Category Archives: PC(USA)

News on PC(USA) Book of Order revisions

Leave a reply

There are two current items of interest regarding revision and rewriting of the PC(USA) Book of Order.

The first is the status of Book of Order amendments from the last General Assembly.  The vote tallies were last updated on April 16 and most of the amendments have been approved.  While all of these affect the Book of Order, of particular interest are amendments 06-A and 06-B.1.  Amendment 06-A is a major revision of Chapter G-XIV, the longest chapter in the Form of Government section.  The amendment also includes some related “housekeeping” changes to other sections to match the new sections and words in Chapter XIV.  Amendment 06-B.1 moves the ordination questions and service from Form of Government to Directory for Worship.  The former is currently being approved by a narrow margin and the latter has received enough affirmative votes to assure passage.  The only other amendment whose outcome has not been decided yet is 06-B.2 “Adding Licensure of Candidates–On Amending G-14.0309” which is currently failing by the narrow margin of 60 to 63.  All other amendments have been approved by enough presbyteries.

In the other news, at it’s April 12-14 meeting the Form of Government Task Force, charged with rewriting the whole Form of Government section of the Book of Order, decided not to decide but to leave a structural question up to the 218th General Assembly.  The Form of Government web page has not been updated with the report of this meeting yet, but the PC(USA) news service issued a press release on April 16 reporting on the meeting.  Specifically, the task force had been working on a new version of the “G” section which moved the first four chapters into a new preceding section which would contain the “foundational principles” found in those chapters.  At the meeting last week the task force voted 6-3 to provide two versions to the next GA: One with the new fourth section and one that left the foundational principles in the Form of Government section.

The news article also talks about the underlying theology of the rewrite and how it is built upon “missional polity.”  This is the concept that the church does not have a mission, but rather that mission is its only reason for existence. The news story quotes a supporting document:  “Mission lies at the heart of the Church’s identity. The Church is called into being and is an expression of the mission dei, God’s ongoing engagement with the world to reconcile, transform, and finally fulfill the divine creative intent in it.”  (I thought I saw this document on-line at one time but can not find it again.)

The task force next meets August 16-18.

Brief Comment:  In the PC(USA) news service article four members of the task force and two PC(USA) staff members to the task force were quoted.  All but one staff member (Doska Ross) are identified as clergy!  Are elders involved in this process?  You would not know it from the news story.  The membership list shows that the task force is composed of six clergy and three elders.

Call for PC(USA) Stated Clerk to not run for a fourth term

Leave a reply

The Institute on Region and Democracy (IRD) based in Washington, D.C., has issued a press release calling on Presbyterian Church (USA) Stated Clerk Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick to not seek a fourth term as stated clerk when his present term is finished at the next General Assembly in 2008.  Rev. Kirkpatrick said in a recent interview that he will pray and reflect on his fourth term this summer.  The first paragraph of the IRD statement reads:

WASHINGTON, DC– The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), under Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick, has seen a steady decline in membership.  Kirkpatrick, an affable man, has failed to show true leadership that would strengthen, expand, unify, and stabilize the PCUSA. Now, in an interview with the denominational news service, he is hinting at a run for a fourth four-year term. He claims that the PCUSA “is in a potential tipping point of renewed growth and vitality.” The Steering Committee of the IRD’s Presbyterian Action program has asked Kirkpatrick to “decline nomination for a fourth term in 2008, for the good of the denomination.”

I would note that the IRD is a conservative organization not associated with a denomination whose slogan is “Reforming the Church’s Social and Political Witness.” Their Presbyterian Action Director is James D. Berkley who blogs on the IRD site as well as his own “The Berkley Blog.”

Recent passings: Dr. Isabel Rogers and Rev. Marguerite Bowden-Reed

Leave a reply

Earlier this month two individuals who served in leadership in Presbyterian governing bodies joined the church triumphant.

Dr. Isabel Rogers, professor at Union Theological Seminary-Presbyterian School of Christian Education and moderator of the 199th General Assembly in 1987 died on March 18 of cancer.  Her election that year is still the closest election of a moderator since the reunion that formed the PC(USA) in 1983.  Her life and work is remembered in a PC(USA) news service article.

On March 9 The Rev. Marguerite Bowden-Reed died of a stroke in Tucson, Az.  She is credited with being the first woman called to serve as an executive in the PC(USA) or it’s predecessor churches.  She was elected executive presbyter for the Presbytery de Cristo in 1973 and later served as the executive of the Synod of the Covenant.  Following that she was an associate pastor in Tucson where she was active in the Sanctuary Movement.  She is remembered in a PC(USA) “Notes about people” as well as more extensive articles from the Arizona Daily Star and The Tucson Citizen.

Designated giving: It’s not just for Presbyterians

Leave a reply

A growing trend in the local presbyteries and our synod is for churches to designate their mission giving to specific ministries on the list that the governing body supports leaving some budgets short or having limited unrestricted funds for new opportunities.

From a news story today in the Lompoc Record, this is also the fashion for giving in other organizations.  In this case the United Way of Greater Los Angeles.  The Lompoc Record reports:

According to financial records, about two-thirds of the $47 million that United Way in Los Angeles gave away last fiscal year went to benefactors’ favorite causes, one of the highest ratios in the country.

And in the case of the United Way, it is not just selecting a charity on the list, but the money can be designated for any non-profit that is designated a public charity.  This includes many of the SoCal arts and cultural organizations and Harvard-Westlake School, a college preparatory school with an annual tuition price tag of over $23,000 per year.

The result: “But local United Way officials said donor choices are leaving one of the charity’s fundamental missions – to help meet basic human needs – with a smaller piece of the pie.”

More reaction to the New Wineskins Convocation

Leave a reply

Since the New Wineskins Association of Churches Convocation about a month ago now I have commented on the response from other bloggers as well as the articles from the Network of Presbyterian Women in Leadership about the role of women in leadership and the response it drew from the NWAC and the Witherspoon Society.  There have been some other comments, reports and analysis coming out that I’ll point to now.

The first official response was a follow-up letter from NWAC co-moderator Garrit Dawson.  In this letter he sets forth his summary of the convocation, the action taken, and a list of “what’s next.”

There was also official comment from Dr. Jeremiah, the State Clerk of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church who was part of the delegation the EPC sent to the convocation.  In his message Dr. Jeremiah emphasizes the global mission emphasis the two groups share.

There has not been official reaction from the PC(USA) to the NWAC Convocation.  It was covered in two articles from the PCUSA News Service (Feb. 9, Feb. 14) and mentioned in passing in the recently published interview with Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick.  There was also the letter from Rev. Kirkpatrick and General Assembly Council Executive Director Linda Valentine that came out before the Convocation that has the appearance of a preemptive strike.

The most recent comment is a series of articles posted on the Witherspoon Society web site that provide news and analysis of the gathering and the NWAC organization.  (From the frequent references to the Presbyterian Outlook article by Leslie Scanlon it would appear that none of these writers were at the convocation.  But neither was I.)

The first article by Gene TeSelle is a brief summary of the meeting and some brief analysis that includes the following:

When there is talk about withdrawal by anyone – right, left, or center – there will be at least the passing thought that it would be “good riddance.” But this is likely to be followed by the feeling that, no matter how much we disagree, we have grown accustomed to each other and may even like each other. Departure is always interpreted as a sign of failure – somewhere, somehow.

But let’s notice that departure to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church would not be to a group that is alienated from the PC(USA) to the extent of anathematizing it. The EPC is in communion with us. We might think of those who withdraw to it as being in a “holding tank,” an interim situation while they think things over. They might even decide to return to the PC(USA), especially if the EPC gets tangled up in debates over women’s ordination. When you think you’re escaping to a purer and more homogeneous communion, you may find that you are only increasing the number of disputes to be worried about.

The second article, also by Gene TeSelle, looks at the NWAC theological heritage and the church order that they have outlined.

The third article, “New Wineskins or Simply Whining?” is an opinion piece by John E. Harris.  In it he takes the NWAC to task for being a very small but vocal minority that is now concerned with ordination issues for women when they deny the same arguments for sexually-active homosexuals.

Finally, Berry Craig, a history teacher, has a commentary likening the NWAC transitioning to the EPC with the secession of the Confederate States.  He said that just as northerners had varying opinions in the 1860’s, so PC(USA) liberals are similarly split between “good riddance” and “the union must be preserved.”

So far I have seen a response to the Witherspoon articles from one person, Bill Crawford, who was at the NWAC Convocation.  Mr. Crawford’s comments can be found in his blog Bayou Christian in an entry titled “Feel the Love.”

A couple of comments of my own:
   When Mr. Harris talks about how small the NWAC minority is he uses a percentage of congregations in the PC(USA).  While I do not deny that the number is small, I suspect that the number of members is actually higher.  The membership numbers for NWAC are not published (that I know of) but I would suspect that the average NWAC church is larger than the average PC(USA) congregation.  I know it is for this corner of the world (Southern California).
   Second, Mr. Harris talks about the progressive organizations never advocating departure from the PC(USA). That to my knowledge is true, but I do know that high-profile progressive congregations have discussed it.
   Finally, several of these articles in the end seem to reduce this discussion to money.  That is, are the big churches trying to leverage or force governing bodies to do certain things under threat of losing giving, and the churches that are leaving wanting to take their property with them?

We will see what else gets published and posted in the coming weeks.

Witherspoon Society response to NPWL comments on women in leadership in EPC

Leave a reply

A week ago I discussed the Network of Presbyterian Women in Leadership (NPWL) articles that asked important and hard questions about how women in leadership would be accepted by the Evangelical Presbyterian Church with the New Wineskins Association of Churches’ expected transition from the PC(USA) to the EPC.  In that posting I commented on a parallel between some of the language used in that articles about the ordination of women with the language that is used in favor of the ordination of active homosexuals.  Others have also noted that parallelism and the Witherspoon Society has posted an open letter that Karen Ellen Kavey of Chapaqqua, NY, wrote about this to Becce Bettridge, Director of the NPWL and author of one of the articles.  Ms. Kavey writes that she is appreciative of Ms. Bettridge asking these questions but then goes on to write:

An unsettling question haunts me: How can someone, such as yourself, feel and express such genuine, palpable, well-reasoned concern for themselves regarding inequality, especially inequality based on interpretation of Scripture, and not feel this very same concern for others?

If, instead of the word “women”, you had substituted all minorities into your wonderful Questions, it would be a perfect essay… a letter for all God’s people.

The question of ordination standards is not an easy one and, as this exchange points out, is a continuum. Where you draw the line as to who should and who should not be ordained varies widely depending on perspective.

PC(USA) News Service interview with Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick

Leave a reply

The PC(USA) News Service recently ran a news story based on an interview PCNS coordinator Rev. Jerry Van Marter did with Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick.  For the most part the questions and answers were predictable and soft-ball but a few points stick out.  If you will permit me, I am going to intersperse my comments in this post rather than saving them for the end.

Maybe the headline item is that Rev. Kirkpatrick has not ruled out running for a fourth term as Stated Clerk.  He says that he will seek to discern his call to this ministry over the summer.  (Is this like the current political fashion of first announcing your candidacy on a late-night talk show and then making a “formal” announcement later?)

For me the most interesting response was about the Office of the General Assembly’s view of the legal memos on property that have come to be called the “Louisville Papers.”  Rev. Kirkpatrick says:

He said a legal opinion on church property that
denominational critics have derisively called “The Louisville Papers”
and labeled “hard-line” and “secretive” are simply that — legal
opinions on church property law.

“That’s not the advice we’re giving churches and sessions,” Kirkpatrick insisted, citing a more recent paper from his Constitutional Services office entitled “Responding Pastorally to Troubled Churches.” That
document states: “We commend using a response team that seeks a time of
prayer and conversation aimed at understanding the conflict and
identifying steps toward reconciliation.”

I believe that this is the first response I have seen out of the Stated Clerk’s Office about these documents and I am glad there was finally some acknowledgment and explanation of them.  I think we are all hearing a variety of stories from “the trenches” about the different approaches presbyteries are taking.  And, unfortunately, I think that the knowledge of the existence of these memos soured the environment and forced congregations to respond aggressively in the process of leaving the denomination rather than trusting the presbyteries and the connectional process that we have.  Yes, I am aware of the hard-fought civil legal battles that have been and are being fought.  I would like to hear more about the “vast majority of cases” that Rev. Kirkpatrick refers to where the presbyteries are not going to court.

Beyond that the interview goes over much of the denominational, international and ecumenical events that have been covered in other PCNS news stories over the last couple of months and how from these events the story says “Despite the departure of a handful of disaffected Presbyterian Church(U.S.A.) congregations in recent months, General Assembly Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick remains convinced that the troubled denomination “is in a potential tipping point of renewed growth and vitality.””

I think all of us hope that he is correct.

Complaint re-filed against Rev. Janet Edwards in Pittsburgh Presbytery

Leave a reply

This past fall I was following a case in the PJC of Pittsburgh Presbytery where the Rev. Janet Edwards was accused of conducting a wedding for two women.  (My previous posts of  Sept. 18, Nov. 15, Dec. 11)  The charges again the Rev. Edwards were dismissed because the investigating committee filed the charges four days late.

It was announced and expected that the complaint would be re-filed and late last week the Rev. James Yearsley did so.  The original complaint was by Rev. Yearsley alone; the new complaint is also signed by seven additional ministers and six elders.  It is interesting to note that of the fourteen individuals signing the complaint, only Elder Robert Gagnon is currently in Pittsburgh Presbytery.  And of the signers of the complaint two are recognizable names in the Presbyterian commentator community:  Professor Gagnon and the Rev. Toby Brown (A Classical Presbyterian).

The PC(USA) New Service has issued a press release on the developments as well as some coverage in the popular media, including the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

A new investigating committee will be formed.

NWAC responds to the NPWL

Leave a reply

In my previous post I reported on three articles the Network of Presbyterian Women in Leadership (NPWL) posted on their web site discussing the transition of churches to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) and their polity that ordination of women is a local option.  The New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC) has responded in their web log to the first two articles posted on the NPWL web site.  The entry, titled “Advancing Biblical Truth: Women in Leadership and the Proposed New Wineskins/EPC Transitional Presbytery“, begins with the statement that the NWAC:

The New Wineskins Constitution
makes no explicit distinction between men and women serving in roles of
leadership in the church, embracing the biblical declaration in
Galatians 3:28 that in Christ “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave
nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Women
have always been, continue to be, and will always be an integral part
of the New Thing that God is doing through the New Wineskins
Association of Churches (NWAC).

(If you followed the New Wineskins Winter Convocation you know that there was a question from the floor asking why the Strategy Team was all male.  The response was that no women had asked to be on it.)

Further on in the NWAC response where they discuss the Rev. Anita Miller Bell’s article about the glass ceiling for women in the PC(USA) there is an interesting observation that I had not previously thought about:

To Rev. Anita Bell’s credit, she admits that the experience of women pastors within the PCUSA has not been all it should be. However, both NPWL articles fail to examine underlying causes to the “glass ceiling” in the PCUSA other than a pastor’s gender. There are at least two other realities that should have been discussed. The first is the promotion of feminist and womanist theologies by the denomination. This has not helped orthodox and evangelical women pastors in finding a call. Pastor nominating committees are understandably concerned about the possibility of nominating a pastoral candidate and then later discovering the candidate does not uphold an orthodox or evangelical theology.

The NWAC  article goes on to discuss eight reasons that evangelical women pastors should consider moving to the EPC.  These include the fact that the NWAC will have its own transitional presbytery in the EPC where they will get to decide if women can be ordained and the fact that if you are an evangelical Presbyterian women looking for an alternative to the PC(USA) than the EPC is the only game in town.

The take on the PC(USA) to EPC transition from the Network of Presbyterian Women in Leadership

Leave a reply

The Network of Presbyterian Women in Leadership (NPWL) is posting a series of articles on the transition of churches from the PC(USA) to the EPC. The issue of course is that the ordination of women is not accepted across the EPC but is a “local option.”  As Becce Bettridge, the Director of NPWL, put it in the first article titled “Has Anyone Asked the Women“: “My question to the EPC is: Why would I want to be part of a church that overwhelmingly now views my leadership with suspicion?”

The second article in the series, “Where will the Women be Welcome,” by the Rev. Anita Miller Bell asks a broader question:  “Are ordained women treated as equals in the PC(USA)?”  She writes:

Yet, lest we become too judgmental of our brothers and sisters in the EPC and those who would join them, we must take a moment of honest self-reflection in our PCUSA fellowship.  Ordained women, especially those called to the ministry of Word and Sacrament, know full inclusion in the ministry life of the PCUSA in name only.  After 50 years, women still face the “glass ceiling” across the theological spectrum of the church.

 Her analysis of this situation is fascinating, at least to me, and I think it contains a great deal of truth.  She writes, in part:

This lukewarm embrace of women in ministry by the PCUSA and the “local option” approach of the EPC both find their roots in the original decision made by our denominations’ predecessor to ordain women to the ministry of Word and Sacrament 50 years ago. That decision, framed by postwar emphasis on human rights and democracy among mainline churches, has often been characterized as a “simple act of fairness”.   Our debate centered more on the social correctness of opening the door to women in ordained ministry than on the Biblical
witness of the essential nature of women’s ministry within the body of
Christ.

Such well-intentioned “social correctness” has not transformed the heart and mind of the church to embrace fully the leadership of the sisters in our midst.

She goes on to discuss the “Body of Christ” and how an individual’s gifts and talents are intended to be used for the building up of the body and how a person’s calling should not be a matter of fairness but a response to their place and role in the body.

There are presently three articles posted and in the third seminarian Janice Krouskop discusses her perspective on the transition and what it may mean for her call and career.

The EPC does have a Position Paper on the Ordination of Women where they say:

…while some churches may ordain women and some may decline to do so, neither position is essential to the existence of the church since people of good faith who equally love the Lord and hold to the infallibility of Scripture differ on this issue, and since uniformity of view and practice is not essential to the existence of the visible church, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church has chosen to leave this decision to the Spirit-guided consciences of particular congregations concerning the ordination of women as elders and deacons, and to the presbyteries concerning the ordination of women as ministers.

Now, a couple of comments where I’m about the stray into the more controversial and may raise the blood pressure of some of my readers…

Returning to the first NPWL article, it contains echoes of arguments that I regularly hear.  In one line  Ms. Bettridge asks: “Why would I want to be part of a church whose denominational culture does not view me as an equal partner in ministry, gifted and called to serve the Body of Christ?”

What caught my attention here is that this is essentially the same question that my friends and family who support the ordination of practicing homosexuals ask.  The progressives in the PC(USA) and other denominations see no difference between these two ordination questions.  If a person has been given these gifts for leadership by God, why should they not be ordained?  Does Rev. Anita Miller Bell’s argument apply here as well?  It is not a matter of fairness but a matter of gifts and call.  And appealing to scripture is not the clear-cut way out since we are all probably familiar with the exegetical arguments on all sides of both of these issues.  It comes down to how you read scripture and how you understand officers within the church.

Now, I do acknowledge that the two issues are different and I see differences in the scriptural support for the two issues.  But, the PCA and other conservative Presbyterian branches do not recognize either ordination, and the PC(USA) recognizes one and is arguing about the other. We need to be aware that for many people these two issues are linked and each of the NPWL articles could be quickly and easily rewritten to focus the same arguments on the issue of homosexual ordination.

My two cents worth from my background and experience.  Now back to our regularly scheduled politics.