It suddenly occurred by me that (1) I had to get together a presentation for Sunday afternoon about what the 218th General Assembly sent out to the presbyteries to be voted on and (2) I had not really pondered the Ecumenical Statements which are included in the voting this year.  In fact, when I put together my previous comments on the Book of Order amendments I said I would get this together and then proceeded to set it aside and forget about it.  So here they are, at least for my benefit if not yours.

Technically, these four ecumenical statements are not being approved for inclusion in the Constitution but as statements of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) that need to be ratified by a majority of the presbyteries.  They can be found in the back of the Amendment Booklet beginning on page number 28, which is the 33rd page in the electronic version.  In general, these statements come from dialogues that are overseen on the PC(USA) side by the General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical Relations.

08-K Ecumenical Statement with the Roman Catholic Church On Ratifying a Common Agreement on Baptism
This is item 07-08 in the electronic business system for GA and comes from a continuing dialogue with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

This is a fairly straight-forward statement which simply seems to contain those basic doctrinal points about baptism which Presbyterians and Roman Catholics share.  As the rational section says “This statement basically affirms what is already the PC(USA) practice of recognizing the baptism of persons who have been baptized in the Roman Catholic Church.”  I would note that it contains one of my favorite points about doing sacraments in covenant community:

3. Together we affirm that incorporation into the universal church by baptism is brought about by celebrating the sacrament within a particular Christian community.

I would also note that point 5 requires the Trinitarian formula “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” in agreement with the amendment the 217th General Assembly made to the Trinity study paper restricting substitution of alternate Trinitarian language for that sacrament.

The GA also directed a study guide be developed for this statement.

08-L Ecumenical Statement with the Episcopal Church On Adopting an Agreement
This is a bit more complex statement and is a step towards the eventual goal of “full recognition of our ministries and interchangeability of our ministers” (point 7).  It was item 07-11 at the GA and although it was passed on voice vote, a comment was added in the committee that says:

In
recognizing the spirit of cooperation already present in the agreement,
the 218th General Assembly (2008) suggests that further dialogue
between the PC(USA) and the Episcopal Church give special attention to
mutuality in language regarding both church governance and worship
practice.

It is probably for these issues of “governance and worship practice” that this is the one Ecumenical Statement that has, at this early stage, garnered negative presbytery votes, according to the official vote tally.

Specifically regarding governance, the statement says:

4. We acknowledge that personal and collegial oversight (episcope) is embodied and exercised in our churches in a variety of forms, episcopal and non-episcopal, as a visible sign of the Church’s unity and continuity in apostolic life, mission and ministry.

08-M Ecumenical Statement with the Korean Presbyterian Church in America On Adopting a Covenant Relationship Agreement
It is interesting that these Statements are included in the booklet in order of length.  The first two were roughly a page in length.  This one is a bit longer at three pages.  The GA approved this as item 07-04 with a comment added by the Assembly.  Approval of this Agreement would make the KPCA a “full communion” church with the PC(USA) the same as the three churches that are part of the Formula of Agreement with the PC(USA). 

It begins with a one-page history of the relationship between the two Presbyterian branches and a call for a deeper relationship.  The document goes on to list the points for mutual recognition of each other, including as churches faithful to Word and Sacrament, recognition of each others’ sacraments and ordained offices, and each other’s mission.  And in the section on ordained office there is the acknowledgment of “men and women” called and set aside by ordination.

In the Covenant section the two churches covenant to support each other, develop a process for the “orderly exchange of ministers,” and a process for the “orderly transfer of congregations,”  and finally to find areas for cooperative mission.  The GA directed the OGA and the GAC to develop the framework necessary to implement these covenants.  The attached comment directs these bodies to consult with synods and presbyteries that have experience working with the KPCA for their input.

08-N Ecumenical Statement with the Moravian Church On Adopting a Covenant Partnership Agreement
This is another covenant partnership agreement but this one runs nine pages in length.  Among the reasons it is longer is because three other churches, the United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, and Reformed Church in America, are also covenanting with the Moravians.  It is also complicated by the fact that the Moravians use episcopal oversight, but in a reformed manner.  For a taste of this, check out this footnote:

In practice, denominations mix and vary these elements of collective and individual oversight. Moravian bishops, while standing in historic succession, do not exercise judicial oversight; rather such oversight is exercised by the Provincial Elders Conference, a representative body of clergy and laity. The PC(USA) and RCA, on the other hand, vest oversight exclusively in representative bodies (presbyteries and classes) of clergy and laity.

Once you get to the actual points of covenant they are very much like those mentioned above for the KPCA, with some additional elaboration in the areas of resources, mission, and continued discussion and fellowship.  Again, the GA’s directives for implementing the agreement are similar to the previous one.  In the GA business, this is item 07-10 and passed committee on a unanimous vote, the assembly on a voice vote, and has no additional comments.  One thing that did jump out at me was that the participants in the dialogue listed in the GA business report were almost all clergy with only one or two ruling elders or laity.

So there you have it.  I’ve got my homework for Sunday afternoon done and I hope any other GA Junkies found this helpful as well.  Have a Happy Epiphany today.