Category Archives: PCA

PCA Amendment Voting And GA Overtures

2 Replies

As the 37th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America approaches, business is being wrapped up from the 36th GA in the form of voting on a Book of Church Order change.  In addition, three more overtures to this year’s Assembly have been posted.

The one amendment to the Book of Church Order approved by the Assembly and sent to the presbyteries for concurrence is a clarification of the procedure for membership vows.  The profession of faith section of BCO 57-5 begins with “The minister may then address…” and then gives an introductory statement before the membership vows.  The section continues with the membership vows so that the last prescriptive word is “may.”  The proposed change would insert between the introductory statement and the actual vows the following “shall” statement:

The minister shall then ask the following questions (or alternate questions that communicate their substance):

The official vote tally, updated last Tuesday March 17, has 35 presbyteries approving and 16 against.  That is 69% approval, slightly ahead of the 2/3 (67%) of the presbyteries that must concur for adoption.  With 77 presbyteries in the PCA, 51 must agree to change the BCO.  There are 26 presbyteries yet to vote or report their votes.

The G.A. Junkies will be well aware that the PC(USA) is voting on a similar amendment to their Book of Order that would require new members to take membership vows as part of the reception process in front of the congregation.  At the present time that amendment is approaching passage with the official tally reporting a vote of 70 to 39.  (Concurrence of 87 presbyteries required for approval.)

The Overtures web page now has numbers 11, 12, and 13 posted.

Overtures 11 and 12 are similar in that they deal with the physical boundaries of presbyteries.  Overture 11, from Iowa Presbytery, seeks to “Redraw Boundary between Platte River and Iowa Presbyteries.”  At the present time Iowa Presbytery is the whole of the state of Iowa, including Council Bluffs, Iowa, across the river from Omaha, Nebraska.  They make the reasonable proposal that Platte River Presbytery, which includes Omaha, is interested in, and better positioned to, plant churches in the Omaha metropolitan area and request the transfer of the one Iowa county containing Council Bluffs to Platte River.  (Note:  The overture refers to the second presbytery as Platte River, while the PCA list of presbyteries and the Presbytery’s web site call it Platte Valley Presbytery.  That will no doubt be cleaned up as an editorial adjustment.)  We can probably expect the customary concurring overture from Platte Valley.

Overture 12 from Ohio Valley Presbytery requests the Assembly “Form Central Indiana Presbytery.”  The overture points out that the region of Central Indiana currently in Ohio Valley Presbytery has reached the requisite number of churches and members, and has the necessary potential for growth, and that splitting it off to form its own presbytery would make church planting more efficient.  Nine southern counties in Indiana would remain in Ohio Valley.

Overture 13 comes from Presbytery of Grace and proposes a possible statement on gender issues.  The overture title, “Adopt Danvers Statement on Gender Issues” refers to a 1987 statement by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood that came out of a meeting in Danvers, Mass. —  The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.  This overture, for the sake of the Assembly and denomination speaking on the issue, proposes adopting the Danvers statement in whole while making one phrase specific to the PCA.  In Affirmation 6 the phrase would be changed from

In the church, redemption in Christ gives men and women an equal share in the blessings of salvation; nevertheless, some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men.

to

In the church, redemption in Christ gives men and women an equal share in the blessings of salvation; nevertheless, in accordance with the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, the offices of Elder (Ruling and Teaching) and Deacon are restricted to men.

(full sentence included for context)

As you would probably expect the Danvers Statement is very much a complimentarian statement and sets forth a rational and ten affirmations that I think many in the PCA would be in agreement with.

Commentary:  As I look over this overture and the Danvers Statement I have to admit that I don’t see how this is a contribution to the current polity debate.  It may be useful as a general, big-picture statement, but even in its modified form it really seems like it adds nothing beyond what is already in BCO 7-2 that offices are open only to men.  The current debate is not so much about women serving as ordained deacons, although that is in there for some, but about another commissioned status that begins to look like an ordained deacon.  Am I missing something about the usefulness of the Danvers Statement in this discussion?

Well, we are now less than three months from the convening of the General Assembly.  There should not be too much more business still out there. (That completely closes at 60 days.)  Registration is open, a draft docket is posted, and the more than 50 seminars listed, including a discussion/debate with TE Ligon Duncan and TE Tim Keller titled Discussing Deaconing Women.  The whole GA promises to be interesting.

Additional Overture On Women In The Church For PCA GA Posted

7 Replies

I see today that Overture 10 for the 37th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America has been posted to the Overtures web page.  This overture is essentially identical to Overture 5 but I want to take a moment to not just review the overture, but consider a couple of the alternatives for what is intended here.

News
At their Presbytery meeting on February 21 the Susquehanna Valley Presbytery approved and forwarded on an overture to General Assembly to “Appoint Study Committee on Role of Women in the Church.”  This is now posted on the web site as Overture 10.  If the title sounds familiar, it is.  This is effectively a concurring overture to Overture 5 from James River Presbytery.  In fact it is identical in content to Overture 5, with one minor exception.

To set the stage for my analysis comments below, let me review the overtures in detail.  As I said, unless noted otherwise the wording is identical in both overtures.

The Whereas section sets forth the current situation in the PCA:

Whereas, The Book of Church Order follows Scripture in forbidding the ordination of women to positions of authority over men; and

That would be Book of Church Order (BCO) section 7-2

Whereas, the PCA has faithfully held to this standard; and
Whereas, the PCA has struggled with the question of how women in the local church are to exercise their God-given gifts within the framework of the BCO, and

This discussion has been going on for a while including four overtures to the last GA about women serving as deaconesses, including the 2008 Overture 9, Overture 15, and Overture 17, all three about creating a study committee on the subject.  The 36th General Assembly chose to keep the standards as they were and not create the study committee.  However, the discussion continues including articles in byFaith magazine with an  article making the case for commissioning deaconesses by Tim Keller and an article arguing against by Ligon Duncan.

Whereas, many PCA churches are uncertain about how to use appropriately God’s gifts among the many capable women within the membership of those churches; and
Whereas, in many PCA churches those gifts are under-utilized;

So, the problem seems to be that in light of the prohibition on deaconesses, or some form of service for women that resembles an ordained office for men (such as commissioning), these Presbyteries are asking for clarification about what ministries women can be involved in and in what ways.  Also, given that information how can they be encouraged in their ministries.

The overtures then go on to ask for a Study Committee to do four things:

(1) What sorts of roles may women fill in the life of the church?
(2) What are some models of local church practices that have developed as ways of employing the gifts of women in the lives of their congregations that might be exemplary and encouraging to other local churches?
(3) What elements of organization and accountability to ordained leadership can be commended to PCA churches that are consistent with the BCO?

And item number 4 is the only point that I can find a difference between the two overtures.  Overture 5 is sort of the standard wording of the request and almost expects changes to the BCO:

(4) What modifications, if any to the BCO might be desirable for achieving the best utilization of the gifts of PCA women in light of the teaching of Scripture?

Overture 10 does not explicitly ask for recommended changes but asks if there is a problem:

(4) Does our BCO unnecessarily hinder achieving the best utilization of the gifts of PCA women in light of the teaching of Scripture?

Other than the names of the presbyteries and the formalities of transmittal this is the only difference in content of these two overtures that I can find in a side-by-side reading.

Finally, there is the section to limit costs to $10,000 and pay for it with private contributions.

Analysis
Central Pennsylvania and the Mid-Atlantic region are not typically regarded as the hot beds of agitation for deaconesses; that distinction usually goes to Philadelphia Presbytery of other metropolitan areas, like New York.  However, last year’s GA did deal with a related issue from Northern California as part of the records review.  (Interesting to note that they are also the most uniformly progressive areas in the PC(USA) ordination standards debates.)

But in researching this issue I came across an interesting historical note on the web site of The City’s Gate Presbyterian Church of Harrisburg, PA.  They have an article on Deaconesses at The City’s Gate Presbyterian Church which says:

As a denomination, The Presbyterian Church in America does not
recognize the ordination of women to either of the two offices of the
Church: elder and deacon. Yet, within the separate branches of reformed
practices that have converged to form the PCA, there is a tradition of
recognizing women who serve the church in specific, public ways as deaconesses. This
tradition was—and still is—most notable among the churches in the PCA
which were formerly part of the Reformed Presbyterian Church,
Evangelical Synod (RPCES), several of whom are part of the Susquehanna
Valley Presbytery, where The City’s Gate enjoys its membership and
employs it for the extension of God’s Kingdom.

The wisdom of this historical recognition of women in ministry is
evident to growing numbers of churches within the PCA apart from the
RPCES tradition.  Increasingly, PCA churches are officially and
formally affirming the importance, the contributions, and the value of
their women in significant, spiritual leadership roles within their
congregations.  This recognition and honoring of the call of God on the
lives of godly women by the church is most frequently done through the
creation, organization, and implementation of the commissioned position
of Deaconess.

and concludes with

It is the desire of The City’s Gate Presbyterian Church to afford to
all its members the fullest expression of their gifts and calling to
private and public ministries within the church.  It is the vision of
this church to carve out for its individuals in public ministry the
widest swathe allowable for them for the use and exercise of their
gifts and calling within the confines of the denomination’s
Constitution.  As part of its pledge of loyalty and loving service to
the Lord Jesus in the greater PCA body, The City’s Gate will actively
seek to reform the church where those present confines are in conflict
with the clearest teaching of Scripture, through heart-felt adoption of
the Motto of the PCA as its own: “Reformed, and Always Reforming.”

I have not yet determined if this overture may have originated from the session of this church, but some tension between the two merged branches regarding this would be understandable.  In fact, as PC(USA) churches realign with the EPC this is a current point of discussion within the EPC.

Having said that, how should we view these overtures?

The most straight-forward is to consider them at face value — They seem to be saying “As a GA you are not authorizing ordained or commissioned deaconesses, as is the historical tradition for some of us, so what are the acceptable roles for women in ministry?”  That seems to be a simple and generally reasonable request.  The GA can of course answer like they did last year that “The BCO is clear as it stands now; work within that framework.”

If you want to read more into it, especially if you like conspiracy theories, these overtures could be seen as a way to get the committee created with a more innocent request and then once the foot is in the door, or the camel’s nose under the tent, standards might get changed.  It may be a little progress, nibbling at the edges of the current standards, or it could be a significant change in ordination standards.  That is parallel to the current PC(USA) vote on Book of Order Amendment 08-B:  The previous vote was to remove the “fidelity and chastity” section, this year it is just to modify it.  But many conservatives see the proposed change as having about the same effect of eliminating the standards.

There is an interesting discussion of the issue and overtures at PuritanBoard with both views, “we need clarity” versus “this is an end-run on deaconesses,” being expressed and debated.  No resolution there but we will have to watch and see what the Assembly ends up thinking.
 

Filling In The Blanks On EPC And PCA GA Overtures

2 Replies

In my previous posts about upcoming General Assembly business, specifically overtures to the Assembly, I mentioned hints of information but no specifics on two items.  Well, there is now specific information, or at least more information, on these two items.

For the 29th General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church there has been some advance discussion of Affinity Presbyteries to provide a framework for churches that ordain women to be able to join.  As I mentioned in the last post on the subject, the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery was discussing the idea but it has chosen not to request such an affinity presbytery.  There were also indications that the Presbytery of Mid-America was going to overture for a parallel affinity presbytery structure.  That overture has finally been confirmed in the EP News of Feb. 19:

The Presbytery of Mid-America met at Central Presbyterian Church
in St. Louis, Missouri on January 30-31. By an approximate vote of two
to one, the presbytery approved a proposal to draft an overture for
General Assembly consideration calling for the creation of two affinity
presbyteries within the geographic bounds of Mid-America. One affinity
presbytery “would ordain only men to the office of teaching elder and
one would be free to ordain men and women to the office of teaching
elder.” These presbyteries would exist for five years, after which an
evaluation would take place.

The full document is available and contains some more interesting detail.  There is one note that says that the two presbyteries would commit to maintaining the viability of each other.  The second note talks about another meeting before the presbytery meeting where 20 complimentarian pastors indicated they all favored the concept and agreed to work with their sessions to ensure viability and to “maintain relationships.”  There is also a section that talks about the ordination of women being a non-essential and that the presbytery had a process to study and discuss the issue.  Being unable to agree they are now requesting this “friendly division.”

The same news article also mentioned the action of the Presbytery of the East that I talked about last time.  The presbytery agreed to begin permitting the ordination and service of women as pastors.  The article also mentions that the Presbytery of Florida voted to have the Moderator appoint a special committee “to study the ordination and reception of women as Teaching Elders” in that presbytery.

The other piece to be filled in was the missing text of an overture to the 37th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America.  While not available a the time of my previous post on this, the text of Overture 1 has now been posted and it is a fairly simple piece of clarification.  It deals with Book of Church Order section 37-7 which addresses the removal of censure on an individual after they have relocated to another area.  Specifically the overture requests the change from a person removing to a “part of the country” to “location.”  The rational is that “part of the country” is ambiguous while “location” removes the ambiguity.

Upcoming PCA General Assembly — Mid-February Update

7 Replies

The 37th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America will be held June 16-19, 2009, in Orlando Florida.  I have made a few comments on the Assembly already, but while I have been reading the tea leaves about the EPC GA, the first overtures have been posted on the PCA GA Overtures page.  So far it seems like the usual collection, some familiar, some new, and some of the “Blood on Every Page” variety.  So, here is what is now reported:

Overture 1 is from Missouri Presbytery and at this time there is no text available yet and just the title “Amend BCO 37-7”  We will await the text to say much more, but for information Chapter 37 in the Book of Church Order (BCO) deals with “The Removal of Censure” and section 7 addresses the removal of censure by the new presbytery or church when an officer under censure has relocated.  Wait and see.

Update 2/19/09:  Overture 1 has now been posted and it seems, to a point, a very reasonable clarification.  The current wording refers to when an officer relocates to another “part of the country” and the overture points out that it implies the same country and second that the person could move geographically outside the PCA jurisdiction.  The request is to replace that phrase with “location.” That helps the first, but I am still trying to figure out if a person moves out of the area of PCA jurisdiction what governing body would be there to receive the documentation, hear the repentance, and provide restoration?

Overture 2 asks for modification of the Rules of Assembly Operations (RAO) regarding the debate on minority reports and is from Potomac Presbytery. (The RAO can be found about 2/3 of the way through the BCO document.)  The RAO was substantially revised a couple of years ago and this overture is part of the tweaking process to help adjust parts which may not have worked quite as well as hoped.  In this case, it is to create a longer time for debate on motions with minority reports.  The RAO sets the time of debate at 10 minutes for a main motion while this overture suggests 60 minutes of debate, extendable in 10 minutes increments by a simple majority, for reports or processed overtures with a substitute motion coming from the committee of commissioners.  It seems that some extension of time is reasonable considering one of the points in the overture is:

Apart from the will of the majority, the current rules allow for only 10 minutes on the main question and three minutes per speaker—thus allowing merely three and a third speakers from among hundreds of commissioners on questions that are typically of great importance.

Overture 3 — In overture 3 we have a “Blood on Every Page” type of overture, one that seeks to change the constitution because of something that did, or in this case more appropriately did not, happen.  This one, while not complex, is so loaded with nuances that maybe I should have split it out into its own analysis.  It comes from Central Carolina Presbytery.

The overture seeks to change the BCO language about when a higher governing body may “Assume Original Jurisdiction” (AOJ) over a particular matter of dispute or complaint.  (Note that this pertains specifically to the matter of dispute.  For the PC(USA) readers to “assume original jurisdiction” usually has the connotation taking over the operation of a lower governing body and replacing the lower body with an administrative commission.)  And specifically, this change refers to cases where the matter is about doctrine or cases of public scandal.

First, this overture wants to remove the condition “if the Presbytery refuses to act.”  The argument is made that this is ambiguous, or at least not precise, language.

As presently worded, AOJ via 34-1 or 33-1 is essentially unachievable since the phrase “refuses to act” is vague – or at least it has been interpreted variously. Does it mean a Presbytery refuses to: (a) discuss the matter, (b) investigate informally, (c) investigate formally, (d) indict, (e) try and convict, (f) censure appropriately, or (g) something else?  Some men plausibly interpret “to act” as “to indict” since the paragraph begins with the noun “Process” and process begins with indictment and appointment of a prosecutor. But that is not how the PCA’s highest court has interpreted the phrase in two cases.

This requirement would be replaced with GA action being postponed until the presbytery has concluded its action or “been afforded reasonable time to do so.”  However, I can envision similar arguments about ambiguity over that phrase as there is over “refuses to act.”

Second, the overture “adjusts the bar” for GA stepping in on a
presbytery matter from two other requesting presbyteries to five.  For
a presbytery to step into a session matter the bar is left at two other
sessions since some presbyteries are fairly small.

For changes to two paragraphs in the BCO, this overture comes with another 5 1/2 pages of rational arguing for the changes.  This argument includes a review of two judicial cases, the recent one in Louisiana Presbytery and an older one in Tennessee Valley Presbytery, where other presbyteries wanted the GA to step in but the Standing Judicial Commission ruled that the presbyteries had in deed acted.

But there is also an interesting part that takes this issue back even further to the PCUS in 1940 when four presbyteries requested an investigation of the teachings of E.T. Thompson at Union Seminary in Richmond and the GA declined stating that jurisdiction over a member rest solely with the presbytery of membership.  Two other legislative cases are cited as well.

And in an interesting argument, the Overture considers the constitutions of other Presbyterian branches, the ARP, EPC, RPCNA, and the PCUSA and notes that in each of these denominations original jurisdiction can be exercised pretty much unilaterally by a higher governing body (such as upon complaint by any party in the PCUSA).  It also notes that the OPC has no provision for AOJ.

It will be interesting to see how this fares in the Assembly and, if approved by GA, then in the presbyteries.  Remember, for the PCA changes to the BCO require a 2/3 approval of presbyteries.

Overture 4 from Heritage Presbytery seeks to formalize the usage of the term “Interim Pastor,” a term that currently does not exist in the BCO.  In the index under Interim Pastors is says “see Stated Supply.”  At the present time the BCO only provides for Stated Supply for a full-fledged temporary pastor, but the overture points out that people refer to them as Interim Pastors anyway.  It is interesting to note that this is just being suggested as an alternate term with no definitional distinction being made between the two terms.  I am curious to see if the Assembly thinks that these two terms refer to different types of temporary pastors.  (Or that may just be a PC(USA) thing.)

Overture 5 from James River Presbytery is another request to “Appoint Study Committee on Role of Women in the Church.”  This is more general than the four overtures related to this last year where two of those were specific to studying the role of deaconesses and the other two had deaconesses in mind as well.  I had one post last spring that referenced all four of those overtures.  I would describe the action taken at last year’s Assembly as saying that there was no need for further GA action at this time, but that the Assembly would be keeping in touch with the presbyteries on this through the review process.  If you want more info from last year you can check out my post after the decision, but be sure to read the comments where my interpretations are corrected by ones closer to the action than I.

We will see if more overtures concerning the role of women are coming, but this one asks for a study committee that would report to the next Assembly and address:

  1. What sorts of roles may women fill in the life of the church?
  2. What are some models of local church practices that have developed as ways of employing the gifts of women in the lives of their congregations that might be exemplary and encouraging to other local churches?
  3. What elements of organization and accountability to ordained leadership can be commended to PCA churches that are consistent with the BCO?
  4. What modifications, if any to the BCO might be desirable for achieving the best utilization of the gifts of PCA women in light of the teaching of Scripture?

This overture does not ask for a study of the ordination of women but notes the sufficiency of the current practice.  Whether intended or unintended this study committee, if approved, could open that door.  I could see the Assembly adding another condition that would explicitly keep that door closed if this overture is approved.

Overture 6, another one from Central Carolina Presbytery, is the overture that has circulated already.  It would decouple the BCO Directory for Worship section on marriage from the civil definition of marriage and begin the process to give the marriage section full constitutional authority instead of the advisory authority it has now.  I have a more detailed discussion in my previous comments.

Overture 7 is another detailed, yet brief, overture that a GA Junkie would appreciate but could have a post of its own.  In summary, Southeast Louisiana Presbytery argues that Section 16 of the Manual of the Standing Judicial Commission (found at the end of the BCO PDF) is unconstitutional.  They consider there to be insufficient safeguards on due process and parts of the section to be in direct contradiction to the BCO.  They keep the Overture brief by using a series of short “whereas’s” referencing other documents and precedents, but it also requires the reader to chase down the references to fully appreciate the nature of the complaint.  The overture requests that the the section be declared constitutionally defective and that the Standing Judicial Commission amend the manual.

Overtures 8 and 9 are both from Ascension Presbytery and concern BCO section 13-6 that deals with the transfer of ministers into the PCA from other denominations.  Specifically, overture 8 would adjust that section to make a distinction between ministers transferring from denominations with fraternal relations and those from other denominations.  Those from branches which the PCA has a relationship with would only be required to stand for the same examination as a PCA minister transferring presbyteries.  Those from other denominations would require a more extensive process and examination, up to the same as is required of PCA candidates for ministry if the presbytery deems it necessary.  Overture 9 adds an aditional requirement to 13-6 that men transferring from other denominations state any specific instances that their doctrine differs from the Westminster Standards.  Again, this is also required of candidates.

So, we await the text of overture 1 and I anticipate that there are a few more overtures coming. We will see how all this business develops.  Stay tuned.

Footnote:  My phrase
“Blood on Every Page” comes from the subtitle of a book on Presbyterian polity by William Chapman and embodies the concept that some of what is in our Book of Church Order results from learning through the conflict in the church.  We are after all “Reformed and always reforming according to the Word of God.”

Looking Forward To GA Season — PCA, PC Canada, EPC

Leave a reply

While the PC(USA) is trying to sort itself out after its last General Assembly, most of the rest of the world is starting the cycle over again and preparing for their 2009 GA’s.  And news is starting to filter out.

The Presbyterian Church in America will hold its 37th General Assembly June 16-19 in Orlando Florida.  Registration is now open.

Business is beginning to develop and last week Presbyterians Weekly News reported that Central Carolina Presbytery passed an overture that would:

remove wording that binds obedience to civil law on matters of marriage, and enjoins ministers to perform only marriages that “do not transgress the laws of God”; then begins the process of granting Chapter 59 full constitutional authority.

As civil courts and legislatures begin allowing same-sex marriages the church is looking to protect their religious understanding of the ceremony.

The reference to Chapter 59 of the Book of Church Order (BCO) is interesting:  The Directory for the Worship of God begins at Chapter 47 and not all parts have constitutional authority.  As a preface says:

Temporary statement adopted by the Third General Assembly to preface the Directory for Worship: The Directory for Worship is an approved guide and should be taken seriously as the mind of the Church agreeable to the Standards. However, it does not have the force of law and is not to be considered obligatory in all its parts. BCO 56, 57 and 58 have been given full constitutional authority by the Eleventh General Assembly after being submitted to the Presbyteries and receiving the necessary two-thirds (2/3) approval of the Presbyteries.

So the overture would begin the process to add Chapter 59 on Marriage to the other three that do have authority.  For you information, Chapter 56 deals with baptism, Chapter 57 addresses “The admission of persons to sealing ordnances,” and Chapter 58 is about the Lord’s Supper.

No official list of overtures has appeared yet but I think we can expect that shortly.

Today the Presbyterian Church in Canada issued a press release announcing the four candidates for Moderator of their 135th General Assembly to Convene on June 7 in Hamilton, Ontario. The Moderator is elected ahead of the GA by the presbyteries.  Of the four candidates, the lone elder, Ms. Marilyn Clarke, is from St. Catharines right next to Hamilton.  The other three candidates are all ministers, the Rev. Karen Hincke from Peterborough, Ontario, the Rev. Richard Sand from New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, and the Rev. Harvey Self from Orangeville, Ontario.

Finally, I mentioned back in November that the Evangelical Presbyterian Church was studying ways to handle the varying viewpoints on ordination of women to church office.  Again, no official list of overtures has been posted for the 29th General Assembly to be held June 25-27 in Brighton, Michigan, but there is the earlier news item about a proposal to create non-geographic affinity presbyteries that is expected.  I’ve gotten word that individual presbyteries are considering things like this as well and it will be interesting to hear the GA discussion on this.  As I’ve speculated before, the PC(USA) migration to the EPC will force some adjustments and this looks like the leading edge.

These are only three of the many upcoming GA’s and I look forward to moderator elections and the posting of business in the next few weeks.  I’ll let you know when I see something interesting.

Churches Leaving The PC(USA) And The Status Of Women’s Ordination

Leave a reply

One of the continuing challenges, and discussions, for churches that are considering departure from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is about the ordination of women as deacons, elders, and clergy.  The problem is that as churches look to leave the PC(USA) because of concerns symbolized by one debate over ordination standards, they by necessity step into another debate on ordination.  No Presbyterian branch in the United States, besides the PC(USA) and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, uniformly accepts women to ordination as officers of the church, and in all but one of these branches it is completely prohibited.

As I have discussed before, the branch with “local option” is the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, which probably helps explain why for departing PC(USA) churches this is the denomination of choice to realign with.  For churches who realign through the New Wineskins Presbytery of the EPC, associated with the New Wineskins Association of Churches, the ordinations are not a problem since that presbytery recognizes the ordination.  But this is to be a transitional presbytery which will disappear in five years and the churches in it are to transfer to standard geographic presbyteries.  (Then again, the PC(USA) has had several “transitional” Korean language presbyteries which were supposed to have a limited lifetime but don’t seem to be going anywhere yet.)

We now receive news, through an EPNews Special Edition news item, that a permanent non-geographic affinity presbytery may be considered by the 2009 EPC General Assembly.  The recommendation was made by the NW/EPC Transitional Presbytery Commission to the EPC Committee on Administration (COA).  The article has a nice run-down of the status Of EPC presbyteries at this time:

In its discussion about the proposal, the COA noted that much of the
energy driving it was the sensitive issue of the ordination of women as
teaching elders. In the EPC, we currently have two presbyteries that
prohibit women teaching elders, two that will not use gender as a
consideration in approving ministers and candidates, two others who
have a procedure in place that allows consideration of women ministers
and candidates without violating conscience, and two that are still
working on the issue and will have come to a conclusion by the second
week of February 2009. One of these, Mid-America Presbytery, will
consider an overture asking the 2009 General Assembly to approve an
affinity presbytery within its boundaries as a response to women
teaching elders.

Note that only teaching elders are discussed since the ordination of ruling elders and deacons is local option on the congregational level.

The article goes on to say:

In its written response to NW/EPC Transitional Presbytery Commission,
the COA declared, “We recognize that an affinity presbytery is one of a
number of possible solutions to the dilemma of women teaching elders in
the EPC. While we do not believe it is the ideal solution,
nevertheless, it may be the ultimate solution. In the EPC, it has been
more than a decade since we have engaged in serious discussions about
establishing an affinity presbytery. An affinity presbytery certainly
has attractive features. However, we believe there are significant
issues that need to be addressed and resolved before a proposal such as
this can be advanced to the General Assembly. We would like to work
with you to address those issues as we pursue this as a possible
solution for 2009 General Assembly consideration.”

So, in the EPC the possibility of an affinity presbytery is being discussed as a way to accommodate this disagreement between churches over ordination standards while in the PC(USA) the same accommodation has been rejected by the General Assembly multiple times (2006, 2008) but is still one of the options talked about for keeping churches in the PC(USA).

I would note that the concept of affinity presbyteries is almost as old as American Presbyterianism itself, and was a way that the Old Side and New Side branches of the church could facilitate a reunion in 1758.  (Yes, within the first fifty years of American Presbyterian history the church went through a split and a reunion.)

It is also interesting that there is news today from the Living Church News Service that Anglican dioceses that have realigned away from the Episcopal Church are beginning a planning process for a new North American Anglican Province.  While not a parallel structure within the Episcopal Church, it would be a parallel Province within the Anglican Communion.

Going forward we will have to see where this leads us.  But it is interesting how this conservative group within the PC(USA) is requiring both the PC(USA) and the EPC to wrestle with these ideas even if they are in slightly different forms.

Financial Crisis Has Varing Impact On Presbyterian Investment Funds

Leave a reply

The morning news brought word that there was a “run on the bank” at the Presbyterian Mutual Society of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.  The main page of the society now has a statement from the Directors of the Society indicating that cash levels have fallen low enough that they are forced to stop accepting withdraws.  It also indicates that they have contacted the government about financial assistance, a point echoed on William Crawley’s BBC blog “Will and Testament.”  From reading through the material it is clear that the Presbyterian Mutual Society is a separate legal entity from the Presbyterian Church in Ireland while still being associated with it and restricting Society membership to PCI members.  Unlike the PC(USA)’s Presbyterian Investment and Loan Program (PILP) the Society holds some of its assets in real estate, not just loans to churches, so the market downturn has had an impact on the net value of the assets.  Being its own legal entity the assets of the PCI are not at risk, but being a Mutual Society there is no government insurance of the deposits.  This just broke today so we will have to see how this develops.

I have been keeping an eye out for statements about financial investments at various Presbyterian branches.  I am not referring to giving, that is a story all to itself, but rather the investments held by governing bodies including pension funds.  So far there has been very little reported, as least that I have found.  In the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) the Board of Pensions has reported, both in their publication and the PNS article, that while the investments are down, benefits are safe.  I have seen no similar report from the Foundation, although I would expect that in their annual report.  I will offer that from our Synod there is one program that will probably not be able to access any of their designated Foundation funds because the value has fallen beneath the “floor,” but providentially a large chunk of the general assets were in short-term interest bearing investments and we have ridden through it with little loss of principle.  Likewise, PILP is, to my understanding, in cash instruments and deposits are in CD-like instruments so redemptions can be forecast more easily.  Whether churches will be able to make their loan payments is another questions.  As for other Presbyterian branches, I’ve been keeping an eye out but have not spotted news yet.

While these are recent developments there is a much longer term story out there as well.  A while back the Presbyterian Church in America established the PCA Investor’s Fund that appears like it operated much like PILP at its founding in 1985.  Interested persons or groups would invest in the fund and the money would be loaned out for church planting, expansion, or redeveloperment.  It is interesting that a news note in the Winter 1999/2000 Multiply Magazine lists 3-year deposits paying the substantially above-market rate of 8.00%.  (Current PILP rates are 3.20% for the same term.)  A Christianity Today article (July 2008 print, August 2008 on-line) describes the decline and fall of the investment company.  It was divested from the PCA in 1994 but kept its Presbyterian ties, even with its merger with Cornerstone Ministries Investments in 2000.  Shortly after the merger the company began diversifying its portfolio of assets into riskier non-church real estate, principally second mortgages.  With the real estate downturn the company ran into trouble and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy February 10, 2008.  There are more details, an active comment section, and a link to the actual bankruptcy form on the Georgia Bankruptcy Blog. (And I thought I had a niche blog.)  Those proceedings are ongoing but the situation does not look good for churches and individuals that invested with Cornerstone thinking the money was going for church growth projects.

So, along with the Presbyterian Mutual Society, we will see how this one develops.

And finally, a great Biblical take on this from that great lectionary cartoon Agnus Day.

Taking Time To Be A Moderator

Leave a reply

The reality of taking time to be a Moderator of a Presbyterian governing body has been on my mind the last couple of weeks as I struggle to find the time to work on finishing up business items for next week’s Synod meeting and try to figure out how to juggle my professional and family schedule to make these church things happen.  (So if I have so much else to do why am I blogging?  Think of it as a brief diversion to help relax and focus the mind.)

But over the last few years I have been tracking the time and implications of being the moderator of the General Assembly.

With the GA season over and the GA cycle beginning anew this month it is first appropriate to congratulate and offer up our prayers for the Rev. Douglas MacKeddie, pastor of Maryburgh and Killearnan Free Church, who was named the Moderator designate of the Free Church of Scotland earlier this month.  Mr. MacKeddie is a second career minister who has served his current church his whole 26 year pastoral career.  There is a nice article from the Ross-shire Journal about Pastor MacKeddie.

In other news, the selection process for the Moderator designate of the Church of Scotland is now at a list of three nominees: The Reverend John P Chalmers is the Pastoral Adviser and Associate Secretary for Ministries Support and Development for the Church of Scotland. The Reverend William C Hewitt is the pastor of Westburn, Greenock. And finally an elder, an uncommon designate in the Church of Scotland, Professor Herbert A Kerrigan, Q.C., (professional profile, the “QC” is a lawyers’ professional status of “Queen’s Counsel“) who is an Elder and Reader at Greyfriars Tolbooth and Highland Kirk in Edinburgh. ( I would also note that the Rev. Hewitt is a colleague and friend of Liz, the author of one of my favorite blogs journalling. )

As I hint at above, in some Presbyterian branches only ministers are selected as Moderator of a General Assembly under the polity of that branch.  In some branches, like the Church of Scotland, the position is open to either ministers or elders, but a minister is almost always chosen.  In most American branches elders are more frequently selected, and in the Presbyterian Church in America the position explicitly alternates between Teaching Elders (ministers) and Ruling Elders.

What is the role of the Moderator?  The first duty is to run the meeting but beyond that the Moderator becomes the representative and public face of that governing body for their term in office.  I have my own extensive discussion of what the Moderator is and for the PC(USA) Bruce Reyes-Chow and Byron Wade (Part 1, Part 2) have posted their own descriptions as well as Byron’s interesting post on what it takes to run the meeting.  Over at the Church of Scotland the Moderator Right Rev. David Lunan blogs his activities and travels and the church has posted his schedule.  And some of the denominations, like the Church of Scotland and the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand, have their own descriptions posted.

Being a Moderator, especially the Moderator of the General Assembly, takes time and requires travel. For the PC(USA) and the Church of Scotland the travel can be extensive.  Looking at the travel schedules for Bruce and Byron it is clear that there are significant demands.  For example, Bruce lists seven days of travel in September, eighteen in October, and eleven in November.  That’s about 36 days out of 90 or a bit over 1/3.  Back before he was elected Bruce said that his limit was to travel three out of every eight weeks so he is pretty close to that target, if you average over three months.  (For October alone he will be gone more than half the days.  And I should also say that this is his complete travel schedule and it may include other professional travel aside from the Moderator stuff.)

Now let me ask this question:  Do we demand too much from the PC(USA) Moderator of the GA, or at least too much for typical elders to be able to devote the time?  This came up in the election of the Moderator at this year’s GA when the candidates were asked how their churches will get along without them.  The three ministers all said that their sessions or boards had agreed to them not being around as much while the elder replied that “I don’t have a church” and that being retired he had the time for the position.  The reality of serving as the Moderator pretty much demands that you be involved in a church or ministry where the position is seen as part of your service to the church and you are given the flexibility to serve.  If you are an elder you pretty much need to be retired, self-employed, or involved in church ministry like Rick Ufford-Chase.  Just my presbytery and synod work has taxed my vacation, and the patience of my family and employer.  If Mr. Kerrigan is named the moderator designate of the Church of Scotland I will be interested to see how he balances professional and ecclesiastical demands.

Should we be concerned about elders being able to serve as Moderator of the General Assembly of the PC(USA)?  We claim that it is joint leadership of clergy and elders.  But for the record for the 218th GA there were three clergy and one elder running for Moderator, for the 217th there were four clergy, and for the 216th there was one elder and two clergy.  Back when the term of office was one year it was not really any better, there were three clergy for the 215th and the 214th and an even two clergy and two elders for the 213th.

Right off hand I’m not sure if this is a problem, but as an elder it does strike me as an imbalance in our system.  As I mentioned above, the PCA has a mechanism to enforce balance, but  I’m not sure that is the way to go.  I bring this up as something to think about and to keep in mind as we work within our polity.

Action By The Pacific Northwest Presbytery, PCA, Related To Federal Vision Theology

Leave a reply

As long as I am on the topic of doctrine and judicial cases in the PCA, here is the latest on another…

This past Friday, at the regular stated meeting of the Pacific Northwest Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America, the Presbytery acted upon a report from a study/examining committee concerning the doctrinal views of one of its members related to Federal Vision Theology.  The controversy over this topic has been relatively quiet since things were settled last March in Louisiana Presbytery regarding the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, Louisiana.  However, the Pacific Northwest case has been active for over a year, it has just been progressing quietly in the usual Presbyterian “decently and in order” way.  Going forward from here it may gain a higher profile.

At this point there has been enough written about the Federal Vision Theology and controversy that I will not rehearse all of that.  A good starting point for that is the web site www.federal-vision.com, or check out what I have written over the last, almost, two years.  This particular case began in June, 2007, when the 35th General Assembly of the PCA adopted a Study Committee Report on “Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theology.” In accord with the report Teaching Elder Peter Leithart immediately sent a letter to his Stated Clerk in Pacific Northwest Presbytery outlining his doctrinal views. He simultaneously published the letter on his blog as well.  In our usual Presbyterian fashion a study committee was established to examine TE Leithart and report back to the Presbytery on how well his views align with the Standards of the PCA.  It is also important to point out that while TE Leithart is a member of the PCA, he serves at Trinity Reformed Church in Moscow, Idaho, which is a member church of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC), of which many of the other Federal Vision Theology churches are now members, including Auburn Avenue.

I will not go into details about the action of Pacific Northwest Presbytery since we have the good fortune that T.E. Jason J. Stellman, who gave the report to the Presbytery as the acting chairman of the study committee, has provided a wealth of information on his blog De Regnis Duobus.  To briefly summarize his most detailed post, the committee presented both a majority report and minority report, Mr. Stellman being a signatory on the minority report.

The majority report concludes:

In the committee’s view Dr. Leithart’s views are
compatible with the teaching of our standards though there are certainly some
differences in statement, emphasis, and elaboration. Our brief was to determine
whether he denied or contradicted the teaching of our Standards, not to object
if he wished to say more than they say or even, in confessing the same truth,
to improve upon their form of words. That his positive constructions may seem
in some respects difficult to reconcile with the language of our standards is
not itself evidence that he denies their teaching. The dialectical character of
biblical teaching famously produces tensions that remain difficult, if not
impossible to resolve. We further take note of the several assertions of
loyalty to the teaching of the Standards that are scattered among Dr.
Leithart’s published works. He explicitly confesses his agreement with the
Standards’ doctrine of decretal election, forensic justification, and so on.

So, TE Leithart has some differences in doctrine, but not enough to be at odds with the Standards.

It is interesting to note that the minority report is about the same length as the majority report, but the total length was doubled, 27 pages versus 13, by analyses included as Appendices.  The minority report saw things differently:

We recommend
the following:

1. That Presbytery find TE Peter
Leithart’s views, as summarized in the Minority Report, to be out of accord
with the fundamentals of the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards.

2. That Presbytery direct TE Peter
Leithart to reconsider his views, as summarized in the Minority Report, and to
report the results of this reconsideration to the next meeting of Presbytery,
with the understanding that if his views continue to be out of accord with the
fundamentals of the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards,
Presbytery will proceed to depose him from its ministry without censure.

The Presbytery adopted the majority report.  From Mr. Stellman’s account a major argument was “theological innovation:”

The real concern on the part of the presbyters who spoke in favor of
Leithart was that we not become overly narrow and that we do not
discourage bold, pioneering theology.

Since the detailed post came out Mr. Stellman has responded to a public allegation that this is part of a “witch hunt” to rid the PCA of the Federal Vision Theology.

What will happen with this case?  The next step, according to Mr. Stellman, is to formally complain
against the Presbytery and they expect the complaint to be dismissed at the next
regular meeting in January.  If dismissed the next step will be an
appeal to the General Assembly level where this case could look a lot
like the Louisiana Presbytery one.

Another Case Of “Since ‘X’ Is By Definition Impossible, What You Saw Could Not Have Been ‘X'”

Leave a reply

Over on the PuritanBoard there has been an active discussion about the Edwards v. Pittsburgh Presbytery PJC Decision.  But one of the contributors to the discussion, Tim Vaughn, brought up a Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) case from Tennessee where an interpretation of the defense, not the verdict, used the concept that since something was by definition impossible it could not have happened.  As Mr. Vaughn puts it:

I read through a PCA court case from Tennessee where a pastor let a
woman preach during Sunday night service, and after being brought up on
charges his defense was that since the PCA doesn’t allow woman
preachers, and she was a woman, she couldn’t have been preaching.

Mr. Vaughn provides the link to the September-October, 2000, issue of Presbyterian & Reformed News that details the case and the judicial commission’s decision not to proceed to trial, but telling the pastor and the church at large to not let it happen again.

Part of the investigating panel’s work was to determine if the views of the pastor, Teaching Elder John Wood, were in line with the standards of the PCA.  The committee found:

TE Wood stated to the panel that he holds to a view that: 1) excludes women from ordination; 2) excludes women from preaching (authoritative teaching); 3) permits women to do basically whatever unordained men can do in the church. Also, the panel found no evidence of Mr. Wood’s agitation regarding or promotion of a view that women should be ordained or that women should preach in the PCA, either locally at CSPC [Cedar Springs Presbyterian Church] or in the PCA generally.

And while the GA Standing Judicial Commission concluded from the Investigating Panel report that there was not a “strong presumption of guilt,” they did caution the church:

However, in making this determination the SJC is not endorsing the view of TE Wood that “women may do basically whatever unordained men can do in the Church,” and PCA ministers and elders are cautioned, for the peace and unity of the Church, to take great care in the teaching and implementing of views that might give the appearance of promoting a view that women may be ordained, or that women may preach the authoritative Word of God in a worship service.

Within the body of the Report of the Investigating Panel, reproduced in the newsletter, TE Wood told the panel about an earlier conversation he had with some concerned church leaders:

…he was using the word “preach” in a broad, but he believes Biblical, sense–the witness that each Christian bears before the church and the world, but he also stated that he should have been more careful to articulate his belief that women should not be ordained to the teaching or ruling eldership and that they should not be permitted to “preach” in the traditional sense of authoritative teaching from the word of God, as teaching elders are called and ordained to do.

Reacting to this in another article in the newsletter, Pastor David Coffin is reported to be the one suggesting the twisted or confusing logic:

Regarding Mr. Wood’s views, the pastor from Fairfax, Virginia, said, “Though as I understand them his views in this matter appear clearly contrary to Scripture, I don’t find myself too exercised over the possibility of such views having a great impact in the PCA. I expect that the obvious internal tensions are simply too much for most of our men to bear.” He stated that he understood Mr. Wood’s view to be that a woman by definition cannot preach because she does not hold the preaching office, even though she may perform precisely the same act in the same setting. In response, Mr. Coffin referred to the views of Jonathan Edwards, who supposed it was obvious to all that if there was an office authorized to preach then there must be some activity called preaching forbidden to those who do not hold the office.

I included the Jonathan Edwards reference since Janet Edwards, of the Edwards v. Pittsburgh case that started this discussion, is a direct descendant of his.

Interesting to see this logic as part of a very different polity and doctrine debate.