Category Archives: polity

“We Are Presbyterian” And “We Are PC(USA)”

3 Replies

Yesterday was the anniversary of the birth of Ebenezer Erskine in 1680. He would become a respected figure in the Church of Scotland but later in his life he had a disagreement with the Kirk leading him to renounce jurisdiction and help lead a group that would secede and form the Associate Presbytery in 1733.  This was the second division in the Church of Scotland, the Covenanters having divided from the established church a bit earlier.

So where am I going with this?  The point is that even in the earliest days of American Presbyterianism to say that you were a Presbyterian did not necessarily mean the same thing to everyone.  At a minimum, and this is simplifying things a bit, there was a tradition from the established church that would become the mainline, but also the Covenanters of the Reformed line and the Seceders of the Associate line.  And I probably don’t need to tell you that over the last three centuries the complexity has increased and not decreased.  (As a physicist I could point to increasing entropy, but that is not the purpose of today’s post.)

Yesterday also saw the launch of a new project led by the Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). I was glad to see it launched because there has been some build-up to it around the Internet and I was interested to see what would come of it.  One thing I was particularly interested in was the different names for the project and how that would affect the focus.  For example, the Twitter account has the handle @WeArePCUSA but the long description is titled “We Are Presbyterian.”  If you go to the launch site the title is also “We are Presbyterian” yet in the narrative below it refers to the videos coming from a “diverse group of folks from across the Presbyterian Church (USA).”

Maybe I am being too picky here. Am I just splitting hairs with this one? As I spend my free time blogging on global Presbyterianism I am well aware that the PC(USA) is just one local manifestation of this broad and diverse ecclesiastical form. Having watched these videos the We Are PC(USA) title is very applicable, but remember this is one small slice of a bigger fellowship.

OK, soapbox mode off…

In these 16 locally-produced videos submitted to Bruce and his crew we have a great representation of the PC(USA).  If you have a spare hour I would suggest watching them. In the ones featuring individuals, each person comes across as speaking from the heart about their church and their vision and passion for it. The group ones are also interesting, particularly to listen to the individuals and where they agree and where they have different perspectives.

Bruce issued an open invitation to submit videos (with a video invite as well) and asked that they answer five questions:

  1. Who are you and how are you connected to the PC(USA)?
  2. What about the PC(USA) are you most thankful for?
  3. What about the PC(USA) are you most disappointed in?
  4. What do you believe that God is calling us to be in the next five years?
  5. What is one ministry, organization or hope that we should pray for today?

It is interesting that about half of the things mentioned regarding the second question could apply to Presbyterianism in general and are not specific to the denomination: connectional system, joint governance on the boards of the church, confessional nature of our faith, priesthood of all believers.  Likewise, the third question had some more general responses as well: could do better with racial ethnic diversity, need to do better with youth and young adults.

I was also impressed that the spectrum of viewpoints were represented, but while the full spectrum of the theological diversity in the PC(USA) was represented in these videos, progressive viewpoints were more likely to be presented.  In particular, several presenters specifically mentioned that they were thankful for the increased inclusivity in the denomination from the passage of Amendment 10-A.  On the other hand, several of the videos stayed completely away from the polarizing issues in the church and spoke of other bigger-picture issues without having an explicit leaning left or right. And some of the videos did not answer the questions at all and one is almost half promotional for a group. But all-in-all an interesting hour of watching.

Bruce has also scaled back his plans for this project which was originally to be focused on an Internet marathon of sorts. Now he has posted the videos and is considering how much time and energy he has for another phase of the project.

Personally, I may post my own “Why I am Presbyterian” two-part blog post later in the Summer.  Two months ago I finished up a post with my conviction that if we prefer the Presbyterian form of church government we need to let people know why. Having issued that challenge I have now outlined my response and within the next month or two hope to have it ready for prime time.  But don’t expect anything focused on one particular branch – I do intend to make it a “We Are Presbyterian” presentation in the broadest sense of the word.

31st General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church

5 Replies

Coming up this Wednesday, June 22, the 31st General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church will convene in Cordova, Tennessee.  Here is the rundown of what I know about the meeting…

The GA will meet from June 22 to 25 at Hope Presbyterian Church in Cordova, on the eastern edge of the Memphis metropolitan area. The theme for the meeting is “Transformation,” taken from II Cor. 3:18.

The materials for the meeting can be found on the EPC GA web page, including the Overview of the Assembly Schedule (and an earlier version), the Workshop Schedule, and the Children and Youth Program Schedule.

Business reports for the Assembly can also be found on the GA web page, at the bottom. In the group of reports most are from permanent committees but there are two from Interim Committees, one on Constitutional Revisions and another on Presbytery Boundaries.  More on both of those in a moment.

And if you are looking for background material you can check out the Book of Order and the EPC Position Papers.

There is also a preview of GA in the latest edition of the EPC’s official online newsletter EPnews. That would also be the place to look for official updates, and maybe on the Press Release page. (And my thanks to the communication staff for the email copy of the press release they sent me.) In addition, Hope Presbyterian Church has their own GA web page with a welcome and links to information about the facility and the warning that it is easy to get turned around or get confused where you parked your car.

There is a preliminary Twitter presence with the EPC’s official Twitter feed @EPChurch and the hashtag is #31ga (and not #epcga). In addition, the Director of Communications and IS will let the Assembly know on Thursday which presbytery has the most tweeting churches.

As I mentioned above, the theme of the Assembly is Transformation and the highlight of the first day on Wednesday will be a workshop titled “Transformational Church… A Day With Ed Stetzer.” (He can be found on twitter at @edstetzer.) He is the Vice-president of Research and Ministry Development at LifeWay Christian Resources, an agency of the Southern Baptist Convention. The workshop appears to be based on his latest book, Transformational Church, and he is a noted author and speaker on missional thinking. This fits in with the EPC’s recent Missional Church Primer.

Moving on to business, let me highlight the two Interim Committee reports since they are a good reflection of where this Presbyterian branch finds itself at the present time.

The Interim Committee on Constitutional Revisions is in the process of doing what some other Presbyterian branches are doing right now — revising their constitutional documents.  The committee has been working hard since they were created by the 29th General Assembly and their report indicates that their goal is to complete a new Book of Government section by early September and distribute it for internal review.  They then plan to have the final revision completed for the 32nd GA next year. For the benefit of those of us who might not remember their guiding principles they have included them again in this year’s report:

1. “No bloating”: we will continually ask, “Does this belong in the Constitution or should it go elsewhere in a supporting document?”

2. Language and stylistic elements are to be governed by the “KISS” principle: seek straightforward language as much as possible for clarity, readability.

3. Standardize nomenclature: identify significant titles, terms uniformly and avoid synonymous descriptions.

4. Keep in mind, Jesus’ commands are not burdensome: maintain a clear delineation between the authority delegated to each level of our governance and the responsibilities incumbent upon officers, members as part of Christ’s Body.

5. Allow the Westminster Confession of Faith and its fundamental principles to guide our work.

6. Recognize and preserve those rights reserved in perpetuity by our standards.

7. Scripture is our law; the Westminster Confession is our interpretation of Scripture; the Book of Order is our application of both.

For this year they provide only a progress report with no items for action by the Assembly.

The second Interim Committee is on Presbytery Boundaries. This committee was created last year by the 30th Assembly and their report does a good job summarizing the dynamics of the EPC at the present time and the need for their work:

• Identifying immediate boundary issues, particularly those arising from progressive dynamics within existing presbyteries.

• Assessing the impact of a large number of churches having joined the EPC in the last 12-18 months and anticipating the impact of a large number of congregations joining in the coming 12-24 months. This assessment and anticipation also included the dynamics resulting from the expiration of the transitional presbyteries at the conclusion of the 32nd General Assembly in one year.

• Communicating proposed and potential boundary changes to those congregations
affected and incorporating responses into present and possible recommendations
to the General Assembly.

• Reviewing and revising the criteria for a viable presbytery.

This is a very nice succinct summary of the situation, but at the risk of being repetitive for some readers and using two words when one will do, let me unpack a couple of these statements and the “presby speak” in them.

In the first bullet point
about identifying boundary issues they are particularly concerned about issues around “progressive dynamics” within presbyteries — Remember that the ordination of women is decided by the ordaining body and with the substantial changes within some presbyteries due to forces listed in the next bullet point there are some developing differences over this issue.  The question is whether differences in scriptural understanding can be remedied by adjusting boundaries to aggregate like-minded presbyters and churches.  [Any application of this approach to one or more mainline branches and their new latitude in ordination standards is left as an exercise for the reader.]

Speaking of these changes, the second point about assessing the impact addresses this issue.  This is not about ordination standards but about sheer numbers of churches. There are many churches “in process” now.  If you look at the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery report you find their tabulation of these numbers:

• 29 congregations and their pastors who are in the NWEPC Transitional Presbytery. The Joint Commission is working with these congregations and pastors to assist them in being received into a EPC Geographic Presbytery prior to the 32nd GA.
• 8 congregations and their pastors who have “become one” with their geographical EPC Presbytery while still maintaining relationship with the Transitional Presbytery.
• 8 congregations and their pastors have “become one’ with their geographical EPC Presbytery and no longer have any relationship with the TP.

For perspective, the EPC About Us page describes the church as having “about 300 churches” so this transitioning group represents almost 15% of the congregations.  And note that this does not include any potential future influx resulting from recent changes in other Presbyterian branches.

Quite a task — I wish them well.  They are proposing two new presbyteries be authorized at this Assembly meeting:  Allegheny Presbytery would be formed from churches in western New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, eastern Ohio and a good chunk of West Virginia, the churches coming from three present presbyteries.  Pacific Presbytery would be created by dividing out the Pacific Coast states and part of Idaho from the Presbytery of the West.

It is worth noting that the report of the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery shows no sign of asking for a continuation of their group but lays out the steps they are taking to fold churches into the geographic presbyteries before, or upon, the presbytery’s dissolution next year.  In addition, they recommend changes to the Book of Order that would facilitate a transitional status for congregations and teaching elders into geographic presbyteries when extenuating circumstances would favor a transitional status of up to 12 months.

Let’s see — revising the Government section, questions about the form and size of presbyteries, implications of ordination standards, what does it mean to be missional?  Some of this sounds familiar and not just regarding one particular mainline branch in the Americas but for some non-mainline branches and for other branches around the globe as well. I venture to say that there is a great deal of theme and variation on these issues circulating at the moment.  So as the EPC approaches these topics I look forward to hearing how they work out their approach to them.  Prayers for their meeting and I will be watching to see how they discern God’s will together.

207th General Synod Of The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church

4 Replies

With all of the meetings of highest governing bodies of Presbyterian branches currently in progress one would think there would not be anyone left, but we need to add one more to the list…

The meeting of the 207th General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church began yesterday, June 7, at Bonclarken, near Flat Rock, NC, and it will adjourn tomorrow.

The Synod has combined most of the materials for the meeting available as a single large packet, but in three formats — Web, PDF, or ePub.  (Is that a first for an Assembly or Synod distributing an ePub of the reports?)  And as a single packet I will warn you that it is 191 pages long.  In my comments below I will refer to the page numbers in the PDF, trusting in the Grace of God that the ePub numbers are at least close.  (And the web version is one very long page)

Yes, there is Twitter activity for this meeting as well with the hashtag #ARPsynod11.  The major contributors to this stream are @ARStager and @jmcmanus76.  In addition, the official feeds @ARPMagazine and @ARPChurch are tweeting, usually without a hashtag.

As I looked through the packet a few things jumped out at me.

If I read Appendix E correctly (beginning on page 33) there are seven pages of unfinished business from last year’s General Synod which was the first item of business yesterday.

Beginning on page 41 of the packet is the preliminary report of the Strategic Planning Committee. The final report will be presented to the 2012 Synod. The Committee proposes the following Vision Statement for the ARP on which to base the Strategic Plan:

As sinners being saved by the mercy of God in Christ Jesus, Associate Reformed Presbyterians are compelled by His grace to give glory to God in worship, life and witness. By the power of the Holy Spirit, we aspire to be people gathered into churches, who are living obediently to the Word of God; growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ; loving one another as Christ has loved us; proclaiming joyfully the gospel of grace freely to all; making disciples among all the nations; and working in unity with all who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

From this the Committee says the Plan must 1) be gospel-centered and gospel-driven, 2) empower the people of God to accomplish God’s purposes in God’s way, and 3) marshal the resources of the church in a wise and prudent manner.

The Committee then gives a frank comment about where the ARP finds itself at the present time:

The shape of the emerging Strategic Plan is also conditioned by the peculiar circumstances of the ARP Church today. We are a small denomination with a preponderance of small churches, many of them located in rural areas and small towns. Because of this, humanly speaking, our resources are somewhat limited. As noted above, we continue to wrestle with identity issues and a lack of theological unity that complicate the task of ministry focus. We have also inherited a remarkable variety of denominational agencies and institutions with their own histories and traditions, and most of these agencies look to the General Synod for significant resources. Given that the ARP Church is but a small part of the Evangelical community and the church universal (see sec. I [“Where We Come From”] above), we must be mindful of duplicating the efforts of others who may be better positioned than we to carry on certain kingdom work, and open to creative partnerships with others where such efforts will advance the kingdom of God. As the 2007 “Report of the Vision Committee” identified, “the ARP Church is tolerant of mediocrity. Some have observed that we are ‘addicted to niceness,’ and that we tacitly condone a lack of excellence so that feelings will not be hurt.” These peculiar circumstances present both limitations and opportunities.

Based on all this they present a preliminary list of five things the church needs: 1) Powerful Gospel-centered preaching, 2) Church planting, 3) Christian education, 4) Multi-generational ministry, and 5) Culturally-responsive ministry.

Other branches are also considering what they will look like going forward and so I am looking forward to what this Committee brings back to the ARP next year.

Writing new Form of Government sections is another thing being done in other Presbyterian branches, and a Special Committee is bringing a new FOG to this Synod for a first read and for the church to consider this coming year.  If you are interested, the brief report begins on page 49 and the new FOG is available as a separate download. (If you want to see the current version that is available online as well.)  I simply mention this now and have put this on my list of possible topics for future writing.

A couple of other reports you might be interested in include ones on multi-cultural ministry and lay ministry.  I will conclude with the report on the topic that has garnered the most media attention over the last couple of years.

The report on the denomination’s schools, Erskine College and Erskine Theological Seminary, begins on page 75.  The report updates the progress in the schools and the denomination working together to ensure that the schools properly reflect the church’s doctrine while providing a strong education to their students.  The schools’ responses to four actions of the Synod are included, including an extensive response concerning the ways that the college board is restructuring to reflect the church’s concerns. There is also much more documentation about the changes in the college’s procedures and activities in consideration of the Synod’s actions.  Again, plenty there to reflect on if you are interested and with the high-profile nature of this issue there might be a variety of viewpoints expressed on this after the meeting.

So there are some things to be aware of regarding the General Synod meeting of the ARP.  However, having seen pictures of the Bonclarken center and having heard such great things about it, I sure admire the commissioners that can get work done while visiting such a beautiful area.  Our prayers are with you for your meeting.

39th General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In America

6 Replies

Lots going on this week for GA Junkies.  Let’s add one more to the mix…

In a few hours the 39th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America will finish up their pre-Assembly committee meetings and activities and get down to business.  The formal meeting convenes at 7:30 pm local time today, June 7, in Virginia Beach, VA, with worship, the Lord’s Supper, and following worship the election of the Moderator.  The meeting is scheduled to adjourn at noon on Friday.

If you want to follow along these resources may be helpful:

The PCA is providing live streaming and has a Flickr stream as well.

The Twitter community is buzzing (is that a mixed metaphor?) already with the perennial hashtag #PCAGA. I am not aware of an official PCA GA Twitter account to follow but there is the official publication’s account for byFaith Online (@PCAbyFaith) which has been pretty quiet so far.  I am a bit hesitant to single out any of the many fine TE’s and RE’s tweeting the meeting so just follow the hashtag.  As things get going the tag may not trend but it will keep your reader busy.

I have to admit that in the past year the goings on in the PCA have been pretty weighty with the Administrative Committee funding plan push and continuing issues related to the Federal Vision theology.  I have been focused on some other issues and have not kept up with my updates here.  Maybe I’ll get caught up some day.

But looking at the Overtures to this Assembly it is worth noting that neither the Federal Vision issues nor the deacon/deaconess discussion is reflected there.  (There are other paths by which they could come before the GA this year.)  However, the AC funding plan is there in full view.

Three presbyteries have submitted alternate plans following the defeat of the Book of Church Order changes from last year that were necessary to implement that plan.

Overture 3 from Northwest Georgia Presbytery would create an Essential Budget for the AC of $1.5M which would have annual cost-of-living-adjustments and be reviewed every five years.  It would also set up an emergency relief fund that all permanent committees and agencies would be asked to contribute to. It would fund the capped budget with a $7 per capita assessment and churches that pay their per capita would receive discounted registration for their commissioners to GA. I would add that this is one of the most heavily footnoted overtures that I have ever seen.

Pittsburgh Presbytery has their recommendation in Overture 11 where they propose an amendment to BCO 25-13 that begins

Communicant membership in the church is voluntary, never to be founded on human coercion (John 3:3-7), and giving by members is always voluntary and never to be founded on coercion or compulsion (2 Cor. 9:7).  From this it follows that the church by its courts has no power to tax, nor to exclude from participation in the courts of the church, those officers who by ordination and/or election as a delegate are lawful delegates to any court of the church. The courts of the church through their committees, agencies and commissions may offer services, however, that are not of the essence of the office of elder, which may be denied to those who do not pay fees.

In line with this principle the BCO amendment calls for an assessment on a particular church of not more than 0.4% of their total budget to be used for specific committees and functions that are administratively related to the functioning of the denomination.  Failure to pay could result in the inability to access non-essential services but, as the language above suggests, the ability of commissioners to vote at GA would never be compromised.

Finally, Overture 15 from South Coast Presbytery takes a more detailed approach.  They present an extensive table that shows what each church would be expected to give to support the basic or essential administrative functions of the denomination based on their “tithes and offerings,” not the total budget as the previous overture did.  For making that payment in full a church could send its full contingent of TE’s and RE’s to GA for no additional registration fee.  For churches that only partially pay the asked amount there is no prorated registration fee and they would be expected to pay a $2000/person fee the same as a church that did not pay anything. Commissioners not affiliated with a particular congregation would register for $200.

Now, I suspect that the polity wonk’s will have something so say about this Overture:  At the beginning of the Therefore section the overture says “South Coast Presbytery overtures the 39th GA, other presbyteries, and the AC to join with us in embracing and approving the following numbered actions… or to improve them… Accordingly, we ask this Assembly to act as follows, without needing any BCO or RAO changes:” It sounds like this is intended as a voluntary consensus agreement.  However, point 5 of the Overture is “5. Any changes to the above table fee structure are to be approved by GA and 2/3 of the presbyteries in the PCA.”  So while the initial implementation is intended to be approved by only the GA, changes would require the same concurrence of the presbyteries as a BCO change. I await the debate on that polity point.

Finally this Overture asks for an item that three other Overtures ( 7, 13, and 14) ask for, and that is to discontinue funding the official publication byFaith magazine and byFaithonline.com and to make it self-supporting.  The contention is that this move alone would bring the Administrative Committee’s bud
get into balance.  (Overtures 7, 13 and 14 are essentially identical and probably written from the same template, as evidenced by the fact that in one instance the writers of 13 overlooked a point where they needed to change the name of the presbytery from that in Overture 7.)

The other category in which there are multiple Overtures are those where the presbyteries have been growing and now the number of congregations has reached a point that a new presbytery should be created to further the cause of the Gospel.  There is a request from Central Carolina Presbytery with a concurrence from Western Carolina and their agreement that an edge of their presbytery be moved to the new presbytery. There is also an Overture from Korean Eastern Presbytery to form Korean Northeastern Presbytery from it’s northern portion in New England and New York. 

The remaining six overtures contain some interesting business as well, such as a request to withdraw from the NAE and promoting a “faithful witness” in Bible translations and presentation of the Gospel among resistant peoples. I look forward to the Assembly’s discussion of these topics as well. [And in late-breaking news, I see that the Committee of Commissioners has recommended the approval of the “faithful witness” overture with some changes.]

So there is what stands out to me about this Assembly and I suspect there are a few more highlights that will emerge from the reports.  Keep on praying and stay tuned…

The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland Chooses Their Trajectory

2 Replies

Yesterday, in a session on a single report that lasted all day, the 2011 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland chose the trajectory it would take regarding the service of partnered homosexuals in the ministry.  If all you want is the bottom line…

Executive Summary
By a vote of 351 to 294 the General Assembly chose to:

Resolve to consider further the lifting of the moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship, and to that end instruct the Theological Commission to prepare a report for the General Assembly of 2013…

In addition, the Assembly lifted the moratorium on “induction into pastoral charges of ministers and deacons ordained before May 2009 who are in a same-sex relationship.”

So it is a resolution to keep on discussing it with an eye in a particular direction.  The prohibition on ordinations has not been lifted yet, but the Assembly has chosen to point the church in the direction of permitting them in the future.  While the action today is not subject to the Barrier Act it is anticipated, but not yet decided, that the final action would be.

For those who are very familiar with the Deliverance, it is my understanding (I did not hear the morning session) that every point passed as written (no amendments approved) with the Assembly choosing option 7b over 7a.

The Rest Of The Story…
First I want to comment on the nature of the discussion itself.  All who followed it on Twitter, myself included, gave very high marks to the Moderator, the Rt. Rev. David Arnott, and the Convener of the Special Commission on Same-sex Relationships and the Ministry, Lord Hodge. Even though the debate was serious, and at times intense, the Moderator, Clerk and several of the commissioners helped control the tension with a nice amount of dry humor and quick wit.  The debate itself was courteous and respectful and I did not catch any personal attacks or snide remarks.  As for the content, having been through many of these debates before nothing jumped out at me as being a new argument for or against with all the usual scriptural and cultural appeals being made by both sides.  None-the-less, at least one commissioner commented that he had his mind changed by the debate, but as to which specific point or item he did not say.  It was an interesting morning (in my time zone) of listening and the debate usually moved along well and seldom got bogged down in polity or semantics.

I will point out that in the time I was listening, by my count not a single amendment was agreed to by the Assembly.  Similarly, the Convener declined to accept any amendment on behalf of the Special Commission. He regularly expressed the view that the Commission had worked hard at crafting a Deliverance that reflected the work of the group and wanted to honor that work.

Walking through the Deliverance, found at the beginning of the Commission’s report, the Assembly worked through the first two items before lunch.  They accepted the report (23/1), agreed to the necessity for pastoral care and that orientation is not in itself a barrier to holding office (23/2), and affirmed the unlawfulness of discrimination within the church and within the bounds of church law (23/3).

After lunch there was a spirited debate about part 23/4 which would “allow the induction into pastoral charges of ministers and deacons ordained before May 2009 who are in a same-sex relationship.”  In case you did not pick up on the magic date of May 2009, that was the Assembly at which the Special Commission was created. While there were suggested amendments the item passed as written 393 to 252.

Item 23/5, to continue the silent period for public discussion on this issue was agreed to, as was item 23/6 to create a Theological Commission to carry this work forward.

And then the core issue was reached…

The Commission brought to the Assembly a choice between two options.  The first, 23/7a began:

Resolve to consider further the implementation of an indefinite moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship thus maintaining the traditional position of the Church…

The alternate, 23/7b opened with:

Resolve to consider further the lifting of the moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship, and to that end instruct the Theological Commission to prepare a report for the General Assembly of 2013…

Another alternative, a “third way,” was moved by a former moderator, the Very Rev. Dr. Finlay Macdonald, it proposed that the Kirk was not ready to limit their choices and presented instructions to the newly formed Theological Commission to help the church continue the discussion.  Specifically it opened with “instruct the Theological Commission to continue the process of
discernment initiated by the Report received by the General Assembly of
2007…”  While respectfully received and favored by many, after discussion it was defeated by one of the closest votes of the day, 303 to 347.

The Assembly then debated the two original alternatives, another amendment to 7a was defeated, and a final vote was taken on the item with the commissioners favoring 7b, to move towards lifting the moratorium, by a vote of 294 for A and 351 for B.

The remaining two items, 23/8 to continue the moratorium on actions related to this issue and 23/9 to dismiss the Commission with thanks, were passed quickly.  The Assembly then thanked Lord Hodge for his leadership with generous words from the Moderator and a standing ovation. And with that the consideration of the report, which began at 11 AM local time concluded a bit after 6 PM (with a break for lunch).

So, with the moratoriums on speaking and action on these issues still in place, for the moment nothing has changed in the Church of Scotland.  However, with the creation of the Theological Commission and the agreed direction of their deliberations the Kirk has set a direction for the future that everyone expects will result in the lifting of the restriction on same-sex partnered individuals being ordained to office.  For completeness, here is the full text of 24/7b which was approved:

7(b) Resolve to consider further the lifting of the moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship, and to that end instruct the Theological Commission to prepare a report for the General Assembly of 2013 containing:

(i) a theological discussion of issues around same-sex relationships, civil partnerships and marriage;

(ii) an examination of whether, if the Church were to allow its ministers freedom of conscience in deciding whether to bless same-sex relationships involving life-long commitments, the recognition of such lifelong relationships should take the form of a blessing of a civil partnership or should involve a liturgy to recognise and celebrate commitments which the parties enter into in a Church service in addition to the civil partnership, and if so to recommend liturgy therefor;

(iii) an examination of whether persons, who have entered into a civil partnership and have made lifelong commitments in a Church ceremony, should be eligible for admission for training, ordination and induction as ministers of Word and Sacrament or deacons in the context that no member of Presbytery will be required to take part in such ordination or induction against his or her conscience; and to report to the General Assembly of 2013.

I want to wrap up here with two more items.  The first are links to several other blogs that discuss this change and give observations: Chris Hoskins, Stewart Cutler, Bryan Kerr, Stafford Carson, and Rev Shuna.

Second, I can’t leave this topic without looking at the numbers.  In the three votes I mention above the prevailing side in the vote had 60.9% of the votes on 23/4, 53.4% on the alternative amendment, and 54.4% on the selection of 7b.  For comparison, in my earlier post about the Commission report and the consultation they had with presbyteries and kirk session, they found that 48.9% of the responding presbytery members did not favor the church permitting partnered homosexuals in ordained positions while 41.4% did favor ordination.  The differences could be attributed to the fact one was a consultation and the other an actual vote.  There could also be differences in the populations sampled and as we see in other denominations the representatives to the national meeting being more progressive than the local members.  The differences could also be easily explained by the fact that the responses were to different questions.  Or, since this was only setting a direction and not making a final decision there may be an openness to continuing the discussion in this direction without the need to commit at this point.

In conclusion, it is worth pointing out the global community that was online for this session.  The Kirk streamed 1.7TB of data yesterday and those commenting on Twitter came from many corners of the world and stayed up late or got up early to follow the proceedings.  From my perspective it was a great social media community and a demonstration of how social media has enhanced Global Presbyterianism.  Thanks to all of you who were tweeting for the stimulating interaction.  But, this interest also demonstrated the “lightning rod” issue that I have talked about — This morning @generalassembly tweeted “We seem to be missing some several thousand viewers since yesterday. If you see them, please tell them we’re here all week!”  For those of you who could not join us, you missed another interesting day and some good discussion in the Assembly and on Twitter about youth and the church.  I’ll comment more on that at another time.

So, the Church of Scotland has more work to do, both in this Assembly and with their new Theological Commission to report back in 2013.  Stay tuned…

General Assembly Of The Free Church Of Scotland 2011

Leave a reply

The General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland will convene at 6:00 pm on Monday 23 May in St. Columba’s Free Church, Edinburgh, and continue through Friday 27 May.

For those interested in the meeting the Assembly page has a great summary of several committee reports and links to those full reports.  The reports page has the links to all of the different reports for the meeting.  And the church has posted a revised programme, or docket, for the meeting.

I will post a link to daily updates here, if they are made available, as well as hashtags or Twitter users that may be active during the meeting.  For blogs to watch, I would recommend Iain D Campbell at Creideamh and Gordon Matheson at Rev Jedi — they have been posting in advance and I would expect them to also reflect on the Assembly.  Again, I will update here if I find concurrent commentary and will link to others (which I know there will be) when the meeting concludes and I write a summary.

A few of the business items that caught my attention for this meeting.

The Board of Ministries will be bringing three ministers from other denominations to the Assembly for membership in the Free Church.  In addition, the Board is requesting a one year postponement in the previously approved Probationary Placement process for new ministers to allow for the refinement of certain details and to clarify the provision of the financial support for the probationers.  As the report puts it “The Board is recommending delay… to allow it to examine in greater detail the budgetary implications for the Board in providing stipends and for congregations in providing housing and meeting expenses.”

The Home Missions Board is proposing legislation to be sent down to the presbyteries under the Barrier Act to create Team Ministries to share full-time ministers between churches under certain circumstances.  The legislation is detailed with the responsibilities of the presbytery and Home Missions Board and represents a creative solution for charges with staffing challenges due to size or finances.

Speaking of financial challenges the report of the College Board acknowledges right at the beginning “The Board is aware that there are voices within the Church questioning the feasibility of maintaining a College. As the denomination continues to decline, the support base for the College continues to shrink.”  The report goes on to argue for the continued importance and utility of the College and its link to the Free Church identity and Scottish and Free Church history.  But it concludes with this:

More pertinent than any of these reasons, however, is the fact that the College provides the forum where students, committed to a common theological position, called to a common ecclesiastical work, and training for a common evangelical purpose, can live and learn together. Bonds are forged, fellowship is fostered, friendships are made, and the best interests of Presbyterian ministry are served as those who will work together first learn to train together. The denomination can surely only be enriched and enhanced by continuing to encourage and support such an institution.

What follows is a frank discussion of the challenges the College presently faces, particularly the difficulty filling certain professorial chairs.

The Communications Committee report contains three reports prepared to address public questions: Suicide, Transhumanism — Salvation by Technology?, and Sex Education in Scottish Schools: The Church’s Response.  All interesting reading but each a topic for another time.  (I would note that the topic of suicide is also an issue for the Church of Scotland Church and Society Council this year as well.)

Similarly, there is also an extensive (18 page) report from the Study Panel on Divorce and Remarriage.  And again, interesting reading and a topic for another time.

That brings us to what may be the issue at this Assembly that is drawing the most attention, the report of the Special Committee on Praise and the reverberations of the Plenary Assembly last Fall.  For more detailed coverage you can check out my post from that time, but to summarize, the special Plenary Assembly relaxed the church’s requirements for music in worship to be only unaccompanied singing of inspired words.  The Plenary Assembly also set up the Special Committee to “investigate, collect and, if necessary prepare from within the resources of the Church appropriate portions of Scripture, other than the 150 Psalms, in a form which accurately renders the thought of the original and is suitable for singing in public worship.”  At this juncture the committee is reporting in that it has begun its work and does not consider it necessary at this time to produce a specific supplemental worship resource for this music.

The other aspect to this topic is the response from the church to the actions of the Plenary Assembly.  There are seven overtures to this Assembly and two memorials and all of them address the action of the Plenary Assembly. (These can be found at the end of the Assembly Arrangements report and they make up most of that report)

[On a polity note, I ran across something here I did not expect and is outside my experience with Presbyterian polity.  It is usually the case that overtures can only be submitted by a lower governing body, but one of the overtures is from an individual.  Doing a read of the Free Church Practice it looks like a commissioner to Assembly can submit an overture where these are know as commissioner resolutions in other branches and frequently can not be submitted by a lone individual.]

The overtures generally address two issues.  The first is that the change in worship standards was not sent down to the presbyteries under the Barrier Act.  There are overtures from the Synod of North America, Western Isles Presbytery, Knockbain Kirk Session, and Lochs Kirk Session  that specifically ask for the legislation to be sent down to the presbyteries under the Barrier Act.  There are also overtures that deal with the nuances of the legislation regarding the existing secondary standards including relief of conscience consideration for officers who disagree with the decision and possible adjustments of of the Formula of Ordination.  These overtures come from Western Isles Presbytery (a second one from them), Edinburgh and Perth Presbytery, and Rev. Prof. John A. Macleod.

I will admit to personally being surprised at the time that the Plenary Assembly decision was not sent down to the presbyteries under the Barrier Act.  I want to publicly thank Mr. Horgan for some helpful discussion and insights into this polity question.  In particular he recommended an article from the Free Church on The Formula and the Psalms that answers many of these questions in a Q&A form.  This is a great article for polity wonks as it gives an historical perspective to the Acts of the church and the subtleties in the polity that do not require this to be sent down under the Barrier Act.  From a polity viewpoint I now better understand the situation, but the Assembly will wrestle with this decision themselves on Tuesday.  They get to make the decision and whether from the necessity of polity or from the desire to preserve connectionalism they may decide to put it to the presbyteries.

I want to conclude with mention of the two Memorials which are also related to the Plenary Assembly.  The first is from Officebearers, Members And Adherents of the Free Church.  It is a protest that, among other things, “the decision not to pass this unexpected and revolutionary Finding of the Plenary Assembly to Presbyteries through the Barrier Act is at variance with the constitution of the Church.”  They argue that the Plenary decision is null and void.

The second is similar, but is “From Young People of the Free Church.”  They begin:

We, the undersigned, are younger people who are concerned to ensure that we are not misrepresented in the debate regarding the worship practice of the Free Church. At the Assembly, and at other times, the assertion was made that the young people would welcome change and that the young would be lost to the church without change. „The young‟ are not some homogenous group who all think alike and who all have the same desires and preferences regarding the worship of our God. Many of us loved the Free Church as she was and believed her mode and manner of worship to have been both Scriptural and entirely honouring to our God. Following the decision taken at the plenary assembly to allow individual congregations to use hymns and instruments as part of their public worship we want to make our voices heard, to speak for ourselves in this matter and to detail our concerns. We care about our church and love her people. Above all we are concerned that God be exalted, that His will obeyed and that His Word be honoured.

They then argue against the actions of the Plenary Assembly and give give eight reasons they believe it will be detrimental to the church.

Lots and lots of interesting material here to mull over.  And lots for the commissioners to the Assembly to deliberate on this week.  May our prayers be with them as they join together to discern the will of God.  And we look forward to hearing about their discussions.  As the close of every overture says:

Or do otherwise as in their wisdom may seem best. And your petitioners will ever pray

PC(USA) Polity Implications Of Amendment 10-A Passage

7 Replies

Since the voting in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) on Amendment 10-A swung towards the affirmative I have had a number of people asking me, in one way or another, “So what will it mean?”  Well let me tackle that question with what I understand to be the knowns and the unknowns of the polity implications.

And as the voting gets down to just a few more votes required for approval there appears to be enough of this uncertainty circulating that the Office of the General Assembly has issued a Frequently Asked Questions paper.  The interesting thing is that I have not found it on the OGA web site yet, but it is being posted by presbyteries.

Now, this will become very polity wonkish very fast so if all you want is my opinion, and that is all that this discussion is, I do think that the new wording of the section we currently know as G-6.0106b shifts the responsibility back to the presbyteries and in doing so opens up the denomination for more local interpretation of ordination standards.  I also think that the moment there is more local interpretation there will follow the need for new GA Authoritative Interpretation, whether it comes from the Assembly or the Permanent Judicial Commission.

Let me first set out my presumptions that are going into the discussion leading to this conclusion:  1) Amendment 10-A becomes part of the Book of Order replacing the current G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” section. 2) The New Form of Government passes (currently leading 69-59 in the official tally and 72-65 on an unofficial one. 3) The Belhar Confession is not affirmed by 2/3 of the presbyteries. 4) The Authoritative Interpretation associated with the Report of the Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity is still in affect. 5) That procedural aspects of GAPJC decisions related to the PUP AI are still in place. 6) That other GAPJC decisions regarding (i) ordination standards (with the one exception noted below) and (ii) marriage are still valid.

The best place to begin is probably with the wording of the proposed G-6.0106b:

Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003).  Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”

First, some clean-up – Since the New Form of Government is being used for this exercise this is no longer G-6.0106b but is now G-2.0104b.  The reference to G-1.000 is now a little tricky since it refers to a whole chapter which exists in a new form.  The reference could be pointed to the beginning of the material that is in the old form which would now be at F-1.0200.  In general the wording has not changed but the change in position means the “Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life” has been pushed down in priority and the missional nature of the Church now gets top billing. 

Section G-14.0240 is now G-2.0402 and for this analysis appears to contain identical material regarding the examination for ordered ministry as a ruling elder or deacon.  The reference to G-14.0450 is regarding the final assessment for teaching elder and has been substantially reduced to remove the procedural items. However, I don’t see that these changes resulting in the new section G-2.0607 have substantial consequences relative to this amendment.  And the reference to the directory for worship (W-4.4003) remains the same.

Let me make just a couple of brief observations about the actual wording of the amendment.  The first is that it does explicitly make reference to installation, as well as ordination, of officers.  The second point is the inclusion of the phrase “shall examine.”  The old language was about the standards and the examination was left to other parts of the Book of Order, but always with the “shall” condition. Having said that, this adds a bit of required territory to the examination.  For ruling elders and deacons the Book of Order says in G-2.0402

…the session shall examine them as to their personal faith; knowledge of the doctrine, government, and discipline contained in the Constitution of the church; and the duties of the ministry.

And this section now adds

…shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and
suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall
include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s
ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the
constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003).

(Anybody want to submit an overture either consolidating this or adding the cross-reference to G-2.0402?)

The final point I want to make here is what I see as the awkwardness of the final sentence relative to our ordination language.  The new language says “Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions…” while the ordination questions in W-4.4003 uses slightly different language:

d. Will you fulfill your office in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and be continually guided by our confessions?

These may or may not be at odds with each other, but it will clearly be a point of discussion for some polity wonks.

The stated objective of this change, as expressed by the advice from the Assembly Committee on the Constitution is:

This overture seeks to restore the ordination practice and principles
affirmed in the Adopting Act of 1729, the paradigm through which the
tension between the differing points of view and the unity of the church
have been maintained through much of our denomination’s history.

And what is the Adopting Act of 1729?  This was an agreement by the members of the Synod of Philadelphia (at the time the highest governing body) about ordained officers agreeing to the Westminster Standards or being examined on their departures.  The preliminary notes to the Act include this:

And we do also agree, that all the Presbyteries within our bounds shall
always take care not to admit any candidate of the ministry into the exercise
of the sacred function, but what declares his agreement in opinion with
all the essential and necessary articles of said Confession, either by
subscribing the said Confession of Faith and Catechisms, or by a verbal
declaration of their assent thereto, as such Minister or candidate for
the Ministry shall think best. And in case any Minister of this Synod,
or any candidate for the ministry, shall have any scruple with respect
to any article or articles of said Confession or Catechisms, he shall
at the time of his making said declaration declare his sentiments to the
Presbytery or Synod, who shall, notwithstanding, admit him to the exercise
of the ministry within our bounds and to ministerial communion if the
Synod or Presbytery shall judge his scruple or mistake to be only about
articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship or government.
But if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge such Ministers or candidates
erroneous in essential and necessary articles of faith, the Synod or Presbytery
shall declare them uncapable of Communion with them.

Having that as a historical basis the 217th General Assembly adopted an Authoritative Interpretation recommended by the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity which said:

a. The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government of the Book of Order set forth the scriptural and constitutional standards for ordination and installation.

b.
These standards are determined by the whole church, after the careful
study of Scripture and theology, solely by the constitutional process of
approval by the General Assembly with the approval of the presbyteries.
These standards may be interpreted by the General Assembly and its
Permanent Judicial Commission.

c.
Ordaining and installing bodies, acting as corporate expressions of the
church, have the responsibility to determine their membership by
applying these standards to those elected to office. These
determinations include:

(1)
Whether a candidate being examined for ordination and/or installation
as elder, deacon, or minister of Word and Sacrament has departed from
scriptural and constitutional standards for fitness for office,
(2) Whether any departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108 of the Book of Order, thus barring the candidate from ordination and/or installation.

Whether
the examination and ordination and installation
decision comply with the constitution of the PCUSA, and whether the
ordaining/installing body has conducted its examination reasonably,
responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately in deciding to ordain a
candidate for church office is subject to review by higher governing
bodies.

e. All parties
should endeavor to outdo one another in honoring one another’s
decisions, according the presumption of wisdom to ordaining/installing
bodies in examining candidates and to the General Assembly, with
presbyteries’ approval, in setting standards.

At the present time this AI is still in effect, with certain modifications as noted below.

As presbyteries began working through this some of their procedures were challenged and several resulting remedial cases were summarized in the Bush v. Pittsburgh decision.  While this decision gave us several polity points, there are four relevant points, only the first of which will be nullified by the passage of 10-A.

  1. Candidates and examining bodies must follow G-6.0108 in reaching determinations as to whether the candidates for ordination and/or installation have departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity. Such determinations do not rest on distinguishing “belief” and “behavior,” and do not permit departure from the “fidelity and chastity” requirement found in G-6.0106b.
  2. The freedom of conscience granted in G-6.0108 allows candidates to express disagreement
    with the wording or meaning of provisions of the constitution, but does not permit disobedience to those behavioral standards. (quoted from the SJPC decision)
  3. Ordaining and installing bodies must examine candidates for ordination and/or installation individually.
  4. Attempts by governing bodies that ordain and install officers to adopt resolutions, statements or policies that paraphrase or restate provisions of the Book of Order and/or declare them as “essentials of Reformed faith and polity” are confusing and unnecessary; and are themselves an obstruction to constitutional governance in violation of G-6.0108a.

With the modification of G-6.0106b the part of the Bush decision which says “The church has decided to single out this particular manner of life standard and require church wide conformity to it for all ordained church officers” will be out of date and irrelevant.

Regarding point 2 above, this has been a point of, shall we say “discussion,” between GA entities as  the 218th GA affirmed, in response to the Bush decision, that a departure can be in belief or practice.  And clearly point 3 from Bush is still applicable, as evidenced by the fact that the OGA FAQ makes repeated reference to needing to do examinations on a case-by-case basis.

There are several other relevant decisions on which the GAPJC mostly delivered procedural decisions that clarified that the examination regarding a declared exception must come at the same time as the final examination for ordination.  It would seem that this provision must still hold if a candidate sees a need to declare a departure in a particular presbytery.

Finally, it is interesting to note that the Sallade v. Genesee Valley decision may still be relevant.  This decision pre-dates the Book of Order “fidelity and chastity” language and was argued on the basis of the Interpretations of 1978 and 1979.  While the “fidelity and chastity” language appears to be gone, and the General Assembly has eliminated the earlier Interpretations, for a presbytery that finds that an active same-sex lifestyle does not reflect “…the desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life,” the GAPJC’s finding may still be applicable: “Therefore, this commission holds that a self-affirmed practicing homosexual may not be invited to serve in a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) position that presumes ordination.”  On the other hand, since this decision is based on Interpretations which are no longer in effect it may need to be completely relitigated. The other polity aspect that could make this decision irrelevant is the fact that it addresses call and 10-A is about membership.  While these two parts are closely linked, in our polity they are different steps in the process.

So, at this point the general agreement seems to be that there is no longer any specific prohibitions in the Book of Order to ordination and installation but that each ordaining body, Session or Presbytery, “…shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”

In that light I think we are all well aware that a particular governing body could come down on either side of the question as to whether a self-affirmed practicing homosexual would meet the church’s “standards.”  The arguments from Scripture are well rehearsed at this time and attendance at your presbytery meeting where Amendment 10-A was voted upon is probably all that is necessary if you want to get an introduction to them.  The confessions are a bit quieter on the question.  The Heidelberg Catechism revision is not completed yet so the controversial wording is still present there, but with the knowledge that the new translation will probably temper that language.  It appears we do not yet have the Belhar Confession officially adopted to provide a model of broader inclusion of individuals as an extension of the racial inclusivity it speaks of.  And when the confessions speak of marriage it is usually in the context of “one man and one woman,” (e.g. 5.246, 6.131 & 6.133 ) or as an eschatological image.

While the Book of Order is not cited as a source of guidance here, the argument for “fidelity and chastity” as a standard could be made by extension of the definition of marriage in W-4.9001.  On the other hand, those who are arguing for inclusion can appeal to new language in section F-1.0403 where it says:

The unity of believers in Christ is reflected in the rich diversity of the Church’s membership. In Christ, by the power of the Spirit, God unites persons through baptism regardless of race, ethnicity, age, sex, disability, geography, or theological conviction. There is therefore no place in the life of the Church for discrimination against any person. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall guarantee full participation and representation in its worship, governance, and emerging life to all persons or groups within its membership. No member shall be denied participation or representation for any reason other than those stated in this Constitution.

So, if an explicit reason for exclusion has now been removed from the Constitution and no specific reason is listed, an argument could be made that now there must not be a barrier to ordination.

(For reference, this section is based on the old section G-4.0403 which said:

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall give full expression to the rich diversity within its membership and shall provide means which will assure a greater inclusiveness leading to wholeness in its emerging life. Persons of all racial ethnic groups, different ages, both sexes, various disabilities, diverse geographical areas, different theological positions consistent with the Reformed tradition, as well as different marital conditions (married, single, widowed, or divorced) shall be guaranteed full participation and access to representation in the decision making of the church. (G-9.0104) )

I could go on, but suffice it to say that governing bodies will now have to wrestle with the ambiguity and different interpretations and understandings that the theological breadth of the PC(USA) embraces.  But lets tackle one more question…

What happens when a presbytery says “No!”?

I think that this is really the question that is on everyone’s minds and I think that over-all this will be an uncommon occurrence.  Most of the individuals and governing bodies are politick enough to try to defuse this before it becomes an issue.  However, I think that it is almost certain that there will be a case in the next few years that will be brought to a synod PJC as a remedial case.

It should be noted that the OGA FAQ is clear about this point:

6. What practical changes will we see?< br>

If pastors, elders, and deacons who are ordained in one area move to another location, they shall be examined by that ordaining body before being able to take up their office. That body may choose to apply ordination standards differently from the officer’s previous body.

7. Is the ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians mandated?

No, it is not required, but it is no longer prohibited by specific Constitutional language.

12. May a presbytery continue to function with the standard of “fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” when examining candidates for ordination?

Yes, as long as the application is on a case by case basis. The new language calls the ordaining body to be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying ordination standards to each candidate.

13. Is a presbytery required to receive, by transfer of membership, an ordained sexually active gay or lesbian minister?

No, each presbytery determines which ministers to receive into its membership.

But, this would be just an opinion expressed by the OGA.  This is not a binding interpretation since that can only come from the Assembly or the GAPJC and they could decide differently on these questions.  (In fact, the two entities have been issuing different Interpretations on declared exceptions relative to practice as well as belief.)  To resolve the uncertainty will require a test case to go through the judicial system, an Authoritative Interpretation from the Assembly, or more definitive language added to the Book of Order.

As I indicate above, I think that there are enough Interpretations currently in place that a presbytery’s decision against a candidate, provided that the presbytery actually followed the detailed procedures the GAPJC has laid down so far, would withstand the challenge.  I think that this is particularly true of a candidate for ordination.  There is a “wildcard” regarding the decision most likely to arise in regards to an ordained teaching elder who is a candidate for an installed position in a different presbytery.  The issue that the American Presbyterian Church has always had with presbyteries deciding standards going all the way back to the Adopting Act is what we now have as F-3.0203.

These presbyters shall come together in councils in regular gradation. These councils are sessions, presbyteries, synods, and the General Assembly. All councils of the church are united by the nature of the church and share with one another responsibilities, rights, and powers as provided in this Constitution. The councils are distinct, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate council. The larger part of the church, or a representation thereof, shall govern the smaller. (emphasis added)

So if ordination is an “act of the whole church” can a differently governing body “choose to apply ordination standards differently from the officer’s previous body” as it says in question 6 of the FAQ.

There are other unknowns here are well.  One is what the nature and authority of the definition of marriage (W-4.9001) will be in the next few years.  Another, is the inclusivity statement in F-1.0403 mentioned above and whether this new wording, combined with the removal of an explicit requirement, will provide the basis for a new Interpretation.

As I wrap this up let me move on to the item that half of you are probably saying “when is he going to get to it” and the other half are saying “don’t go there, don’t go there, don’t go there…”  As much as we would like to think of this as ancient history, in many of the discussions I have been in this has been hovering like a ghost in the background and I think no discussion of the topic can really avoid it. SO…

One word – “Kenyon.”

Yup, I went there. 

Now for those who have not picked up on this it refers to a GAPJC remedial case in the United Presbyterian Church in the USA branch back in 1975.  The case is officially known as Maxwell v. Pittsburgh Presbytery. It involves Mr. Walter Wynn Kenyon, a candidate for ordination as a teaching elder who declared an exception to the church’s stand that women should be ordained as teaching and ruling elders.  He stated his Scriptural basis for this matter of conscience, said that he would not participate in the ordination of a woman, and that he would let others know the basis for his belief.  However, he also said that beyond that he would work with elders who were women and would not interfere with their ordination if it were done by others.  (For reference, the mainline Presbyterian church had been ordaining women as ruling elders for 44 years and as teaching elders for 18 years.)  The presbytery accepted his departure as non-essential and sustained his examination but the Synod PJC found that the presbytery had erred and on appeal the GAPJC concurred.

The GAPJC wrote:

The United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and guided by its confessions, has now developed its understanding of the equality of all people (both male and female) before God. It has expressed this understanding in the Book of Order with such clarity as to make the candidate’s stated position a rejection of its government and discipline.

This is pretty much the same conclusion that the GAPJC came to in the Bush decision – that you can depart in belief but not in practice.  (It is argued whether or not Mr. Kenyon was departing in practice as well as belief, but the GAPJC decision rejects his argument that it is only in belief and provides their reasoning for that conclusion.)  But I find the language of the recent decisions an echo of this decision.  Consider one of the concluding paragraphs which makes no mention of the nature of the standard in question:

Nevertheless, to permit ordination of a candidate who has announced that he cannot subscribe to the cited constitutional provisions has implications for the Church far beyond that one instance. The precedent, if applied generally, would affect every session, presbytery, synod, and the General Assembly, and more than one-half of our Church’s members. The challenged decision of Presbytery was not unique or of but minimal significance. The issue of equal treatment and leadership opportunity for all (particularly without regard to considerations of race and sex) is a paramount concern of our Church. Neither a synod nor the General Assembly has any power to allow a presbytery to grant an exception to an explicit constitutional provision.

The implications of the Authoritative Interpretation from the Assembly permitting declaring departures in belief and practice is left as an exercise for the reader.

No, a Kenyon-like decision in the current debate regarding ordination standards is not very likely in the near or intermediate-term.  Before we get to that point additional Interpretations or explicit constitutional language will have to be in place.  But it is interesting the number of people on both sides of this issue that expect a similar decision sometime in the future.

Well, as you can see from the length of this article there is probably not a simple answer to what the polity landscape will look like in next few years.  It is why I am cautious in accepting the OGA FAQ as “the answer.”  There is plenty of room for new interpretations in the next few years even if no new language is added to the Book of Order. It will be interesting to see from whence the next refinement of this polity question comes.

Stay tuned…

The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland — Discussion Over Ordination Standards

1 Reply

One of the reasons that I started writing this blog was the objective to focus on Presbyterianism broadly — not just one branch or one region, but its ebb and flow as a global institution.  And one of the motivations for doing this was the fact that Presbyterian branches in different areas may be working through similar issues.

Well, as the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) nears the climax of its voting on Amendment 10-A regarding ordination standards the Church of Scotland is preparing for the 2011 meeting of its General Assembly where they will be addressing the same issue.

The issue came before the GA in the context of a specific case back in 2009 when a church called a partnered gay minister and while the presbytery concurred some members of the presbytery filed a protest and the full Assembly heard the case.  While the Assembly upheld the decision of the presbytery it took two additional actions.  First, it formed the Special Commission on Same-Sex Relationships and the Ministry which had the remit to “to consult with all Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions and to prepare a
study on Ordination and Induction to the Ministry of the Church of
Scotland” in light of this issue and a past report.  The Assembly also placed a broad moratorium on the church that prohibited both the induction and ordination of partnered homosexuals as well as restricting discussion of this topic to meetings of governing bodies.

The commission has been hard at work for the last two years and their report and study is coming to the 2011 Assembly.  The report has the deliverance, which I will get to in a moment, and contains the results of their consultations as well. The reports web page also has five additional resources, including spreadsheets containing their data.

There are nine items in the deliverance and the first and last are straight-forward — to receive the report and to discharge the commission with thanks.

Some of the remaining items are related to the church’s relationship to homosexual Christians in a broad sense and includes 2(i)(1) “It is contrary to God’s will that Christians should be hostile in any way to a person because he or she is homosexual by orientation and in his or her practice,” as well as 2(i)(2) that Christians are to be welcoming “regardless of [a person’s] sexual orientation and practice.”  In 2(i)(3) it also recognizes that the church needs to reach out pastorally to those “who find it difficult or impossible to reconcile their orientation with their understanding of God’s purposes as revealed in the Bible.”  And finally, there is a statement [2(ii)(4)] that it is not sexual orientation itself which is a barrier to membership or leadership roles in the church.  The deliverance also reaffirms discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unlawful in the church, with certain exceptions contingent on other parts of the deliverance.  But within this section, while it declares that “we view homophobia as sinful,” it clarifies this with the statement “We do not include in the concept of homophobia both the bona fide belief that homosexual practice is contrary to God’s will and the responsible statement of that belief in preaching or writing.”

As to the contentious part concerning ordination standards the Commission presents the Assembly two options in item 7 that would represent a step in one or the other direction.  Option “a” is “an indefinite moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship thus maintaining the traditional position of the Church.”  Option “b” is “the lifting of the moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship.”

As I said, each option is a first step and does not represent final language but comes with enabling language to have the Theological Commission, Ministries Council and Legal Questions Committee consider the position and propose the appropriate language to the 2012 Assembly if the prohibition remains and the 2013 Assembly if it is lifted.  In other words, if anything were to go to the presbyteries under the Barrier Act it would not be this year and probably not the next.  That Theological Commission I mentioned is a new entity proposed in item 6.

The deliverance, in item 8, would continue the moratorium on accepting candidates and conducting ordinations for at least another two years and item 5 would continue the moratorium on talking publicly about it.

That leaves item 4.  The language throughout the deliverance is generally related to “training and ordination” and induction and installation are not addressed except in this item.  In number 4 it is proposed to permit “the induction into pastoral charges of ministers and deacons ordained before May 2009 who are in a same-sex relationship.”

So that is the deliverance for the Assembly to debate. This is the only report docketed for Monday 23 May beginning at 9:30 AM Edinburgh time.

Now, taking a look at the body of the report it is interesting to see where the leaders of the Church of Scotland are on this issue.  The Commission sent out a series of questions to both Kirk Sessions and presbyteries to get feedback on this issue.  This was not a random sampling but an effort to get full participation in this consultation.   They got 1237 responses from 1273 sessions (some linked and neighboring sessions responded together) out of 1473 congregations.  There were 22,342 ruling and teaching elders that participated in this.  But the numbers come with this qualification:

2.4 We wish to state clearly that although exact figures are given in the following analysis this appearance of precision is to some extent illusory…

The report then goes on to detail certain data issues, such as how some questions have fewer responses than participants and how a few have more.  But they make the case that these are minor issues and while the results may not be ideal, or represent a truly statistical sample, the results are none-the-less pretty reliable and representative.

Regarding the presbyteries, the Commission received responses from all 45 presbyteries representing 2624 teaching and ruling elders.

The questions were divided into four sections and several of the questions gave a range of possible answers.  For example, question set 2 was on Approaches to same-sex relationships and the first question asked “Do you hold a clear position on same-sex relationships and how they should be regarded or do you find yourself uncertain as to the precise nature of God’s will for the Church on this issue?”  To this question 72.8% of members of Kirk Sessions and 77.5% of the members of Presbyteries responded that they had a clear position.  The section then went on to ask:

2b: Do any of the following descriptions help you to summarise your present position fairly and accurately?

i) We regard homosexual orientation as a disorder and homosexual behaviour as sinful. Gay and lesbian people should avoid same-sex sexual relationships, and, ideally, seek to be rid of homosexual desires. Unrepentant gay and lesbian people should not have leadership roles in the church.

ii) We accept homosexual orientation as a given, but disapprove of homosexual behaviour. We do not reject gay and lesbian people as people, but reject same-sex sexual activity as being sinful. Gay and lesbian people in sexual relationships should not have leadership roles in the church.

iii) We accept homosexual orientation as a given and disapprove of homosexual behaviour but recognise that some same-sex relationships can be committed, loving, faithful and exclusive – though not the ideal, which is male-female. However, because of the different standards required of those in Christian leadership, gay and lesbian people in sexual relationships, even if civil partnerships, should not have leadership roles in the church.

iv) We accept homosexual orientation as a given, and accept homosexual behaviour as equivalent morally to heterosexual behaviour. Civil partnerships provide the best environment for loving same-sex relationships. Gay and lesbian people, whether in sexual relationships or not, should be assessed for leadership roles in the church in an equivalent way to heterosexual people.

v) We accept homosexual orientation as a given part of God’s good creation. The Christian practice of marriage should be extended to include exclusive, committed same-sex relationships which are intended to be life-long. Gay and lesbian people, whether in sexual relationships or not, should be
assessed for leadership roles in the church in an equivalent way to heterosexual people.

Position (i) was favored by 8.8% of Session members and 11.3% of Presbytery members, position (ii) by 17.9% and 21.7%, position (iii) by 21.5% and 15.9%, position (iv) by 24.4% and 23.9% and position (v) by 19.4% and 17.5% respectively.

Question set 1 was about The Biblical Witness, set 2 Approaches to Same-Sex Relationships, set 3 about Ordination/Leadership in the Church and set 4 about the Unity of the Church of Scotland.  The section of the report that follows the enumeration of the responses discusses the findings.

As you can see from the responses to question 2b above, the church is evenly divided with respect leadership with the first three opinions, which argued against leadership positions, having 48.2% of the Session members responding while 43.8% favored one or the other of the last two responses which included leadership.

Question 3b specifically addressed the ordination of ministers (3b: Should a person in a same-sex relationship be permitted to be an ordained minister within the Church?) and members of Kirk Sessions answered 38.2% yes and 56.2% no.  It is interesting to compare this with the question on the Presbyterian Panel survey from the PC(USA) which asked “Would you personally like to see the PC(USA) permit sexually active gay and lesbian persons to be ordained to the office of minister of Word and Sacrament?”  In that 2008 survey 30% of ruling elders currently serving on sessions answered probably or definitely yes and 60% answered probably or definitely not.  For those classified as Pastors in that survey it was 44% yes and 48% no.  As another point of comparison, the vote at the 2009 General Assembly to refuse the dissent and complaint was 326 (55%) yes and 267 (45%) no – if that has any application to the present debate.  And in the PC(USA) the voting on Amendment 10-A is currently trending 55% yes votes by the presbyters.

When question 3b was reported as if it were a Presbytery vote on the issue it came out 7 yes, 37 no, and one tie.  However, question 3d, which asked about someone in an civil partnership being in a leadership position, did have majority support — 31-14.

Question set 4 asked about the Unity of the Church of Scotland with 4a giving a range of five responses ranging from changing the ordination standards would be heretical to not changing the standards being heretical with “deep-seated disagreement and personal disappointment” in either direction and not regarding the decision “particularly significant” for the church in the middle.  The session members responded with 9.7% saying it would be heretical to change, 28.1% would strongly disagree with the change, 19.6% did not consider it significant, 24.3% would strongly disagree if it did not change and 3.5% saying it would be heretical if it did not change.

In the discussion section the Commission notes this about the Presbytery responses:

3.13 In relation to question 4a: it is clear that a majority of Presbyteries opposed the ordination of a person in a committed same-sex relationship. If that vote were to be replicated in a vote on an innovating overture under the Barrier Act, that proposal would fail.

Question 4b asked “Would you consider it obligatory to leave the Church of Scotland under any of the following conditions?”  The conditions given include allowing the ordination of people in committed same-sex relationships to be ordained as ministers or to be in leadership, forbidding either of these, or if the GA were to make no clear statement.  The responses for each of the five are somewhat similar with between 8% and 20% answering yes and 73% to 78% answering no.

And finally, for the polity wonks, the last question asks about leaving the decision up to the lower governing bodies and 61.1% of session members and 71.2% of presbytery members say that the decision must lie with the General Assembly.

I hope this summary gives you a good idea where the leadership (remember, this was not a survey of the members but a consultation with the ruling and teaching elders) of the Church of Scotland is on these issues.  The section with the questions and the following section with the discussion have some other interesting points buried in them.

This study has a lot more in it besides the results of the consultation including the results of Consultation with Other Churches which gives a great summary of where other Presbyterian branches globally are on this issue.  (If you are wondering what it says about the PC(USA), it is not mentioned specifically but probably falls into the paragraph that says: 4.9 All the other responding churches continue in a process of discernment aimed at maintaining fellowship and unity.)

The study also contains the usual review of the scientific literature (Sexual Orientation: The Lessons and Limits of Science) and the web site has two additional review papers. There is also a section discussing the personal stories the Commission heard. And there is a section discussing the nature of ordained ministry.  But near the end of that section, and as transition to the next, the report says in paragraph 7.28: “Nonetheless, we see no basis for allowing the ordination of people in same-sex relationships unless or until the Church has resolved the broader question of the theological status of such relationships.”  As they note at the end, helping resolve this question would be part of the work of the Theological Commission.  (And this ordering is probably striking to me since the PC(USA) is taking it in the other order with marriage questions being debated but the ordination standards about to change.)

While the Commission report ends with a Conclusions and Recommendations section, the extended discussion in the second-to-last section attempts to synthesize all of the preceding work.  It is a good summary of the situation including what the church can agree on and where the members of the Commission, and by extension the church in general, disagree. It covers much of the same ground that similar reports have so I won’t attempt a summary of the 82 paragraphs over the 12 pages.  I will note that, as suggested above, the topic is considered in parallel with the consideration of the nature of marriage.

As I mentioned earlier, the Commission is proposing two options that offer a first step in a particular direction.  In the conclusion the Commission describes it like this:

9.2 In our recommendations we put forward as alternatives two options. In each case they are trajectories rather than firm decisions which can be reached now. This is because the divisions do not point to the adoption, here and now, of a radical stance in either direction. The General Assembly is therefore invited to express a view on the direction which it thinks the Church should take; but, if our recommendations are accepted, it will be the task of a future General Assembly in either 2012 or 2013 to determine whether or not to move in that direction, assisted by the further work which we propose that the Church should undertake.

9.3 Both trajectories recognise the need for further discernment and engagement between those of differing views. By working together for twenty months, we have learnt from each other; and we believe that the Church will benefit from such genuine engagement. Both trajectories also involve, among other things, the creation of a theological commission to assist the Church in deciding the direction it wishes to take. The Special Commission, of which we are the members, is not a theological commission as several of us have no theological training. We recommend that an authoritative theological commission should be composed of theologians of standing. This theological commission will ensure the
continuance of engagement and discernment under whichever of the trajectories the General Assembly may choose.

My only polity comment here is my bias to see both teaching elders (Ministers of Word and Sacrament) and ruling elders on the Theological Commission if it is created.

Let me return for a moment to question 4b, option (i).  The question asked if the elder would consider it obligatory to leave the Church of Scotland “if the General Assembly were to allow people in committed same-sex relationships to be ordained as ministers.”  To this question 19.4% of the members of Kirk Sessions answered yes, 30 Kirk Sessions were unanimously yes, 19.5% of members of presbyteries answered yes, and three presbyteries had a majority vote for this position.

I single out this question because much of the media coverage leading up to the Assembly seems to be on the Commission report, and many of those articles are questioning the unity of the church.  The Just Out blog has the headline “Church of Scotland fears schism over gay clergy.” Pink News says “Thousands could leave Church of Scotland over gay clergy.”  Of course, there are more moderate headlines and articles, like the Herald Scotland column “Church needs dialogue over gay ministers.”  How much these stories are trying to get attention with dramatic predictions is yet to be seen.  And in the end, the process will be as important as the final decision that is reached.

So mark you calendars for the Church of Scotland GA beginning on 21 May, and include the order of the day on Monday 23 May.  And pray for the body as it gathers to discern God’s will together.

Whither The PC(USA)? Wither The PC(USA)?

5 Replies

What next?  What does this mean?

I suspect that many of you have also been hearing these questions whispered and shouted as Amendment 10-A looks fairly certain to be approved by the presbyteries and replace the “fidelity and chastity” section of the Book of Order.  And I suspect that you are also hearing in the discussion of its passage the suggestion that there will be a resulting increase in the already high departure rate from the denomination or the comments that the next major Book of Order section to be changed will be the definition of marriage (W-4.9001) and then an exodus will really begin.

Well, as regular readers are aware, I have a particular interest in the dynamics of the realignments in Presbyterian branches (example 1, example 2, example 3).  Needless to say, I have been thinking about some of these questions in the larger context of the history of American Presbyterianism and what the church might look like in the near future.  So here is a back of the envelope calculation and a thought experiment related to what is next.  Because this discussion is currently gaining momentum in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I will be focusing on that branch, but I think a lot of this is easily generalized to other branches and denominations.

Experiment 1: Reality Check – The theological controversy is not the only membership decline issue
Frequently in the PC(USA) we hear that the denomination is losing members because of the internal controversies.  Well, it is probably a bit more complicated than that.

If we look at the summary of comparative statistics for 2009, the most recent year that is available, we can first make a rough estimate of the replacement capacity of the PC(USA).  In 2009 there were 20,501 individuals age 17 and under that joined the church by affirmation of faith. This is effectively the “internal gain,” that is the kids that come through the system from member families.  This represents a 1.0% membership gain for 2009.  This is offset by those that leave the rolls due to their new membership in the Church Triumphant, that is, those that have died.  For 2009 that was 32,827 or a loss of 1.5% of the membership.  So the net of -0.5% represents the church’s inability to replace its membership internally.

The other thing is that all of the mainline churches are declining in membership.  But within this decline there is a difference in the rates of decline relative to the strength of internal controversy in the churches.  For the six traditional “mainline” denominations that make the National Council of Churches 25 largest list, the less contentious United Methodist Church and American Baptist Churches in the USA declined by 1.01% and 1.55% respectively.  The three with more heated internal controversy had larger declines: PC(USA) declined 2.61%, the Episcopal Church declined 2.48%, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America declined 1.96%.  It would suggest that we could attribute at least 1%, and probably a bit more, of the PC(USA)’s decline to the internal controversy itself.  But that is only about half the total decline with the other half broken into about one-third the lack of internal replacement and about two-thirds the general decline in the mainline and the trend towards non-denominationalism.

Now the case can be made that these three factors are nothing more than different facets of the same general problem that the mainline faces — a younger generation shuns the “institutional” nature of the church with its continuing controversies in a hierarchical setting and their departure for the non-denominational or the “nones” raises the median age and decreases the birthrate.  However, the apparent correlation of membership declines with internal controversy is striking but not a complete explanation.

Experiment 2: Where could things go from here?
This is a fairly simple thought experiment — Let us begin with the question of the different paths forward and exploring a range of possible outcomes and then reflect briefly on the likelihood of each.  I’ll be structuring this a bit like a decision tree so at some point I can revisit it and place probabilities on the various outcomes. Also, I am trying to keep this as a generalization so it is applicable in other instances. And along the way here I have a notation to systematically label the different cases.

The first question is whether the denomination remains as a single body ( A ) or formally divides ( B ).

For branch A, where the denomination remains a single body, we could imagine one outcome where a unifying state is found (A1) and another where the church is internally divided (A2).

I think that taking this one more level is appropriate, and so let me suggest that the unifying state could be either a formal arrangement that resolves the issues and all sides accept as a solution (A1a) and maybe they are even happy with – a “win-win” situation” – or an acceptance to live by the decision of the majority submitting to Presbyterian polity that the church has gone through the discernment process to reach the decision and the church lives with that (A1b).

Now what if there is one body but with internal divisions – there could be either a formal and institutionalized arrangement (A2a) or a de facto division into clearly defined but not formally recognized divisions (A2b).

The other top branch is the formal division of a denomination into two distinct and separate bodies.  I must admit a bit more wrestling with this classification scheme and I’m not sure that always carrying it two levels further down works.  One form would be a formal division without specific action on the part of either side (B1). (More clarification on this in a moment.)  Another option would be division by action of only one side (B2).  For this we could consider two cases, one where the action is taken by the majority/dominant/controlling side (B2a) and the other where the action is taken by the minority/dissenting side (B2b).  Finally, there would be another case (B3) where the action is taken by mutual agreement of both sides.

Now, some clarifications of this system. First, this is a unary or binary system and only considers what is going on in one body that may be dividing into two bodies.  It does not consider a ternary system where some fraction is moved between two bodies.  In that case it would be viewed as a division of one and a unification of the second.  Second, as this example suggests, this system does not “map” the evolution of a division but only captures a description and classification of it at one point in time — a snapshot at an instant.  Third, it simplifies the situation of a whole body down to one category while a more complex description of different conditions at various levels may be better.  Finally, I have not yet reflected this classification system onto the reverse case of the merging of bodies.

So a quick check as to whether this scheme makes sense — here are some examples from Presbyterian history.

A1a – I would place the initial response for the Adopting Act of 1729 into this category where a solution was found that, at least temporarily, resolved the polity issue.  This was also the hope for the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Uni
ty and Purity (PUP Report), although it is not clear that this hope was ever realized.

A1b – The category of living with the present polity even if opposed to it probably describes much of Presbyterian history — to use a liturgical analogy this is the “ordinary time” of our history.  This category does not preclude working to change what is disagreed with, but it suggests maintaining the system and the discussion while also maintaining a sense of being the Body of Christ together.

A2a – While the body living with a formal internal division is not at all common, it is not unheard of either.  This was part of the solution to reunify the mainline back in 1758 to resolve the Old/New Side split.  The existence of the continuing Old Side/New Side presbyteries in the following years is a suggested prototype for some of the flexible presbyteries and New Synod proposals circulating currently.

A2b – The case can be made that this unofficial status of division represents the present state of the PC(USA) with individuals identifying more with the various affinity groups in the church than with the denomination as a whole.

B1 – This is the category that I have the most difficulty defining because I am not sure that it can easily apply to a denomination as a whole, but rather represents a subdivision of the body.  However, I was looking for a category to represent the present church-by-church migration away from the PC(USA) through the New Wineskins organization.  So here, rather than leaving en masse, maybe the church divides through incremental departures.

B2a – Probably the premier example of the controlling group (and not necessarily the majority) forcing the division is the PCUSA General Assembly of 1837 where the Old School commissioners “locked out” a portion of the New School commissioners and controlled the Assembly.  It can be argued that this quickly became category B3 where the two sides basically agreed that they wanted to go it alone without the other.

B2b – This may be the most common category in the formal divisions of branch “B” with the majority group making a decision or disciplining a group or individual and that action precipitates a formal departure by members of the minority.  Well known examples of this division include the Disruption of 1843 in Scotland where the Free Church of Scotland formed from the established Church of Scotland and the controversies in the PCUSA in the 1930’s that would lead to a division and formation of a branch that would later become the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

B3 – The best examples I know of in this category are related to Presbyterian reunions where a small group dissents and is permitted to not be part of the merger and usually continue are their own individual branch.  This includes the continuing Free Church of Scotland churches that did not join the United Free Church in 1900, the churches from the Cumberland Presbyterian Church that did not join the PCUSA in 1906, the churches in the Presbyterian Church in Canada that did not become part of the United Church in 1925 and the Australian churches that did not join the Uniting Church in 1977 but continued as the Presbyterian Church in Australia.  Even more recently, with the reunion that formed the PC(USA) in 1983, there was an opportunity for churches that were part of the Presbyterian Church in the United States to depart after the merger.  It may be appropriate to have subcategories B3a for a mutual division that is not merger related and B3b for the case of a merger where a group is allowed to opt out of the union.

So, if you were keeping score at home you can see that the scheme I set up initially is not hypothetical but has examples from throughout Presbyterian history for each of the categories I suggest.

Discussion
So at this point some of you may be wondering whether my two experiments are “apples and oranges.”  After all, the first involves changes on the individual level and the second involves categorizing ecclesiastical changes at the highest levels.  Let me suggest that they are related…

These two forces are the tension the PC(USA), and other mainline churches, struggle with today.  Those who still honor or understand denominational identity are looking at how that identity can be perpetuated and the modern ethos asks what the need for denominations is in the first place.  Maybe the question to ask at this point is whether some of these categories of divisions could even happen today?  To put it another way – As Western religious culture has transformed to a non-denominational model would we see a denomination divide in the same ways that it has in the past?  Would we see a denomination truly divide at all or would it just dissipate?

Many of the great reorganizations and realignments in the Presbyterian church were based on the conviction of those involved that they were Presbyterian, but in good conscience could not accept some particular doctrinal or polity issue and so they removed themselves to be the variety of Presbyterians they thought God was calling them to be.

In the discussion above about membership loss the point is that some of the loss is not related to what it means to be Presbyterian, it is about finding a church that fits my tastes or has a style I can relate to.  If we are now in a non-denominational age then being a Presbyterian means a whole lot less than it did even 40 years ago.

Related to divisions in the church, this raises the question of whether a dissenting group could get enough critical mass to form a new Presbyterian branch.  That is why I was so determined to find some description for B1, the incremental informal departure.

So based on the present conditions which of these categories are likely outcomes and which are not?  Group A1 is probably not likely since the PUP Report was apparently not accepted as a unifying solution and the ongoing discussion over ordination standards and the questions about the future if 10-A passes seem to imply that there are concerns in some quarters of the current or future polity.  If we are looking for a unifying solution is must transcend the polity debates.  So, unless a unifying solution can be found, if we want to keep the PC(USA) together we are considering branch A2 – somehow living with or working out an internal division.  So far the General Assembly has been reluctant to approve flexible presbyteries or a parallel synod.  Whether you want to identify our current state as A1b or A2b the bottom line is that the membership decline will most likely continue as long as the current state continues — I would suggest considering alternatives.

Following the other path, there is discussion of a division in the church if 10-A passes.  I’m not sure I want to place exact odds on explicit division, or any particular form of formal division.  But as I mentioned above, the B1 division continues with departures of individual congregations (another one last week) and so like status quo on branch A, there is no reason to expect this not to continue.  The problem with branch B of course is that any alternative means two smaller denominations.  The alternatives, after doing nothing, are 1) keep working to find a unifying solution, 2) create internal parallel structures, 3) by one method or another create two smaller denominations and see if that configuration is stable for both of them.

Now, as you can see from my list above you can’t use the seven last words of the church here: “We’ve never done it that way before.”  You could argue that its not the way its supposed to be done.  I can relate to that — remember I have a good friend who pretty accurately describes me as a “polity fundamentalist.”  I don’t like the notion of a flexible ecclesialogy at all. Its just not… well, ITS NOT PRESBYTERIAN!

Please don’t think that I am abandoning Presbyterian polity for the purely pragmatic p
urpose of reversing membership decline.  But, for those of us who value Presbyterian polity it appears that we have two choices – 1) Maintain the status quo and live with 50,000 member/year losses or 2) Consider what it really means to be Presbyterian (sovereignty of God, connectionalism, meetings, discerning the will of God together, etc.) and find creative ways to be the Church in modern society while holding on to our core beliefs and (I think this is important) letting people know why we value the essentials of our polity.  If being Presbyterian means something to us let people know why!

I pray daily for the Middle Governing Bodies Commission.  I am encouraged by Tod Bolsinger’s comments at our Synod Assembly that the Commission will be looking for ideas to try on a demonstration basis.  I hope that we all have the courage to try some creative ideas that may or may not work, but show that we can still be Presbyterian and do things in a new way.  Maybe they would be along the lines of unifying ideas or maybe trying to live under the same tent with polity that differs a bit.  I don’t know but I look forward to the suggestions.

So where is the denomination headed?  Whither the PC(USA)? I don’t know.  But I do know that if we keep doing what we are doing the PC(USA) will continue to wither.

Postscript: After posting and reflecting on this piece I realized that a part in my original outline that hit the cutting room floor provided a certain balance to the tension I develop.  Rather than go back and add it to the original (there was a reason it got pulled) let me add three sentences here: What I don’t develop, but have mentioned elsewhere, is the non-organizational aspect of the membership decline.  What studies are finding (Almost Christian, Vanishing Boundaries) is the need for mainliners to develop their spiritual focus, depth and expectations.  If we subscribe to that remedy than we need to take Deep and Wide, or similar initiatives, seriously.

Synod PJC Upholds the Presbytery PJC Decision In Spahr Case

2 Replies

The Rev. Jane Adams Spahr appealed the decision of the Presbytery of the Redwoods Permanent Judicial Commission in her disciplinary case to the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Pacific. The appeal was heard Friday March 25 and the decision released early last week.  The executive summary is that the Synod PJC, without dissent, did not sustain any of the 13 specifications of error and attached an interesting comment section which identifies two important points of polity for the General Assembly PJC to consider on further appeal.  The Presbytery PJC decision remains in force.

Briefly, the background in this case is that the Rev. Spahr was previously tried for preforming same-sex ceremonies that could be interpreted as a Christian marriage but the GAPJC found that, by the definition in the Book of Order, a same-sex union can not be a marriage and therefore she was not guilty because what she was charged with was not possible (Spahr(2008) decision).  The Rev. Spahr has since conducted more ceremonies and has been charged again with this offense.  The Presbytery PJC found her guilty, following the GAPJC precedent and interpretation, and gave her both a rebuke and an apology for having to find her guilty under current church law.

There is an important and pressing polity issue embedded in this case which is the situation of preforming same-sex marriages in a civil jurisdiction that permits them, in this case California during the “window period,” but when the church does not permit or recognize them.  In the recent Southard decision, which involved a marriage ceremony in Massachusetts, this issue was not addressed since the GAPJC dismissed the charges on appeal based on the fact that the Rev. Southard performed the ceremony before the Spahr (2008) decision was published.  [Correction: this issue was addressed – see the comment below]

In this present case the facts are not in doubt — all those concerned are clear that the ceremonies preformed were intended to be rituals of Christian marriage officiated by an officer of the church and were consistant with the laws of the State of California at the time of the ceremonies.  But as the SPJC notes at the beginning of the Preliminary Statement “…the outcome of this case depends upon the application of ecclesiastical precedent to those facts.”

The SPJC notes that the controlling precedent is the Southard decision and goes on to say:

The question is this: in the performance of these same-gender marriages, did Spahr’s participation in any way “state, imply or represent” that these ceremonies were ecclesiastical marriages, the standard set in Southard? This Commission concludes that it did.

After a summary review of the facts and testimony in the case the SPJC concludes with

The standard at the time Spahr conducted the weddings and the standard used by the PPJC in arriving at its decision was Spahr (2008), which held “that officers of the PC(USA) authorized to perform marriages shall not state, imply or represent that a same sex ceremony is a marriage.” Southard followed and offered a more narrow view. This Commission is compelled to follow Southard as the most recent decision by the GAPJC. There is no prejudice to the parties because the conduct prohibited by Southard is a subset of the conduct previously prohibited by Spahr (2008).

Because of the number of specifications of error, and the fact that none were sustained, I will not walk through all 13.  The key specification was number 2 — “The Presbytery Permanent Judicial Commission erred in constitutional interpretation when it determined the Rev. Jane Adams Spahr committed ‘the offense of representing that a same sex ceremony was a marriage.'”  The response to this specification is the longest, references back to the Preliminary Statement and wraps up with “Under both Spahr (2008) and Southard, the implication that a civil marriage is also an ecclesiastical marriage when performed for same-sex couples is a violation of the constitutional standard.”  The decisions in three other specifications refer back to this rational.

In three of the specifications of error (9, 10, and 11) the specification points to sections of the Book of Order related to inclusion and justice and makes the claim that the PPJC decision “…constitutes both error in constitutional interpretation and injustice in the decision.”  In all three cases the SPJC responded “The constitutional interpretations of Spahr (2008) and Southard by the PPJC are not inconsistent with the Book of Order when read as a whole.”

And for the polity wonks, the SPJC did their job fact checking the specifications of error because they note that one reference cited in a specification (G-5.0502) “has no application to this case” and that another (G-5.0202) does not exist.

The SPJC has included at the end of the decision a one-page Comments section where they make note of three important polity points in this case.

Let me jump to point 2 first, because this is the church-state matter I have raise before. The SPJC raises the concern for the pastoral role of Teaching Elders and here is their comment, in its entirety with my emphasis added in the last paragraph:

2. This Commission has a continuing concern about the pastoral role of a Minister of Word and Sacrament to those same-gender partners who wish to have a civil marriage. Spahr and Southard help to clarify the difference between civil and ecclesiastical weddings and the prohibitions required from PCUSA clergy in officiating at same-gender ecclesiastical weddings.

Our concern is for those PCUSA clergy who wish to officiate at a same-gender civil wedding. What would such a minister need to do to faithfully perform a civil wedding while conforming to PCUSA polity regarding ecclesiastical weddings? Would a Minister of Word and Sacrament be faithful to PCUSA polity, for example, if they officiated in a civil wedding outside a church plant, performed without any reference to the Directory for Worship, have the wedding license signed with no reference to a denomination or an ordination, or sans any other implication stated or unstated to the PCUSA? Or, is it a violation of church polity for PCUSA clergy to officiate at a civil same-gender wedding in all circumstances?

In a time when increasing numbers of states permit same-gender weddings and civil unions, it is important for the church to clarify how its clergy might pastorally participate in such secular occasions while honoring the PCUSA’s definition of Christian marriage.

I mention this first because I think their first points relates to this.  The first comment is about the role of the GAPJC in interpreting the constitution: “It is troubling that the GAPJC appears to have usurped the legislative province of the General Assembly when it created a new basis for discipline in Spahr (2008)… Whatever our opinion of the principle may be, it would appear that if the GAPJC has authority to proscribe specific behavior in this instance, it may do so in many other instances as well.”

An important and interesting observation, but one I do not entirely agree with.  I agree that any issue is best dealt with through the full General Assembly, but we also must realize the the Assembly has limitations in time.  At one time in the mainline church, and currently in some Presbyterian branches, the full GA sits as a judicial body deciding such cases. However, with typically a dozen cases now coming to the GAPJC between Assemblies there is no time in the full Assembly’s schedule for individually hearing these cases themselves.  For purposes of expediency and efficiency the GAPJC has been empowered as a commission to act with the Assembly’s authority in these matters.

Regarding legislative action on these matters the Assembly has had the opportunity to speak and has chosen not to.  Even regarding the formation of the Special Committee on Civil Union and Christian Marriage, on which I served, the Assembly charged us with writing a social witness document and explicitly charged us not to write a polity statement. Given this vacuum the GAPJC was in the position to fill it when a question arose.  While I fully agree that “The General Assembly and the presbyteries are more representative and better equipped to consider such matters by the usual practice of amending the Book of Order,” to date they have not, or are content to let the GAPJC decisions be the guiding authority.

Finally, the third comment is a message to us all and is important enough to quote it in full:

3. The Presbyterian Church (USA) has had a long season of discourse and debate regarding issues involving the participation of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons within the life of the church. Bound by the call of Scripture and Christ’s message of grace and love, many have chosen to stay in the midst of conflict to serve as advocates for those people and issues important to them. This Commission heard argument referencing the personal and poignant nature of this debate from participants on all sides who care at deep levels about the direction the church may go. The goodwill evidenced between the parties and their commitment to the church’s discernment process was an example of how members may remain faithful to their convictions yet further the resolution of conflict. In her decision to stay within the bounds of the PC(USA) and be subject to the church’s polity and discipline, Rev. Spahr’s ministry provides another example of engagement and commitment. May the church, as it continues this debate, find friends among colleagues in ministry and work with them, remaining subject to the ordering of God’s Word and Spirit.

So for the moment nothing has
changed in this debate.  The indication is that there will be an appeal to the GAPJC so we will have to wait for that to play out before we have an interpretation and guidance on the nature of marriage as described in Confessions and the Book of Order. Stay tuned…