Category Archives: PC(USA)

Breaking news: Synod PJC reversals acquittal on Spahr case

Leave a reply

Three days later than expected, the PJC of the Synod of the Pacific has just issued its decision in the review of the Presbytery of the Redwood’s acquittal of the Rev. Jane Spahr where she was charged with preforming lesbian weddings.  According to an Associated Press story now posted as a news article from the San Jose Mercury News the synod pjc ruled 6-2 that the Rev. Spahr had acted with “conscience and conviction” in preforming the weddings reversing the presbytery decision.

The article also says that the decision was delivered to the parties yesterday evening by certified mail.

I expect: 1) A lot more details to be released shortly and 2) the decision to be appealed to the GA PJC.

I’ll post again in a couple of hours.

Comments on the Presbyterian Coalition Gathering

Leave a reply

A couple of quick comments on the Presbyterian Coalition Gathering X in Houston this last week.  I am mostly dependent on the coverage from the LaymanOnline and some info from the Outlook.  I have not seen any coverage in other blogs or the Presbyterian News Service.  Since you can get the news from them if you are interested in more details, I want to add a couple pieces of analysis and commentary.

The Outlook placed the attendance at 125 and in one article on the Layman a speaker lamented the small attendance.  This leads me to wonder about the state of the “conservative” organizations in the PC(USA).  Is this decline at the Coalition Gathering just part of the life-cycle of the organization, due to interested individuals and churches getting spread out over more organizations, and/or a shift in momentum (and strategy?) to something like the New Wineskins group.  This may be echoed in the comments of the co-moderator of the Coalition, Jerry Andrews, as quoted by the Layman: “American
evangelicals are the most contentious group on the face of the Earth. If we didn’t argue
all the time, we probably wouldn’t be evangelical.” Yes, I took that out of context, but I do think there is something to this characterization and this argumentative nature makes evangelicals a bit restless and prone to “move onto the next thing.”

I enjoyed the Layman’s article about the presentation by the Rev. Tom Taylor, deputy executive director
for mission in the General Assembly Council.  I have been keeping track of Tom and his time in Louisville because I consider his tenure there a bellweather for the possibility of change within the institutional leadership.  His appearance at the Gathering I consider a positive step in and of itself.  But the Layman got it right when they observe that Rev. Taylor has not been on the job for a full year yet and has not had an opportunity to be part of the budgeting process.  That is where the rubber will meet the road and we will see if he and other fresh evangelicals can have an influence or if they will be tilting at windmills.  (Where the heck am I getting all these clichés this morning?)

I found it interesting that the Outlook story did not cover Tom Taylor’s remarks or presence.  I found it more interesting and even disturbing that a major staff member from the GAC speaks at the Coalition Gathering and there is no Presbyterian News Service coverage of that or anything related to the Gathering.  However, they did just release a story about the November Covenant Network Conference. I won’t say that it is necessarily institutional bias, there could be many reasons for the missing coverage, but it sure could be viewed as such.  As I keep telling my fellow members of a synod task force:  Yes, doing this or that may be extra work, but if we want to be viewed as having done a credible and balanced job we need to do a little bit more to be sure all sides feel they have been properly heard.

Appeal of Rev. Jane Spahr’s PJC decision

Leave a reply

Last Friday, August 17, the Synod of the Pacific Permanent Judicial Commission heard the appeal of the acquittal of the Rev. Jane Spahr by the PJC of the Presbytery of the Redwoods.  Back in March, 2006, the Rev. Spahr was acquitted of having violated the PC(USA) prohibition on ministers preforming same-sex weddings. As a recent PC(USA) New Service article summarizes the decision at that time:

But since the section of the PC(USA)’s constitution that reserves
marriage for a man and a woman “is a definition, not a directive,”
Spahr “was acting within her right of conscience in performing marriage
ceremonies for same-sex couples,” the presbytery tribunal of ministers
and elders said in a written ruling.

The decision was appealed to the synod PJC by the Presbytery of the Redwoods.  The decision is expected today or tomorrow.  Whichever way the synod PJC goes and appeal to the GA PJC is expected.

The Rev. Spahr is set to retire at the end of this month from her position as the Founding Minister Director of That All May Freely Serve.  The weekend of August 11-12 there was a series of events honoring her and her service at the Downtown United Presbyterian Church of Rochester, NY.

And now a comment:  I found a quote from the Rev. Robert Conover, the stated clerk of the Presbytery of the Redwoods interesting.  The PC(USA) news articles quotes him as saying

“My sense is that our presbytery more or less
reflects the denomination as a whole in that we’re relatively evenly
divided in our perspective. A significant portion of the presbytery is
very supportive of Janie and her actions and a significant portion of
the presbytery is not. So regardless of how the case is ruled on, at
whatever level, there will be those who are disappointed.”

From the south end of the state of California the Presbytery of the Redwoods carries a very distinct reputation as a liberal, not a divided presbytery.  In addition to the Jane Spahr case, the evidence from down here includes an acknowledged lesbian candidate for ministry who transfered her presbytery of care from the Presbytery of San Gabriel to the Presbytery of the Redwoods when it looked like she would not be approved for ordination by San Gabriel.  She was ordained by Redwoods in the Fall of 2001.  As a story from the Presbyterian News Service at that time describes it the approval hinged on what is meant by “chaste.”  Maybe the Rev. Conover is right, I know that some of the presbyteries around here are not as conservative as we are sometimes made out to be, but because of evidence like these two stories this is the reputation Redwoods has.

State of the PCUSA: II — Departure of churches from the PC(USA)

Leave a reply

This past week the Presbyterian Church (USA) (PCUSA) issued a formal response to the New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC) document that details their perceived problems with the PC(USA).  The New Wineskins Strategy Team Report, A Time for Every Purpose Under Heaven, was adopted at their Winter Convocation in February.  While there was some general response at that time, this week the PCUSA sent a letter from Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick and General Assembly Council Executive Director Linda Valentine to all the middle governing bodies promoting new materials from the Office of Theology that directly addresses the NWAC concerns (the PCUSA letter calls them “mischaracterizations”).  The Presbyterian News Service has issued a press release on the letter and materials and the letter, a one page summary, and the four page detailed commentary can be found as a single PDF file on the PC(USA) Middle Governing Body Connect site.  (The titling of the file as “wineskins-letter-brief” had me looking for the long version but as best as I can tell that is the whole thing.)

The material is basically what many of us PC(USA) watchers would have expected out of Louisville:  It is well written, contains numerous references to the confessions, particularly the confession of 1967, explains in detail the actions of the General Assembly with respect to different reports, like the Trinity Report, and overall is a great rebuttal to the NWAC document.  There are however two problems.

The first problem is that it will have difficulty getting into the hands of the members in the pews and when it does it is written at a level that will put the average person asleep faster than a slow sermon on a hot day.  There is an obvious reason for sending it to Middle Governing Bodies and that is because that is the place that it will be used and understood.  I can’t see this getting much “trickle down” from there the way that the NWAC strategy report got distributed.

The second problem is the persistent one in the PC(USA) about our words matching our actions.  As much as the NWAC is a relatively small percentage of the churches in the PC(USA), there are also a small number of churches on the progressive side whose theology and actions, when they become known through the media (including this blog), seem to contradict the nice words in this document.  (If you want examples I refer you to my blog posts of Sept. 28, 2006; Nov. 11, 2006; April 19, 2007)  This is not helped by actions at the national level which include the infamous “Re-imagining Conference,” the “Louisville Papers,” and the publication of “Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11.”  I realize that there is a rational explanation behind every one of these and I am lumping three very different issues together.  But that is the way that many of the PC(USA) members view what has been happening in the denomination over the last couple of decades.  In their minds all these things can not be separated!

This is not to say that there are not good things coming out of Louisville.  In particular I point to the Director of Evangelism and Church Growth, Eric Hoey’s comments in the June Perspectives where he realistically assesses the declining rate of adult baptisms and membership decline and says:

This tells me very clearly that Presbyterians do not know how to share the “Good News” of their faith and welcome people into our churches through baptism… If we continue down this path of not being able to share our faith, the apple of the PC(USA) will soon fall apart! (emphasis his)

This almost seems to reinforce the NWAC contention that the PCUSA has lost its missional interest.

Anyway, I’ll get down off my soapbox now, but it is important to remember that the PC(USA) operates on several levels and it has been my experience that what happens at higher governing bodies has little day-to-day importance or visibility to the “member in the pew.”

We will see what will happen with this document.  In my experience, it will get a limited circulation to people who already know this material.

In the mean time there is serious action with NWAC leaving the PC(USA) in favor of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.  While several churches are moving in this direction, I will highlight two.

The first is Signal Mountain Presbyterian Church in Signal Mountain, Tennessee.  This departure is notable because of the size of the church and the amicable way in which it happened.  It is a church of 1800 members and following the congregational vote of 1,082-10 on January 28 the Presbytery of East Tennessee established an Administrative Commission to review the situation.  The report of the Commission in the presbytery meeting packet (report begins on page 7) is interesting, if for nothing else than it’s generally positive and friendly tone.  For example, from the forward:

We wish to acknowledge the cooperative spirit and non-confrontational approach evinced by the Session of SMPC, and especially the Clerk of Session, Steve Frost, in their interactions with the ARC. Every request from the ARC to the Session for information and records were met in a timely and gracious fashion. The character of conversations moved quickly from cautious to cordial to trustful. This alone distinguishes the current situation with most other dismissal requests in the denominations, which have been characterized by hostility, distrust and, oftentimes, aggression. The ARC has tried to find a different way that, while recognizing our obvious differences with the members of SMPC, emphasizes our commonality resulting from being a part of the Body of Christ. If we have succeeded, it is due in no small measure to the like-minded approach taken by SMPC’s Session. Indeed, the letter of January 10, 2007, was notable for its pastoral and gracious tone, and made a pastoral approach by ARC possible. We thank God for these, our brothers and sisters in Christ.

In the action items the recommendation is:

That Signal Mountain Presbyterian Church be dismissed from the Presbytery of East Tennessee, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), with property, real and personal (i.e., all assets), to the Presbytery of the Southeast of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, effective immediately upon receipt by the Stated Clerk of PET of notification of acceptance of SMPC by the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of the Southeast of the EPC; said dismissal being contingent upon no other conditions.

So the church got to leave with their property and name.  In addition, the church agreed to continue to support the presbytery mission budget for another five years and the two parties agreed to a transition support structure for any Associate Pastor that wanted to remain in the PC(USA).  The Presbyt
erian News Service has a press release on the departure as do other media sources.

The second high-profile church to vote to leave the PC(USA) is Memorial Park Presbyterian Church in Pittsburgh Presbytery.  On June 3 the congregation voted 951 to 93 to request the presbytery dismiss them to pursue membership in the EPC.  This action is probably not a surprise since the church called the Rev. Dr. D. Dean Weaver in 2005 to serve as senior pastor.  Rev. Weaver is co-moderator of the NWAC.  The yes vote exceeded a threshold that the church set with the presbytery so now negotiations over the details of the departure, including the property, will begin.  According to the PC(USA) press release another church in Pittsburgh Presbytery has reportedly reached an agreement with the presbytery to pay the presbytery $250,000 over 10 years.  The Memorial Park Church has issued its own press release about the congregational vote.

In addition an opposition blog was established last Saturday June 9.  I am a bit hesitant to mention it since it contains one entry with strong language and accusations against the way the meeting and vote was conducted and I do not see an e-mail address or name for contacting the author.  I won’t link to it but if you use “memorial park church blog” in your favorite search engine it should come right up.

And finally a reminder that the General Assembly of the EPC meets next week where they will vote on establishing a special transitional presbytery for NWAC churches that wish to transition to the EPC in that way.

The state of the PCUSA: I — Membership continues decline

Leave a reply

Well, the numbers are out and, to no ones surprise, the membership in the Presbyterian Church (USA) continues to decline.  The annual numbers for 2006 are contained in a press release from the Presbyterian News Service as well as detailed statistics and commentary in the current (June) issue of the Office of the General Assembly’s on-line publication Perspectives.  Looking back at past issues of Perspectives I see that the 2004 stats were also published there in the June 2005  issue with less commentary (at least direct commentary). [It looks like when they don’t have a GA to float them at they go to Perspectives.]

In reading through the associated articles there are some good points made but in some places they appear more like  analyzing the obvious or spin.  In the former, I give you a couple of lines from the end of the article by Kris Valerius (manager of OGA statistics) titled “The Rest of the Story“:

The bottom line: For
growth to appear, our overall losses need to go down and our overall
gains need to go up. The 2006 picture shows we lost fewer people, but
we also brought fewer into the church. Not the formula for growth.

A few other statistics are mentioned in that article, but I’ll take a closer look at those in a minute.

The rest of the articles take a look at the statistics from various views including “look forward and not back” or “look beyond the numbers to the vibrant and faithful congregations” or “today’s young people are not joiners and membership numbers don’t tell the whole story.”  The latter item is a very valid point and while worship attendance is reported by congregations the OGA does not report these numbers in this statistical summary.  I did appreciate the articles by Clark D. Cowden and Eric Hoey who view the numbers as a wake-up call.  Rev. Cowden writes how the church needs to be missional and reaching out and Rev. Hoey looks at the number of adult baptisms reported and their steep decline in the last three years and says something similar about spreading the gospel.

Being a bit of a geek, well actually a major geek and a research scientist, I have gone back a couple more years to get as much info as I could quickly.  Combining this year’s stats with those published in 2005 gives six years data (2001-2006) to better analyze trends.  The interesting thing is that in this data there are few statistically strong trends.  However, three trends come through “loud and clear” and two more are significant.

The first two statistically significant trends are for the decline in the number of congregations and decline in total membership.  (By “statistically significant I mean that the linear regression has an R-squared of almost 1 (in case you care)).  The six year trend in congregation decline is 47 congregations/year and in membership it is 45,469 members/year.  To put this into perspective, this is a loss of one medium sized presbytery worth of churches and one large presbytery in terms of members.

The other strong trend is the growth in ordained ministers at an average of 41 per year.  While some of the writers are correct that in pointing out that this is an encouraging trend, it is also disturbing to realize that even with more ministers it is not doing any good at growing the membership.

In addition, there are weaker trends ( R-squared of 0.55 and 0.80 respectively) in the slight decline in churches received and the trend in the increasing number of churches dismissed.  Both of these are small numbers, but the recent history of a beginning exodus of chruches to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church may reinforce this trend in the coming year.  Stay tuned.

GA PJC Decision: I stand corrected

Leave a reply

Well, I wasn’t trusting the Associated Press report or some of the other media reports out there to get the details right, but if the PC(USA) News Service says so, than I guess I must be wrong.

I previously stated that in the case of Stewart v. Mission that since the case was moot because no remedy could be applied (see my earlier post for the details) that the GA PJC had not established the case law.  Specifically, they mentioned the Sheldon case where they ruled that celibate homosexuals may be advanced to candidacy.  There was extra wording in that case that: “However, if the [Presbytery] should determine the Candidate to be ineligible for candidacy at some point in the future, the [Presbytery] should remove the Candidate’s name from the roll of candidates, as provided by G-14.0312.”

Well, the PC News Service Article indicates that this is case law from the Sheldon case and was simply highlighted in this decision.

I stand corrected.

The Three other PJC Decisions Just Reported

Leave a reply

Besides the closely watched case of Stewart v. Mission, there were three other GAPJC decisions reported this week, each with its own points of interest.

218-3 Consent Order — The Session of the Palos Park Presbyterian Community Church v. The Advisory Committee on the Constitution:  This was the recording of an agreement between the two parties reached by mediation.  The complainant filed the remedial case accusing the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) of not properly addressing questions filed with it and of violating the open meeting policy.  The agreement provides the ability for the ACC to respond to multiple questions in one collective response but they need to make it clear that they are answering multiple questions and that the questions have been answered.  In addition the ACC will be more careful of going into executive session at its meetings.

218-5 — Douglas J. Essinger-Hileman and Sandra D. Essinger-Hileman v. The Presbytery of Miami:  In this case the complainants brought a remedial case against the presbytery because of the manner in which their pastoral relationship with a church was dissolved by the presbytery rather than the congregation or administrative commission.  Read the decision for the full chronology.  The case is a matter of fundamental fairness and due process.  Getting right to the heart of the problem the GAPJC decision says:

The Book of Order, G-14.0602 and G-14.0603, addresses procedures for the dissolution of a pastoral relationship when requested by the pastor and/or the congregation. Similarly, G-9.0505b(1) and (2) address dissolutions through an administrative commission. In this case, none of these procedures applied. The Book of Order does not set forth a specific procedure to be followed when neither the congregation nor the pastor has requested dissolution, and no administrative commission has recommended or is empowered to act to dissolve the relationship.

Interesting question and problem in the Book of Order.  In this case the COM brought a motion to the presbytery meeting to call the congregational meeting.  A substitute motion from the floor from an elder commissioner from the church involved was approved dissolving the relationship at the meeting.  It was in the presbytery’s power, G-11.0103o, but was it fair?  The GAPJC writes:

Under the unique circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that it was fundamentally unfair for the Presbytery to proceed with the substitute motion. It would have been a better practice, however, to provide for a fuller hearing of the issues before voting on the substitute motion, particularly when the motion at hand involved so serious a matter as the dissolution of pastoral relationships. Some means should have been devised by which the Pastors and the congregation were given notice and an opportunity to be heard before the final vote to dissolve was taken.

However, as for a remedy?  No remedy would be applicable.  The decision says:

The SPJC was unanimous in finding that the pastoral relationships in this instance were irretrievably broken and that the church’s mission under the Word imperatively demanded dissolution in accordance with G-11.0103o. No remedial action or relief by any judicatory body will restore those relationships, and, therefore, the decision to dissolve the pastoral relationships should not be reversed.

218-7 — Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Through the Presbytery of the Redwoods Prosecuting Committee v. Jane Adams Spahr:  This is another high profile case but this is a procedural decision.

A brief recap:  A disciplinary case was filed against Rev. Spahr for conducting ceremonies that were essentially same-sex marriages (PC News Service article).  The PJC of the Presbytery of the Redwoods decided on March 3, 2006, that the ceremonies were conducted within her “right of conscience” and she was acquitted (PC News Service article).  The case was appealed to the Synod of the Pacific PJC but the Synod PJC basically said “whatever we decide the case will be appealed again to the GAPJC and we’ll just send it there now and not waste our time.”

The GAPJC, in this decision, responded with what can be summarized as “we have a process that we need to go through and don’t try to read our minds.”  More specifically:

1. A Matter of First Impression. While this may be a case of first impression as to an appeal by a prosecuting committee, now permitted under D-13.0102, it is not a matter of first impression as to the substance of the complaint. See, for example, Benton et al., v. Presbytery of Hudson River, Minutes, 2000, p. 586. The complexity of the issues invites consideration through the full judicial structure of the PC(USA).
2. An Appeal Inevitable. Despite an assertion by SPJC that an appeal is inevitable, it is not for GAPJC to speculate whether a non-prevailing party at the SPJC level will appeal a decision of SPJC. Further, the judicial framework established by the Book of Order provides an intermediate level of appellate review at the synod level. Acceptance of this reference would deny the parties one level of review.
3. Undue Expense and Delay. The expense and delay, if any, that may result from this refusal of reference is not likely to be extraordinary, as SPJC claims.

The GAPJC sent it back to the Synod PJC.

Update and correction on the PC(USA) Form of Government Task Force

Leave a reply

The Presbyterian Church (USA) News Service has issued a clarification article to an earlier article about the proposed Book of Order revisions from the Form of Government Task Force that I commented on about a month ago.  It turns out that the April 12-14 Task Force meeting was not fully covered by the News Service because of agenda changes and scheduling conflicts.  The News Service does not expand on that but a GA Junkie wonders what could be more important than a Task Force that wants to change the Book of Order?

So what was not complete?  It turns out that the next stop for the drafts of the new sections of the Book of Order is not the 218th General Assembly but the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) meeting in about a month.  They will be given the opportunity to comment on separating the first four chapters into a brand new Foundations section.  The News Service reports that the Task Force has gotten significant negative comments about splitting off the four chapters and that led them to the possibility of giving the General Assembly the choice of how to precede.  Based on the ACC comments the Task Force will decide whether to float both options or only one.

We will see what is reported after the August meeting of the Task Force.  Hopefully it will be complete on the first go-round.

Sometimes the only way you conquer the pull of power is to set it down

Leave a reply

The quote in the title is from British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s announcement today that he has set a date for his resignation.  But it got me thinking and reflecting on the pull of power, especially in a Presbyterian system.

As a Reformed church we believe that power should not be concentrated in an individual person but held by the commissioners to that governing body.  Even then, in the Presbyterian Church (USA), an elder may only serve on session for a maximum of six years before they must take at least one year off.  The same is true in my Presbytery for committees, although many people just move on to another committee.  My Presbytery has no restrictions on elder commissioners to Presbytery.  I’ve lost track of the number of years I have been an elder commissioner, but not always from my church.  My status as a voting elder in Presbytery has also included my time as a committee chair and as moderator and vice-moderator.  And minister members are always voting members for as long as they are members of Presbytery.  But, our Synod commissioners only serve a maximum of four years and an individual is usually only a General Assembly commissioner once.

There are places in our system where there is usually no limit on time of service.  Clerks are one of these places.  There is no requirement that the elder serving as clerk of session be an elected member of session so there is no limit on how long someone can serve.  As an example, when my six years as a member of session were up, I continued on for an extra two years serving as clerk.  No vote, but an opportunity to participate.  And at my parents’ church there is a vintage plaque memorializing a gentleman who a number of years ago served for decades as the clerk of session.

Our presbytery recently reelected our stated clerk for another three year term which will get them to near two decades of service.  Having worked closely with the clerk this individual is wonderful at the job, never injecting them selves unless I was about to do something contrary to the Book of Order or if I asked them for advice.  Now, the theory is that these positions have only limited power, but many of us are aware that even in setting dockets or providing constitutional guidance to committees there is the substantial opportunity for influence.  So, on principle, in a Presbyterian system, should there be term limits on any position just to avoid the “pull of power?”

Just some thoughts for today after hearing the quote from Mr. Blair.  In a related note, his presumed successor as PM is Mr. Gordon Brown, a Scot.  I have heard and read of him described a number of ways, but almost all of the profiles (like this one from Earthtimes.org) mention his father’s service as a minister in the Church of Scotland.  In one of the interviews this morning with an opposition commentator I heard him described as “presbyterian,” with the adjective used not in a spiritual sense but as being stern and reserved, much like another article I commented on here a while ago.

The passing of Helen Walton

Leave a reply

Helen Robson Walton, a leader in the PC(USA) and the widow of Sam Walton (founder of Wal-Mart), died Thursday evening.  There is much being written of her retailing and philanthropic impact and legacy but, in keeping with the spirit of this blog, would high light just two items related to her leadership in the Presbyterian Church (USA):

She was the first woman to serve as moderator of the Arkansas Presbytery
She served on the Presbyterian Church (USA) foundation including serving as the first vice-chair of the board.

More details on her life and service can be found in numerous news articles currently being published.  I would refer you to the PC(USA) news service article (there was an earlier version of this story that was distributed with the date of her death wrong) and the Wal-Mart press release.