It has been an interesting week for synods in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and not just because my own met a couple of days ago.
It is clear that the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) will have plenty to talk about next summer related to synods, if they want to tackle the subject. We already knew about the optional changes to synods that the new Form of Government document would permit if it is approved. In addition, two overtures have been posted that would reduce or eliminate synods. Finally, there is a proposal from Presbyterians for Renewal to create a new non-geographic synod for churches and presbyteries to gather in based on theological affinity.
The PC(USA) has been in serious discussions for a while now about the usefulness of synods and whether it is a middle-governing body the church should do away with much like the Church of Scotland did away with them in 1992. This discussion is recognized by both the original Form of Government Task Force Report as well as the updated nFOG report. While the two reports do not get rid of synods, they both contain an essentially identical section (like most of the updated nFOG the new version reads a bit better than its original) G-3.0404 Reduced Function which says:
A synod may decide, with the approval of a two-thirds majority of its presbyteries, to reduce its function. In no case shall synod function be less than the provision of judicial process and administrative review of the work of the presbyteries (G-3.0401c). Such a synod shall meet at least every two years for the purposes of setting budget, electing members to its permanent judicial commission, and admitting to record the actions of its permanent judicial and administrative commissions. Presbyteries of such a synod shall assume for themselves, by mutual agreement, such other synod functions as may be deemed necessary by the synod.
Before going any further it is useful to look back at the history of synods in American Presbyterianism. We usually put the beginning of the Presbyterian church in America in 1706 with the establishment of the first presbytery. This was followed in 1717 with the first synod, the Synod of Philadelphia, which became the highest governing body until the first General Assembly in 1789. In 1741 this main branch of American Presbyterianism had its first split into the Old Side and New Side and a second synod, the Synod of New York, was created for the New Side presbyteries and churches. While the resolution of the split in 1758 returned the church to one synod, the Synod of New York and Philadelphia, the Old Side/New Side division persisted at the presbytery level, even to the point of having over-lapping presbyteries based on theological affinity in the New Side First Presbytery of Philadelphia and the Old Side Second Presbytery. These would eventually be merged but it took over fifty years.
More recently, in the business before the 218th General Assembly the overtures included one to once again permit affinity presbyteries and now synods by allowing for flexibility in membership (Item 03-05), an overture to study the synod structure (Item 03-06), and the 217th GA was overtured to look into a Korean language synod. All of these proposals were turned down by the full Assembly. It is important to note there is historical precedent for racial ethnic synods with the Catawba Synod of the former PCUSA in the first half of the 20th century.
Since my last summary of the posted business for the 219th three more overtures have been added to the PC-Biz site. One addresses Authoritative Interpretations and I will comment on that separately. The other two new ones both address synods, specifically asking for a reduction or elimination of them.
Overture 4 from the Synod of the Rocky Mountains asks for changes to Chapters G-12 and D-5 of the Book of Order to decrease the responsibilities. In fact, one of the parts of the overture would add to the current Government section the same language that is proposed in the nFOG about “reduced functions” for synods at the option of the constituent presbyteries. But the overture goes on to proposed changes to the Government and Discipline sections that would allow two adjoining synods to form a joint Permanent Judicial Commission.
Overture 5 is more dramatic, proposing the elimination of Chapter G-12 all together eliminating synods from the PC(USA) structure. The next part of this overture from the Presbytery of New Hope would set up a Synod Transition Administrative Commission, which would be the decently and orderly thing to do so as to wind up the work of the Synods. There are a couple of polity issues I have with the wording in the overture. (If this is something the Assembly decides to do the rewrite of the Commission mandate would be relatively straight-forward.)
Keeping in mind that a Presbyterian Commission is empowered to act on behalf of, and with the full authority of, the governing body that creates the commission, I would object to the members of a commission being named by the Stated Clerk and the Moderator of the Assembly. That would be fine for a committee or task force, but if a commission is to have the power of the Assembly, than the members should be approved by the full Assembly itself. This would necessitate the vote on the constitutional changes following the 219th GA and the naming of the commission and subsequent wind-down of the synods by the 220th GA two years later.
[For the polity wonks, GA Junkies, and those interested in the details: It is interesting that the Book of Order keeps talking about “appointing” commissions. But if you drill down into the Annotated Book of Order, under G-9.0503a(1) there is an annotation referring to an interpretation by the 217th GA that a presbytery may delegate the responsibility of naming a commission for an ordination. So, by implication the naming of commissions for other purposes may not be delegated but must be approved by the full governing body.]
My second concern is, I believe, a polity problem and that is with the mandate of the Commission. This part of the overture reads:
2. If the presbyteries concur in removing synods from
the Book of Order or proposed Form of Government, that the Stated Clerk and Moderator of the 219th General Assembly (2010) be authorized to appoint a Synod Transition Administrative Commission by July 2011 to ensure that all matters related to the elimination of synods be addressed. This includes review of presbytery minutes, permanent judicial commissions, or other constitutional functions assigned to synods. The commission would be authorized to resolve all fiduciary functions related to synods and any regional groups that are currently functioning as part of synods.
There are several aspects to my concern.
First, there is no end date for the Commission. Give it a two-year initial life and renew it every GA if its work is not done.
Second, the overture contains a reasonable list of things to do, but is the commission to do those things (minutes review, PJC cases) for what is in process at the time of the constitutional change or forever? It seems that a more detailed plan for synod transition is needed, unless this commission becomes a permanent commission (and the name of the commission contains transitional so it is not intended to be the case). Let me put this another way: If the commission is to do review of presbytery minutes is that just once for the transition or on an ongoing basis. And if just once, than there should be another section to this overture that describes how the GA will take on the review of the minutes of 173 presbyteries in the future.
And that is my Third concern, that while this overture covers the transition commission, what then? There needs to be consideration of the transition process for the OGA and the GAMC if they are going to take over the essential functions of the 16 synods.
Yes, I am being picky here, but because of the nature of commissions you have to cover the details when it is created. I don’t see any fundamental problem with this overture that can’t be overcome with some detailed rewriting by the Assembly, if this is the direction they chose to go. And I am very curious to see the Advisory Committee on the Constitution’s comments on this overture.
Well, that is what is currently on the docket, but this past week also brought another proposal that we can expect to see on the radar in the next couple of months. The organization Presbyterians For Renewal (PFR) has published their solution for the PC(USA) going forward, which is to expand the synod structure by creating a 17th synod to serve as a non-geographic affinity synod. Churches concerned about the doctrinal direction the PC(USA) is taking could chose to switch over to this New Synod.
The full proposal is 13 pages long, of which 9 are FAQ and 2 are the text of the proposed constitutional changes with a 2 page Appendix that appears to act much like the procedural manuals envisioned under the nFOG.
Since this is just a proposal and has not been transmitted yet, or at least posted, as a formal overture from a presbytery I am not going to dissect it line-by-line but will make some general comments and highlight a few specifics.
As you can imagine for something like this to work it contains a bit of creative polity, especially items granting the New Synod (the working name until it is created and formally named) a reasonable amount of autonomy. It does however say that it has the “same responsibilities and powers as all other synods” which presumably means the ecclesiastical and administrative functions that include a PJC and records review. However, it also says that the provisions in this new section supersede any other Book of Order provisions to the contrary and that the provisions in this section may not be changed by the rest of the denomination without a majority vote of all the presbyteries in the New Synod.
One polity point that quickly becomes apparent is that New Synod presbyteries lose a certain amount of authority under this plan. On the one hand, the synod will control ordination standards instead of the presbyteries. Presbyteries will conduct the examinations but the New Synod “has the responsibility and power to maintain the standards for ordination and continuing ministry.” There appears to be little room for interpretation of the standards at the presbytery or session level. On the other side dismissal of churches from the New Synod has been removed from presbytery approval to a vote of the congregation wishing to switch. (And this applies to a church wishing to join New Synod or leave New Synod.) However, while approval of the dismissing presbytery is not required the approval of the receiving presbytery is required in both cases. (Under present polity for a church to switch the congregational vote is not required but it must be approved by both presbyteries, the synod or synods involved, and the GA.)
I had to laugh when I saw in the FAQ the comment about the church fighting over ordination standards for the last 3 decades. While the current sexual standards have been the point of contention for 30 years, the Old Side/New Side split almost three centuries ago was over ordination standards, including subscription to the Westminster Standards. Interestingly, this New Synod proposal brings back something that is very close to creedal subscription. A couple of ways this will happen is outlined in the Appendix. First, the New Synod will produce a list of some, but not the, essential tenets as areas that must not be overlooked in examining candidates for ordained office. Secondly, in the New Synod any ordained officer of the church must affirm:
Along with the broader constitutional standards for manner of life (e.g. G-6.0106a), New Synod also holds to the standard that its officers will live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness.
It goes on to say “Those who can not make this affirmation for their own manner of life will not be approved for ordination or installation in an office, or for membership in a presbytery.
It is important to remember that the standards New Synod is interested in maintaining are the ones that are currently in force in the PC(USA). Currently the church is debating if there is any flexibility in the standards either because they are “non-essentials” or because the violate an office-holder’s conscience. What the final version of this document needs to do is present the ordination standards for New Synod not so that it sounds like legalism, but instead in a way that it brings grace.
It will be interesting to see if this Assembly wants to tackle the present situation with synods. And I await the wording of the New Synod proposal as an overture from a presbytery. Stay tuned…
