Category Archives: polity

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.

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.

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”

PC(USA) Process for Amending the Consitution

6 Replies

In case it is not obvious yet, I have slipped into a “low level” blogging mode and will continue this for the month of July.  Still a lot to post, but after the “high energy” GA stuff I need some slower time to think more and write less.

Having said that, an important question was raised about amending the PC(USA) constitution.  This can be found in Chapter 18 of the Book of Order, but to summarize:

The two sections of the Constitution have different processes with Part One, the Book of Confessions, having a much higher standard.

To Amend Part 2, the Book of Order, requires the General Assembly to send out to the presbyteries any proposed changes.  The presbyteries vote in the nine months following the GA and if approved by a simple majority of the presbyteries it becomes part of the next edition of the Book of Order.  With 173 presbyteries approval needs 87 affirmative votes and then it becomes part of the 2009-2011 edition of the Book of Order.

With the higher standard for Confessions, the GA authorizes the process and a special study committee is created to study the confession, decide on translation issues, and prepare the official text.  Then the next GA must approve the confession.  In the following year the presbyteries vote and if 2/3 agree then the following GA must agree again.  So, for the PC(USA) at the moment, the 2008 GA approved the process and the study committee(s) begin work, the 2010 GA must approve of the confessions’ text, in 2010-2011 the presbyteries vote and if at least 116 agree then the 2012 GA would vote again.  With approval a new edition of the Book of Confessions is published.

The 218th General Assembly of the PC(USA) — Committee Polity Recommendations

1 Reply

There is a lot that came out of committees yesterday and I will try to highlight a few items today before the full Assembly begins meeting this afternoon.

For organizational purposes I will break these into a couple of different posts.  Let me begin with Polity.

Ordination Standards
Committee 5 – Church Orders and Ministry had to deal with the ordination standards.  One item is the Authoritative Interpretation from the 217th General Assembly.  This has become a ping-pong game between the General Assembly and the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission.  Since neither inherently over rules the other, the most recent to speak has the upper hand.  The 217th General Assembly passed the Authoritative Interpretation proposed by the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity about declaring exceptions to non-essentials.  Last February the GAPCJ in the Bush decision said that candidates could declare exceptions, but that Presbyteries could not waive rules.

There were proposals before the committee to rescind the 217th AI, and proposals for a new AI as the return volley in the polity ping-pong match.  The committee, by a vote of 43 to 15, chose to answer all the items in this category with item 05-12 where the committee crafted a new AI:

The 218th General Assembly (2008) affirms the authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 approved by the 217th General Assembly (2006). Further, the 218th General Assembly (2008), pursuant to G-13.0112,
interprets the requirements of G-6.0108 to apply equally to all
ordination standards of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Section
G-6.0108 requires examining bodies to give prayerful and careful
consideration, on an individual, case-by-case basis, to any departure
from an ordination standard in matters of belief or practice that a
candidate may declare during examination. However, the examining body
is not required to accept a departure from standards, and cannot excuse
a candidate’s inability to perform the constitutional functions unique
to his or her office (such as administration of the sacraments).

Note the wording to answer the GAPJC decision:  The reference “apply equally to all ordination standards” since the GAPJC cited that G-6.0106b was lifted up as a particular standard, and the reference to “departure…in matters of belief and practice” since the GAPJC said belief could be scrupled but practice could not be waived.

If this is adopted we will see what the return volley looks like.

The other item is the removal/modification of G-6.0106b.  The committee by a 41/11/0 vote chose a “middle road” here and has answered all those overtures with item 05-09.  This item would rewrite that paragraph.

Current G-6.0106b Proposed G-6.0106b
b.Those
who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience
to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards
of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either
in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman
(W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of
any self acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not
be ordained and/or installed as deacons elders, or ministers of the
Word and Sacrament.		 b. Those
who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to
the constitutional questions for ordination and installation
(W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ
the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the
witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the
instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their
fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged
with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and
G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to
these standards.

Many of the headlines circulating around are declaring the removal of G-6.0106b but this is only partially correct.  They are correct that 1) if adopted by the GA, and 2) if adopted by the presbyteries, the current language would be gone.  But in a strict sense it is being replaced by more flexible wording.  This will be a long and drawn out issue, both on the floor, and there is a minority report, and again in the presbyteries.  I should note however that the committee added a comment to say “Presbyteries are strongly encouraged to consider this overture using a process of listening and discernment.”

I should also note that this item would also add to chapter 14 of the Book of Order language that those being ordained must declare their readiness to assert to the constitutional questions.

Ordination Vows
The Committee on Church Polity, in item 04-02, crafted new language that requires new members of the church do answer the same questions as confirmands in front of the congregation.  This language includes the questions by reference where the original overture listed out the questions.

Definition of Marriage
The Committee on Church Polity, in their longest and most heated issue, also debated changing the Book of Order language to make marriage between two people, not just between a man and a woman (item 04-08).  By a vote of 38/20/2 they voted to deny the request with comment that includes the wording “while
trusting that the Church (PCUSA) will continue to seek ways and means
to seek God’s blessing for alternative forms of covenant between two
people.”  At the present time I see no minority report posted for this one.

Form of Government Revision
From pretty close to the beginning it was becoming probable that the nFOG would be recommended out to the Presbyteries for study, reflection, and comment.  The committee than decided, by a 45/20/1 vote that the comments would then go back to an “enhanced” FOG Task Force.  This would be composed of a core of the original task force supplemented by others from around the church, including representatives from this committee.  The report also contains an “unedited” list of comments on the nFOG.

Those are the major items.  There are a bunch of other recommended changes to the Book of Order but these are the high-profile issues.

The PC(USA) General Assembly — What are they thinking?

9 Replies

Committee 13 – Theological Issues and Institutions voted yesterday on the overtures to change the Heidelberg Catechism.  There were three overtures to consider with three different approaches.  The committee chose the simplest, but, as far as I can tell, an unconstitutional approach.

Just for reference the Book of Order has this to say about changing the Book of Confessions:
G-18.0200

2. Confessional Documents
a . Amendments to the confessional documents of this church may be made only in the following manner:
(1) The approval of the proposed amendment by the General Assembly and its recommendation to the presbyteries;
(2) The approval in writing of two thirds of the presbyteries;
(3) The approval and enactment by the next ensuing General Assembly.
b . Before such amendments to the confessional documents shall be transmitted to the presbyteries, the General Assembly shall appoint a committee of elders and ministers, numbering not less than fifteen, to consider the proposal, of whom not more than two shall be from any one synod. This committee shall consult with the committee or governing body (or in the latter case an agent thereof) in which the amendment originated, and report its recommendation to the next ensuing General Assembly.

The committee recommendation is that item 13-06 be approved and answer items 13-04 and 13-05.  This overture basically says, just make a few specific changes in five of the questions in the Catechism.  The others were two versions within the system required by G-18.0200.  The Presbyterian News Service article on this is not helpful on this polity nuance.

There was disagreement because 13-06 was approved 33/26/2.  The vote to have the other two overtures answered by this one was 40/6/12.

In the adopted recommendation there is no mention of the amendment process, no mention of even sending it to the Presbyteries.

I would love to have been there because I figured that 13-06, being contrary to the Book of Order as I understand it, would be quickly defeated.  I would like to hear what discussion the committee had.  What advice did they get?  What is their reasoning that this is decent and in order?

I’m sure all of this will come out in the committee report to the full Assembly and I can’t wait to hear the polity logic on this one.

Episcopal Church Update and their Polity Debate

1 Reply

“Blood on Every Page”

That is a phrase we in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) throw around to explain the volume, detail, and nature of our Book of Order.  The phrase is taken from one of our better know books on polity and expresses the fact that much of what has made its way into the Book of Order can be traced back to specific problems that arose and after the fact we decided that clarification or detailed rules were needed to address future instances.  One valid criticism of the proposed new Form of Government is that in the revision we will lose an accumulation of “institutional memory.”  It is also one of the strong arguments for the revision that the Book of Order is so cluttered with these reactive amendments that maybe it is time to start over with a clean copy and begin again.

If you have been following the drama in the American Episcopal Church the last few weeks you know that the recent developments have come down to an argument about applying their church, or canon, law.  I will return to that argument in a moment, but let me fill in the details from my last post  on the topic back in early December.  At that time the convention delegates to the Diocese of San Joaquin, California, had voted by a wide margin to change the diocese’s bylaws to change their oversight from the American Episcopal Church to the Southern Cone in South America. (Episcopal news story reporting that action)  The reason for the diocese’s departure, like in other mainline churches today, is the controversy over ordination standards related to practicing homosexuals.  Since then proceedings have been underway against the Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, John-David Schofield, for “Abandonment of the Communion.”  Well the proceedings reached their final step on March 12, 2008, when the House of Bishops voted to agree with the investigation board to the “deposition” (that would be removal, not testimony under oath) of Bishop Schofield as well as a retired bishop, William Cox, from Maryland.  (Episcopal news story)

For Bishop Schofield’s part, he sent, or at least posted on the Diocese web site, a letter of resignation from the House of Bishops on March 1.  Reception of this letter by the Presiding Bishop has not been acknowledged.  So we have “You can’t fire me, I quit.”

Also, the House of Bishops at their meeting approved Bishop Jerry Lamb to serve as provisional bishop to the Continuing Episcopalians in the Diocese of San Joaquin.  The appointment needs to be confirmed by the diocese on March 29.  (Episcopal new story)

While I am not sure what all the implications of deposition are, Bishop Schofield and the majority of the Diocese seem happy to have joined, and welcomed by, Southern Cone.  The deposition seems a formality at this point, unless the American Episcopal Church can find some muscle from either civil authorities or the Worldwide Anglican Communion, to get the realigned churches in San Joaquin back in the fold.

Now, here is the current controversy over polity:  The section of canon law related to the process of removing a bishop for Abandonment of Communion ( Title IV Canon 9 ) says in Section 2:

Otherwise, it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the House. If the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the Ministry, and pronounce and record in the presence of two or more Bishops that the Bishop has been so deposed.

The vote was taken by voice vote so the exact count is not known, but as the Living Church News Service reported on March 14, from their reading of this section the vote could not have been valid.  By their count there were 294 members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote on March 12.  That would require 148 bishops to vote in the affirmative to agree to the disposition.  However, they know that only 131 bishops were registered for the meeting and 15 of those left before this item of business.  By their reading “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent” had not happened and the deposition was not valid.

Needless to say, the church hierarchy disagrees with this interpretation and issued a response the next day.  Here it is in its entirety:

The Presiding Bishop’s chancellor has confirmed the validity of votes
taken in the House of Bishops on March 12, correcting an erroneous
report published online March 14 by The Living Church News Service.  

Chancellor David Booth Beers said votes consenting to the
deposition of bishops John-David Schofield and William Cox conformed to
the canons. 

“In consultation with the House of Bishops’ parliamentarian prior to
the vote,” Beers said, “we both agreed that the canon meant a majority
of all those present and entitled to vote, because it is clear from the
canon that the vote had to be taken at a meeting, unlike the situation
where you poll the whole House of Bishops by mail. Therefore, it is our
position that the vote was in order.”

A quorum had been determined at the meeting by the House of Bishops’
secretary, Kenneth Price, Bishop Suffragan of the Diocese of Southern
Ohio.

So the official interpretation, by somebody like the Stated Clerk, is that the vote was valid.  They interpret the phrase in Section 2 “a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote” to mean “a majority
of all those present and entitled to vote.”  I will say that I may be missing certain implications of the next line “because it is clear from the
canon that the vote had to be taken at a meeting” because I am a GA Junkie, not a HOB (House of Bishops) Junkie.  They appear to be saying that “since this vote must be taken at a meeting by implication Title IV.9.2 must refer to those at the meeting.”  But others who are more familiar with Canon Law still see problems with this, like this viewpoint expressed by the Anglican Communion Institute today.

In the midst of this it is interesting to note one final item in the Anglican controversy at the moment.  Coming up this summer is the Lambeth Conference in England, a once-a-decade gathering of about 800 bishops from the Worldwide Anglican Communion.  The conference is by invitation and participants do not come as specific delegates or representatives of their churches.  At the present time Bishop Schofield is on the invitation list, but Bishop Gene Robinson, the openly gay Bishop of New Hampshire, is not on the list and will probably only attend as an observer.

And after that diversion we now return you to our regular Politics of Presbyterianism.

UPDATE:  At about the same time I finished this up and posted it Virtue Online posted a detailed entry with quotes from several, presumably conservative, cannon lawyers that argue the interpretation of the Canon Law making the vote valid is not reasonable.  In particular one expert cites other places in the Canon Law where there are detailed specifics about which bishops need to vote.  This corroborates the interpretation that “the whole House of Bishops” means everyone eligible, not just those present.

UPDATE 2:  In looking over this polity issue I have found a post on the blog Father Jake Stops the World which takes the position that the vote was valid and tackles the canon law and the math to explain why.  His argument centers on the necessary quorum.  However, he closes with a comment I think a lot of people could affirm at this point: “The wording of that canon certainly needs to be cleaned up. That is quite clear.”

The Report of the Form of Government Task Force — New Form of Government and Concluding Comments

Leave a reply

The bulk of the material and changes in the Form of Government Task Force report are to chapters 5-18 of the current Form of Government.  While the changes to the Foundations of Presbyterian Polity were mostly reorganization with some modification, this part is probably better described as modifications with some reorganization.  As I mentioned in the previous post, sort of the part 1 of this series, the objective of the task force was to create a new Government part that preserved the essentials of the PC(USA) polity, while making it more flexible, streamlined, and missional.

I can understand
and applaud the desire to make the polity more flexible.  After serving on the
Committee on Ministry in a presbytery with several congregations that
worshiped in languages other than English, Spanish, or Korean the
flexibility is appreciated.  For example, what does it mean to conduct
a proper pastoral search for a pastor for a language group for which
there are less churches in the PC(USA) than you can count on one hand
and you have to be blessed to be searching at a time when even one candidate who
speaks that language is qualified ready.  Or working with a church who
needs a pastor who speaks a particular language but a theological outlook
that is not typical for that culture.  Or there are language groups who have so
few minister candidates in any Presbyterian branch in North America
that they regularly include pastors in their country of origin in their
searches.  These are examples of times when our COM had to be
“creative” with the existing PC(USA) polity to accommodate the
realities of our presbytery.  By the same token, geographically large
rural presbyteries are coming up against situations where the polity
can make things difficult when churches are small, interested pastors are few, and compensation is at minimums or the position is part-time.  There are times when the flexibility is desirable if not required.

Does the proposed Form of Government do that?

As I mentioned before, fourteen chapters have been consolidated to six:  1 – Congregations and their Membership, 2 – Ordained Ministry, Commissioning, and Certification, 3 – Councils of the Church, 4 – The Church and Civil Authority, 5 – Ecumenicity and Union, 6 – Interpreting and Amending the Constitution.

Now, there is no way that I can touch on all the changes the proposed revision has.  (If you are really interested, you can read the report and side-by-side comparisons yourself.  If you see something that I missed or I did not think was significant enough to include feel free to leave a comment.)  Most of the changes fall into the category of “procedure” so if you are thinking of something in the Book of Order and it seems like a procedure rather than a principle it is probably not in the new Form of Government (Government).  This includes a lot of the details.  For example, quorums and meeting notification times for any meetings, congregational, session, presbytery, etc., are no longer in the text.  Just that “adequate public notice” be given, and for congregational meetings it must be at a worship service (G-1.0501).

Likewise, the proposed revision tells governing bodies what must be done, but now how to do it.  This means that committees, like the Committee on Ministry, the Committee on Preparation for Ministry, and even the Nominating Committee and the Committee on Representation are not specified and not required of governing bodies.  For example, a governing body shall “…have a process for nominating persons to serve in positions requiring election…” (G-3.0112).  They can use a Nominating Committee, but can also have a different mechanism.  An extension of this is that presbyteries must simply examine ministers for membership in the presbytery, it does not say how so there is no longer a requirement to examine before the whole presbytery (G-3.0307).  A third example is the session representation to presbytery (G-3.0301).  It says that each session gets at least one commissioner and that the numbers of teaching elders and ruling elders should be as equal as possible.  Beyond that a presbytery may decide how additional ruling elders are apportioned to churches, but it does say that the membership of the church should be taken into account.  Other cases like this are found throughout the revised Government.

One exception to the lack of procedures is that the procedure for
amending the Book of Order is still present complete with the
specifications for the Assembly Committee on the Constitution and the
120 day submittal deadline before an Assembly. (Chapter 6)  Another
exception which could be viewed as procedural is that the six-year
limit of consecutive service of ruling elders and deacons on session
and the board of deacons respectively is still included (G-2.0206).

The use of new language in the document has attracted some attention.  Governing bodies are now referred to as “councils,” a great word from church history but it will be confusing at first because the current councils of our governing bodies are usually executive boards.  While the terms “minister” and “Minister of Word and Sacrament” are still found in the proposed revision, the use of “teaching elder,” to coordinate with to the term “ruling elder,” is now favored.  Another one, which will take me some getting used to, is the use of the term “ordered ministry” instead of “office” or “ordained office.”  Finally, “congregation” is used in place of “particular church” at times, a swap I am not as favorable to of since I know of several churches that have multiple congregations that worship in different languages but join together on one session.

There are at least two sets of terms which have been removed from the proposed Government.  The first is “inactive” when referring to a member of a church or a minister member of presbytery.  To the task force considering missional polity the term “inactive member” was an oxymoron.  Another set of terms that you will not find are those wonderful descriptors of “temporary pastoral relationships.”  The new Government says that there are temporary pastoral relationships (G-2.0303b) but that “Titles and terms of service for temporary relationships shall be determined by the presbytery.”  While “pastor,” “co-pastor,” and “associate pastor” remain, gone are specifications of “interim,” “designated,” “temporary supply,” and “stated supply” pastor.  From my experience working with churches and our stated clerk to match the right designation to the needs of the congregation and the requirements of our polity, I personally won’t miss this matrix.  This is one point where the flexibility is welcome. 

That brings us to an important point about the proposed Form of Government.  There are points where the task force did propose significant changes to the polity and in a nice gesture of full-disclosure and integrity they have included these as separate recommendations in the report.  After the full text of the Government part there are four more recommendations that would change significant items in the Form of Government should it be approved.  This will allow the GA and presbyteries to vote specifically on these polity changes.

The first possible adjustment deals with associate pastors and their ability to become the pastor of that church.  In the proposed Government the task force included the clause that the associate could become the installed pastor if the presbytery concurred by a 3/4 vote.  This proposed change would strike that clause returning the polity to our current status that an associate shall not become the next senior pastor in the congregation they serve.

The second is the similar change for temporary pastoral relationships.   As currently written any temporary pastor could be declared eligible to become the installed pastor by a 3/4 vote of presbytery.  The possible new language would make it so that any temporary pastor but an interim pastor could become eligible to be the next installed pastor by the 3/4 vote of presbytery.  But this sets up a very interesting situation in the proposed polity.  As I already mentioned, no temporary pastoral relationships are defined or even listed in the new Government.  In fact, doing a search of the Task Force report for “interim” this is the only use I find in the whole report!  If adopted, it would set up polity for a position we know by tradition, and probably by external definition, but would use a term that would be an orphan in the text without any internal context.

The third Additional Recommendation would remove an addition the task force made to make the polity more missional.  In the new G-2.0302a, the section on validated ministry, the sixth item in the list of what a validated ministry shall include is “include proclamation of the Word and administration of the Sacraments.”  This is not something associated with all validated ministries but the reasoning goes that if you are a Minister of Word and Sacrament shouldn’t you be living into that title by doing those things.  This third adjustment would eliminate that requirement.

Finally, the fourth adjustment is language that, while not mandating the Committee on Representation, would at least make reference to something like it in G-3.0104 by adding “Councils above the session may establish committees to advocate for diversity in leadership.”

I would also note that the proposed Chapter 6 on amending includes a section (G-6.0501) that prohibits the new Foundations of Presbyterian Polity from being amended for six years following their adoption.

For me, one of the “sleepers” of this report is the change in language from “per-capita” to “raising funds.”  This is not just a semantic change but the last paragraph of proposed section about administration, G-3.0107, (a long section with minimal citation) reads:

The funding of mission similarly demonstrates the unity and interdependence of the church. The failure of any part of the church to participate in the stewardship of the mission of the whole church diminishes that unity and interdependence. All mission funding should enable the church to give effective witness in the world to the new reality of God in Jesus Christ. Each council shall prepare an annual budget. Councils higher than the session may request funds for their mission and for support of the meetings and ongoing functions through which the interdependence of the church is lived out. Presbyteries are responsible for raising their own funds and for raising and timely transmission of requested funds to their respective synods and the General Assembly. Presbyteries may apportion requested funds to sessions within their bounds.

While I will grant you that this section is theologically based and it clearly eliminates the procedures of splitting mission and per-capita funding and then soliciting the first and collecting and arm-twisting the second, the open-ended nature of this section seems to invite creative accounting and blurred lines between ecclesiastical and mission budgets.  But I know, the new polity is all about mission; everything we do is now supposed to be mission.  However, the current Book of Order is like it is because we have a fallen nature and we use the rules not as a legalistic tool, but a device to guide and focus us in our ministry.  There is a place for hard and fast rules and without those to guide our finances I see this as one of the points for possible abuse.  OK, soap box mode off.

At this point I am down to my “laundry list” of numerous changes trying to decide what else to include in this post.  One of interest is that the section on “Preparation for Ministry” does make mention of the written Ordination Exams, but no longer specifies the topics (G-2.0407d).  The number of members of a commission and the fact that you can not have elders from the same church are details that are no longer specified (G-3.0110).  I would also note here that like the Foundations part, the proposed Government part is also minimalist with citations and that section 3.0110 is quite long with very little numbering to assist citation.  Another interesting change is that the responsibility of the session to instruct and examine those who join the church by reaffirmation of faith has been dropped, but it is still there for those who join by profession of faith (G-1.0304).  Finally, the proposed polity lets presbyteries decide if synods should have “reduced functions.”  Section 3.0404 says “When a two-thirds majority of its constituent presbyteries so decide, the function of a synod may be reduced but shall in no case be less than the prov
ision of judicial process and administrative review of the work of the presbyteries.”

There are a whole bunch more of this type of changes, but I think you should have the idea by now.  The report concludes with an Advisory Handbook for Councils for the Development of Policies and Procedures and the recommendation to GA that it be commended to the governing bodies-turned-councils.

Talking to several other “polity wonks” we all agree that if this revision to the Form of Government is approved by the GA and adopted by a majority of the presbyteries in anything like the form in the report there are likely to be two important consequences.  The first is that presbyteries will begin, and could be preoccupied with, a writing process to create the procedure and policy pieces that will have been removed from the Book of Order.  The second consequence will be an increase in the number of Permanent Judicial Commission cases as sessions and presbyteries deal with, and are challenged on, the new flexibility, including the freedom to set quorums and notification times for meetings.  The present Book of Order has the detail and procedures that it does because of cases like these in the past and the perceived need to codify certain items.  The governing bodies can delay, or cover themselves during, the writing of policies and procedures documents by adopting the procedures of the old Form of Government the way several (many?) presbyteries did this past year following the approval of the new chapter 14 which similarly makes use of Advisory Handbooks which were still in preparation.

The flip side of this is that there is great uncertainty about the applicability of current authoritative interpretations and PJC decisions that help us interpret the current Book of Order.  In fact, in my reading the new Government appears to be silent on these and the affect of existing or new guidance on the new Form of Government.  Do these remain in effect, but we have to figure out how they apply to new citations and new wording?  Do they get thrown out and we start over building a new framework?  Or something in between?

I have expected a bit more reaction to this report than I have found so far.  On his blog Pastor Bob has made some comments both positive and negative about the Foundations and the Government part and has some good points beyond what I had thought about.  I have found on the web a letter from the Session of Chula Vista Presbyterian Church which expresses the opinion that the revision is not an improvement on the current and offers suggestions for improvement and clarification.  There is also a movement to have the church look it over for the two years between the 218th and 219th General Assembly.  According to a commentary by Jim Berkley on the Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD) web site there were several members of the General Assembly Council who advocated for this at their September meeting where they got an advanced look at the task force recommendation.  In this article Mr. Berkley seems to advocate this as well and the Presbytery of Mississippi has sent an overture (16) to GA requesting this.  Jim Berkley also has an earlier article on the IRD web site addressing the obvious confusion that could result from overtures to amend Book of Order text that may not exist if the FOG report is adopted.  Finally, Jim has on his own blog, The Berkley Blog, a commentary titled “ Ready for a Book of Order Downgrade?“

As for myself, I am withholding judgment on this part until GA gets done working it over.  If I had to vote today on how it currently reads I would probably vote no.  I appreciate the increased flexibility and would like to see a Form of Government that can adapt to a variety of unique situations.  However, I have also seen my own congregation go to the Committee on Ministry and say “we like our interim, can we keep him?”  Fortunately the COM turned them down and it was a good thing too.  Besides the fact that it was it against the rules, the pastor we did call was truly God’s gift to our congregation and shows what can happen when you do a search right.  As a former moderator of COM, I am trying to figure out how I would write it to provide flexibility without undue temptation.  And I will acknowledge that the current Book of Order has become a patchwork with amendments to answer particular issues but not necessarily added in a big-picture way.  I do not want to argue against a rewrite, just something that is in the middle ground between the current and the proposed.

But, this report has a long way to go in the next six months.  It will be poked and prodded in GA committee and on the plenary floor.  It can be amended, modified, rewritten, or abandoned at both stages.  Throw into the mix the numerous overtures for Book of Order changes and how they may, or may not, apply to the rewrite.  And then the final product will be ready to go back out to the presbyteries for approval (but not modification).  We will see what the process brings.

The Report of the Form of Government Task Force — General Comments and the Foundations of Presbyterian Polity

2 Replies

A few weeks ago the Form of Government task force (FOG) completed its work and released their final report for the consideration of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in June.  This is not light reading and it took some time to digest the report and the accompanying documents.  While all the documents listed on the FOG web site are useful, I found that I relied on the “ Side-by-side comparison of the current to proposed form of government” the most since it best shows what has been removed in addition to the changes in wording.

It is important to keep in mind the charge to the task force from the 217th GA:  The Task Force was to rewrite the Form of Government section of the Book of Order to provide more leadership to congregations as “missional communities” and allow for flexibility for governing bodies to best work with congregations in our modern world.  However, the basic fundamental polity was not to be changed, the presbytery was to remain as the central governmental unit, and controversial sections G-6.0106b and G-8.0201 were not to be touched in wording but could be renumbered.

The changes to the Form of Government that are proposed are of two types:  There are organizational changes that move sections around, consolidate chapters, and even create a new part to the Book of Order.  Then there is editing to make the Book of Order a “Constitutional document, not a manual of operations.”  To achieve this aim all procedural sections are edited out.

The organizational change that has gotten the most coverage has been the division of the current Form of Government into two sections.  The first four chapters with the foundational polity has been put into a new section now called “Foundations of Presbyterian Polity” (Foundations) and the remaining material kept in a smaller “Form of Government” (Government).  In addition, the Form of Government has been shortened further by moving some supporting material out of the constitution and into handbooks for the Committee on Ministry and the Committee on Preparation for Ministry.  In the reorganization of chapters the first four chapters of the current Form of Government are now three chapters in the Foundations section while the remaining fourteen chapters of Government have been reorganized down to six.

With the removal of the procedural sections how much has the Form of Government been shortened?  While page sizes and formatting make it challenging to get exact counts, the current Form of Government chapters 5 to 18 covers 112 pages in the published Book of Order and roughly 75 pages in the side-by-side comparison.  The new Form of Government is 64 pages as formatted in the report and roughly 43 pages in the side-by-side comparison.  These two measures are pretty consistent so without doing a word count the general appearance is that the reduction in size is by almost one half.

For comparison, the comparable document for the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, The Code, is divided into two parts with Part I having about 40 pages of structure and Part II containing almost 100 pages of “Rules.”  In the Presbyterian Church in America, the Book of Church Order is 346 pages long with 84 pages in their Form of Government section and something like the PC(USA) chapter 1 in a Preface.  The PCA BCO is sized and typeset very much like the PC(USA) Book of Order so this is a close comparison.  Finally, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church Book of Order has a Book of Government section of about 76 pages.

In reviewing all of the material from the Form of Government Task Force (FOG) the rational for the structural reorganization makes sense to me.  One of the reasons for splitting out the Foundations part on its own is to make it clear that those principles apply to Directory for Worship and the Rules of Discipline parts in addition to the Form of Government.  This is something that I have always accepted implicitly so I don’t have a problem making it explicit.  Likewise, I am not opposed to the consolidation of chapters in the Government sections.  Anyone who has flipped between current chapters 6 and 14 trying to figure out some point of pastoral search or ordination, or who has searched chapters 9, 10 and 11 trying to locate a specific section on governing bodies, can probably appreciate this reorganization.

However, in reviewing the details of the editing there are proposed changes which open up questions and concerns for me.

For purposes of length and readability I have decided to split this blog post and so will discuss the proposed new part, the Foundations of Presbyterian Polity in this post and in my next one will pick up with the revised Form of Government part.  So…

Looking first at the Foundations part, the FOG claims:

The new Foundations preserves the vast majority of the text of the current first four chapters. There are sixty-seven paragraphs in the current G-1.0000 through G-4.0000. Of those sixty-seven paragraphs, sixty-three of them have been brought over into The Foundations of Presbyterian Polity. In thirty-five of the preserved paragraphs, the new text presents verbatim the contents of the current text. Twenty-eight of the paragraphs preserved have undergone some revision or modification, such as the combination of several smaller paragraphs into one larger one or the revision of content.

The Task Force, and its members individually, make a big deal about the continuity between the current and proposed versions.  But some of the changes, while subtle are not insignificant.  The red flag here should be the 28 paragraphs that have been “preserved” but modified.  These include subtle changes, like old G-1.0100a that refers to “Almighty God” but is replaced in new F-1.0201 with just “God.”  Or in the next paragraph where “his Kingdom” is replaced with “God’s new reality.”  I am in favor of using gender-neutral language where possible, but this change shifts the theological meaning.

There are points where the editing does improve the text in my opinion.  One example is the Great Ends of the Church where the current G-1.0200 lists them in a narrative paragraph but the new F-1.0304 splits them out as a bulleted list.  Likewise, the current G-3.0200 is supposed to be about “The Church as the Body of Christ” but the section starts with the church being the “provisional demonstration of what God intends for all humanity” and the “Body of Christ” language is down in G-3.0200c.  In the proposed F-1.0301 that Body of Christ section is moved to the top and the Provisional Demonstration immediately follows.  Personally I like that better.

It is interesting to note what has been deleted from Foundations.  In particular, I would point to the current G-2.0500b which was not carried over to Foundations.  This section begins “Thus, the creeds and confessions of the church reflect a particular stance within the history of God’s people.”  I’m not sure why this was eliminated since I think it helps us as Reformed Christians to recognize and understand that many of our confessional documents were written to address theological issues at a
particular point in history.

I have two other stylistic comments about the new Foundations:

First, there are a lot less numbered sections.  While most of the words are still there the citation system no longer gets you some of the detailed sections as it used to.  For example, in the current G-2.0500 Faith of the Reformed Tradition there are six paragraphs, each numbered down to trailing letters and numbers (such as G-2.0500a.(1), a citation length that a GA Junkie would love).  In the proposed revision the only citation, covering the same six paragraphs is F-2.05.

Second, I don’t like the opening.  Now here I may be getting picky but sometimes the first line of a book sets the tone for the whole thing.  Here are the choices to open the Book of Order:

Current Proposed
All power in heaven and earth is given to Jesus Christ by Almighty God, who raised Christ from the dead and set him above all rule and authority, all power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. God has put all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and has made Christ Head of the Church, which is his body. The mission of the Church is given form and substance by the sovereign activity of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Church bears witness to this one God’s sovereign activity in the world as told in the Bible and received by faith through the confessions of the people of God. The Church recognizes this activity of God in the goodness of creation and in the story of God’s dealings with humanity and with the children of Abraham; in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; and in God’s sustaining, forgiving, and demanding grace that forever issues in the call to discipleship. The Church proclaims that in the one God’s threefold work it finds its assurance of blessing, its call to ministries of compassion and justice, and its hope for itself and for the world.

For me, the current opening section is favored.  The main reason I favor it is that it contains many recognizable references to scripture, including the very first phrase which is taken from the Great Commission in Matt. 28, which if we are truly interested in missional polity would not be a bad thing to start with.  Yes I know that the proposed actually mentions mission as the second word, but somehow the identification with specific scripture passages really strengthens the current opening.  As a second reason, and this may be tied to the first, I am just struck by the more forceful and poetic nature of the current version.  Now this is subjective and your opinion may be different, but that is how it affects me.

If I had to vote at this point on the Foundations part I would probably vote no, but only weakly.  As a consensus document I could live with it.  None of our documents are perfect and while I do have objections I consider them minor in the grand scheme of things.  In any of our polity documents there are places I would love to make changes.  And there are places that I consider the new document an improvement.

Having gotten through the changes to the Form of Government as a whole, and the new Foundations of Presbyterian Polity part I will finish up the new Government section and some concluding comments that I will post separately tomorrow.  Have fun and stay tuned.