Indiana Court Awards Property To Particular Church And Not PC(USA) Presbytery And Synod

Leave a reply

This past week Judge Carl Heldt of the Vanderburgh Circuit Court, Indiana, issued his ruling in the case of Presbytery of Ohio Valley and Synod of Lincoln Trails, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) v. Olivet Presbyterian Church.  This lawsuit was regarding the Olivet property which the higher governing bodies argued Olivet could not take with it as it disaffiliated from the PC(USA) and realigned with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.  The court ruled that after examining all the incorporation and real estate documents there was no evidence of a higher governing body ever having a legal interest in the property and so the congregation held clear title to it.  Along with this the court ruled that under “neutral principles” the PC(USA) can not have an “implied trust” on the property since the ownership of the property is to be judged only by the documents applicable under civil law and not the Book of Order or other documents related to ecclesiastical law.

Thanks to The Layman you can read a scanned copy of the court decision.  There is also reaction from The Layman.

Now, I would not normally devote so much time to reading and analyzing a trial court decision — I expect this decision to be appealed and I would rather devote the time to looking at the legal reasoning after it has had “peer review.”  However, two things caught my attention in this decision…

First, after following the California Episcopal Churches case very closely a couple of years ago I found it interesting how essentially the same arguments played differently in the two courts.  Now I do realize that the California cases hinged on a point of California corporate law that permits hierarchical churches to place an implied trust on property, and that getting to the California Supreme Court different lower courts and trial courts ruled in opposite ways on the issue.

But in this case the judge goes to great lengths to set the foundation for his ruling based on neutral principles.  The decision is 29 pages long of which the Finding of Fact is roughly half at 13 pages.  The Conclusions of Law takes up almost 14 pages (the balance is the preferatory material and the judgment order) and of those pages five and a half are a detailed analysis of case law and precedent, both in Indiana State Courts and U.S. Federal Courts, to set the foundation for his decision based on neutral principles.  The bottom line here is that if the larger church has no presence in the civil documents (incorporation and real estate) the ecclesiastical documents are irrelevant.  This decision quotes a U.S. Appeals court decision (Merryman v. Price, 1971) that relied on a U.S. Supreme Court Decision (PCUS v. Blue Hull, 1969) where it says:

It is clear that the civil courts can not rely upon ecclesiastical law of the church to impose an implied trust upon real estate.

and, regarding neutral principles, goes on to say:

This approach has the advantage of almost never involving a civil court with the vexing problem of whether preferred evidence is admissible under the First Amendment.  Further adjudicating church property disputes by relying on formal title will ensure an almost evenhanded administration of justice since the necessary evidence will almost always be admissible.  The formal title approach will seldom involve a civil court in deciding what the polity of a given church is, a determination which will almost inevitably involve ecclesiastical considerations.  One final advantage inherent in this approach is that it invites and encourages religious organizations to title their property as clearly and unambiguously as possible.

I would add that in considering the formal title to the property this congregation has taken a slightly different path than many to their current affiliation.  As the facts of the case detail, this was a mission plant of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in 1891 but became part of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America in the partial merger of 1906.  It has now realigned from the PC(USA) to the EPC.

The second thing that caught my attention was the court’s attention to the polity of the PC(USA) as expressed in the Book of Order.  Or maybe it is better to say the conflicts in the polity that make sorting out ecclesiastical disputes in civil courts difficult.

In point 8 of the Findings of Fact the decision says “Even the PC(USA) Constitution and Book of Order permits and acknowledges the possibility of movement away from its denomination.”

In point 18 of the Findings of Fact, “[T]here are no specific set of By-laws prescribed by the Book of Order or other authority of Plaintiffs.” (And I would add that the flexibility of nFOG will enhance this point.)

Point 20 presents the PC(USA) argument that as a congregation of the PC(USA) they recognize church governance while they voluntarily chose to be affiliated with the denomination.  The church counters with the facts above, that there is provision for disaffiliating and that there is no set By-laws.

In the Conclusions of Law the court writes in point 7 “The Book of Order is cited by both parties and contains contradictory terms as it relates to property disputes.”  It then goes on to cite G-9.0102 about church courts having only ecclesiastical jurisdiction and not civil authority.

And point 20 notes the discrepancy between the PC(USA) argument that this is a “dissolution” of the congregation while at the same time a paragraph in the stipulated facts that both parties are in agreement on states that “The Olivet congregation has consistently made it clear its intention to continue it affiliation and worship under the EPC…” and never expressed plans or interest in abandoning its property.

But the major piece of analysis of PC(USA) polity is point 19 which covers more than one page double-spaced (I figure my interested readers can figure out the Book of Order references so I have edited those for length):

19. Both parties cite various portions of the PC(USA) Book of Order in support of their respective positions.

Plaintiffs’ case significantly relies upon G-8.0201, added to the Book of Order in 1981, which states:

All property…is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

Plaintiffs rely heavily on this and other provisions of Chapter 8 in the Book of Order in asserting its trust interests.

The Olivet Defendants reply asserting the Book of Order is an ecclesiastical document which by its very terms is not supposed to have civil law jurisdiction citing G-9.0102 stating:

Governing bodies of the church are distinct from the government of the state…

Both parties assert many other provisions of the Book of Order all of which are part of the record. Olivet also cites the Affidavits Alex Merwin and William Rasch.  Irrespective of the affidavits, the court concludes that wading into various provisions of the Book of Order which may or may not be conflicting requires this Court to determine ecclesiastical questions in the process of resolving property disputes which is prohibited by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. [cite removed] Plaintiffs ask this court to hold that pursuant to
G-8.0201, the Olivet property is held in trust for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and yet Defendants assert that G-8.0201 is not a settlor’s declaration but an assertion by an entity that does not hold title to any of the property at issue in the instant case and which never held property at issue in the present case.  Plaintiffs assert the actions of its Presbytery consisting of voting members of various churches must be upheld while Defendants cite Chapter G-9.0102, stating governing bodies of the church (i.e., a Presbytery) have only ecclesiastical jurisdiction.  As further example, G-1.0307 of the Book of Order states: “That all church power, whether exercised by the body in general or in the way of representation by delegated authority is only ministerial and declarative…”  At G-1.0308 it states “Any ecclesiastical discipline must be purely moral or spiritual in its object and not intended with any civil effects…”  This conflict and the other potentially conflicting provisions in the Book of Order appear to this Court to force an evaluation or determination or ecclesiastical questions or interpretations in the process of resolving this property dispute.  This Court declines to do so, based upon the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Indiana State Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court precedent and state court precedent.  “Civil courts will be bound to give effect to the result indicated by the parties, provided it is embodied in some legally cognizable form.” Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 606 (1979)

In other words: The Court leaves the sorting out of the Book of Order to church judicatories and polity wonks — it is not their business.  (I wonder if the nFOG would help or hurt the case?)

As I stated before, this could have a long way to go through the appeal process.  And it is clear that state law and precedent have significant implications in all of these property cases.  While there is some hope that one day the U.S. Supreme Court will take one of these cases and use it to set clear legal tests for when neutral principles versus church government theories apply, so far this term the high court has declined to hear two cases that have asked for a hearing so this situation still relies on state law and so varies between the states.

We will see where this particular case may lead us.

A Little Levity For March 2010

Leave a reply

I need a diversion from some other heavy work this weekend so I thought I would share a couple of lighter thoughts…

From MSN Lifestyle we have the 75 Best Dressed Men of All Time, and thanks to The Contemporary Calvinist we know that none other than John Calvin is number 52.  I tried to find a direct link to #52 but as far as I could find you need to click through the first 51 to get there.  So to save you the time of clicking through all that the citation says:

John Calvin, theologian

Because the most famous minimalist in world history knew a man didn’t need expensive clothes or bright colors to convey authority. Black and white, worn with the requisite gravity, can be powerful and intimidating. Just look at the Secret Service. Or the Reservoir Dogs.

 


It is interesting to note that Calvin is the figure on the list who lived the longest ago, with the exception of the generic caveman that starts the list.  Almost everyone else on the list is “modern.”  It is also interesting that the only other religious figure on the list is the next one, #53, Malcolm X.  (And in an interesting and unrelated observation, Sean Connery makes it onto the list twice, once as himself (#13) and once as James Bond (#19).)  But from my knowledge of Calvin, I have to think that it would greatly disturb Mr. Calvin, the theologian who was so clear that it was not about him that he insisted on a secret grave, that he would be honored in this way.

One of the heavy tasks I began this weekend is to start work on my sermon for the Easter Sunrise Service.  It is not just the writing of the sermon itself but the fact that part of the sermon is to insist that in order for the resurrection to be exceedingly good news you have to deal honestly with the bad news of death.  Yes, this will probably not be your typical Easter sermon, but when did I do anything typical?

So related to that I see that a Vatican official, in a collection of advice on preparing homilies, suggests that homilies should be no longer than the eight minutes a person can focus their attention.  (Interesting that in all that advice, some if it like starting early in the week I could endorse, the 8 minute mark got the headlines.)  I know of few preachers who could regularly stop at this point but I have worked with a couple of pastor nominating committees who considered something only slightly longer than this a positive skill of a potential pastor.  And if you keep the length short, you don’t have to worry as much about the fine print in yesterday’s Beetle Bailey comic strip.

Now related to pastor searches I bring you a final lighter note for today… If you are not familiar with the blog Beaker Folk of Husborne Crawley you might be interested in the Archdruid Eileen’s commentary on their community life and religious perspective.  It provides a humourous look at religions in general and organized religion in particular.  With a hat tip to Ruth Gledhill, here is one of my favorites from the blog, a job posting:

Situations Vacant — The Dispersed Communities of Spalding

The Dispersed Communities of Spalding are looking for a male or female druid with vision, capable of leading our communities forward into new challenges.

We are a group of 12 Beaker communities scattered across the hamlets to the east of Spalding.  
Well, when we say communities, strictly speaking four of these communities have only one member each and there’s only twenty-three of us in total. But we are dedicated to keeping true to our roots.  Which is why we insist on worshiping only each within our own Moot Houses, coming together only for the annual Falling Out ceremony where we remember why we don’t get together any more often.
In order to help our communities to reach out to the people in the Spalding area, the new druid must be capable of vision, bringing forward radical ideas to transform the way we “do community”.  Which we will ignore.  They must be capable of relating easily with the young, teenagers, the old and the middle aged.  They will be up to date with the very latest ideas in Beaker Worship, but still willing to keep on with the same old pebbles and tea lights regardless.  
They must be good at dealing with frustration, and able to keep their thoughts very much to themselves.
A gifted evangelist and strategist, the main role for the new druid will be to try to work out how to raise the funds to patch up the roofs of 12 Moot Houses, all of which are in dire states of repair.  The boilers have gone in 6 as well.  The new druid must be able to inspire a giving attitude amongst our Folk, without at any point ever mentioning money.  It tends to depress us.

We are a modern and equal-opportunities group of fellowships, and will welcome the right druid, regardless of marital status, sexuality and gender, as long as his wife is good  at baking cakes and they have a couple of kids.

If that doesn’t resonate with some churches…

Final PCA SJC Decision In Bordwine v. Pacific Northwest Presbytery

Leave a reply

This past Thursday the General Assembly Standing Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church in America issued their final decision in the case of TE James Bordwine, et al. vs. Pacific Northwest Presbytery.  By a vote of 17 concur, 2 dissent, and 3 absent (with no disqualified, recused or abstaining) the Proposed Decision was affirmed by the full SJC.

This case is regarding the process and conclusions of the investigation and examination of TE Peter Leithart by the Pacific Northwest Presbytery.  (For more details you can check out the enumeration of the facts in the decision or my brief summary when the Proposed Decision came out last December.)  The Commission found:

II. Statement of the Issue

Did PNW err in its handling of the Reports from the PNW Study Committee appointed to examine Leithart’s fitness to continue as a PCA Teaching Elder?

III. Judgment

Yes.  The Complaint is sustained, and the case is sent back to PNW with instructions to proceed according to the Reasoning and Opinion of this Decision.

Then the Reasoning and Opinion Section begins with:

The Record in this matter suggests that there are aspects of the teachings of TE Leithart that are in conflict with our standards.

The section goes on to briefly point out that since a formal disciplinary judicial process had not been carried out in this case the relief requested by the Complainants of declaring his views out of accord could not properly be made.  On the other hand, without the judicial process the Presbytery can not declare that the views are not out of accord.  But there is a strong presumption of guilt, the test for initiating judicial proceedings.

The Decision sets forth a two step process:  1) To counsel TE Leithart concerning his views and to encourage him to either “recant and make reparations for those views,” or “to take timely steps toward affiliation with some other branch of the visible church that is consistent with his views.” 2) Failing one of the outcomes of step 1 to then begin the judicial process.

Having now set out the basic findings of the Decision, I wanted to comment on the significant difference between the Final Decision and last December’s Proposed Decision.  The Final Decision is seven pages long, the Proposed Decision is twenty.  The difference is almost exclusively in the Reasoning and Opinion section.  In the Proposed Decision the SJC wrote an extensive analysis of the documents from the PNW investigation showing where TE Leithart’s views were problematic.  There is none of this in the Final Decision.  In the Final Decision the SJC shortened up their reasoning a bit to simply state that a strong presumption of guilt exists and then leave it to the judicial process, if there will be one, to decently and in order make the decision if the views are out of accord.

The second way that the Final Decision differs from the Proposed Decision is the inclusion of “Step 1.”  In the Proposed Decision the order was to “institute process.”  In the Final Decision the preceding step of non-judicial counsel was added to try to achieve a restorative outcome without the divisiveness the judicial process can bring.

I would also note that the cover letter indicates that the two dissenters to the opinion have not indicated an intent to file a Minority Report so this Decision is final and no decision between a majority and minority report will need to be made by the General Assembly.  (I would also add that there might be a minority opinion floating around out there but not a minority report, and second in my reading of the BCO to send a Minority Report to the GA requires at least one-third of the voting members of the SJC to dissent and the two dissenting votes is far short of that so a minority report would not be appropriate.)

There has been some significant response to the Final Decision including The Aquila Report, R. Scott Clark, and A Profitable Word. But once again I thank TE Jason Stellman at Creed Code Cult for his views on the matter since he is the closest to it, being one of the Complainants.  In addition, I am deeply appreciative of his making the decisions available.  And once again, I leave you with his words about this situation:

Although I do agree with the PCA’s decision (obviously, since I wrote the Minority Report and personally argued the complainants’ case before the SJC panel last Fall), I have absolutely no desire to prosecute a case against a good man and godly scholar simply to prove a point and set legal precedent for other NAPARC churches to follow (which a conviction certainly would do). For the sake of the weak semblance of unity that our Protestant churches have, I would prefer that this case be resolved in some way besides a long, drawn-out (not to mention expensive and time-consuming) court battle. While the confessional side may very well “win” if this thing goes to trial, I can’t help but feel that we’re all losers here. I know I’m supposed to feel a deep sense of satisfaction that, if Rev. Leithart is removed from the PCA, justice has prevailed and the system is shown to have worked, but I just can’t seem to shake the feeling of emptiness—not to mention the bitter taste in my mouth—that this whole process has occasioned.

Equipping Elders

14 Replies

A few days ago I was musing on the training and continuing education (or lack thereof) of ruling elders in Presbyterian churches.  This has been a continuing reflection of mine to try to figure out how to better equip ruling elders for not just their administrative duties but their polity and spiritual shepherding duties as well.  Being a good elder is not easy and takes work.

It is always worthwhile for ruling elders to be reading their branch’s confessional standards on a regular basis, and to be familiar with their polity documents (The Code, Book of Forms, Book of Church Order, Book of Order).  But there is a need for resources to fill in between those documents and to help understand their context.

For a broad overview of Presbyterianism for not just ruling elders but members as well, my church, and others I know, have used Donald McKim’s Presbyterian Questions, Presbyterian Answers with good response. For theological background I have enjoyed the “Armchair Theologians” series of books on religious figures like Augustine, Calvin and Barth.  These are easy reads that give a good overview of each individual’s life and theological thought (which are usually linked).  I could see that academic theologians might have problems with the details, or lack of details in the books.  And for some the illustrations might be a problem either because it always represents God as the stereotype man with the flowing beard, or because it portrays God at all in violation of the Second Commandment.  And the PC(USA) has a low-cost set of studies at ThePresbyterianLeader.com that are designed for leadership training and discussion of current hot topics.  I can not tell you anything further about these because I have not purchased any yet but I have seen good reviews from others in the PC(USA).

But that is a perfect lead-in to a brand new resource that is both comprehensive and free for download…

A big thanks to the Presbyterian Church in Canada for putting together Equipping Elders.  (And to Colin Carmichael, the Associate Secretary for Communications, for bringing it to my attention.) This 194 page resource is available as either the free download or for 20$CAN from the PCC Book Room. for a 3-hole punch loose-leaf version to put in a binder.  And what surprised me is how “platform independent” this is; it is very much about being a ruling elder and some, but not much, is directly tied to the PCC.

Probably what impressed me the most about this resource was how comprehensive it is – how much useful material is in one place.  It addresses important topics that ruling elders need to know to be good shepherds of their flocks:  Congregational care and home visitations along with suggested prayers for praying for members’ needs on those visits.  Understanding the implications of different sized congregations.  Why membership matters.  Stewardship.  And, relevant to this post, why and how elders need to keep on learning themselves.  The book says:

Ordination to ruling eldership in The Presbyterian Church in Canada is a lifelong commitment to a call to ministry in and with the church. Whether serving as term elders, experiencing periods as inactive elders, or attending session meetings monthly for 20 years, all elders are always elders.
     This ordination for life means that elders have responsibility for developing their skills, learning more about their ministry and growing in the faith. Elders need to be lifelong learners. Lifelong learning assumes that we all continue to learn new things over the years, whether this is through formal training, reading, discussions with others, experience, or picking up new information and ideas from a variety of sources.

Check it out, and if you know of any similar resource that puts that much practical information for ruling elders in one place, at any price, please let me know.

Moderator Designate Of The General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Ireland

Leave a reply

Three news sources, the BBC, U.TV, and Daily News, are reporting that the Rev. Norman Hamilton, pastor of Ballysillan Presbyterian Church in north Belfast, has been chosen by the presbyteries as the Moderator designate of the 2010 General Assembly.  Presuming that he carried the five presbyteries that voted for him in the February vote, he received votes from six of the nine presbyteries that voted for candidates not making it into the second round.  He received the votes of eleven of the nineteen presbyteries.

The BBC provides this reaction from Rev. Hamilton:

“I am greatly humbled and surprised that this has come to me.”

“I hope during my year to bring a very Biblical perspective to a wide range of issues that are important to both church and society.”

Called Meeting Of The General Synod Of The ARP

3 Replies

As observers of Presbyterian denominations know it is a very rare event for a denomination to call a special meeting of its highest governing body.  At about this time today a Called Meeting of the General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church will convene at Bonclarken Conference Center in Flat Rock, N.C., to hear the report and act on the recommendations of the Moderator’s Commission on Erskine College and Theological Seminary.  This Commission was created by the 205th General Synod last summer and the minutes of the Synod meeting (p. 44, 47th page of the PDF file) record the adoption of the following Memorial from First Presbytery:

That First Presbytery encourage the 2009 General Synod to instruct the Moderator of Synod to form a special commission to investigate whether the oversight exercised by the Board of Trustees and the Administration of Erskine College and Seminary is in faithful accordance with the Standards of the ARP Church and the synod’s previously issued directives.

Erskine College and Theological Seminary (“Erskine”) are linked educational institutions in Due West, South Carolina, founded by, and still associated with, the ARP.  In case that is not obvious from the name, the institutions are named for one of the principal leaders of the secession Presbyterian branch in Scotland, the Rev. Ebenezer Erskine, who helped establishe the Associate Presbytery in 1733.  It is worth mentioning that the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church descends from this branch and is not, nor was ever, a part of the mainline American Presbyterian branch.  Furthermore, the ARP can trace its founding to 1822 without any subsequent reorganizations making it the American Presbyterian branch with the longest time period since the last division or merger.

Erskine is still associated with the ARP — the vast majority of the trustees are elected by the General Synod and it is considered an agency of the church.  The College on its web site is not as clear about this association.  It refers to its status as a “Christian institution” and its Mission Statement does refer back to its ARP origins.  The Theological Seminary describes to itself as “organically and historically related to Erskine College” and the Mission Statement is:

Erskine Theological Seminary is an educational institution of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, and the Seminary has been called by God and commissioned by its host to serve not only that denomination, but also the entire Church of Jesus Christ. The mission of Erskine Theological Seminary is to educate persons for service in the Christian Church.

According to the minutes (pg. 10) the ARP General Synod budget for 2009-2010 includes $617,000 in unrestricted funds for support of Erskine College.  In addition, Erskine is the beneficiary of special offering funds and occasional special allocations.

I don’t know how far back questions started to be raised about the Christian world view of the College but I do know that there was significant discussion by the 204th General Synod (2008)  as reported by ARP Talk, and various reports suggest that there were issues well before that Synod.  (ARP Talk is an unofficial source of news, commentary and advocacy edited by the Rev. Dr. Charles Wilson that has devoted a lot of electronic ink to the Erskine debate.)  The heart of the issues with Erskine has been with the infallibility of Scripture and whether the faculty upholds and teaches in accord with that belief.  As a general statement of the Synod, but clearly aimed at the college, the Synod took the following action, described as the most significant since 1979.

That the 2008 General Synod go on record by stating that the position of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church on Scripture is that the Bible alone, being God-breathed, is the Word of God written, infallible in all that it teaches, and inerrant in the original manuscripts.

While that position went into the minutes it seems to have had little affect on the college.  ARP Talk continued to report from students, faculty and alumni about the world view of some members of the faculty.  Independent blogs were set up that both advocated for change at Erskine as well as another that defended the school.

Additional perspective on the situation comes from an article by Joel Belz in World Magazine which describes the dynamics that have caused the present tensions in the following way:

It’s true, of course, that such a prickly relationship between a denomination and its colleges and seminaries is hardly a new thing or a newsworthy matter. But this may be different. There is, for example, no mountain of evidence that the two ARP schools have lurched noticeably leftward in recent years. What’s happened instead is that the sponsoring denomination has itself moved decidedly to the right—and now wants to take firm steps to bring its college and seminary with it.That’s a rarity in the ecclesiastical and educational history of America.

This was a high-profile issue at the 205th General Synod last summer and coverage included blog reports from ARP bloggers Brian Howard (three parts – 1, 2, 3), and Tim Philips (with a whole bunch of his follow-up articles).  There was also a lot of Christian media coverage of the meeting including the previously mentioned article in World Magazine, at least two articles in the Layman, and the Evangelical Press News Service (provided by Tim Philips).

At that meeting the minutes (pg. 71) record the Report on Erskine College and Theological Seminary where the Chairman of the Board of Trustees and the Pres
ident say:

A few students have publicly criticized Erskine for failure to live up to its Christian profession and some of those criticisms are valid and are being addressed. Because Erskine does not require a profession of Christian faith for admission, there will always be some students who do not embrace our mission statement or live by Christian values.
…
Every year Erskine hires some new faculty and their appointment is probationary for the first year. In their application and during interviews, they subscribe to our mission statement and to Synod’s document on the Statement of the Philosophy of Christian Higher Education. They also affirm Synod’s view of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. New faculty are carefully evaluated by the Academic Dean and some of those professors who do not embrace or practice our mission are not invited to return. One or two senior professors have been singled out for criticism and the administration has investigated those criticisms and taken appropriate action. Erskine has sought to faithfully measure up to the expectations of Synod to be a Christ-centered institution. We, like many ARP churches, have not always succeeded but we sincerely strive to please Christ in all that we do.

In addition, there was a panel discussion one evening where the President and a Vice-president of Erskine answered questions posed in writing and during the debate the next day the Synod granted voice to Erskine students to address not only the synod committee but to allow a representative to speak to the full Synod.  In the end, the Synod approved the Memorial, quoted above, and a Commission was appointed.  It was announced in January that the Commission was ready to report and the Called Meeting of General Synod was scheduled for this week.

The Aquila Report provides us the text of the Preliminary Report of the Commission — the full report will be distributed to the General Synod today.

The Commission does not mince words — It comes to the following unanimous conclusions (summarized here – read the report for the full text of each):

  1. The General Synod has been negligent in its oversight of Erskine College and Seminary.
  2. There are irreconcilable and competing visions about the direction of the college and seminary among the members of the Erskine Board of Trustees.
  3. There are irreconcilable and competing visions about Erskine’s mission as a liberal arts college on the Erskine Board and within the Administration and faculty… Despite vocal differences among the faculty and Administration, it was not evident that the trustees have given any clear direction in these matters.
  4. It became evident to us as we listened to all the parties concerned that Erskine College and Seminary stand at across roads as the search is conducted for a new president. The General Synod must speak clearly at this critical juncture so that the message of our interest in Erskine’s success is unambiguous. The next president must have the full support of the ARP Church and its Board of Trustees of Erskine College and Seminary.
          In our candid conversations with trustees, faculty, and members of the search committee, we came to the conclusion that no presidential candidate could garner the whole-hearted support of every Erskine Board member. It would be grievously unfair to the next president and potentially disastrous for these institutions if he does not have this unqualified support.
  5. Almost without exception, present and past members of the Board of Trustees believe that the size of the Board is a significant obstacle to effective governance.
  6. In an effort to govern the institutions effectively with such a large number of trustees, the Board is subdivided into several committees. While committees can be an effective means of utilizing the special experience and skills of trustees, the committee structure presently employed by the Erskine Board is a hindrance to proper governance and oversight because, in the nature of the case, the Board relies heavily on its Executive Committee. The result, despite the best of intentions among those serving on the Executive Committee, is that most trustees are left without knowledge about large parts of the institution entrusted to their care.
  7. The structure and composition of the Board of Trustees are problematic for the faithful oversight of the seminary.
  8. The ideological divisions on the Board have created significant challenges for the Erskine faculty. The College faculty are rightly troubled that the Board of Trustees and Administration have given them little guidance for the implementation of Erskine’s mission. The lack of clear directives has led to widespread faculty confusion about their responsibilities to the ARP Church in the classroom setting.
  9. The Board has been negligent in its responsibility to hold the Administration accountable for the faculty it employs. The Board has not instructed the Administration to evaluate the faculty either on the quality of their teaching or on their ability to integrate faith and learning in the classroom.
  10. The so-called “culture of intimidation,”found by Second Presbytery’s Committee on the Minister and His Work several years ago, is still present on the campus. There is an atmosphere in some quarters of Erskine College and Seminary that is inimical to faithful implementation of the mission.

The preliminary report does not present recommendations but instead says:

This Commission has been constantly aware that the very nature of our work is sensitive. It involves the reputations of trustees, administrators, faculty, staff, and students.The goal of our report is that Erskine College and Seminary emerge from this process with the tools and vision necessary to fulfill the missions the ARP Church has given to them. This goal must also inform how the Commission reports certain conclusions.
…
Some have asked that our entire report be delivered to delegates weeks in advance of the called meeting of General Synod. We are sympathetic to this line of thinking. We, too,want the delegates to have sufficient time to discern the Lord’s will prior to the hour of decision.

However, it should be evident to all that the discussion and debate over Erskine over the past several years has generated much heat and little light. This is at least partially to be explained by the widespread use of blogs, internet discussion boards, and “Facebook” as methods for disseminating sensitive information.

We believe that the release of some conclusions and our recommendations would have the effect of depriving the General Synod of the deliberative process such a premature action is meant to effect. Our report would then be removed from the carefully reasoned and prayer
ful deliberations of elders and ministers in the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ and would instead be subject to the publicly-voiced opinions of anyone with internet access, whether or not they hear the Commission’s full report or have any real interest in the future success of Erskine College and Seminary. The realities of what takes place on the Erskine campus and among the trustees are nuanced and delicate.


Debate about these matters should be marked by the fruits of the Spirit of God and not the sometimes mean-spirited clamoring that so often occurs on the internet.

Conclusions like these have caused not a little bit of concern from various quarters in both the church as well as academia, and have produced a new round of media attention.  There is an article from Inside Higher Ed that recaps the story to this point, discusses some of the implications, and quotes one anonymous faculty member saying of the report “They are not traditionalists. I’m a traditionalist. They are extremists… I am not sure what they want except control.” 

The other dynamic in this drama is the announced retirement of the Dr. Randall Ruble as Erskine’s President on June 30.

So, with an attitude of prayerful support and discernment, and what I hope is not “mean-spirited clamoring,” I and others await the Spirit-led discernment of the General Synod.

I would conclude by adding one further prayer concern for those traveling to the meeting — Tim Philips has arrived there and is blogging about the meeting.  He reports this morning that with snow expected there is a concern whether the meeting will have a quorum so that it can actually take action on the report.

Second Vote For The Moderator Of The General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Ireland Tomorrow — Presbyterians Doing Things Decently And In Order

Leave a reply

Originally I was not planning to post a pre-meeting comment about tomorrow’s second vote to select the Moderator designate of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.  The vote is necessary because in last month’s voting the Rev. Norman Hamilton and the Rev. Norman McAuley each received five presbytery nominating votes with the remaining nine votes divided between three of the other four candidates.

But today Alf McCreary, the religion correspondent for the Belfast Telegraph, has an opinion piece in that paper titled “Church’s election process shows the need for reform.”  In that article he brings up two good arguments why the church should modify their election procedures.  While I see his point I am not sure that I agree with him.

His first point is that the second vote should be taken the same day as the first rather than waiting the month.  He argues that this would provide a longer lead time for the nominated candidate to make the necessary preparations for the Assembly and their moderatorial year. 

From the practical consideration of giving a designate a chance to prepare I could see that the four extra weeks to make arrangements could be useful.  But from the management of the presbytery meeting and the discernment process of the body having the vote at successive meetings is more logical.  Going through the process twice in one evening would get it over with but would also prolong the evening since every presbytery reports to a central office and 18 presbyteries would have to wait for the last one to report to know if another vote is necessary.  Yes, times could be set for voting to be completed, but to set pre-determined inflexible times for making decisions goes against the Presbyterian concept of the body taking the time to discern God’s will together.  (Note: this is not an argument against a specific body setting its own time to end debate.  Any individual governing body is welcome to limit their debates as they decide for themselves.  My argument is with outside constraints limiting discussion.)

And if the amount of lead time is truly a concern then move the moderator voting back a month so there will be sufficient time after a runoff should there be one.

Mr. McCreary’s second point is equally valid – that with a term of one year by the time the Moderator has come up to speed through on the job training their moderatorial year is up.

While valid points, what both of these arguments miss is the nature of the role of the Moderator in the Presbyterian system.

First, the Moderator is chosen for his previous experience, service to the church and divinely bestowed gifts for this form of service.  Particularly if the moderator designate is a pastor they have already moderated session meetings and probably church committee meetings.  The presbyteries in selecting their nominee should consider the skills and abilities each candidate has for presiding at the meetings and representing the church throughout the year.

As an aside, while the selection to be a Moderator of a higher governing body is an honor it should not be viewed as a “lifetime achievement award” or automatic post when you have “put in your time.”  Like all positions within the church God bestows specific gifts upon each believer for them to use for the building up of the Body.  Not all these gifts are alike.  While everyone has gifts, not everyone has the gifts of administration and leadership desiresable for the position of Moderator.  The body’s work of discernment is related to identifying those who do possess the gifts that correspond to a particular position of service, be it Moderator or another office.

Second, the position of Moderator is one of service and not authority.  Granted, he is empowered with the authority necessary to conduct the meetings of the governing body decently and in order.  But beyond that he has no authority of his own but the authorization of the governing body.  In this light, the position is a temporary one and passes to the next Moderator on a regular basis, generally when the governing body next reconstitutes itself.

Having said that I would also acknowledge that the selection process for the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland is both unique among Presbyterian branches and also my favorite.  It is the only one where all those gathered to discern God’s will are not in the same place but rather distributed in their 19 individual presbytery meetings.  Other branches do it by nominating committee or the Moderator is selected from among the members of the Assembly when the governing body convenes.  To me, having one individual identified and endorsed by the wider church represented by the presbyteries is particularly meaningful.

So there you have my commentary on the Irish process.  I can understand the concern for efficiency, expediency and experience.  And I would hope that in our governing bodies we would keep those goals in mind — but only to the extent that we are still concerned with discerning God’s will together.

Great Earthquake In Chile – Feb. 27, 2010

Leave a reply

The aftershocks just keep on going… And will keep on going for a while.

When I got up Saturday morning and turned on my cell phone it immediately filled up with text messages and after clearing those there were a bunch more.  Yup, my day job caught up with me on the weekend and after an event Saturday morning I spent the afternoon studying the developments and looking at the tectonics.

The basic information: The magnitude 8.8 earthquake off the coast of Chile was a shallow earthquake in the Peru-Chile trench and appears to have broken about 400 miles of the fault.  The fault is the boundary between the South American Plate and the Nazca Plate.  The Nazca Plate is a small and young tectonic plate completely under the Pacific Ocean.  The Nazca Plate is going under South America at about 80 mm/year and is responsible for the Andes Mountain Range and the active volcanoes in it.  At the time of this writing there have been 119 aftershocks of magnitude 5 or larger with an additional one now every hour or so now.

This earthquake makes the top ten list of events since 1900 and released about 500 times more energy than the recent earthquake in Haiti.  With the official death toll in this event still a bit below 1000 (it will certainly pass that mark) it is interesting to note the difference that preparedness and economic development have on earthquake survivability.  There is substantial damage and I spent a lot of time studying the failure modes that I see in a great collection of pictures by the Boston Globe, but I don’t see the total collapse of neighborhoods full of unreinforced masonry structures like the pictures from Haiti showed.

The Pacific Coast of South America is no stranger to great earthquakes. (And for the record, a “great earthquake” is a technical term to distinguish an even of magnitude 8 or larger.  There is a magnitude 8 or larger earthquake somewhere on the earth about every year and a half on average.)  The largest recorded earthquake was the 1960 Chile earthquake (magnitude 9.5) on the section of the fault just to the south of this earthquake.  And Charles Darwin experienced a large earthquake here while visiting on the voyage of the Beagle in 1835.

For an idea of the size of this earthquake consider the fact that the point the earthquake began (the epicenter) was about in the middle of the section of fault that broke.  As the earthquake happened it broke about 300 km in each direction.  At a rupture speed of 3 km/sec that give a rupture time of 100 seconds.  That is how long the fault took to break, but it generates different waves that travel at different speeds so the local shaking is longer as all those waves go by.  Another point of comparison is that we would expect the largest aftershock to be about the same size or slightly larger than the Haiti earthquake.  At the present time the largest aftershock is magnitude 6.9 and Haiti was magnitude 7.0.

Now the reminder for my North American readers:  Many of you are probably aware that Alaska had a great earthquake like this one back in 1964 that devastated southern Alaska, especially the Anchorage area.  There is a lesser known earthquake back on January 26, 1700 along the coast of Northern California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia.  While this event is detailed in the oral traditions of the indigenous peoples of the area we also have a written record from Japan of the devastation caused by the tsunami there.  And the geologic situation in the Pacific Northwest is very similar to South America with the volcanic mountain range (Cascades) and a small, young tectonic plate (the Juan de Fuca Plate) going underneath North America.  It is good to know that locally this risk is now understood and preparedness measures are being taken.

Seminaries Supporting The PC(USA) – How Are They Represented In The Congregations

2 Replies

Yesterday I finished up a look at the numbers of students that attend seminaries associated with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and noted that in the wider universe of seminaries there is one that actually has more Presbyterian students than any of the PC(USA) seminaries.

This is an interesting situation that has sometimes led to questions about a student’s preparation for ministry, perspectives on theology, and in some cases their loyalty to the denomination.  I could tell you stories but that is for another time.  The topic for today is how this statistical profile from the seminaries gets reflected in the congregations.

I now return to the Presbyterian Panel and their 2009-2011 Panel Profile. Actually, I am going to look at the last five panel profiles.

One of the questions the Teaching Elders on the Panel (Research Services calls them clergy) are asked is:

From what school and in what year did you receive your M.Div. or B.D. degree?

Before breaking this down by school consider the groupings of PC(USA) seminaries versus non-PC(USA).

   Panel Profile
1997-1999
 		  Panel Profile
2000-2002
 		  Panel Profile
2003-2005
 		  Panel Profile
2006-2008
 		  Panel Profile
2009-2011
 
 Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.
 PC(USA) seminary  69%  66%  70%  68%  68%  65%  69%  70%  66%  65%
 non-PC(USA) seminary  31%  34%  30%  32%  32%  35%  31%  30%  34%  35%

Let me also remind you that the margin of error is +4% and “Spec.” is short for “Specialized Clergy” which are active Teaching Elders serving in a ministry other than in a congregation.

Looking at this table we can say (1) that the percentages of specialized clergy and the percentages of pastors from PC(USA) schools are statistically the same for each panel, and (2) that over the five panels there is no statistically significant variation with time although there might be a suggestion in the most recent panel that more pastors are coming from non-PC(USA) schools.

Now, let’s break it down by the individually seminaries:

   Panel Profile
1997-1999
 		  Panel Profile
2000-2002
 		  Panel Profile
2003-2005
 		  Panel Profile
2006-2008
 		  Panel Profile
2009-2011
 
 Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.
 Austin  4%  3%  5%  4%  4%  4%  5%  4%  6%  3%
 Columbia  8%  8%  10%  8%  9%  5%  8%  8%  10%  7%
 Dubuque  4%  3%  3%  2%  4%  3%  3%  3%  2%  2%
 JCS/ITC  1%  1%  1%  0%  NR  NR  *  1%  1%  1%
 Louisville  8%  6%  7%  6%  8%  8%  8%  7%  7%  7%
 McCormick  5%  8%  5%  7%  6%  7%  5%  6%  4%  5%
 Pittsburgh  7%  7%  6%  10%  6%  6%  8%  5%  5%  5%
 Princeton  18%  17%  19%  17%  16%  18%  19%  20%  20%  20%
 San Fran.  6%  6%  5%  6%  6%  9%  5%  10%  4%  9%
 Union (VA)  8%  7%  9%  8%  9%  5%  8%  6%  7%  5%
 Evangelical  NR  NR  NR  NR  NR  NR  *

 *  *  *
 Fuller  7%  5%  9%  4%  7%  6%  10%  6%  9%  5%
 Gordon Conwell  4%  1%  3%  3%  5%  3%  4%  3%  4%  3%
 Union-Auburn  2%  5%  NR  NR  NR  NR  NR  NR  NR  NR
 Yale  1%  4%  NR  NR  NR  NR  NR  NR  NR  NR
 Other  17%  19%  19%  26%  20%  25%  16%  21%  20%  26%

Notes: 1) Evangelical is Evangelical in Puerto Rico, (2) JCS/ITC is Johnson C. Smith at the Interdenominational Theological Center, (3) NR is not reported on that panel so is included in “Other”, (4) * is less than 0.5% and is rounded to zero, (5) the PC(USA) seminaries are the first ten listed.

Looking at this table for trends what we can say is that statistically speaking each of the seminaries shows constant representation in the workforce over these twelve years.  There is the suggestion of a decrease in McCormick and maybe also Dubuque and Pittsburgh, and the slight suggestion of an increase in Princeton, Fuller and Other.  Again, while never present in statistically significant amounts, it is interesting to note that it is more likely for graduates of McCormick, San Francisco and Other  to be in the Specialized Clergy, while grads of Union (VA), Fuller, and maybe Austin, Columbia and Gordon Conwell are more likely to be Pastors.

What really surprised me about these tables, and the prime motivator for my quest for numbers yesterday, is the paradox that if Fuller has more Presbyterian students than any other school, why does it always have only half as many Teaching Elders in the workforce than Princeton grads?  One possibility is that while Princeton and Fuller consolidate all their Presbyterian students into the general category Presbyterian, there may be signifigantly different representation from the PC(USA).  It may be that Princeton has more PC(USA) students while Fuller’s Presbyterian students include more from Korean churches.  But I also have to wonder if fewer Fuller students from the PC(USA) enter the workforce as Teaching Elders in the PC(USA).  Do they go to other denominations?  Do they go into the workforce in non-ordained congregational or parachurch ministry?  Is the high number of Fuller students, while pretty constant across these reports, still a more recent development and its impact will be seen in the future?  More numbers and analysis are needed.

OK, next question: How does the pastoral workforce from PC(USA) schools correspond to their enrollment size as reported by the PC(USA)?

   Panel Profile
2009-2011
 		  Panel Profile
Normalized to
PC(USA)
schools
 		  PC(USA)
reported
enrollment
(number)
 		  PC(USA)
reported
enrollment
(percent
of total)
 
 Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.    
 Austin  6%  3%  9%  5%  273  8%
 Columbia  10%  7%  15%  11%  428  13%
 Dubuque  2%  2%  3%  3%  177  5%
 JCS/ITC  1%  1%  2%  2%  21  0.6%
 Louisville  7%  7%  11%  11%  217  6%
 McCormick  4%  5%  6%  8%  340  10%
 Pittsburgh  5%  6%  8%  9%  370  11%
 Princeton  20%  20%  30%  31%  703  21%
 San Fran.  4%  9%  6%  14%  459  14%
 Union (VA)  7%  5%  11%  8%  365  11%


Notes: (1) Due to rounding totals may not add up to exactly 100%.

There is clearly a considerable risk in comparing the numbers from the Panel with the total enrollment in the seminaries.  That is why I went on the unsuccessful quest I wrote about yesterday — to get more specific numbers.  In doing this comparison I assume that each seminary has the same proportions of M.Div. students and the same proportions of PC(USA) students in their total enrollment.  The indication from this table is that this assumption holds pretty well.  Within the confidence limits all that we can conclusively say is that there are more Princeton grads out in congregations than their proportional enrollment would predict.  There is the suggestion that Louisville is also over-represented and that Dubuque, McCormick and Pittsburgh are under-represented.

For comparison purposes, based on these numbers there are 3353 students at PC(USA) seminaries.  The PC(USA) statistical summary for 2008 lists 1164 candidates.  While it is a bit of a rough calculation, candidacy is usually the last of the three years at seminary, suggesting at least 3492 PC(USA) seminary students.  (On the one hand, since the care process is one of exploration of call we would expect candidates, the last stage, to be fewer than the other years so the number may represent a lower limit.  On the other hand, since
an individual would remain a candidate after graduation until they find a call the number might be pulled up by that.  I wonder how much those two effects balance out?)  Anyway, if 2/3 of students are at PC(USA) seminaries, that would give us a rough figure of 2328 PC(USA) students in M.Div. programs at PC(USA) seminaries or 69% of the total enrollment.  Seems a bit high from the numbers I wrote about yesterday so the pool of candidates may include a greater number seeking a call.

Finally, are there any trends seen in the year of graduation?

   Panel Profile
1997-1999
 		  Panel Profile
2000-2002
 		  Panel Profile
2003-2005
 		  Panel Profile
2006-2008
 		  Panel Profile
2009-2011
 
 Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.  Pastors  Spec.
 Prior to 1960  5%  19%  2%  8%  1%  2%  *  2%    
 1960-1969  20%  25%  16%  25%  11%  18%  6%  13%  3% #  10% #
 1970-1970  25%  23%  24%  26%  24%  28%  23%  24%  20%  23%
 1980-1989  31%  24%  32%  27%  32%  33%  32%  34%  30%  30%
 1990-1999  17%  7%  25%  13%  27%  19%  27%  23%  24%  26%
 2000-2009          4%  1%  11%  4%  22%  10%
 do not have degree  2%  2%  1%  1%  NR  NR  NR  NR  NR  NR

Notes: * – less than 0.5% and rounds to zero; # – number is for prior to 1970; survey is taken at the beginning of the panel time span.

The year grouping make these numbers a bit harder to track but accounting for that it is interesting to see the general distribution of graduation dates track across the panel surveys with little variation.  I don’t think that it is unexpected to see more recent grads in the pastor category and more older grads in the specialized ministry category where experience and flexibility are to be found.  It is interesting that this variation is in the tails of the distribution while in the center of the two distributions the shape is very similar.

So, looking at all of these number it raises the question of why we should care about them.  Reason number one is that they show a significant stability in the pastoral training in the PC(USA).  Yes, these are percentages of the number of graduates in the work force so it does not say anything about absolute numbers or changes in the quality or content of the education they are receiving.  In some respects this stability shows up in the PC(USA) annual membership numbers where the total membership is steadily declining but the number of Teaching Elders show little or no decline.

Another reason for having an interest in this is the question of PC(USA) seminaries versus non-PC(USA) seminaries.  This is the question that led me to have a closer look because I was trying to understand why Fuller did not appear stronger in the number of graduates.  I still don’t have a good answer for that but it is important to note that within the time range covered by these surveys there is no statistically discernable trend in graduates from Fuller, Gordon Conwell, or non-PC(USA) seminaries as a group.  These grads have been with us in fairly stable numbers so if you worry about how non-PC(USA) graduates impact the denomination we can’t say from this what the impact is but we can say that based upon the flat trend the effect should be constant with neither an increasing nor decreasing impact.

Well, I’m sure that is plenty of numbers for one day.  And hopefully in entering these tables I did not put in too many typos.  I’ll give the panel data a rest for a little bit as there is a bunch of other General Assembly related news to be found circulating right now.  And as always, if you see something in here that I missed I’m sure you’ll let me know.

Reflection On The Training Of Leaders

2 Replies

This is a brief sidebar on church leadership between the two posts I am doing on the training of Teaching Elders for the PC(USA).  A story on NPR this morning had an interesting quote about what makes a church:

“Is there public worship?” said the leader of the ministers group,Pastor Eric Williams, of the North Congregational United Church of Christ, in Columbus, Ohio. “Is it open to the public? Are there trained leaders who serve the church? C Street really has none of those marks that make it a church.”

This story is about the C Street Center in Washington, D.C., and a challenge by the Rev. Williams and 12 other clergy as to whether it meets the 15 requirements set by the IRS for classification as a religious institution for tax purposes.  That specific topic, or the center itself, is not what I wanted to discuss.  And no, I’m not going to run with that reference to the “marks that make it a church.”

What caught my attention were the two questions in that quote as to whether it is open to the public and has “trained leaders.”  Depending on what you mean by trained leaders, based on these two criteria the temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints would not meet this criteria (and therefore not eligible for tax exempt status).  Admission to the temples and to the temple ordinances are open only to members of the church by recommendation of their local bishop.

As for the training of leaders, the LDS church does not have specific individuals who take a graduate degree in theology and then are called by a church to be their pastor.  Does that mean they do not have “trained leaders?”  Rather, they have a model that a Presbyterian has to be impressed with that takes very seriously the idea of the priesthood of all believers and through their regular meetings from youth through adult they train all of the men in the church in the doctrine and theology of the faith so that, in theory, any of them are prepared to lead a congregation as the bishop.  For the LDS church, “seminary” is an early morning, before school, program to train the youth in their religion.

While the Presbyterian church is very attentive to the training and examination of our Teaching Elders do we put the necessary effort into the training of our Ruling Elders?  If we view the kirk session as a board of directors we look for Ruling Elders that have secular experience and leadership.  Leadership skills are always good and I don’t mean to discount those by any means.  But do we as a church also have regular ways of educating our Ruling Elders and future elders in the theology, doctrine and polity of the church?  In the PC(USA) elders vow to accept the Scriptures as authoritative — do we continually remind ourselves what the Scriptures say?  We “sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions” and agree to be “instructed and led” by the confessions — but how often do we read the confessions for their instruction?  We assent to be governed by the church’s polity — but how well do we understand that polity and the theological basis for it?

If a church is to have “trained leaders” to be a church we need to be intentional about training the leaders, Teaching and Ruling Elders alike.

Rant done; commentary over; soapbox put away. Now back to the training of the Teaching Elders…