Livingstonia Synod CCAP Tries To Make A Statement In Malawi

Leave a reply

In the past two weeks news sources have reported plans by the clergy of the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian Livingstonia Synod to hold a march to present a petition to the government and the response of police with riot gear and tear gas surrounding the church offices to stop the march.

The first news story discussing what information was known about the petition and planned march came from the Nyasa Times.  This article from December 20 discussed the fact that a petition would be presented to the government but said the final wording was not established yet.  The article says “Officials at the Synod headquarters say there are a number of issues which they are petitioning the government but top of the subject is the education quota system which has seen the northern regions share of form one secondary school selection dropping to less than fifty percent.”  The root of the complaint is an on-again/off-again quota system for students from different regions of the country to get into public schools.  The clergy are advocating for a merit system.  (This article outlines the chronology of the use and dropping of the quota system.  The government has indicated they will use it again in the coming year.)

The second article, from Afrique en ligne, begins with

Heavily-armed police officers Thursday used tear-gas and road blocks in the northern Malawi city of Mzuzu to stop a protest march organised by church and civil society leaders, to protest against the policies of the administration of President Binguwa Mutharika.

It goes on to say

“They used teargas to prevent reverends from getting out of church premises,” said Yeremiah Chihana, a politician and bitter critic of the Mutharika administration. “We are ready to march but police are everywhere in the streets. They are threatening to shoot us.”

This second article adds more details about the perceived problem with the quota system – the charge is that the quota system unfairly limits students from the northern part of the country where Livingstonia Synod is located.  One of the arguments made is that the system should be competitive to keep the education system strong and counter a trend towards laziness.

There is no word on what is next.

One of the most interesting things is the comments on the first article.  One person identified as Khowu says

Livingstonia Synod, please wear your armour and let’s match on! And you people who are calling our clerics names, you mean you do not see that this is more than this stupid quota thing? You cannot see that this is the beginning of ethnic cleansing? We shall fight and you know what, we are going for a federal arrangement…

Livingstomia [sic] Synod, you are the custodians of our faith, our culture, our development, our inheritance, our pride. PLEASE PROTECT US!!

Another, writing under the name Malawian, adds an interesting detail:

To understand the Livingstonia Synod one has also to consider the fact they actually run the best primary school system in the country and in many ways it is this system that accounts for the success of the “North”. The government should try to understand that incredibly successful system and see how it can be “nationalised”.

In this case I read “nationalised” to mean taking the model national, not to have the national government take over the school system.

It will be interesting to see how this develops.  Three of the CCAP’s five synods are in Malawi and each represents not just a region but strong ethnic traditions.  In addition, it has been my impression that the synods have significant autonomy and the central CCAP organization is not particularly strong.  At the present time statements are made on a regional level by the synods – it would be interesting to see some unified, and more influential, action taken by the three synods together.

UPDATE: Victor Kaonga in his blog NDAGHA has posted on “Which way Malawi and the Faith Community?” where he mentions the Livingstonia Synod clergy actions in the larger context of what is happening in the country.  Thanks for the context.

Addendum: On a completely different topic, but related to the church in Malawi, there has been a series of moderate earthquakes including a magnitude 6.0 earthquake in the Karonga area of Malawi on December 19.  The current numbers that I am seeing list three deaths, 256 injured severely enough to be treated at hospitals, and upwards of 6000 in need of relief aid.  There is work within the CCAP to round up relief supplies and among the world-wide appeals include those in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland and the PWS&D of the Presbyterian Church in Canada (and many individual PCC churches have gotten the word out on their web sites) who are working with the CCAP.  Within the PC(USA) there is a situation report and fund at PDA and Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery has a Malawi Partnership and is soliciting relief aid on their web site.

Presbytery Merger In The Presbyterian Church Of Aotearoa New Zealand And Some Polity Observations

1 Reply

I recently saw a news item on The Southland Times web site about a presbytery merger in the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand that, as written, surprised me a bit.  (Today brings another, more detailed article from the Otago Daily Times.) The fact that there was going to be a merger was not what caught my attention – the PCANZ is in the midst revisioning and restructuring the church with there Press Go program and the Reform of Presbyteries initiative. No, being the polity wonk that I am what I was wondering about was the way the article phrased the approval process.  The article says:

Southern presbyteries will be united in February to better connect with their communities and to try and attract more youthful members.

Five presbyteries, encompassing all Presbyterian parishes within Southland and Otago below the Waitaki River, are joining together to form the Southern Presbytery.

and

The Southern Presbytery will merge on February 13 at the Calvin Church in Gore at 2pm, and will be ratified in October by the Presbytery Church of Aotearoa New Zealand.

The polity wonks out there probably immediately recognized that this is the reverse of what we are used to in these matters.  The structure and shape of presbyteries is usually a matter for the next higher governing body, in most cases the General Assembly.  As the article says the presbyteries “will be united in February” and then it “will be ratified in October” by the General Assembly.

On one level the PCANZ Book of Order is a bit unique in its description of the powers and responsibilities of the GA when it says

General Assembly to establish presbyteries
8.7 Formation, alteration and abolition of presbyteries

(1) The General Assembly may

(a) form a presbytery,
(b) determine the name of a presbytery,
(c) fix the area or region for which a presbytery has responsibility,
(d) on its own initiative or at the request of a presbytery, alter the name of a presbytery, abolish a presbytery, or change the area or region for which a presbytery has responsibility.

I was surprised to see in there that the GA “may” and not “shall” do these things regarding presbyteries.  However, the present news is the result of action taken by the last General Assembly in 2008 when it approved, without debate, the report of the Presbyteries Task Group on The Reform of Presbyteries.  The GA approved in advance the reorganization of all the presbyteries and we can expect more of these mergers to follow with final approval at this year’s Assembly in the fall.

But in researching this and looking at the details of presbytery structuring in other Presbyterian branches I was reminded of an interesting quirk in the polity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

Let me begin with the Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America, for a reason you will see in a moment.  The BCO includes in the list of responsibilities of the GA

14-6. The General Assembly shall have power:

e. To erect new Presbyteries, and unite and divide those which were erected with their consent;

A quick check of the history of this section of the BCO shows that the PCA has always had this section as a “shall” and before that the predecessor polity of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. had the GA as the governing body to create and dissolve synods, but not presbyteries.  The polity would then give the synods the responsibility to organize presbyteries.

What is the current situation in another PCUS successor denomination, the PC(USA)?  The current Book of Order says:

G-13.0103  The General Assembly constitutes the bond of union, community, and mission among all its congregations and governing bodies. It therefore has the responsibility and power

m. to organize new synods and to divide, unite, or otherwise combine synods or portions of synods previously existing;
n. to approve the organization, division, uniting, or combining of presbyteries or portions of presbyteries by synods;

Affected synods must concur with presbytery changes, but this GA responsibility for presbytery creation sets up an interesting paradox in that the Assembly creates the presbytery but the synod reviews its records.  Cooperative governance.

The Annotated Book of Order gives no indication of a change to this section shifting responsibility for presbyteries from synods to the GA and no reference to pre-merger citations or documents so this could be inherited from the UPCUSA. or derives from the merger.  More research necessary – but an interesting mix of ecclesiastical responsibility and weaker powers for the synods.

With the significant discussion about the role of synods in the PC(USA) this is only a quirk or minor distraction.  The real question gets back to the restructuring of the church in New Zealand and whether these merged presbyteries with minimal administrative responsibility can fulfill the expressed purpose of attracting more youthful members.  Will the mission drive the polity?

New Principal Clerk Of The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland

Leave a reply

I don’t know how many of you caught this job announcement for a new Principal Clerk of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.  As the announcement says “These senior positions offer talented individuals the chance to make a significant contribution to the life of the Church.”  But note, for some of us elsewhere around the globe, “Applications are invited from Ministers of the Church of Scotland for this key role.”  Now, although the job posting never explicitly says that the Principal Clerk must be a clergy member, it does ask for “experience and understanding of the parish ministry” and the Acts and Regulations of the Church of Scotland do require the Principal Clerk to be a minister.  Sorry all you polity-wonk ruling elders.

Well, in case you had not heard and are interested, sorry but the position has been filled.  No official press release from the Kirk yet, but according to Scotsman.com the selection for the next Principal Clerk is the Rev. John Chalmers.  Rev. Chalmers has previously served in parish ministry, his last charge being Palmerston Place Church at the West End, Edinburgh.  He currently is serving as the “pastoral adviser in the ministry department” of the national headquarters according to the article.  He will be confirmed by the Assembly in May and will begin duties over the summer.  The article quotes him as saying: “I’m excited by the challenge and approach it with quite some fear and trepidation.”

[I will update here as more stories and the press release are issued.]

For watchers of the Kirk the retirement of the Very Rev. Dr. Finlay Macdonald, the current Principal Clerk, is not a surprise.  At the last Assembly Rev. Macdonald was absent and the Assembly “resolved that the Rev Dr Marjory MacLean be appointed Acting Principal Clerk for the duration of the absence of the Principal Clerk.”  There is no word if the Rev. MacLean, presently the deputy principal clerk, was a candidate for the permanent position.

So, the best of wishes to the Rev. Chalmers as he prepares for and assumes his new position and it will be interesting to see how he advises and guides the Assembly of 2011.  And best wishes to the Very Rev. Dr. Macdonald as he prepares for retirement, but not until after he helps the Assembly through the 2010 Meeting.

And to all my readers, a happy Boxing Day, Feast of St. Stephen, and Second Day of Christmastide.

God’s Love Made Visible

Leave a reply

Believe it or not, this is a General Assembly post…

Back in 1997 I was a commissioner to the 209th General Assembly of the PC(USA).  The outgoing Moderator of the 208th GA, the Rev. John Buchanan, arranged for jazz musician and composer Dave Brubeck to lead a performance of his Christmas choral piece La Fiesta de la Posada one evening. (Yes, this was in June.)  It was a great break from the intense business of a GA.  Furthermore, while the whole piece was inspiring, one of the sections in particular, “God’s Love Made Visible,” really moved me in the unity of the words and music, it has stuck with me for these 12 years, and listening to the CD is now part of my regular Christmas discipline.  So on this day of the celebration of the Incarnation, I give you the opening of “God’s Love Made Visible”:

God’s love made visible!
Incomprehensible!
He is invincible,
His love shall reign!

From love so bountiful,
blessings uncountable,
make death surmountable.
His love shall reign!

Being Missional In Scotland — A Presbyterian Partnership: Reformission Scotland

Leave a reply

This fall there has been an interesting development in Scotland – the launch of Reformission Scotland.  To quote their web site:

Reformission Scotland is a Scottish church planting partnership.

Our aim is to plant gospel churches that will replicate themselves.

The Gospel Partnership page describes the partners as being “individuals, churches and organizations” that have a shared vision and ethos.  These partners come from the Church of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland, the Associated Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church in the USA.

From the web page describing the history of Reformission Scotland, we learn that this is an effort that goes back two-and-a-half years to an initial meeting in June 2007.  From this developed a 10 man steering committee, six from the C of S, and two each from the Free Church and the APC. Their Council of Reference includes seven more men, three from the U.S., one from Surrey, England, and three from Scotland.  On November 3 they ordained their first church planter, the Rev. Athole Rennie, who was trained in the Church of Scotland but ordained to the ARP.  For more on all of this there is a nice description by Neil MacMillan (a member of the steering committee) on his blog, and a two-part article in the Outreach Newsletter of the Outreach to North America mission agency of the ARP.  The newsletter article begins on page 2 with comments by Rev. Rennie and a good article on page 3 by Ivor MacDonald the chairman of Reformission Scotland.  In the article he shares that the goal of Reformission Scotland is to have five church plants in five years.  There are some nice pictures of those who gathered for the Rev. Rennie’s induction in the APC Newsletter.

It is interesting that this group has identified church planting as the key to church growth and spreading the Gospel.  For more on their reasons for this emphasis you can check out their Why Church Planting Is So Important page, and the two articles that are linked there. The area identified for the first plant is Leith, the port area of Edinburgh that is now undergoing redevelopment and, from the sound of it, gentrification. This will be an interesting area in the near future.

I would also comment that the Reformission Scotland web site is attractive, easy to navigate, and easy to read.  The front page alone was interesting because of the fine photography that cycles through the banner – although generic landscape shots they catch your attention.  They have done a good job of providing summaries that link to more details for those that are interested.  I would also point out that the page style, sans the rotating banner, is very similar to the Duke Street Church website I linked to above.  For updates the Reformission Scotland page does not have a “news” or “announcements” section or a blog, but there is an RSS feed recognized by my browser. (Although I have not gotten my feed reader to recognize it yet – I’ll keep trying.)  As I noted above, one source of news will probably be the Rev. Neil MacMillan’s blog since he is on the steering committee and is the Mission Development Officer for the Free Church.

A very interesting project bringing several Presbyterian branches together in mission.  I look forward to how this project progresses.

The Lectionary – Border, Bastion, Or Barrier?

4 Replies

Happy New Year – kind-a, sort of, maybe…

Yes, a week ago last Sunday was the first Sunday of the Advent Season and the churches that follow the liturgical calendar moved from Year B to Year C of the lectionary.

Now, I will simply recognize that liturgical calendars and seasons, particularly Advent and Christmas, are not unanimously accepted by those of us in the Reformed and Presbyterian stream.  In fact, the Directory for the Publick Worship of God adopted by the Kirk and Parliament of Scotland in 1645 says in the Appendix “Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued.” (For more you can check out an interesting article on Christmas , a detailed piece on Holy days in American Presbyterianism, a current series of pieces at Building Old School Churches, or the Wikipedia entry for Christmas. There is also a current piece by Mark Horne making the case that there is Reformed support for celebrating Christmas.)

On a personal note, I appreciate the application of the regulative principle and the fact that there are non-Christian influences and origins of the celebrations of Advent, Christmas and Easter that argue against the celebration of specific Holy days.  However, I also find spiritual focus in the seasons and feasts of the old covenant as applied to the Christian liturgical year and the celebration of special days.  Back to this in a moment.

As I mentioned at the beginning, we have begun a new year in the lectionary which provides weekly scripture passages for worship on the Lord’s Day.  I was reflecting on this because there does seem to be an association between the use of the lectionary and the “DNA” of a particular Presbyterian branch.  But as I reflected on it more and how it impacts our worship it seemed to me that the lectionary has certain benefits, but also certain limitations, in its use.  It seems important to understand each of these and how they impact our community life.  And it should go without saying that it impacts the “true preaching of the word of God.”

In most mainline congregations it seems that the Revised Common Lectionary is the default position.  In a couple of respects this is the “bastion” or “safe” approach.  In one respect it is safe because it guides a congregation through the three-year cycle of scripture readings providing broad, though hardly complete, coverage of the Bible appropriate to the liturgical season. (My friend David Gambrell over at Linen Ephod has a nice summary of each lectionary year.)  It also provides a ready defense for a preacher when a congregant did not like text for that day — all you have to say is “that is the lectionary text for today.”   

The lectionary also provides a “paring” of scripture passages from the three sections and these selections are supposed to relate to each other.  (Sometimes it is tough to see the relationship, other times you can probably think of a better pairing.) Some preachers will include two or more readings and then expound on all of them in the sermon, some will only chose one to preach on.  In the lectionary there is also the annual rhythm in the reading that takes us through the life and ministry of Jesus Christ and “tells us the story” repeated every year.  And I am told that by having congregations use a common lectionary it gives pastors something to talk about when they get together.

But one of the biggest practical benefits of the lectionary is that it keeps a preacher from falling into the pattern or habit of preaching on what they want to preach on.  In this way the lectionary acts as a “border,” “fence,” or “hedge” around the preaching.  It works as a tool to keep from always hearing a message based on the pastor’s favorite scripture passage or selecting texts that simply provide another avenue for the pastor to once again advocate their favorite theme or message.  In fact, by using the lectionary a conscientious preacher can work the three weekly readings (Old Testament, New Testament and Gospel) into nine years of distinctly different sermons.  (Twelve years worth if you include the weekly Psalm as a unique sermon, but from what I have seen most pastors use the Psalm as a supporting text to the primary text that they preach on.)

Now, to be clear, I don’t have a fundamental objection to a well planned and executed sermon series that is outside the lectionary.  My own church has done a couple of very effective ones including the series last year of preaching through the Lord’s Prayer one phrase at a time.  When properly done this style does have the elements of the “true preaching of the word of God” in my understanding.

Where the “free-form” approach is dangerous is when it is not implemented with any long-term plan or accountability – especially when a pastor just spends the week deciding what to preach on and choosing relevant passages to base it on as they go.  That is, they let the sermon drive the texts that will be used.  One of the best sermons I have ever heard preached at a General Assembly was delivered by the Rev. James Costen titled “The problem of deferred maintenance” and addressed the Great End of the Church of The Maintenance of Divine Worship.  In that sermon he spoke of a variety of sermon that he called “Saturday Night Specials” that he said could be just as deadly as the street firearm variety.  An interim pastor I once had took this to the extreme when we would regularly find him in his office Sunday morning writing out the sermon.  Again, I know of cases where the Holy Spirit has led preachers to completely rewrite their messages at the last moment and I have no problem with that.  But to regularly write the sermon like that I believe does a disservice to the preaching of the word.

So on the one hand the lectionary provides a framework to help pastors preach through scripture in an organized and systematic manner while letting scripture have its way with us rather than the other way around.  But there are limitations on the other side as well.  If you and you preacher have both been there over nine years you might begin hearing the same things again.  Or if the pastor is not systematic you could hear them again in three.  And even with good planning, there will come a point where the cycle begins repeating itself.  You young’uns may not have been through too many cycles but I’ll admit to being old enough to have been through over 15 lectionary cycles (although the Revised Common Lectionary is not as old as I am having a first version in 1983 and the Revised version in 1992).

So the lectionary will still lead to repetition given enough time.  Some may argue that the repetition is good, that it reinforces important passages of scripture.  But instead
of repeating, what if you were to cover passages of scripture that have not been preached on yet – passages that are not included in the lectionary?

I have not found detailed statistics for the Revised Common Lectionary, but there is a great page that gives the statistics for the Roman Lectionary, which the RCL is based upon, concerning how much of the Bible is covered.  It turns out that of the Roman Lectionary covers only 3.7% of the Old Testament of the Catholic Bible and 40.8% of the New Testament.  If you consider the Scripture to Lectionary cross-index for the RCL is quickly becomes apparent that of the 66 books in the Protestant Bible, several (17 by my count) are used only once or twice and 8 are never used — there will be no lectionary reading from I or II Chronicles, Ezra, Nahum, Obadiah, II or III John or Jude.

Now, I’m sure some of you are saying “of course not everything can be covered on Sunday morning, that is what personal Scripture reading is for.”  I do not dispute the importance of regular Bible reading for personal study and I recommend that every Christian have a plan to read or hear the complete Bible in a one or two year cycle.  But my focus is “the true preaching of the word of God.”  Is it a problem that some of the word is never preached if you use the lectionary?  Has the lectionary become a “barrier” to hearing some sections of scripture preached?

It is here that I am beginning to have a appreciation for congregations that instead of using the lectionary make it their practice to systematically preach through individual books of the Bible.  The congregation hears large sections, at least chapter length, read through in sequence from week to week.  And while every single verse is not necessarily touched on in the preaching, a regular, sequential set of sermons allow for the development of the word in the order recorded.

I don’t know how many preachers would consider the lack of coverage of the RCL a problem and that a solution is necessary.  But if you do, here are a couple of different approaches to this.

One is of course multiple services per week.  If the word is preached three times a week (Sunday morning, Sunday evening, Wednesday evening) a preacher, or preaching team, could cover three times as much territory.

Another approach is to make the lectionary cycle longer and include everything.  For the 1189 chapters in the Bible that could be covered in 22.8 years if one chapter is covered every Sunday morning.  Preaching multiple chapters per week – either multiple services, larger pieces (two chapters say), or pairing OT and NT passages in a sermon would shorten the cycle.

But here is my modest proposal for an “extended lectionary.”  This would not necessarily be tied to a liturgical year and therefore precise order would not be important.  However, since the Gospels are the heart of the Bible for Christians, I would suggest that one is Gospel is preached in its entirety each calendar year.  That would set up a four year cycle with between 16 and 28 weeks each year in a contiguous block being taken up for the Gospel reading and direct preaching.  Considering the Psalms the worship book of the Bible, I would suggest they be included each week as a second scripture passage that is read or sung by the congregation.  That leaves 941 chapters of Scripture that when preached at one chapter per week, and working around the regular reading and preaching of the Gospels, would take about 34 years to cover.  That is about one generation to cover the preaching of the whole Bible, and then a congregation would start over again.

Well, its an idea anyway.  Do you have a better one to systematically cover the whole Bible?  (And yes, systematic preaching 3 times per week would pull that down to less than a decade to complete the cycle.)

But getting back to the central idea of this commentary, as we start a new lectionary year I simply wanted to review the benefits and the draw-backs of the use of the lectionary.  There is a tension between the order and fence provided by the use of the lectionary that helps to keep us from having our way with the holy word.  On the other hand, this border is narrow and only covers a small part of the Scriptures possibly presenting a barrier to preaching more of God’s word. It raises the question “if we only cover 12.6% of the volume of Scripture in three years cycles and then start over again, is that the ‘true preaching of the word of God’?”

Standing Judicial Commission, Presbyterian Church in America, Decision In The Pacific Northwest Presbytery Case

Leave a reply

With thanks to the “usual suspects” – De Regnis Duobus, Green Baggins, and Tchula Presbyterian Church – we are alerted to the news that yesterday the Standing Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church in America issued their decision in the case of Bordwine, et al. v. Pacific Northwest Presbytery.

The brief background on the case is that the 35th General Assembly (2007) approved a report on the Federal Vision Theology stating that it was not in accord with the Westminster Standards (the Standards).  Since then, presbyteries have been examining members who have declared exceptions to the Westminster Standards and this case results from one of these examinations, the exam of TE Peter Leithart by Pacific Northwest Presbytery (PNW).  While the Presbytery decided that Pastor Leithart’s views were not out of accord with the Standards some of the dissenting members of the Presbytery filed a complaint first with the Presbytery, and when that was denied a complaint was filed with the SJC.  In brief, the SJC agreed with the complainants.

First, it is important to note that this is a “Proposed Decision” which under the SJC Manual 19.5 is not binding on the parties but if a party objects within 14 days they may request a rehearing on the case before the full Commission.  The final decision will be issued in March, 2010.

In their decision, the SJC reviews the history of the case and the work of the “study committee” the Presbytery put together to investigate the differences that TE Leithart voluntarily offered to the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery following the GA approval of the report.  The SJC notes:

The PNW Study Committee was charged with examining Leithart’s fitness to continue as a PCA Teaching Elder in light of the June 2007 General Assembly’s receptions of the Ad Interim Committee’s Report on the theology of the Federal Vision.  In spite of being entitled a “study  Committee,” [sic] what was essentially formed was a committee with an assignment to conduct a BCO 31-2 investigation.

It is helpful to note at this point that a “BCO 31-2 investigation” is the response of a session or presbytery when there is a report regarding one of its members “affecting their Christian character.”  That section goes on to say that if that investigation “should result in raising a strong presumption of the guilt of the party involved” then a judicial case is in order.  I bring this up here because the fundamental question answered by the SJC is whether the Presbytery failed to properly find a “strong presumption of guilt.”

The SJC decision then goes on to say:

The work product of this Committee, including the Committee Report, the Minority Report, and Leithart’ [sic] Response, constituted an excellent BCO 31-2 investigative report. The only conclusion that a court should reach, given the excellent work product produced by the PNW Study Committee, would be that there is a strong presumption of guilt that some of the views of Leithart are out of accord with some of the fundamentals of the system of doctrine taught in the Standards.  This does not mean that Leithart is a heretic. He is not. This does not mean that Leithart is not or whether he is a Christian.  He is. This does not necessarily mean that Leithart is outside of the broader reformed community. The sole question to be determined is whether Leithart’s views place him outside of the Standards as adopted by the Presbyterian Church in America.

Regarding the specifications of error by the Presbytery, there were three with two upheld and one not sustained.  The one not sustained was that findings and rulings in a previous SJC decision were misapplied. However, the BCO (14-7) says that previous decisions are to be given “due and serious consideration” but are only binding on the parties involved.  Therefore, for another presbytery to not follow a previous decision is not in itself an error.

The two errors sustained had to do with how the Presbytery handled the initial complaint.  In one case they ruled that it was a motion to reconsider and having voted in the minority the complainants were not in a position to bring such a motion.  In the second case the Presbytery  had ruled that without charges actually be filed in the case a complaint was out of order.  To both specifications the SJC reminded everyone that under BCO 43-1 “it is the right of any communing member of the Church in good standing to make complaint against any action of a court to whose jurisdiction he is subject.”

The SJC decision then makes extensive, detailed, and specific reference to Leithart’s statements to support the opinion that there is a strong presumption of guilt that he is out of accord with the Standards.  They note that while Leithart appeals to Scripture in support of his views, and that Scripture is the “supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined,” (WCF 1.10) they also point out that although the Constitution is subordinate and fallible the BCO (29-1) affirms that it is still adopted as “standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice.”  The decision then goes on to say:

By appealing to Scripture in this way to justify positions that are out of accord with our Standards, an individual, or group, is in effect… amending the Constitution, not by judicial act, but by personal interpretation.  If someone believes that the Standards have incorrectly or inadequately stated what Scripture says about a particular topic, then instead of ignoring what our Standards state and justifying their positions by personal interpretations of Scripture which are not consistent with the Standards, they should propose amendments to the Standards to clarify or expand the Standards, since our Constitution holds them to be “standard expositions of the teaching of Scripture.”

In my mind that summarizes the essence of being Presbyterian – we acknowledge Scripture supreme and our interpretations fallible, but our discernment of Scripture and God’s will in our courts (in the Presbyterian sense) as a collected body is on the whole more sound than our individual interpretations.

Anyway, back to the decision… What next?

It is our opinion that PNW, even though confronted with statement(s) and writing(s) of Leithart that place him out of accord with the fundamentals of the Standards, as adopted by the Presbyterian Church in America, chose to place Leithart’ [sic] statements in the kindest of light and engage in critical thinking and reasoned judgment… [long quote from the PNW report not included]

In failing to exercise this critical thinking and reasoned judgment, PNW has failed to guard the church of teachings and writings “which injured the purity and peace of the church,” (BCO 13-9.f) and in doing so has caused much pastoral confusion and harm.

In conclusion the decision states:

In determining what is the appropriate remedy, the SJC remands and sends this case back to PNW with instructions to institute process, based on this finding of a strong presumption of guilt, and appoint a prosecutor, to prepare an Indictment of Leithart and to conduct the case.

A final decision will be issued in Marc
h 2010.

While I am sure there will be a lot of reaction coming out in the next few days as the decision is read and maybe a full hearing is requested, and I will post some of that when appropriate, today I will leave you with the words of TE Jason Stellman, one of the complainants in this case, in his concluding comments on his blog De Regnis Duobus:

Please be in prayer for all who are involved in this matter,regardless of which “side” they are on. When it comes to issues surrounding the so-called Federal Vision, there are those who believe the very heart of the gospel is at stake, and on the other hand there are those who feel that mountains are being made out of molehills and our denomination is being turned into a mere sect. But what no one should forget is that intertwined with all the doctrinal debate are the personal relationships and livelihoods of those involved. All that to say that this is no occasion for congratulatory back-slapping. Just as the Reformed distinguished themselves from the fundamentalists in that they left the mainline churches weeping rather than rejoicing, so we who witness the state of our churches would do well to lament our own lack of unity.

.
There are no real winners here.

[For some more great discussion with TE Stellman about this case that really helps fill in a lot of details and put the human face on it I highly recommend the November 2008 installment of the podcast Ordinary Means.]

UPDATE: Peter Leithart has posted a theological response to some of the SJC’s comments about his views.

Radical Presbyterians

Leave a reply

Had to laugh at the comic strip Mallard Fillmore yesterday — not often we get references to Presbyterians in the comic pages, to say nothing of “Radical Presbyterians.”  As the PCA Historical Center has shown us, comic strips about Presbyterians, and our General Assemblies no less, have been more common in the past.  [My all time favorite Presbyterian political cartoon from the 217th General Assembly (2006) not withstanding.]

One tends not to think of Presbyterians as “radical,” but I do remember a quote in a sermon one time about the fear inspired on the battlefield by a small band of Scottish Presbyterians on their knees in prayer before a battle.  [I could not find a source for that but I’ll ask my friend that preached the sermon about it on Sunday, unless one of you recognizes the quote.]

Our Presbyterian polity actually does talk about being “radical,” but in a different sense of the word than we think of today.  While these “radical principles of Presbyterian church government and discipline” are included in the current PC(USA) Book of Order, G-1.0400, the footnote tells us that they were adopted by the 1797 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.  Through the wonders of Google Books, I can quote from an 1828 issue of The Christian Advocate (v. 6, p. 59) from a letter submitted to that publication:

Radical Principles of Presbyterianism.

Perhaps I shall not be able to state these better than by an extract from “Form of Government,” chap. xii. page 563, note. “The radical principles ofPresbyterian church government and discipline are:— That the several different congregations of believers, taken collectively, constitute one church of Christ; called emphatically the church; that a larger part of the church, or a representation of it, should govern a smaller, or determine matters of controversy which arise therein;—that a representation of the whole should govern and determine in regard to every part, and to all the parts united; that is, that a majority shall govern: and consequently that appeals may be carried from lower to higher judicatories, till they be finally decided by the collected wisdom and united voice of the whole church.”

These principles I hope to see preserved without any infraction— and I feel persuaded the more they are examined and tested, the more dear they will be to the Presbyterian church.

So we are radical in our polity, although it should be pointed out that the current PC(USA) Book of Order clarifies the meaning of radical by saying “the word ‘radical’ is used in its primary meaning of ‘fundamental and basic,'”

So have fun going out there and being radical — or at least “fundamental and basic.”

Moderator Candidates For The 136th General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Canada

10 Replies

Yesterday was the first of December and as is the procedure of the Presbyterian Church in Canada the Principal Clerk, Stephen Kendall, announced the nominees for Moderator of the next General Assembly.  The presbyteries have between now and April 1, 2010, to vote on the following individuals:

The Rev. Dr. Jonathan Dent, minister, St. David’s Presbyterian Church, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador

The Rev. Dr. Patricia Dutcher-Walls, Dean of Students and Professor of Hebrew Bible, Vancouver School of Theology

The Rev. Dr. Herb Gale, Associate Secretary, Planned Giving, The Presbyterian Church in Canada.

Interesting demographics – three pastors/no elders; two men and a woman; evenly divided between parish ministry, academics, and governing body work.

The Moderator will be installed and preside at the 136th General Assembly which will convene on June 6, 2010, in Sydney, Nova Scotia.

New Official Web Site Design And Blog From New Zealand

1 Reply

If you have not visited the web site of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand recently then you have missed the redesign of their site.  It is a sharp design with good use of graphics and easy, logical navigation bars.  It is a design that give the page a new look while preserving elements of the “feel” of the old site.  A nice transition.  And there are nice dynamic elements – check out the “Find something fast” bar at the top. When the Book of Order is at the top of this list you know you will please a GA Junkie.  But maybe the best thing about the new site is that there is now a feed for new info posted to the site, a great help for those of us with feed readers.  The redesign does unfortunately mean that many links in all my past posts about the PCANZ are now broken.

But for me the real news from New Zealand is that the PCANZ Archives Research Centre has begun its own blog, “Presbyterian Research,” in the same style as the blog from the PCA Historical Center, “The Continuing Story.”  Like The Continuing Story, Presbyterian Research highlights the denominational history and ethos with short vignettes and glimpses of items in their collection.  Any GA Junkie would appreciate the story about the 1901 General Assembly which got into a debate on the floor of the Assembly over the robes the Moderator was wearing.  Another item highlights a recent lecture to the Research Network by the Rev. Dr. Susan Jones.  (The print version is available on-line.)  The item describes the lecture

…which probed the development of ministerial training in the PCANZ.  She not only placed her research in an historical context but she also analysed the nature of the training itself. Her analysis showed that training has been fragmented and that ordinands have often learned academic subjects but they have not been helped to integrate knowledge into their faith.

When the article describes the topic as “continually challenging” that can probably be applied to Presbyterian branches everywhere.

And finally, what geek can not appreciate a blog where the first article is titled “Hello world!”  (For the non-geeks, it is now a standing tradition among programmers that your first programming exercise is to write a program that prints out the words “hello world.”)

So far it is interesting reading.  I look forward to much more.