Category Archives: PC(USA)

Watching the Pittsburgh PJC Trial and Inaccurate Media Headlines

Leave a reply

There is way too much to watch at the moment with the GA of the PCANZ and Presbyfest in the news at the moment, but the Pittsburgh Presbytery trial, or re-trial, of the Rev. Janet Edwards got underway yesterday and it is reasonable to expect a decision today.  (If you want background on this you can check out my previous post on the case.)

I’ll keep watching for a decision, but while watching I noticed that several news outlets have gotten good stories out, such as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and KDKA, among others.  But I must take issue with the news story, particularly the headline, in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.  The headline is:

State Court Backs Presbyterian Minister

If you read the article you find that this is not even close to the truth.  The real story is that a former State Superior Court judge, Justin M. Johnson, testified in the Rev. Edwards’ defense that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Constitution does not prohibit same-sex weddings.  That, to me, is a far cry from a state court intervening in a church trial.  To the article’s credit it does quote PC(USA) Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons as saying that the constitution does prohibit ministers from preforming same-sex weddings.

Anyway, just watching and waiting to see how the Presbytery PJC rules.

Connectedness in the Covenant Community: Part 1 — The Big Picture

7 Replies

This is a two-parter where I will ask and reflect on a couple of uncomfortable questions related to the Covenant Community of the church.  (And with a little luck I’ll get both parts written in the next 36 hours.)

In this part I want to ask a question that might just get me labeled a heretic; there is a bit of that going around at the moment.

Part of what got me thinking about this is that “PresbyFest,” as Michael Kruse has labeled it, is going on in Snowbird, Utah, with back-to-back-to-back-to-back meetings of the “PC(USA) Establishment” including the annual polity conference, Association of Executive Presbyters Meeting, joint Middle Governing Body and General Assembly Council meeting, and GAC alone.  That is a lot of meetings for relatively few people for a denomination of about 2.2 million people.

This in part got me wondering…

Is the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) too big?

Let me ask this question another way: How can we be effectively connected in a denomination this large?

The “Presbyterian” answer of course is that

the congregation’s connected to the session,
the session’s connected to the presbytery,
the presbytery’s connected to the synod,
the synod’s connected to the General Assembly…

But how does this play out in reality?  In the past I have commented on what I saw as the disconnect between the “people in the pews” and “the folks in Louisville.”  And this past General Assembly has raised a lot of questions and uncertainty based on what I hear when I talk with churches and groups about what the General Assembly did, or did not do.  Is the PC(USA) too big to be a truly connectional church?

And when I use the term “big,” I do mean our size both in terms of total numbers and in terms of the institution and its many branches, offices, and agencies.  Most of the people in the pews have never heard of ACSWP or MRTI, to say nothing of being able to tell you where the scope of one group’s work ends and the other’s begins.

In his 1994 book, The Body, Charles Colson tells the story of a church, a story that has stuck in my mind for almost 15 years now.  He tells of talking to a pastor who, with some reticence, admitted that he and his board of elders were trying to shrink the church.  This was not for physical or logistical reasons, but they felt God was calling them to reduce their congregational membership to those individuals who were committed to the church’s vision for mission.  The elders faithfully prayed and membership dropped.  But once the core group was left the church started growing again and with their unity of vision the mission of the church was strengthened.  Do we take our Book of Order seriously when we say “The Church is called to undertake this mission even at the risk of losing its own life.”

Another way that our size may get in the way of our connectedness is the small sampling represented at General Assembly.  With about 750 commissioners for 10,000 churches that is less than one commissioner per ten churches.  For medium and small Presbyterian branches every pastor is a commissioner to GA and every church gets to send a ruling elder.  It seems that this would improve the knowledge of GA actions and increase the “buy-in” of congregations in denominational actions.  I am not sure we could fund or organize a 20,000+ person GA, but there may be a lesson in it.  (And yes, I am aware that doing this does not eliminate the doctrinal disagreements, but it does seem to have them handled more smoothly.)

Please do not take this as an argument strictly in favor of the continued decline in the PC(USA) and the realignment of churches with other Presbyterian branches, but  I will admit that an interpretation like that is within what I have said here.

But, what I am mostly thinking about is how the large denomination can “feel” better connected, can feel smaller to the membership.  Sending four commissioners to GA or the Executive to Snowbird is a start, but only represents a small sample of the churches in the denomination.  Lines of communication need to be opened in new ways and the blogging by officials is a start.  But does even Bruce have 10,000 readers, one from each church?  The PC(USA) fan site on Facebook only has around 2,500 fans.

How can we better connect?  Should we consider regional gatherings that each church is required, or highly encouraged, to send representatives to.  It would need to be worthwhile for it to get the audience that would connect each congregation to the wider church and to the other churches in a region larger than a presbytery.  Do we have events that blur presbytery borders, where neighboring churches get together irregardless of the presbyteries they are in?  In a dense area like Southern California could neighboring presbyteries hold joint meetings once a year?  Or are we meetinged out and want to stick with the status quo?

In this case size is not just a membership or institutional measurement but a “people” measurement as well.  We are too big if we lose sight of each other across the table.  We need to find ways and be intentional about our connectionalism so we are truly connected on many different scales.

Next time, connectedness in the congregation: Are we too small?

A Bit More On Property Cases

Leave a reply

First, my thanks to Lou for the additional info on the Kirk of the Hills case that he posted as a comment to my previous post.  He reports that there will be no written decision by the judge so I can stop watching for that and we won’t have any thing there to parse for the legal theory.  This will give us the state supreme court decision, when that is issued, as the next legal step in this case.

However, another case, that of All Saints Anglican Church of Rochester, New York, is a bit more advanced in the legal system.  The case, which I have mentioned before, is very similar to the Kirk of the Hills situation with a church that raised all the money to acquire the property and build the building before the “trust clause” and was then evicted from the building by the diocese.  Again, the church has lost legal decisions and the appeals are approaching the state supreme court.  In news reports today those associated with the case are suggesting that this could be the case that reaches the U.S. Supreme Court first.  It will be close since the California Episcopal Church Cases will go to that state supreme court in about a month so they might be the federal test case.

As always, stay tuned.

Summary Judgement in the Kirk of the Hills Property Case

2 Replies

In the case CJ-2006-5063

The District Court for Tulsa County, Oklahoma granted summary judgment in favor of Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) on September 9, 2008, and denied the motion for summary judgment of Kirk of the Hills.  Judge Jefferson Sellers enforced the decision of the Presbytery’s Administrative Commission and ordered Kirk of the Hills to convey the church’s real and personal property to Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery.  [from the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery Press Release]

Tulsa County District Judge Jefferson Sellers ruled today that the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) and the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery of the PCUSA (EOP) own the Kirk of the Hills property at 4102 E. 61st Street, under the denomination’s constitution. A constitutional provision inserted in 1983 provides that the denomination holds a trust interest in the property of a local church, even when the local church bought and paid for the property. The Kirk of the Hills paid for the property over the last four decades and the deeds are in the Kirk Corporation’s name. [from the Kirk of the Hills Press Release]

While I generally follow the property cases currently underway in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and The Episcopal Church, I usually leave the routine coverage of the cases to other sources.  (PresbyLaw, The Layman Online, Virtue Online)  The decision that was handed down yesterday in the case of Kirk of the Hills Church of Tulsa, Oklahoma (formally Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), now Evangelical Presbyterian Church) is notable in a couple of respects.

First, Kirk of the Hills is cited as the largest church, and one of the first churches, to depart from the PC(USA) following the 2006 General Assembly adoption of the PUP report.  This case was being watched by the churches as a test case of how the denomination and legal system would handle these cases.

This leads into the second interesting point, the legal theory of the decision.  The written decision has not appeared in the court database yet (if I’m checking the right database) but I’ll do a little reading between the lines of the press releases.  The Kirk press release is shorter (one page) and contains fewer legal details but the section I quoted at the beginning implies that their legal theory was that since the church has had deed to the property before the explicit trust clause then they own the property.  The Presbytery press release is richer in legal detail including part of the successful legal theory and says:

The Court followed the “hierarchical deference” approach in awarding the property to the Presbytery, which holds the property in trust for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  Oklahoma has been considered a “hierarchical deference” jurisdiction since the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling in 1973 in Presbytery of Cimmarron v. Westminster Presbyterian Church of Enid.

In reading through the press release it struck me that while the trust clause was mentioned above, it was always in the context of the church structure.  Furthermore, the Presbytery document places an emphasis on the Administrative Commission, like the opening quote above, as a demonstration of the PC(USA) hierarchical church.  It appears then, that the Administrative Commission and the process was a more significant legal argument than the trust clause alone and it seems to have worked in arguing against the Kirk’s argument about the trust clause.

While I look forward to reading this decision when made available somewhere, in skimming through the 1973 ruling, which relies heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Watson v. Jones (1871), it does not surprise me that with this legal precedent a District Court ruled in this way.  It seems that if Kirk is going to retain its property it will have to convince the current Oklahoma Supreme Court that this case differs from Cimmarron v. Westminster.

An appeal decision has not been made but is likely, according to the church press release.  Kirk and EOP have 20 days to make arrangements about the property under the judge’s order.

Beyond the legal arguments where does this leave everyone?  It seems that EOP will have a big empty box on its hands and a 2,400 member church with a 175 family preschool will be looking for a new location.  It is too soon to know what is going to happen here but I think both parties could use our prayers.  While this predates the GA action, maybe it is time to remember the “gracious, pastoral response.”

UPDATE 9/11/08:  The Presbyterian News Service has issued an article/press release on the decision which draws heavily on the Presbytery press release I also drew on.  But it is interesting that in News Service article they use the phrase “trust clause” and place an emphasis on that while I read the Presbytery’s release to emphasize the Administrative Commission process as being important.  I did find it interesting that the New Service article describes Kirk of the Hills departure with the more dramatic term “bolted” without any additional facts about the swiftness or legal proceedings to support the use of the term.  Terms like “departed,” “disaffiliated,” or “realigned” might have been more appropriate if the circumstances of the departure are not spelled out in the story to suppor the dramatic term.  I also found it interesting that the article describes the PC(USA) as a 2.3 million member denomination when at the end of 2007 the membership of 2,209,546 would round to 2.2 million members.  It could be habit, 2007 is the first year the PC(USA) would round to 2.2 million members, or it could be that we were 2.3 million members when the process started in 2006.

Also, I have still not found the full decision posted anywhere yet but…  PresbyLaw has info from the hearing where the decision was read and the report there is that the judge suggested that on appeal the court could go with “neutral principles” and that could go in favor of the church.

Finally, the word from other sources, included in PresbyLaw, is that the church will appeal.

Statistics and “Missing” Information

2 Replies

Over the last week I have had two conversations about statistics and in each case there is something missing or hidden if you just look at the information as presented in the table.  This was also an important point at a church committee meeting on Saturday where we were working on the 2009 budget.  Not statistics but financial data and the way that the accounting professionals presented it to us: while correct by their professional standards, it did not always make it straight-forward to understand exactly where the money was coming from and going to.

Statistics are frequently tricky and if you want proof of that from another perspective, and you are not already reading it, Bradley Wright, a professor of sociology interested in the sociology of Christianity has a series going right now on statistics at his blog, fittingly named, Bradley Wright’s Weblog.  I really enjoy his writing, but that may be because I am a fellow academaniac.

Anyway, here are the two I was discussing…

The first statistic:  Contemporary Christian Music
This one began with the observation that almost everything we sing in worship was “contemporary” at one time.  Like I explained to my kids yesterday (to the usual eye roll that Dad is doing it again) the two great Issac Watts hymns our preacher chose for worship (that they didn’t really care for) were significant because of the influence Watts had in moving English worship music away from the literal Psalter.  (And I do realize that there are some readers who consider that the beginning of the end for mainline Reformed worship.)

But what about contemporary worship music today.  One measure of what is being sung is the monthly list from Christian Copyright Licensing International, better known as CCLI.  This is who a church pays the small royalty fee to when they use modern music in worship for congregational singing.  Well the August 2008 list is now available and while it includes a few that our congregation regularly sings in worship most are not used in my church.  It is interesting that the list includes one song, Lord I Lift Your Name On High, with the incredibly low CCLI number of 117947.  (Like a serial number giving the approximate order it entered the CCLI catalog.)  Twenty two of the songs on the list have numbers above one million and many above four million.

The oldest list available from the search page is August 1997.  What is the latest and greatest on that list… You guessed it, good old 117947, Lord I Lift Your Name On High.  But as I look down the eleven year old list I recognize most of the songs as ones that we regularly sing in worship.  Is my church so out of date in singing these “traditional” songs that everyone else has passed us by so they no longer appear on the CCLI list?  No, when we, and other churches, sing them now it is “please open your hymnals to number 36.”

While the CCLI list is a useful tool for the “cutting edge” contemporary music, once a song has been widely adopted and enters the hymnals it drops off the CCLI list.  The CCLI list ceases to be a good measure of all “contemporary” worship music, at least if contemporary music goes back more than a few years.

(In putting this post together I found on the CCLI site the results of a survey they did of their license holders about music in worship.  What is the problem here?  It is the sample population.  If they only sampled their license holders they completely missed congregations that exclusively use printed material not requiring a CCLI license.  None the less, there is some interesting stuff in those statistics but I’ll leave that for another time.)

The second statistic:  Churches Leaving the PC(USA)
I make frequent mention of the Presbyterian Church (USA) annual statistics and the decline in membership numbers.  What is interesting is that while the number of members has declined by more than 2%, the number of churches has declined by less than 1%.  Yes, part of this is that the vast majority of churches in the PC(USA) are losing members, but part of the difference might be from how the PC(USA) accounts for the statistics when a church leaves the denomination.

As best as I can figure out, in the case where a congregation choses to disaffiliate, rather than request a transfer, and an administrative commission can identify a minority to continue the church, the result in the statistics is a large relative loss of membership, but no loss of a church.  I am not saying this is a false reporting of the information; it is a technically correct way to list the data.  I am just pointing out that it does mask the nature of the membership loss that occurred.  It almost seems we need a category for “continuing churches decimated by schism.”  Where are footnotes when you need them.

So that is what I have seen masked in how the statistics are reported.

The Changes in the PC(USA) Ordination Exam on Biblical Exegesis — Brief Observations and Comments

1 Reply

Last week the news broke, just in time for the latest round of ordination exams, that there would be changes to the grading of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Ordination Exam on Biblical Exegesis.  The Presbyteries Cooperative Committee on Examinations announced two changes: 1) “The demonstration of a working knowledge of Greek and/or Hebrew will no longer be a requirement in order to complete the examination successfully.”  2) The inquirers and candidates will be asked to offer a “faithful interpretation” rather than “a principle meaning” of the text.

According to a document from the PCCEC these changes come from input received during a self-study.  The committee has implemented the changes as a response to those concerns.

This one came in below my radar screen and I must thank the other bloggers I will reference below for alerting me to it.  They have all made their own comments about it, and most in more detail and focus than I will.  I simply wish to highlight a few issues in this discussion.

1.  The Future Is Now
Maybe the most important thing to come out of this, from my polity wonk viewpoint, is that this is the first highly visible change resulting from our new polity model.  While we may have been focused on the Form of Government revision (nFOG) from the Task Force and the 218th General Assembly that the Assembly referred to the presbyteries for further review, we need to remember that the revision to Chapter 14 of the current Form of Government, sent to the presbyteries by the 217th GA and approved by them, was in the same spirit as the nFOG.  This is a model that removes procedural details from the Book of Order and shifts it out to “manuals” to be written and approved by other agencies and governing bodies.  So now Chapter 14 simply says that there will be ordination exams and one of the topics that will be covered is “Biblical Exegesis” rather than giving specifics about the Exegesis exam and what particular details it will cover.

If the nFOG gets adopted expect a lot more of this.  Depending on how you look at it this is not necessarily a negative thing.  In this case, while the Cooperative Committee may have changed the grading of the exam, the door is now open for a presbytery’s Committee on Preparation for Ministry to adopt grading and interpretation of the exam that are stricter than previously specified in the Book of Order.

So, if the church as a whole does not like this change what do they do?  (I would note that between the many blogs I read and a Google search I have found only negative comments about this change by bloggers, but it is usually those objecting that shout loudest.  However, reading through the comments on the blog posts I reference there are positive comments about the change like this one from Adam Copeland.)  It is not clear to me that there is an established method for input and adjustment to these new manuals from the wider church other than expressing concern to the committee and supervising agency or council.  There are of course always Book of Order amendments.

For more on the change in polity regarding this I refer you to Pastor Bob.

2.  This Discussion Has Been Going On Throughout Global Presbyterian History
I won’t go into great detail here, but while Presbyterians have historically held higher education requirements than almost any other denomination, the exact nature of those requirements has been a topic of discussion from the very beginning and continues today.  Whether pastors can be trained at small specialized institutions instead of full-fledged universities was a topic of discussion in 18th century American Presbyterianism regarding the Log College and today in the Church of Scotland regarding Highland Theological College.

One of the issues that has been mentioned related to this level of theological training is the high failure rate, possibly related to uneven grading, for any of the more “subjective” or “interpretative” ordination exams.  (The polity exam also regularly comes up in this category.)  Again, read through the comments on some of the referenced blog posts for individual stories regarding conflicting graders’ comments.

3.  This Shifts But Does Not Necessarily Weaken The Standards
If the Cooperative Committee and their exam graders were the final word than a good case can be made that the standard is weakened.  There is a great series of posts by Mark D. Roberts (First, Second, Third, Fourth, Postscript) on the change and what the weakening of the original language requirement and the different meanings of “a principle meaning” versus “faithful interpretation” imply.  (There is more great discussion in the comments to these posts and Jim Berkley has a follow-up.)  I think we will have to wait a little bit to see how this change is actually implemented in the grading.

What this change has effectively done has highlighted the responsibility of the graders for interpreting that standard, and shifted the responsibility for judging the candidates ability with the original language to their Committee on Preparation for Ministry.  While the proficiency with the original languages will not be graded it will be commented on for the benefit of the CPM’s.  What will the CPM’s do with that?

In essence this change has moved some of the authority and responsibility from the central structure of the denomination back out to the presbyteries.  It is now up to the CPM’s to take this new responsibility seriously, but you can bet that through differing levels of oversight and differing philosophies there will be a less uniform standard for candidates certified ready to receive a call.

A personal reaction:  First, I am a ruling elder and never had to suffer through ordination exams.  (Want to trade for my doctoral exams?)  However, having had formal Latin training and a few “kitchen table” classes on Greek, I have a rudimentary knowledge of that original language.  (Sorry, no functionality for Hebrew.)  I do sometimes follow sermons in my Greek text and have done my best to work with both the Greek and transliterated Hebrew on the few times I have preached.  From this background I am sorry to see original language ability disappear as an explicit requirement for the exam and if the exam grading remains like this I hope the CPM’s will still seriously evaluate a candidate’s functionality with the original languages when deciding if they are certified ready to receive a call.

Women in Ordained Ministry in the Church — Current Discussion and Some Thoughts

Leave a reply

The first item, or actually two items, of news relates to the ongoing discussion in the Presbyterian Church in America about the role of women in the diaconate.  You may remember that at their General Assembly back in June there was a significant discussion about establishing a study committee to look at this issue and the various aspects of ordination versus commissioning versus participation.  In the end the Assembly decided not to establish the study committee but to continue the discussion in the denomination, including through the process of records review.

As part of that continuing discussion the PCA publication byFaith has just published on-line a pair of articles that do a great job of presenting two of the aspects of this issue:

The Case for our Current Policy on Female Deacons by Ligon Duncan

The Case for Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Deaconesses by Tim Keller

Each of the articles is well written for a knowledgeable but not scholarly audience.  For instance, they presuppose that you know a bit about the issue and are familiar with the concepts of complementarianism and egalitarianism.  But they do a good job of discussing relevant points in the history of the debate as well as theological and scriptural issues without your eyes glazing over when presented with the Greek vocabulary.

It is also important to point out that the articles are written by two high-profile and respected teaching elders in the PCA with somewhat different views, but who both acknowledge, if not affirm, the present constitutional standard of the PCA that only men may hold any ordained office.  They also affirm the constitutional standard that women are to be involved in the diaconate ministry.  The articles discuss two different approaches to that involvement.

For those of us not in the PCA this is not an unrelated issue.  Between the PCA, with no ordination of women, and the PC(USA), with full ordination of women, there is the Evangelical Presbyterian Church with “local option” ordination.

As the movement of churches disaffiliating from the PC(USA) began and these churches generally realigned with the EPC, there were concerns raised about the status of women’s ordinations in the realigned churches.  In particular, Presbyterians for Renewal had an article in their 12 reasons to stay in the PC(USA) on “The PC(USA) Affirms and Encourages Women.”  (All of my links to that original article are now broken but there is a post at Renewing.NewCastleFPC.org that has the original list of 12 reasons to stay in the PC(USA).)  There was also a series of articles by the Network of Presbyterian Women in Leadership titled “Has anyone asked the women?”

In thinking about this I wondered “How much of an issue is this at the present time?”

So in my morning coffee break and over lunch today I did a quick survey.  I took the EPC list of churches in the New Wineskins/EPC Transitional Presbytery and did a quick, and probably unscientific, look at all listed web sites to see how many had women on staff who were ordained as ministers.  I would first note that of the 30 churches on the list, there is only one with a woman as the solo/senior/head pastor.  In total I found about six women in what appeared to be ordained pastoral positions at these 30 churches.  (I gave one or two ambiguous names the benefit of the doubt as being women and on some church web sites technical titles that a GA Junkie would want were absent, so again I had to make my best judgment if the individual was ordained.  I also included one commissioned lay pastor.  Like I said, it was quick, “back of the envelope,” and unscientific.)  My best count from the web sites is that there are at least 66 total ordained ministers at these churches.  At six out of 66 there are about 9% ordained women serving in these churches.  So in reality, while six individuals may have an issue when the transitional presbytery dissolves (depends on the status of women in the presbyteries these churches will be transferred into), 91% will have no problem.  (Interestingly, I just called up the PC(USA) 2007 statistics, and while they break out male/female elders and deacons, they don’t for ministers.  But I would bet that the percentage of ministers in the PC(USA) who are women, while less than 50% is more than 9%.  I did a count of my presbytery membership and it is 15%.  For ministers serving churches it is 22% in my presbytery.)

It is interesting to consider the reasons for this low percentage of women in ordained ministry in these churches.  I am not aware of a departure of women from the church as the church departs for the EPC.  Maybe there is already a “corporate culture” at these churches that gives them an affinity for the EPC including the lower likelyhood of women in ordained office.  Or you could play thought games with the cause and effect:  “Because they have few women in leadership they have an affinity for the EPC” or “Because they have an affinity for the EPC they have few women in leadership.”  While not losing sight of the fact that these churches are realigning with the EPC for other reasons, the issue of women in ordained leadership, or not in leadership as the case may be, appears to be an associated factor.

But at another level it is an issue.  Over the last couple of months I’ve had conversations with two women attending my church about their sense of call to ordained ministry.  For both, because of “where they are,” ordained ministry in their present situation is not an option, whether it be denominational membership or seminary attendance.  They are still talking to God about whether the call is authentic and if so should they make a change in their situation.

And given time, maybe this will not be an issue with the EPC.  I have speculated that with a continued or increased realignment of churches from the PC(USA) to the EPC there can’t but help being a certain “PC(USA)-isation” of the EPC which I expect will include the spreading of women’s ordination under local option, if not the approval of the ordination of women across the denomination.  As I frequently say, time will tell.

Closely Watched Judicial Cases Affecting the PC(USA) Scheduled For October

Leave a reply

We got news this week that two closely watched judicial cases with implications for the Presbyterian Church (USA) will be heard by their appropriate judicial bodies this coming October.

The first of these will be the trial of the Rev. Janet Edwards by the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbytery of Pittsburgh on October 1.

This hit the news last week with a news release by the Presbyterian News Service about the case.  I am at a bit of a loss to explain the release of this news item at this time unless a) it was a slow news day or b) the trial date was announced.  I’ve been looking for documents related to the trial on line and not finding any so all I can say is that I suspect, but can not confirm, option b.

A quick recap of this case:  The Rev. Janet Edwards preformed a same-sex ceremony for a lesbian couple back in June, 2005, and everyone involved with the ceremony is describing it as a “wedding.”  A complaint was made, an investigating committee formed, and the investigating committee filed charges.  One little problem… The charges were filed four days past the deadline that investigating committee had to meet so the Presbytery PJC dismissed the charges.  A new complaint was made, a new investigating commission went to work and filed five charges, in a timely manner, and back in June the PJC reviewed the charges and dismissed three of the five.  Among the new charges was the accusation that parts of the ceremony were not Christian, but contained Buddhist elements related to the beliefs of one of the partners.  That was part of what was dismissed on the theory that if a ceremony is prohibited in the first place you can’t specify how it should be done properly and what is improper.  (If that theory sounds familiar hold the thought, I’ll get back to it in a minute.) (Story on the dismissal from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.)

A few notes and comments on the story so far:  In researching this I have seen several references (like this article) to the original dismissal as being for “statute of limitations.”  While I am not a lawyer I understand the statute of limitations to relate to the offending action not to the judicial process itself.  Since the investigating committee missed a deadline this would be an administrative problem.  And since the charges were brought up again clearly it is still within the time limit on the alleged infraction.  Related to the charges being brought up again, this new hearing has also been referred to as “double-jeopardy.”  Again, the first case did not actually go to a “guilty/not guilty” decision, therefore it is not double jeopardy in my understanding of the process.

It is interesting to consider the outcome of this case.  It would have been within the realm of possibility, based on the current legal precedent, that all the charges against the Rev. Edwards were dismissed back in June since that hearing was after the Spahr v. Redwoods Decision in April.  That decision said “By the definition in W-4.9001, a same sex ceremony can never be a marriage.”  It went on to conclude that since it can’t be a marriage the minister can not be guilty of preforming a same-sex marriage.  All the Presbytery PJC had to do was cite this precedent and “game over.”  But this result would have been about as unsatisfying as the GAPJC decision.  And the dismissal of three of the charges does have that similar ring of legal reasoning.  (I am not a church lawyer so if I missed a critical point in our polity here related to the hearing or dismissing the case please let me know.)

So it appears that the PJC sees a point in hearing this case.  It could be that Edwards will be acquitted based on the Spahr decision.  It could be that she will be acquitted or found guilty on the merits, rather than the definitions, of this case alone.  If it is decided on its own merits I would expect this to make its way up the judicial ladder and it could be the case for a more satisfying decision by the GAPJC.  The GAPJC has eight new members elected at the last GA so the balance or dynamics of the body may change.  We will have to see.

In the latest Presbyterian News Service article Rev. Edwards is quoted as saying “I’m sure that we will press the parts of the Spahr decision that
supports my presiding at the wedding and calling Brenda and Nancy’s
relationship a marriage. We see a lot of positive
things in the Spahr decision.”  I would say to be careful what you ask for because by the Spahr decision says that by definition the relationship can not be a marriage.  The Rev. Edwards has a web site with information about the case called “A Time To Embrace” on which she has posted a statement in her defense.  The brief makes specific reference to W-4.9001.  After the GAPJC made clear in the Spahr decision that this is the definition of marriage and anything that deviates from this is not a marriage, Rev. Edwards now argues (p. 31) “[W-4.9001] is definitional in nature only, and contains none of the language that the Book of Order instructs must be present to set forth a mandate or a prohibition.”  The brief goes on to argue that there is no prohibition on same-gender marriage ceremonies, seeming to ignore that the fact that one of the decisions they cite says there are no such thing as same-gender marriage ceremonies based upon the Book of Order passage Edwards’ cites.  While Edwards’ brief does briefly mention the definition in the Spahr, it puts much more emphasis that an acquittal is in order because the charges are vague and not defensible.

There is one additional point in the brief that I find interesting.  It makes note of the action by the 218th General Assembly to vacate previous Authoritative Interpretations regarding the ordination of self-acknowledged practicing homosexuals, and it discusses the GAPJC’s divided interpretation of W-4.9001 as to its applicibility as a prohibition against future same-gender marriage ceremonies.  The brief does not mention that the 218th General Assembly, by a wide margin (I got it right that time), voted not to propose changes to W-4.9001.

Well, that was more of a point-by-point analysis than I had planned.  OK, on to the second case…

Regarding the second judicial case, I was notified two days ago that trial is now set to begin on the “Episcopal Church Cases” before the California Supreme Court on October 8.  Don’t let the “Episcopal” distract you; there are amicus curiae briefs for this case filed by Clifton Kirkpatrick and the national office, the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii, and the Presbyterian Lay Committee.

This case is a test case on church property in California and comes from three linked cases out of Los Angeles and Orange Counties where three Episcopal Churches tried to realign with other Anglican communions outside the US and the Dioceses went to court to keep the property.  The case is highlighted by the fact that in this particular case the Appellate Court decision used the “highest government” legal theory, which favored the hierarchical church and ruled against the particular churches in their bid to hold onto property, while other Appellate Court decisions have used the “neutral-principles analysis” which would favor the particular congregation.  With both on the books the Supreme Court took the case and will decide on the proper legal theory for our state.

I probably don’t need to remind any regular readers that there is a lot riding on this state Supreme Court decision.  Along the length of the State of California there are Presbyterian, as well as Episcopal, churches trying to get out with their property and there are rumblings of more waiting in the wings for this decision.  I don’t know how the decision in this case could influence other places in the country, but it could have a major influence on the denominational map in California.  Then again, we could go with the “Graceful Seperation” that General Assembly endorsed.  Again, time will tell.

Modern Echos of the Adopting Act of 1729

3 Replies

The past couple of weeks I have been vacationing with extended family
and doing more reading and thinking than writing here.  I finally had
time to concentrate on the book Seeking a better country:  300 years of
American Presbyterianism by D. G. Hart and John R. Muether (2007,
P&R Publishing).  As a GA Junkie, I have found it a fascinating read
that fills in a bunch of details about events that I’m generally
familiar with.  It provides an expanded version of Hart and Muether’s
great series of articles in New Horizons, a publication of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.  (I was not the only one reading this on vacation this summer.)

As they trace American Presbyterian history and get closer to the
modern day their OPC perspective becomes a bit more significant in both
an obvious protagonist as well as one basic thesis of the work.  They
do a good job of developing this thesis and (spoiler alert) I’ll
mention it in my discussion below. (Don’t read on if you want it
developed their way.)

So, in tracing our history they show how we
Presbyterians are still involved in the same types of dysfunctional
behavior, if not necessarily arguing over the same issues, that have been part of our collective history for over 300 years now.  For them, the root problem can be summed up as “Presbyterian Identity” and if we have any now, and maybe whether we every really had it.

Part I of the book deals with American Presbyterian History from 1706
to 1789.  If those years don’t immediately register with you, 1706 is
the establishment of the first presbytery, and 1789 the first meeting
of the General Assembly.  But Presbyterian history in this time period
is dominated by the Adopting Act of 1729, a document which still casts
a long shadow even today.

If the Adopting Act does not ring a bell, it may surprise you that the
PC(USA)’s current controversies have a direct lineage back to the
Adopting Act.  It is the originating document for the concept of
“scrupling” which was recommended by the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity and which the PC(USA) has been trying to
figure out the last few years.

The Adopting Act of 1729 dealt with the need for doctrinal unity
through subscription to the Westminster Standards at a time when the Presbyterian church was looking for something to unite them.  Throughout the book it is Hart and Muether’s argument, at least as I read it, that the Westminster Standards are central to our “Presbyterian Identity” so that departing from them is to confuse or blur, if not abandon, our identity.  It is interesting
to note that within American Presbyterianism today I think that almost all the other
American Presbyterian branches, other than the PC(USA), still has subscription to the Standards, or one of the American revisions (that is another topic).

So where does “scrupling” fit in?  The Adopting Act says:

All the Ministers of this Synod now present, except one, [list of ministers deleted] after proposing all the scruples that
any of them had to make against any articles and expressions in the Confession
of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines
at Westminster, have unanimously agreed in the solution of those scruples,
and in declaring the said Confession and Catechisms to be the confession
of their faith, excepting only some clauses in the twentieth and twenty-third
chapters, concerning which clauses the Synod do unanimously declare, that
they do not received those articles in any such sense as to suppose the
civil magistrate hath a controlling power over Synods with respect to
the exercise of their ministerial authority; or power to persecute any
for their religion, or in any sense contrary to the Protestant succession
to the throne of Great Britain.

The Synod observing that unanimity, peace, and unity, which appeared
in all their consultations and determinations relating to the affair of
the Confession, did unanimously agree in giving thanks to God in solemn
prayer and praises.

While the Task Force report mentions this as the origin of scrupling, it does not point out that what was scrupled were not sections dealing with what we usually think of as central Christian doctrine, but were clauses dealing with the civil magistrate and church and state relationships, something that was more attuned to the state church environment the Westminster Standards were written in than colonial America.  But the book also makes clear that ever since the church has been arguing over what is “essential.”

It is important to note that the content of these passages was pointed out at the time of the release of the Task Force report by, among others, Toby Brown on Classical Presbyterian.

Another interesting note is that the very next year the Synod (at that time the highest governing body) was overtured for clarification of what could be exceptions, and their response was that they understood the clauses that were open to exception “in the same manner, and as fully as the members of Synod did, that were then present.”  In other words they pointed to their exceptions from the year before.

Now I am nowhere close to being an expert on the Adopting Act, but Hart and Muether, while acknowledging disagreements and ambiguity in strict subscription, seem to hold up these limited points of departure as what was acceptable to the original 1729 Synod and reaffirmed by the 1730 Synod.

But the outward unity of the American Presbyterian church only lasted another decade until 1741 when there was the Old Side/New Side split over “experiential” requirements for ordination in some New Side presbyteries.  These presbyteries were looking for “spiritual zeal” demonstrated in, among other things, having a conversion experience.  This was brought to a head by the arrival of George Whitefield and the “Great Awakening.”  (Note: Don’t confuse this with the much more serious and prolonged Old School/New School division of the next century.)

But one of the issues that was heavily debated was the role of Synod in ordaining candidates.  While New Side leaders passionately argued for presbytery sovereignty, Old Side members wanted some assurance of doctrinal consistency in the process.  (Sound familiar?)

Interestingly, after the division the New Side instituted creedal subscription and presbytery adherence to synod decisions.  The Old Side and New Side were really not too far apart and for much of the 17 year division were in correspondence about reunion.  While not exactly the same, there may be a modern echo here in some of the renewal groups calls for “parallel” churches, or as the PFR statement says “remaining engaged but distinct.”

One of the interesting results of reunion was that in places the two Sides did remain engaged but distinct with the perpetuation of Old Side and New Side presbyteries.  In particular there was the New Side Philadelphia Presbytery and the Old Side Second Presbytery of Philadelphia.  To anyone following the last two PC(USA) General Assemblies it is interesting to note that there is a precedent for the affinity presbyteries for which there have been overtures.  And it is also interesting to note that Second of Philadelphia continued almost right up to the Old School/New School split of 1838.

Finally, there are multiple echoes of the theological education controversy of that time period.  There was an on-going discussion and dispute over the “Log College” in Pennsylvania.  While it is an indirect predecessor of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), the Log College itself was a small theological training institution tied to the New Side and revivalism.  The discussions held then about the educational depth of ministers trained at the Log College versus the larger institutions like Harvard, Yale or European Universities sounds almost exactly like the discussions currently happening in the Church of Scotland over whether ministers can be trained at the Highland Theological College or whether they must get their education at the larger established universities like Edinburgh or Glasgow.

But the subscription question related to theological education that was present in the controversy around the Log College is also present today in the controversy related to Prof. Peter Enns departure from Westminster Theological Seminary.  In a current article on the WTS web site, Carl Trueman, Vice-president for Academic Affairs discusses the idea that academic freedom does not trump confessional standards and the need for a seminary to adhere to denominational norms.  (H/T: Heidelblog)

Now, I have been intentionally brief in summarizing these controversies because my focus here was simply to note that in my reading the book it struck me that “there is nothing new under the sun.”  In any one of these controversies there is a lot more depth and complexity that I did not touch upon.  Further investigation of those is left as an exercise for the reader.

But across different Presbyterian branches today we are sill engaged in discussions about theological, doctrinal, and polity tensions that have been with us since the founding of American Presbyterianism.  “Reformed and Always Reforming According to the Word of God”

The 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — Organizational Reactions

6 Replies

To say that there has been a lot of reaction, positive and negative, to the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) would be a major understatement.  With the web casts and various live blogs during the meetings there was immediate coverage, analysis, and commentary on the developments.  One number published by the PC(USA) was that there were 13,000 connections to the web cast.  They don’t say if that was unique IP numbers or peak number of simultaneous connections, but either way that is a number far greater than I would have estimated.  But is a significant fraction of the 20,000 “polity wonks” that I estimated in an earlier back of the envelop calculation.  So Presbyterians were out there watching, reading and reacting.

[Update: Thanks for the very rapid comment below from Dianna Ott, Director of Creative Services for the PC(USA).  She clarifies that the 13,000 is the peak number of connections to the live streaming.]

This instantaneous coverage led the PC(USA) to issue the first pastoral letter from our top three office holders (Moderator, GAMC Executive Director, Stated Clerk) within hours of the Assembly adjourning.  For the 217th GA the one and only letter was released three days later.  This first letter reported on the most controversial items of business, the ordination standards and the definition of marriage, that were causing all the stir across the denomination.  A second letter, just issued this week, is more of the usual letter with a summary of a wide variety of topics the Assembly dealt with, particularly the items adopted by a wide margin.

The initial letter began with a paragraph briefly describing some of the other actions taken by the GA:

The assembly dealt with well over 400 business items. Some items
had undivided agreement, including a covenant to join together to carry
out mission together and a churchwide commitment to “Grow God’s Church
Deep and Wide.” There was an action to continue to study a revised Form
of Government, and one committee devoted its time entirely to youth
issues. In addition, we continued our longstanding work toward peace in
the Middle East. More information on these and other actions will be
coming soon.

It then continues with the four highest-profile items set out in a very formal and factual manner.  (I have edited out the full Book of Order language changes for brevity.)

Perhaps the subject that will make the most
headlines has to do with the ordination standards of our church. It is
a subject with which Presbyterians are familiar and one that tends to
evoke great debates and deep emotions. With that in mind, we want you
to know what the assembly did—in the actual wording—in regard to
ordination standards, and what will happen next.

  • By
    a 54% to 46% margin, the assembly voted to propose an amendment to our
    Book of Order to change one of our current ordination standards. The
    change is to replace the current language that says officers of the
    church must live by “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a
    man and a woman or chastity in singleness” (G-6.0106b) to this new
    language: Those who are called to ordained service in the church…
  • By
    a 53% to 47% vote, the assembly adopted a new Authoritative
    Interpretation (AI) on G-6.0106b: Interpretive statements concerning
    ordained service of homosexual church members by the 190th General
    Assembly (1978) of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States
    of America, and the 119th General Assembly (1979) of the Presbyterian
    Church in the United States and all subsequent affirmations thereof,
    have no further force or effect.
  • By
    a 54% to 46% vote, the assembly adopted a new AI on G-6.0108 which
    restores the intent of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and
    Purity of the Church report (2006) to allow someone who is being
    considered for ordination or installation as a deacon, elder, or
    minister to register a conscientious objection to the standards or
    beliefs of the church and ask the ordaining body to enter into a
    conversation with them to determine the seriousness of the departure.
  • The
    assembly left unchanged the definition of marriage found in the
    Directory for Worship (W-4.9000)—”a civil contract between a woman and
    a man.”

By
its actions, the assembly has initiated a new opportunity to focus
ordination on primary allegiance and obedience to Jesus Christ, as well
as to Scripture and the church’s confessions. The assembly places the
responsibility onto sessions and presbyteries for discerning a
candidate’s fitness for ordination.

In
all of this, it is important to note that the assembly has not removed
the church’s standard of “fidelity in marriage and chastity in
singleness.” For the proposed change—making obedience to Christ the
ordination standard—to become part of the Book of Order, a majority of
presbyteries will need to ratify it over the next year.

We
know the assembly actions may do little to ease the anxiety that seems
to permeate our life together as a denomination. The debate isn’t new
and the future holds difficult challenges. As the Rev. Dan Holloway,
moderator of the committee that took up the items on ordination
standards, said, “As we move forward, it is essential that we have
conversations that are gracious and loving and welcoming, since we are
not all of one mind.” Our hope is that none of us will act or react
immediately to the decisions, choosing instead to pray and talk with
one another about these issues.

The new letter picks up where the first left off:

In that first letter, we outlined the assembly’s actions and our church’s next steps in a continuing story, the outcome of which
is known only to God. Most importantly, we infused our letter with our
strong and abiding hope for the future ministry and witness of our
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), because we are a Good News people.

We
hope that you will share with us a bold and unabashed hope, firmly
grounded in the solid foundation of our faith, that is daily confirmed
for us in seeing how God is at work in and through our
PC(USA).  Every day, we hear story after story of new churches and
fellowships, of immigrant and multicultural ministries, of large
churches joining with smaller ones to support and encourage
each other.  Everywhere there is a new and growing hunger to hear and
to tell the Good News.  The commitment to “Grow
Christ’s Church Deep and Wide” — overwhelmingly approved by the
assembly — grew out of that very hunger to say “no” to a climate of
decline and say “yes” to declaring a church wide commitment to participate in God’s activity in transforming the PC(USA).

With
this letter, we invite you to continue to celebrate with us good news
of our General Assembly and of our Presbyterian Church.  We ask you to
join us in giving collective voice to the hope, the passion, and the future that has the power to unite us as Presbyterian Christians:

The letter then goes on to discuss church growth in the “Grow Christ’s Church Deep and Wide” initiative, approval of the strategy for growth of African American congregations, he “Invitation to Expanding Partnership in God’s Mission,” a document which emerged from the Worldwide Mission Consultation in Dallas earlier this year, an approval of an increase in mission personal, the first in 50 years, a call for “Solemn Assemblies” around the church, and reaffirmed:

Called by Jesus Christ to be peacemakers, the assembly continued to
boldly affirm that stance around the world. The assembly called for
“responsibly” bringing the troops home from Iraq, continuing
peacemaking with Israelis and Palestinians, and supporting human rights in Zimbabwe, the Philippines, North Korea and Colombia.

The letter calls on PC(USA) members and governing bodies to respond by recommending people to serve as mission co-workers, hold Solemn Assemblies, participate in the “Grow Christ’s Church Deep and Wide” program, and support the work of mission around the world.

In reading through the two letters we seem to get the good in the second, the bad in the first, and the ugly is not covered.  I do realize that space is limited, even if two letters were needed, but membership decline is only briefly implied, the legal fights and funding are not mentioned, the GAC reorganization to the GAMC is pretty much missing as is the disagreement over designations with the Foundation, and the commissioner resolution on graceful departures is not touched on.  Yes, the letters, and the second one in particular, are trying to be uplifting and hopeful, but there is also a need for realism and honesty.  And in a very polity wonk comment, I would note that the votes listed in the first letter are the final votes on these items.  When a minority report was involved the other, not recorded vote, was whether the substitute motion should become the main motion and that vote was sometimes narrower and with about 1% abstentions.  Also the vote on definition of marriage is not listed.

Well, that is the official line from the PC(USA), but various affiliated organizations have their own take on the situation.

On the progressive side the web site for That All May Freely Serve opens with

TAMFS Thanks GA

That All May Freely Serve Thanks the General Assembly for its Prophetic Witness

With gratitude to God, the board, staff, and community of That All May
Freely Serve rejoice in the vote by the 218th General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church (USA) to open the door to the gifts and callings of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer members by removing its
institutional barriers to ordination.

The news at More Light Presbyterians is

Today, the 218th General Assembly of the PCUSA voted 54% to 46% to
end discrimination against LGBT members of our Church; and to provide
spiritual and ordination equality for LGBT Presbyterians.

And at the Covenant Network says

The 218th General Assembly fully lived into its theme, “Do Justice,
Love Kindness, Walk Humbly with your God.”  It took important and
historic steps toward a more welcoming church and spoke prophetically
on many issues.

It is interesting that the need for presbytery approval of the new language of G-6.0106b is mentioned in a secondary position, so the implication of all three is that systemic change has been achieved with just the new Authoritative Interpretations.  (With a GAPJC decision that will be proved right or wrong.)  It is interesting to note that in contrast to the 217th GA I have not heard anyone claim “Nothing has changed.”

On the evangelical side there are also predictable reactions. Presbyterians for Renewal has several articles on “the way forward.”  One begins:

Contending for the Faith: The Way Forward After the 218th General Assembly

The
218th General Assembly (GA) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
recently took numerous actions on important and controversial issues.
This article will outline several deeply troubling actions that require
the prayerful and active response of those concerned for biblical faith
and life in the PC(USA).

And another laments

A New Way into the Future

by James Harper, PFR Board President, July 11, 2008

The
General Assembly last month certainly changed the conversation around
the PFR table. For the last two years, we have been busy with the
process of redefining our mission and vision. You may have already seen
that we are about the mission of “mobilizing the leaders of
congregations within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to be biblically
faithful and missionally minded in their service to Jesus Christ.”
Delving into the political issues of the General Assembly may seem
incongruent with our new mission statement. To the contrary, we have
discovered that it is difficult to mobilize leaders and congregations
for the service of Christ when the denomination is fractured and
conflicted by the actions of a General Assembly. Nothing at this
General Assembly has changed PFR’s commitment to its mission, and to
preserving a denominational context conducive to church renewal.

The Presbyterian Coalition web site posted a Friday press release from member organization The Presbyterian Renewal Network that began:

Today the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) lies gravely wounded, by the hand of its
own General Assembly. This Assembly has struck multiple blows,
threatening to sever the sinews that hold us together as a Christian
body and as a part of the larger body of Christ. This is a day for
grieving.

And from the New Wineskins Association of Churches, the leadership team writes:

Theologically unhinged – The 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church (USA) has become theologically unhinged from our Biblical and
Reformation foundation. The actions of this Assembly are schismatic.
They foster division within our denomination and threaten the sundering
of the denomination from the world Church of Jesus Christ.

Finally, the article from byFaith, the official publication of the Presbyterian Church in America, says:

PCUSA Eliminates Restrictions on Homosexuality

The 218th Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly met in San Jose,
Calif., June 21-28, and made sweeping changes eliminating prohibitions
to homosexual behavior.

The
commissioners deleted the requirement that church officers and ministry
candidates adhere to “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between
and a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness” and struck a phrase
condemning “homosexual perversion” from the Heidelberg catechism.

And my compliments to “Harvey” for his commenting on this article and pointing out that some things require presbytery approval, even if some of the subsequent people commenting consider that a foregone conclusion (which few in the PC(USA) are willing to concede).

Well that is probably enough info for one post.  But as I noted earlier, we came out of the 217th General Assembly with the claims that the PUP report had not changed anything, and to some of our amazement the GAPJC decisions actually made that so.  Now we have a series of actions that nobody is claiming “nothing has changed,” not even the AI that is supposed to restore the intent of the PUP report.  In the next two years the Presbyteries and the GAPJC will put their mark on all of this.  Stay tuned.