Category Archives: polity

Presbyterian Congregations And Presbyterian Government — A Point Of Tension?

Leave a reply

As Presbyterians we have a unique system of government that holds the Session of the church and the Congregation in a tension that sometimes is not readily grasped or easily explained.  And in my years on the Committee on Ministry I have found that often the session and congregation each thinks it has more authority than it actually does.  I have also found that a Session, intentionally or unintentionally, has led a congregation to believe that the congregation has virtually no power.  In reality the congregation has significant power and authority but in a narrow range.

If you want a clear demonstration of the tensions around congregational powers  you need look no further than the recent decisions from the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) of the PC(USA).  The case of Yun v. Korean United Presbyterian Church had to do with election of officers and procedures at congregational meetings.  In Sundquist v. Heartland the GAPJC ruled, in part, that it is not a right of a congregation to be able to vote to be dismissed from the denomination.  This ruling upheld an authoritative interpretation (AI) from the 218th General Assembly specifying this.  But this AI also reinforced the congregation’s authority to specify the quorum for a congregational meeting and that this was not something the session or the presbytery could not alter.

It is interesting that with these cases concerning what a congregation can and can not do, if you look at the “What Presbyterians Believe” section of the PC(USA) web site you will find articles concerning what they believe about elders, deacons, how Presbyterians make decisions, the priesthood of all believers, and many more topics, but nothing clearly about congregations, covenant community, or the body of Christ.

So, as I was working on another piece about polity and Presbyterian congregations I figured that I should tackle the role of the congregation in Presbyterian government first.  However, in this post I will review the powers and responsibilities of the congregation without the full development of the congregation as the “Body of Christ” and the “Covenant Community.”  That will come later.

There is a short answer to the question about what the roll of the congregation is in governance: Across most, but not all, Presbyterian branches it is the right and responsibility of the congregation to decide almost all matters related to the officers of their church.  As the PC(USA) Book of Order puts it:

The government of this church is representative, and the right of God’s people to elect their officers is inalienable. Therefore, no person can be placed in any permanent office in a congregation or governing body of the church except by election of that body. [G-6.0107]

The Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand puts is another way in the Background section of Chapter 7:

In the Presbyterian tradition, a congregation calls a minister and elects elders to undertake spiritual oversight, leadership in mission, and pastoral care. A congregation may elect either a deacons’ court or a board of managers to manage the property and finances of the congregation.

And this understanding goes back to the Reformation.  The 1556 Genevan Book of Order, used by the English speaking congregation in that city (you can’t say the immigrant fellowships are a new phenomenon), begins with this sentence about selecting ministers, and the elder and deacon selection sections refer back here to do it in the same way:

The
ministers and elders at such time as there wants a minister, assemble
the whole congregation, exhorting them to advise and consider who may
best serve in that room and office.

And in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin concludes a section arguing from scripture and the writing of Cyprian with

We see then, that ministers are legitimately called according to the
word of God, when those who may have seemed fit are elected on the
consent and approbation of the people. Other pastors, however, ought to
preside over the election, lest any error should be committed by the
general body either through levity, or bad passion, or tumult. [Book IV, Chapter 3, Section 15]

As I said, this is not completely universal and An Introduction to Practice and Procedure in the Church of Scotland tells us:

Elders are chosen in one of three ways, but it is important to note that, whichever method is followed, the final decision, both as regards the method to be followed and the persons to be appointed, rests with the Kirk Session. Elders may be chosen (a) by the Kirk Session itself; (b) by a congregational meeting; or (c) by means of signed lists.

While the Church of Scotland can have elders appointed by the Session, they join the majority of Presbyterian branches in making it the right and responsibility of the congregation to search for and call a pastor.  In most branches the congregation elects the search committee from among its members and when the search committee has a nominee they bring it back to the congregation for approval.  There are some branches, like the Presbyterian Church in Ghana, where their tradition is to appointed ministers to parish positions.

It was in the pastor search process where I have had to deal with tensions with the session.  Sometimes the session wants a hand in the selection — they may want veto authority or they may want to direct the selection either by being the search committee or by guiding the search committee.  In a few circumstances related to calling temporary or interim pastors I have seen the session empowered as the search committee.  But when it comes to searching for a regular installed pastor or associate pastor the session can have input and make suggestions, but the selection process is up to the committee and the approval up to the congregation as a whole.  This does not mean that session members can not serve on the search committee, but like regular nominating committees in the PC(USA) the majority of the membership should be from the congregation at-large.

I have seen this lack of control confuse, irritate, and annoy session members.  Some have the understanding that they run the church and that should apply to the leadership as well.  When they find out they do not have a deciding voice in the selection process for the next pastor they sometimes are very surprised.

Now, as they say, “with great power comes great responsibility.”  Since the congregation selects and calls the pastor, the congregation also has the full responsibility to support the pastor, including the prayer and financial support.  The congregation approves the compensation package for the pastor.  And in the installation questions the congregation must promise their support.  The Presbyterian Church in America Book of Church Order asks these questions in section 21-10

3. Do you promise to encourage him in his labors, and to assist his endeavors for your instruction and spiritual edification?

4. Do you engage to continue to him while he is your pastor that competent worldly maintenance which you have promised, and to furnish him with whatever you may see needful for the honor of religion and for his comfort among you?

And the PC(USA) wording is similar in W-4.006b

(2) Do we agree to encourage him (her), to respect his (her) decisions, and to follow as he (she) guides us, serving Jesus Christ, who alone is Head of the Church?

(3) Do we promise to pay him (her) fairly and provide for his (her) welfare as he (she) works among us; to stand by him (her) in trouble and share his (her) joys? Will we listen to the word he (she) preaches, welcome his (her) pastoral care, and honor his (her) authority as he (she) seeks to honor and obey Jesus Christ our Lord?

In my experience, the congregation has a great and important power and responsibility in selecting its ordained officers and for all of the officers this task should be approached with prayer and discernment.  It is not a responsibility to be taken lightly.

The other powers lodged in the congregation are more of a temporal nature, to use the Church of Scotland terminology, and vary across state and national boundaries.  But since these items do affect the ability of the church to carry out its mission they should not be viewed as being entirely non-spiritual or secular in nature.

The PC(USA) explicitly lists matters related to real property as another area that the congregation must make the decisions.  The theory here is both a corporate one, that the members of the church are members of the civil corporation, as well as the pragmatic view that since the members of the congregation have paid for the building or will have to pay off the loan, they should be making the decision on property matters such as these.  In some branches, like the Church of Scotland and the PC(USA), certain of these property matters must be reviewed and approved by a higher governing body.

Other items of congregational business typically include the decision to have a board of deacons or a board of trustees, since those are officer related, and approval of church bylaws, since that is a corporation decision.

There can be one more congregational power that It is not as well defined.  In the case of the PC(USA) this is found in G-7.0304a(5) where it says what business may be conducted at a congregational meeting:

(5) matters related to the permissive powers of a congregation, such as the desire to lodge all administrative responsibility in the session, or the request to presbytery for exemption from one or more requirements because of limited size.

The question is what are the “permissive powers” of the congregation.  A few observations about this:

1 – In what may be a rarity, this paragraph has no associated comments in the Annotated Version of the Book of Order

2 – It is a concept regarding government powers and “permissive powers” are like common law powers.  They are contrasted with statutory powers, enabling powers, and prescriptive powers.  (The examples given in the following links are not definitive but give examples via usage within government reports.)  This seems to be used much more in Britain where it is frequently used in the context of town or city regulation and management of land.  (Used in the first line of this UK Parliament publication)  It is also found in reference to restructuring government, including a Task Force Report for Toronto, Ontario, Canada and a PowerPoint presentation for Spring Lake, Michigan, USA.  And thanks to the magic of Google Books I found a couple of useful paragraphs in Social Welfare Alive! by Stephen Moore and Peter Scourfield and in The Law Of Public Officers by Ruben E. Agpalo.

3 – If you refer to a template for a manual for stated clerks (here is Seattle Presbytery’s version, excerpt from page 11) it says of the business of a congregational meeting:

“permissive powers” relates to adopting congregational bylaws, establishment of a unicameral board, waivers from election of officers, raising of the quorum, and buying, selling, and mortgaging of real property

This seems to take the “such as” items listed in G-7.0304a(5) and make them “limited to.”

4 – For an extensive discussion of the concept of “permissive powers” that follows the governmental-based concept that they are the opposite of “prescriptive powers” you need to check out Michael McCarty’s discussion a year ago on his blog Around the Scuttlebutt.  He tackles the concept of permissive powers head-on with some preliminaries in parts 1, 2 and 3, a detailed discussion in parts 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, and wraps it up in part 9.  Mr. McCarty looks at the Presbyterian tradition and the ambiguities in the Book of Order around this and other issues of polity, and concludes that the congregation has a significant say in its relationship to the higher governing bodies and that in the ambiguities deference should be given to the congregation.

5 – It is the general tradition in American Presbyterianism that the “central governmental unit” is the presbytery.  This is reflected in the presbytery’s responsibility to organize, unite, receive, divide, dismiss and dissolve churches.  (G-11.0103h-i PC(USA) Book of Order)  It is also seen in the presbytery’s oversight of pastors and the pastoral call process.  And for the PC(USA) [from G-9.0103] “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.”  In the PC(USA)’s revision of the Form of Government the mandate stipulates that the presbytery is to remain the central governmental unit and the version presented to the last General Assembly eliminated the permissive powers of the congregation.  This latter change did draw some criticism.

6 – Not all Presbyterian branches lodge the fundamental power with the presbytery.  Some, like the Bible Presbyterian Church, place it with the congregation.  As their Form of Government says in Chapter 1 on Preliminary Principles:

9. All powers not in this Constitution specifically granted to the
courts of the Church are reserved to the congregations respectively, or
to the people.

Typical of the Presbyterian form of government, the relationship of the congregation to the governing bodies is one that holds the power and responsibility in tension so that there is accountability and shared responsibility within the Covenant Community.  But when there are misunderstandings or ambiguities the working out of the shared responsibility can lead to tensions between different entities in the system.

Having now laid the fundamental foundation of the role of congregations in Presbyterian polity I, at some future point, will post some thoughts about building on this foundation and tweaking it a bit.

PC(USA) Amendment Voting Update

4 Replies

The official vote tally on the amendments to the Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) was updated yesterday afternoon and enough presbyteries have now reported their votes that two of the amendments have passed.  It probably goes without saying that these are the two least controversial amendments:  08-D – to change the name of the General Assembly Council to the General Assembly Mission Council; and 08-J – to clarify some language in the Book of Discipline section on Alternate Forms of Resolution.  At my presbytery meeting yesterday, where we voted on the amendments, I had one person ask if there was an argument to vote against the name change.  I don’t have one, my son who as a YAD at the last GA was on the committee that dealt with it doesn’t have one, the Association of Stated Clerks doesn’t have one, but the tally lists five presbyteries that voted against it so there is something that I am missing.

The other amendments are in a variety of places.  Amendment 08-B is the only one listed as failing, more on that in a minute.  The vows of membership (08-A) and the two Certified Christian Educators amendments (08-F and 08-I) all have similar votes with a significant number of no votes.  In each case the vote is around 55 yes and 35 no.  And I am still intrigued that these votes, and especially the vote on membership vows, are so close to the mirror image of the vote on 08-B.  Again, some other time.

The remaining four amendments are all very close to adoption and we can expect to see those with the requisite number of presbyteries in the next update.  That would include 08-C on replacing “sympathy” with “compassion,” 08-E regarding non-geographic presbyteries, 08-G about synod membership on permanent committees, and 08-H on ordination exams.  The discussion yesterday at my presbytery was enlightening on some of these.  For example, it was pointed out that while I had been thinking exclusively about having the proper academic preparation for the ordination exams, 08-H actually has the CPM consider all forms of preparation to determine if a candidate is ready to take the exams.  Also, concern was expressed by members of my presbytery about 08-E mixing the non-geographic presbyteries issue with the unqualified reduction in the number of members necessary to form a presbytery.  But my favorite comment of the day was regarding 08-C with “sympathy” and “compassion.”  A friend asked if there was a significance to substituting the Latin form for the Greek form of words that mean essentially the same thing in their etymology.  For the record, my presbytery voted non-concurrence, sticking with the Greek by 30-150.

In addition, three of the four ecumenical statements have been agreed to, and the statement with the Episcopal Church is only four votes from being adopted as well.

So where is Amendment B?  While the official tally is 36 to 54, the “reliable sources” give the vote count at 42 to 69.  There have now been 19 presbyteries change from a no vote on 01-A to yes on 08-B.  And while last weekend had only one of eight previous no presbyteries switch, last night saw two of five presbyteries switch.  I’m not going to do my geeky statistics thing for this post, just note that the trends continue and my previous estimate of a final vote of 72-101 still looks good.  The other interesting occurrence statistically was that for the fourth vote in a row Eastern Korean Presbytery was unanimous in support of “fidelity and chastity.”  I had to laugh because the total lack of yes votes caused havoc in my spreadsheet with division by zero errors in several of my normalization equations.  Yeah, it’s a geek thing. Sorry.

Speaking of the sources of the data, it has been interesting to watch the various web sites update on a busy day of voting.  My two favorite web sites are the chart at PresbyWeb (thanks Hans) and the results page from the Presbyterian Coalition (thanks for your hard work as well).  The reason I like the Coalition site is easy:  of the many charts out there it is the only one I know of in chronological order.  I just scroll to the bottom and see what is new.  The PresbyWeb chart has all four votes listed and has the color coding to quickly tell how each vote went.  There are several other bloggers that have picked up the color scheme and talk about “switching from yellow to blue.”  Following the various sites throughout the voting season these two sites seem to pick up the results first.  For example, last night I was watching the two sites and the Coalition site had the Transylvania and Nevada votes up in the course of the afternoon.  PresbyWeb and the Coalition updated this morning to have the rest, with the exception that as of this writing the Coalition is still missing the New Brunswick vote.  Note:  I mention this for comparison’s sake only and not as a criticism.  There are a limited number of us G.A. Junkies out there who really care about it “as it happens.”  For the most part both of these sites are fully updated the next day which is very reasonable for any sane person.

The other “as it happens” site seems to be the spreadsheet on YesOnB.  The data there seems to lag the first two by a bit, but still usually has the data the next day.  I will say that I don’t find the spreadsheet format as easy to read as the web page format, but the spreadsheet is intended for viewing the analysis and not the play-by-play.  The “old reliable” is of course the table at The Layman, but it also seems to lag just a bit — for example, last night’s results have not been posted yet today.  Finally, the Covenant Network has their vote count as well, which also has not been updated.  All the sites will probably be current within the next few hours.

One positive from last weekend is that there seems to be a lot of encouraging comments about the presbyteries’ processes for debate.  John Shuck comments “It was a good meeting with a good process” regarding the Holston Presbytery meeting.  He also says “OK. I am glad I am here. One colleague said to me: ‘I disagree with you about almost everything but I like you.’ I like him, too. I think that matters.”

Over at The Corner Muffin Shop the pastor that writes it says of the Heartland Presbytery meeting

I have to give great kudos to my colleagues and friends on the Church
Order and Listening Division for their work in putting together today’s
Called Meeting of Presbytery to vote on the 14 Amendments to the Book
of Order. The meeting was designed around worship and it was an
excellent meeting if any Presbytery meeting can be described as
excellent.

I think most of the members of San Gabriel Presbytery were pleased with how our process went last night.  This had been in the works since the conclusion of GA with some form of discussion about the amendments at every presbytery meeting in the last nine months.  In fact, we had been laying the ground work with preliminary small-group discussions for the last two years.

There was a time of discussion before the business meeting began and I was the lead-off batter as the facilitator for a group discussion of all the other amendments.  We then broke into groups and spent 45 minutes discussing three questions about ordination and how that informs our views of 08-B.  The formal debate for 08-B was an order of the day, began with intro remarks by our EP framing our presbytery history and reminding us we are family, and then one speaker for and one against each spoke for five minutes.  It helps to know that the 1996 overture that resulted in G-6.0106b came from our presbytery so there are references to that, implied and explicit, made throughout the debate.  Debate was set, by previously approved rules, at 30 minutes and 12 individuals each made 2 minute speeches, evenly divided between for and against.  There were a variety of arguments presented and arguing from scripture on both sides.  Four of the six commissioners arguing against 08-B were from racial ethnic churches and more than one mentioned that passage of the amendment would harm ecumenical relations with partner churches around the world.  There were no racial ethnic speakers for the amendment but at least one was waiting when debate was ended.

Probably the only glitch of the evening was the closing of debate.  The previously approved rules of debate allowed for extending debate twice in 15 minute increments.  The vote was taken and a slight majority, as viewed from my seat, favored extending debate.  The moderator ruled that 2/3 was necessary and there was then no little discussion about whether 1/2 or 2/3 was needed as that was not spelled out in the adopted rules.  The final ruling from our team of clerks, a high-powered brain trust if there ever was one, was that 2/3 was needed because the rules of debate required a 2/3 vote originally.  (I hope this does not go down as “stifling the Spirit” because we did have 30 minutes of good, civil debate where much was presented.)  The vote was taken and in the end we did not concurr with 08-B by a vote of 79-136.  While the numbers are smaller this is fairly close to the ratio of the 97-181 vote on 01-A. 

Regarding numbers, 215 commissioners voted on 08-B last night while 278 voted on 01-A.  There were several people at the meeting last night that I had not seen for a while and attendence was clearly higher than usual.  For example, in January there were 136 commissioners registered (75 ministers and 61 elders).  Last night there were also a lot of observers, some of whom appeared to be students from our local seminaries watching the system work.  Why the lower number than the last vote?  In our case it is almost certainly due to a new policy.  To lower our redress of imbalance our presbytery has adopted a policy that H.R.’s that have difficulty attending meetings may opt-out so they don’t need to be compensated for by an additional elder.  Because of this, since the last vote the number of elder commissioners has been reduced by close to the amount that the vote was reduced.  In addition, while the retired pastors that chose the non-participation option could attend and vote, they are still members of presbytery after all, I did not notice many of them last night so that would help account for the decrease.  In our case I think the change to the redress policy can explain almost all of the drop and I did not discern any changes due to fatigue or departures.

The rejection of Amendment B is still not final by any means but the current trends continue to point in that direction.  But, The Layman has worked out a scenario where passage of 08-B would be possible.

Time will tell.  Stay tuned…

PC(USA) Amendment 08-B Voting At The Half-Way Mark

Leave a reply

Well today the voting on Amendment 08-B to the Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) reached the half-way mark with 86 of the 173 presbyteries now having their votes reported.

1)  The unofficial vote tally is 36 yes, 50 no.  The official tally as reported by the stated clerks is 29 to 40.

1a)  The official vote tally lists the voting on Amendment 08-A, about membership vows, as 43 to 29.  The almost mirror image of the 08-B results makes this hard to ignore, but I’ll dig into that another time.

2)  At this time 15 presbyteries have switched their votes from “no” on 01-A to “yes” on 08-B.  If this proportion holds up the final vote will be 75 to 98.  BUT, if you remember my last update the proportions at that time would have given a vote of 63 to 110.  In the last ten days there have been a higher proportion of presbyteries switching to a yes vote after voting no last time.  I still have 13 presbyteries on my “likely” list, but after seeing some previously “solid” conservative presbyteries, like Charlotte and Sheppards and Lapsley, switch votes I now view my list as a minimum.  The Layman has crunched some numbers and they see the possibility of a 50 presbytery swing while I only have a swing of 29 based upon current proportions.

3)  What has been most interesting for me has been to try to peel back some of the layers here and see what the voting patterns can tell us about what is happening in the PC(USA).  As I have mentioned before, looking at the changes in vote numbers in comparison to the changes in presbytery membership has not yielded much information for me.  At another time, when I have more data, I’ll put together my charts and statistics on that and show you what I have not found.

But I have found it interesting to look at how the votes have changed.  There are other observers that are netting it out and looking at percentage yes and no and see how that changes from one time to the next.  But I think that only tells part of the story and in some cases ignores what really seemed to happen.  While each presbytery is different, and there are numerous circumstances that can cause some of these patterns, I see four major categories of voting patterns:

1) No change: While I see this in the smallest number of presbyteries that fall into these four categories, there are several that exhibit no change from last time.  Yesterday’s vote by Missouri Union Presbytery is a great example.  On 08-B they were 31-48, on 01-A they were 34-46.  There were 79 votes cast this time and 80 cast last time and the yes and no numbers are close enough that  statistically I would not say the votes really differ.

2) True swing:  There are some presbyteries where it seems clear the commissioners saw things differently this year and votes changed from no to yes.  Again from yesterday, Peace River is a great example:  On 08-B it was 63 to 82, on 01-A it was 37-105.  Total votes were 145 this time and 142 last time — again close enough to be considered statistically the same.  But clearly there was a shift to yes changing from 26% to 43% approval.  Not enough to approve of the amendment, but a clear trend in that direction.  An example where this happened and it did change the outcome was New Hope Presbytery with 316 voting this year and 312 voting last time but the yes vote went from 49% to 56%.

3) Uniform decline:  This is the case where yes and no votes decline proportionally.  An extreme example of this behavior is Plains and Peaks.  For 01-A the vote was 60-91, for 08-B it was 41-60.  In the first the yes vote was 41%, in the second 40%.  The total number of votes was only 67% of last time.  Looking at the past voting patterns for this presbytery the numbers and percentages have varied a bit over the four votes so while this shows the uniform decline behavior from the last vote, it would be wrong to conclude anything about PC(USA) membership from it.  Another more consistent example is Cayuga-Syracuse:  Going back to the original 96-B vote, and including the following 97-A vote, the pattern was: 26-78, 70-26, 54-21, and 33-12.  Again, fairly constant decreases in both the progressive and conservative numbers (remember the first is the vote to adopt fidelity and chastity so the progressive is the 78 no vote) allowing for some small fluxuations.  And over those four votes the progressive vote was in a narrow range between 72 and 76%.

4) Conservative drop:  Finally, there are several presbyteries that show a decline in the number of “no” votes only.  An example of this vote change is Greater Atlanta.  On 01-A the vote was 235-283 while on 08-B it was 243-233.  Yes, there was a slight up-tick in the number of “yes” votes, but what apparently lead to the approval of the amendment by this presbytery was a decrease of 50 no votes, and there was not a corresponding increase in yes votes.  At least in this case you can’t completely attribute it to declining membership since the number of churches declined by one and the number of members declined by a bit less than 7%.  This was not so much a 6% shift in votes as an 8% loss of “no” voters.

Now, what I have laid out here are four general categories of voting patterns that I observe.  While many presbyteries can be grouped into these categories it is more difficult for others.  In particular, many presbyteries show a combination of the uniform decline and the conservative drop.  And in those declining numbers it is very difficult to say what may be true swing.  And yes, there are a few cases of “liberal drop” and “conservative swing,” but not in nearly the numbers seen in these four groups.

Is this useful?  I think that it is because it provides indicators of what is happening in the denomination.  Admittedly I’m still puzzling over exactly what it means.  And the PC(USA) has its own department of Research Services to slice and dice the denomination statistically, so I’m not alone in looking for ways to take the pulse of the church.

Anyway, that is the complexity I am seeing in the voting trends.  But why should there be easy explanations?  The PC(USA) is a complex collection of unique congregations gathered into culturally different presbyteries.  Clearly no one answer will completely describe what is going on in the denomination.

Amendment 08-B Voting At The 20% Mark

2 Replies

Over the weekend we reached, actually almost reached, the 20% mark of presbyteries voting on Amendment 08-B to change the “fidelity and chastity” section, G-6.0106b, in the Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  With the five presbyteries voting on Saturday, 33 out of the 173 presbyteries have now voted, at least according to the unofficial vote counters (Layman, PresbyWeb, Presbyterian Coalition, More Light Presbyterians).  As always, the official tally reported by the stated clerks can be found at the Office of the General Assembly.  There has been an noticeable and expected acceleration in the rate of
voting:  The first 18 voted over the course of three months while the
next fifteen voted in the last week and a half.  At this moment the voting stands at 11 yes and 22 no.

Two interesting developments:
1)  On Saturday we had the first presbytery to approve the new language after voting against changing G-6.0106b in 2001-2002.  The Presbytery of Western North Carolina voted in favor of 08-B by 144 to 108 after voting 100  yes and 187 no for Amendment 01-A.  On both my list and the list kept by Bruce Hahne (and quoted by More Light Presbyterians) this presbytery was not expected to change this much and I will be curious to hear what it was about their process or the situation this time that led to a significant swing.  (I’ll update here if I find anything)

2) Saturday January 24 and Tuesday January 27 must have been good days to attend presbytery meetings because after a string of vote totals that were lower than previous years (with one even), there were two presbyteries each day that exceeded their vote totals on 01-A.  On the 24th Albany had one additional vote and New Castle had ten more.  On the 27th Carlisle had six more.  So not all presbyteries are showing the decline in voting totals.  (In perspective of the long-term totals including the older votes Albany shows a decrease and the other two are fairly constant totals.)

The last presbytery of the four is Utica which voted by voice vote so only an approximate number is available.  A voice vote was appropriate since it was overwhelmingly yes.  The unofficial sites that list the vote totals for Utica all agree on 70 yes and 3 no.  This is a significantly larger total number of votes than the last time which was 24 yes and 8 no.  Checking out the presbytery, it has 35 churches so a minimum of 70 commissioners and then there would be additional for multi-staff churches, those in validated ministries, H.R.’s, and at-large members.  A total of 73 votes would be a high turn-out but seems reasonable to me and I have included it in my statistics, even though the ratio of 2.28 is significantly above all the rest.  I’m considering “correcting” the vote on 01-A.  Going back to the two votes before 01-A the totals are similar, 57 and 61, so 08-B is high and 01-A is low. It would be interesting to see if there was weather or other factors that might have depressed the attendance for voting on 01-A. 

However, in spite of those four increased totals, vote totals are still running below those for 01-A.  The numbers are averaging 86% of what they were last time and enough presbyteries have reported now that a normal distribution (Gaussian) is developing with a mean of 0.86 and a standard deviation of 0.28.  The Utica number is included in there but is a significant outlier and an “adjusted” number brings the standard deviation down to 0.14.

Finally, I am interested in the discernment process that presbyteries are using in voting on 08-B.  A member of Newton Presbytery, the Rev. Mitch Trigger, who is also an officer of the Witherspoon Society, provided the Witherspoon Society web site an account of how the Newton Presbytery discernment process worked.  He notes that it was borrowed from Mid-Kentucky Presbytery.  The process involved responding to three questions about the current language and proposed language using mutual invitation.  In response to this description, Viola Larson at Naming His Grace has posted her own her view of the “spiritual manipulation” involved in the Newton Presbytery process.  I have to agree with a couple of her points about using mutual invitation in a deliberative setting.  From my own experience I have found mutual invitation a useful tool for group study of scripture but it broke down when a task force I was on tried using it for conducting business.

Well, if you thought the last two weeks were busy you should brace yourself because there are still 140 presbyteries to go and most will probably vote in the next two months giving about 18 per week.  While my projections and conversations still seem to be trending against passage, the flip by Western North Carolina has caused the Layman to reevaluate their numbers and admit the possibility of passage of 08-B if more major swings occur.  Needless to say, those that favor 08-B take the Western North Carolina swing as a hopeful sign.  We will see.  Stay tuned.

Controversy Over A Pastoral Call In The Church Of Scotland

2 Replies

Within the last week a controversy has developed in the Church of Scotland over a minister who has received a call, with the presbytery concurrence, to an open pulpit in Aberdeen.

At its meeting on January 6 the Presbytery of Aberdeen, by a vote of 60-24, sustained the call of the Rev. Scott Rennie to the Queen’s Cross Church.  The controversy is that Rev. Rennie is an openly practicing homosexual in a public enough way that his call may be the first to be challenged because of his lifestyle.  (The Rev. Ian Watson, in his blog Kirkmuirhillrev states that Rev. Rennie is the first gay man to be called, while a news article from the Evening Telegraph quotes an unnamed CofS spokesperson that Rev. Rennie is not the first.)  It is expected, according to these sources, that some in the minority will challenge the appointment to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, possibly putting the call on hold for five months.  Two years ago the presbyteries of the Church of Scotland rejected the blessing of same-sex civil partnerships.  In his blog Coins for Change, Boris Delahoya describes a bit more about the process ahead.

[Correction:  I missed the fact that Ian Watson’s and Boris Delahoya’s blog entries are essentially identical (I did see that they were very similar).  In the comment below Rev. Watson clarifies that he is the original author of the material.]

There are a couple of interesting nuances to this story which I am not seeing dealt with in the press reports. The Press and Journal, states that the Rev. Rennie is/was married and has a daughter with his wife.  The first is the probable fact that his sexual practice was heterosexual at the time of his ordination.  Therefore, the ordination is not an issue but rather the call based upon his present lifestyle.  The second nuance is that the news story lists his marital status as “separated” not divorced.  Scottish terminology or law may be different than here in the states (please let me know if it is) but being engaged in a sexual relationship with someone other than your spouse before a divorce is finalized is generally not considered an appropriate lifestyle for an ordained officer of the church regardless of the orientation of the relationships.  (Although it seems to be sometimes overlooked if you are discreet about it.)  If the protest is filed it will be interesting to see if and how these details play into it.  Very little of the presbytery discussion has been reported so far.

In a related development, Adam Walker Cleaveland, on his blog pomomusings, recently posted on “The Bible & Homosexuality: Enough with the Bible Already,” which you can probably imagine from the title got a lot of comments, both on the blog and elsewhere.  Now there is a well written counter argument, whether or not it was intended as a direct response, by Dr. Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary.

PC(USA) Presbyteries Considering Ecumenical Statements

Leave a reply

It suddenly occurred by me that (1) I had to get together a presentation for Sunday afternoon about what the 218th General Assembly sent out to the presbyteries to be voted on and (2) I had not really pondered the Ecumenical Statements which are included in the voting this year.  In fact, when I put together my previous comments on the Book of Order amendments I said I would get this together and then proceeded to set it aside and forget about it.  So here they are, at least for my benefit if not yours.

Technically, these four ecumenical statements are not being approved for inclusion in the Constitution but as statements of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) that need to be ratified by a majority of the presbyteries.  They can be found in the back of the Amendment Booklet beginning on page number 28, which is the 33rd page in the electronic version.  In general, these statements come from dialogues that are overseen on the PC(USA) side by the General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical Relations.

08-K Ecumenical Statement with the Roman Catholic Church On Ratifying a Common Agreement on Baptism
This is item 07-08 in the electronic business system for GA and comes from a continuing dialogue with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

This is a fairly straight-forward statement which simply seems to contain those basic doctrinal points about baptism which Presbyterians and Roman Catholics share.  As the rational section says “This statement basically affirms what is already the PC(USA) practice of recognizing the baptism of persons who have been baptized in the Roman Catholic Church.”  I would note that it contains one of my favorite points about doing sacraments in covenant community:

3. Together we affirm that incorporation into the universal church by baptism is brought about by celebrating the sacrament within a particular Christian community.

I would also note that point 5 requires the Trinitarian formula “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” in agreement with the amendment the 217th General Assembly made to the Trinity study paper restricting substitution of alternate Trinitarian language for that sacrament.

The GA also directed a study guide be developed for this statement.

08-L Ecumenical Statement with the Episcopal Church On Adopting an Agreement
This is a bit more complex statement and is a step towards the eventual goal of “full recognition of our ministries and interchangeability of our ministers” (point 7).  It was item 07-11 at the GA and although it was passed on voice vote, a comment was added in the committee that says:

In
recognizing the spirit of cooperation already present in the agreement,
the 218th General Assembly (2008) suggests that further dialogue
between the PC(USA) and the Episcopal Church give special attention to
mutuality in language regarding both church governance and worship
practice.

It is probably for these issues of “governance and worship practice” that this is the one Ecumenical Statement that has, at this early stage, garnered negative presbytery votes, according to the official vote tally.

Specifically regarding governance, the statement says:

4. We acknowledge that personal and collegial oversight (episcope) is embodied and exercised in our churches in a variety of forms, episcopal and non-episcopal, as a visible sign of the Church’s unity and continuity in apostolic life, mission and ministry.

08-M Ecumenical Statement with the Korean Presbyterian Church in America On Adopting a Covenant Relationship Agreement
It is interesting that these Statements are included in the booklet in order of length.  The first two were roughly a page in length.  This one is a bit longer at three pages.  The GA approved this as item 07-04 with a comment added by the Assembly.  Approval of this Agreement would make the KPCA a “full communion” church with the PC(USA) the same as the three churches that are part of the Formula of Agreement with the PC(USA). 

It begins with a one-page history of the relationship between the two Presbyterian branches and a call for a deeper relationship.  The document goes on to list the points for mutual recognition of each other, including as churches faithful to Word and Sacrament, recognition of each others’ sacraments and ordained offices, and each other’s mission.  And in the section on ordained office there is the acknowledgment of “men and women” called and set aside by ordination.

In the Covenant section the two churches covenant to support each other, develop a process for the “orderly exchange of ministers,” and a process for the “orderly transfer of congregations,”  and finally to find areas for cooperative mission.  The GA directed the OGA and the GAC to develop the framework necessary to implement these covenants.  The attached comment directs these bodies to consult with synods and presbyteries that have experience working with the KPCA for their input.

08-N Ecumenical Statement with the Moravian Church On Adopting a Covenant Partnership Agreement
This is another covenant partnership agreement but this one runs nine pages in length.  Among the reasons it is longer is because three other churches, the United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, and Reformed Church in America, are also covenanting with the Moravians.  It is also complicated by the fact that the Moravians use episcopal oversight, but in a reformed manner.  For a taste of this, check out this footnote:

In practice, denominations mix and vary these elements of collective and individual oversight. Moravian bishops, while standing in historic succession, do not exercise judicial oversight; rather such oversight is exercised by the Provincial Elders Conference, a representative body of clergy and laity. The PC(USA) and RCA, on the other hand, vest oversight exclusively in representative bodies (presbyteries and classes) of clergy and laity.

Once you get to the actual points of covenant they are very much like those mentioned above for the KPCA, with some additional elaboration in the areas of resources, mission, and continued discussion and fellowship.  Again, the GA’s directives for implementing the agreement are similar to the previous one.  In the GA business, this is item 07-10 and passed committee on a unanimous vote, the assembly on a voice vote, and has no additional comments.  One thing that did jump out at me was that the participants in the dialogue listed in the GA business report were almost all clergy with only one or two ruling elders or laity.

So there you have it.  I’ve got my homework for Sunday afternoon done and I hope any other GA Junkies found this helpful as well.  Have a Happy Epiphany today.

Looking Ahead: What Are The Options?

2 Replies

To close out the year, and look ahead to the next, here is a great look at the options available in our controversies…

Dave Walker, in a way that only he can with pen and paper, has graphically and concisely set out the options in our controversies.  You can find his current post on the Church Times blog which has a link to the full cartoon from last May.  The current post and the look back are occasioned by a new report on how to resolve that particular controversy.

One of the things I find when writing this blog is that our Presbyterian controversies are variations on a theme.  In many cases the arguments and logic follow very similar lines, you just fill in a different point of contention depending on the Presbyterian branch you are referring to.  While Dave is addressing a controversy in the Church of England that is not particularly Presbyterian, women bishops, the three options he illustrates still fit our debates.  And while Dave doesn’t present any specifically new options, it is fascinating to me how universal the basic framework of our possible solutions are.

So enjoy Dave’s work.  Dave, thanks for your contributions.

And to all, a Happy New Year.

The Twists And Turns Of Pursuing A Pastoral Call

2 Replies

I am a ruling elder, not a minister of word and sacrament, so I don’t have any of my own stories of pursuing a pastoral call as the candidate.  Having served on my presbytery’s committee on ministry, and been the COM liaison to several pastor nominating committees, I have stories from the other side.  But with the increase in blogging there are numerous first-hand accounts of candidacy and seeking a call.

Adam Copland is regularly writing about his experience in seminary and his progress towards a call and ordination in the PC(USA).  He has a monthly “Seminary Reflections” piece on Presbyterian Bloggers (Adam’s contributions from October, November, and December).  He usually also posts these on his own blog, A Wee Blether.  Beyond the Seminary Reflections series he has other posts on his blog regarding the process and situation, including a recent post about “The huge problem of the clergy shortage that doesn’t exist.”  In summary the PC(USA) has roughly twice as many clergy as churches and while the number of churches is declining, the number of clergy is stable.  For churches-seeking-clergy and clergy-seeking-churches, it is not really a pure supply/demand problem, but a distribution, affordability, and experience mis-match.  And don’t just read the article, keep reading the comments.

Another blogger who is just finishing seminary and has been keeping us updated on his journey is Benjamin Glaser who writes the blog Backwoods Presbyterian.  While his blog is usually very theologically oriented, there are good insights into his journey as a student at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary, also in Pittsburgh.  He is under care of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church.

I also enjoyed the account by “Danny” of her time as a probationer in the Church of Scotland and the task of “hunting a charge” in her blog “Rumors of Angels?”  There are more great stories in that blog than for any other candidate/inquirer/probationer I can think of.  One that I have bookmarked, and can totally see happening after my time on COM, is her story about doing a neutral pulpit at a church for one pastor search committee, and being a “small world,” another search committee that was considering her out caught word of it and showed up as well.  I can tell you a bunch of similar stories about confidentiality not being kept and news getting back to home churches and presbyteries before the candidate.  As Danny puts it:

I mentioned the difficulties with confidentiality previously … about
being discussed on the golf course… in shops… and via the ‘old
boy’s’ network. Well add the dentist to that list!

The church
where I was preaching (for reasons of confidentiality) did not know
until this morning that I would be preaching instead of their regular
minister, but one of their members overheard all the details of what
was going down last Tuesday while in the dentist’s waiting room… hey
ho! I felt quite sorry for the interim moderator who was doing it all
‘by the book’ and trying her best to look after the interests of ‘her’
nominating committee… meanwhile this second committee were discussing
me all over town.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Well…
if nothing else you have to laugh… and so we did! For some reason the
thought of my being discussed in the dentist seems hilarious… surreal
even… when I go to the dentist I am too worried about potential pain
and discomfort… injections, drills and fillings… to talk to anyone.

While Danny has been successful, there are others who are not, and “Cavman” over at Cavman Considers has been between pastorates for a while and been giving us discrete glimpses of his search.  In a recent post he tabulates the churches that have rejected his application but are still without a pastor.  He concludes:

So, 5 churches think it’s better to not have a pastor than to have me
(and the other 50 applicants) as their pastor.  Interesting.

[With no judgment on Cavman’s situation, let me say that filling a pastoral position is not like filling a corporate position, it is a “God Thing,” a discernment process where both the search committee and the candidates are trying to sense the will of God and who He is calling to that position.  I can’t speak for any of Cavman’s rejections, but I have my own stories (from the other side) that I can and will share another time, about where I am certain God was, and was not, calling individuals to particular positions.]

And finally, if you think your candidates’ committee or denomination has unusual requirements, here is one that would keep a few pastors I know out of the pastorate.  I leave you with this:  A news item about the Mizoram Presbyterian Church‘s highest governing body, the Mizoram Synod.  In the meeting this week they have passed a requirement that:

“From now on someone who is tattooed will not be allowed to be ordained
as Probationary Pastors (of Mizoram Presbyterian Church).”

[For background, the Mizoram Presbyterian Church Synod is a constitutate member of the Presbyterian Church of India General Assembly.  Mizoram State is in the far northeast corner of India and through missionary work in the late 19th Century the population is predominantly Christian and the Presbyterian Church has a major influence.  Please keep praying for the violence in other parts of India where the Christians are a minority.]

Being Synod-cal

1 Reply

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses,
let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely,
and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us,
looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith [Heb. 12:1,2a]

Or

“What a long, strange trip it’s been”

I
started this post just over two years ago and since that time have
returned to it and revised it three other times, not counting this final one.  Such is my faith journey and evolving
thinking on the place of synods in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). 
Well, my thinking is still not complete or fixed, but I figured that I
was at a milepost that probably needed an annotation.  So here it
goes…

Over a decade ago I had my first introduction to the
Synod of Southern California and Hawaii as a commissioner to its annual
Assembly.  At the time the Synod was working through some financial
challenges, especially with its camps and conferences program.  At that
meeting the Assembly concurred with the recommendation to sell a
conference center many considered the “crown jewel.”  (Think property
near Malibu.)  While that was clearly not the beginning of the decline,
since the program was becoming tight on cash and the objective was to raise some, in the Synod it is still
remembered as a major mile-marker in the history of the organization’s
slide.

Fast-forward to 2006 and I’m back at Assembly as a
commissioner.  The Synod is in the midst of a transition process and
there are concerns among many commissioners about the slow pace and nature
of the transition.  The office building is probably going to be put on
the market.  Mission giving has declined and per capita monies are dropping. 
The Synod is under stress and it is the view of many, correctly or
incorrectly, that the transition is simply reorganizing to do things
the way they have always been done.  (I stepped into this in progress
so do not personally have a good feel for what was actually happening in that transition work
but a couple of people I trust highly were not optimistic about the progress and direction.)  At the Assembly a substitute motion was adopted that
would hand the transition back to more direct input and control of the presbyteries for a series of
consultations and visioning meetings.  As the Moderator of my
Presbytery I was one of those to participate in the consultations.  All
of this is the background that got me thinking about the place and
future of synods as middle governing bodies of the PC(USA).  And based upon my past experience and the information I had received from others I entered the process with more than a little cynicism about the value of synods.

There are currently sixteen synods in the PC(USA) and as
many of you are probably aware, the place of synods in the denomination is
not just something that I am thinking about but is a topic of
discussion for the PC(USA) as a whole.  Over the last few years there
has been national activity to study, and possibly do away with synods. There was an overture to the 218th General Assembly.  Part of the national funding system for synod support will change, if not disappear.  And the Synod of the Southwest and two of its
presbyteries had serious issues resulting in a national consultation
in February 2007 about the nature and financial viability of the present Middle Governing
Body system.

It is interesting that in the midst of this there
are groups. principally Presbyterians for Renewal, that are looking at
a model for coexistence in the PC(USA) that would have like-minded groups move into a “Seventeenth Synod” that is national and parallel to
the present structure.  (Analysis by Pastor Lance at Full Court Presby)

On the one hand, there are several
strikes against synods in their traditional sense.  They are part of
the earliest structure of the American Presbyterian church, established
before the General Assembly.  But with the advent of faster
transportation and communications the need to have a regional governing
body to improve interaction and connectionalism has disappeared. 
Considering the number of observers that now attend General Assembly a
rough calculation would suggest that more people attend GA than all the
Synod Assemblies combined.  With the decrease in general mission giving
it seems that Synods are being squeezed out between the presbyteries’
and the national budgets.  In light of the lack of resources and
program, do synods still serve a purpose?

In thinking through
this question, working with the consultations, and closely watching our
Synod in operation, I have come to the following conclusion:  The Synod structure currently mandated in the PC(USA) Constitution is not specifically necessary, but there are desirable functions that should be done in “synod-like” entities.  Basically, I do see a need for certain things to be done on a scale above the presbytery but below the General Assembly.  If the synods were to go away these functions could be done by entities that are not individual middle governing bodies, but could be something like “super-presbyteries” or “General Assembly sub-regions.”  So what are these functions?

One group of functions is the ecclesiastical duties, specifically including judicial process and records review.  And this group is recognized in the New Form of Government where the draft includes synods, but allows for “reduced function” to cover only these duties. (3.0404)

I think that the argument for a division of labor in the review of records is fairly straight forward.  At the present time the 16 synods review the records of the 173 presbyteries.  Eliminate the synods and a GA committee would be responsible for the review of all 173.

The concern with the judicial process is partly the same argument.  Eliminate the synod and the GAPJC hears appeals from all 173 presbytery permanent judicial commissions.  But with judicial cases there are some added complexities when you start looking at appeals.  To have a remedial case against a presbytery be heard first by the GAPJC means that it is the court of first impression and the details of having the case reviewed on appeal would need to be worked out.  In addition, to have cases coming from the presbytery PJC’s reviewed twice as appeals, once by the synod PJC and again possibly by the GAPJC, I think helps crystallize the thinking of the final GAPJC decision which can stand as Constitutional interpretation for the denomination.

The other group of functions the synods have is in the area of mission and ministry.  In reviewing what our synod does it struck me that it was a point of collaboration or catalysis for the really big stuff and the really small stuff.  The former are ministry projects that are large enough that they cross presbytery boundaries and having a central point of contact has been helpful.  It is clear from coalitions that have developed on their own that synod involvement is by no means required.  But a case could be made that having the synod as a point of contact makes them more efficient.  (And I can think of a couple of people who might argue that getting the synod involved would make them less efficient.)

Maybe the more important function is working with ministries that are small, a few members from churches scattered throughout the synod.  No church or presbytery has enough involvement to sustain it, but across the whole synod there are enough individuals that they can gather in a meaningful and vital way.  A similar function that I have seen is in matching experience to needs across presbytery lines.  It provides a place for connecting knowledgeable people to more distant points where they can be helpful.  Again, neither of these activities requires the synod — the connections for ministry could be made across presbytery lines without the existence of the synod.  But the hope is that the synod could make the connection more efficient.

Finally, in our connectional system I wonder if we can feel connectional if the governing bodies immediately jump from the presbytery to the General Assembly.  I commented on this a little while back when I asked if the PC(USA) is too big.  In that post my thinking was not specifically that a synod was needed to foster a feeling and understanding of connectionalism on a regional level, but a synod could serve that purpose.

The question that is behind this and must be answered is whether these functions, if they do continue, must be done by a “governing body.”  Could they be done by other affiliated entities?  Under our theory of church government records review and judicial process needs to be conducted by a governing body.  But this could be satisfied by a change to the constitution that would allow ecclesiastical functions to shift from synods to GA to be conducted by regional commissions that are administered by the Office of the General Assembly.  This would approximate the synod system while reducing administrative levels and creating cost savings with economies of scale.  And while we presently understand there to be one court per governing body this cold be structured and viewed as one court with different branches.

Ministry and mission on the synod level is not as closely tied in our polity to being conducted by a governing body so it could be shifted in a number of ways including back to the presbyteries, up to GAC, or to networks, collaborations, or coalitions of presbyteries.  The problem is that without oversight or facilitation will the mission be done or die on the vine?  The flip side is that it would put pressure for the fulfilling of 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.

This is partly just a though exercise in how the system could be stream-lined if that is what it needs financially, administratively, or practically.  At the present time the GA has chosen not to make changes to the system.  The question that I can not answer at this point is whether for the other 15 synods this is what will need to happen.  For the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii it is not something that is required at this time.  But the thinking is necessary, because going forward even five years there could be the need for radical restructuring in multiple synods, possibly including mine.

So where does that leave me?  After two years of participating in consultations, visioning and redesign of our synod I have become convinced that synods can play an important part in our connectional system.  By no means does this mean they are indispensable — I am also convinced that given the apparent realities of the future in a decade the PC(USA) middle governing body structure will look different than today.  It will be seen how radically different the structure looks and that different structure may or may not include synods.

My personal journey with my synod has taken many twists and turns, both in my thinking and my activity.  As I outline above, I have revised my thinking somewhat and think that there is a place for synods at the present time, although there will have to be some serious evaluation in the near future for some of the synods and the denomination as a whole.  And this thinking and activity on my part will continue:  The redesign work I helped with created a radically reorganized ministry unit which I was then asked to chair and “get off the ground” in 2008.  One of the implications of this service is that in 2009 it means that I will serve the synod as the Moderator, a job I am truly looking forward to.  So my “long strange trip” continues.

As a programming note, don’t expect much more about my synod Moderatorial work here.  As usual, if polity items arise or I want to revisit the nature and necessity of synods, that will appear here.  But to help facilitate the communication within the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii I will also have a moderators blog — Everything in Moderation.  In a sense, this blog will continue in chronos time w
hile the other will focus on the kairos time of the Moderatorial year.  The journey of faith continues and it will probably be as interesting as the journey that got me here.

Taking Time To Be A Moderator

Leave a reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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