Category Archives: PC(USA)

Separatist Evangelicals – Update

Leave a reply

Well, Perspectives must be getting heat for the article on Presbyterians and Separatist Evangelicals because the editor, Sharon K. Youngs, has posted a note on the web site indicating that the e-zine is about people’s perspectives, the article is the perspective of the author, the Rev. R. Milton Winter, and next month there will be an alternate viewpoint on the discussion.

As I have stated in this blog before, I have no objection to intellectual discussion and a recognition that we as Presbyterians are good at it and should pride ourselves on it.  However, the way that we sometimes do it, like the present example, does not always put us in the best and most helpful light for the people who are not as familiar with this intellectual exercise.

Separatist Evangelicals

1 Reply

Every now and again I post some pure commentary on how I see the PC(USA) leadership disconnected from the broader church. (For a couple of previous comments there is September 4, October 11, or October 31.)  Well, as I ponder the latest article out of Louisville, “Presbyterians and Separatist Evangelicals: A Continuing  Dilemma” by R. Milton Winter and published in Perspectives, I once again have to wonder “What are they thinking in the Office of the General Assembly?”  So here are some brief comments, and I apologize if this turns into a rant.

I remain puzzled by why the people in the Office of the General Assembly continue making it more difficult for those of us working locally.  I am a leader in a presbytery and the “Louisville Papers” were a controversy that we needed to get past.  Those were legal memos intended for internal use by a bunch of lawyers so with time that blew over.  The 9/11 conspiracy book was not a big issue here.  That was written by a Methodist at a Methodist seminary in our part of the world so to have something like that come out of there was not a surprise.  But now there is a published article, directly from the OGA, using a divisive title like “Presbyterians and Separatist Evangelicals.”  This title implies that anyone who wants to leave is not a faithful Presbyterian.  At a time when many of us are working hard with congregations, presbyteries and in our synods to keep everyone at the table, having the OGA endorse an article with this title is not helpful.  Could I go as far as to say that it does not help us in our work to preserve the Peace, Unity and Purity of the church.  I am awaiting the local fall-out.

Thanks for reading.  Now back to our regularly scheduled information.  I’ll comment on the content of that article early next week.

New PC(USA) Advisory Opinion on Honorably Retired Ministers and Validated Ministry

Leave a reply

The Office of the General Assembly has issued a new Advisory Opinion:  Advisory Opinion #20 – Honorably Retired Ministers.

The opinion has three parts: 
The first part is titled “Retired ministers are a valuable resource to the presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.),” a sentiment I could not agree with more.  The paper mentions having them serve as parish associate, pulpit supply, or temporary pastor.  In my presbytery they also regularly serve as part-time interim pastors and as consultants or advisers for particular congregations, under the guidance of presbytery committees, particularly COM. (COM: Committee on Ministry)

The second part is about “Retired ministers may not continue or return to serve in the same congregation from which they retired.”  No surprises here.  This section draws from the PC(USA) Standards of Ethical Conduct.

Finally, the last section is titled “Retired ministers are not required to undertake ministry, but if they choose to do so, that ministry must be validated by the presbytery of membership.”  This took me back a bit on first reading since in our presbytery we are fond of saying “Honorably Retired is a validated ministry,” a phrase taken from our stated clerk.  But on second reading, and a little bit of refresher in the Book of Order, this third section does align with my understanding and the practice of our COM, at least while I have been on it.  The first problem was our usage of the term “validated ministry.”  In my presbytery that has come to mean any ministry outside the jurisdiction of the PC(USA) that we have to work through the five criteria of G-11.0403 to approve.  However, it is clear from the usage in G-11.0406a that even parish and governing body service is referred to as validated ministry.  So it is just that in those cases the criteria are clear.  After thinking about this section a bit, I am comfortable with the Advisory Opinion and that my presbytery’s practice is pretty much in line with it.  Honorably retired ministers that work in a church are approved (validated) by the COM. (Frequently they are invited by the COM.)  I don’t remember validating a ministry outside the jurisdiction of the church for an HR, but I can’t think of anyone who is engaged in that.  And HR’s need to submit an annual report just as all other ministers do, so there is presbytery supervision, or at least accountability, of even occasional work.  And maybe the having a paragraph in our validation of ministry policy about where the occasional ends and the need for validation begins is not a bad idea.

More from the PHEWA Conference

Leave a reply

The PC(USA) news service has issued two additional news stories from the Presbyterian Health, Education and Welfare Association’s 2007 Biennial Social Justice Conference.  I had previously posted on the difference in coverage of the conference between the PCUSA news service and the Layman Online.

The first PC(USA) article is on the Rev. George and Kathy Todd receiving the John Park Lee Award.

The second news service article titled “Giving it all away” is about the Rev. Robert Linthicum’s talk.  It is similar to the Layman article but emphasizing slightly different points and including a variety of other details.  His talk sounds interesting, particularly the part about change coming from the inside and those of us on the outside who try to go into a church to “save” it will probably meet with limited success.

New Wineskins Strategy Report

Leave a reply

Well, no sooner do I post my comments on waiting than a couple of hours later the New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC) issues their Strategy Report for their Winter Convocation next month.  The Strategy Report is available as a 155 page PDF document from the New Wineskins site. After taking a day to look it over here are my observations and comments.

Of those 155 pages, only the first 33 are report content and the remainder are “Exhibits” which I will discuss in a minute.  The report has five recommendations for the NWAC convocation to consider.

In the transmittal letter, the “Strategy Team” says they began with the question “What is the heart of the issue with the PC(USA)?”  Their conclusion is that the PC(USA) has drifted away from orthodox Reformed Christianity which culminated with the 2006 GA not repudiating the Trinity Report and adopting the report of the Theological Task Force.  As the report says: “These actions were the culmination of nearly eighty-five years of debate concerning Biblically faithful doctrine (orthodoxy) and practice (orthopraxy).”  The report goes on to comment on the current state of the PC(USA):

The PC(USA) has now embraced a de facto confessional position which encourages the worship of a god unknown in the Scriptures, a god of man’s own making whose names appeal to the sensibilities of contemporary philosophy, politics and a culture that asks the Church to validate rather than redeem that culture. It also adopted an authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order that, while affirming the existence of standards for ordination, takes the step of making the enforcement of those standards optional on the local level. This new reality allows local judicatories to determine that such departure from revealed truth is a “non-essential” for ordination.

The PC(USA) now allows ministers of the Word and Sacrament, ruling elders, deacons, and by logical extension church members, to embrace beliefs that are inconsistent with the clear teaching of the Scriptures and the doctrines from our own Book of Confessions. We now believe that the PC(USA) has eroded Reformed orthodoxy and Presbyterian practice to a point where the collective conscience of many no longer allows us to remain aligned with this thinking. This report proposes new ways to minister with faithfulness to the Gospel both inside and outside the PC(USA).

The main body of the report discusses how the churches are called to “A New Thing” (yes, you can easily guess that the report draws thematically from Isaiah 43 as many redesign processes seem to these days) with that new thing being a call to become a clearly “Missional Church.”  The “New Thing” is necessary because in the PC(USA) the churches and the denomination have lost their theological identity.  To accomplish this the report, in Chapter III, lays out “The Plan.”  In summary it is:

The Plan we are prayerfully called to endorse is a realignment by NWAC churches with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) to fulfill our vision of becoming a missional force for Jesus. Initially, NWAC churches will be received into a non-geographic transitional presbytery (NWEPC) of the EPC. We will immediately begin working as partners with the EPC leadership to develop a more missionally faithful new thing.

This proposed alignment includes:  A NWAC presbytery in the EPC that will have the full normal authority of a presbytery, including the ability to ordain, receive, install and dismiss pastors and plant churches.  The ministers however, must “affirm without reservation” the EPC confessional and doctrinal standards.  This presbytery and the rest of the current EPC will establish a commission, if the EPC GA approves, that will look at how to structure the EPC as a missional church.  Also, the EPC is absolved of responsibility for legal disputes that arise from a NWAC church leaving the PC(USA) and a NWAC church need not go through the NWEPC presbytery but may join the EPC directly if they so chose.  The NWEPC will be a transitional structure to be removed by 2012 at the latest.

To their credit, the Strategy Team acknowledges staying with the PC(USA) is a faithful option as well although they argue against it saying that the denomination will only get worse.  The report says that what is already a dying branch of the Reformed Church will become even more theologically unorthodox by the departure of its evangelical congregations.  But each congregation must make its own decision.

So, the five recommendations are: 1) Implement the plan.  2) Enter into relationship/discussion with the EPC as a body.  3) Those churches called to leave, do so.  4) Those churches that are still discerning God’s will continue to study faithfully.  5)  Those churches called to stay in the PC(USA) continue to be a faithful witness there.

Now, the rest of the story…
The exhibits section of the report takes up, as I have already noted, almost 3/4 of the report.  The first group of exhibits are educational resource materials gathered from a variety of sources including published articles and information sheets for congregations.  The second group are entitled “Legal Action Plan Documents” and are a set of documents providing assistance, maybe a complete road map, to handle the legal issues of leaving the PC(USA), mostly related to property.  The third group are denomination relations resources, mostly documents from the PC(USA) headquarters including the “Louisville Papers.”  And finally, there are sample overtures and letters.

So, some comments…
Well, the NWAC has now presented their side of the news that they have been talking with the EPC and from both sides it is apparent that the talks were fairly extensive.  There is also in the report, on page 9 following the Executive Summary, a great chart  showing a comparison of churches in the PC(USA), NWAC, EPC and PCA including theological and social stands.  The point of the chart, while being extremely informative, appears to be to show that the EPC is the logical body to affiliate with.  No argument from me there.  But with 148 NWAC churches and 180 EPC churches, if all transfer over to the EPC it will nearly double the size of the denomination.  However, it will still be far behind the PCA with 1300 congregations.

And finally, in discussing this transfer with a good friend of mine who is an evangelical PC(USA) minister, he mentioned that he might have problems affirming the Westminster Standards without reservation, primarily for Chapter 21, Section 8 that reads:

8. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due
preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs
beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest, all the day, from their
own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and
recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and
private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and
mercy. (emphasis mine)

Does this preclude watching the Super Bowl or World Cup games on Sunday?

Watching and waiting – Coming attractions

Leave a reply

Greetings,

No, I have not fallen off the face of the earth.  But over the holidays it has been fairly slow with the hard news in the little niche I’m interested in so I have just taken the advice of Mark 13:37 – “What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’ “

What are we waiting and watching for?  There are at least four big events on the horizon.

There has been a bit of recent news:  The PC(USA) Presbyterian Health, Education and Welfare Association met this past weekend in New Orleans for the 2007 “Social Justice Biennial Conference.”  I found it interesting how much discussion there seemed to be at a social sustice meeting about the future of the denomination.  The PC(USA) news service has an article written at the beginning of the conference about the conference and comments by Bill Quigley, director of the law clinic and the Gillis Long Poverty Law Center at Loyola University of New Orleans.  The Layman Online covered the meeting and they have posted several articles about the conference on their news page.  The coverage of conference speakers includes the comments by PC(USA) Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick, comments about the PC(USA) having to face reality by the Rev. Curtis A. Kearns, Jr., General Assembly Council Executive Administrator, and two articles about comments by the Rev. Robert Linthicum, a para-church consultant, one on transformation and the other on church mission structure.

EPC preparing transition process for PC(USA) congregations that want to transfer

1 Reply

With the Evangelical Presbyterian Church appearing to be the denomination of choice for congregations that are choosing to leave the PC(USA), the EPC is beginning to make arrangements for congregations that are interested in joining their denomination.  This development was announced in a December 20th letter from their stated clerk, Jeff Jeremiah.  In it he talks about a proposal to be brought to the 2007 General Assembly to create one or more “transitional presbyteries” that will be non-geographic bodies for congregations wishing to join the EPC to reside in for up to five years.  There is now a web page linked from the EPC home page about “Information for Churches Interested in Becoming Part of the EPC.”

Another interesting development discussed in the letter was the fact that Mr. Jeremiah and four others from the EPC leadership met with leaders of the New Wineskins Association of Churches about their possible relationship with the EPC.  The meetings were held in Tampa, FL, December 12-13.  I have found no formal statement from the New Wineskins Association yet.

So where is the PC(USA) in the ordination standards debate?

Leave a reply

With a growing number of presbyteries discussing the adoption of policies affirming the Book of Order wording, specifically G-6.0106b, as their standards for ordination I have not been keeping this blog up-to-date on these happenings.  I will comment on two specific and noteworthy developments in a moment.  However, if you want to keep up on what is happening the Layman Online has been following this closely and is compiling a table showing the status of these resolutions in the different presbyteries (Current table embedded in today’s article).  According to the Layman’s count as of today the topic has been raised in 36 presbyteries with 16 “affirming constitutional standards,” three disapproving, one disapproving but to vote again, and the rest still in process.

In new developments, I wanted to note that the affirmative decisions by five of these presbyteries have been challenged as remedial cases in Synod PJC’s.  Specifically the actions of Sacramento Presbytery (mentioned in the summary of their December 5th presbytery meeting) and Presbytery of San Joaquin have been appealed to the PJC of the Synod of the Pacific.  The actions of the Presbytery of the Mid-South have been appealed to the Synod of Living Waters.  And a case has been filed with the Synod of the Trinity over Pittsburgh Presbytery’s actions and with the Synod of Alaska-Northwest over Presbytery of Olympia’s action (mentioned in the Full Court Presbyterian blog).  In the case of Pittsburgh Presbytery the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette mentions in their article on the refiling of charges in the Edwards case that the Synod PJC has issued an injunction stopping enforcement of the policy.

On the opposite end of the activity, we have a refreshing second or third-hand report of planned non-action.  In the article from the PC(USA) news service about the confirmation of the Rev. Tom Taylor as Deputy Executive Director of GAC for Mission there is the following paragraph:

(GAC Executive Committee Members) Asked… about the efforts of some presbyteries to adopt
their own “essential tenets,” including in San Gabriel’s neighboring
San Diego Presbytery, Taylor said such a list has not come to floor of
San Gabriel. “One pastor was trying to push it, but a group of us
evangelicals don’t agree and told him so it’s dead in the water.”

So at least for the moment there appears to be one presbytery, San Gabriel, where essential tenets will not be brought up for debate and a vote.

Pittsburgh Presbytery same-sex marriage case trying to be re-filed

1 Reply

Upset with the PJC case against the Rev. Janet Edwards being dismissed on a technicality, there are press reports that a group is trying to get the charges refiled.  Just to review, Rev. Edwards was initially charged with conducting a marriage ceremony for two women on June 25, 2005, and went to trial with the Pittsburgh Presbytery PJC on November 15.  After deliberation the PJC unanimously decided to dismiss the case because the investigating committee filed the charges four days after their deadline.

Now it is reported (such as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) that the Rev. James Yearsley, who filed the original charges, is collecting signatures to file the charges again.  He says that this is not double jeopardy since there was no decision in the first case.  While the Rev. Yearsley was formerly a member of Pittsburgh Presbytery he is now pastor of Village Presbyterian Church, Tampa, Florida, in the Presbytery of Tampa Bay.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article says:

Mr. Yearsley said he had considered filing a complaint against
Pittsburgh Presbytery for mishandling the case but concluded he did not
have evidence of deliberate misbehavior. “Suspicions are not a
sufficient reason to paint with such a large brush,” he said.

New developments in Mission Presbytery over controversial church membership

Leave a reply

In a follow-up to a situation in Mission Presbytery that I commented on back in September, Toby Brown, in his excellent blog “A Classical Presbyterian,” updates the situation where a declared atheist was admitted to membership in St. Andrews Church in Austin.  The membership was challenged and Mission Presbytery voted to instruct St. Andrews about the standards for membership and to invalidate the specific membership.  St. Andrews appealed to the Synod of the Sun PJC.

Rev. Brown, in his recent update, details new developments.  The pivotal event is the decision by the PJC to deny the complaint and not issue an injunction.  This clears the way for the presbytery, through the Committee on Ministry, to dialog and instruct the St. Andrews’ session on these matters.  Check out Toby’s blog for all the details.

I would also add that the pastor at St. Andrews holds a non-traditional (he might say a non-western) view of the Greek word “kurios” and that it would not be properly translated as “Lord” as we would in saying “Jesus is Lord.”  If this is of interest to you check the discussion in the comments below Toby’s blog post.