While not quite finished, at this time the voting on Amendment 08-B to modify the “fidelity and chastity” section (G-6.0106b) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Book of Order is closing in on the conclusion. Yesterday there was a split vote, San Jose Presbytery voting “Yes” and the Presbytery of South Louisiana voting “No.” This brings the unofficial tally to 65 Yes and 82 No. (Presbyterian Coalition, PresbyWeb)
If you look at the remaining 26 presbyteries, there are five that have solidly voted against “fidelity and chastity,” and another six that have split votes in the last two votes (i.e. voted once for it and once against it). In addition, Boise tied on 01-A and Pacific was one vote away from a tie. Of the remaining 13 that voted no on the last two votes, five presbyteries did overwhelmingly in near or total unanimity. Those five, if they again vote “No”, should give the necessary 87 votes to defeat 08-B. So after yesterday’s results I, and some others (e.g. John Shuck), consider the passage of 08-B somewhere between highly unlikely and miraculous. I won’t say “impossible” because that word is not in God’s vocabulary.
This vote was much closer than I and many of those I talk with initially felt it would be. At the present time 25 presbyteries have changed their votes from 01-A. Why? This question has been rolling around in my head for almost two months now and I’ll give some numerical analysis when the voting concludes. Related to what I talked about a couple of weeks ago, and what I see in the numbers, there is probably no single explanation. Where there is truly a swing in votes why did the votes change? One explanation is a greater “pro-equality” sentiment — that is that commissioners have switched views from “pro-fidelity and chastity” to “pro-equality.” But I want to have a detailed look at something else first: The text of the Amendment.
Looking back at the history of G-6.0106b, and it is laid out in the Annotated Book of Order and Constitutional Musings note 8, you can see that attempts to add fidelity-like wording date back to 1986. The current wording was added from the 208th General Assembly, approved by the presbyteries 97-74. The next year the 209th GA sent out to the presbyteries an “improved” wording that would have left “fidelity and chastity” but removed the “which the confessions call sin” line. At that GA the Advisory Committee on the Constitution advised against making the change. The Assembly approved the change and sent it out to the presbyteries who did not concur by a 57-114 vote. The 213th GA sent out Amendment 01-A to strike G-6.0106b and add a line to the remaining G-6.0106a about suitability for office and the Lordship of Jesus Christ, but that too was not affirmed by the presbyteries, this time 46-127.
So here is my hypothesis: I wonder if Amendment 08-B is having more success because it is more of a compromise text. The previous two attempts to amend dealt with removing all or part of G-6.0106b. Amendment 08-B would replace G-6.0106b with new language:
Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.
The new language does have a number of theological points that make it attractive and that are being used by those advocating for 08-B as benefits. These include a pledge to “live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church,” and stating the hierarchy of Jesus, scripture and confessions, in that order. While the opposition argues that this now leaves important standards up for interpretation and heterogeneous application across the denomination, I can see how this would be a more palatable form of standards for many in the church.
So I do have to wonder whether comparing 08-B to 01-A or 97-A is comparing apples to oranges. While it is frequently viewed or portrayed as a battle of “good versus evil” (you define the sides for yourself), when it comes down to the vote by a particular commissioner in a given presbytery if the decision and vote is much more nuanced. How many commissioners have not changed their opinions but have changed their vote because the language has changed? Because the wording changes from one vote to the next do these black and white decisions have many more shades of gray than we want to admit.
Something to think over until my next post on this topic when I’ll put numbers on these shades of gray.
Steve,
I appreciate your analysis here. It will be interesting if you could find a way to know if it was the change in language rather than the deletion of language that made it more attractive this year.
My hunch, yes, to some extent. I think the new B is better theologically than the current G-6.0106b and that is beside the point of my views on lgbt ordination (of which, as you know, I am in favor).
That said, I think even supporters of the current language see problems with it. A commissioner who spoke at my presbytery stated in his argument that the current language is ‘rough’ I think he said.
But of course, the point is that it gets the job done, which is to make it difficult for lgbt people to be ordained.
Thanks John,
I think that the language is more of an issue/factor than we make it out to be. As you say, there are people who support the current standards that find the language “rough,” harsh, or simplistic. By the same token, I have seen discussions by pro-equality individuals that find 08-B a polity nightmare. You note correctly that often it becomes a “get the job done” attitude leading us to the simple black and white view that ends up being interpreted by the GAPJC starting the cycle all over again. So, to start down a tangent, it is interesting to think about a more cooperative process for coming up with important constitutional language than we have in our mad-dash General Assembly process. But that is a topic for another time…
As I watch the tally, I am moved to ask, can can anyone provide a link to a page that tallies the current number of members in each presbytery?
Put another way, when was the list of presbyteries created? How often is it updated? How representative is it today?
I’m not sure how to formulate this questions so that Google will return meaningful answers.
Hi John,
The first part – the most recent statistics are available from Research Services. The 2007 Presbytery numbers are at
http://www.pcusa.org/research/compstats/cs2007/table04.pdf
The list is created every year based on the annual reports. While summary numbers are usually released in June, the detailed statistics come out in the fall.
Hope that answers your question.
Hi Steve,
It ‘sort of’ answers my question.
At:
http://www.pcusa.org/links/
I found a list of 16 Synods and could have opened a list of 173 Presbyteries. The link you provided pointed me to a list of 41 divisions which appear to be not synods and also not presbyteries.
My goal was to develop a sense of how many members and how many congregations each presbytery represents. I’ve been told that Presbyterians are, above all, ‘orderly.’ This would suggest that, all other things being equal, each presbytery would represent an equal number of members and/or and equal number of congregations. I’m looking for a ‘tail wagging the dog’ situation. As an astute observer of the PCUSA, have you any sense of what the answer might be? Perhaps I would just learn that there are some ‘big steeple’ congregations and some very small congregations that are very conservative and likewise some that are very progressive. I’ve also had pointed out to me that Presbyterians are not Congregational, i.e, they trust much of their polity to elected representatives rather than to ‘town meetings.’
Hi John,
Let me try again.
You are correct that there are 173 presbyteries in 16 synods. That is what you should find in this table
http://www.pcusa.org/research/compstats/cs2007/table04.pdf
As I look over this table, the same I linked to before, I can see how someone not familiar with the governing bodies would not pick up the structure right away. My problem is that I am so familiar with it that I don’t see the problems.
So for example, on page 1 the table begins with Alaska-Northwest in bold. That is a synod. There are then listed seven presbyteries from Alaska to Yukon. Then on to the next Synod, Puerto Rico, and its three presbyteries. Yes, there are a total of 41 synods and presbyteries listed on page one, but there are four more pages in the complete list.
Now, you are correct that in an ideal world each presbytery would have the same number of churches and each synod would have the same number of presbyteries. Here in the Los Angeles area that is about right with between 40 and 50 churches in each of the four presbyteries that cover the metropolitan area.
However, there are a number of factors that lead to variations. There is a practical consideration that commissioners from each congregation need to travel to presbytery meetings so except for Alaska most presbyteries are a one-day drive across. This means that some presbyteries stop at a “large” geographical size even though they would need to be “giant” to get as many churches as elsewhere.
There is also history. Fifty years ago there was a single Los Angeles Presbytery that divided into the four current presbyteries. Many other large cities, like New York, Chicago, and Atlanta, still have single presbyteries in the metropolitan area that are geographically small but large on a membership basis. Because presbyteries usually can decide what works best for them there is no pressure from higher governing bodies to divide. And of course, if one presbytery loses more members than another there is no simple mechanism to adjust the presbytery membership to balance out the losses.
So there is no one answer to why a particular presbytery is the size that it is. But it usually has something to do with a resistance to change.
Hope that helps