Category Archives: polity

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Special Commission On Middle Governing Bodies Gets To Work

4 Replies

Over the last two weeks the Special Commission on Middle Governing Bodies created by the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) got down to work.  The 21 members of the Commission were named by the Moderators of the 218th and 219th Assemblies.

For historical perspective, the last General Assembly level commission in the American mainline Presbyterian church was the Special Commission of 1925 created by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.  In the report of that Special Commission we are told that their charge was:

[T]o study the present spiritual condition of our Church and the causes making for unrest, and to report to the next General Assembly, to the end that the purity, peace, unity and progress of the Church may be assured.

The charge that the 219th GA gave the present commission is a bit more detailed:

1.  The commission will consult with sessions, presbyteries, synods and the wider church on the mission and function of middle governing bodies.  Such a process should include:

a.  current diversity in the role and functions of middle governing bodies.
b.  demographics and financial realities that affect the role and function of synods and presbyteries.
c.  the role of each governing body in its oversight role–presbyteries of congregations, synods of presbyteries, and General Assembly of synods–both historically and in present experience.
d.  relationships with General Assembly agencies in role and function.

2.  The commission will develop models that reflect the roles of middle governing bodies in our polity and the changing context of our witness in the United States and their relationships with other governing bodies.

3.  The commission will prepare a report to the 220th General Assembly (2012) of its findings and any recommended Book of Order changes. Recommendation for future roles and responsibilities will also be made to the 220th General Assembly about changes in middle governing bodies that may best serve the PCUSA [sic] in the 21st century.

4.  The commission will implement, within the powers granted it, any decisions forwarded from the 219th General Assembly (2010) and approved by presbyteries regarding the form and function of middle governing bodies with the report to the 220th General Assembly (2012).

5.  By direction of the 219th General Assembly (2010), or upon a majority affirmative vote of the affected presbytery or presbyteries or a majority affirmative vote of the presbyteries in the affected synod or synods, the commission is authorized to act as the General Assembly according to

a.  G-13.0103m: “to organize new synods and to divide, unite, or otherwise combine synods or portions of synods previously existing;”
b.  G-13.0103n:  “to approve the organization, division, united, or combining of presbyteries or portions of presbyteries by synods.”

6.  The commission will supervise the Special Administrative Review Committee on Puerto Rico and act on any recommendations they may make within the powers given to the commission.

7.  The actions of the commission shall require a two-thirds majority for approval.

Following the naming of the members of the Commission I had the opportunity to be part of the first consultation the Commission held, even before the first face-to-face meeting of the Commission. Maybe it is more accurate to say that the newly appointed Moderator of the Commission, the Rev. Tod Bolsinger, came to our Synod Assembly meeting and in a couple of the break-out sessions tried a few things out on some of us. In return, I think it is fair to say, we introduced him to a few things as well.

It is worth taking a moment to introduce you to Tod, and while the GA Moderators have not elaborated on their decision, I think you will see why Tod got the invite to convene this group.  First, yes that is the correct spelling of his name with only one “d” and I will leave that for him to explain.  Second, his present call is as the senior pastor and head of staff of San Clemente Presbyterian Church in Los Ranchos Presbytery.  He blogs at “It Takes A Church…” which is a reference to one of his books, It Takes A Church To Raise A Christian: How the Community of God Transforms Lives.  He also mentions some church and leadership consulting activity. In addition to all this, he was the Moderator for his presbytery’s Odyssey group to re-imagine the functioning of the presbytery.  So he has a tremendous background in both the redesign part and the leadership aspect making him a good candidate to convene this new group.  (And as I will get to in a minute, the materials for the Commission’s first face-to-face meeting include a white paper from the Odyssey group.)

So at our Synod Assembly meeting Tod conducted two listening sessions as part of the breakouts that we did.  Both were well attended – the second was overflow – and in neither case did he get through his whole set of questions on PowerPoint slides.  Some of the points he wanted to make were:

  • The Commission on Middle Governing Bodies ( MGB ) is not looking for one answer but multiple models for the PC(USA)
  • MGB Commission wants feedback on “How are those governing bodies best organized to be responsive both to the Spirit of Christ & opportunities for discipleship?”
  • “Are the structures of history the best platforms for carrying our mission into the future?”
  • Calvin organized Geneva to “be responsive” to the immigrant community.  How do we organize to be responsive to our communities?
  • The Commission will be listening, experimenting, discerning. Tod says he will be looking for “safe, modest experiments”

Tod then started a discussion around a series of questions he had for us to answer. A few of the better discussion starters were:

  • What is a Synod? Why did you first get involved in Synod work?
  • What do we celebrate about being Synod? Who are the heroes of the Synod?
  • What do we want to preserve in our current MGB system? Conversation must start with what will not change. What is our risk tolerance?

I (@ga_junkie) was live-tweeting this consultation and this last question was rephrased in a response from @davehackett: Conversation must start with what is most valuable to preserve. (And the rephrasing was endorsed by Tod later on.) I should also mention that my tweet about the “safe, modest experiments” raised the question from @KathleenLambert about whether a safe, modest experiment is an oxymoron?

One thing Tod found out from this was that he had way too much material for the time available (one hour).  It also seems that Tod was not expecting me, or anyone else, to be live-tweeting or blogging this consultation.  I didn’t announce it but I was sitting there typing on my laptop throughout it so I was not hiding my activity. (This does raise the question of what is social media etiquette for such meetings — I had not brought my “I’m Blogging This” badge with me.  I think a lot of us presbynerds figure open sessions in the PC(USA) are fair game without need to announce our intentions unless told otherwise.)  The result was that I tweeted with my usual MGB hashtag of #mgb and at the end of the talk Tod (@todbol by the way) told us he would be using #mgbcomm.  A bit later that day he retweeted many of my posts with the “official” hashtag. As I will get to in a minute, the MGB Comm is encouraged, if not outright required, to be Web 2.0 connected.

The next event was the first meeting of the Commission in Baltimore at the end of last week.  Actually, looking at their docket they approved the minutes of an October 14 conference call, so they have been at work for a while now.  This meeting was full of the getting-started sorts of things, including the intro remarks by the GA Moderator and Stated Clerk, team building exercises, and the usual breaking into subgroups to begin discussion and work. The listed sub-groups are the Research Strategy group, the Emerging Models group, and the “Soil Tilling Group:” Preparing the Church for Change.

The meeting did include two presentations: The first was “Middle Governing Bodies in a Changing Religious Cultural Context” by the Rev. Eileen Lindner.  Via @lscanlon  we have tweets about her presentation (and in fact tweets about the whole meeting – THANKS Leslie!), including these two, the second of which was heavily retweeted:

Eileen Lindner: Measure church vitality differently – not by membership. How many come to pray? How many bring food?

Eileen Lindner to #mgbcomm: “Don’t be afraid. Be afraid of doing nothing and hoping for the best.”

The second presentation was by the Rev. Joseph Small titled “What is a Middle Governing Body, really? A Theological Perspective.”  This was tied to a 2008 resource piece by Rev. Small among the Commission’s papers about “The Travail of the Presbytery.”  One tweet about the talk from a member of the Commission, @miriamdolin, said “#mgbcomm ‘s task according to joe small is to recover communion among congregations. Wow, no pressure!”

There was also a discussion about another resource piece titled “’How Did We Get This Bureaucratic Model?’ or ‘What Kind of Presbytery Do We Really Want?’”  This is also known as Odyssey Group White Paper 1 and comes out of the Los Ranchos Presbytery redesign group Tod chaired.

I’ve skimmed these resources and they all seem to provide a good starting point for the Commission to begin discussions and discernment.  There are some points in each that I’d like to explore further but I’ll save that for another time since this post is getting on the longer side. But as the Commission searches for models and experiments it will be interesting to see how such proposals as the New Synod and flexible presbyteries are considered and evaluated, along with the continuation of synods in our structure.

As I mentioned before, this Commission was urged to get connected to Web 2.0 and social media.  Tod has encouraged all interested parties in the PC(USA) to follow him on Twitter with his handle @todbol and the mgbcomm hashtag.  There is a Facebook page which is a place for open discussion about the Commission’s work and it appears to be very active. And at the end of the meeting several members of the Commission popped up on Twitter with brand new accounts — We will see if this is mostly for listening or speaking.

According to tweets from @lscanlon, Tod ended the meeting with three questions the Commission will look at next time:

  1. What’s the function of a middle governing body?
  2. What definitions & terms should they explore?
  3. What are the changing realities of our world that affect our discipleship?

And wrapping up this part, a couple of things @todbol tweeted help set the tone – “The question of the day isn’t what we are going to do, but what is God already doing.” and “There is a yearning for presbyteries etc to do more discernment together. What keeps us from practicing discernment?“

That wraps up my summary of the meetings.  I originally thought I would add a bit of commentary regarding that question number 1 about mgb’s, but considering the length I’ll post separately about that.  I do want to add one comment about something from the meeting…

Based on a section of the White Paper one of the members of the Commission, @johnvest, tweeted “Discussing institutional isomorphism at #mgbcomm.” This piqued my curiosity since in addition to the biological and organizational sense that isomorphism is used here, in my field of geology it has application as well regarding minerals.

In an environmental sense, be it natural or cultural environment, isomorphism refers to the organism or institution taking on a particular shape based on, or dictated by, the environment it is in.  In a mineralogic sense it refers to minerals of different compositions having the same basic shape.

The geologic alternate to this is polymorphism — minerals of the same composition having different shapes.  The best known example is carbon which has one crystal structure for the mineral graphite and another for diamond.  A couple of other examples include the chemical calcium carbonate which some clams make in the form of calcite for their shells and others in the form of the mineral aragonite.  And for different pressure and temperature conditions, there are at least six different naturally occurring crystal structures of silicon dioxide, including the common mineral quartz.

My first question was was to wonder whether our present institutional structure would permit presbyteries to be polymorphic.  Given the same basic ingredients could different judicatories use them to form different shapes based on the local conditions.  Beyond that, does the new Form of Government currently before the presbyteries help us, or even encourage us, to be polymorphic?  Maybe the big question, given that Tod has already helped do something like this in Los Ranchos Presbytery without outside help, is what role does the Commission play to do this across the church?

Let me take this geologic object lesson one step further:  In mineralogy we have some fascinating mineral forms called pseudomorphs.  You probably picked up on the Greek roots and realize that this means “false shape.”  They are a mineral that has taken the shape of another.  But how this typically happens is interesting and possibly instructive.  Under the original conditions a mineral will grow within another rock and fill a space that has the shape typical of its crystal shape.  Then, when conditions change, that mineral alters to another chemically similar mineral.  But in the alteration it keeps the exterior form that the original mineral carved out for itself rather than reshaping the rock around it to its own new form.  There is a great page of pictures of pseudomorphs that shows the results of the iron sulfide mineral pyrite altering to similar iron minerals limonite and goethite but keeping the cubic shape of pyrite.

I probably don’t have to spell out the object lesson here other than to ask the question whether the present presbytery structure is actually a pseudomorph with an outward shape reflecting circumstances under which they were formed at an earlier time but now with a composition that would not naturally take on that shape.

Anyway, you hopefully followed my scientific explanation and maybe it will give you something to think about like it did for me.  Thanks John for sharing that comment on Twitter.

Well this process has a long way to go and the Commission will be traveling around the denomination for both full commission meetings as well as presbytery and synod consultations.  The next meeting is in February in Orlando, then the end of May in Seattle, in Indianapolis in October, and Dallas in February 2012.  Keep watching to see where this process goes.

The 219th General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church (USA) — Further Reflection On Not Business As Usual

2 Replies

Back in July following the meeting of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I commented here about the one item that really stuck out to me as a point where the Assembly diverged from the expectations of “business as usual.”  This item of business was in response to an overture from the Synod of South Atlantic to create a new non-geographic Korean language presbytery.

I think most odds-makers would have considered this a routine item that would have flown through pretty much under the radar considering it was nearly unanimously recommended by the committee and how much other business the Assembly would be spending its time on.  However, two young Korean-American women pastors rose to speak against the item and when the vote was take it was soundly defeated (125-514) by the commissioners.

The first pastor to speak was the Rev. Theresa Cho from San Francisco and following the Assembly she posted a reflection on the meeting that included comments about this particular business item.  Today she has posted a follow-up titled “Both sides of the truth: Non-geographic presbyteries ” where she not only comments in more detail on the action at GA, but as the title suggests, points out that the defeat of the request has implications as well.  If the competing demands a denomination lives with in their non-geographic language presbyteries is of interest to you this is a must-read.  In fact, it is a great window into some aspects of racial-ethnic ministry in general.

The new article was prompted by deeper discussions around this overture and the related issues at a Pastor Theologian Consultation last week.  Rev. Cho writes about her situation and journey from GA to this Consultation.  Talking about her cultural background and the consultation she says:

At this consultation, I had the opportunity to be heard and to listen.As a 2nd generation, the younger doesn’t speak up to share differing opinions with the older. It is seen as disrespectful. At this consultation, I had the opportunity to speak up and to listen.

Then, regrading the contrast to GA she writes:

I’ll be honest, after GA, I had the luxury of going back to my wonderful life. I received the accolades of my colleagues and peers for having the courage to speak up. And although I did hear some of the “gossip” of the effects of how the defeat of overture 04-08 was impacting some of the Korean community, the only personal impact to me was hearing some of the difficult remarks being made to and about one of my colleagues and friend who also spoke against the overture. Besides that, I went back to my life, working in a non-Korean church where I am appreciated for my pastoral skills despite of my racial ethnicity, gender, and age.However, my time [at the consultation] shed a light on how what I intended to be life-giving actions were life-taking for another and vice versa.Throughout these discussions, I felt the extremes of both emotions: joy for speaking out and being heard and grief for knowing that it was at the expense of my parent’s generation; honor for being acknowledged as a voice that matters and shame for participating in “airing out the dirty laundry” and betraying my people; and empowered to know that a few voices can change a vote and powerless when it is perceived as disobedience and disrespect.

I will let you continue reading the article as she discusses the question “What is the real issue regarding non-geographic, Korean-language presbyteries?”  These are not easy issues but they are something any Presbyterian branch needs to consider in the light of modern cultural realities.  I encourage you to read Theresa’s whole article.

Synod PJC Ruling In The Case Of Caledonia And Others v. Knox

Leave a reply

This past weekend the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of Lakes and Prairies heard and decided the complaint of The Session, Caledonia Presbyterian Church, Paula Bremer, James Gunn, Alan Crandall, Jerry Indermark, James F Scaife, The Presbytery of Central Florida, The Presbytery of Prospect Hill, and Stockton Presbytery v. John Knox Presbytery.  (And thanks to the Covenant Network for posting a PDF of the decision)

The case involves the examination for ordination and declaration of an exception by Mr. Scott Anderson approved by John Knox Presbytery last Spring. Not a lot of intro needed here because the background, context, and implications are nearly identical to the Parnell decision I commented on a week ago.  Check that post out for the relevant polity comments. In this case there were three specifications of error regarding the process and the application of ordination standards.  By a 7-2 vote the PJC found that the Presbytery had followed the correct procedure:

The John Knox Presbytery acted within its authority following G-13.0103(r) using the most recent Authoritative Interpretation (Al) (2008)…
…
The SPJC finds that John Knox Presbytery properly took responsibility for that decision. Therefore, permitting Anderson to declare a departure or exception from Section G-6.0106(b) was within the authority of the Presbytery.

There was a dissenting opinion which said, in part:

The majority finds that as the Presbytery followed the provisions of G-6.0108 and the PUP and Knox AIs, it could vote to ordain Scott Anderson as he declared a scruple to the application at least some of the ordination standards as outlined in Section G-0106(b) [sic] to his own life.

This interpretation of the Knox Al, as it applies to Section G-0106(b), [sic] cannot be sustained under our polity. In this case, such an application has effectively allowed a Presbytery to invalidate or amend Section G-0106(b). [sic] We do not believe that any governing body, including the General Assembly, through the authoritative interpretation process as provided under G-13.0103(r) can, directly or indirectly, amend an express provision of the Book or Order.

The ordination standards as provided in Section G-0106(b) [sic] have engendered continuing conflict in our denomination and we acknowledge that Presbyterians in good faith have deep disagreement as to the wisdom if these standards. However, the only forum for a change to this Section is by and through our presbyteries, not through the use of authoritative interpretations.

(And in case you did not figure it out, for that persistent typographical error in the dissent the reference should be G-6.0106(b))

Not much more to say in this case.  The decision and dissent are both direct and concise and the reasoning is very similar to the Parnell decision.   Considering the timing, similarities, and parallel natures of these cases it is reasonable to expect that if they are both appealed, and the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission accepts them, that they would be heard and decided in the same session, probably next Spring.  Stay tuned…

PC(USA) Constitutional Amendment Booklets (Mostly) Available

Leave a reply

Well, you knew this would be big, and not just in a metaphorical sense…

The Office of the General Assembly has made available on their web site the publication with the changes to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Constitution that the 219th General Assembly is sending down to the presbyteries.  It comes in three parts so get those reading glasses ready!

Part 1 is the nFOG , or technically the new Foundations of Presbyterian Polity section and the revised Form of Government section.  Fifty eight pages long — All the new Book of Order text plus the “Advisory Handbook for Councils for the Development of Policies and Procedures Required by the Form of Government.”  Then there is a second eight-page booklet to serve as a guide in considering the nFOG with links to the online resources about the revision.

I say that the booklets are mostly ready because the spot for the second amendment booklet is there but no link is provided yet.  By process of elimination this must be the proposed amendments to the Book of Confessions, the addition of the Belhar Confession.  I will revise and link here when posted.

Part 3 is all the other amendments to the Book of Order.  There are 15 amendments in all covering the G, W and D sections with numbering for the current Book of Order.  If you are keeping count, that will be another 32 pages of reading. For each G section amendment there is an editor’s note about how that would translate into the nFOG. 

(It is also interesting to note a typo in the cover letter to Part 3 that says Belhar will be part 3.  No big deal.)

But here is an interesting insight into how Presbyterians do things:  According to those editors notes five of the eight G section changes would add language to the Book of Order if the nFOG version is adopted.  Only one, the change to current section G-6.0106b, would actually change wording in the nFOG, and two amendments would be rendered moot by adopting the nFOG.  So we reduce our polity and make it flexible only to immediately start adding to it. I’ll analyze all that another time.

So start downloading and have at it.

The 219th General Assembly Of The PC(USA) — Not Business As Usual For One Item

Leave a reply

Please allow me to be cynical about the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) for a moment as I reflect on my observation that most of the items before the Assembly and how the Assembly dealt with them were pretty much “business as usual.”  There was of course that unique session where both the Final and Minority reports of the Special Committee on Civil Union and Christian Marriage were commended to the whole church. But for the most part I frequently found myself thinking “been there, done that.”

Part of this was because so many high-profile items were really reports back from committees and task forces the last Assembly created.  Some of the deja vu was because these are items that keep coming back to every Assembly, like the ordination standards. And some is because the business contains a lot of routine items  like approving minutes, transferring churches, and creating presbyteries.  That is, until that last one stops being business as usual…

On the morning of Thursday July 8 the Committee on Middle Governing Body Issues late in their report brought a simple request from the Synod of South Atlantic, item 04-08:

The Synod of South Atlantic overtures the 219th General Assembly (2010) to approve the organization of a new non-geographic Korean language presbytery pursuant to its powers under G-13.0103n.

The Synod had passed this overture on a unanimous vote and the Assembly committee had also approved it by a wide margin, 43-2.  Seemed like a slam-dunk but it was not.

A few commissioners, including two young second-generation Asian-American women pastors, rose to speak against forming the non-geographic Korean language presbytery and their pleas were so persuasive that the Assembly disapproved the item 125-514-7. (If you want to watch yourself check out the Video On Demand, Session 5, Part 9, at 1:09 except the video cuts out before the end)  Every Assembly holds a few surprises and for the 219th this was one of the biggest for me.

There were a couple of arguments against the new presbytery – lack of women leadership and challenges for clergy who serve in English ministry in Korean congregations.  The speakers argued that it is difficult to advocate for women clergy and young leadership in language presbyteries that tend to not favor those in their culture.  In addition, for ministers that speak English and serve second-generation ministries in Korean churches but do not speak Korean, or do not speak it well, participating in the life of the presbytery is difficult to impossible.  It makes it challenging to develop new young second-generation leadership speaking English in a language presbytery.

As you may be aware the GA’s relationship with non-geographic language presbyteries is a bit conflicted.  For example, the 218th GA sent a mixed message.  On the one hand they passed a Book of Order amendment which would provide a bit more flexibility in membership in non-geographic presbyteries but in doing so made sure to include a clause that non-geographic presbyteries should have an end date – they are to be transitional and not permanent.  On the other hand, the Assembly, from the same committee, approved another item that granted the continuation of Hanmi Presbytery without term limit.  So what message is being sent here?

Returning to the 219th GA, I should note that later in the day on Thursday there was a report on Twitter, but I have not verified it from a second source, that one of the women who spoke against the motion was physically assaulted for taking that position against the non-geographic presbytery.

Related to this is the rough time the PC(USA) has, and maybe American Presbyterians in general have, with being a racially diverse church.  I mentioned in an earlier post that I was a bit surprised that the Rev. Jin S. Kim, a minister with extensive service to the denomination and high name recognition, would have polled the lowest in the voting for Moderator of the GA.  A friend suggested that maybe this was not in spite of his name recognition, but because of it.  This could be very true — He directly speaks of the lack of racial diversity in the PC(USA) and what that means in terms of the changing demographics of the U.S.  In his candidating speech to the GA I heard him say what he has said before about this.  Here are excerpts from that speech (Video on demand, Session 3, Part 1, 53:40)

Those of you who know me know that I have no shortage of critiques of our denomination.  I quarrel with this church every day… I quarrel with our sense of entitlement to the prestige of a bygone era.
…
I quarrel with a racism that makes us even now a 92% white Eurocentric denomination in the 21st century, unable to embody the sovereignty of God and the priesthood of all believers in our local congregations.
…
The U.S. Census estimates that whites will be a minority by 2042 — are you making the connection? While the liberals blame the close-mindedness and homophobia of conservatives for our decline, and the conservatives blame the lack of commitment to biblical orthodoxy of the liberals, both seem to miss the massive demographic shift that really is the critical reason for our decline… The basic problem in my view is that we remain a Eurocentric, white, middle-class church wedded to a way of doing faith as deeply dependent on enlightenment rationalism.  But since the sixties the U.S. has become a post-modern nation in which the rational is only one of many competing ways of interpreting God.

This is his concern for the church and the starting point for where he sees that the denomination needs to go.  You will see similar themes in the news article about his sermon to the 218th GA.

And finally, American Presbyterianism has a segregationist past as well.  While there are a number of resources related to this, let me just mention that a bit of a fuss has recently arisen over a new book that looks at some of this history.  Yes, the focus is on institutions that are now affiliated with the Presbyterian Church in America, but the history is longer than either the PCA or the PC(USA) and extends back to our common ancestor, the Presbyterian Church in the United States.  In the extensive comments on the post I would point you to one in particular by TE Ligon Duncan, the current pastor of one of the churches prominant in the book talking about how the church has moved on.

So somewhere between our past history and being the Body of Jesus Christ in the future where there is no majority ethnic group in the U.S., the church finds itself today.  What can we learn from the past to help us move into the future?  Are non-geographic presbyteries a useful tool for transition or a structure that allows congregations to isolate themselves – a form of modern segregation – that is holding us back?  While I don’t know if this GA made the right decision, it was refreshing to hear the arguments and see them faithfully wrestling with the question.  Prayers that they did faithfully discern the will of God.

UPDATE: The Rev. Theresa Cho, the first commissioner to speak against the new presbytery, has posted on her blog about this item and her perspective on it.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — Summaries Of The Assembly

Leave a reply

With the conclusion of the meeting of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) earlier today the reports of what the Assembly did are beginning to appear.

For many years I have produced a summary sheet for my congregation and the last few years I have had requests from others asking if they can to use it.  So here is my Brief Summary. Feel free to use it if you find it helpful.

There are already a series of official responses from the PC(USA) including:

In addition Robert Austell has put up on his GAhelp.net site a collection of Post-GA information including an index of the business, Post-GA commentaries, and the News/Opinion feed.

While it is tempting to start commenting on the inaccuricies in the reporting of the popular media I will leave that for another day.  However, one of my favorite blogs, GetReligion, has posted their first piece.

So, the 219th is in the books. Lots for the presbyteries to vote on.  I’m still working on my summary thoughts, but for the moment we are on to the General Synod of the Bible Presbyterian Church in a couple of weeks.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — But Will The Presbyteries Concur?

4 Replies

Yesterday at the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) two high-profile business items were approved that will now require the concurrence of the presbyteries.  As a change to the Book of Order, or maybe better expressed as a revision of a major portion of the Book of Order, the new revised Form of Government and new Foundations of Presbyterian Polity sections will require a majority vote of the presbyteries to be adopted.  On the other hand, the Belhar Confession will require two-thirds of the presbyteries to agree to be included in the Book of Confessions.  After these were approved by the Assembly plenary I was musing on my commute home from work on the basic question – “Will the presbyteries concur?”

Well, if I ponder something long enough I usually head in an analytical direction and this was no different.  So in the spirit of the alternate hashtag for GA – #presbynerdfest10 – this post is about to get really geeky really fast.

Let me begin with the data:  The nFOG passed the plenary by a vote of 468 yes to 204 no, a 69.6% yes vote.  The Belhar Confession was endorsed by the plenary with a 525 to 150 vote, a 77.8% yes vote.  Clearly, if the presbyteries mirror the Assembly in their voting than both will be approved.  However, we know from past experience that this is not the case.  In the most recent example the 218th General Assembly approved the change to G-6.0106b by a 380 to 325 margin, a 53.9% yes vote but the presbyteries voted 78 to 94 on 08-B with only a 45.3% yes vote.  The ratio of presbytery “yes” to assembly “yes” is 0.840.  If we apply that to the nFOG vote we get 58.5% yes in the presbyteries and for Belhar 65.4%.  nFOG passes and Belhar is very close.

Why is there a difference between Assembly and presbytery votes?  As polity wonks know, this is really a comparison of apples to oranges.  In the presbytery voting each presbytery has equal weight regardless of their size.  The smallest presbyteries’ votes count just the same as the largest and as a general rule the smaller presbyteries tend to be more conservative.  The other element in play here is that past voting patterns have shown that commissioners to the General Assembly are, on balance, more progressive than the average elder back home — or at least the elders back home are more resistant to change.  Finally, there is more time before the presbytery votes allowing for more organizing and educating of commissioners that can influence the final vote.

While I won’t go into the details, mathematicians will quickly realize that the ratio is not the only, and probably not the best, way to go in this case and rather we would be better served by having more data.  Much to my surprise, there is none from the 218th GA — Until I went searching I did not realize that every other item from that Assembly that went to the presbyteries for concurrence was approved by the plenary on voice or other non-recorded vote.  (There is something interesting in that alone but I need to do some more thinking about that.)

So, as another measure of the Assembly’s strength of opinion let me turn to the vote in the committee for each item since that is required to be a recorded vote.  Here is what happened in the Assembly committee and the presbyteries.  The link for each item takes you to the PC-Biz page for that item.

Item  Comm. % Yes Presby. % Yes
 08-A  96.1%  64.3%
 08-B  78.8%  45.3%
 08-C  94.7%  88.9%
 08-D  98.3%  93.6%
 08-E  100%  89.5%
 08-F  100%  65.3%
 08-G  100%  88.3%
 08-H  100%  89.1%
 08-I  79.3%  57.6%
 08-J  100%  95.9%
 08-K  100%  98.8%
 08-L  100%  93.6%
 08-M  100%  99.4%
 08-N  100%  98.2%

So looking at 08-B, the only one with counted votes in all three arenas, we have 78.8% yes in committee, 53.9% yes in full Assembly, and 45.3% yes in the presbyteries.

Taking this data and graphing it gives the chart below. It is a bit busy but the primary data are the blue squares.  I’ve included the full Assembly vote on  08-B as a red square for reference.  Statisticians will quickly see that while the left-hand blue data points are nicely clustered together, they are away from the other points and do leverage the best-fit line in blue.  I’ve put on the bounding lines in black.  The two thresholds, 50% and 66.7% are marked in purple.


Now, using this as a predictor, we see that a Book of Order change should get greater than 78% in committee and for Confessions above 87%.  nFOG was 37-5, 88% so probable passage.  Belhar was 43-11, 79.6% so it would fail on the main trend and closer on the upper bound.  Revisions to ordination standards was 69.2% so also a predicted failure by presbyteries to approve.

But is this valid?  This was the correlation for the PC(USA) after the 218th GA, does this correlation still hold for the church today?  I don’t know but we will see what happens in the next year.

Anyway, some speculative geekiness.  I will say that I do think the church has changed enough that the correlation probably won’t hold.  We will see how close it is.  Stay tuned.  Now, out of geek mode and back to polity wonk — next topic: the defeat of a non-geographic presbytery today.

Update:  Between the time I wrote this and when I proofed and posted it the 219th GA voted on item 06-09 to propose a change to G-6.0106b.  As I said above the committee vote would predict not enough presbyteries concurring based on past trends.  With full Assembly approval by 373 to 323, a 53.6% yes vote.  This is almost identical to the vote on the corresponding item for the 218th General Assembly and may suggest little shift in the church since then.  If the ratio from the last Assembly holds this Book of Order change would again fail. Time will tell.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — The GA At The Midway Point

Leave a reply

We have reached Wednesday morning and the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) takes a short break to catch its breath and get some reading done.  The last two-ish days have been committee work and the next three-ish the full Assembly will act on the recommendations of each committee.  Looking at what the nineteen committees have done over the last couple of days there are not too many recommendations that I find surprising, although a number are disappointing to some in the church.  I’ll return to comment on the ones coming up today in a moment, but I’ll just highlight a few and probably the best place to get a better compilation is over at the GAhelp site.  And of course, full results are on PC-Biz.

I did want to highlight some of the twists and turns committees took and not being there in person here are a few of the tweets I found most interesting and informative from those who were in the committee rooms.

cvpotweet Very proud of the YAADs and TSAD on #cmte09 who were the main force behind the creative solution for the 09-20 YAV overture! #ga219

gspcrobert #cmte04 guy just quoted yoda in debate – love it #nerdfest on so many levels #ga219

brc_live Wowza. Motion to reconsider 04-06, MGB Commission. Oh good golly. #cmte4 #ga219

brc_live This #cmte4 is struggling around parliamentary procedures; not sure it is a helpful tension. #ga219

brc_live The word-smithing during committee meetings may be frustrating for those of us that “know better” but it builds ownership. #ga219 #cmte4

gspcrobert ACC guy in #cmte05 trying to quote the BOO – “I’m more familiar with the nFOG than the current one… how embarssing is that!” #ga219

lauraviau Seeing the desire to do rightby people in #cmte6 but also the frustration of not seeing how to do that #ga219

pasta_amy Wondering why there are folks who believe that our book of confessions is all about sex – seems like it #ga219 #cmte6

rugger_lav@HeySonnie What? Presby’s making amendments that are too long for 140 characters! Unheardof! #cmte12 #ga219

HeySonnie CONFUSION REIGNS! Moderator andparliamentarian consulting. #cmte12 #ga219

gspcrobert #cmte12 – commish trying to move neither report, and only approve covenant – how does that work with 2 other motions on floor? #ga219

Thanks to all these folks and the many in the Twitterverse helping me, and others, feel connected with the process.

So what happens now.  In a little bit (probably before I actually finish this post) the plenary will begin.  Robert has the docket posted on GAhelp so we know that after all the updates (Bills and Overtures and Financial Implications — we will now see those every plenary session) we will have Committee 15: Church Growth, Christian Education and PILP.  There is then an order of the day for the report of Committee 16: Theological Issues and Institutions at 4:30 pm.

In the evening session we can look forward to Committee 7: Form of Government Revision and Committee 17: Review of Permanent GA Committees.

Committee 15: Church Growth, Christian Education and PILP has one high-profile item and that is the Report of the Youth Task Force.  The committee unanimously recommends the Assembly approve this report.  Other business includes the transfer of churches between presbyteries, approval of union churches, and a commissioner resolution to help plant churches in Triana, Albania.  The committee recommends that the latter be referred to the GAMC.  If you want an indication of the routine nature of this committee’s work, with all due respect to the Youth Task Force report, according to the official tracking twitter this was the first committee to finish, completing all of their work Monday leaving Tuesday for a field trip.

Committee 16: Theological Issues and Institutions warrants our first order of the day (i.e. Drop whatever you are doing to now do this) because they will bring the recommendations regarding changes to the Book of Confessions.  Regarding the Heidelberg Catechism the committee is recommending approval of the Special Committee’s recommendations, including the renewal of the Special Committee to participate in a complete new translation of the Catechism, as opposed to new translations of specific questions as approved by the 218th GA.  Also part of the committee report is the recommendation that the church continue in the process of adopting the Belhar Confession, that is, send the Confession out to the presbyteries for their concurrence. On this the committee vote was 43-11-1 and in response to an overture that requested only commending the Belhar the vote was the same to recommend answering that overture with the approval of the Confession.  There are also a couple of other Book of Order changes from the committee, one to add “prayer” to three questions in the ordination/installation service recommending approval, and two others recommending disapproval.

Committee 7 will be recommending the approval of the revised Form of Government with amendments.  This is coming out of committee on a 37-5-0 vote and I would think additional wordsmithing will happen this evening.

Committee 17 is pretty routine stuff and all that they have is the recommendation to approve the minutes of three GA permanent committees that they reviewed.

So there is the line up for today.  Get your live streaming ready to follow along.  Much of this will probably be coming to the presbyteries so you will likely see this again — now is your chance for the “first reading.”

Presbyterian Government And American Government — The Same Only Different

2 Replies

It is common among American Presbyterians, when trying to explain our system of Presbyterian Government, to appeal to the structure of our Federal government to help explain how we do things.  This is for good reason because the two governmental systems have strong similarities in their elected representative forms, the presence of checks and balances, and the appearance of different branches of government.  The parallels are not coincidental — while it is often said that the U.S. Government was patterned on the Presbyterian system, several authorities I have consulted prefer to say that the two systems developed at the same time in the same cultural and philosophical climate.

It can not be denied that there is a strong tie between the two.  James Madison was one of the most influential members of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, possibly the individual having the greatest single influence on the government structure in the Constitution.  He was also a graduate of the Presbyterian College of New Jersey, now Princeton University, and following his graduation in 1771 he remained there for another year or two as he studied with the college president, the Rev. John Witherspoon, who had recently arrived from Scotland to serve as the college’s sixth president.  While Madison himself seems to have affiliated with the Episcopal Church, his education clearly included heavy influence by Presbyterians.  (For reference regarding timing, the Presbyterians instituted multiple synods and brought them together in the first General Assembly in 1789 in Philadelphia.)

However, while I have used the analogy between the Presbyterian and American systems of government in the past I have moved away from that because the differences between them are just as important to our polity as the similarities.

One of the big differences is that Presbyterianism is a different sort of representative government.  When a teaching or ruling elder participates in the deliberations of a governing body they may be there as the representatives of the members that elected them to that position, but they are not there to represent the views of those people.  The Presbyterian church is not a democracy or a republic, it is a theocracy.  The very first thing the PC(USA) Book of Order says is:

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]

And lest you think they are alone the PCA Book of Church Order begins in a very similar way.  Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church and those in governing bodies are there to seek God’s will and do it, not to follow the opinion of the people.  I would first note that this Book of Order section is a constant reminder to me of what the purpose of church government is and this probably explains why I really don’t like that the new revised PC(USA) Form of Government has moved this away from the opening lines of the Foundations section.  My second note here is to clarify that I am not saying that the opinions and views of those we represent are not important — they are very important.  But they need to be considered as part of the discernment process and possibly held in tension with the leading of the Holy Spirit.  As the Book of Order says “Presbyters are not simply to reflect the will of the people, but rather to seek together to find and represent the will of Christ.” [G-4.0301d]

Maybe the most serious error frequently made in trying to explain Presbyterian government is to describe it as having three branches like the Federal system.  It is tempting to equate the full Assembly as a legislative branch, the judicial commission as the judicial branch, and an executive as the executive branch.  The truth is that a Presbyterian governing body has only one branch and that is the body itself.  We have single bodies which are mostly legislative, or deliberative, and the executive or judicial functions exist not to be branches in their own right but as parts of the governing body to assist the body in carrying out its mission.  Not to put too fine a point on this, but remember that judicial commissions are just that – commissions.  They are empowered or commissioned to act on behalf of the governing body with the full authority of the governing body, within the limits specificed by the governing body.  A commission is an extension of the body to do a particular job, not a separate body.

And this brings me to a third difference, the system of checks and balances.  In the Federal system the primary system of checks and balances is between the three coequal branches of the U.S. government.  Another system of checks and balances exists between the Federal government and the state governments but how strong a system of checks that should be is a matter of discussion by constitutional scholars.  In the connectional Presbyterian system the checks and balances are in “governing bodies (traditionally called judicatories or courts) in regular gradation.” [G-4.0301c]  Our governing bodies are not independent but each sends representatives to the higher one and each higher one has the responsibility of review on the lower ones.  Governing bodies are not independent and autonomous but have come together to be the Body of Christ together in this time and place.

And so, on this 234th anniversary of the Rev. Witherspoon and his fellow delegates to the Continental Congress affixing their signatures to the Declaration of Independence, with a Presbyterian General Assembly underway, we acknowledge the deep connections in history and philosophy the two systems of government share. But we also recognize that these two governments have two different purposes and serve two different ends and so there are also structural and philosophical differences between the two reflecting how their purposes diverge.

So where every American Presbyterians find themselves today, be it in Minneapolis or somewhere else, have a very good Fourth of July.

Following The FIFA World Cup – Or – As A G.A. Junkie What I Like About Association Football

Leave a reply

For me it is a very unfortunate coincidence that the FIFA World Cup falls at the peak of General Assembly Season.  I must confess that my GA tracking has gotten a bit distracted by following the beautiful game.  Sometime I will blog about how being a soccer referee has informed my theology and how I turned that into a children’s sermon – but that is not today.  Right now I wanted to give a few more general thoughts about the game and, hold on, Presbyterian polity.

To give a brief background I grew up in a city known for its support of soccer with an NALS team and now a team in the “revived” NASL.  As a youth we played pick-up games, a couple of which resulted in injuries requiring significant medical treatment to friends of mine.  While I only played organized soccer one year on a Jr. High team I have followed local teams, college and professional, where I have lived.  I am a trained soccer coach and referee.  It is the latter that connects with my passion for Presbyterian polity.

The first point I want to touch on is the origin of the “organized” game.  While the exact origins of the game are debated, and many cultures seem to have similar style games, the rules that the present game derives from come from a series of rules developed between British public schools who played similar style games but each with their own specific differences.  (See where I’m going with this about different Presbyterian branches?)  The rules of what we now recognize as Association Football and the predecessor to the modern Laws of the Game were agreed upon in 1863 with the formation of the Football Association.  Some of the schools’ versions of the games involved the use of the hands and an alternate game, based on the game played at Rugby School , was codified in 1870 as rugby football. (Note the not-so-subtle inclusion of the rugby goal in the banner picture on the Rugby School web site.)  So bottom line for polity: rules were agreed by collections of individuals representing the different schools and where different rules were favored different branches of the sport developed.

Association Football is sometimes referred to as The Simplest Game because the objective and core rules are easy to explain.  As one colleague of mine puts it, you could give the whistle to someone who has never seen the game before and tell them to blow it when they see something wrong and they would get 90% of the fouls and restarts. (But they would not know what to do after they blow the whistle.)  There are 17 Laws of the Game which take 47 pages to explain in the official, nicely illustrated, rulebook .  And yes, there are also pages and pages of interpretation and other stuff that go with it.  But, it takes Major League Baseball 12 pages just to explain the Objective of the Game and the equipment.  Or, compare the rules for a soccer kickoff versus an NFL kickoff:

Soccer Football
Kick-off

A kick-off is a way of starting or restarting play:
    • at the start of the match
    • after a goal has been scored
    • at the start of the second half of the match
    • at the start of each period of extra time, where applicable
A goal may be scored directly from the kick-off.

Procedure
   • all players are in their own half of the field
    • the opponents of the team taking the kick-off are at least 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball until it is in play
   • the ball is stationary on the centre mark
   • the referee gives a signal
    • the ball is in play when it is kicked and moves forward
   • the kicker does not touch the ball a second time until it has touched another player
After a team scores a goal, the kick-off is taken by the other team.

Infringements/Sanctions
If the kicker touches the ball a second time before it has touched another player:
   • an indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team to be taken from the place where the infringement occurred * (see page 3)
For any other infringement of the kick-off procedure:
   • the kick-off is retaken

 Kickoff

  1. In addition to a kickoff, the other free kick is a kick after a safety (safety kick). A punt may be used (a punt may not be used on a kickoff).
  2. On a safety kick, the team scored upon puts ball in play by a punt, dropkick, or placekick without tee. No score can be made on a free kick following a safety, even if a series of penalties places team in position. (A field goal can be scored only on a play from scrimmage or a free kick after a fair catch.)
  3. A kickoff may not score a field goal.
  4. A kickoff is illegal unless it travels 10 yards OR is touched by the receiving team. Once the ball is touched by the receiving team or has gone 10 yards, it is a free ball. Receivers may recover and advance. Kicking team may recover but NOT advance UNLESS receiver had possession and lost the ball.
  5. When a kickoff goes out of bounds between the goal lines without being touched by the receiving team, the ball belongs to the receivers 30 yards from the spot of the kick or at the out-of-bounds spot unless the ball went out-of-bounds the first time an onside kick was attempted. In this case, the kicking team is penalized five yards and the ball must be kicked again.
  6. When a kickoff goes out of bounds between the goal lines and is touched last by receiving team, it is receiver’s ball at out-of-bounds spot.
  7. If the kicking team either illegally kicks off out of bounds or is guilty of a short free kick on two or more consecutive onside kicks, receivers may take possession of the ball at the dead ball spot, out-of-bounds spot, or spot of illegal touch.


As a soccer referee I find the soccer rules simpler and shorter than other sports’ rulebooks.  And taking this one step further, you could almost consider the FIFA Laws of the Game as a confessional standard since that basic rulebook is applicable from the Jr. High games I referee to the World Cup.  An amazing continuity throughout the game as the Westminster Standards provide a document many Presbyterian branches look to.

The other thing about the soccer rules is their flexibility, intended like the new revised Form of Government for the PC(USA).  While certain things are hard and fast, like the procedure above for the kick off, other things are left up to the particular situation.  For example, in the Laws of the Game there is no specified size of field, only a range: 90-120 meters long and 45-90 meters wide.  The only requirement is that the field must be longer than wide.  Yes, for international matches there is a smaller range, at the larger end, and individual tournaments, like the World Cup, can specify exact field dimension.  Also, the referee is not to stop play for a foul if stopping the game would cause the fouled team to lose an advantage (unlike basketball which always stops for a foul which drives me crazy). And the famous (at least in the soccer world) Advice to Referees 5.5 says:

5.5 TRIFLING INFRACTIONS
“The Laws of the Game are intended to provide that games should beplayed with as little interference as possible, and in this view it isthe duty of referees to penalize only deliberate breaches of the Law.Constant whistling for trifling and doubtful breaches produces badfeeling and loss of temper on the part of the players and spoils thepleasure of spectators.”

There is a degree on interpretation, like AI’s or PJC decisions, that a referee makes to strike a balance between flow and control of the game.  One would hope that our application polity would be similar.

Which brings me to my final point and that is to point out that in soccer a nil-nil draw is a perfectly acceptable outcome to a game.  A soccer game does not require a winner.  The exception is tournament situations where after the extra time (over time) we have the shootout which most soccer fans, players, coaches and referees consider a dreadful way to determine a winner — but nothing better has been worked out yet.  The reason that many find it dreadful gets back to the philosophy that the game does not require a winner.  It is among the lowest scoring of sports and the play for the 90 minutes as the players work to put the ball in the back of the net is just as important as actually putting the ball in the back of the net.  Like Presbyterian assemblies, the process is as important as the outcome.  How we discern the will of God together is important to our life together.

There is one more similarity between the two disciplines which is unfortunate.  The intent is that an Assembly is one team working together but with different members with different understandings that help inform the process.  It is unfortunate when an Assembly or Synod takes on the feel of a soccer match with two different teams on the pitch (field) each trying to push the ball over opposite goal lines.

I do not intend to argue an analogy between the two areas but only to point out a few of the parallels.  Something to ponder as I keep #ga219, #30ga and #pcaga on my Twitter feed while live streaming Brazil v. PRK over lunch.  Your milage may vary.  Play on!