Category Archives: polity

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

1 Reply

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

(1) The General Assembly may

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

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

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

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

14-6. The General Assembly shall have power:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Radical Presbyterians

Leave a reply

Had to laugh at the comic strip Mallard Fillmore yesterday — not often we get references to Presbyterians in the comic pages, to say nothing of “Radical Presbyterians.”  As the PCA Historical Center has shown us, comic strips about Presbyterians, and our General Assemblies no less, have been more common in the past.  [My all time favorite Presbyterian political cartoon from the 217th General Assembly (2006) not withstanding.]

One tends not to think of Presbyterians as “radical,” but I do remember a quote in a sermon one time about the fear inspired on the battlefield by a small band of Scottish Presbyterians on their knees in prayer before a battle.  [I could not find a source for that but I’ll ask my friend that preached the sermon about it on Sunday, unless one of you recognizes the quote.]

Our Presbyterian polity actually does talk about being “radical,” but in a different sense of the word than we think of today.  While these “radical principles of Presbyterian church government and discipline” are included in the current PC(USA) Book of Order, G-1.0400, the footnote tells us that they were adopted by the 1797 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.  Through the wonders of Google Books, I can quote from an 1828 issue of The Christian Advocate (v. 6, p. 59) from a letter submitted to that publication:

Radical Principles of Presbyterianism.

Perhaps I shall not be able to state these better than by an extract from “Form of Government,” chap. xii. page 563, note. “The radical principles ofPresbyterian church government and discipline are:— That the several different congregations of believers, taken collectively, constitute one church of Christ; called emphatically the church; that a larger part of the church, or a representation of it, should govern a smaller, or determine matters of controversy which arise therein;—that a representation of the whole should govern and determine in regard to every part, and to all the parts united; that is, that a majority shall govern: and consequently that appeals may be carried from lower to higher judicatories, till they be finally decided by the collected wisdom and united voice of the whole church.”

These principles I hope to see preserved without any infraction— and I feel persuaded the more they are examined and tested, the more dear they will be to the Presbyterian church.

So we are radical in our polity, although it should be pointed out that the current PC(USA) Book of Order clarifies the meaning of radical by saying “the word ‘radical’ is used in its primary meaning of ‘fundamental and basic,'”

So have fun going out there and being radical — or at least “fundamental and basic.”

The Value Of A Contrary Opinion

Leave a reply

I have wondered aloud, or at least in print, in the past about what I see as a fundamentally Presbyterian and Reformed trait when it comes to our polity — The tendency for us Reformed folk to hold, accept (or at least tolerate), and act upon divergent views on issues major and minor.  We seem to do this “better” than other religious branches that I have looked at.  In fact the PC(USA) enshrines it in our polity:

G-1.030(1) (a) That “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship.”

(b) Therefore we consider the rights of private judgment, in all matters that respect religion, as universal and unalienable: We do not even wish to see any religious constitution aided by the civil power, further than may be necessary for protection and security, and at the same time, be equal and common to all others.

(2) That, in perfect consistency with the above principle of common right, every Christian Church, or union or association of particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion, and the qualifications of its ministers and members, as well as the whole system of its internal government which Christ hath appointed; that in the exercise of this right they may, notwithstanding, err, in making the terms of communion either too lax or too narrow; yet, even in this case, they do not infringe upon the liberty or the rights of others, but only make an improper use of their own.

And our parliamentary procedure is based upon certain principles (thanks to Paul McClintock, RPR, for the quote):

There are five great principles underlying the rules of parliamentary law, namely: (1) Order. That is, there must be orderly procedure. (2) Equality. That is, all members are equal before the rule or law. (3) Justice. That is, justice for all. (4) Right of the minority to be heard on questions. (5) Right of the majority to rule the organization. — George Demeter, Demeter’s Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure, 1969 Blue Book Edition, p. 5. [emphasis mine]

In a future reflection I will argue that this majority-minority interplay in our governing bodies is in fact what underlies our deliberative process and makes it so powerful — it is the key to our “always being reformed according to the word of God.”

But what has struck me this week is how this process has significant similarities to the way that science progresses with its “multiple working hypotheses” to explain the data and as new data is collected hypotheses are tested and may be revised or discarded in favor of alternate hypotheses which better explain the observations.  It is also a discernment process where dissenting voices must be considered because they bring into focus alternative perspectives on data interpretation.

This has been on my mind this week as I read about the e-mails and documents obtained by hackers from the computers at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and posted on public servers. (news story, CRU response)  Some of the material contained in those e-mails could be interpreted as attempts by climate researchers to suppress the publication of research that does not support the “consensus position.”  (Today NPR had an interesting story about the controversy where one of the scientists they interview is a researcher who feels he was suppressed because his research shows more extreme warming than the “consensus position.” )  I have not yet looked into this controversy in enough detail to have formed a final opinion.  I am suspicious that only the most sensational quotes are being used in the mainstream media reporting.  However, what I have read does concern me.

An interesting thing about this is that one of the central figures is Dr. Michael Mann of the Earth System Science Center of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences at the Pennsylvania State University.  I bring this specific case up because while a student in the Geosciences Department there at PSU I had a formative experience that reinforced the role that contrary opinion plays in science, a lesson that I regularly remember up to the present day.

I began my undergraduate career at the tail end of the time of the paradigm shift resulting from the wide acceptance of the theory of plate tectonics.  (That in itself is a major century-long story of theory, data, the scientific method and the role that personality cults can play.  If you want to hear that one you’ll have to sit in on the two lectures where I cover that in the earthquakes class I teach.)  I have to admit that I don’t remember many of the speakers or talks I attended while at PSU, but I clearly remember a fascinating presentation given by Prof. MacKenzie “Mac” Keith.  In this presentation he presented alternate ways that certain features attributed to plate tectonics could have been generated.  While I was a bit skeptical at the time, and today am confident his theories don’t do the best job of explaining the data, it was reinforced on my developing scientific mind that alternate explanations must be considered, at least long enough to understand why they are less favorable.

So I don’t know how this climate change controversy will turn out, but I am forever grateful to Dr. Keith for the lesson in science, and life, that he taught in that one evening’s presentation.

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

Leave a reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are several aspects to my concern.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The PC(USA) New Revised Form Of Government — Introductory Thoughts And The Revised Foundations

7 Replies

I am sure that most of the G.A. Junkies in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) know that the Form of Government Task Force will be bringing their revisions to the New Form of Government  to the 219th General Assembly next July.  Having now had time to study the revisions I wanted to share my thoughts and observations.

It is important to keep in mind the goal and history of the revision of the Form of Government section of the Book of Order.  The goal is to make the Book of Order, or at least the Form of Government, a constitutional document that sets forth the basic principles but is not loaded up with the detailed procedures that the church is to follow.  In addition, it is to be a “missional” document reflecting the concept that the church exists for mission — to go out into the world and make disciples.

The first recent major revision to the Book of Order came from the 217th General Assembly when that Assembly sent a revised version of Chapter 14 to the presbyteries, and the presbyteries concurred.  (An interesting discussion at this time would be whether the presbyteries still think the new Chapter 14 is a good thing and how that will influence the outcome of the present decision.) What we have today in that chapter is the stylistic goal for the whole Form of Government section.  At the 218th General Assembly the Form of Government Task Force brought a complete revision to the rest of the FOG but the Assembly committee and the full Assembly decided it was “not ready for prime time.”  The tenure of the task force was extended, three Assembly commissioners were added to the task force, and given the opportunity one member of the task force opted out of the “extended mission.”  Just over a month ago the task force released their New Revised Form of Government for the review, consideration, and discernment of the church.  This revision is to reflect the vast amount of input the task force received both at the 218th Assembly as well as through the presbyteries and directly.

If you wish to follow my discussion closely, or you want to have a detailed comparison yourself, there are several documents that you might want to consult.  The first, of course, is the current 2009-2011 Book of Order.  From the 218th GA (2008) there is the Report of the Task Force as well as a great side-by-side comparison of the revision to the Form of Government section at that time.  From the extended mission we have Report of the Task Force with the full text, as well as the Foundations and Government sections separately.  As tempting as it is to refer to the first revision as the “revised version” and the new one as the “new revised version,” for my discussion here and in following posts I will refer to them as “nFOG 2008” and “nFOG 2010.”  (The dates are for the year of the GA that considers them, not the year of release.)

For those just joining the discussion, or those who wisely have better things to do between GA’s than remember all these details, I should point out that a major recommendation in the nFOG 2008, and maintained in nFOG 2010, is the division of the existing Form of Government section into two sections.  The first four chapters would be split out on their own, rearranged into three chapters, and called Foundations of Presbyterian Polity.  They would now be the “F” section of the Book of Order and their placement into a new section would emphasize their application to all the other sections of the Book of Order.

In this post I will focus on just the Foundations section and leave the remainder of the Form of Government section for another time.  If you are curious what I said two years ago about it you can check out my previous comments.  As I read back through them today, with the exception of one messed up sentence where I am not sure what I was trying to say, I think my attitude now is still the same as reflected in that post.

I would begin by saying that while the nFOG 2008 did a major reorganization of the first four chapters, nFOG 2010 leaves most of their reorganization in place and has done more modification of the text, mostly to improve readability.  To my ear the Foundations section reads better than before.  A good example of this language:

 Current nFOG 2008  nFOG 2010
G-3.0100 Form
The mission of the Church is given form by God’s activity in the world as told in the Bible and understood by faith.

G-3.0101 God’s Activity
a. God created the heavens and the earth and made human beings in God’s image, charging them to care for all that lives; God made men and women to live in community, responding to their Creator with grateful obedience. Even when the human race broke community with its Maker and with one another, God did not forsake it, but out of grace chose one family for the sake of all, to be pilgrims of promise, God’s own Israel.

God’s Covenant
b. God liberated the people of Israel from oppression; God covenanted with Israel to be their God and they to be God’s people, that they might do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with the Lord; God confronted Israel with the responsibilities of this covenant, judging the people for their unfaithfulness while sustaining them by divine grace.

  F-1.01 GOD’S MISSION
The sovereign mission of the one triune God—Father, Son,and Holy Spirit—gives substance and form to the Church’s activity in the world. The Church knows God’s sovereign work in creation and redemption through God’s Word in Scripture, the witness of the confessions, and the presence of Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. As the Church responds to God’s gracious call, it participates in the divine mission—proclaiming the time of the Lord’s favor, bringing good news to all who are impoverished, and announcing release to those who are imprisoned, sight to those who are blinded, and freedom to those who are oppressed. In its faithful mission, the Church is assured of God’s blessing and filled with hope in the fulfillment of God’s purpose. Along with Christians everywhere, Presbyterians have no higher goal in life or in death than to live in covenant fellowship with the triune God, to embrace and serve God’s mission, to glorify and enjoy God now and forever.		  F-1.01 GOD’S MISSION
The good news of the Gospel is that the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—creates, redeems, sustains, rules, a
nd transforms all things and all people. This one living God, the Scriptures say, liberated the people of Israel from oppression and covenanted to be their God. By the power of the Spirit, this one living God is incarnate in Jesus Christ, who came to live in the world, die for the world, and be raised again to new life. The Gospel of Jesus Christ announces the nearness of God’s kingdom, bringing good news to all who are impoverished, sight to all who are blind, freedom to all who are oppressed, and proclaiming the Lord’s favor upon all creation.

The mission of God in Christ gives shape and substance to the life and work of the Church. In Christ, the Church participates in God’s mission for the transformation of creation and humanity by proclaiming to all people the good news of God’s love, offering to all people the grace of God at font and table, and calling all people to discipleship in Christ. Human beings have no higher goal in life than to glorify and enjoy God now and forever, living in covenant fellowship with God and participating in God’s mission.

In this particular case I do think the nFOG 2010 reads better, theologically presents the might acts of God in a more logical manner, and I like the filling out of the nature of the triune God in the first line.

It does leave the question of whether this is the best opening for the Book of Order and as I argued before I still favor the current language for its force and gravity:

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. [G-1.0100a]

There are places where subtle changes were made that, to my reading, do have significant theological or historical implications.  One example is from the last line of F-2.02 on the confessions as subordinate standards:

 Current nFOG 2008  nFOG 2010
Yet the church, in obedience to Jesus Christ, is open to the reform of its standards of doctrine as well as of governance. The church affirms “Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda,” that is, “The church reformed, always reforming,” according to the Word of God and the call of the Spirit.
[from G-2.0200]		 Yet the church, in obedience to Jesus Christ, is open to the reform of its standards of doctrine as well as of governance. The church affirms “Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda,” that is, “The church reformed, always to be reformed,” according to the Word of God and the call of the Spirit.
[from F-2.02]		 Yet the church, in obedience to Jesus Christ, is open to the reform of its standards of doctrine as well as of governance. The church affirms Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei, that is, “The church reformed, always to be reformed according to the Word of God” in the power of the Spirit.
[from F-2.02]

First, I appreciate the extended Latin phrase being included as well as the use of italics rather than quotations.  But the change from the “call of the Spirit” to “power of the Spirit” is one that I currently am not persuaded of.  While I would fully endorse the power of the Holy Spirit, when used in the context of the church being reformed I would prefer referencing the initial action of God through the call of the Spirit in that reformation.  We affirm that reformation is not of human initiative but of God’s.

There is a similar change when the new version speaks of the Protestant Reformation:

 Current nFOG 2008  nFOG 2010
G-2.0400 Faith of the Protestant Reformation

In its confessions, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) identifies with the affirmations of the Protestant Reformation. The focus of these affirmations is the rediscovery of God’s grace in Jesus Christ as revealed in the Scriptures. The Protestant watchwords—grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone—embody principles of understanding which continue to guide and motivate the people of God in the life of faith.

 F-2.04 The Confessions as Statements of the Faith of the Protestant Reformation

In its confessions, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) identifies with the affirmations of the Protestant Reformation. The focus of these affirmations is the rediscovery of God’s grace in Jesus Christ as revealed in the Scriptures. The Protestant watchwords—grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone—embody principles of understanding that continue to guide and motivate the people of God in the life of faith.

 F-2.04 THE CONFESSIONS AS STATEMENTS OF THE FAITH OF THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION

In its confessions, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) upholds the affirmations of the Protestant Reformation. The focus of these affirmations is God’s grace in Jesus Christ as revealed in the Scriptures. The Protestant watchwords—grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone—embody principles of understanding that continue to guide and motivate the people of God in the life of faith.

Again, there are a couple of subtle changes that, to my thinking, make different theological and historical statements about the Reformation confessions.  The switch from “identifies with” to “upholds” is one that I think I disagree with, but I am still wavering.  On the one hand, “upholds” distances us from the confession like “it happened and we acknowledge it.”  On the other hand, while it has a greater sense of distance “upholds” does have, to me, a greater sense of affirmation or attachment than “identifies.”  I’m still debating these changes with myself.

One change that I am grateful for is the return of a paragraph related to the historical nature and “stance” of confessional standards:

 Current nFOG 2008  nFOG 2010
b. Thus, the creeds and confessions of this church reflect a particular stance within the history of God’s people. They are the result of prayer, thought, and experience within a living tradition. They serve to strengthen personal commitment and the life and witness of the community of believers.
[G-2.0500b]		 [not included] The creeds and confessions of this church arose in response
to particular circumstances within the history of God’s people. They claim the truth of the Gospel at those points where their authors perceived that truth to be at risk. They are the result of prayer, thought, and experience within a living tradition. They appeal to the universal truth of the Gospel while expressing that truth within the social and cultural assumptions of their time. They affirm a common faith tradition, while also from time to time standing in tension with each other.
[from F-2.01]

Well, if you have gotten this far in my post I thank you for caring so much about this.  As I said there are several subtle changes that have been made that may affect whether you do, or do not, like the revision.  I won’t give any more side-by-side comparisons, but another subtle change that jumped out at me was the opening paragraph of the Principles of Order and Government where nFOG 2008 talks about the historic principles of church order “which have been a part of our common heritage in this nation,” the nFOG 2010 drops the “in this nation.”  While I can appreciate an attempt to remove a nationalistic tone, I do want to affirm that the PC(USA) is only 25 years old and there are almost 300 years of American Presbyterianism before that.  In addition, I think the qualifier is useful since in my study of Presbyterianism globally there are certain distinctions to church order in the American branch that these principles reflect.

I would note that two additions I appreciate are the inclusion of more scripture references throughout the section as well as more attention paid to the triune God.  And while the changes in structure are few, I would also complement the task force on the few times they did move sentences and ideas around with putting them in places that they more logically fit.

I suspect that most G.A. Junkies have particular sections of the Book of Order that they appreciate and value for the precise wording as well as the doctrine behind the section.  I have three in the Foundations section that are dear to me.  In my post from the last go-round two years ago I ranted about the change to the beginning of Chapter 1 where Jesus Christ as the head of the Church has been moved one section later.  I am pleased to say that the Great Ends of the Church have remained untouched.  But between nFOG 2008 and nFOG 2010 they had to go and change the section [F-1.0301] that begins “The Church of Jesus Christ is the provisional demonstration of what God intends for all of humanity.” and ends “The Church is called to give shape and substance to this truth. The Church is further called to undertake this mission even at the risk of losing its life, trusting in God alone as the author and giver of life, sharing the gospel, and doing those deeds in the world that point beyond themselves to the new reality in Christ.”  In nFOG 2010 it is no longer the “provisional demonstration” but is to demonstrate the gifts through Jesus Christ.  Furthermore, it does not risk its life for the mission but for the community. No only do I miss the specific wording that I have memorized and love, but it gives the appearance that is intended to be a missional document is not quite as missional.  Then again you can’t please everyone.

I think that is more than enough for right now.  I am still working on the new Government section of nFOG 2010 and will post on that probably in a week or two.

Developments At Coral Ridge — What Does It Say About Confessional Standards?

1 Reply

If you have not been following this story…

A few months back Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Florida, a member of the Presbyterian Church in America, called a pastor to fill their vacant senior pastor position.  There were some concerns about how the vote of the congregation was presented and conducted so a couple of weeks ago the congregation voted again on the new pastor.  The call was reaffirmed by a 69-31% vote.  At the same time there have been some dissidents in the congregation who have been calling for the removal of the new pastor and disciplinary proceedings were begun against some of them.  That may be moot based on current developments.

Well the dissident group has now left and is starting their own worshiping fellowship at a local auditorium, having held one worship service on their own so far.

Something like this does not usually make the national news but in this case it helps that Coral Ridge was founded by the late TE D. James Kennedy, the new pastor is a grandson of Billy Graham, and some of the leaders of the splinter group are the children of Rev. Kennedy.  It is, as we sometimes say, “As The Pulpit Turns.”

That is the background information.  Now a few comments related to church polity, confessional standards, and church reorganizations.

Beginning at reorganizations:  As I have been working on the nature of church reorganizations I commented that the recent reaffirmation vote is close to the 2:1 ratio I have seen in multiple circumstances elsewhere.  Being only one church vote I am not inclined to put a lot of weight on it by itself.  A recent article on the dissident group says that attendance at the first worship service was about 400 people.  While it would be better to consider the number at some point in the future after the attendance stabilizes, or we at least have more than one data point, that number does fall very close to the 422 “no” votes in the recent vote.  Now, it could be a stretch to say that only congregation members that voted are now attending worship with the new group, but the number is still in the region of the 2:1 split.  It will be interesting to see what the ratios are in about a month.

Regarding polity — the article twice mentions a meeting of an organizational committee and that the meeting was “closed.”  I am going to make a jump here, but from the article this is sounding like the leadership of the new church, a proto-session if you will.  I would be curious to know the make-up of this body:  Are they ordained elders of the PCA?  Do they follow PCA leadership standards and so all the members of this organizational committee are male?  And while session meetings need not be open, are these leaders willing to discuss issues with the members of this developing congregation or is all the business being kept under wraps?

This brings me to a couple of lines in the news story that really drew my attention:

Denominational outlines of the embryonic congregation haven’t been
determined yet. However, one of the leaders, Jim Filosa, said they plan
to pattern it on the Westminster Confession of Faith, the backbone of
Presbyterian belief.

“We’ll do everything we did at Coral Ridge,” Filosa said. “What happens down the road depends on what denomination contacts us.”

This opens up all sorts of questions.  First, if they are patterning it on the Westminster Confessional Standards and doing what they did at Coral Ridge I would expect the leadership group to be exclusively male and conform to the PCA Book of Church Order.  And when they say “pattern” it on the WCF what does that mean?  Is it truly a confessional standard, or just a pattern or template that will provide guidance but not a subscription standard?

But, the line that sent a chill down my spine, as a confessional Presbyterian, was the comment that “What happens down the road depends on what denomination contacts us.”

Is this to say that their confessional standards are flexible or fluid enough to accommodate a range of interested suiters?  Would it not be more doctrinally sound to decide what exactly their standards are and then find the denomination that fits them best?  And I may be completely off the mark, but the way this quote comes across in the article it sounds like what they are saying is “Look, we are the true Coral Ridge.  You make us an offer.”

Anyway, I am curious to see how this develops in the coming weeks.

A First Look At A Uniting Church

1 Reply

One of the areas that I have been trying to explore, as my time permits, is how to characterize the United/Uniting churches around the world.  These are denominations generally formed by the uniting or merging of a few Protestant, although not necessarily Reformed, denominations into one Christian witness.  I have had multiple people suggest that they are essentially Presbyterian in nature and therefore should be on my radar.  So I am starting to ask the question “How Presbyterian are they?”

To answer this questions I have started to chip away at reading the Constitution and Regulations of the Uniting Church in Australia.  The Uniting Church was formed in 1977 by the gathering of Congregational, Methodist and Presbyterian churches.  The union did not bring all the congregations into the merger and 44 Congregationalist congregations formed the Fellowship of Congregational Churches,  some Methodist congregations not happy with the union switched to the Wesleyan Methodist Church of Australia, and about one-third of the Presbyterians chose not to join the Uniting Church and continue as the Presbyterian Church of Australia.  (Interesting note:  That is about the same proportion of Presbyterians that chose not to join the United Church of Canada in 1925 and continue there as the Presbyterian Church in Canada.)

As I said, I have been chipping away at the basic constitutional document of the UCA, the Constitution and Regulations, and have finished studying the first three chapters.  The first section is the Basis of Union, which is also available as a free-standing HTML page.  This section, as the name implies, outlines in broad sweep the structure of the church and the basic components and understandings on which the church is structured.  It was first written in 1971 and the notes and various versions available indicate that it has been updated a few times since then.  It appears that most of the changes have been in the use of inclusive language or of an editorial and formatting nature.

The next two chapters are the first two parts of the constitution proper, the Preamble and Division 1 on Membership.

Reading through all this a Presbyterian very quickly gets the idea that the church is Presbyterian in structure.  (I would be curious if the language is such that a Congregationalist or Methodist, reading through their filter, would also perceive their structure in the language that is used.)  All the typical governing bodies – church councils, presbyteries, synods and the assembly – are included by those names and described as a “series of inter-related councils.”  The officers of the church are likewise what a Presbyterian would expect: minister, elder, deacon and deaconess.  There are clear references to the other polities because deacon and deaconess are split out as separate classifications and elder is always used in the phrase “elder or leader.”  In addition, there is the category of Lay Preacher.  While Presbyterians have lay preachers, sometimes under other names like licentiate or commissioned lay pastor, of the three churches that joined it has been my experience that the position of lay preacher is more often associated with the Methodist tradition.  I don’t know what place it may hold in the Congregationalist tradition.

These sections are fairly broad and general in nature setting down the larger framework.  Looking ahead, but not having studied it in detail, it is clear that the fine points of the polity are set out in the remainder of the document, the Regulations.  For reference, the Basis of Union is just over eight pages long, the Constitution is 17 pages long, and the Regulations are 168 pages long.  And, while there are clearly sections dealing with Government and Discipline, I don’t see as part of this document any sections that describe Worship.

While the structure may be Presbyterian the real test will be in studying the details of the polity, which I have not really gotten to yet.  An update when I have had a chance to reflect on those.  However, two interesting details do jump out at me so far.

In the Preamble to the Constitution the last section is called Purposes and it reads in full:

The purposes of the Church are to provide for the worship of God, to proclaim the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, to promote Christian fellowship, to nurture believers in the Christian faith, to engage in mission, to assist in human development and toward the improvement of human relationships, to meet human need through charitable and other services and to do such other things as may be required in obedience to the Holy Spirit.

Now I don’t know if anything jumps out to other readers, but to me this has significant parallels to a formula that is part of American Presbyterianism – The Great Ends of the Church.  Here is a side-by-side comparison with the Great Ends reordered to match the Purposes:

The purposes of the Church are

to provide for the worship of God,

to proclaim the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ,

to promote Christian fellowship,
to nurture believers in the Christian faith,

to engage in mission,

to assist in human development and toward the improvement of human relationships,

to meet human need through charitable and other services

and to do such other things as may be required in obedience to the Holy Spirit.

 The great ends of the church are

3) the maintenance of divine worship;

1)the proclamation of the gospel for the salvation of humankind;

2)the shelter, nurture, and spiritual fellowship of the children of God;

5) the promotion of social righteousness;

6) and the exhibition of the Kingdom of Heaven to the world.

4) the preservation of the truth;

While the UCA “mission” clause is a one-to-many match and the PCUSA “truth” clause is not a one-to-one match either, most of the rest have fairly, if not very, close matches between the two constitutions.  And yes, these are probably general enough all the way around that almost any Christian church’s “purpose” could be made to fit the parallels.

The second detail of interest is not actually something I read first in the Constitution and Regulations but in a news article.  Thanks to the Illawarra Mercury we find out that the Rev. Gordon Bradbery was not granted an extension of his call by his synod and presbytery.  So, after 23 years in the ministry and 15 at the Wesley Uniting Church on the Mall his tenure at the church will conclude at the end of 2010.

If the above description left other G.A. junkies scratching your heads, here is the interesting polity behind it.  Under the UCA Regulations, beginning at section 2.7.6, it has an interesting phrase that says “The placement of a Minister in a pastoral charge shall normally be made for an undefined term but shall not continue beyond ten years except as provided in Reg. 2.7.10.”  So does this mean even though the term is undefined, there is an expectation that it will last no longer than ten year
s?

Now, jumping down to Reg. 2.7.10, it says that a placement may be extended beyond ten years if everyone – pastor, congregation and presbytery – agree.  If further says: “Any extension shall require a two-thirds majority by secret ballot of those present in each of the meetings of the Church Council, the Congregation and the Presbytery.”  And, an extension is normally for five years according to this section.

On the details of this, if the Regs. say five years and the news article says three I’m not sure where the answer lies.  The news article numbers actually add up for a ten year placement with two three-year extensions.

Now, before I proceed further, let me acknowledge that these are the regulations of that denomination.  I am not being critical and I’m not out to change them or make them Presbyterian.  My only questions here is “How Presbyterian is this?”

My reaction at this point is that while the UCA seems to broadly have the marks of a Presbyterian style structure, this whole thing about placement, initial terms and extensions where the governing bodies have such a significant hand strikes me more like the control in a hierarchical appointment system.  While the presbytery has an approval and review role in typical Presbyterian pastoral calls, usually the session has no say in the final selection, while in this case the church council also approves.  It is typically a given of a Presbyterian system that the full body of people chose their officers, including the teaching elder.  The presbytery only reviews the decision and if everything is going well the presbytery has no hand in deciding how long the pastor stays.

Reading through this polity I keep asking myself “Why is it like this?”  With these precise controls I get the distinct impression that there is a story behind why this section of the Regs. was written like this or how it developed.  Can anyone point me to an historical profile of the Regs. or the equivalent of the annotated version that might answer this question?  (In my own research this does not appear to be a feature brought from the Presbyterian side.  The Code of Regulations for the Presbyterian Church of Australia does not deal with the call process, but rather it is detailed at the state level.  For the Presbyterian Church of Australia in the State of New South Wales the call process in the Code of Regulations is very much what I would describe as typical Presbyterian with a search committee, congregational vote, and presbytery approval.  It does have some very interesting nuances but that is material for another time.  But in it there is no sign I can find of the term length or extension to be approved by the three different bodies.  Interestingly, it is specified that the minimum expectation of the time in a call will be three years.)

So my initial opinion?  The Uniting Church in Australia has a broadly Presbyterian-like structure, but in examining this particular detail there are typical elements of Presbyterianism lacking and the upper governing bodies wield a lot of influence in pastoral calls.  And I repeat, this is not a criticism of that system, only an analysis of the system by a Presbyterian G.A. Junkie.  So I currently have some questions about classifying the UCA as Presbyterian in polity, but that is not a final conclusion but I’ll have more to say after I’ve read more of the Regs.

Congregationalism Is Hierarchical? — Or — Who Controls What It Means To Be Congregationalist?

3 Replies

In my way of thinking the first part of my title is a contradiction.  After all, that great source of all knowledge, Wikipedia, opens their section on Congregationalist polity with this:

Congregationalist polity, often known as congregationalism, is a system of church governance in which every local church congregation is independent, ecclesiastically sovereign, or “autonomous.”

OK, so I don’t accept Wikipedia as a primary source for my college classes, but at least this statement agrees with my own understanding of that system of church government.  The individual congregations is 1) independent, 2) ecclesiastically sovereign, and 3) autonomous.  They join together in associations for the purpose of support.

So when I read this article I had to pause.  Now, there are clearly complicated legal issues related to the gift of the property and the trust involved.  And I have no vast knowledge of the nuances of UCC polity.  But it seems to me that the Rev. J.R. McAliley III, the pastor of Center Congregational Church has a valid argument in this letter where he writes:

The legal impact of our case – defining “the Congregational Denomination” – is one with implications for every Church and Organization historically associated with the Congregational Way. Center’s little ¼ acre of land in Buckhead, an upscale section of Atlanta, Ga, even at the current speculative market value of about $500,000.00 is not the goal of the UCC/SECUCC. Legal “ownership” of the designation as the true legal successor to “the Congregational Denomination” is and the implications will spread like a tsunami.

What I find interesting is how this concern that the pastor expresses is suggested in the Preface of the UCC Manual on Church:

Can there be a Manual on Church in the United Church of Christ? Can this denomination, which has honored with tolerance the traditions and polities of its various predecessor bodies, come to agreement on one set of guidelines or expectations for the characteristics of faithful churches of the United Church of Christ? Can Associations and Conferences, as concerned about their own practice of autonomy as are local churches, choose to forge a common path of exemplary practices by which to live out covenantal unity? Can Local Church Ministries channel the Spirit-filled diversity of interactive partnership among local, Association, Conference, and national settings of the Church so that each may feel the bonds of covenant that strengthen nurture and support, and offer responsibility and accountability?

And this is answered with:

We shall see. This is a beginning toward shaping the discernment of the covenantal partners of the United Church of Christ concerning what it means to be expressions of church within the Church.

This document, dated January 2005, is an attempt by the denomination to walk the fine line between covenant and autonomy.  If, through this manual, the denomination wants to define itself in a way that moves beyond the autonomy of the Congregationalist model then it moves towards an association with more hierarchical structure.  It is understandable that particular churches would start to get nervous.

And it is understandable in light of the fact that everyone seems to agree this case, legal and ecclesiastical, hinges on that phrase “the Congregational Denomination.”

The legal case is complicated and each side is probably presenting their side in the most favorable light for them.  From the denomination’s viewpoint, this case hinges on civil law regarding the conditions of the gift of the land a century ago that requires the land be used for purposes of “the Congregational Denomination.”  At the time there was only one, and it was not the UCC which was organized in the 1950’s.  Now the congregation wants to realign with the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches and the UCC is arguing that it is “the Congregational Denomination” and the realignment violates the conditions of the gift.  This is not an ecclesiastical dispute in their telling, merely contract or trust law.  (More in a May WSJ article)  As “the voice of one crying in suburbia” says – “Follow the Money.”

It will be interesting to see what happens if this case moves forward — and that is an if because the purpose of Rev. McAliley’s letter was an appeal for funds to help fight the legal case against the deeper pockets of the Conference.  But if it gets down to ecclesiastical structure it will be interesting to see if the civil courts view the UCC as a hierarchical denomination, or even “the Congregational Denomination.”

Ecclesiastical Discipline Uprightly Ministered

1 Reply

I know that most Presbyterian branches have the Westminster Confession as their confessional standard, but regular readers know that I prefer the notes of the True Church found in the Scots Confession which, in addition to the “true preaching of the Word of God” and the “right administration of the sacraments” adds

and lastly, ecclesiastical discipline
uprightly ministered, as God’s word prescribes, whereby vice is
repressed and virtue nourished

As part of the Reformed stream we acknowledge the significance of sin and the necessity of holding each other accountable.  We recognize the need for confession, repentance and restoration.  Ecclesiastical discipline is not punitive but restorative, that is “virtue nourished.”

With that introduction I want to refer you to the story of one PCA presbytery and a disciplinary proceeding it was involved in brought to us by Kevin at Reformed and Loving It.  (Kevin, thank you for this.) Here is a story of ecclesiastical discipline and restorative grace — It is about a minister who was under censure with supervised rehabilitation.  I encourage you to read all of the story, but the heart of the story, and what is really the heart of the Gospel, is contained in these lines:

At the last presbytery [the minister] asked the presbytery to demit the ministry.
Today we voted on it. Before the motion was voted on, I offered an
amendment asking that the presbytery, taking his demission as an
evidence of repentance, lift his censure and restore him to the Lord’s Supper. The amendment (and main motion) passed unanimously. The man broke down in tears. He saw this as we did: a step of restoration.

Amen

Episcopal Polity Statement From The Anglican Communion Institute — The Rest Of The Story?

Leave a reply

I had a professor in graduate school who commented how much he really liked the articles in the magazine Scientific American.  Except, he said, for articles in his discipline and then he found that they had errors or were incomplete.  The implication is that we can analyze and critique what we know but in other areas we may miss the full story.

This is how I feel after reading the new Bishops’ Statement on the Polity of the Episcopal Church issued by the Anglican Communion Institute.  Reading through it I found the Statement interesting and I learned a lot.  In fact, in many of the sections I was drawing the parallels to the polity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  But then I hit the short section on PC(USA) polity and I found it superficial and incomplete causing me to call into question the document as a whole.  They are not very good at the area I know and I can’t properly critique the rest where I am not experienced.

The purpose of the Statement is to argue that The Episcopal Church (TEC) is not a hierarchical church — that the dioceses and their bishops are autonomous and that the General Conference is a voluntary association of dioceses. This is argued with a number of lines of reasoning, some of which make a lot of sense to me and a couple that don’t seem to support the point.

Now I know a lot about Presbyterian polity but very little about the fine points of Anglican or Episcopal polity so I am not going to do a point-by-point analysis.  But as I read through the document there were clear parallels to American Presbyterianism.

1. They discuss “ordinary power”

“Ordinary” is a term of art in Anglican and Roman Catholic ecclesiology and canon law that refers to the power inherent in the office given by the Lord to Peter and the Apostles. (p. 3)

There is clearly no direct Presbyterian parallel to the office of the bishop as an individual with apostolic power, but the Presbyterian concept of “permissive powers of the congregation” appears similar to the “ordinary power” discussed here.  (That would be G-7.0304a(5) in the PC(USA) Book of Order and check out my discussion at the end of my post on congregational power for more on the various thoughts about permissive powers.)]

2. Historically dioceses were organized earlier and later associated into a national structure similar to presbyteries being the first higher governing body in American Presbyterianism predating synods and the general assembly.

3. In the Episcopal General Convention each diocese has an equal vote while in the PC(USA) it is apportioned by membership.  But maybe more important, in the PC(USA) each presbytery has an equal vote when it comes to agreeing to confessional or constitutional changes.

4. The Principle of Subsidiarity — there is a difference in the nuances here, but the parallel with the PC(USA) is still striking.  This document says (p. 11):

“Subsidiarity expresses a preference for governance at the most local level consistent with achieving government’s stated purposes.”

This is reflected in two ways in the PC(USA) Book of Order.  From G-9.0402b

b. The administration of mission should be performed by the governing body that can most effectively and efficiently accomplish it at the level of jurisdiction nearest the congregation.

And from G-9.0103

All governing bodies of the church are united by the nature of the church and share with one another responsibilities, rights, and powers as provided in this Constitution. The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body. The jurisdiction of each governing body is limited by the express provisions of the Constitution, with powers not mentioned being reserved to the presbyteries, and with the acts of each subject to review by the next higher governing body. [emphasis added]

So far all well and good.  There are these points that I see as strong parallels between TEC and PC(USA) polity.  And then…

I hit the section where they compare TEC to other churches.  The discussion makes sense to me when they talk about clearly hierarchical churches, like the Roman Catholic and Serbian Orthodox Churches.  But in the Protestant branches they include the PC(USA).  It is not the inclusion of the PC(USA) that irked me but the way they did.  Here is the complete discussion of the church:

Likewise, the constitution of the Presbyterian Church USA indicates unequivocally the hierarchical relationship of its bodies:

The General Assembly is the highest governing body of this church and is representative of the unity of the synods, presbyteries, sessions, and congregations of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). [G-13.0101]

The General Assembly is also given the explicit power “to provide authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order which shall be binding on the governing bodies of the church….” [G-13.0103]

Where do I begin…

What may be the most surprising to you is that if I had to provide a Book of Order citation to “prove” the PC(USA) was hierarchical I would have used something out of G-4.0300, the Principles of Presbyterian Government.  For example:

f. A higher governing body shall have the right of review and control over a lower one and shall have power to determine matters of controversy upon reference, complaint, or appeal; [G-4.0301f]

So what are the problems with the citations they use?  First, as I have mentioned above, while the General Assembly may be the “highest governing body,” it bears many similarities to the General Convention which they argue is not a hierarchical power.  These similarities include the presbytery/diocesan representation to the body and the fact that the higher body can not unilaterally change the confessions or constitution.  They are correct that the General Assembly is given the power to interpret the constitution but as Presbyterians know there are subtleties here, especially over the last few years with alternate and superseding interpretations by the Assembly itself and the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission related to ordination standards.  It also should be noted that constitutional changes are not only ratified by the presbyteries but nearly all begin as overtures from the presbyteries.  Finally, in Presbyterianism the term “higher governing body” is a term of art and is understood not to be an entity unto itself but a part of our connectionalism, a sign of unity of the church since it is comprised of commissioners from the lower governing bodies.

In analyzing the arguments in this Statement I thought back on the oral arguments before the California Supreme Court on the Episcopal Church Cases regarding church property and the trust clause.  I tried to review the arguments to give a direct quote but the video appears to have been removed from the web.  But, as I reported at the time, when the lawyer for the churches was answering justices’ questions about the principle of government theory and the hierarchical church he said that break-away churches would prevail under that legal theory because even though they have left TEC they are still part of the Worldwide Anglican Communion
.  They are still part of a global hierarchy.

Now, I am not arguing that under their arguments and logic the PC(USA) is not a “hierarchical church.”  One of their marks of a hierarchical church is review of lower bodies by higher bodies which is a hallmark of Presbyterianism.  But from a legal point of view for civil litigation I don’t know if that is either necessary or sufficient to pronounce a body a hierarchical church.  Similarly, while I understand and appreciate the arguments made in the Bishops’ Statement at least a few state supreme courts have not seen it the same way.  (Although California sort of dodged the issue by using neutral principles to side with the denomination in the majority decision.)  And if scrupling is upheld we may see how hierarchical the PC(USA) is if a presbytery is forced to accept an officer ordained in another presbytery after declaring an exception.

It is an interesting article and I enjoyed reading it, especially the sections related to the shaping of the church in the late 1700’s.  Historically their argument seemed to hold up.  But after finishing the document I had to ask myself “what is the rest of the story?”  I know what it was for American Presbyterianism.  What else is left out regarding the Episcopalians?