traditional sense. They are part of
the earliest structure of the American Presbyterian church, established
before the General Assembly. But with the advent of faster
transportation and communications the need to have a regional governing
body to improve interaction and connectionalism has disappeared.
Considering the number of observers that now attend General Assembly a
rough calculation would suggest that more people attend GA than all the
Synod Assemblies combined. With the decrease in general mission giving
it seems that Synods are being squeezed out between the presbyteries’
and the national budgets. In light of the lack of resources and
program, do synods still serve a purpose?

In thinking through
this question, working with the consultations, and closely watching our
Synod in operation, I have come to the following conclusion: The Synod structure currently mandated in the PC(USA) Constitution is not specifically necessary, but there are desirable functions that should be done in “synod-like” entities. Basically, I do see a need for certain things to be done on a scale above the presbytery but below the General Assembly. If the synods were to go away these functions could be done by entities that are not individual middle governing bodies, but could be something like “super-presbyteries” or “General Assembly sub-regions.” So what are these functions?

One group of functions is the ecclesiastical duties, specifically including judicial process and records review. And this group is recognized in the New Form of Government where the draft includes synods, but allows for “reduced function” to cover only these duties. (3.0404)

I think that the argument for a division of labor in the review of records is fairly straight forward. At the present time the 16 synods review the records of the 173 presbyteries. Eliminate the synods and a GA committee would be responsible for the review of all 173.

The concern with the judicial process is partly the same argument. Eliminate the synod and the GAPJC hears appeals from all 173 presbytery permanent judicial commissions. But with judicial cases there are some added complexities when you start looking at appeals. To have a remedial case against a presbytery be heard first by the GAPJC means that it is the court of first impression and the details of having the case reviewed on appeal would need to be worked out. In addition, to have cases coming from the presbytery PJC’s reviewed twice as appeals, once by the synod PJC and again possibly by the GAPJC, I think helps crystallize the thinking of the final GAPJC decision which can stand as Constitutional interpretation for the denomination.

The other group of functions the synods have is in the area of mission and ministry. In reviewing what our synod does it struck me that it was a point of collaboration or catalysis for the really big stuff and the really small stuff. The former are ministry projects that are large enough that they cross presbytery boundaries and having a central point of contact has been helpful. It is clear from coalitions that have developed on their own that synod involvement is by no means required. But a case could be made that having the synod as a point of contact makes them more efficient. (And I can think of a couple of people who might argue that getting the synod involved would make them less efficient.)

Maybe the more important function is working with ministries that are small, a few members from churches scattered throughout the synod. No church or presbytery has enough involvement to sustain it, but across the whole synod there are enough individuals that they can gather in a meaningful and vital way. A similar function that I have seen is in matching experience to needs across presbytery lines. It provides a place for connecting knowledgeable people to more distant points where they can be helpful. Again, neither of these activities requires the synod — the connections for ministry could be made across presbytery lines without the existence of the synod. But the hope is that the synod could make the connection more efficient.

Finally, in our connectional system I wonder if we can feel connectional if the governing bodies immediately jump from the presbytery to the General Assembly. I commented on this a little while back when I asked if the PC(USA) is too big. In that post my thinking was not specifically that a synod was needed to foster a feeling and understanding of connectionalism on a regional level, but a synod could serve that purpose.

The question that is behind this and must be answered is whether these functions, if they do continue, must be done by a “governing body.” Could they be done by other affiliated entities? Under our theory of church government records review and judicial process needs to be conducted by a governing body. But this could be satisfied by a change to the constitution that would allow ecclesiastical functions to shift from synods to GA to be conducted by regional commissions that are administered by the Office of the General Assembly. This would approximate the synod system while reducing administrative levels and creating cost savings with economies of scale. And while we presently understand there to be one court per governing body this cold be structured and viewed as one court with different branches.

Ministry and mission on the synod level is not as closely tied in our polity to being conducted by a governing body so it could be shifted in a number of ways including back to the presbyteries, up to GAC, or to networks, collaborations, or coalitions of presbyteries. The problem is that without oversight or facilitation will the mission be done or die on the vine? The flip side is that it would put pressure for the fulfilling of G-9.0402b:

b. The administration of mission should be performed by the governing body that can most effectively and efficiently accomplish it at the level of jurisdiction nearest the congregation.

This is partly just a though exercise in how the system could be stream-lined if that is what it needs financially, administratively, or practically. At the present time the GA has chosen not to make changes to the system. The question that I can not answer at this point is whether for the other 15 synods this is what will need to happen. For the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii it is not something that is required at this time. But the thinking is necessary, because going forward even five years there could be the need for radical restructuring in multiple synods, possibly including mine.

So where does that leave me? After two years of participating in consultations, visioning and redesign of our synod I have become convinced that synods can play an important part in our connectional system. By no means does this mean they are indispensable — I am also convinced that given the apparent realities of the future in a decade the PC(USA) middle governing body structure will look different than today. It will be seen how radically different the structure looks and that different structure may or may not include synods.

My personal journey with my synod has taken many twists and turns, both in my thinking and my activity. As I outline above, I have revised my thinking somewhat and think that there is a place for synods at the present time, although there will have to be some serious evaluation in the near future for some of the synods and the denomination as a whole. And this thinking and activity on my part will continue: The redesign work I helped with created a radically reorganized ministry unit which I was then asked to chair and “get off the ground” in 2008. One of the implications of this service is that in 2009 it means that I will serve the synod as the Moderator, a job I am truly looking forward to. So my “long strange trip” continues.

As a programming note, don’t expect much more about my synod Moderatorial work here. As usual, if polity items arise or I want to revisit the nature and necessity of synods, that will appear here. But to help facilitate the communication within the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii I will also have a moderators blog — Everything in Moderation. In a sense, this blog will continue in chronos time w
hile the other will focus on the kairos time of the Moderatorial year. The journey of faith continues and it will probably be as interesting as the journey that got me here.

An Interesting Trend In PC(USA) Amendment Voting

4 Replies

I was checking out the redesigned web site of The Layman. It is a clean looking site that uses ASP and CSS and no longer uses the frames. It is a nice design, navigation seems good, and I like the “Other Headlines” section where they have consolidated all their news together. I’m not a big fan of having that top navigation bar big and black, but that is my opinion.

Anyway, I was checking out the web site and having a look at their chart on the voting for Amendment B and noticed an interesting trend. No, it is not the fact that the vote currently stands at no presbyteries for and six against. What I noticed, and have now crunched the numbers on, was the total number of votes cast and how it differs from the last go-round.

Briefly, if you compare the number of votes cast in each presbytery with the total number cast in 2001-02 you find that the numbers are all between 72% and 87% of the votes cast last time. Why?

The two obvious culprits are the drop in PC(USA) membership and “issue fatigue.” I think it is probably a combination of the two.

If you consider the statistics between the end of 2001 and the end of 2007 you find that in 2007 the number of churches was 97% of what it was in 2001 and the number of members was 89% of what it was in 2001. The number of commissioners to presbytery will reflect both of these numbers since each church is assured of two, the pastor and an elder, but larger churches have extra commissioners.

[OK, this is a “back of the envelope” calculation and I am well aware of several other issues that make my description above not as simple as I have presented. These include: The fact that a church with an empty or shared pulpit may only have an elder commissioner. That presbyteries may have “extra” clergy because of seminaries, retirement communities, larger numbers of ministers in validated ministries, that sort of thing. That would be adjusted under the redress of imbalance.]

The drop is larger than the membership drop so that can’t be it alone. To address the “issue fatigue” I looked at the changes in the numbers of Yes and No votes. I consider it interesting that every count of No votes declined, and it falls in the same range as the total vote decline. On the one hand, this is not surprising since each of these presbyteries voted “No” so the majority of no votes will have the greater influence on the total numbers. But there is some variability with the drop in negative votes sometimes higher and sometimes lower than the drop in total.

This is in marked contrast to the affirmative votes where in some cases a small number of votes causes the percentages to swing wildly. The votes range from 22% of the number from last time to 106%, but in the case of the 22% and a 44%, these are less than 10 votes so small changes can be amplified. Two of the other four are in the range of the total decline, and one shows only minor decline (98% – one vote) and one showed a slight increase (106% – one vote). In general, the affirmative votes are holding steadier than the negative votes.

To summarize, negative votes show a fairly consistent decline in excess of the membership decline, the more substantial yes votes show a change that is at worst in the range of the negative vote decline.

I do realize that there are numerous other explanations for the drop in voting. It could be because these are early votes and “get out the vote” campaigns have not been active yet. It could be because these presbyteries have implemented an “active participation” policy among the honorably retired ministers under G-11.0101b and so have a smaller “redress of imbalance.” (You will probably see this in my presbytery.) Anyway, membership decline and “issue fatigue” may not be the only reason numbers are down.

What does this mean? I’m not really sure yet but I’ll keep an eye on the trend. It at least reflects the decline in the membership of the denomination. But since the numbers are in excess of the decline there appears to be something else going on here which I would attribute to “issue fatigue.” It would make sense that both of these effects would show up more in the negative votes since those are the churches realigning or thinking about it.

Churches Leaving The PC(USA) And The Status Of Women’s Ordination

Leave a reply

One of the continuing challenges, and discussions, for churches that are considering departure from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is about the ordination of women as deacons, elders, and clergy. The problem is that as churches look to leave the PC(USA) because of concerns symbolized by one debate over ordination standards, they by necessity step into another debate on ordination. No Presbyterian branch in the United States, besides the PC(USA) and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, uniformly accepts women to ordination as officers of the church, and in all but one of these branches it is completely prohibited.

As I have discussed before, the branch with “local option” is the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, which probably helps explain why for departing PC(USA) churches this is the denomination of choice to realign with. For churches who realign through the New Wineskins Presbytery of the EPC, associated with the New Wineskins Association of Churches, the ordinations are not a problem since that presbytery recognizes the ordination. But this is to be a transitional presbytery which will disappear in five years and the churches in it are to transfer to standard geographic presbyteries. (Then again, the PC(USA) has had several “transitional” Korean language presbyteries which were supposed to have a limited lifetime but don’t seem to be going anywhere yet.)

We now receive news, through an EPNews Special Edition news item, that a permanent non-geographic affinity presbytery may be considered by the 2009 EPC General Assembly. The recommendation was made by the NW/EPC Transitional Presbytery Commission to the EPC Committee on Administration (COA). The article has a nice run-down of the status Of EPC presbyteries at this time:

In its discussion about the proposal, the COA noted that much of the
energy driving it was the sensitive issue of the ordination of women as
teaching elders. In the EPC, we currently have two presbyteries that
prohibit women teaching elders, two that will not use gender as a
consideration in approving ministers and candidates, two others who
have a procedure in place that allows consideration of women ministers
and candidates without violating conscience, and two that are still
working on the issue and will have come to a conclusion by the second
week of February 2009. One of these, Mid-America Presbytery, will
consider an overture asking the 2009 General Assembly to approve an
affinity presbytery within its boundaries as a response to women
teaching elders.

Note that only teaching elders are discussed since the ordination of ruling elders and deacons is local option on the congregational level.

The article goes on to say:

In its written response to NW/EPC Transitional Presbytery Commission,
the COA declared, “We recognize that an affinity presbytery is one of a
number of possible solutions to the dilemma of women teaching elders in
the EPC. While we do not believe it is the ideal solution,
nevertheless, it may be the ultimate solution. In the EPC, it has been
more than a decade since we have engaged in serious discussions about
establishing an affinity presbytery. An affinity presbytery certainly
has attractive features. However, we believe there are significant
issues that need to be addressed and resolved before a proposal such as
this can be advanced to the General Assembly. We would like to work
with you to address those issues as we pursue this as a possible
solution for 2009 General Assembly consideration.”

So, in the EPC the possibility of an affinity presbytery is being discussed as a way to accommodate this disagreement between churches over ordination standards while in the PC(USA) the same accommodation has been rejected by the General Assembly multiple times (2006, 2008) but is still one of the options talked about for keeping churches in the PC(USA).

I would note that the concept of affinity presbyteries is almost as old as American Presbyterianism itself, and was a way that the Old Side and New Side branches of the church could facilitate a reunion in 1758. (Yes, within the first fifty years of American Presbyterian history the church went through a split and a reunion.)

It is also interesting that there is news today from the Living Church News Service that Anglican dioceses that have realigned away from the Episcopal Church are beginning a planning process for a new North American Anglican Province. While not a parallel structure within the Episcopal Church, it would be a parallel Province within the Anglican Communion.

Going forward we will have to see where this leads us. But it is interesting how this conservative group within the PC(USA) is requiring both the PC(USA) and the EPC to wrestle with these ideas even if they are in slightly different forms.

Passings — Rev. Louis Evans Jr.

Leave a reply

The Rev. Louis H. Evans Jr. joined the Church Triumphant on October 28 after an earthly struggle with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, aka Lou Gehrig’s Disease. As you can see from the L.A. Time article, he had an impressive lineage and resume. He was the organizing pastor of Bel Air Presbyterian Church here in L.A. and was the senior pastor at National Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C. He provided great service to the Lord Jesus Christ through his work in the church and there are numerous articles testifying to that effort. And Ken Malloy, one of the TV news anchors in Fresno where the Evans’ lived, has a tribute to Rev. Evans on his blog.

But I want to share my one experience with Rev. Evans. Several years ago our church invited Louie and Coke, as Pastor Evans and his wife Colleen were know, to lead a couples retreat for the church. It was a wonderful weekend, they were warm, charming, entertaining, informative and challenging. They did not have a hint of pretense but were “down to earth” people and meshed with the folks from our church right from the start. They did have stories, mostly told on themselves, and that just added to their charm and familiarity.

I got to sit next to Louie at one of the meals and discovered we were both “GA Junkies” of another type. That would be G.A. as in “General Aviation,” the technical term for private pilots and non-commercial aviation. I am not a pilot but have a great interest and follow the field. He had his private pilot’s license and once he found that he had an interested party to listen to more of his stories he was more than eager to swap tales.

It was a delightful weekend and I thank God for the two of them and their ministry which was continuing even at that point in their lives. May God comfort his family with the knowledge that he is surely in God’s presence. “Well done good and faithful servant.”

Prayers For the Moderator’s Extended Family

1 Reply

Yesterday, at a Synod committee meeting we closed with intercessory prayer. We prayed for all those affected by the fires burning in the Los Angeles area, for one of our members who needed healing, for a leader of our Synod who received miraculous healing and is recovering well. And we prayed for the economic circumstances in our world today.

We also received word of, and prayed for, the loss of Brian Pugh. Brian is the brother of PC(USA) GA Moderator Bruce Reyes-Chow’s wife Robin. He was killed in a workplace shooting in Santa Clara. Bruce has a brief post, a remembrance web site has been established, and there is a PC(USA) press release (thanks to Michael Kruse) with a statement from Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons.

All of these things will be in the prayers of our church community this morning. Please join us in praying hard.

The Peace Of Christ Be With You!