Monthly Archives: May 2007

GAPCJ Decision: Stewart vs. Mission Presbytery – Ordination Standards probably apply to candidates

Leave a reply

The Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly (GAPJC) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) issued four decisions this past week, all of them interesting.  I will begin with one of the more complex and important decisions and one that discussed last July when the presbytery took their action and again in October following the Synod PJC tie vote on the case that was filed:

George R. Stewart v. Mission Presbytery:  This case was shaping up to be a test case on at what stage of the PC(USA) process for ordination as minister of word and sacrament the Book of Order ordination standards would apply.  Specifically in this case, Mission Presbytery voted to advance to candidacy a women who was an acknowledged lesbian involved in an active relationship.

The Rev. Stewart filed a remedial case with the PJC of the Synod of the Sun and the trial was held September 8, 2006.  The trial resulted in a tie vote of the voting member of the Synod PJC.  On October 11, 2006, the case was filed for appeal with the GAPJC and accepted on October 20.

On November 17, 2006, the candidate requested of her Committee on Preparation for Ministry to be removed from the process.  At the March 3, 2007 presbytery meeting the presbytery approved the request. The Presbytery moved to have the case dismissed, on grounds of mootness, on March 6 and the Executive Committee of the GAPJC concurred on March 23.  On March 28, Rev. Stewart requested a full hearing which the GAPJC granted.

I give this full chronology because in the course of these events, the focus of the case changed significantly.  What the GAPJC ended up deciding on was whether the case was now moot by the withdrawal from candidacy.  In effect, Rev. Stewart had gotten, through the candidate’s action, the relief he had requested.

Well, the majority of the GAPJC ruled that no relief could be granted so that the case was indeed moot.  There was a dissent that this was about presbytery process not the individual and it should go forward in amended form. But I would not have spent all of this time if there wasn’t something interesting.

On one point that Stewart requested, the “need for guidance” the GAPJC did have something to say:

Stewart further argues that there is a “need for guidance” because the statements to the Presbytery and the SPJC cast doubt on the Book of Order requirements for candidates. This Commission is not an advisory body for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) regarding matters relating to the Constitution, but is charged with deciding cases or controversies. However, this Commission notes with concern that the record shows that both the Presbytery and the SPJC appear to have relied on the Book of Order: Annotated Edition entry for the Sheldon, et al. v. Presbytery of West Jersey, Minutes, 2000, p. 589, case, rather than the language of the case itself. Such reliance was misplaced.

It turns out that there were significant differences in Sheldon, et al. v. Presbytery of West Jersey and to only read the entry in the Annotated Edition of the Book of Order did not give the full context and application of the case.  The GAPJC concludes that section with the statement:

Annotations found in the Book of Order: Annotated Edition can be helpful to the Church as it seeks to be faithful in its life and service; however, they are not authoritative. The assistance that annotations offer to the church is as a guide to the deliverances of the bodies that have been accorded authority in our Constitution. To the extent that the misstatement in the Book of Order: Annotated Edition was relied upon by the Committee on Preparation of Ministry, the Presbytery, and the SPJC, it misled each body.

In the decision section it was the expected, that the case is moot and that the appropriate parties be notified of the decision.

Fifteen of the sixteen members of the GAPJC were present and four filed a dissent that effectively said that the complaint was not against the individual being advanced to candidacy but against the presbytery for its process and an amended complaint should be allowed since relief could still be granted there.

So, where does that leave us?  This did not turn out to be the test case that it could have been but by the reminder of the GAPJC about the Sheldon case being different, it has clearly left the door open for another case of this type if it were to make it this far.  To claim that this was a victory for those supporting the current ordination standards is going a bit far.  In the same way the GAPJC reminds us to do our homework, not just look at the “Cliff notes” (pun intended), it would be too early to see this as prohibiting advancement to candidacy without the case law being written.

As for reaction, Toby Brown of Classical Presbyterian is in Mission Presbytery and was part of this case and has posted his take on this, especially the part about reading the full decision, not just the annotation.  There is nothing on the PC(USA) News Service, and I don’t expect any for a dismissed GAPJC case.  It has been picked up by the Louisville Courier-Journal but they, in my opinion, slightly mis-state the decision.  They refer back to the Commission’s reference to the Sheldon case and report this as a ban on advancing to candidacy those whose lives are not in accord the PC(USA) ordination standards.  As I say above, I see it as still an open question but there seems to be an implication that this GAPJC would, given the correct case, decide that they can not be advanced.  So, at the present time there appears to be a ban by implication, or extrapolation, of the existing case law.

Update and correction on the PC(USA) Form of Government Task Force

Leave a reply

The Presbyterian Church (USA) News Service has issued a clarification article to an earlier article about the proposed Book of Order revisions from the Form of Government Task Force that I commented on about a month ago.  It turns out that the April 12-14 Task Force meeting was not fully covered by the News Service because of agenda changes and scheduling conflicts.  The News Service does not expand on that but a GA Junkie wonders what could be more important than a Task Force that wants to change the Book of Order?

So what was not complete?  It turns out that the next stop for the drafts of the new sections of the Book of Order is not the 218th General Assembly but the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) meeting in about a month.  They will be given the opportunity to comment on separating the first four chapters into a brand new Foundations section.  The News Service reports that the Task Force has gotten significant negative comments about splitting off the four chapters and that led them to the possibility of giving the General Assembly the choice of how to precede.  Based on the ACC comments the Task Force will decide whether to float both options or only one.

We will see what is reported after the August meeting of the Task Force.  Hopefully it will be complete on the first go-round.

Sometimes the only way you conquer the pull of power is to set it down

Leave a reply

The quote in the title is from British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s announcement today that he has set a date for his resignation.  But it got me thinking and reflecting on the pull of power, especially in a Presbyterian system.

As a Reformed church we believe that power should not be concentrated in an individual person but held by the commissioners to that governing body.  Even then, in the Presbyterian Church (USA), an elder may only serve on session for a maximum of six years before they must take at least one year off.  The same is true in my Presbytery for committees, although many people just move on to another committee.  My Presbytery has no restrictions on elder commissioners to Presbytery.  I’ve lost track of the number of years I have been an elder commissioner, but not always from my church.  My status as a voting elder in Presbytery has also included my time as a committee chair and as moderator and vice-moderator.  And minister members are always voting members for as long as they are members of Presbytery.  But, our Synod commissioners only serve a maximum of four years and an individual is usually only a General Assembly commissioner once.

There are places in our system where there is usually no limit on time of service.  Clerks are one of these places.  There is no requirement that the elder serving as clerk of session be an elected member of session so there is no limit on how long someone can serve.  As an example, when my six years as a member of session were up, I continued on for an extra two years serving as clerk.  No vote, but an opportunity to participate.  And at my parents’ church there is a vintage plaque memorializing a gentleman who a number of years ago served for decades as the clerk of session.

Our presbytery recently reelected our stated clerk for another three year term which will get them to near two decades of service.  Having worked closely with the clerk this individual is wonderful at the job, never injecting them selves unless I was about to do something contrary to the Book of Order or if I asked them for advice.  Now, the theory is that these positions have only limited power, but many of us are aware that even in setting dockets or providing constitutional guidance to committees there is the substantial opportunity for influence.  So, on principle, in a Presbyterian system, should there be term limits on any position just to avoid the “pull of power?”

Just some thoughts for today after hearing the quote from Mr. Blair.  In a related note, his presumed successor as PM is Mr. Gordon Brown, a Scot.  I have heard and read of him described a number of ways, but almost all of the profiles (like this one from Earthtimes.org) mention his father’s service as a minister in the Church of Scotland.  In one of the interviews this morning with an opposition commentator I heard him described as “presbyterian,” with the adjective used not in a spiritual sense but as being stern and reserved, much like another article I commented on here a while ago.

Update on the Anglican controversy

Leave a reply

At the present time the web site Anglican Mainstream is reporting that the Archbishop of Canterbury has added his voice to the controversy asking the Primate of Nigeria not to install the Rev. Martyn Minns as the bishop for  the Convocation of Anglicans in North America.  In addition, they are reporting the support of 30 members of the Church of England General Synod for the installation. The news about the Archbishop of Canterbury is about half way down in the article.  So far I have not seen this reported by The Anglican Communion News Service or the Church of Nigeria, but within the last few minutes the Episcopal Church has posted a press release.

Some news from the Anglican/Episcopal controversy

Leave a reply

Here is a quick run down of some recent happenings in the American Episcopal Church and it’s differences with the Worldwide Anglican church.

1)  The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has announced he will meet with the American Bishops after initially saying that he did not have room in his schedule.  The meeting will take place in September at the regularly scheduled bishops’ gathering.  You can read about it in an Episcopal press release and an Anglican Communion News Service piece.

2)  With the passage of civil union legislation in New Hampshire, New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson has announced that he and his partner will be having a commitment ceremony.  One of many news reports, this from ABC News or another one from the Boston Globe.

3)  The Nigerian Primate Peter J. Akinola plans to install Martyn Minns as a bishop in the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA).  This does not sit well with Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori who wrote Rev. Akinola to complain that this is outside the usual traditions and would not help reconciliation efforts. (Again, you can read the Episcopal press release or the Anglican Communion press release.)  In a response, Akinola turns the tables on her by suggesting it is the Episcopal Church’s liberal standards that have violated the traditions of the church and he is supporting a communion that is upholding tradition.  The response is available on the Church of Nigeria web site as well as Episcopal and Anglican press releases.

4)  The web site VirtueOnline by David Virtue specializes in covering and analyzing this controversy from the orthodox perspective.  Currently they have an interview with Martyn Minns about the installation this weekend.  There are also a number of commentaries.  One from April 7 talks about the Bishop of Los Angeles J. Jon Bruno and his reported attacks on the orthodox Episcopalians and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

5)  Finally, one more item that I am not entirely sure what to do with.  The Layman Online has run an article by the Rev. Canon David C. Anderson, president and CEO of the American Anglican Council that originally ran in the council’s weekly newsletter.  In the article there are several claims that the PC(USA) national staff and the Episcopal church hierarchy are working together on the legal processes around property and that the Episcopal church is using some of the strategy in the controversial legal memos from the PC(USA) OGA.  In addition, the commentary says that a Presbyterian governing body not specified has filed a friend of the court brief in the Episcopal church’s legal dispute against St. James Anglican Church in Newport Beach.  (In researching this it appears to be old news since this legal dispute appears to be settled in St. James’ favor back in January 2006 based upon this news/blog item from the American Anglican Council.)  I am currently trying to track down more on this item.

Comments from others on the PCA Federal Vision Report

1 Reply

I must admit that I have been surprised at the relative lack of comments on other blogs about the Presbyterian Church in America‘s (PCA) Study Report on Federal Vision. (That is the short title.)  While I made my initial comments about it when it was released, after a detailed reading of some of the sections I have decided to not make any more comments right at the moment.  While I still believe it is well written, this report takes a very detailed and scholarly approach to several of the topics and I have decided I am out of my comfort zone with much of it.  I am a polity wonk and not as versed on some of the subtle nuances in the theology.  If I get a chance to re-read it a few more times and make some use of my theological dictionary maybe I’ll be better able to comment.  But if I am having difficulty, maybe I should not be surprised at the lack of comments on the content by others.

There have been a few substantive responses to the content beyond the “it’s out, here is the link” response found on many blogs.  I would first point out the comments titled “Some Standard Misunderstandings” on Doug Wilson’s Blog and Mablog since he is one of the principles of the Federal Vision Theology and his work is analyzed and criticized in the report.  In reading through the comments I think that he makes some valuable points about the exclusivity of terms, or lack there of.  He does a good job of pointing out that a term can be used in multiple senses or have additional meaning in a sense without negating the other meaning.  In addition, he responds to the study group’s criticism of his writing by pointing out that they took it out of context and actually took it as the opposite of what he intended when he wrote it.  He concludes by saying that he will probably write more later.

I have not yet found comments by any other principals in this theology/controversy.  I have also found it interesting that in my reading and searching around I can find no sign that it has been picked up by any news organization.

As I read through those comments that have been posted on other blogs, three in particular jumped out at me.  One is by the Bayly Brothers on their Bayly Blog.  In their comments they clearly suggest a biased process by all but one of the members being from the south and therefore more “old-line” and that as they read the report they see some of the Federal Vision views being mis-characterized.  On the other hand, they do express their discomfort with some of the aspects of Federal Vision Theology.  Another interesting comment they make is that this report is distracting from more important doctrinal problems.  One of those they cite is that some churches are skirting the church’s polity to not ordain women by hiring women with M.Div. degrees, giving them the title “minister,” but not actually ordaining them.

The second comment is by Jared on the blog Civitate Dei.  There he makes an item-by-item rebuttal to each of the declarations in the report.  For me this was a whole lot easier to quickly grasp than the more scholarly body of the report itself.  The ‘Cliff Notes” version of what the report is about, if you will.

Finally, I appreciated Martin’s comments on Musings of a Bystander.  His were the very first comments I saw on the topic, and the only one’s I could find before I wrote my first post.  He actually brings up the possibility of those that can not agree with the PCA’s understanding of the Westminster Standards leaving the denomination.  While I am still seeing some attempt to understand exactly how the Federal Vision might conflict with the Standards, I respect his candor and courage to bring up the topic.

I would also point out the entry on the World Magazine Blog.  While the entry itself is just another pointer to the report, a lively and mostly informed discussion has followed on that page.  The discussion has included a lot of polity about the PCA establishment of the committee, especially some comments about the lack of balance on the committee as if the group was stacked so as to have the desired outcome.  That in particular will be interesting to follow at the PCA General Assembly next month.