Category Archives: PC(USA)

Looking Ahead: 219th General Assembly Of The PC(USA) – The Second Moderator Candidate

2 Replies

With thanks to the Presbyterian Outlook for confirming the news, we now know that the Rev. Jin S. Kim has been unanimously endorsed by the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area as a candidate to stand for election to be the Moderator of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

The Rev. Kim is the founding and senior pastor of the Church of All Nations in Columbia Heights, Minnesota.  Much as we joked about Bruce being the hometown boy with a home-field advantage at the 218th, it looks like Jin will have that distinction at the 219th.  Yet to see if that is an actual advantage.

At the present time the Rev. Kim has a single Moderator web page as a part of his personal blog New Church Rising.  On that Moderator page, in addition to his stock bio (it is essentially the same as the church bio, except he dropped the ice fishing reference, and his bio for the Belhar Special Committee is a condensed version) the page has his “Reflections on our life together as a Presbyterian family…”  That reflection begins with:

In a post-modern, post-ideological, post-denominational, multicultural age often marked by uprootedness and loss of meaning, how do we “do church” in a way that testifies to the reconciling gospel of Jesus Christ?  In an individualistic culture that tends toward alienation and isolation, how do we lead our congregations, ministries and presbyteries to become high-risk, low-anxiety places, to lead God’s people to confess who they are, to experience healing in intimate community, and to be a witness to the liberating power of the Spirit?

He goes on to talk about how this age requires a new “conceptualizing” of leadership, how we need to transition from the institutional model to something daring, prophetic and countercultural.

The Rev. Kim is widely known in the PC(USA), speaking regularly at conferences and according to his blog he is a speaker at the Institute for Multicultural Ministries going on right now at Princeton Theological Seminary.  He preached for worship services for the 216th (2004) and 218th (2008) General Assemblies, and as I mentioned above he is a member of the Special Committee to study the adoption of the Belhar Confession.  I look forward to his future writings on his blog and his view of the present situation in the PC(USA) and where the church should be headed.  (And you have to respect someone who gives their kids middle names based on ancient creeds – check the last sentence of his bio.)

I can not conclude this post without mentioning that in doing the research for this story I came across the blogs of two pastors that discussed some confusion in the process on Saturday when the presbytery elected their GA commissioners.  While the specific details are not fully covered there seems to be some misunderstanding and disagreement about voting on the slate of alternate commissioners the Nominating Committee put forward and the presbytery voting to do it differently.  Pastor Paul Moore titled his post “That didn’t go well” and draws two conclusions: 1- “We need to learn how to disagree better.” 2- “We have to value the process less.”  The second blog, by Pastor Stephanie Anthony, pretty much sums up her point in the title “Where’s the trust?”  This is a follow-on to Rev. Moore’s writing and makes the point that we have the process for a reason, but within the process the presbytery needs to put some trust in the committees, in this case the Nominating Committee, that they elect to do the work.

UPDATE:  1. The Presbyterian News Service released their article about Rev. Kim this afternoon. 2. Blogger Viola Larson has read through Rev. Kim’s blog and weighs in with some criticism and concern about what she reads there.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — Re-envisioning The Process

2 Replies

As I continue my exploration and commentary on the overtures being sent up to the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I want to focus today on three that deal with the operations of the Assembly.

But before I get down to the nitty-gritty of the overtures let me make some observations about the business and operations of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

If ask anyone who has been a commissioner to the General Assembly about the experience they will probably tell you that it was generally good and interesting but also an intense and tiring experience.  You begin on Saturday with some preliminaries and the election of the Moderator. You worship Sunday morning, socialize (or network) Sunday afternoon.  There might be a brief plenary business meeting and then the committees begin meeting.  The committee work begins in earnest on Monday morning and goes until whatever hour on Tuesday the committee gets it done — it might be at noon, it might be the wee hours of Wednesday morning.  The first part of Wednesday is devoted to reading committee reports, and then the marathon begins as the full Assembly starts working through the 15 or so committee reports.  On Friday night the Assembly goes until it is done because on Saturday everyone just shows up to formally adopt the budgets that resulted from their work over the last week, gets a pep talk about what a nice place the next Assembly will be held at, and then they are dismissed with a prayer.  They then get on their planes and collapse in exhaustion and it really doesn’t matter where the next Assembly will be held because the commissioners seldom see the light of day for that week.

Well, maybe I exaggerate a little bit because there is sunlight when you walk between the hotel and the convention center in the morning and again out to the restaurants for lunch.  Sunday usually provides an opportunity to see some of the neighborhood. And of course the YADs (now YAADs) need a nice place for their mid-week get-together.

But if you think I am being too sarcastic here I would argue that I am not.  If you have been a commissioner, or have had a long talk with someone who was, you will probably think or hear something like “Is this any way to run a church?”  When it gets to plenary there are just over two days to deal with the business from 15 committees, some of these items having great significance.  “Back in the day” when the material was all printed the business easily filled two three-inch binders.  And the reports you got before the Assembly convened were all in small print.  Any wonder the full Assembly usually trusts the work of the business committees.

Let me finish my commentary, more like a rant, with some hard numbers:  For the 218th GA of the PC(USA) there were 109 overtures from presbyteries and synods, not counting concurring overtures that got folded in, that the Assembly had to deal with.  On top of that there was business from the committees and entities of the national office.  For comparison, last year the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which also meets for one week, had two overtures and one ascending complaint.  The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, again a one week meeting, last year had nine overtures.  The Bible Presbyterian Church had seven overtures and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church last year had four.  The Presbyterian branch with the next closest number of overtures that I am aware of, and please let me know if you know of another with more, is the Presbyterian Church in America with 22 overtures, and eight of those were related to creating new presbyteries and redrawing presbytery borders — the remaining 14 dealt with polity, doctrine and discipline.  This is not to say that other GA’s have no controversy — far from it.  But from what I have seen most GA’s have no more than one or two spirited debates in the course of the whole GA.  The PC(USA) seems to have one or two per day.

All this to say that as I observe other GA’s around the globe and see how they operate it strikes me that something is significantly different about the way the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) operates.  And based on some of the overtures that are being submitted to the 219th General Assembly I am apparently not the only one who thinks so.

Let me begin with Overture 9 from Foothills Presbytery which proposes that the church get together annually in a convocation but only do business at the meeting every sixth year.  (Had to smile at the thought that this is almost a “reversed sabbatical year” – rest for six and work for one.)  With this overture they provide an extensive rational which includes:

  1. We believe the following:
    • The vast majority of Presbyterians are happy with their congregations, their presbyteries, their synods, and the ongoing work of General Assembly staff to ensure the smooth day-by-day running of the mission of the denomination.
    • On the other hand, we believe that Presbyterians of all theological perspectives find themselves frustrated with the manner in which discussions occur and decisions are made by the General Assembly, and that General Assembly in its present functioning, presents a significant threat in our beloved church and to its peace, unity, and purity.
  2. Further, based on our experience, and reports of General Assembly commissioners, we believe that
    • the volume of information presented to commissioners at the assembly, including, but not limited to annual reports, denominational positions on particular issues, repeated actions to amend the constitution, etc.,
    • the committee structure and process employed to introduce business to the floor of the assembly,
    • the lack of relationships between commissioners,
    • the lack of time to process issues that are often enormously complicated and multifaceted,
    • the consequent pressure to give in to the emotion of the moment,
    • the disparity of knowledge about specific subjects between commissioners, General Assembly staff, special interest groups;
  3. all often
    • lead to confrontation without reconciliation, (2 Cor. 5:18–19),
    • contribute to a heightened emphasis on winners and losers, rather than winners and winners (see 1 Cor. 6:7–8),
    • lead to a tendency for our national body to act legislatively rather than pastorally (see Paul’s approach to meat offered to idols in 1 Cor. 10:23–33),
    • promote stagnation rather than growth in our common life together (Eph. 4:15–16),
    • lead to the predominance of single-issue thinking (party-spirit, see Gal. 5:20)
    • reinforce a growing sense of anxiety in a significant number of our congregations every time assembly meets, (see John 14:27)
    • and erode denominational pride, loyalty, and commitment.

So the basic intent is to be relational and missional five years and based on that common foundation to address the detailed work of the denomination in the sixth year.  I have to commend them for identifying issues and providing a possible restructuring.  The overture does not give specific recommendations f
or the restructuring — Clearly a system such as they propose would shift a lot more authority and responsibility for operational details like budget and ministry to the GAMC and the OGA.  It would also be interesting to know if the Big Tent event this past summer would be a possible model for the convocations or if they are thinking about a more focused meeting.  This overture will definitely give this year’s commissioners something to think about and discuss.

The other operational overtures to date are not nearly as sweeping and only address specific operational points.

Overture 7 from New Harmony Presbytery asks for a specific change to the Standing Rules of the Assembly, a change that does not need presbytery approval but could be undone or suspended by a subsequent Assembly.  The proposal is to reduce the recurrence of similar Book of Order changes being sent to the presbyteries for vote by adding operational language that says:

b. Should an overture require an amendment to the Constitution that proposes substantially the same action as that which was approved by one of the two previous sessions of the General Assembly and subsequently failed to receive the necessary number of affirmative votes for enactment when transmitted to the presbyteries, it shall not be considered as an item of business unless and until 75 percent of the commissioners present and voting vote to do so,

The parliamentary point on this is that under the standing rules amending or suspending the rules (Section L) requires only a two-thirds vote, so if this is adopted it would be easier to suspend this rule than affirm a constitutional amendment under it.  In terms of how business would be dealt with under this rule, would an overture subject to this rule be automatically sent to the business committee for recommendation and then come back at the end of the week for the full Assembly vote to proceed, or would the rule be taken up at the beginning of the week so if the request is denied the business committee has one less item to deal with?  Probably just put on the consent agenda of the first Bills and Overtures Committee report.

It is worth noting however that this overture does address a comment/complaint that is regularly heard in some presbyteries about the fact that similar amendments keep getting sent down from the Assembly and keep getting defeated by the presbyteries.

(And a very picky polity wonk comment on the wording:  It speaks of the previous “sessions of the General Assembly.”  In Presbyterian polity the General Assembly is both a meeting and a group of people forming a governing body.  A given General Assembly, such as the 218th, has a stated meeting and may have called meetings. (I won’t go near that at this time.) Technically, the 218th General Assembly is still in existence but simply in adjournment and then will dissolve upon convening the 219th GA.  So more appropriate wording would be “one of the two previous General Assemblies.”  As I said, picky, wonkish, and I even catch myself not being strict using these terms.  But this is a difference with Reformed Church polity where their higher governing bodies, such as the class (=presbytery), do not “exist” between meetings.)

Finally, Overture 6 from Mid-South Presbytery sort of falls into this general theme of overtures because it would amend the Book of Order regarding the Assembly’s ability to make Authoritative Interpretations.  The overture asks that the Assembly send to the presbyteries a constitutional amendment that would add to the end of G-13.0103r the line:

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.

While this seems pretty straight-forward, as we have seen in the Southard Decision from the Boston Presbytery PJC even the majority and dissenting members of the PJC differed on what the minority would consider “a clear mandate” in the Directory for Worship.

Well, that takes care of these three overtures.  At the present time there are 13 overtures posted on PC-Biz and I have now commented on eight of them.  It looks like the next batch to talk about are related to peacemaking and social witness polity.  For reference, looking back at my notes from two years ago there were 23 overtures posted by this time so if business processing by the OGA is running at the same pace there appears to be noticeably fewer overtures submitted so far.  (As a technical note, overture processing has gone from a dedicated web page to the PC-Biz system and so I could imagine that the efficiency of processing could be either higher or lower than last time depending on the complexity of the back-end technology involved.)  The number posted could also be lower because of the staff reductions we have seen or because the 120 day deadline is later this year.  We will just wait and see what the total comes to. Stay tuned.

The New Presbyterian Panel Survey From The PC(USA) — An Interesting Editorial Addition

Leave a reply

Thanks to Michael Kruse we know that the new Presbyterian Panel survey of the Religious and Demographic Profile of Presbyterians, 2008, has been released.  (And of course, technically their sample set is not all Presbyterians but only the largest American Presbyterian body, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).) If you don’t want to wade through all 54 pages of the full report a three page “Snapshot” is available.

Now at the moment I am swamped with research and writing on a couple of other projects, and as we ramp up to GA season crunching these numbers is not the first place I want to spend my time. So, what I will do over the next few weeks is look at parts of this report in smaller, bite-size pieces.  (I heard that collective sigh that I won’t be inundating all of you with a massive statistical dissection and reanalysis.)

But in the first paragraph of the text an item of polity, not population or probability, caught my attention that I would like to comment on first.

The first section of the text, titled “Overview” is mostly boiler plate that describes the report and methodology and shows only minor changes from one report to the next.  You can compare it to the 2005 report if you want.  In this report the second sentence reads:

Using scientific sampling, small but representative numbers of elders (lay leaders) currently serving on session, other members, and ordained ministers were contacted by mail and asked to respond to a set of questions about themselves and their congregations.

For comparison the 2005 report read:

Using scientific sampling, small but representative numbers of members, elders, and ordained ministers were contacted by mail and asked to answer a set of questions about themselves and their congregations.

You probably guessed that what caught my attention was the added parenthetical comment describing elders as “lay leaders.”

This raises the question of whether Presbyterian ruling elders are properly described as laity.  There is usage in the Book of Order, such as the term Commissioned Lay Pastor, that does suggest the most traditional and strictest usage of “laity” as other members of the church besides the clergy.  There are however definitions floating around the web that seem to be more appropriate to Presbyterian government such as one that describes the laity as “not members of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.”  And of course we have an organization called the “Presbyterian Lay Committee” whose Objectives and Mission regularly talks about how they “inform and equip congregations and leaders,” implying that ruling elders are included in the lay members.

In my experience and research there is no clear consensus in the use of the term, but I do have a couple of friends who are more than ready at presbytery meetings when someone says “I am only a layman/laywoman/layperson” to let them know that “no, you are an elder, an ordained officer of the church and you help govern in parity and equality with the clergy.”

I personally do not consider an elder a member of the laity for two reasons.  First, we talk about the shared leadership of the church between teaching elders and ruling elders, each holding equal weight in higher governing bodies.  To distinguish between the different elders as “clergy” and “lay” in the governance of the church strikes me as setting up a false dichotomy.

The second reason gets back to the usage of the original Greek in the Bible and the distinction between elder, presbyteros, and people, laos.  I am not aware of an instance of their use in close proximity in the text regarding the early church, but in one of my favorite passages about ecclesiastical leadership, Acts 20:17-38, the text tells us that Paul is talking to the elders, presbyteros, of Ephesus.  In this conversation he refers to them as “overseers” of the “flock.”  No, Paul does not say that the elders take care of the people, laos, but rather they oversee the flock, poimnion.  If “people” and “flock” are interchangeable here, than the elders are distinct from the laity and therefore if the teaching elders, that is the clergy, are not laity then ruling elders are not either.  (Now, I’m sure someone would have problems with my exegesis here, but I’ve got some other, parallel examples I can point to as well.  As a counter example I am aware that in reference to the Jewish authorities the Gospel of Matthew uses the term “elders of the people” which can be read that the elders are part of the laos while still being their leaders.  But is that as much a secular leadership as a religious leadership in a theocracy?)

Anyway, as I said earlier, there are opinions about usage on both sides here so this is not a settled issue.  There is the usage of laity as an ecclesiastical term that may not fit the Presbyterian model too well but is understood to have a specific meaning in other traditions.  Welcome to the complexities of language.

I’ve got more in the works on elders but that will have to wait a couple of weeks.  I may have a chance to crunch a few numbers on elders this weekend and have something to say about the numbers in the new report then. And as for the usage in this sentence from the report that only distinguishes ministers as “ordained,” I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to ponder the why and wherefore of that one.

Presbytery Merger In The Presbyterian Church Of Aotearoa New Zealand And Some Polity Observations

1 Reply

I recently saw a news item on The Southland Times web site about a presbytery merger in the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand that, as written, surprised me a bit.  (Today brings another, more detailed article from the Otago Daily Times.) The fact that there was going to be a merger was not what caught my attention – the PCANZ is in the midst revisioning and restructuring the church with there Press Go program and the Reform of Presbyteries initiative. No, being the polity wonk that I am what I was wondering about was the way the article phrased the approval process.  The article says:

Southern presbyteries will be united in February to better connect with their communities and to try and attract more youthful members.

Five presbyteries, encompassing all Presbyterian parishes within Southland and Otago below the Waitaki River, are joining together to form the Southern Presbytery.

and

The Southern Presbytery will merge on February 13 at the Calvin Church in Gore at 2pm, and will be ratified in October by the Presbytery Church of Aotearoa New Zealand.

The polity wonks out there probably immediately recognized that this is the reverse of what we are used to in these matters.  The structure and shape of presbyteries is usually a matter for the next higher governing body, in most cases the General Assembly.  As the article says the presbyteries “will be united in February” and then it “will be ratified in October” by the General Assembly.

On one level the PCANZ Book of Order is a bit unique in its description of the powers and responsibilities of the GA when it says

General Assembly to establish presbyteries
8.7 Formation, alteration and abolition of presbyteries

(1) The General Assembly may

(a) form a presbytery,
(b) determine the name of a presbytery,
(c) fix the area or region for which a presbytery has responsibility,
(d) on its own initiative or at the request of a presbytery, alter the name of a presbytery, abolish a presbytery, or change the area or region for which a presbytery has responsibility.

I was surprised to see in there that the GA “may” and not “shall” do these things regarding presbyteries.  However, the present news is the result of action taken by the last General Assembly in 2008 when it approved, without debate, the report of the Presbyteries Task Group on The Reform of Presbyteries.  The GA approved in advance the reorganization of all the presbyteries and we can expect more of these mergers to follow with final approval at this year’s Assembly in the fall.

But in researching this and looking at the details of presbytery structuring in other Presbyterian branches I was reminded of an interesting quirk in the polity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

Let me begin with the Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America, for a reason you will see in a moment.  The BCO includes in the list of responsibilities of the GA

14-6. The General Assembly shall have power:

e. To erect new Presbyteries, and unite and divide those which were erected with their consent;

A quick check of the history of this section of the BCO shows that the PCA has always had this section as a “shall” and before that the predecessor polity of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. had the GA as the governing body to create and dissolve synods, but not presbyteries.  The polity would then give the synods the responsibility to organize presbyteries.

What is the current situation in another PCUS successor denomination, the PC(USA)?  The current Book of Order says:

G-13.0103  The General Assembly constitutes the bond of union, community, and mission among all its congregations and governing bodies. It therefore has the responsibility and power

m. to organize new synods and to divide, unite, or otherwise combine synods or portions of synods previously existing;
n. to approve the organization, division, uniting, or combining of presbyteries or portions of presbyteries by synods;

Affected synods must concur with presbytery changes, but this GA responsibility for presbytery creation sets up an interesting paradox in that the Assembly creates the presbytery but the synod reviews its records.  Cooperative governance.

The Annotated Book of Order gives no indication of a change to this section shifting responsibility for presbyteries from synods to the GA and no reference to pre-merger citations or documents so this could be inherited from the UPCUSA. or derives from the merger.  More research necessary – but an interesting mix of ecclesiastical responsibility and weaker powers for the synods.

With the significant discussion about the role of synods in the PC(USA) this is only a quirk or minor distraction.  The real question gets back to the restructuring of the church in New Zealand and whether these merged presbyteries with minimal administrative responsibility can fulfill the expressed purpose of attracting more youthful members.  Will the mission drive the polity?

Looking Ahead: 219th General Assembly Of The PC(USA) – The First Moderator Candidate

2 Replies

Last week the National Capital Presbytery voted unanimously to endorse Elder Cynthia Bolbach as a candidate for Moderator of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  This news is brought to us from the Presbyterian Outlook, but I am expecting that a news story will soon appear from the PC(USA) News Service and be posted on the GA219 web site.

However, Ms. Bolbach is well ahead of the curve and has her web site/blog up and running.  She has titled it “Food for Thought” and her first, and only post so far, has the understandable title “Am I Crazy?”  In addition, the site includes pages “About Cindy” and “Why PCUSA [sic] Moderator?”  She has her own press release and a photo gallery. (And the National Capital Presbytery has a short note that links to the press release.  And I probably should mention that the news was also announced on the blog of the Presbytery of Silly Walks in the Pines.)

Elder Bolbach grew up Lutheran and joined the New York Ave. Presbyterian Church when she moved to D.C. after college.  There she was ordained a deacon and elder and served as the clerk of session.  She currently is a member of First Presbyterian Church in Arlington, Virginia.  Her other service to the denomination includes being a commissioner to the 209th GA in 1997, serving on and chairing the presbytery’s Committee on Ministry, and serving as Moderator of Presbytery.  But maybe the service that really answers the question she asks above, “Am I Crazy?” is that she has spent the last four years as the co-moderator of the denomination’s Form of Government Task Force.  On her web site she writes about this saying:

We have the opportunity to begin to change by adopting the proposed new Form of Government – a proposal that returns the Form of Government to its proper status as a Constitutional document, rather than the regulatory manual that it has become over the past 25 years. That’s a good start. We need to go further. We need our presbyteries to focus less on administration and more on empowering their congregations to be effective wellsprings of ministry and mission. We need to stop thinking and acting like a bureaucracy and start thinking and acting like disciples.

So why does she want to stand for Moderator?  In her “why” piece she writes:

[O]ur ability as a denomination to proclaim these messages effectively as we move into the second decade of the 21st century is in peril. Our multicultural, secular society no longer has Christianity, much less the institutional church, much less the P.C. (U.S.A.), at its center. It no longer trusts implicitly in the effectiveness of institutions. Yet we continue to believe that we can do ministry the same way we did fifty years ago.

It’s a simple choice, really: if we don’t change, we’ll die.
…
A denomination that proudly claims the resolve and resiliency of John Calvin cannot let this happen. A denomination that takes seriously Jesus’ command to “go out and make disciples” cannot let this happen.

How do we reclaim a prophetic voice that will be listened to and taken seriously? The first step is to understand that we must proclaim our message in new and different ways. We must understand that we can no longer rely on a denominational name brand or on denominational loyalty. We must understand that the corporate organizational structure that was created in the 1950s is no longer viable. We must understand that our primary responsibility is not to impose rules but to empower and enable our congregations and their members to go out into the world and proclaim the transforming message of the Gospel.

Coming from a legal career in the corporate world I’m sure she understands “corporate structure” and “brand loyalty.” I look forward to hearing more.  I also look forward to all those other things that come with a moderator candidacy these days including the Facebook group and the Twitter hashtag.

UPDATE:  The PC(USA) News Service article is now available.

Some Brief Updates

Leave a reply

There are a number of stories I have covered recently that now have updates that I have been collecting.  However, with no sign that there will be enough other related information for any to warrant a post of their own in the short term I now present a series of these in one general post.

Church of Scotland/Free Church of Scotland Discussions

In an update to the internal discussion in the Church of Scotland over ordination standards, it was announced by the Free Church of Scotland last week that they have decided to suspend their biannual talks with the CofS.  In the news item they say:

However, the Free Church has said that, in the light of the uncertainty over the Kirk’s position on homosexuality following the induction of an allegedly gay minister earlier this year, which appeared to be sanctioned by their General Assembly, it cannot for the time being continue “as if nothing had happened.”

The announcement goes on to say that the decision was accepted with regret and then quotes the convener of the Free Church committee:

Rev. Iver Martin, Convener of the Free Church Ecumenical Relations Committee, said, “Suspending the talks, whilst regrettable, was the most tangible way of expressing the Free Church’s discomfort with the failure of the Church of Scotland to take a thoroughly Biblical stand on the place of marriage between one man and one woman.” The Free Church continues to value and encourage the close relationship that there is between congregations of both denominations in many areas of Scotland.

Case heard by the Presbyterian Church in America Standing Judicial Commission

It has been over a year since I have touched on the Federal Vision discussions in the PCA, and in that time the controversy has been moving along quietly but steadily.  Since the 35th General Assembly adopted the report of a study committee that was critical of this theological perspective the denomination has been dealing with it in the regular presbytery review process.  For the Pacific Northwest Presbytery this began with a theological examination about 13 months ago and the presbytery accepting that examination.  A complaint was filed and this past week the Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA heard the complaint.  Jason Stellman over at De Regnis Duobus is one of the complainants in the case and has provided his observations of the proceedings.  He includes this description:

A couple of the eyebrow-raising statements from the respondant include: (1) His insistence that the Westminster Standards do not teach that the covenant of works sets forth a distinct principle by which we receive eternal life from that of the covenant of grace; (2) His encouragement to the SJC that they all read John Frame’s review of Horton’s Christless Christianity so as to learn from Frame how to avoid the dangers of Westminster Seminary California’s sectarianism; and perhaps the most telling of all was (3)seeing firsthand what happens when one flattens out redemptive history so as to take Yahweh’s dealings with Old Testament Israel under the conditional, Mosaic covenant as an unqualified, across-the-board paradigm for understanding how God relates to the church today. When asked by the commission, “In what sense are we saved by baptism?”, the response was given, “Well, in the same sense that God can pardon his people and then damn them.”

The PCA SJC has 42 days to render their decision (unlike the PC(USA) GAPJC which must render their decision before the meeting adjourns).  TE Stellman concludes with this:

And to those of you who love asking, yes, if they find in favor of Leithart [the respondant] and against us, I will submit to that and never bring it up again.

Deaconess Issues In The PCA

The more prominent discussion in the PCA recently has been the status of women serving in ordained office, or what seems to resemble ordained office.  Recently, the discussion was fueled by a video of a commissioning service at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, NY.  Well, Bob Mattes asked the senior pastor at Redeemer, TE Tim Keller, about the video and has posted the response at Green Baggins.  In short, Rev. Keller writes:

We do not ordain our deaconesses nor do we ask our congregation to obey and submit to them. The minister in the video is newer on our staff and he accidentally read the deacons’ questions from the BCO and did not use the different questions we commonly use for deaconesses.  Others who go to Redeemer can attest that this is not our practice, and it will not be in the future. The minister in the video apologized when he realized what he had done.

While Mr. Keller has provided this explanation I would note that the BaylyBlog, one of Redeemers strongest critics, has updated the original post to acknowledge the explanation, but they basically say there is still a problem with what Redeemer does.

Responses To A Minister’s Term Not Extended By The Uniting Church In Australia

A couple of months ago I posted some comments on my initial review of the polity in the Uniting Church in Australia and illustrated that with a controversy that had erupted when the Illawarra Presbytery declined to extend the term of the Rev. Gordon Bradbery to his present call at Wesley Uniting Church on the Mall.

Now, before we go getting too Presbyterian about this, let me remind you that this is the Uniting Church and while the Presbyterians were part of the union that formed the church the polity is a bit different.  In that denomination the pastors are called with specified term lengths which may or may not be renewed or extended.  In addition, even though a congregation may vote overwhelmingly to want the call extended by the fixed amount, the presbytery, and in this case the synod as well, have substantial input into the extension.

So in the last two months there has been no change in the presbytery’s decision not to extend Rev. Bradbery’s term, but there has been plenty of activity regarding the decision and trying to get popular support for reversing the decision.  This includes a meeting of presbytery leaders with Rev. Bradbery (what the Illawarra Mercury called “peace talks”) and a letter from the Presbytery, a Facebook page to gather support and communicate to his supporters, an online petition (currently 20 signatures), as well as a recent op-ed piece in the Illawarra Mercury.  Too early to tell if the popular support will sway the presbytery but it is interesting to see the role the Internet is playing in the rather local story.

And finally, not an update but a news brief…

New Official PC(USA) Blog – Beyond the Ordinary

There is a new official blog from the PC(USA) called Beyond the Ordinary that discusses the U.S. Congregational Life Survey.  It is written by staff from the PC(USA) Research Services office and, as you would expect from them, deals with their statistical numbers.  It will be interesting to see what they have to say.

Three Decisions From The GA Permanent Judicial Commission Of The PC(USA) — Ordination Standards And More

Leave a reply

The Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) heard appeals in three cases last Friday, October 30, and yesterday published their decisions in the three cases, all of which were unanimous.

While the two decisions dealing with ordination standards were highly anticipated, and one of those does finally clarify a point in the PC(USA) ordination process, it is my assessment that for anyone following the polity closely they would not be surprised by the decisions handed down.  And while this closes the book on two of these cases the third decision does explicitly anticipate the possible continuation of the judicial proceedings.

This first one is unlike the other two…

In remedial case 219-12 Phinisee v. Presbytery of Charleston-Atlantic as you read through the history of the case it begins to sound like a comedy of errors.  Unfortunately, for anyone who has served on a Committee on Ministry for any length of time several of the aspects begin to sound too familiar.

In this case the church that the Rev. Phinisee was pastoring developed a conflict in the congregation which they were trying to work through with a consultant and the COM.  The pastor and session requested an Administrative Commission, the COM wanted to handle the process themselves.  So far fairly standard.

The issues of the case revolve around 1) a request in writing by three elders to the moderator of the session (Rev. Phinisee) to call a session meeting and Rev. Phinisee not calling the meeting and 2) the COM calling a session meeting to call a congregational meeting to dissolve the pastoral relationship with Rev. Phinisee.  This happened in December 2006 and the Rev. Phinisee filed his remedial complaint with the Synod PJC in early January 2007.  The case was further complicated by the Synod PJC failing to act within 90 days and the complainant then asking the GAPJC to assume jurisdiction.  The GAPJC then told the SPJC to get moving.  The SPJC did and basically found that everything was done according to process.

The appeal to the GAPJC had six specifications of error of which the GAPJC did not sustain five of them.  This included the error that the Presbytery should have appointed an Administrative Commission with the GAPJC noting that the appointment of a commission is “a discretionary function that resides solely with the presbytery.”  Where the GAPJC did sustain the error is in the SPJC’s finding that the congregational meetings were properly called.  In brief, they noted that a COM does not, of its own authority, have the power to call a special session meeting (which in this case called the special congregational meeting).  The presbytery may delegate that to the COM but the record is clear in this case that they had not.  The GAPJC also noted that the Rev. Phinisee was at fault as well for not calling the session meeting after receiving the legitimate written request from three elders.  Due to the passage of time no direct relief could be granted in this case but the GAPJC did order the Presbytery to establish an administrative commission to review policies and procedures.

In closing the GAPJC says:

This case demonstrates the consequences of failing to follow the Book of Order for calling meetings and dissolving pastoral relationships. The flaws of the COM procedure were exacerbated by the failure of the Synod to respond in a timely manner to Phinisee’s grievances.  Justice delayed was an impediment to the process and a fair proceeding throughout the course of this matter. Governing bodies are reminded that “all participants are to be accorded procedural safeguards and due process” (D-1.0101).

Case 219-08 – Bierschwale, Lenz and Shanholtzer v. Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area is a remedial case related to the process for restoring the Rev. Paul Capetz to the exercise of ordained ministry.  Without covering the full history, Mr. Capetz had, at his request, been released from the exercise of ordained ministry because of his conscientious objection to the “fidelity and chastity” section G-6.0106b.  With the 2006 GA Authoritative Interpretation allowing the declaration of an exception he requested, and was granted by the presbytery, his restoration to the exercise of ordained office.

The complainants filed their case with the SPJC on the grounds that in granting Mr. Capetz’ declared exception the presbytery failed to “adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108.”  The SPJC initially dismissed the case on the failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted but an earlier GAPJC decision sent it back to the SPJC for trial on one of the three points, the specifics of declaring an exception.  In their decision in the trial the SPJC found that the presbytery had properly carried out the process in G-6.0108 and were correct in their decision to grant the exception.  However, in conducting the trial the SPJC took the unusual step of excluding the public from the proceedings.

At this point is it important to note that the Constitutional standards, the GA Interpretations, and the previous GAPJC cases as they apply to process are nearly unanimous in their application to the ordination process only.  The declaration of an exception is something that is normally considered when an individual is being examined for ordination.  In addition, the application of these standards in the call process of a previously ordained individual is limited by the Sallade v. Genesee Valley decision to a “position that presumes ordination.”  Mr. Capetz was previously ordained and seeking validation of ministry in a position teaching at a seminary. In short, this case does not easily fall under any of the established polity and interpretations.  As has been pointed out in such cases before, if there is a question about Mr. Capetz’ manner of life under G-6.0106 that would be handled as a disciplinary case.

In their decision the GAPJC noted that all parties agree that the presbytery process was unique to this individual.  Consequently, the GAPJC concurred with the SPJC that granting the exception did not “infringe on the views of others and did not obstruct the constitutional governance of the church.”  Further, “There is nothing in the record to show that he [Capetz] has taken any action that could be deemed to be an act in violation of G-6.0106b.” and “This Commission reaffirms what it previously held in Bierschwale I that Capetz’ future conduct is not at issue in this case.”  The GAPJC did sustain the specification of error that the SPJC trial should not have been closed under the PC(USA) open meetings policy.  (The proceedings in a remedial case may be closed only for reasons of maintaining decorum.)

With that background we come to the third decision which revisits much of this under other circumstances…

Remedial case 219-11 – Naegeli, Stryker and Gelini v. Presbytery of San Francisco does deal with a candidate in the ordination process.

In this case Ms. Lisa Larges, who has been in the process for ordination as a Minister of Word and Sacrament for 20 years, was certified ready to receive a call with a declared exception by San Francisco Presbytery.

A couple of polity notes at this point.  The first is that previous GAPJC decisions have generally held that candidates that can not affirm the standards for ordained of
fice in G-6.0106 should not even be in the process.  With the 2006 Authoritative Interpretation explicitly introducing the declaration of an exception it has been ambiguous at what point the presbytery should act upon the declaration.  The second item to note is that the status of “certified ready” is one usually conferred by the Committee on Preparation for Ministry and need not be voted upon by the presbytery as a whole.  Both of these are noted in the decision.

To briefly summarize the history the CPM voted 12-9 on December 5, 2007 to certify her ready for examination for ordination pending a call.  At the January Presbytery meeting both a majority report for certification and a minority report to remove her from the rolls were presented and by a vote of 167-151 the Presbytery accepted the majority report.  In the remedial case heard by the SPJC that Commission rescinded the status of “certified ready” but did not rule on the declaration because an examination had not taken place.  (Ms. Larges was not present and therefore not examined at the January 2008 Presbytery meeting.)  (And in another side note, if you read the story as currently posted on the More Light Presbyterians web site you will note that they have the timing off — the original AI was from the 2006 GA and it was reaffirmed by the 2008 GA.  The CPM and Presbytery actions took place before the 2008 GA.)

The GAPJC grouped the nine specifications of error into four groups.  For the two related to the actions of the Presbytery, neither were sustained.  The GAPJC agreed that the proper time for declaring an exemption was at the time of examination for ordination.  Part of the reasoning was that the examination was the time when other waivers or exceptions were considered.

The GAPJC partly sustained one of the two specifications of error related to Constitutional Interpretation of G-6.0106b.  While noting that an examination had not formally taken place, they did note that in the action the Presbytery had followed they had not completely fulfilled the requirements of G-6.0108 for the policy and process of declaring an exception.

There were two specifications of error regarding the actions taken by the CPM and one of those was sustained in part.  On one level, actions of a committee of presbytery are not reviewable by a higher governing body since the principle of review applies to governing bodies themselves.  However, as noted in this case, when the action of a committee is the action of the governing body acting through the committee, in this case the CPM, it is reviewable.  However, the GAPJC concurred with the SPJC that while the CPM presentation to presbytery was “not as clear as it could have been,” there was no misrepresentation.

Finally, of the three specified errors related to the Procedures of the SPJC, two were sustained.  One related to the handling and admission of certain confidential documents in what was referred to as “Envelope B.”  The GAPJC decision notes that there are procedures for handling confidential and sensitive material, that the material need not be made public, but that at least the substance of the material (documents or testimony) must be disclosed to all parties even if it is only offered but not admitted to evidence.  If offered but not admitted it still becomes part of the record of the case.  In the point that was not sustained it was agreed that it was acceptable, but not necessarily advisable, to not have a verbatim transcript of pre-trial hearings.

So the result is that the previous action of the Presbytery has been rescinded but the Presbytery is now free to examine Ms. Larges for ordination, including in the examination her Statement of Departure from G-6.0106b.  This is expected to happen next week.

One of the points that the complainants wanted was for the SPJC to instruct the Presbytery that G-6.0106b was a standard of the church and a declared departure from that was not permissible.  Both the SPJC and the GAPJC declined to do so.

However, while emphasizing that each examination must be handled on a case-by-case basis, as part of the decision the GAPJC took pains to reiterate previous decisions about the process and procedures of the ordination process and examination.  They included an extended section from the Bush decision that begins:

It would be an obstruction of constitutional governance to permit examining bodies to ignore or waive a specific standard that has been adopted by the whole church, such as the ‘fidelity and chastity’ portion of G-6.0106b, or any other similarly specific provision. On the other hand, the broad reference in G-6.0106b to ‘any practice which the confessions call sin’ puts the responsibility first on the candidate and then on the examining body to determine whether a departure is a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity and the remainder of G-6.0108a with respect to freedom of conscience.

And the Commission also cited additional cases on this aspect including Buescher v. Olympia, and Wier v. Second Pres.

The Commission also made a point of cautioning against acting too hastily to ordain so as to preclude a judicial challenge to the way the examination was handled.  Again, there was a good length quoted from a previous case, this time McKittrick v. West End Pres., which includes the caution:

[When] an installation occurs immediately following the examination process, there may be no practical opportunity for a protesting or dissenting party to seek a stay of enforcement of the decision to install. The Presbyterian custom of conducting business ‘decently and in order’ should not be converted into a race in which the swift prevail.

On close reading I get the distinct impression that they are trying to send a message.  Whether that message is “be sure you sweat the details because this will be reviewed” or whether it is “we aren’t saying this in as many words but remember G-6.0106b is on the books” will have to be seen.  (And maybe they are saying both.)  But it is important to remember that up to, and including, these decisions the GAPJC has ruled unanimously but really only on technicalities.  The substance and handling of a declaration of departure has not been formally ruled upon.  If the exception is granted in this case, and a new remedial case is filed there is the very real possibility that it would work its way through the church judicial process parallel to the church taking another vote on G-6.0106b that might remove that section and render the judicial cases moot.

Just another day as we strive to be “reformed and always being reformed according to the Word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit.”

Breaking News: PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions Published

2 Replies

The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has published their decisions on recently heard cases.

In my initial assessment I see no surprises in these two unanimous decisions regarding ordination standards:

219-08 – Bierschwale and others v. Presbytery of Twin Cities:  (Capetz case)  In my initial reading the important polity opinion rendered is that G-6.0106b and previous decisions like Bush v. Pittsburgh apply to the ordination process.  This case had to do with the restoration and validation of ministry, not ordination and call.  In that process there were no problems.  The sustained complaint was that the Synod PJC closed its proceedings.

219-11 – Naegeli and others v. Presbytery of San Francisco:  (Larges case)  This is a much more complex decision with several points being sustained in part and not sustained in part.  Bottom line for polity is that the question of when to declare an exception has been declared to be at the time of examination for ordination.  Practical result is that Ms. Larges has been cleared to be examined at the meeting next week on Nov. 10.  However, while not “instructing” the presbytery in this matter the GAPJC did emphasize the responsibility of determining if a declared exception is “a serious departure from essentials of Reformed faith and polity, and if it determines that she has, it must then decide whether the departure infringes on the rights and views of others or obstructs the constitutional governance of the church.”  The GAPJC appears to have left open the possibility of another case following the presbytery’s decision at that meeting.

Now, I’ll take some time and read every detail before commenting further.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — Synods: An Expanding Or Contracting Universe?

Leave a reply

It has been an interesting week for synods in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and not just because my own met a couple of days ago.

It is clear that the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) will have plenty to talk about next summer related to synods, if they want to tackle the subject.  We already knew about the optional changes to synods that the new Form of Government document would permit if it is approved.  In addition, two overtures have been posted that would reduce or eliminate synods.  Finally, there is a proposal from Presbyterians for Renewal to create a new non-geographic synod for churches and presbyteries to gather in based on theological affinity.

The PC(USA) has been in serious discussions for a while now about the usefulness of synods and whether it is a middle-governing body the church should do away with much like the Church of Scotland did away with them in 1992.  This discussion is recognized by both the original Form of Government Task Force Report as well as the updated nFOG report.  While the two reports do not get rid of synods, they both contain an essentially identical section (like most of the updated nFOG the new version reads a bit better than its original) G-3.0404 Reduced Function which says:

A synod may decide, with the approval of a two-thirds majority of its presbyteries, to reduce its function. In no case shall synod function be less than the provision of judicial process and administrative review of the work of the presbyteries (G-3.0401c). Such a synod shall meet at least every two years for the purposes of setting budget, electing members to its permanent judicial commission, and admitting to record the actions of its permanent judicial and administrative commissions. Presbyteries of such a synod shall assume for themselves, by mutual agreement, such other synod functions as may be deemed necessary by the synod.

Before going any further it is useful to look back at the history of synods in American Presbyterianism.  We usually put the beginning of the Presbyterian church in America in 1706 with the establishment of the first presbytery.  This was followed in 1717 with the first synod, the Synod of Philadelphia, which became the highest governing body until the first General Assembly in 1789.  In 1741 this main branch of American Presbyterianism had its first split into the Old Side and New Side and a second synod, the Synod of New York, was created for the New Side presbyteries and churches.  While the resolution of the split in 1758 returned the church to one synod, the Synod of New York and Philadelphia, the Old Side/New Side division persisted at the presbytery level, even to the point of having over-lapping presbyteries based on theological affinity in the New Side First Presbytery of Philadelphia and the Old Side Second Presbytery.  These would eventually be merged but it took over fifty years.

More recently, in the business before the 218th General Assembly the overtures included one to once again permit affinity presbyteries and now synods by allowing for flexibility in membership (Item 03-05), an overture to study the synod structure (Item 03-06), and the 217th GA was overtured to look into a Korean language synod.  All of these proposals were turned down by the full Assembly.  It is important to note there is historical precedent for racial ethnic synods with the Catawba Synod of the former PCUSA in the first half of the 20th century.

Since my last summary of the posted business for the 219th three more overtures have been added to the PC-Biz site.  One addresses Authoritative Interpretations and I will comment on that separately.  The other two new ones both address synods, specifically asking for a reduction or elimination of them.

Overture 4 from the Synod of the Rocky Mountains asks for changes to Chapters G-12 and D-5 of the Book of Order to decrease the responsibilities.  In fact, one of the parts of the overture would add to the current Government section the same language that is proposed in the nFOG about “reduced functions” for synods at the option of the constituent presbyteries.  But the overture goes on to proposed changes to the Government and Discipline sections that would allow two adjoining synods to form a joint Permanent Judicial Commission.

Overture 5 is more dramatic, proposing the elimination of Chapter G-12 all together eliminating synods from the PC(USA) structure.  The next part of this overture from the Presbytery of New Hope would set up a Synod Transition Administrative Commission, which would be the decently and orderly thing to do so as to wind up the work of the Synods.  There are a couple of polity issues I have with the wording in the overture.  (If this is something the Assembly decides to do the rewrite of the Commission mandate would be relatively straight-forward.)

Keeping in mind that a Presbyterian Commission is empowered to act on behalf of, and with the full authority of, the governing body that creates the commission, I would object to the members of a commission being named by the Stated Clerk and the Moderator of the Assembly.  That would be fine for a committee or task force, but if a commission is to have the power of the Assembly, than the members should be approved by the full Assembly itself.  This would necessitate the vote on the constitutional changes following the 219th GA and the naming of the commission and subsequent wind-down of the synods by the 220th GA two years later.

[For the polity wonks, GA Junkies, and those interested in the details:  It is interesting that the Book of Order keeps talking about “appointing” commissions.  But if you drill down into the Annotated Book of Order, under G-9.0503a(1) there is an annotation referring to an interpretation by the 217th GA that a presbytery may delegate the responsibility of naming a commission for an ordination.  So, by implication the naming of commissions for other purposes may not be delegated but must be approved by the full governing body.]

My second concern is, I believe, a polity problem and that is with the mandate of the Commission.  This part of the overture reads:

2.   If the presbyteries concur in removing synods from
the Book of Order or proposed Form of Government, that the Stated Clerk and Moderator of the 219th General Assembly (2010) be authorized to appoint a Synod Transition Administrative Commission by July 2011 to ensure that all matters related to the elimination of synods be addressed. This includes review of presbytery minutes, permanent judicial commissions, or other constitutional functions assigned to synods. The commission would be authorized to resolve all fiduciary functions related to synods and any regional groups that are currently functioning as part of synods.

There are several aspects to my concern.

First, there is no end date for the Commission.  Give it a two-year initial life and renew it every GA if its work is not done.

Second, the overture contains a reasonable list of things to do, but is the commission to do those things (minutes review, PJC cases) for what is in process at the time of the constitutional change or forever?  It seems that a more detailed plan for synod transition is needed, unless this commission becomes a permanent commission (and the name of the commission contains transitional so it is not intended to be the case).  Let me put this another way:  If the commission is to do review of presbytery minutes is that just once for the transition or on an ongoing basis.  And if just once, than there should be another section to this overture that describes how the GA will take on the review of the minutes of 173 presbyteries in the future.

And that is my Third concern, that while this overture covers the transition commission, what then?  There needs to be consideration of the transition process for the OGA and the GAMC if they are going to take over the essential functions of the 16 synods.

Yes, I am being picky here, but because of the nature of commissions you have to cover the details when it is created.  I don’t see any fundamental problem with this overture that can’t be overcome with some detailed rewriting by the Assembly, if this is the direction they chose to go.  And I am very curious to see the Advisory Committee on the Constitution’s comments on this overture.

Well, that is what is currently on the docket, but this past week also brought another proposal that we can expect to see on the radar in the next couple of months.  The organization  Presbyterians For Renewal (PFR) has published their solution for the PC(USA) going forward, which is to expand the synod structure by creating a 17th synod to serve as a non-geographic affinity synod.  Churches concerned about the doctrinal direction the PC(USA) is taking could chose to switch over to this New Synod.

The full proposal is 13 pages long, of which 9 are FAQ and 2 are the text of the proposed constitutional changes with a 2 page Appendix that appears to act much like the procedural manuals envisioned under the nFOG.

Since this is just a proposal and has not been transmitted yet, or at least posted, as a formal overture from a presbytery I am not going to dissect it line-by-line but will make some general comments and highlight a few specifics.

As you can imagine for something like this to work it contains a bit of creative polity, especially items granting the New Synod (the working name until it is created and formally named) a reasonable amount of autonomy.  It does however say that it has the “same responsibilities and powers as all other synods” which presumably means the ecclesiastical and administrative functions that include a PJC and records review.  However, it also says that the provisions in this new section supersede any other Book of Order provisions to the contrary and that the provisions in this section may not be changed by the rest of the denomination without a majority vote of all the presbyteries in the New Synod.

One polity point that quickly becomes apparent is that New Synod presbyteries lose a certain amount of authority under this plan.  On the one hand, the synod will control ordination standards instead of the presbyteries.  Presbyteries will conduct the examinations but the New Synod “has the responsibility and power to maintain the standards for ordination and continuing ministry.”  There appears to be little room for interpretation of the standards at the presbytery or session level.  On the other side dismissal of churches from the New Synod has been removed from presbytery approval to a vote of the congregation wishing to switch.  (And this applies to a church wishing to join New Synod or leave New Synod.)  However, while approval of the dismissing presbytery is not required the approval of the receiving presbytery is required in both cases.  (Under present polity for a church to switch the congregational vote is not required but it must be approved by both presbyteries, the synod or synods involved, and the GA.)

I had to laugh when I saw in the FAQ the comment about the church fighting over ordination standards for the last 3 decades.  While the current sexual standards have been the point of contention for 30 years, the Old Side/New Side split almost three centuries ago was over ordination standards, including subscription to the Westminster Standards.  Interestingly, this New Synod proposal brings back something that is very close to creedal subscription.  A couple of ways this will happen is outlined in the Appendix.  First, the New Synod will produce a list of some, but not the, essential tenets as areas that must not be overlooked in examining candidates for ordained office.  Secondly, in the New Synod any ordained officer of the church must affirm:

Along with the broader constitutional standards for manner of life (e.g. G-6.0106a), New Synod also holds to the standard that its officers will live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness.

It goes on to say “Those who can not make this affirmation for their own manner of life will not be approved for ordination or installation in an office, or for membership in a presbytery.

It is important to remember that the standards New Synod is interested in maintaining are the ones that are currently in force in the PC(USA).  Currently the church is debating if there is any flexibility in the standards either because they are  “non-essentials” or because the violate an office-holder’s conscience.  What the final version of this document needs to do is present the ordination standards for New Synod not so that it sounds like legalism, but instead in a way that it brings grace.

It will be interesting to see if this Assembly wants to tackle the present situation with synods.  And I await the wording of the New Synod proposal as an overture from a presbytery.  Stay tuned…

Exit Strategy? Parallels In Institutional Realignment And Consequences

3 Replies

The parallels are very interesting, if not striking…

For the past week the big news in religion circles has been the Roman church establishing a structure to bring into full communion Anglicans that are now at theological odds with their own denomination and are looking for a more conservative church.

But consider this Anglican-Roman possibility compared to the PC(USA)-EPC situation.

At the top level there is the structural similarity.  In each case the receiving church has created a specific auxiliary structure within the church to accommodate the beliefs, polity and practices of the immigrants.  While Rome is still ironing out the details, it has been announced that the post-Anglican branch will have a “personal ordinariate” (read bishop or other episcopal type person)(update: a good note on personal ordinareates from Called to Communion) for that branch.  The EPC has of course set up the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery.

Now, yes, I am fully aware of a couple of points where these two cases are reversed.  First in size, the larger Roman church is offering to receive from the smaller Anglican church while it is the other way around for the PC(USA)/EPC relationship.  But there is a historical relationship in each of these cases with the smaller denomination braking away from the larger at some point in the past.  One other important difference in this situation is the speed that each developed.  While the founding of the New Wineskins Presbytery was not immediate, it did happen relatively quickly by church history standards.  The reunification of the Roman and Anglican branches has probably been a goal of Rome for, oh, say 500 years, and this most recent move should be viewed as something specific that has been in the works for a while, maybe a couple of decades.

But beyond the structural parallels there are at least two dynamics in this where we may see parallel activity as well.

The first is the effect on the receiving institution.  Interestingly, in both cases the receiving institution will have to make accommodation for women serving in ordained positions.  While the EPC had this as a local option, we have seen some question about how former PC(USA) churches would be integrated into EPC presbyteries that do not currently have women ordained to church office.  For the Roman church, it will have to accommodate not only women serving as priests but the reality of married clergy.  And while Rome has previously accepted married clergy that have realigned to them from the Anglican church, this will require a whole new level of accommodation.

But what this really does is raise the possibility of questions from the established side.  “If they can be part of us and have women clergy, why don’t we?”  “If they can be part of us and the priests can be married, why can’t we?”  I have previously spoken of the PC(USA)-ization of the EPC, it will be interesting to see what the ramifications are for the Anglican-ization of the Roman church.  How much interest will there be in members and clergy drifting from the established side to the new branch?

(Correction:  After multiple contacts about my line above about women priests (see the comment below) I did some more looking and 1) can not now locate my original source for that and 2) located a lot of commentary that implies no women priests.  Accordingly, I have struck that comment.  If I can locate my original source I will reinstate the above line and cite a reference.  Until then it is not an issue. Sorry about that.)

The second parallel is the one of pragmatism and practicality — The idea looks good on paper, but will they come?  Put another way — How much will this be viewed as the better of two imperfect options?

Within the PC(USA) the situation is still developing.  The church has, for the moment, retained the ordination standards but the majority view seems to be that when in all likelihood the PC(USA) presbyteries vote on it again a year from now there is the distinct possibility that G-6.0106b will be modified or removed.  At the present time not all of the churches who are part of the New Wineskins Association of Churches have moved to the EPC New Wineskins Presbytery — many see their calling to remain with the PC(USA) for the moment.  And Presbyterians for Renewal has proposed a non-geographic synod for churches to be able to remain in the PC(USA) while holding differing views on ordination standards.  While the EPC option is available it appears that so far a minority has viewed it as the appropriate way forward.

There is a similar situation in the Anglican Communion even without the offer from Rome.  In the U.S. there is both the Anglican Church in North America that broke away from the Episcopal Church as well as some dioceses that are looking at staying, but just barely.  The Diocese of South Carolina has a special convention this weekend where it will consider five resolutions that would keep them in the church but withdraw from many of its functions.  Similarly, within the Church of England there are groups within the church that are eying the announcement from Rome, but seem to be leaning towards the loyal opposition route.  And then there is the Global South where the “liberal trajectory” in parts of the Communion is an issue, but not for them at home.

One area which does not seem to be a parallel is the politics of the exit strategy.  In the PC(USA) the EPC option seems to really be viewed as just that, an option.  Despite charges of recruiting PC(USA) churches, and the effort by the PC(USA) to hold onto property, it has seemed to be something that churches consider for the sake of their ministry.

Now maybe I am reading too much into some of these stories (or the media is writing too much into these stories), but over the last week I have gotten the impression that many of the conservatives in the Anglican Communion see the offer from Rome in political terms and a development to be used as a bargaining chip.  Maybe it is just me, but from the comments welcoming the new option (e.g. ACNA) it almost seems like some members of the Communion are using the Roman Church as a “white knight.” They are not so much interested in joining Rome as to use its offer to put pressure on the Anglican Communion to reinforce conservative views.  But maybe this is just me reading some conspiracy theory into all this.

If you are interested in more of the practical realities of this offer to the Anglicans from Rome I would suggest a piece by Diana Butler Bass on Beliefnet and Peter Smith at the Louisville Courier-Journal.  And of course, one of my favorite reads, GetReligion, has five different articles analyzing the coverage of the announcement.  (One, two, three, four and five)

Now, if you are regular readers of my blog you probably realize that I have an analytical interest in church realignments.  It will be interesting to see how this develops.  I think that my first Ph.D. degree is probably enough so I won’t be doing the comprehensive research and analysis, but there are probably a couple of good dissertations about church structure and realignment that will come out of this and I look forward to that research.

In addition, it will be interesting to see what develops in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America over the same issues after this past summer’s Churchwide Assembly.  So far about ten ELCA churches have had a first vote on realigning with the Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ.  But I need to start closely following another denominational branch like I need…

Anyway, it is interesting to see how both the structures and practicalities of these realignments are developing.  We will see what the actual outcome of all this will be.