Category Archives: PC(USA)

Financial Implications — Decisions Coming To General Assemblies

Leave a reply

I am struck by the number of Presbyterian branches that have financial issues to deal with right at the moment.  I highlighted some of these a couple of weeks ago when I posted a large block of text from the new Strategic Plan from the Presbyterian Church in America .  A few brief excerpts that are relevant for today’s purpose say:

[D]espite our formal values of connectional polity and cooperative ministry, less than half of the churches of the PCA support any denominational agency or committee (less than 20 percent give at the Partnership Share level).
…
The cooperative efforts that do exist are often directed toward affinity gatherings or the ministries of large churches that have become missional expressions of the animating values of specific groups.
…
We remain an anti-denominational denomination – excusing individualistic ministry by re-telling the narratives of past abuses in former denominations, demonizing denominational leadership or movements to justify non-support of the larger church, or simply making self-survival or self-fulfillment the consuming goal of local church ministry.

I bring these up as a very good summary of where Presbyterian denominations find themselves today in these still-challenging economic times.  Compared to other branches the PCA finds itself in a relatively good financial position.  However, the GA will be considering this report and its recommendations for implementing a new formula for supporting the work of the Assembly.

A situation a bit more stressful is that of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland whose General Assembly held at special meeting at which they authorized raising £1 million for a special hardship fund for those impacted by the collapse of the Presbyterian Mutual Society.  While this is being raised through a special appeal and not general funds, the plan will be presented to next month’s GA for approval.

To the east across the North Channel the Church of Scotland General Assembly will be debating plans to reduce expenses by disposing of property, including church buildings, and reducing ministerial staffing, as measured by FTE’s, by 10%.  As the report of the Ministries Council says:

“Where there is no vision, the people perish”(Prov 28:19), declares the Wisdom writer. This was a sentiment most likely forged in crisis, addressed to people who found the pressures around too great to raise their heads and look around. These are words which speak into our current situation in the Church of Scotland, facing as we do a significant crisis in relation to ministries. A deficit budget of £5.7M is quite simply unsustainable. Given that the Ministries Council is responsible for 87% of the Church’s budget, this is a crisis for the whole Church, not just for the Ministries Council.

Which brings us to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and hard decisions that continue to be needed, right now by the General Assembly Mission Council but soon by the General Assembly itself.  As followers of the PC(USA) know this is not new — the Outlook Article reminds us that over the last eight years about 250 positions have already been eliminated.  Thirty of those were early retirement packages offered to staff following the February 2010 GAMC meeting.  At that meeting CFO Joey Bailey presented financial projections of 15 – 20% lower unrestricted funding for 2011.  The Council also approved a new set of Guiding Principles for Planning Decisions. Going into the GAMC meeting this week Leslie Scanlon of the Outlook writes:

This time, denominational leaders have warned that the cuts could mean the elimination of entire programs or areas of ministry. As council member Matt Schramm put it in February: “We may have to say goodbye to some long-treasured programs that no longer serve the needs of the church.”

Expect significant news to develop over the rest of this week as the GAMC wrestles with significant decisions.

But the 219th General Assembly will have review on some of these actions, responsibility for approving overtures with “financial implications” that will affect the GAMC’s proposed budgets, and setting per capita for the next two years.  In addition, there are overtures to the GA that not only have financial implications but address the financial practices directly.

One of these is Item 03-09 (overture 72) from Great Rivers Presbytery which would add a line to the section about special committees that says “Special committees and commissions should be appointed only in very rare and exceptional circumstances, i.e. national or denominational crisis.”  The rational makes clear that this is suggested for representational and procedural reasons, but knowing how the special committee I was on was constrained by budgetary considerations I know that carefully controlling the creation of special committees will put less strain on budgets.

Another more direct one is item 03-04 (overture 54) from San Diego Presbytery that would, for budgetary reasons, restore the number of GA commissioners to the lower levels before the switch to biennial Assembly meetings.

Finally, for today, there is item 09-02 (overture 34) from Sierra Blanca Presbytery requesting “the 219th General Assembly (2010) to consider that all undesignated funds flowing from the Presbyterian Foundation to the General Assembly Mission Council (GAMC), a Corporation, be allocated directly to individual presbyteries (by percentage of denominational membership) for direct dispersal to particular churches of that presbytery, as each presbytery determines.”  While this overture seeks to implement G-9.0402b (“The administration of mission should be performed by the governing body that can most effectively and efficiently accomplish it at the level of jurisdiction nearest the congregation.”) the rational acknowledges that it will impact the GAMC in unspecified ways.  (Although I am pretty certain someone in leadership on the GAMC has come up with at least some rough figures.)

So where does this take us?  It all depends on how you view and address the challenges.

In the PC(USA) there are two proposals, one from the Office of the General Assembly, the other overture 58 from Synod of the Southwest (with five presbyteries and one synod concurring), that would review the  middle governing bodies of the PC(USA) but neither of these would directly review the structure of the General Assembly and its agencies.

For the PCA the Strategic Plan suggests:

This Strategic Plan seeks to address these realities by helping the PCA identify its challenges, address them with strategies that are consistent with our biblical values, and build denominational support for implementing these strategies. The overall goal is to enable the church to work together to steward its blessings and resources to advance the cause of Christ according to the principles and priorities of his Word.

For the C of S Ministries Council they answer their opening statement that I quoted above with this statement:

Out of crisis, however, can come both vision and opportunity. The remit of the Council is: the enabling of ministries in every part of Scotland and elsewhere where appropriate, giving special priority to the poorest and most marginalized, through recruitment, training and support of recognised ministries of the Church and the assessment and monitoring of patterns of deployment of those ministries.  In fulfilling this, we want to take seriously the scale of work which needs to be done, initially to 2014, then beyond towards a revitalized ministry at the end of this new decade. 2020 Vision does not imply that we can wait until 2020 to sort things out! Far from it, change must begin now and continue as a full and natural part of life for the years ahead.

Now it is up to the Assemblies to each collectively discern God’s will and lead their respective branches in the mission that they decide on.  May the Lord bless them and guide them in this mission.

Update 5/24/10 – Corrected the spelling of Matt Schramm’s name.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — Third And Fourth Candidates For Moderator

Leave a reply

In the last two weeks two additional nominees have been endorsed by their presbyteries to stand for election as Moderator of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  So here are the third and fourth nominees for the post, listed in order of their endorsement, and there is now word of a fifth candidate awaiting endorsement as well.

On Tuesday April 27 the Presbytery of Western North Carolina endorsed the Rev. Maggie Palmer Lauterer to stand for Moderator of the 219th General Assembly.  She is the pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Burnsville, N.C.  In order to endorse her for Moderator it was first necessary to elect her as a substitute commissioner to the assembly to replace a clergy commissioner who relinquished his position to make way for her.

A well-produced flyer in PDF format is available from the presbytery web site introducing the Rev. Lauterer. In that flyer she says:

We are a denomination of many small churches and I believe that a passion for the small church is an imperative for PCUSA [sic] leadership. My recent experience has been in a 113-year-old small church, one that had suffered two splits in the ten years prior to my arrival.

And later adds

I believe that, as members of the PCUSA [sic], we are called to be members of a worldwide Presbyterian community. My experience guides me and, I feel, can guide our denomination as we pursue a deeper understanding of the world’s struggles. I have traveled with Presbyterian groups to many places. I have helped build a school in Recife, Brazil; I have studied church issues as I traveled across Central America to Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Guatemala. I have studied the complex issues of the Middle East, traveling in Jordan, Egypt, Palestine and Israel. In the sensitive era of Perestroika, I traveled to Russia seeking a sister city and commonality — a novel idea in those days — in what was then the Soviet Union.

For the last five years, I have traveled with other members of our church to Guatemala, establishing a strong and growing relationship with our sister church (Nueva Esperanza) in San Felipe, and learning more about the PCUSA’s role in Guatemala.

And she concludes with her third issue

And, lastly, but of no less importance, I do not believe that growth of the Church has as much to do with age and location as it does with our openness to the transformative powers of the Trinity as we are called toward new frontiers – the new front lines of being Christ’s Church, of  “doing Christ’s Church” in the light of the radical love Christ has taught us. As I stand for Moderator, that standard will be my standard.

The information sheet also tells us that she is a second-career pastor, having served her congregation since her ordination in 1999.  She previously worked in journalism and made an unsuccessful run for U.S. Congress.  She has served in several forms at the presbytery level, including as Moderator of presbytery.  She has also served on leadership for different workshops and conferences.  And she and her husband have two adult children and two grandchildren.  Finally, on a personal note, according to the bio she also plays the dulcimer, although it does not specify if it is the Appalachian or hammer variety.  (I play both so either is fine with me.)

For additional information you can check out articles from the Presbyterian News Service, The Layman, The Outlook.  I have not yet found a web or social network presence for her candidacy but will update here if I do.

On May 6 the Presbytery of Northern Waters endorsed the Rev. Eric Nielsen to stand for election as Moderator of the 219th General Assembly.  The Rev. Nielsen is the pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Eau Clair, WI. (Catchy church motto: “The perfect church for people who aren’t.”)

He has established a web presence at www.ericnielsen.org where he, or his team, have created a fairly basic and informative site.  The front page has a nice description of his faith journey and I appreciate the twists and turns his call to ministry took.  In particular, I like this description of how others helped him discern his call:

I was active in my church growing up, but never thought of serving God as a pastor. In college I studied Economics and planned to teach high school. I studied voice for several years, was a part of my university’s opera company, and even earned an audition with the Metropolitan Opera – music has always been a large part of my life. But during those college years God’s call came to me once again in a very unexpected way. One day while working with the choir of First Presbyterian Church in Waterloo, IA, their pastor, Jack Boelens handed me an envelope. Inside was an airline ticket. He said the Session of the church believed I had gifts and a calling for ministry, and so they were sending me to Louisville Seminary to attend an Exploratory Weekend. I didn’t know what to say. It just so happened that I had no classes the Friday of this event, removing any excuse not to go. Not convinced this is what I was supposed to be doing, I acknowledge that I was given a lot to pray about.

His forms of service to the denomination include a variety of presbytery work as well as some work on the synod level including Moderator of the Synod of Lakes and Prairies.  He has served churches in the Midwest as well as earlier work in the Louisville, KY, area.

He has posted his answers to the questions that the Office of the General Assembly asks.  In answering the question about what the Belhar Confession would bring to the denomination he writes:

Each of our confessions is context specific. Belhar could be seen as a natural progression of our 20th century statements. The Theological Declaration of Barmen addressed the challenge of idolatry in the community of faith. The Confession of 1967 narrowed the focus of such idolatry as it spoke to unique issues of the 1960s, of which racism and disunity were significant. Our last confession, The Brief Statement of Faith, sought to move us further toward the under-standing of justice and reconciliation. Belhar could now direct the action of the church –moving us from statements of belief to actions that reflect those beliefs – based upon the teachings of Scripture and our obedience to Jesus Christ.

Regarding “ministry to and with youth and young adults” he says:

In most congregations young adults are the missing generation. While we might be able to provide resources and encouragement as the national church, the fact is that this challenge will only be addressed at the congregational level.  While I want to affirm the importance of family ministry, I believe we need to simultaneously increase efforts toward singles ministry. Only 25% of all U.S. households are now married parents with children. We have many single parent households. Young adults are getting married and having children much later in life, yet often church programs and efforts are focused on the “traditional family.”

And regarding the new revised Form of Government he begins:

I believe that the proposed changes to our current Form of Government (FOG) is much needed and long overdue. Corporations and other institutional entities have been moving and adapting to a changing social context for the last several decades, trying to keep ahead of technologies and changing social realities. The Church, however, has remained entrenched in a 1950s corporate model (a model corporations themselves have long since abandoned). A one-size-fits-all approach no longer works in business; it doesn’t work for the Presbyterian Church either.

And stay tuned for his blog.  The tab is there but so far only a test message and I don’t see the RSS feed.  For more info there are also stories from the Presbyterian News Service and The Layman.

So that rounds out the field to four candidates, one elder and three ministers.  As I said at the beginning, it appears we can expect a another clergy candidate.  In addition, the question and answer book is in preparation so that will give us more background as well as the corresponding Vice-Moderator candidates.  Stay tuned because there is lots more to come.

National Day Of Prayer — And A Tiny Bit Of History From The PC(USA)

Leave a reply

Today is one of those days when civil religion intersects with the church calendar in the National Day of Prayer.  This year the event is embraced in an official way in the PC(USA) by the Mission Yearbook and the Presbyterian Peacemaking Program.  Unofficially we have contributions from Presbyterian Devotions, Presbyterian Bloggers, and a word of caution in a commentary from the Aquila Report. Over on beliefnet Mark D. Roberts talks about it being viewed with different opinions. But there is a commentary on Religious Dispatches by Elizabeth Drescher that gave me a good chuckle.  The piece is titled “Forget Right of Wrong: Why the National Day of Prayer is Obsolete” and as you might be able to guess her point is that with the trend in demographics with segments of the population of the United States shifting from “religious” to “spiritual” the National Day of Prayer no longer is relevant.  She sums it up with this:

In this world, a government-sponsored National Day of Prayer may not be
appropriate or Constitutional, but it fails most because, as a civic and
as a spiritual event, it’s about as culturally relevant to the
developing mainstream of American believers and non-believers alike as a
National Day of Butter Churning.

Maybe she is right as this is viewed from the civic perspective, which it must be in part because of the government endorsement and participation.  But while cultural relevance may be a civic consideration it does not make sense as a spiritual one in this case — I could see it being argued that the event is even more important from a religious/spiritual perspective because it is not culturally relevant. And from a religious perspective the organizers would argue that she has the cause and effect reversed – it is not that we are religious there for we pray, it is that we are called to prayer to make the country more religious.  But I digress…

What caught my attention, and which I can speak authoritatively to, is her opening line:

The Constitutional
issues around a National Day of Prayer endorsed by the federal
government are significant, and the political stakes are high (or hyped,
depending on your perspective), but the controversy also reflects the
continuing failure of mainline religions to grasp a dramatic cultural
change in what constitutes religious or spiritual “practice.” (emphasis mine)

Now maybe what she means here by “mainline religions” is better expressed as “traditional western religions” or maybe even “evangelical Christians.”  I have trouble making it mean “mainline churches.”

In my experience, and the examples I cite at the beginning not withstanding, the mainline denominations have not been the driving force behind the National Day of Prayer.  I can’t speak for other denominations, but at least in 1997 it was not listed on the Presbyterian Planning Calendar of the PC(USA).  (And I can not tell you if at any point before that it was listed.)

In 1997 as an Elder Commissioner to the 209th General Assembly I was on the Theological Institutions and Issues Committee.  One of our “routine” tasks was the approval of the church calendar for 1998 and the tentative calendar for 1999.  In my usual way I started asking question about the calendar and why certain things were on there and some were not.  (It turns out that it really helps to have program materials ready to promote your “special Sunday” if you want to get it added to the calendar.)  Anyway, the commissioner a couple of seats down from me asked about the National Day of Prayer and then made the motion to include it in the calendar.  The committee approved the addition as did the full Assembly as part of our Consent Agenda.  Don’t believe me?  Here is  the applicable section of the minutes (p. 73) of our Consent Agenda report:

A.

31.0151


That the recommendation is approved with amendment:



Amend the “Special Days and Seasons 1998 Lectionary Year C”
calendar, in the “MAY 1998” section to read as follows: [Text to be
deleted is shown with a strike-through; text to be added or inserted is
shown as italic.]

“MAY 1998 


3
Fourth Sunday of Easter

7
National Day of Prayer

10
Fifth Sunday of Easter

17
Sixth Sunday of Easter

21
Ascension of the Lord*

24
Seventh Sunday of Easter

31
Day of Pentecost*+”

 So, the National Day of Prayer is now included in the PC(USA) calendar not because it came from the standing committee of the General Assembly on worship, but because some commissioners started asking questions of their report and the committee amended it.

PC(USA) Ecumenical Statment Not Approved By the USCCB

3 Replies

Continuing with the theme of the previous post on Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and Roman Catholic connections, I discovered recently that one of the Ecumenical Statements approved by the 218th General Assembly and having the concurrence of a large number of the presbyteries, did not receive the approval of one of the ecumenical partners, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops ( USCCB ).

Now this is not recent news, but in reviewing the report of the General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical Relations (GACER) to the 219th General Assembly as I was researching another issue, I found that just about a year ago the USCCB declined to approve the “Mutual Recognition of Baptism with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops” that came out of the Catholic-Reformed Bilateral Dialogue.  On the PC(USA) side this document was overwhelmingly approved by both the GA (voice vote) and the presbyteries (169-2).  On the USCCB side, they announced in May 2009 that it was not acceptable as it stood.  No specifics were given in any of the information I could find but the web site of the Ecumenical and Interfaith News Network – PCUSA [sic] says:

In May 2009 the chair of the Catholic bishops’ committee on ecumenical
and interreligious affairs reported that the
bishops had examined a Common
Agreement on Mutual Recognition of Baptism growing out of the
Catholic-Reformed dialogue and had “voted not to approve it in the form
in which it had been adopted.”…  In order for the document to have become
acceptable to the bishops, changes would have been necessary that were
not acceptable to the Reformed dialogue partners.

The Reformed partners issued a Statement in Response to the refusal.  Having failed to be mutually agreed upon this statement gets no second chance and it is “archived,” as the terminology goes, as a historical note in this dialogue.

What I find interesting is that for most of the PC(USA), dare I speculate 99% or more, this document is voted upon and then shelved since, as the FAQ indicates , it has no substantive effect on our practice, only on how we understand the practice.  Reinforcing this non-concern for the ecumenical statement is how “under the radar” the non-approval was.  Yes, it was there if you were looking for it on the EIF-PC(USA) web site, or until recently on the GACER page, but both using search engines as well as checking over the press release pages for the PC(USA) and the USCCB from that time period I found nothing that “average” Presbyterians or Catholics would see in the normal course of events.  (It might be hiding behind some cleaver headline that did not catch my attention.) I think this is relevant because the report has a section on “Pastoral Recommendations: Tangible Expressions of Mutual Recognition of Baptism.”  Without the “mutual recognition” part do any of these “tangible expressions” change?  In reading through the recommendations they appear pretty generic so I’m not sure anything changes there, but it would be nice to know.

Anyway, the Ecumenical Dialogue is off to bigger and better things… The Eucharist.  If there are still differences on Baptism I’m not sure what the next round will produce, but that is for a future GA.

You Never Know Where A Story Will Take You — Finding The Presbyterian Connections

Leave a reply

you find the PC(USA) in the most interesting places…

So, during my morning coffee break I am skimming through one of my regular blog reads, Clerical Whispers , an Irish Roman Catholic blog at heart but one that does a good job of also covering Irish and Scottish Presbyterian news as well as Anglican developments.  And as I’m scanning through I find an article with not one, but two links to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

The story is about a group derived from the Roman church that is ordaining women as priests in the RC tradition.  Of course, as the article notes this is not the teaching of the wider church:

Noting that church law and teachings prohibit the ordination of women, Sister Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that ordinations of women are invalid.

“You don’t wake up and say, ‘I’m going to be a priest today,'” Walsh said.

This is not news to the group who clearly post on their web site

Yes, we have challenged and broken the Church’s Canon Law 1024, an unjust law that discriminates against women. Despite what some bishop may lead the faithful to believe, our ordinations are valid because we are ordained in the line of unbroken apostolic succession within the Roman Catholic Church.

OK, I’ll leave that for them to sort out.  We Presbyterians have enough questions of our own.

Anyway, over the weekend the group ordained (or is that “ordained”?) two women as priests and three more as deacons at Spiritus Christi Church in Rochester, New York, a church that “was established in 1999 in a split with the Rochester Diocese ” according to the article.  One each of the priests and the deacons are from Rochester with the other priest from New Hampshire and the other deacons from Pennsylvania and Maryland.

PC(USA) Connection #1:  In listing the work of the Rochester woman ordained as a priest it includes her work as a Peacemaker for the Presbytery of Genesee Valley.

PC(USA) Connection #2: It is also interesting to note that the church that hosted the ordination service, Spiritus Christi, is a church that now shares facilities with the Downtown United Presbyterian Church in Rochester.

So we Presbyterians are finding connections into all sorts of doctrinal debates and places the boundaries in other denominations are being stretched.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — Recommendations Of The Committee On Ecumenical Relations Regarding The Evangelical Presbyterian Church

3 Replies

The report from the General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical Relations with their Recommendations Regarding the Evangelical Presbyterian Church has been released and it is “interesting” reading in a number of senses of the word.  This report to the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) resulted from a referral from the 218th GA .  The opening paragraph of the report probably does as good a job as I could summarizing how we got here:

This report comes in response to an overture from the Presbytery of Peace River to the 218th General Assembly (2008) of the PC(USA) that would have asked the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC) to investigate the role of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) in persuading PC(USA) congregations to disaffiliate from the PC(USA) and be dismissed to the EPC. The assembly referred the overture to the General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical Relations, which appointed a task group to make recommendations.

So it is looking at the “role” of the EPC.  Going back to the original overture it asks of the Assembly:

The Presbytery of Peace River respectfully overtures the 218th General Assembly (2008) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to request the Executive Office of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches to investigate the actions and conduct of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, as described below, and to take appropriate action.

The described “actions and conduct” are:

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church is actively pursuing a strategy to persuade Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) churches to disaffiliate with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and be dismissed to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church has created a transitional presbytery to facilitate the process.

So this began not with the “role” of the EPC but with two specific complaints – “a strategy to persuade” and creating “a transitional presbytery.” The report addresses this in the Findings section at paragraph VI.4.l:

l.    There was no evidence that the EPC took the initiative in entering PC(USA) congregations to speak against the PC(USA), for the EPC, or about affiliation with the EPC. However, there was ample evidence that when invited by a session or pastor, EPC representatives went in without consultation with the appropriate judicatory within the PC(USA) and spoke freely.

OK, there is the answer that the presbytery asked for in the overture – The Evangelical Presbyterian Church did not initiate but did not discourage.  So now that we have the answer we can now turn off the lights, lock the door, and go home, right?  “By no means” — we are Presbyterians so there are 15 pages of report to document this and present recommendations to try to patch up relations with the EPC, acknowledge the pain of separation within the PC(USA), and try to find ways to do better in the future.

OK, having gotten my snarky comments about “mission creep” out of the way, let me begin again by saying that I found a lot to like in this report.  It is precise and accurate about many historical and polity points, a feature I appreciate.  That said there are some aspects that bother me but these are mostly in what was left unsaid.

It is worthwhile to begin the detailed analysis with the remainder of the Preface which makes a very important distinction in this:

The task group met with presbyteries in which congregations had departed the PC(USA), with pastors and members of congregations who had departed or were considering departing the PC(USA) including those affiliated with the New Wineskins Association of Churches, and with leadership of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. In listening to people’s stories and in reviewing documents, the task group sought to distinguish between actions of Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and actions of the New Wineskins Association (which consists of PC(USA) pastors and members, as well as former PC(USA) pastors and members who are now affiliated with the EPC).

The distinction is important in that the actions of the New Wineskins members can be considered matters internal to the PC(USA), at least at their root. Actions of the EPC, on the other hand, are matters between churches—churches that are both members of WARC. It is this latter category that is the focus of the original overture. The report that follows presents the findings of the task group regarding activities that are internal and external to the PC(USA), and presents recommendations on how the PC(USA) should move forward in its relations with the EPC.

I very much appreciate the tone throughout this report that this is a very complicated issue and that the EPC as a denomination must be viewed as an independent player despite the fact that it has the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery.  It is also important to remember, and this is one of the points that I think is passed over too lightly in the report, that the New Wineskins Association of Churches is a broad organization with members, individual and congregational, that have a wide range of opinions about departure from the PC(USA).  Any categorization of the NWAC should be done carefully.  The disaffiliation portion of the strategy report must not be viewed as the guidelines for all the members.

Maybe the historical point I most appreciate is the honest appraisal of the origin of our two denominations (V.1):

The histories of the EPC (with its organizing General Assembly in 1981) and the PC(USA) (with its organizing General Assembly in 1983) are deeply woven together, particularly since a large number of the congregations and ministers making up the EPC in its formative years had previously been a part of the PC(USA) or its predecessor bodies. Both the EPC and the PC(USA) lay claim to deep roots within the Presbyterian and Reformed traditions of the larger Christian family tree.

Yes, the EPC and the PC(USA) share the same root stock in American Presbyterianism, we are not some distant cousins but very close siblings.  And yes, the EPC predates the PC(USA).  And the report shares the vision of the EPC from its founding – “From those beginnings, however, the EPC was determined to grow by planting new congregations.” (V.3)

This section goes on to discuss the “trust clause” and I must compliment the Task Group on their historical footnote on the legal basis for it.  (And some of the members of the special committee I was on thought one of mine was long )  The report says of the differing perspective of the two denominations (V.3):

The EPC had developed a denominational understanding of property that is substantively different from the understanding in the PC(USA). The EPC and its leadership see no reason for holding onto congregations, ministers, or real property if those assets will help those persons to be more effective in their mission. In this area, the EPC’s ecclesiology differs significantly from the PC(USA)’s.

And later (VI.5.b) the report says this about the disagreements over the trust clause:

b.  During the task group’s visits, the issue that garnered the most theological—and legal—disagreement was that of the PC(USA)’s property trust provision in Chapter 8 of the Book of Order. What was debated among the NWI/NWAC’s national leadership played out “on the ground” in local congregations regarding property. Those desiring to leave saw this as a violation of their conscience, and their understanding of the nature of the church. The PC(USA) loyalists defended the ownership of property under the trust provision as biblical and held in Presbyterianism long before the explicit Book of Order clause. The different ecclesial understandings of the two denominations led to disagreement not only around ordination standards, property, and theology, but also around the meaning of congregational independence and connectionalism/congregationalism.

As I read this report I kept thinking that the task group, and often the denomination as a whole, seems to miss the tension inherent in the trust clause and only concentrates on the ultimate communal ownership of the property.  Yes, we have the trust clause (G-8.0200)

All property held by or for a particular church, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)… is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

But the question that I don’t hear asked as loudly, here or anywhere, is why do we have the concept of the trust clause to begin with?  While the language of the trust clause itself was inserted to make the concept explicit following a U.S. Supreme Court Decision (see that historical note ) the report and a PC(USA) OGA Advisory Opinion (#19) are correct in pointing out that it intrinsically flows from our view of the church as a connectional system.  We belong to each other not because we chose to belong but because Christ calls us together.

But this is then viewed in the light of why Christ calls us together and in Chapter 3 of the Book of Order titled “The Church and Its Mission” it says (G-3.0400) “The Church is called to undertake this mission even at the risk of losing its life, trusting in God alone as the author and giver of life, sharing the gospel, and doing those deeds in the world that point beyond themselves to the new reality in Christ.”  And regarding the list of responsibilities of the presbytery all relate back to the opening statement that (G-11.0103) “The presbytery is responsible for the mission and government of the church throughout its geographical district.”  The tension of holding property is to be good stewards so it does the most good for building the Kingdom and furthering the mission given us by Jesus Christ.  I’m not sure we are as good as we could be about “a time to keep and a time to let go.”  In light of the ultimate call to forward the Kingdom, and acknowledging the theology behind the trust clause, I see no reason that the line from the report could not be rewritten to say “The PC(USA) and its leadership see no reason for holding onto congregations, ministers, or real property if those assets will help those persons to be more effective in their mission.”  In both branches the property is for the purpose of mission, the branches differ as to which governing body has responsibility for discerning the best use of the property in furthering mission.

Following from that the most meaningful part of this report, to me, is the section of the findings that demonstrate how our “keeping” and “letting go” need some work.  Here are excerpts from the report:

j.    In several cases, both New Wineskins representatives now in the EPC as well as PC(USA) representatives said that when presbytery processes were followed, the outcomes were better than if a congregation entered into litigation against the PC(USA) presbytery. In every instance where the civil courts were involved, representatives of both New Wineskins and loyalist PC(USA) leaders said it became extremely painful. (VI.2.j)

b.   The size of the congregation was often a driving factor in the approach to discussions and the process for departure. Smaller congregations with fewer human and real property assets were often more easily resolved. In other cases, especially when the congregation was larger, the presbyteries recognized the need to be immediately engaged, and the situation often led to civil litigation, resulting in very large costs—emotionally and financially—for all involved. (VI.4.b)

c.   In general, those congregations that followed an ecclesiastical process… fared better. Although it depends upon the state, courts generally have sided with the PC(USA)’s understanding of Chapter 8… In some cases, departing congregations relying on a legal strategy alone or in concert with an ecclesiastical one, lost additional money or property, and would have been much better off without civil action. Situations that involved a higher degree of trust and communication usually resulted in a negotiated settlement with which all parties could live and still feel respect for one another. Some of these situations even seemed to result in what was perceived by many as a “grace-filled” process. (VI.4.c, emphasis mine)

Friends, the single most important thing I took away from this report was those two final lines.  We need to remember the “trust clause” is ultimately there for advancing mission and nothing else.

Having said that I want to highlight one more plus and one more negative I see in this report and then get on with the recommendations to the 219th GA.

First, looking beyond the trust clause and discussing Presbyterian connectionalism in general, the report does a good job of developing the concept that congregations must be dismissed to another body.  There is no such thing as an independent Presbyterian church within the Presbyterian understanding of the church.  For those not familiar with the issue at hand, the EPC New Wineskins Presbytery is a transitional presbytery and is simply a place that a congregation can momentarily stop on their journey.  While there may be an intent to join a geographic presbytery there is also the possibility of being released as an independent congregation.  Unless the relationship is fixed and not transitional the PC(USA) understanding of the relationship finds it wanting.  (Now I want to go back and look at how churches transferring into PC(USA) non-geographic presbyteries were handled since those were also intended to be transitional presbyteries with limited life times.)

Second – On the one hand I found the report refreshing in the acknowledgement of the existence and role of what have come to be called the “Louisville Papers.”  These are documents put together by the Stated Clerk’s office to help guide presbyteries in the legal work of property disputes.  It is important to remember that they are legal memos and read as such.  They are strongly worded and have the touch of a lawyer out to win his/her case.  I talked about all this back in August 2006 when they were made public by the Layman.

The report also makes a big deal of a document that in some ways serves a similar role produced by the New Wineskins Association of Churches, New Wineskins Initiative: A Time for Every Purpose Under Heaven.  It is a publicly released document that talks about the future of the NWAC and in part acts as a guide for NWAC churches for the disaffiliation process.  Section VI.5 of this task group report says “The task group’s findings in local situations regarding a desire for ‘theological clarity’ mirrored the language of the New Wineskins Initiative’s national spokespersons.”  The report also constantly refers to the various disaffiliation options mentioned in the strategy paper.  What I did not see in the report was the view from the other side — when viewed from the perspective of a church trying to depart the PC(USA) the legal action taken by a particular presbytery followed the advice in the “Louisville Papers.”  Now I agree that the legal documents covered the full range of responses so basically anything the presbytery did could be seen as following that guide, but what the report does not say is that each side saw the other as having their own strategy piece.

Most of the Findings in the report were gathered from visits to presbyteries where members of the task group spoke to the presbytery leaders as well as leaders and members of churches, including disaffiliated churches, in that area.  It is worth noting that the group visited nine presbyteries out of around 40 that one list shows having churches that disaffiliated or considered doing do.

There is a lot more in the report but having covered the major points I got out of it let me turn to the recommendations.

1.   Affirm that

a.   the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is in correspondence with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, by virtue of our common membership in the World Alliance of Reformed Churches;

b.   our common membership in the World Alliance of Reformed Churches is a visible sign of our oneness in Jesus Christ; and

c.   as members of the body of Christ, we are all called to treat one another as followers of Jesus Christ.

2.   Request the World Alliance of Reformed Churches to create guidelines offering basic protocols for interactions and behaviors between its member denominations.

3.   Call the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to

a.   confess to the rich tradition of freedom of conscience that we claim as Reformed, Presbyterian Christians, and

b.   recognize that this same tradition causes us to be prone to separation, demonization of those with whom we disagree, and a captivity to insistence on our own rightness.

4.   Invite the Evangelical Presbyterian Church to enter into such a season of confession with us.

5.   Acknowledge the unique complexity of the relationship between the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, given the fact that the ecclesial roots of many churches, members, and ministers now in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church lie in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and its antecedent denominations.

6.   Invite the General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church to engage in bilateral dialogue concerning various dimensions of the relationships between the two denominations and its member churches, members, and ministers; and that a report from this dialogue be made to the 222nd General Assembly (2016), with an interim report made to the 221st General Assembly (2014).

7.   Direct the Office of the General Assembly to develop resources to support presbyteries with congregations and/or ministers engaged in a process of discernment or undergoing the process of dismissal, in light of denominational learnings in the recent past.

8.   Acknowledge the deep pain caused by the experiences of congregations departing or going through schism and of ministers departing, and call upon synods to consider developing care teams to listen to people’s stories, thereby enabling healing, with presbyteries also urged to extend extra care during such vulnerable times of congregational and presbytery life.

9.   Encourage presbyteries, congregations, and individual families who experience the pain of separation to recognize that there is more than one way to understand the same event and to pray for one another through our shared faith in Jesus Christ.

I will not analyze these recommendations on a point-by-point basis but take an overview of them generally.  It is important to note that they all reflect a sense of restorative and not punitive church discipline.

Having said that, I have to admit that after reading the report I am very surprised at the nature of the recommendations.  The first six recommendations, some with sub-points, of the nine total (two-thirds of them) in one way or another touch on the PC(USA)’s relationship with the EPC.  While the report discusses the NWAC very heavily there is only a light treatment of the EPC role in the text as a whole and the findings in particular.  The process says there was a meeting with four representative of the EPC but I did not see any discussion of how that meeting went, specifics of the discussion, or any formal or informal agreements mentioned in the text and therefore don’t see from where these recommendations derive.  After having had bi-lateral contact why do the recommendations have such a unilateral nature to them?  While I don’t expect a specific agreement with the EPC in the recommendations, I was searching the text for some indication of how these invitations would be received.  Yes, at present the PC(USA) GA action would be an invitation from us, but the body of the report characterizes the current situation only from the perspective of the one side.  Can it give us an indication of how the EPC would take the invitation “to enter into such a season of confession with us”?

So I don’t see the same proportionality of rational in the text as I see in the recommendations and from the information in the body of the report I have having trouble “connecting the dots” to arrive at what is asked in the recommendations.

I really like recommendation #2 that would have WARC create the “guidelines offering basic protocols for interactions and behaviors between its member denominations.”  As the history of this situation shows the PC(USA) and the EPC have been operating with different expectations and procedures for the exchange process and to somehow come to a standard understanding would be helpful for all involved and may help relieve pain and confusion that result when different bodies have different expectations.  The report says (VI.3.a)  “In various conversations with PC(USA) presbytery representatives, their expectation that normal, standard ecumenical courtesy would be extended by local or national EPC judicatory leaders was repeatedly frustrated.”  Is “normal, standard ecumenical courtesy” something that is codified somewhere (Miss. Manners for the Ecclesiastical?) or an unwritten set of expectations that can vary from denomination to denomination even in the Reformed stream?  It appears to be the latter if WARC is being asked to develop these.

Similarly, I appreciate #7 which would have the church develop resources that are pastoral rather than legal.

Finally, I think the task group did a good job with recommendations 8 and 9 that acknowledge the pain involved in these events and encourage everyone to recognize that “there is more than one way to understand the same event” and to deal with this in a pastoral manner.

UPDATE: The EPC has now issued a press release saying it is “grateful” that the task group find the accusation unsubstantiated.  It with holds additional comments until after the GA acts on the report.

So this report took 15 pages to not only answer the original question but to look at the whole mess, and yes it did get messy, and to provide us with a perspective and lessons from what has happened and recommendations to help heal the pain and move on with being the Church.  With that in mind let me return to, and close with, one of those quotes that made the report for me.  Remember, the 218th GA also called us to a “Gracious Separation” and it is not just what we do but how we do it that is a witness to the world.  This report has much to support that Gracious Separation —  And the world is watching .  From section VI.4.d:

In those situations where matters went to civil court… the time, energy, and money expended on both sides was enormous. Some New Wineskins leaders who sought membership in the EPC expressed that if they had it to do again, they would likely follow an ecclesiastical process with the presbytery. Likewise, the presbyteries that had to respond to civil action, or that chose to initiate it, regretted the court costs and intervention into the life and work of the presbytery. Court proceedings were universally perceived as draining of the financial and other resources of the presbytery. Also, what trust might have been present prior to legal proceedings was often ruptured once those proceedings began.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — Brief Updates For Late April

2 Replies

Just a few news headlines that have come up recently regarding the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  No analysis now but maybe later:

  • The leadership for the 19 committees has been named .  I have gone through the list and recognize a few of the names and think I see some interesting trends.  If I get around to doing the analysis statistically then I’ll report on what I find.

  • Speaking of committees the 19 committees are posted on PC-Biz and business is being assigned to each of them.  In what I consider a good move there are two “Social Justice Issues” committees, one for “Promotion of Social Righteousness” and one for “the Exhibition of the Kingdom of Heaven to the World.”  In the past the Social Justice committee always had a heavy and controversial work load.  Good move to split it up.  However, these committees are not to be confused with the separate committees on Peacemaking Issues and the Middle East.  In addition there are a bunch more on all the usual suspects including Church Orders, Marriage, Form of Government Revision, Church Polity.  I think you can tell a lot about a Presbyterian branch by the committees it keeps.

  • Business keeps getting added to PC-Biz.  We are at 108 Overtures and 77 recommendations.

  • Twitter is starting to come alive.  Moderator of the 218th GA, the Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, has put together a list of twerps twitter users who will be tweeting from the 219th GA.  It appears that the hashtag will be #ga219.  (Note that the hashtag #ga2010 will be used at least for the Church of  Scotland GA next month and maybe others.)  The official tweeps include Bruce (@breyeschow ), Randy Hobson (@randyhobson ), Thomas Hay the Director of Operations (@DirofOp ), and twitter handles for @PresbyGA and @ga219tracker. And there is a great article by Robert Austell on “What is Twitter and what could it mean at the Presbyterian General Assembly .”

  • Speaking of Twitter, there is a report I have found only there via @DirofOp that there is a third candidate for Moderator.  I will write more once I have been able to confirm this. (Looking at the timing I suspect that the individual has session but not presbytery endorsement.)  UPDATE: As I was writing this the Layman published an article about the Rev.
    Maggie Lauterer     from the Presbytery of Western North Carolina who will become the third moderator candidate if elected as a substitute commissioner and endorsed for moderator at their meeting on Tuesday April 27. Anticipating the fourth candidate will be endorsed the following week by Northern Waters I will comment on both following the second endorsement.

  • Finally, at the present time I am pretty sure that I will not be attending GA in person this year, only in the virtual world.  I have been given the opportunity to teach Summer Session and have accepted that offer because if there is anything I like more than a General Assembly it is Earthquakes.  I still plan on posting as much as possible here on the blog and will be commenting on Twitter as well @ga_junkie .

More shortly…

EPC Report Of The Interim Committee On Women Teaching Elders

2 Replies

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church has released the Report of the Interim Committee on Women Teaching Elders1 and it is a document that polity wonks will want to have a look at.  It lays out a rational for the EPC to structure itself in light of its motto “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things charity”2 to accommodate the ordination of women in some congregations and presbyteries. Now you may not agree with the committee’s analysis and recommendations, and in fact the report acknowledges that some people won’t when it says:

The interim committee does not advocate running from this potential conflict but heading into it with humility and a conviction that we will honor God by treating one another respectfully. The unique ethos of the EPC on women’s ordination intrinsically implies that not all Presbyterians will be comfortable with our ecclesiastical arrangement.

The report begins with a review of the situation in the EPC.  The first line says “A guiding principle of the EPC from its beginning has been our declared intent to allow liberty on the women’s ordination question.”  The second paragraph sets out the polity basis for this stance:

At the beginning, we must acknowledge the fundamental principles that inform the EPC’s liberty on women’s ordination. The Biblical Principle: The Holy Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice. This authoritative Word is true in all that it teaches. The Ecclesiastical Principle: Women’s ordination is a non-essential issue about which faithful believers may have honest differences of biblical interpretation and practice. One’s view of women’s ordination is not an essential element to the catholic faith, Evangelical Protestantism, or the Reformed Tradition. The EPC has always affirmed that women’s ordination is a matter of biblical interpretation, not biblical authority.

So the committee sets forth at least two important Presbyterian principles here — The primacy of Holy Scripture and the freedom of conscience in the matters of non-essentials.  (Whether this issue falls into the category of essential or non-essential we will return to later.)

Another Presbyterian principle the committee bases their recommendations on is the right and responsibility for electing officers:

“The particular church has the right to elect its own officers” (§BOG 7-2). This right is guaranteed in perpetuity to all churches in the EPC. Similarly, the authority of presbyteries to determine their membership is granted in the constitution.

So given these principles as the doctrinal basis the committee makes three recommendations:
 
1) Reaffirmation of the EPC Position on Women’s Ordination
The committee recommends making the denomination’s stance as set forth in the Position Paper explicit in the constitution :

Recommendation: That BOG §2-2 be amended by adding an excerpt from the EPC Position Paper on the Ordination of Women to the existing statement. The amended BOG §2-2 would read:

The Officers of the Church as set forth in Scripture are: Teaching Elders (designated by many titles in Scripture, including Ministers and Pastors), Ruling Elders, and Deacons. The Evangelical Presbyterian Church does not believe that the issue of the ordination of women is an essential of the faith. 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.

The rational argues that while the Position Paper has functioned as justification of BOG §7-2 “it would be appropriate to insert these succinct excerpts from the Position Paper into the constitution.”  They also point out that there is precedent for doing something like this from when the document Essentials of Our Faith was incorporated into the constitution.

2) Transfer of Congregations to Adjacent Presbyteries for Reasons Regarding Women as Teaching Elders

The interim committee recognizes the tension inherent in our polity regarding the ordination/election of women as Teaching Elders. Basic polity rights can actually compete with one another in presbyteries on this issue. The right of the congregation to elect its officers and the authority of the presbytery to examine persons for a position as Teaching Elder can create conflict. A congregation may elect a woman as a Teaching Elder while a presbytery may decline that call due to the majority interpretation of Scripture on this issue. This creates an obvious tension that we would like to resolve.

The committee goes on to recognize the situation of a congregation transferring into the EPC through the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery with a female TE in place.  So how does the denomination provide this liberty within the structure of the geographic presbyteries?  The committee writes “We desire to provide freedom for these congregations without compromising the constitutional authority exercised by presbyteries.”

In this section the committee provides only general guidance for changing the BOG not specific wording like Recommendation 1.  For this recommendation part A suggests “In specific cases, for reasons related to the prohibition of the ordination or reception of women as Teaching Elders, a church may petition a geographically adjacent presbytery for membership.”  This would require all the usual approvals that we Presbyterians are familiar with for transferring presbyteries — request by the session with explicit reasons regarding this ordination issue, approval by the receiving presbytery and approval by the dismissing presbytery, both by majority vote.  And the wording of the recommendation is clear that congregations with positions on either side of the issue could request to transfer.

The second part of this recommendation addresses churches entering the denomination through either transitional presbyteries or directly.  The proposal is that the BOG would provide for the church to first consult with the geographic presbytery they would be within and “If, after such consultation, the presbytery discerns the need for relief for the entering congregation on this issue, then it will contact the adjacent geographic presbytery and recommend admission of the church”

3) Immediate Relief for a Presbytery in Conflict
Finally, this committee arose from a specific overture at the last General Assembly by Mid-America Presbytery to permit the Presbytery to act as two parallel presbyteries in the same geographic area.  The committee recommends dividing the Presbytery into two geographic presbyteries roughly along the Mississippi River with the expectation that one would permit ordaining/electing women Teaching Elders.

Discussion:
If you are tracking the debates in the PC(USA) and the PCA over ordination standards you have probably already read this document with one or the other or both of those branches in mind.  Here are my thoughts…

The issue of presbytery membership is the easier one to discuss and for the EPC with their tradition of “local option” the recommended relief seems to make a lot of sense.  I have not analyzed the pattern of presbyteries to see how far a church would have to “reach” to find a compatible presbytery, but one could envision the membership patterns becoming a checker board with fuzzy boundaries between the “yes” and “no” presbyteries.  If this recommendation is adopted it will be interesting to see how much this becomes a point of consideration in the future in forming new presbyteries like it is part of the thinking in Recommendation 3.  In other words, will there be consideration of whether a “permissive” or “restrictive” presbytery is needed in a particular geographic area.

It is interesting to compare this with the proposals coming to the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) that call for flexible presbytery membership and an alternate synod structure.  It strikes me that this EPC proposal tries to preserve the geographic nature of presbyteries to the maximum extent possible, something not a prominent in the PC(USA) proposals.

The other issue in this proposal is what is essential, or how ordination standards are “Biblical Principles” and not subject to “honest differences of biblical interpretation.”  The Presbyterian Church in America is clear that the ordained offices of elder and deacon are open only to men based upon the witness of Scripture.  The discussion that is ongoing in that branch is about interpretations and practices that are nibbling around the edges of that doctrine regarding the participation of women as commissioned helpers of deacons.

The situation in the PC(USA) is the opposite and they have inherited a stance from the former United Presbyterian Church that the ordination of women is an essential.  Knowing that this post was in the works, at the very end of my last post I made a cryptic, and probably snarky, comment that referred back to the 1975 General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission decision in the case of Maxwell v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh, now universally known as the Kenyon Decision.  In that case Mr. Walter Wynn Kenyon was denied ordination as a Teaching Elder because he disagreed with the ordination of women.  He was clear about his declared exception and the fact that he would not participate in the ordination of a woman, but he also said he would not hinder someone else doing it.  Pittsburgh Presbytery approved his exception and cleared him for ordination but the Presbytery decision was challenged.   In the end the GAPJC decided:

The United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and guided by its confessions, has now developed its understanding of the equality of all people (both male and female) before God. It has expressed this understanding in the Book of Order with such clarity as to make the candidate’s stated position a rejection of its government and discipline.

In the PC(USA) accepting the ordination of women is an essential according to the GAPJC decision.

So what if you read this report and try to imagine it as applying to the PC(USA) and its current controversy which has been cast to be about biblical interpretation of non-essentials and the presbytery’s authority to decide who can be ordained? An ordination standard currently in the Book of Order (G-6.0106b), seen as a “clear mandate” by some , is included in a General Assembly Authoritative Interpretation as something that can be declared by a presbytery as a non-essential.  The overlap and parallel nature of these discussions is striking.

But this discussion in the PC(USA) is not an independent one because it has the shadow of the Kenyon decision cast across it — how is a 1975 decision about what the Book of Order says is essential applicable to the denomination today?  I am not the first to consider this juxtaposition and the Kenyon decision has been cited as one of the reasons for churches leaving the PC(USA) for the PCA and EPC in the 70’s and 80’s over the disagreement of not just the essential itself but over the GA, and not the presbytery, being able to specify that as essential.

On the other hand this new report points to the principle advocated by the recent PC(USA) AI that presbyteries have the right and responsibility for deciding on the suitability of candidates for ordination or election.  Essentially all leadership decisions are to be done under “local option.”  (And again it is noted by some that the Kenyon decision and G-6.0106b properly or improperly raised certain ordination standards to the level of denomination-wide essentials.)

So as I said at the beginning this report crafts a resolution suitable for the “ethos of the EPC,” but a resolution that will not have the concurrence of all Presbyterian polity wonks.  I believe that the committee has done a good job of crafting a solution that fits the circumstances and polity of the EPC.  How the overtures in the PCA and PC(USA) that includes facets of the EPC report recommendations will fare will be interesting to see.  At the present time the EPC model does not fit the polity of these other branches which have some significant internal challenges.  Going forward it will be interesting to see how essentials and non-essentials and unity and liberty are balanced in each of these.  And of course, “In All Things, Charity.”

Footnotes
[1] This link is to a PDF format version I created for easier download. The original is a Word document file available from the EPC web site .
[2] An interesting discussion on the origin of this phrase can be found at http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/augustine/quote.html

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — The Power Of Interpretation

2 Replies

It is beginning to look like G-13.0103r is going to be a big deal at the PC(USA) GA this year…

This short item in the Book of Order currently says that the General Assembly has the responsibility and power:

to provide authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order which shall be binding on the governing bodies of the church when rendered  in accord with G-13.0112 or through a decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission in a remedial or disciplinary case.  The most recent interpretation of a provision of the Book of Order shall be binding;

Now, I am about to launch into a very polity wonkish review of this section and the role and nature of the Permanent Judicial Commission.  If you are just looking for the bottom line you can skip on down to the discussion of the individual overtures.

Probably the place to begin is considering the judicial process and judicial implications in Presbyterian government.  I am not a specialist on the history of judicial process but a bit of what I have found out is helpful to pass on here.

First, it should be kept in mind that most Presbyterian branches do not have Standing or Permanent Judicial Commissions.  As we saw last spring the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was presented a complaint and protest from members of a presbytery.  To consider the appeal in a timely manner the Commission of Assembly, not a judicial commission, reviewed it and while they had the power to hear the case and render a decision they decided by a close vote to have the appeal heard by the next General Assembly.  That full Assembly then took an evening and sat as the appellate court for the Kirk.  Likewise, the General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church has a time on their docket when they sit as the highest judicial court in their church.  This is the norm for Presbyterian branches.  Back in 2001 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Australia (the other PCA) changed their procedures to not have a judicial commission and now the full Assembly hears the appeals, dissents and complaints. (Thanks to The Rev. Dr. Paul Logan, Clerk of Assembly, for helping me straighten that history out.)

How the Judicial Commission developed in American Presbyterianism I would be very interested in knowing more about.  I give you a few parts to the story that I am aware of which will be useful as we consider the current news.  First, we know from Charles Hodge’s Constitutional History of the United States of America Volume II that while the highest governing body was the Synod, up to 1786, that body heard the judicial cases from the presbyteries.  However, in 1869, shortly after the north/south split in 1861, the constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. described synod and the General Assembly being able to refer judicial cases to a commission whose purpose it was to hear the case.  The suggestion of the wording is that these were not permanent or standing but I don’t know what happened in practice.  (As an interesting note, the 1867 wording said that “the cases of ministers on trial for error or heresy” could not be referred to a commission meaning that they had to be tried by the full Assembly.)

I am not aware of a resource to research on-line the constitutional history of the United Presbyterian Church USA/NA so I’ll have to go to the oldest resource I have close at hand and that is the 1970 Book of Order of the UPCUSA.  That Book makes clear reference to a Permanent Judicial Commission but the PJC could only render preliminary decisions and the decision did not become permanent until affirmed by a vote at the next Assembly.  It is interesting that the Presbyterian Church in America , which traces its polity to the Presbyterian Church in the United States, has the provision that its Standing Judicial Commission can file a final decision unless a large enough minority of the members of the Commission file a minority report and then it goes to the full Assembly for their consideration and final ruling.

What we can probably safely draw from this is that judicial commissions developed as a feature of American Presbyterianism between 1786 and 1867 and in the merger of 1983 that formed the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) they ended up with the power to render their own decisions in that branch.

Now if the polity wonks will excuse me let me also mention that a “commission” has a very specific usage in Presbyterian polity.  A commission is not a fancy name for a committee, or is that a name for a fancy committee, but rather is an entity created by a governing body to act with the full authority of that governing body to the extent that the governing body authorizes it.  That is why the PC(USA) GAPJC can interpret the constitution, because it is given that power by the General Assembly to do so on its behalf.  And in the UPCUSA that power was not unilaterally given to the PJC but rather all decisions needed to be reviewed and affirmed by the full Assembly.

Now, let me get very specific to the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  Checking section G-13.0103r in the Annotated Book of Order we learn a few interesting and relevant things about its history:

First, this section has more annotations than any other of the paragraphs in the responsibilities of the General Assembly section (G-13.0103) indicating that it has been regularly involved in Assembly discussion and GAPJC decisions.  We also find that this paragraph was added in 1987 to clarify the intent of G-13.0112, which this section references.  The other proposed modifications to this section run the spectrum from limiting PJC interpretation authority (1996 ) to making the GAPJC the only body to provide interpretation (1997 ).  That latter one seems to me to deny the inherent connection between the GAPJC and the full Assembly.  And there was a 1993 amendment rejected which would have returned to the UPCUSA system of the Assembly reviewing and affirming GAPJC decisions as well as rejected requests in 1992 and 2006 for GA interpretations to be ratified by the Presbyteries.  Bottom line as we look at this year’s overtures — We have been here before.

It is also important to keep in mind the recent history of back-and-forth interpretations from GA and the GAPJC.  In 2006 the 217th GA adopted the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity of the the Church .  That action included an authoritative interpretation that presbyteries needed to consider candidates’ declared departures from the standards of the church.  Some presbyteries developed their local standards and procedures and when challenged the GAPJC ruled that while each candidate must be considered on a case-by-case basis candidates were free to declare exceptions in belief but not practice.  The 218th GA clarified this AI in 2008 explicitly saying that candidates could declare exceptions in both belief and practice.  Since that GA there have been a couple more GAPJC cases that have clarified the procedures in these cases.  I have often referred to this as a game of ecclesiastical ping-pong.

Having outlined the background detail of this section let us turn now to what is on the docket for the 219th General Assembly of the PC(USA)?

As a reminder paragraph G-13.0103r now reads:

r. to provide authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order which shall be binding on the governing bodies of the church when rendered in accord with G-13.0112 or through a decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission in a remedial or disciplinary case. The most recent interpretation of a provision of the Book of Order shall be binding.

Overture 6 from Mid-South Presbytery would add to this a new last line that says “No authoritative interpretation shall be issued by a General Assembly which amends or alters a clear mandate contained in any provision of the Book of Order.” Their rational for this is brief (one sentence) and states that the intent is to be sure the Assembly has “proper limits to the use of authoritative interpretations.”  The implication in here is that G-6.0106b is a “clear mandate” and Assemblies should not be using a non-amending method to get around it.

On the other hand we have Overture 16 from Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area titled “On Amending G-13.0103r to Reduce Vexatious and Improper Litigation in the Church.”  With a title like that you could probably guess that this amendment asks to eliminate the GAPJC ability to interpret the Book of Order by striking the phrase “or through a decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission in a remedial or disciplinary case.”  Part of the rational for this overture says:

Judicial cases are extremely burdensome and costly to governing bodies of the church. When brought improvidently, they violate our biblical obligation to avoid vexatious or unnecessary litigation (D-1.0103) and are inconsistent with our fundamental theological conviction that we are most likely to discern the true movement of the Holy Spirit when we gather together in General Assembly (G-1.0400). Moreover, the GAPJC is woefully unprepared to do the work of the General Assembly, since it hears only from the parties to the case; does not have the wider perspective afforded by all of the persons and resources that inform deliberations by the General Assembly; and must prepare its decisions within very tight time constraints (a number of cases usually must be decided, immediately after hearings, in only one or two days).

The proposed amendment would affirm our historic polity of collective discernment under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and put an end to the “culture of litigation” that is growing in the church. It would do so by removing the incentive to pursue fundamental changes in church law through individual court cases. The judicial commissions of the church still could decide particular cases brought before them, as they do now. However, the authority to interpret the Constitution so as to bind the whole church would rest exclusively with the General Assembly.

I could write a whole polity discourse on these two paragraphs (and that might have something to do with why the Bills and Overtures Committee of the Presbytery recommended its disapproval ) but let me note one point here and some more later.  Yes, the litigation is costly not just to the governing bodies but to both sides in the judicial process.  At the present time governing bodies are on both the complainant and respondent (or prosecution and defendant) sides of high profile cases.  I could not agree more that it would be good to minimize costs — but if you want to reduce the cost work on the judicial process in the Rules of Discipline.  At the present time our polity permits, and always has, those that dissent on conscience to have their complaint heard.

Overture 77 from the Presbytery of Arkansas seeks to return the GAPJC interpretations to the process of the UPCUSA polity.  There are multiple changes so permit me to reproduce the proposed language in its entirety (proposed new language in italics):

r.  to provide authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order which shall be binding on the governing bodies of the church when rendered in accord with G-13.0112 or through a decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission in a remedial or disciplinary case,which is approved as an authoritative interpretation by the next plenary session of the General Assembly. The most recent interpretation of a provision of the Book of Order approved by a plenary session of the General Assembly shall be binding; …


Overture 55 from the Presbytery of San Diego does not deal directly with G-13.0103r but is related in a couple of ways.  It seeks to have the General Assembly get out of the business of dealing with controversy by striking G-13.0103q which says that one of the responsibilities of the General Assembly is:

q. to decide controversies brought before it and to give advice and instruction in cases submitted to it, in conformity with the Constitution.

Let me say this… Nice idea – I think many of us would appreciate it if the Assembly did not have to deal with controversy.  However, as the highest governing body in the Presbyterian church the Assembly has been dealing with controversies, with varying degrees of success, for practically the whole 300 year history of American Presbyterianism.  If the GA did not handle the various controversies the issues won’t go away.  We will either become frustrated in trying to deal with them at lower levels or connectionalism would break down and the controversies would have to be dealt with by middle governing bodies.  As much as everyone finds the time spent on these frustrating, our Reformed background says that controversies will arise because of our sinful human nature and it is the historic role of the highest governing body to collectively decide these through discernment of the community.

This overture is also relevant because if successful in the Assembly and the presbyteries concur the sections following will be re-lettered and paragraph r will become q.

Now having laid out the overtures let me make a few comments about the current situation in the PC(USA).  I have to agree that we, as a denomination, have a lot of ecclesiastical judicial cases to be reviewed.  Most Presbyterian branches have two to four a year that have to be heard by the highest governing body and these can be handled by the governing body.  Since the last meeting of the General Assembly the GAPJC has issued decisions in 13 cases.  So the first question is whether a full Assembly could handle that case load and further whether some of those cases could wait the two years between assemblies.

I realize that none of these overtures ask for the elimination of the GAPJC but two of them would modify its authority.  I must admit that taking all interpretation authority away from the GAPJC does not make sense to me.  In rendering some decisions it must interpret the Book of Order, especially if the new Form of Government is adopted and the “operations manual” elements are removed.  Judicial boards, be they civil or ecclesiastical, have the responsibility to “fill in the blanks” when the general nature of legislation must be made specific.  If the Assembly finds it desirable to have better congruence between the PJC and the full Assembly then Overture 77 is the way to go.

On the other hand, just as the PJC, as an extension of the Assembly, must be able to interpret so must the Assembly itself.  It is there to, among other things, resolve controversies so it needs interpretation authority too.  Overture 6 does not take away that power but there could be questions about what is a “clear mandate.”  At face value I have to agree with Overture 6 but have to ask if this needs to be specified and if the idea of a “clear mandate” is clear itself.  The important thing here is that the Assembly must only interpret and not use the power of interpretation as a substitute for the process of seeking presbytery concurrence in matters of faith and doctrine.

But there is a bigger picture here:  In looking at this issue we must not fall into the trap of viewing these entities as independent branches of Presbyterian government as there are sperate branches of civil government.  While the U.S. Government finds its system of checks and balances in three co-equal branches with individual responsibilities a Presbyterian government finds its accountability in its connectional nature as “…presbyters shall come together in governing bodies… in regular gradation” (G-4.0300c)  The horizontal structure of the church is to equip it for mission and it must be remembered that the OGA, GAMC, PJC, and standing committees are nothing more than parts of the General Assembly itself that the Assembly has seen fit to create to help it do its work.  Our accountability is of a vertical nature, as it should be with Jesus Christ as Head of the Church at the top.  And while Jesus is the Head the Book of Order tells us (G-9.0103) that the foundation is the presbyteries – “The jurisdiction of each governing body is limited by the express provisions of the Constitution, with powers not mentioned being reserved to the presbyteries, and with the acts of each subject to review by the next higher governing body.”

The bottom line here is that we should not view the GA/GAPJC relationship as adversarial for the GAPJC is merely a commission of the GA to help it do its work.  Likewise, the GA/Presbytery relationship is one of mutual support in our connectional system and just as the rational for Overture 16 suggests that GA is a larger body and there are greater numbers to discern the will of God than the smaller GAPJC, the same can be said of the GA sending items to the presbyteries for concurrence, not because we are democratic but because it provides an even greater group of elders, ruling and teaching, to discern together what God would have us do.

Post Script:
In this first footnote let me return to the probable cause of these overtures, the on-going ecclesiastical ping-pong game:
1) In the back and forth over Authoritative Interpretations and declared exceptions to the standards and belief and practice it is important to note that the GAPJC has not ruled on exceptions declared by any specific individual.  All of the legal decisions have so far dealt with procedures and timing in the ordination process, not with any candidate’s specific scruple.

2) If the GAPJC were to be denied the ability to provide interpretation, what about previous interpretations?  I presume they would be explicitly adopted or somehow grandfathered in.  But if previous interpretations are no longer binding does this mean that an officer can object to and not participate in, but not hinder, the ordination of women?

Presbyterians — Owning The Label

3 Replies

An interesting little news article flashed across my news alerts this morning.  If I am not reading too much into the story it is not only interesting but fascinating.

The news site NorthFulton.com reports that “Church of the Hills Changes names.”  The story lede says:

JOHNS CREEK – The Church of the Hills officially changed its name to Johns Creek Presbyterian Church effective Easter Sunday, April 4.

If you read this the same way that I did the first thing that jumps to mind is that a church with a name that evokes the generic community church concept, maybe one that is trying to be “seeker sensitive,” has changed course and is now embracing its Presbyterian roots and membership.  At the present time that seems to be the exception and not the rule.

Now I may be reading way too much into this news story.  But here is a quick run down of what I have found out.  (And since they are changing their name their web site may be changing as well so some of these links might be broken shortly.)  They are a relatively new church in the growing suburbs north of Atlanta and part of the Greater Atlanta Presbytery, PC(USA).  The news story says that the church “follows many local area businesses in adopting the young city’s name” suggesting recent incorporation of Johns Creek.  The story also quotes the interim pastor, The Rev. Chris Price:

“Our new name better assists newcomers and families who are seeking a Presbyterian church in the Johns Creek area and reinforces our commitment to the Johns Creek community,” explains Johns Creek Presbyterian Church’s interim pastor, the Rev. Chris Price. “Our name has changed, but our philosophy has not. We’re looking forward to strengthening our presence in the city of Johns Creek by continuing to offer residents a strong and balanced community-based, spiritual home that provides fellowship, worship, and extensive outreach programs.”

That quote sure seems to indicate they want to increase their brand as being Presbyterian.

From the history of the church on the web site we find out that it was chartered in 1995 with 100 charter members.  The congregational statistics from the PC(USA) show fairly steady growth from 1998 (about 390 members) to 2008 (855 members).  Worship attendance has not grown as much going from 250 to 390 in the same time period.  Nevertheless, it is a growing congregation in the PC(USA).

At the present time the web site is still under the old name and on the web site the church neither promotes nor runs from the “Presbyterian USA” label, as they use it.  As you can see in the church logo to the right the Presbyterian label is smaller but present.  (I don’t normally insert a graphic like this in my articles but with the name change I expect any links to break so I’ve included it this time.)  Reading through the web site references to the PC(USA) by that name are present but scattered and the presbytery involvement in the planting of the church is acknowledged.

In short, I am left to conclude that the while the congregation and/or leadership was previously accepting of the Presbyterian label it appears that they have decided to now raise its visibility in the community.  And this is based on what I could find quickly and read into it, a somewhat dangerous thing to do.  The Presbyterian affiliation may have been more or less visible than I estimate before this.  The affiliation may be more or less than before with the name change.

[This is about to get a bit off-topic but one thing that did strike me is that there may be a bit of a back story to all this.  You thought I was out on a limb so far, let me put one more item on the table.  In another article in NorthFulton.com from almost exactly two years ago there is the announcement that a new pastor had been called to become a co-pastor with the founding pastor of the congregation.  The article also says that the founding pastor is getting ready to retire so it appears they tried to do the “co-pastor pastoral transition” strategy to get around the vacant pulpit and interim like they have now.  Anyway, two years later neither the name of the called pastor nor the name of the founding pastor are now seen in the staff list, and in fact from comparing the pictures it appears that the pastor they called has now landed in Vicksburg.  This is not to cast any aspersions on what may have caused this turnover — I have chaired COM, I know that things like this happen for good reasons.  But I bring this up only to ask, but not answer, the question of whether the name change may also have been directly or indirectly influenced by the staff changes?]

This story is an interesting contrast to another item today, a post by Dave Sarafolean on Joshua Judges Ruth. That post reminded us of a post by Darryl Hart on his blog Old Life Theological Society about a year ago titled “Too Cool For You? Wither The PCA.”  In that piece Mr. Hart talks about the reasons that one conservative Presbyterian branch might have a church plant near an existing church in another conservative branch.  He suggests:

One possible reason for the inability of PCA Philadelphians to recommendCalvary OPC to Presbyterian communicants in the area is that the PCA,even in some of its more traditional sectors, like Tenth, no longercultivates a sense of being Presbyterian. Instead, what appears to drivethe PCA, and has been doing so since roughly 1995 when Tim Keller andRedeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City became such a phenomenon,is exegeting, engaging, and redeeming the culture. (emphasis added)

And another recent example that I have cited is the Oakfield, NY, church.  What began as the First Presbyterian Church of Oakfield became the Oakfield Independent Presbyterian Church and then the congregation reorganized again as the Oakfield Community Bible Church losing its Presbyterian identity.

So in these days of churches downplaying their denominational affiliations if not distancing themselves from them (remember in my neck of the woods the Crystal Cathedral is Reformed Church in America and Saddleback Community Church is Southern Baptist) it is fascinating to see Johns Creek re-engaging the Presbyterian title.