Category Archives: PC(USA)

Financial Crisis Has Varing Impact On Presbyterian Investment Funds

Leave a reply

The morning news brought word that there was a “run on the bank” at the Presbyterian Mutual Society of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.  The main page of the society now has a statement from the Directors of the Society indicating that cash levels have fallen low enough that they are forced to stop accepting withdraws.  It also indicates that they have contacted the government about financial assistance, a point echoed on William Crawley’s BBC blog “Will and Testament.”  From reading through the material it is clear that the Presbyterian Mutual Society is a separate legal entity from the Presbyterian Church in Ireland while still being associated with it and restricting Society membership to PCI members.  Unlike the PC(USA)’s Presbyterian Investment and Loan Program (PILP) the Society holds some of its assets in real estate, not just loans to churches, so the market downturn has had an impact on the net value of the assets.  Being its own legal entity the assets of the PCI are not at risk, but being a Mutual Society there is no government insurance of the deposits.  This just broke today so we will have to see how this develops.

I have been keeping an eye out for statements about financial investments at various Presbyterian branches.  I am not referring to giving, that is a story all to itself, but rather the investments held by governing bodies including pension funds.  So far there has been very little reported, as least that I have found.  In the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) the Board of Pensions has reported, both in their publication and the PNS article, that while the investments are down, benefits are safe.  I have seen no similar report from the Foundation, although I would expect that in their annual report.  I will offer that from our Synod there is one program that will probably not be able to access any of their designated Foundation funds because the value has fallen beneath the “floor,” but providentially a large chunk of the general assets were in short-term interest bearing investments and we have ridden through it with little loss of principle.  Likewise, PILP is, to my understanding, in cash instruments and deposits are in CD-like instruments so redemptions can be forecast more easily.  Whether churches will be able to make their loan payments is another questions.  As for other Presbyterian branches, I’ve been keeping an eye out but have not spotted news yet.

While these are recent developments there is a much longer term story out there as well.  A while back the Presbyterian Church in America established the PCA Investor’s Fund that appears like it operated much like PILP at its founding in 1985.  Interested persons or groups would invest in the fund and the money would be loaned out for church planting, expansion, or redeveloperment.  It is interesting that a news note in the Winter 1999/2000 Multiply Magazine lists 3-year deposits paying the substantially above-market rate of 8.00%.  (Current PILP rates are 3.20% for the same term.)  A Christianity Today article (July 2008 print, August 2008 on-line) describes the decline and fall of the investment company.  It was divested from the PCA in 1994 but kept its Presbyterian ties, even with its merger with Cornerstone Ministries Investments in 2000.  Shortly after the merger the company began diversifying its portfolio of assets into riskier non-church real estate, principally second mortgages.  With the real estate downturn the company ran into trouble and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy February 10, 2008.  There are more details, an active comment section, and a link to the actual bankruptcy form on the Georgia Bankruptcy Blog. (And I thought I had a niche blog.)  Those proceedings are ongoing but the situation does not look good for churches and individuals that invested with Cornerstone thinking the money was going for church growth projects.

So, along with the Presbyterian Mutual Society, we will see how this one develops.

And finally, a great Biblical take on this from that great lectionary cartoon Agnus Day.

Passings — Evan Silverstein, PNS Reporter

Leave a reply

It was with a heavy heart that I read the news today from the Presbyterian News Service that Senior Reporter Evan Silverstein passed away yesterday at his Louisville home.

While the news article gives details on his life and work, I will say that I enjoyed his articles for the tone, balance, and insight of his stories.  Maybe it does take an “outsider” to really show us what a “peculiar people” we are.  He covered a lot of the news from the field, not so much about our polity discussion, but about the people on the front lines and the people we, as a denomination, touched.  Evan, thanks for your work.

Magnified and sanctified be G-d’s great name in the world which He created according to His will.

New PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions — Administrative Commissions In The Spotlight

1 Reply

(If any of you just started reading my blog thanks to Bruce’s gracious endorsement
I appreciate you checking it out.  This particular post will probably
give you a feel for what he calls “painfully balanced and
excruciatingly thorough.”  It definitely falls into the thorough part.)

Almost two weeks ago on October 27 the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (PC(USA)) issued three substantive decisions and one procedural decision.

In reading through the documents the two that the GAPJC wrote lengthy decisions about both focused on issues regarding the operations of an Administrative Commission (AC).  Now I realize that one of these decisions, Sundquist, et al., was in regards to churches departing the PC(USA) and contains additional related language.  That got the headlines.  But in my reading of the decision it seems that the majority of it, the parts dealing with the power of an AC, would apply to almost any AC regardless of the reason for creation.  In the same way, the Lee, et al. decision, while occasioned by a dispute within a congregation, was also at the heart of it about the AC that was created for dealing with the situation.

219-03 – Robert Sundquist, et al. v. Heartland Presbytery
This case results from the Presbytery‘s handling of the request by two churches (First Presbyterian, Paola, (new EPC Lighthouse congregation, continuing congregation) and Hillsdale Presbyterian) to be transferred to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.  When the first congregation started talking about the request for transfer the Presbytery established an Administrative Commission to handle the situation. 

Coming to the GAPJC were five specifications of error:  1) The AC was given original jurisdiction before the facts established that it was needed.  2) The AC was empowered to dissolve pastoral relationships before they determined it would further the mission of the Word.  3) That certain powers could not be delegated to Presbytery committees.  4) That the AC was empowered to take the “full power and jurisdiction” of the Session if the Session were to call a congregational meeting for the purpose of requesting dismissal.  And 5) making the powers of the AC effective when “when it should become evident to the Commission that minister(s) or congregation member(s) are moving toward expressing a desire for separation and that reconciliation is not likely.”  (These are my summaries, read the decision for the full specifications with Book of Order citations.)

The GAPJC did not sustain any of the specifications of error effectively siding with the Presbytery.  But note that four of the five specifications essentially deal with the powers of an Administrative Commission.

The decision section is extensive, stretching seven pages, but contains some significant writing on AC’s that I suspect will become standard citations for the power and operations of Commissions.  This is already evident in the GAPJC citing this case in the simultaneously released Lee, et al. decision.

The decision begins by pointing out several principles of AC’s including that “The functions of an administrative commission are limited by the appointing body, and may include any function that the appointing body wishes to delegate (with few exceptions expressly provided for in the Book of Order).”  The decision goes on to say:

Powers delegated to administrative commissions must be specifically described (G-9.0502). This is consistent with the principle that the jurisdiction of each governing body within the church is limited by the express provisions of the Constitution, and that powers not expressly mentioned in the Book of Order are reserved to the presbyteries (G-9.0103).

Based on the principles of AC’s the GAPJC found that “The argument of Sundquist, et al. that, the Presbytery must take all the steps to dissolve a pastoral relationship or assume original jurisdiction over a session, including investigation, notice and an opportunity to be heard, before appointing an administrative commission or delegating power to it, has no Constitutional basis and is in error.” (emphasis in original)  But the decision reiterates that the AC must follow of the Book of Order requirements in its actions.  The decision agrees with Sundquist, et al., that an AC may not automatically assume original jurisdiction “when a session calls a meeting for the purpose of considering actions that may lead to separation from the PC(USA),” but it finds that the Synod PJC correctly held that the AC fulfilled the requirements of the Book of Order.  (Interesting footnote here that the parties agree that the action of the AC is not being challenged, only the Presbytery Resolution empowering the AC.)  The decision says:

Appointing an administrative commission with the power to assume original jurisdiction or dissolve or dismiss a congregation or dissolve a pastoral relationship does not mean that the commission will inevitably exercise this power. In this case, the Resolution provided a process that insured that granting of such powers was separated from the exercise of the powers by the requirement that the AC must first determine that it is “evident to the commission that minister(s) or congregation member(s) are moving toward expressing a desire for separation, and that reconciliation is not likely” (Resolution, section 3 (emphasis added)). This determination is an important buffer between the grant of authority and exercise of that authority by the AC.

and

The Resolution reflected the Presbytery‟s desire and intent to give broad powers to an administrative commission that may be faced with particularly fluid and difficult circumstances, but conditioned the exercise of those powers on appropriate pastoral considerations for reconciliation in addition to the procedural safeguards imposed by G-9.0505b and G-11.0103i, o and s.

The Appellants claimed that the full Presbytery needed to act upon certain items before an AC could get involved.  The GAPJC says:

Without an administrative commission in place, the alternative would have required the Presbytery to call the session and pastor to the next plenary meeting of the Presbytery to air the differences in front of the entire Presbytery. Such a process would be unwieldy, use an undue amount time and resources, result in poor stewardship of Presbytery resources, and would in all likelihood not afford the best opportunity for a full hearing or reconciliation. There is greater potential to act pastorally, build trust and seek reconciliation in smaller groups.

This discussion answers the first two specifications of error.  Basically, an AC is given specific powers to exercise on behalf of the presbytery and in the place of the full presbytery.  The conclusion is that in this case the power and authority was granted and the AC exercised them properly.

The decision related to specification of error 4 was interesting because while it was related to the power of an AC, it hinged on the claim that giving the AC the “full power and jurisdicti
on of the Session” when “a Session calls a congregational meeting for the purpose of considering actions leading to separation from the PCUSA” restricts the right of a Session to call a congregational meeting to request dismissal to another Reformed congregation.  The applicable section of the Book of Order, G-15.0203, reads:

a. When a particular church of another denomination requests that it be received by a presbytery of this denomination, the presbytery shall verify that the church has been regularly dismissed by the governing body of jurisdiction, and the advice of the highest governing body of that denomination dealing with relations between denominations has been received, and shall then receive the church in accord with its responsibilities and powers.(G-11.0103h.)

b. Similar procedures shall be followed in dismissing a particular church from this denomination to another. (G-11.0103i)

The GAPJC decision says:

Sundquist, et al. assert that a session has an “implicit” or “implied right” to call a congregational meeting to consider requesting dismissal to another denomination, but at oral argument to this Commission suggested that it was a “privilege,” not a “right.” Any such privilege exists only within a covenantal relationship between a church and the presbytery. On the contrary, G-7.0302 and G-7.0304 limit the business of congregational meetings and do not include the topic of seeking dismissal. In 2008, the 218th General Assembly adopted Item 04-20 (Minutes, 2008, p. 48), which refers to G-7.0304 and states, “Withdrawal from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is not a matter that can be considered at a congregational meeting.”

[Side note to GA commissioners, polity wonks, and other GA Junkies:  Congratulations if you knew that was in Item 04-20.  I missed that one.  And it shows how much business GA has to deal with resulting in a lot of stuff going through “under the radar,” particularly when it goes through on the consent agenda like this did.] 

They continue on to say that it does not mean that a congregation can not request dismissal, but as the Book of Order section quoted above says, the management of the process lies with the presbytery.  This section then goes on at length to discuss the “Gracious, Pastoral Response” resolution from the last GA (04-28) and says in part:

Presbyteries and congregations have a reciprocal obligation for this process (G-4.0302). Whether the presbytery‟s power “to divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches in consultation with their members” (G-11.0103i) is retained or delegated to an administrative commission, it is to be exercised in a pastoral manner, with litigation seen as a last resort, “deadly to the cause of Christ” (Item 04-28, section 2). (emphasis in original)

Any privilege to seek dismissal is conditioned on the cooperation of the congregation, the session and the pastor(s) with the presbytery in a process that operates in the manner set forth in Item 04-28. There shall not be any secret or secretive acts by sessions, pastors or congregations; bylaw changes or transfers of assets effectively negating the Book of Order or diminishing a church’s connection to the PC(USA); or curtailment of communications with the presbytery as a prelude to dismissal. Congregational meetings called or conducted by sessions for the purpose of voting on dismissal without the involvement of the presbytery are improper and have no binding effect.

This section of the decision closes:

Thus congregations, sessions, and pastors who fail to abide by the principles of the Resolution for a Gracious, Pastoral Response or presbytery policies (such as the Heartland Resolution) that embody these principles shall have breached important responsibilities and duties. As Presbyterians, the church at every level must visibly demonstrate the covenantal ties that bind us as the one church of Jesus Christ.

[Robert, did you every think your Commissioner Resolution would figure so prominently in a GAPJC decision?]
Update:  At about the same time I finished this post up Rev. Robert Austell, the primary author of Item 04-28 posted his own comments about the decision, particularly Part II.  While I see some of the language here as positive he was troubled by how this GAPJC decision “turned around” the Resolution relative to the original rational. Unfortunately, the rational section of an overture or resolution does not get published with the final item.  Check out his new comments on “Power and Trust.”

The third part of the decision is also very interesting because the claim is made in specification of error 5 that empowering the AC when it is likely a resolution will not be possible binds the conscience of pastors, elders, and members.  The decision points out: “However, the record is clear that the Paola and Hillsdale pastors and sessions had done much more than express their views about a desire for separation, but had taken action to withdraw their congregations from the denomination.”

The decision cites five previous GAPJC decisions that differentiate between thought and action, including the recent Spahr v. Redwoods decision.  The GAPJC concludes:

In this case, there is no evidence that Presbytery, either by adopting or following the Resolution, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, has, or necessarily would, improperly bind the conscience of church officers. The mere creation of an administrative commission is not an act of discipline. Free expression of conscience is limited for officers and pastors under G-6.0108b, and does not encompass the calling of congregational meetings, moving churches to seek dismissal from the denomination or obstructing constitutional governance of the church.

[Polity note:  To me this is a very significant finding by this GAPJC as we go forward.  While Bush v. Pittsburgh was not one of the cases cited, probably because it deals with ordination, this decision clearly parallels Bush and the decision that “scrupling” is related to belief and not action.  This may signal that a challenge to the new GA Authoritative Interpretation on scrupling behavior would be successful.]

Finally, regarding the empowerment of committees of presbytery to add additional churches to the list that the AC was responsible for the GAPJC says:

Here the Presbytery acted to make every church in the Presbytery potentially subject to the AC, conditioned upon action by the COM or the Presbytery Council (or their designated subcommittees) to name a particular church to be actively subject to specified powers of the AC. Although not prohibited by any specific provision of the Book of Order, a better practice would be for the Presbytery itself to name any additional specific churches to come under the authority of the AC.

Four commissioners signed a concurring opinion that rem
inds everyone of the historic principles regarding schism that date back to the Plan of Union, 1758, and basically say that once a majority has decided an issue every member shall “actively concur”, “passively submit”, or “peaceably withdraw.”

There has been some reaction to this decision.  The team from Heartland Presbytery that successfully defended the Presbytery is pleased with the result and the moderator of that team, the Rev. Chad Herring, has written a summary for the Presbytery that is posted on their web site.

On the other side, Elder Michael McCarty in his blog Around the Scuttlebutt takes particular issue with Part II of the decision.  He is on record that historical Presbyterian principles permit congregations to affiliate and disaffiliate unilaterally but the principle is not reflected in our present Constitution.  It then follows that the need for consultation and management by the presbytery is not necessary and is in fact an impediment.

As we have seen through this process, much depends on the presbytery and the tone it sets.  I can not speak for these cases but there has been some harsh criticism by others in the past about how this process went forward.  This was all before the Gracious, Pastoral Response Resolution and there is news this week that in another presbytery the process worked and a church was dismissed to the EPC.  While the GAPJC decision now applies denomination-wide to AC’s, it does not necessarily affect presbytery policies on how they implement a Gracious, Pastoral Response.

219-05 – Jae G. Lee, et al. v. Presbytery of Midwest Hanmi
This case also deals with the power and authority of administrative commissions and how it is exercised.  The situation was that the church “was severely affected with disorder, and its Session became unwilling or unable to manage [it’s] affairs.”  The AC created by the Presbytery was given the authority of the session from Book of Order Chapter 10 and the authority of the presbytery from Book of Order Chapter 11.  I won’t rehash the history of the church and AC over the course of the six months involved, but it takes up half of the report and it indicates sketchy or non-existent records of AC actions and a Presbytery meeting that broke down into a “physical mêlée.”  The GAPJC decision summary at the start of the decision section says:

This case is tragic. It involves issues of culture and language, power and stubbornness. It also reflects misunderstandings on the part of individuals and governing bodies as to processes and procedures set forth in the Book of Order. Because the facts in this case reflect extraordinary and egregious conduct and unique cultural circumstances, the application of this Decision to other circumstances is limited.

There were six specifications of error and the GAPJC sustained three and did not sustain three.  Those errors that were sustained were because of procedural flaws on the part of the Presbytery.  If you note the authority given to the AC above, it was not have any authority in regards to Chapter 6 covering church officers, so it acted improperly when it dismissed them.  That should have been done by the full Presbytery under the Resolution creating the AC.  In an interesting polity maneuver, the GAPJC does point out that elders could have been dismissed by removing them from the membership rolls since that is covered in Chapter 10.  And in discussing the AC’s power being limited to that granted by the presbytery it cites the Sundquist decision.

Regarding the specifications of error that were not sustained, the GAPJC is brief in its decision that those points were either done correctly, or in one case stating that a witness at trial can act as both a factual and expert witness if they have the proper knowledge.

There were two other decisions also reported:

219-02 – PC(USA) v. Ranson
While the decision in this disciplinary case was pretty straight forward, sustaining the findings of the Synod PJC, there was a preliminary decision regarding the “late” arrival of the petition for appeal.  While the request was mailed in a timely manner it was not received within the 45 day window.  The GAPJC said that an appellant should not be penalized for the unpredictability of the delivery process and allowed the appeal to go forward.

219-04 – Wolfe v. Presbytery of Winnebago
In this case the Rev. Wolfe H.R. began to seek employment as a minster but was advised by the Presbytery COM that she could not do that and should seek secular employment instead.  While there are a couple of twists and turns, the remedial complaint filed by Rev. Wolfe with the Synod PJC was that she was being restricted without having a disciplinary hearing or due process.  The Synod PJC, both on executive hearing and again the full PJC when Rev. Wolfe challenged the decision, ruled that there was no claim on which relief could be granted.  The GAPJC decided that the COM overstepped its authority and that a decision like this should be made by the presbytery.  Therefore there is a claim on which relief could be granted and it was ordered back to the Synod PJC for trial.

Well, that is clearly enough for now.  That is my take on this round of GAPJC decisions.  Have fun reading the decisions and deciding for yourself if you are so inclined.

PC(USA) Amendment Voting Begins

Leave a reply

At the present time Amendment 08-B, changes to the “fidelity and chastity” section, is going down to defeat… There are currently no presbyteries for and one against.

OK, humor aside, a couple of days ago I got a report from Josiah F who left the comment to another post with the news from Palo Duro Presbytery:

Josiah F wrote:
At the 111th stated meeting of Palo Duro
Presbytery. The amendment altering the ordination standards failed by a
29 for, 47 against. The bulk of the Presbyteries across the country
will be voting on this in February.

Even
though it was in Texas, the make-up of the voting body in this
Presbytery is very mixed and the majority are moderates (with just a
few far left and right). When it comes to the political make-up of the
voting body, this issue had a real shot.

In verifying the Presbytery vote I contacted Janne Brumbelow, the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery, who not only verified the vote, but included some helpful information about the process the Presbytery used.  I would remind you that the Assembly added a comment to this item, 05-09, which is not in the Amendment Booklet.  The comment reads “Presbyteries are strongly encouraged to consider this overture using a process of listening and discernment.”  With Ms. Brumbelow’s permission, here is her description of how Palo Duro did it:

Yes, the vote was 47 to 29 against but the process was very helpful for
all. 

We had two 15 minute presentations by respected ministers in our
presbytery — one for and one against.  Then we discussed the
presentations and amendment around tables of 6-8 persons.  All were
invited to speak even if they were not voting commissioners.  Then a
period of silence and a speakout time limited to 15 minutes total with 2
minutes per speaker.  Then silence and prayer and vote by only
commissioners by ballot.  There was little rancor and all appreciated
the process.  I think the way we handled it helped to build up
relationships rather than divide.

My own Presbytery is encouraging dialog and discussion on the issues and the amendment in a series of events spread over several months before we vote.

I know that voting will extend from now to March and one presbytery does not make a trend.  But, considering Josiah’s assessment of his presbytery this could be an up-hill battle for 08-B.  Within the next month several more presbyteries will probably be voting so we will begin to see if any trends develop.

I won’t be doing play-by-play on the voting but will provide “color” when warranted.  To follow the voting there is usually a chart over at the Layman Online and the Stated Clerk’s office has their official vote tally that is delayed since it needs the official report from each presbytery’s stated clerk.

[Update 10/28/08: The Layman now has the chart online.]

So stay tuned and we will see where this journey takes us.

Update:  No sooner do I post this than the Layman has their first article on the voting posted as well.  In addition to Palo Duro they also have the result from Presbytery of Central Washington which likewise defeated the amendment, in this case by a 55 to 7 vote.  The Layman does not have their chart up yet, as far as I can tell, but the Layman observes divergent results in these two votes relative to the previous vote in 2001:  for the votes in the negative the Central Washington vote was a few percentage points higher and Palo Duro was a few points lower.

The Legal Cases Over Property — Counting The Cost

2 Replies

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) came out of its 218th General Assembly with an interesting tension.  On the one hand, it created a $2 million dollar legal fund to help presbyteries with legal costs of fighting churches wanting leave the denomination with their property.  (PC-biz and my post)  On the other hand, it passed a resolution “urging a gracious, pastoral response to churches requesting dismissal.”  (PC-biz and author’s comments)

Much of the legal action that has happened in the last couple of weeks was in process at the time of GA and I find interesting the tension, or paradox, that each side had in the arguments before the California Supreme Court two weeks ago.  From the congregations’ point of view, in spiritual matters the congregation agreed to the denomination’s rules, but the property is not a spiritual matter.  From the denomination’s perspective, in this and other cases, if a church chooses to leave the denomination that is one thing, but they can’t take their property with them.  So we are getting the property separated from the spiritual and the mission aspects of the church.

As you have probably heard, in another current property battle Kirk of the Hill Presbyterian Church in Tulsa, OK, has decided by a narrow margin to buy back their property from Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery after the court awarded the property to the presbytery upon the Kirk’s departure from the PC(USA) to the EPC.  The congregation’s vote was 508 to 483 to pay the Presbytery $1.75 million for the property settlement.  (More details in the Tulsa World article)

In the midst of these court battles and financial settlements individuals are beginning to ask the question about the financial cost of these actions and how it diverts resources from the mission of the church.

One person who has publicly asked this question is Dr. Richard Mouw, PC(USA) elder and President of Fuller Theological Seminary.  In his October 13th Mouw’s Musings he talks about a conversation with a friend who suggests that the disputing sides should negotiate a compromise and contribute the amount they would have spent on legal costs to the care of AIDS orphans in Africa.  Dr. Mouw notes:

The mainline Presbyterian (PCUSA) denomination to which I belong is
experiencing many property disputes right now, as some congregations
are leaving for what they see as greener ecclesiastical pastures. When
you look at the issue historically, it is a bit ironic that the leaders
of major Protestant denominations are so adamant in their right to hold
onto church properties, against the claims of the dissenters. At the
time of the Reformation the Protestants grabbed hold of Catholic
properties with abandon—monasteries and convents as well as places of
worship—and they also simply destroyed much of the contents of those
buildings: statues, altars, and the like. And all of this was done
without any respect for the claims of those who had strong moral and
legal claims to ownership of those properties. To the “breakaway”
groups belonged the spoils.

And he closes with this:

Such an arrangement [the contributions to AIDS orphans] would have important spiritual benefits. It would
help both sides to see themselves as using our disagreements to
accomplish something together for the Lord’s work. And it could help to
reduce our anger toward each other, presenting all parties with an
opportunity to be gracious toward our opponents.

The second article along these lines comes from Jim Oakes on the blog VirtueOnline where he points out that in the Virginia Episcopal cases millions of dollars have been spent on both sides in the legal action when “so many alternatives have been available.”  While he notes that the issues are important and complex he also says “We can only hope and pray that Episcopal leaders will realize that the
high cost of this litigation has not done one thing to further the
mission of God’s church in any way.”

So what we as the church do is an important witness to the world about our faith and life.  Yes, I know that there are a variety of circumstances and in different cases different parties have exercised the legal option first.  But in this do we all consider the way the world views it and in the end, if the denomination is left with an empty building, what has been accomplished?  It is interesting that Dr. Mouw uses the phrase “opportunity to be gracious toward our opponents.”  Remember the central part of what the GA passed in June placing responsibility on all parties:

2.  
Believing that trying to exercise this responsibility and power through
litigation is deadly to the cause of Christ, impacting the local
church, other parts of the Body of Christ and ecumenical relationships,
and our witness to Christ in the world around us, the General Assembly urges congregations considering leaving the denomination, presbyteries, and synods to implement a process using the following principles:

  • Consistency: The local authority delegated to presbyteries is guided and shaped by our shared faith, service, and witness to Jesus Christ.
  • Pastoral Responsibility: The
    requirement in G-11.0103i to consult with the members of a church
    seeking dismissal highlights the presbytery’s pastoral responsibility,
    which must not be submerged beneath other responsibilities.
  • Accountability: For a governing body,
    accountability rightly dictates fiduciary and connectional concerns,
    raising general issues of property (G-8.0000) and specific issues of
    schism within a congregation (G-8.0600). But, full accountability also
    requires preeminent concern with “caring for the flock.”
  • Gracious Witness: It is our belief that Scripture and the Holy Spirit require a gracious witness from us rather than a harsh legalism.
  • Openness and Transparency: Early, open
    communication and transparency about principles and process of
    dismissal necessarily serve truth, order, and goodness, and work
    against seeking civil litigation as a solution.

Taking Time To Be A Moderator

Leave a reply

The reality of taking time to be a Moderator of a Presbyterian governing body has been on my mind the last couple of weeks as I struggle to find the time to work on finishing up business items for next week’s Synod meeting and try to figure out how to juggle my professional and family schedule to make these church things happen.  (So if I have so much else to do why am I blogging?  Think of it as a brief diversion to help relax and focus the mind.)

But over the last few years I have been tracking the time and implications of being the moderator of the General Assembly.

With the GA season over and the GA cycle beginning anew this month it is first appropriate to congratulate and offer up our prayers for the Rev. Douglas MacKeddie, pastor of Maryburgh and Killearnan Free Church, who was named the Moderator designate of the Free Church of Scotland earlier this month.  Mr. MacKeddie is a second career minister who has served his current church his whole 26 year pastoral career.  There is a nice article from the Ross-shire Journal about Pastor MacKeddie.

In other news, the selection process for the Moderator designate of the Church of Scotland is now at a list of three nominees: The Reverend John P Chalmers is the Pastoral Adviser and Associate Secretary for Ministries Support and Development for the Church of Scotland. The Reverend William C Hewitt is the pastor of Westburn, Greenock. And finally an elder, an uncommon designate in the Church of Scotland, Professor Herbert A Kerrigan, Q.C., (professional profile, the “QC” is a lawyers’ professional status of “Queen’s Counsel“) who is an Elder and Reader at Greyfriars Tolbooth and Highland Kirk in Edinburgh. ( I would also note that the Rev. Hewitt is a colleague and friend of Liz, the author of one of my favorite blogs journalling. )

As I hint at above, in some Presbyterian branches only ministers are selected as Moderator of a General Assembly under the polity of that branch.  In some branches, like the Church of Scotland, the position is open to either ministers or elders, but a minister is almost always chosen.  In most American branches elders are more frequently selected, and in the Presbyterian Church in America the position explicitly alternates between Teaching Elders (ministers) and Ruling Elders.

What is the role of the Moderator?  The first duty is to run the meeting but beyond that the Moderator becomes the representative and public face of that governing body for their term in office.  I have my own extensive discussion of what the Moderator is and for the PC(USA) Bruce Reyes-Chow and Byron Wade (Part 1, Part 2) have posted their own descriptions as well as Byron’s interesting post on what it takes to run the meeting.  Over at the Church of Scotland the Moderator Right Rev. David Lunan blogs his activities and travels and the church has posted his schedule.  And some of the denominations, like the Church of Scotland and the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand, have their own descriptions posted.

Being a Moderator, especially the Moderator of the General Assembly, takes time and requires travel. For the PC(USA) and the Church of Scotland the travel can be extensive.  Looking at the travel schedules for Bruce and Byron it is clear that there are significant demands.  For example, Bruce lists seven days of travel in September, eighteen in October, and eleven in November.  That’s about 36 days out of 90 or a bit over 1/3.  Back before he was elected Bruce said that his limit was to travel three out of every eight weeks so he is pretty close to that target, if you average over three months.  (For October alone he will be gone more than half the days.  And I should also say that this is his complete travel schedule and it may include other professional travel aside from the Moderator stuff.)

Now let me ask this question:  Do we demand too much from the PC(USA) Moderator of the GA, or at least too much for typical elders to be able to devote the time?  This came up in the election of the Moderator at this year’s GA when the candidates were asked how their churches will get along without them.  The three ministers all said that their sessions or boards had agreed to them not being around as much while the elder replied that “I don’t have a church” and that being retired he had the time for the position.  The reality of serving as the Moderator pretty much demands that you be involved in a church or ministry where the position is seen as part of your service to the church and you are given the flexibility to serve.  If you are an elder you pretty much need to be retired, self-employed, or involved in church ministry like Rick Ufford-Chase.  Just my presbytery and synod work has taxed my vacation, and the patience of my family and employer.  If Mr. Kerrigan is named the moderator designate of the Church of Scotland I will be interested to see how he balances professional and ecclesiastical demands.

Should we be concerned about elders being able to serve as Moderator of the General Assembly of the PC(USA)?  We claim that it is joint leadership of clergy and elders.  But for the record for the 218th GA there were three clergy and one elder running for Moderator, for the 217th there were four clergy, and for the 216th there was one elder and two clergy.  Back when the term of office was one year it was not really any better, there were three clergy for the 215th and the 214th and an even two clergy and two elders for the 213th.

Right off hand I’m not sure if this is a problem, but as an elder it does strike me as an imbalance in our system.  As I mentioned above, the PCA has a mechanism to enforce balance, but  I’m not sure that is the way to go.  I bring this up as something to think about and to keep in mind as we work within our polity.

Property Cases Argued Before The California Supreme Court Today

1 Reply

[Update:  Thanks to Episcopal Café and the comment from Jeff in VA below, they provided the link to the archived Supreme Court session and I was able to watch it again.  Jeff is right, the first time I missed a significant grilling of the denomination’s lawyer on Neutral Principles.  I have added one marked update based on my second viewing and adjusted a couple of my other comments.]

I am probably way too much of a polity wonk for my own good.  (That noise you heard was my wife saying “Amen!”)

I arranged my morning around the webcast of the oral arguments before the California Supreme Court of the consolidated Episcopal Church Cases about churches taking property when they leave a denomination.  While this case may be about three churches leaving the Episcopal Church, the decision will clarify California state law and PC(USA) governing bodies have filed amicus briefs in this case.  As a polity wonk I found the hour of arguments fascinating.

Some general impressions:  All of the lawyers were well prepared as were the justices.  They were quoting cases and statutes back and forth at each other by case name and number and frequently left me in the dust.  However, much of the time the discussion was in terms that I could understand and it was an interesting argument.  And while the lawyers may have had presentations ready to give, they were quickly interrupted by the justices who wanted to question them about the detailed legal points.

One of the most interesting points was that both sets of lawyers argued that under either legal principle, those being principle of government which would favor a hierarchical denomination and neutral principles which would favor the individual church, their side should prevail.  I must admit that between the legal argument and the interruptions (I could not completely shut the world out) I had trouble following why the denomination should win under neutral principles.  It may also have something to do with the weakness of the argument because it was clear that at least a couple of justices had trouble buying it.  What was more interesting, and has a certain degree of logic, was the individual church’s argument that they still win under principle of government.  The argument was that the actual church government was not the Episcopal Church but the Worldwide Anglican Communion which they have not left but are still under its governance.  This clearly is not an argument that can be used by a church trying to leave with contested property from the PC(USA).

A point where the denomination’s lawyers did better than the congregations’ lawyer was regarding the law in other states.  When the justices asked what the status is in other states (I think this was a “never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to”) the congregations’ lawyer answered “mixed.”  The denomination’s lawyers answered that other states have favored principle of government.  (It is my understanding that there are few similar cases which have made it all the way to the state supreme courts in this current round but that the government principle has been favored so far.)

The congregations’ lawyer took a real beating over the fact that one church (St. James) was originally an Episcopal mission church and when if became chartered it agreed to be “forever bound” by the Episcopal Church canons and attached those documents to the state incorporation papers.  His argument was that the canons are ecclesiastical law and property is not governed there but under state law.  One of the justices flatly stated that she was in favor of neutral principles but she can’t see how they could be applied here when the church agreed to be “forever bound” by the canons.  The counter argument from the lawyer was that “forever bound” was a spiritual promise like “death do us part” and that property is not a spiritual matter.  That and the canons don’t apply to property, or at least did not until the trust clause was added which was after chartering and incorporation.  The denomination’s lawyer argued that even if the current language of the trust clause was added more recently, language that covered the property was in the canons even at the time of incorporation.  Under questioning the lawyer also acknowledged that an independent church that joined the Episcopal could not, under canon law, leave with their property at a later time.

I wish I could tell you what the denomination’s lawyers got hammered on but I unfortunately had to deal with another item at work and missed  a segment of their arguments.  As I mentioned above there was some sharp questioning about their contention that the denomination should still win under neutral principles.

Update:  On viewing the archived video it is clear that the denomination’s lawyers did take a grilling on neutral principles.  The justices pointed out that the principle of government was an old, Civil War era decision and that neutral principles was the “modern” decision.  The denomination’s lawyer was quick with the response that as recently as a few years ago the body she was arguing in front of, the California Supreme Court, had reaffirmed principle of government for the state.  In addition, she made the “interesting” argument that principle of government was really just a religion specific sub-case of neutral principles because by deferring to the church government a court avoids the entanglement in religion of neutral principles.

While the trust clause issues are familiar on the national level, since that goes back to a U.S. Supreme Court case. The local twist is corporate law and much of the argument, especially with the congregations’ lawyer, was regarding the state donation statute and how, under that statute as I followed the argument, the aspect of property in trust must be explicit not implied like the canons are.

In spite of that last issue, which I had trouble judging, the general impression I got was that the justices seemed more sympathetic to the denomination’s arguments so I would not be surprised to see this decision come out in their favor, not withstanding the justice who sided with neutral principles but was pointing out the “forever bound.”

I must admit that in listening to the arguments I was bothered by the way the argument was made that the property was somehow separate from the ecclesiastical law.  I do realize that this was an argument from a legal perspective, but it just hit me wrong that somehow the property was separated as different in the mission to follow and serve Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

As I mentioned, if I had to bet on this one hour alone I would expect the denomination to win.  However, there are a lot of other parts to this case and it was clear that different justices were focusing on different aspects.  When the decision finally comes down it will be interesting to see what of today’s proceedings is found in it.

Update:  The Episcopal Café article in the comments also has part of an article from a subscription site on California Law where a legal counsel that saw the arguments discusses the session and feels that the court is favoring the denomination, or “over arching church,” in this case.

(As a side note, I had the webcast on a few minutes longer and the following case had some hilarious moments in the arguments.  It was something about parolees needing to inform their parole officer 24 hours in advance if there is a change in status with their pet, any pet.  The most obvious justification was for the officer’s safety if the individual got a
dog, but there were comments about “silent” animals like turtles alerting the parolee to the officer’s arrival and questions how you would notify the officer 24 hours in advance of the death of a goldfish.  On the latter the state conceded that there would need to be “reasonable enforcement.”  But at times I thought a Monty Python sketch was about to break out.)

Disagreement Over The Belhar Declaration In South Africa — Implications For The PC(USA) Consideration?

Leave a reply

Over the last day or two news has come out of the General Synod of the Uniting Reformed Church of Southern Africa that a disagreement over the interpretation and intent of the 1986 Belhar Declaration will lead the Rev. Allan Boesak to resign from his church leadership positions, including the position of Moderator of Cape Synod.

I have seen each news story in multiple places and each is brief so I will reproduce them in their entirety.

Here is the first one, this copy from The Times:

Anti Apartheid activist, Allan Boesak is expected to resign from all
his positions in the Uniting Reformed Church, the SABC reported.

Boesak announced this in Hammanskraal outside Pretoria,
after the church’s General Synod discussed the question of
homosexuality.

The broadcaster said Boesak used the Belhar Declaration –
an anti-apartheid statement adopted by the then Dutch Reformed Mission
Church in 1986,to defend his view that it was wrong to discriminate
against homosexuals.

One of the delegates then accused him of abusing the declaration.

In response, Boesak reportedly told the synod that in the
light of the “serious” accusation, he would resign from all his
positions in the church.

He is currently the Moderator of the Cape Synod of the Uniting Reformed.

The second news story adds a few more details.  This copy from highveld.com:

Boesak justifies resignation 05/10/2008 09:53:05
Anti-apartheid
activist Allan Boesak says he could not continue serving as an official
in the United Reformed Church in good conscience.

Last week, Boesak resigned from all leadership positions he held in the church.

The
URC’s leadership recently rejected the findings of a report he compiled
on homosexuality and why gay people should be accepted as members and
preachers in the church.

Boesak says he was shocked by the views of the church’s leaders on gay people.

He says he had no choice but to quit.

From these two reports it sounds like the Rev. Boesak has extended the theological call of Belhar from just the apartheid conditions of the time of adoption to the present day exclusion of homosexuals from full participation in the church.  While the accusation of “abusing the [Belhar] declaration” does not specify the manner in which they thought it was abused, it is interesting to wonder if it was (1) extending it to situations beyond the original which are not logically equivalent, (2) extending it to current times and circumstances when the declaration was intended to speak only for that one circumstance, or (3) something else I’m not considering.

One of the ironies of this development is that the General Synod at which this occurred also decided on a “process of church unity.”

As you may be aware, the 218th General Assembly began the process of considering the Belhar Declaration for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Book of Confessions.  Either one of my above interpretations of the current South African situation has possible negative implications for the discussion in the PC(USA).

If the Belhar Declaration is now going to be used to argue for full inclusion in the church, is this the right time to open that discussion in light of the continuing reverberations from the most recent GA regarding these issues.  Are we, or will we be, ready for this discussion?  It would seem that the progressives in the PC(USA) would welcome a confessional document that could be used to argue for full inclusion.

Or, if the Belhar Declaration is to speak to a specific circumstance at a particular time, are we, as westerners, in a position to be able to understand that time and circumstance in a way that the declaration would make a meaningful addition to our collection of confessional documents.

How the study committee addresses these two possible interpretations will go a long way in helping the church decide if this is a meaningful document for the PC(USA).  Stay tuned…

UPDATE:  Overnight a more detailed article was published on news24.com that has interviewed, or gotten additional statements, from the Rev. Boesak.  In the article the disagreement over Belhar is blamed on the conservative theology of most members of the church where they do not view the anti-discrimination call of Belhar as applying to the exclusion of homosexuals from full inclusion in the church.  The article says that in presenting the homosexuality report Mr. Boesak said “…he confronted the Synod with an issue that they were neither
emotionally nor theologically ready to discuss.”

Another Case Of “Since ‘X’ Is By Definition Impossible, What You Saw Could Not Have Been ‘X'”

Leave a reply

Over on the PuritanBoard there has been an active discussion about the Edwards v. Pittsburgh Presbytery PJC Decision.  But one of the contributors to the discussion, Tim Vaughn, brought up a Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) case from Tennessee where an interpretation of the defense, not the verdict, used the concept that since something was by definition impossible it could not have happened.  As Mr. Vaughn puts it:

I read through a PCA court case from Tennessee where a pastor let a
woman preach during Sunday night service, and after being brought up on
charges his defense was that since the PCA doesn’t allow woman
preachers, and she was a woman, she couldn’t have been preaching.

Mr. Vaughn provides the link to the September-October, 2000, issue of Presbyterian & Reformed News that details the case and the judicial commission’s decision not to proceed to trial, but telling the pastor and the church at large to not let it happen again.

Part of the investigating panel’s work was to determine if the views of the pastor, Teaching Elder John Wood, were in line with the standards of the PCA.  The committee found:

TE Wood stated to the panel that he holds to a view that: 1) excludes women from ordination; 2) excludes women from preaching (authoritative teaching); 3) permits women to do basically whatever unordained men can do in the church. Also, the panel found no evidence of Mr. Wood’s agitation regarding or promotion of a view that women should be ordained or that women should preach in the PCA, either locally at CSPC [Cedar Springs Presbyterian Church] or in the PCA generally.

And while the GA Standing Judicial Commission concluded from the Investigating Panel report that there was not a “strong presumption of guilt,” they did caution the church:

However, in making this determination the SJC is not endorsing the view of TE Wood that “women may do basically whatever unordained men can do in the Church,” and PCA ministers and elders are cautioned, for the peace and unity of the Church, to take great care in the teaching and implementing of views that might give the appearance of promoting a view that women may be ordained, or that women may preach the authoritative Word of God in a worship service.

Within the body of the Report of the Investigating Panel, reproduced in the newsletter, TE Wood told the panel about an earlier conversation he had with some concerned church leaders:

…he was using the word “preach” in a broad, but he believes Biblical, sense–the witness that each Christian bears before the church and the world, but he also stated that he should have been more careful to articulate his belief that women should not be ordained to the teaching or ruling eldership and that they should not be permitted to “preach” in the traditional sense of authoritative teaching from the word of God, as teaching elders are called and ordained to do.

Reacting to this in another article in the newsletter, Pastor David Coffin is reported to be the one suggesting the twisted or confusing logic:

Regarding Mr. Wood’s views, the pastor from Fairfax, Virginia, said, “Though as I understand them his views in this matter appear clearly contrary to Scripture, I don’t find myself too exercised over the possibility of such views having a great impact in the PCA. I expect that the obvious internal tensions are simply too much for most of our men to bear.” He stated that he understood Mr. Wood’s view to be that a woman by definition cannot preach because she does not hold the preaching office, even though she may perform precisely the same act in the same setting. In response, Mr. Coffin referred to the views of Jonathan Edwards, who supposed it was obvious to all that if there was an office authorized to preach then there must be some activity called preaching forbidden to those who do not hold the office.

I included the Jonathan Edwards reference since Janet Edwards, of the Edwards v. Pittsburgh case that started this discussion, is a direct descendant of his.

Interesting to see this logic as part of a very different polity and doctrine debate.

Pittsburgh PJC Decision Appears To Be Based on Spahr v Redwoods

1 Reply

(See the evening update at the end of the post)

Word is being relayed on the internet that in the Pittsburgh Presbytery PJC case, where the Rev. Janet Edwards was being tried for conducting a same-sex wedding, the PJC unanimously acquitted her.  (More Light Presbyterians, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) While the full decision is not available yet the early indications are that this decision was based upon the confusing decision in the Spahr v. Redwoods case and I have trouble seeing how anyone can claim a real victory in this case.  (If you want the background check out my post from August on the topic.)

To quote the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s early report:

The court, meeting on the North Side in the second day of a trial for
the Rev. Janet Edwards, ruled that the constitutions of the church and
the state of Pennsylvania define marriage as an act between a man and a
woman. Therefore, judges said, the minister could not have done what
she was accused of doing.

This appears to be based on the decision rendered in the GA PJC Spahr v. Redwoods case that no minister in the Presbyterian Church can be found guilty of conducting a same-sex wedding ceremony because no such thing exists.  A wedding is between a man and a woman so a same-sex wedding is a contradiction in terms.  As you can probably guess this legal reasoning did not really satisfy anyone.

It seems reasonable to me that the lower Presbytery PJC relied on this legal decision, a reasonable thing to do even if it is not a particularly satisfying decision.  Hence, my feeling that there are no real winners in this case.  No new legal territory is broken and the situation is none the clearer.  From a personal perspective, the Rev. Edwards was cleared of the charges.  From a polity/legal point of view, the ceremony she openly admits conducting was not a wedding according to the PJC.  So guess what, we have to wait for another appeal, maybe not in this case though, to make its way to the top.

The Rev. Edwards, in her defense brief, said that she would invoke the Spahr v. Redwoods case, but certain of the other parts of the decision.  Be careful what you ask for because it looks like she got a clear decision that there are no same-sex weddings.

Finally, I see this case in the light of the previous GAPJC decisions.  Clearly the news media has not seen that yet and a lot of the “people in the pews” won’t see the connection either.  Because it lines up so closely with Spahr v. Redwoods I see this as pretty much a “non-decision” in terms of the big picture of resolving this issue.  But most of the Presbyterian world will not see the nuances in here.  Hold on tight for the stormy seas.

UPDATE – 8:30 PM:  The verdict has been posted by More Light Presbyterians and pretty much holds to my inference above with one significant exception:  The verdict makes it clear that the prosecution, with whom the burden of proof lies, did not prove their case.  The verdict does rely heavily on Spahr v. Redwoods and the says, in part:

“The Prosecuting Committee has failed to meet the burden of proof that the accused carried out a marriage ceremony at all.”

Pennsylvania
civil law defines marriage as male-female, so a marriage between two
women cannot be a marriage regardless of what occurred in the ceremony.
Because the Book of Order does not recognize a same-sex marriage, it cannot be an offense to attempt to do the impossible.

Therefore,
the commission does not find that the accused committed an offense by
performing a ceremony between two people of the same gender.

Also,
there is no evidence that the accused held out the ceremony as a
marriage. It could be inferred from the order of service, but it has
not been proved. The accused’s belief about whether the ceremony was a
marriage has not been proved, either.

The decision in Spahr
states that “one cannot construe same-sex ceremonies as marriages for
the purpose of disciplining someone, but not as marriages for ecclesial
purposes.”

It does leave open the question of whether this PJC would have convicted if better evidence had been presented, even though “it cannot be an offense to attempt to do the impossible.”

From reading this over if the evidence is not there I’m not sure that there are procedural grounds to appeal.  We will see if the prosecution thinks otherwise.