Breaking News: PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions Published

2 Replies

The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has published their decisions on recently heard cases.

In my initial assessment I see no surprises in these two unanimous decisions regarding ordination standards:

219-08 – Bierschwale and others v. Presbytery of Twin Cities:  (Capetz case)  In my initial reading the important polity opinion rendered is that G-6.0106b and previous decisions like Bush v. Pittsburgh apply to the ordination process.  This case had to do with the restoration and validation of ministry, not ordination and call.  In that process there were no problems.  The sustained complaint was that the Synod PJC closed its proceedings.

219-11 – Naegeli and others v. Presbytery of San Francisco:  (Larges case)  This is a much more complex decision with several points being sustained in part and not sustained in part.  Bottom line for polity is that the question of when to declare an exception has been declared to be at the time of examination for ordination.  Practical result is that Ms. Larges has been cleared to be examined at the meeting next week on Nov. 10.  However, while not “instructing” the presbytery in this matter the GAPJC did emphasize the responsibility of determining if a declared exception is “a serious departure from essentials of Reformed faith and polity, and if it determines that she has, it must then decide whether the departure infringes on the rights and views of others or obstructs the constitutional governance of the church.”  The GAPJC appears to have left open the possibility of another case following the presbytery’s decision at that meeting.

Now, I’ll take some time and read every detail before commenting further.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — Synods: An Expanding Or Contracting Universe?

Leave a reply

It has been an interesting week for synods in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and not just because my own met a couple of days ago.

It is clear that the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) will have plenty to talk about next summer related to synods, if they want to tackle the subject.  We already knew about the optional changes to synods that the new Form of Government document would permit if it is approved.  In addition, two overtures have been posted that would reduce or eliminate synods.  Finally, there is a proposal from Presbyterians for Renewal to create a new non-geographic synod for churches and presbyteries to gather in based on theological affinity.

The PC(USA) has been in serious discussions for a while now about the usefulness of synods and whether it is a middle-governing body the church should do away with much like the Church of Scotland did away with them in 1992.  This discussion is recognized by both the original Form of Government Task Force Report as well as the updated nFOG report.  While the two reports do not get rid of synods, they both contain an essentially identical section (like most of the updated nFOG the new version reads a bit better than its original) G-3.0404 Reduced Function which says:

A synod may decide, with the approval of a two-thirds majority of its presbyteries, to reduce its function. In no case shall synod function be less than the provision of judicial process and administrative review of the work of the presbyteries (G-3.0401c). Such a synod shall meet at least every two years for the purposes of setting budget, electing members to its permanent judicial commission, and admitting to record the actions of its permanent judicial and administrative commissions. Presbyteries of such a synod shall assume for themselves, by mutual agreement, such other synod functions as may be deemed necessary by the synod.

Before going any further it is useful to look back at the history of synods in American Presbyterianism.  We usually put the beginning of the Presbyterian church in America in 1706 with the establishment of the first presbytery.  This was followed in 1717 with the first synod, the Synod of Philadelphia, which became the highest governing body until the first General Assembly in 1789.  In 1741 this main branch of American Presbyterianism had its first split into the Old Side and New Side and a second synod, the Synod of New York, was created for the New Side presbyteries and churches.  While the resolution of the split in 1758 returned the church to one synod, the Synod of New York and Philadelphia, the Old Side/New Side division persisted at the presbytery level, even to the point of having over-lapping presbyteries based on theological affinity in the New Side First Presbytery of Philadelphia and the Old Side Second Presbytery.  These would eventually be merged but it took over fifty years.

More recently, in the business before the 218th General Assembly the overtures included one to once again permit affinity presbyteries and now synods by allowing for flexibility in membership (Item 03-05), an overture to study the synod structure (Item 03-06), and the 217th GA was overtured to look into a Korean language synod.  All of these proposals were turned down by the full Assembly.  It is important to note there is historical precedent for racial ethnic synods with the Catawba Synod of the former PCUSA in the first half of the 20th century.

Since my last summary of the posted business for the 219th three more overtures have been added to the PC-Biz site.  One addresses Authoritative Interpretations and I will comment on that separately.  The other two new ones both address synods, specifically asking for a reduction or elimination of them.

Overture 4 from the Synod of the Rocky Mountains asks for changes to Chapters G-12 and D-5 of the Book of Order to decrease the responsibilities.  In fact, one of the parts of the overture would add to the current Government section the same language that is proposed in the nFOG about “reduced functions” for synods at the option of the constituent presbyteries.  But the overture goes on to proposed changes to the Government and Discipline sections that would allow two adjoining synods to form a joint Permanent Judicial Commission.

Overture 5 is more dramatic, proposing the elimination of Chapter G-12 all together eliminating synods from the PC(USA) structure.  The next part of this overture from the Presbytery of New Hope would set up a Synod Transition Administrative Commission, which would be the decently and orderly thing to do so as to wind up the work of the Synods.  There are a couple of polity issues I have with the wording in the overture.  (If this is something the Assembly decides to do the rewrite of the Commission mandate would be relatively straight-forward.)

Keeping in mind that a Presbyterian Commission is empowered to act on behalf of, and with the full authority of, the governing body that creates the commission, I would object to the members of a commission being named by the Stated Clerk and the Moderator of the Assembly.  That would be fine for a committee or task force, but if a commission is to have the power of the Assembly, than the members should be approved by the full Assembly itself.  This would necessitate the vote on the constitutional changes following the 219th GA and the naming of the commission and subsequent wind-down of the synods by the 220th GA two years later.

[For the polity wonks, GA Junkies, and those interested in the details:  It is interesting that the Book of Order keeps talking about “appointing” commissions.  But if you drill down into the Annotated Book of Order, under G-9.0503a(1) there is an annotation referring to an interpretation by the 217th GA that a presbytery may delegate the responsibility of naming a commission for an ordination.  So, by implication the naming of commissions for other purposes may not be delegated but must be approved by the full governing body.]

My second concern is, I believe, a polity problem and that is with the mandate of the Commission.  This part of the overture reads:

2.   If the presbyteries concur in removing synods from
the Book of Order or proposed Form of Government, that the Stated Clerk and Moderator of the 219th General Assembly (2010) be authorized to appoint a Synod Transition Administrative Commission by July 2011 to ensure that all matters related to the elimination of synods be addressed. This includes review of presbytery minutes, permanent judicial commissions, or other constitutional functions assigned to synods. The commission would be authorized to resolve all fiduciary functions related to synods and any regional groups that are currently functioning as part of synods.

There are several aspects to my concern.

First, there is no end date for the Commission.  Give it a two-year initial life and renew it every GA if its work is not done.

Second, the overture contains a reasonable list of things to do, but is the commission to do those things (minutes review, PJC cases) for what is in process at the time of the constitutional change or forever?  It seems that a more detailed plan for synod transition is needed, unless this commission becomes a permanent commission (and the name of the commission contains transitional so it is not intended to be the case).  Let me put this another way:  If the commission is to do review of presbytery minutes is that just once for the transition or on an ongoing basis.  And if just once, than there should be another section to this overture that describes how the GA will take on the review of the minutes of 173 presbyteries in the future.

And that is my Third concern, that while this overture covers the transition commission, what then?  There needs to be consideration of the transition process for the OGA and the GAMC if they are going to take over the essential functions of the 16 synods.

Yes, I am being picky here, but because of the nature of commissions you have to cover the details when it is created.  I don’t see any fundamental problem with this overture that can’t be overcome with some detailed rewriting by the Assembly, if this is the direction they chose to go.  And I am very curious to see the Advisory Committee on the Constitution’s comments on this overture.

Well, that is what is currently on the docket, but this past week also brought another proposal that we can expect to see on the radar in the next couple of months.  The organization  Presbyterians For Renewal (PFR) has published their solution for the PC(USA) going forward, which is to expand the synod structure by creating a 17th synod to serve as a non-geographic affinity synod.  Churches concerned about the doctrinal direction the PC(USA) is taking could chose to switch over to this New Synod.

The full proposal is 13 pages long, of which 9 are FAQ and 2 are the text of the proposed constitutional changes with a 2 page Appendix that appears to act much like the procedural manuals envisioned under the nFOG.

Since this is just a proposal and has not been transmitted yet, or at least posted, as a formal overture from a presbytery I am not going to dissect it line-by-line but will make some general comments and highlight a few specifics.

As you can imagine for something like this to work it contains a bit of creative polity, especially items granting the New Synod (the working name until it is created and formally named) a reasonable amount of autonomy.  It does however say that it has the “same responsibilities and powers as all other synods” which presumably means the ecclesiastical and administrative functions that include a PJC and records review.  However, it also says that the provisions in this new section supersede any other Book of Order provisions to the contrary and that the provisions in this section may not be changed by the rest of the denomination without a majority vote of all the presbyteries in the New Synod.

One polity point that quickly becomes apparent is that New Synod presbyteries lose a certain amount of authority under this plan.  On the one hand, the synod will control ordination standards instead of the presbyteries.  Presbyteries will conduct the examinations but the New Synod “has the responsibility and power to maintain the standards for ordination and continuing ministry.”  There appears to be little room for interpretation of the standards at the presbytery or session level.  On the other side dismissal of churches from the New Synod has been removed from presbytery approval to a vote of the congregation wishing to switch.  (And this applies to a church wishing to join New Synod or leave New Synod.)  However, while approval of the dismissing presbytery is not required the approval of the receiving presbytery is required in both cases.  (Under present polity for a church to switch the congregational vote is not required but it must be approved by both presbyteries, the synod or synods involved, and the GA.)

I had to laugh when I saw in the FAQ the comment about the church fighting over ordination standards for the last 3 decades.  While the current sexual standards have been the point of contention for 30 years, the Old Side/New Side split almost three centuries ago was over ordination standards, including subscription to the Westminster Standards.  Interestingly, this New Synod proposal brings back something that is very close to creedal subscription.  A couple of ways this will happen is outlined in the Appendix.  First, the New Synod will produce a list of some, but not the, essential tenets as areas that must not be overlooked in examining candidates for ordained office.  Secondly, in the New Synod any ordained officer of the church must affirm:

Along with the broader constitutional standards for manner of life (e.g. G-6.0106a), New Synod also holds to the standard that its officers will live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness.

It goes on to say “Those who can not make this affirmation for their own manner of life will not be approved for ordination or installation in an office, or for membership in a presbytery.

It is important to remember that the standards New Synod is interested in maintaining are the ones that are currently in force in the PC(USA).  Currently the church is debating if there is any flexibility in the standards either because they are  “non-essentials” or because the violate an office-holder’s conscience.  What the final version of this document needs to do is present the ordination standards for New Synod not so that it sounds like legalism, but instead in a way that it brings grace.

It will be interesting to see if this Assembly wants to tackle the present situation with synods.  And I await the wording of the New Synod proposal as an overture from a presbytery.  Stay tuned…

All Saints Day 2009

Leave a reply

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God.  [Hebrews 12:1-2]

As is my custom every year on November 1 in my daily devotions I give thanks for those that have touched my life and who have joined the Church Triumphant in the past year.

On this Feast ( or Commemoration or Solemnity ) of All Saints I remember the saints that I have known.  Those whose life was an inspiration to me in some way and have now gone on to their heavenly reward.  I am grateful for the way they have touched my life, inspired me, and enriched my faith.

This year I remember…

  • Marjorie – who sat behind me in church every Sunday, was so quick to offer me the handshake of Peace, and who was almost never without a smile.
  • Bob – a gentleman (in the best sense of the word) who had seen much in his many years and was so faithful in attendance to church and family as his strength allowed.
  • Stan – who struggled with illness and other issues for years and now finds his rest with God.
  • Ken – who regularly shared his musical talents as a member of our church choir and went to be with the Lord at much too early an age.
  • Billie – who was quiet but faithful and encouraging.

As I look back on the year I am struck by two interesting aspects.  The first is how many around me in the Church Militant have struggled with health issues, particularly cancer, and who have to date been weakened and injured by the illness but who have prevailed against it so far.  The second is the number of infants in our church family, newborn and unborn, that have departed this world and we trust, through God’s steadfast love, now reside in his care.

So to all the saints that have inspired me and encouraged me in my own race, thanks and I am sure that you have heard from the Lord “well done, good and faithful servant.”

O blest communion, fellowship divine
We feebly struggle, they in glory shine;
Yet all are one in Thee, for all are Thine.
Alleluia!  Alleluia!

Happy Reformation Day 2009

Leave a reply

In honor of Reformation Day I spent yesterday and today doing something really, well, Reformed.

The annual Assembly meeting of the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii PC(USA) happened this weekend.  Appropriate to fall on Reformation Day 2009. 

And while in Reformation Day we commemorate a specific event — Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church door in Wittneberg on this day in 1517 — that event is remembered by a wide range of Protestants as a defining moment in church history that would shortly include a number of other reformers around Europe.  (With due recognition of Luther’s predecessors like John Wycliffe and Jan Hus.)

From that we of the Presbyterian and Reformed traditions get our concept of clergy and ordained laity ruling jointly with parity in all the courts of the church.  Not a synod, conclave or conference that calls only the high level clergy together to make decisions.  Not a bicameral body where the clergy meet together in one room and the laity meet separately in another room.  But a meeting where those of us without formal theological training participate side-by-side with church professionals on equal footing to make ecclesiastical decisions.

And the really radical part is that serving on an equal footing means that the ruling elders can lead the meetings.  A geologist and computer tech like me can be the one called and elected by the governing body to plan and chair the meeting.  This is radical — the thought that someone without formal theological training could run the meeting of a church governing body.  Sure, I have a whole bunch of church experience and am well versed on church polity and some aspects of theology.  But in few places do you see the person up-front without a clerical collar, robe, or staff.

So on this Reformation Day we remember what the Reformers brought to the Christian church — bringing the Church to all the people.  This includes the Holy Scriptures in the common language.  The opportunity to pray directly to God without an intermediary.  The responsibility of those chosen from among the congregation as leaders to serve as the shepherds of the flock.  In short – the idea that the clergy in the church are not inherently closer to God than the people in the pews.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.  As it was in the beginning is now and every shall be.  World without end. Amen.

Church of Scotland General Assembly 2010 Moderator Designate

Leave a reply

This morning the nominating committee announced the Moderator Designate for the 2010 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.  I would like to congratulate the Rev. John Cairns Christie on receiving this honor.

Rev. Christie is a native of Glasgow and is a second career minister having a first career as a teacher with training in biology.  He holds the highest professional certification of Chartered Biologist from the Society of Biology.  After nearly two decades in education he was ordained to the ministry in 1990 and his early service included work as a school chaplain.  He has also served as convener of the Glasgow Presbytery Education Committee, among others.  Since 2004 he has been serving in Interim Ministry and currently serves at St Andrew’s Parish Church, West Kilbride and some times at Scots Kirk, Lausanne, Switzerland.  (And I thought I had an interesting commute. )  The Rev. Christie appears to have plenty of activity in his life having served on several GA committees, recreational activity that includes 5-a-side football, and his wife Annette is on the international team for the Scottish Indoor Bowling Association.

The Church of Scotland has an official press release of the announcement and so far the media appears to be using the info in the press release.  I’ll update here when more detailed stories or interviews have been published.

UPDATE: I was glad that we still have an insider view of the process thanks to the Rev. Ian Watson at Kirkmuirhill.

UPDATE: An interesting editorial in The Times about The Kirk needing to have a Moderator for longer than one year so they can “make a mark.”

Exit Strategy? Parallels In Institutional Realignment And Consequences

3 Replies

The parallels are very interesting, if not striking…

For the past week the big news in religion circles has been the Roman church establishing a structure to bring into full communion Anglicans that are now at theological odds with their own denomination and are looking for a more conservative church.

But consider this Anglican-Roman possibility compared to the PC(USA)-EPC situation.

At the top level there is the structural similarity.  In each case the receiving church has created a specific auxiliary structure within the church to accommodate the beliefs, polity and practices of the immigrants.  While Rome is still ironing out the details, it has been announced that the post-Anglican branch will have a “personal ordinariate” (read bishop or other episcopal type person)(update: a good note on personal ordinareates from Called to Communion) for that branch.  The EPC has of course set up the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery.

Now, yes, I am fully aware of a couple of points where these two cases are reversed.  First in size, the larger Roman church is offering to receive from the smaller Anglican church while it is the other way around for the PC(USA)/EPC relationship.  But there is a historical relationship in each of these cases with the smaller denomination braking away from the larger at some point in the past.  One other important difference in this situation is the speed that each developed.  While the founding of the New Wineskins Presbytery was not immediate, it did happen relatively quickly by church history standards.  The reunification of the Roman and Anglican branches has probably been a goal of Rome for, oh, say 500 years, and this most recent move should be viewed as something specific that has been in the works for a while, maybe a couple of decades.

But beyond the structural parallels there are at least two dynamics in this where we may see parallel activity as well.

The first is the effect on the receiving institution.  Interestingly, in both cases the receiving institution will have to make accommodation for women serving in ordained positions.  While the EPC had this as a local option, we have seen some question about how former PC(USA) churches would be integrated into EPC presbyteries that do not currently have women ordained to church office.  For the Roman church, it will have to accommodate not only women serving as priests but the reality of married clergy.  And while Rome has previously accepted married clergy that have realigned to them from the Anglican church, this will require a whole new level of accommodation.

But what this really does is raise the possibility of questions from the established side.  “If they can be part of us and have women clergy, why don’t we?”  “If they can be part of us and the priests can be married, why can’t we?”  I have previously spoken of the PC(USA)-ization of the EPC, it will be interesting to see what the ramifications are for the Anglican-ization of the Roman church.  How much interest will there be in members and clergy drifting from the established side to the new branch?

(Correction:  After multiple contacts about my line above about women priests (see the comment below) I did some more looking and 1) can not now locate my original source for that and 2) located a lot of commentary that implies no women priests.  Accordingly, I have struck that comment.  If I can locate my original source I will reinstate the above line and cite a reference.  Until then it is not an issue. Sorry about that.)

The second parallel is the one of pragmatism and practicality — The idea looks good on paper, but will they come?  Put another way — How much will this be viewed as the better of two imperfect options?

Within the PC(USA) the situation is still developing.  The church has, for the moment, retained the ordination standards but the majority view seems to be that when in all likelihood the PC(USA) presbyteries vote on it again a year from now there is the distinct possibility that G-6.0106b will be modified or removed.  At the present time not all of the churches who are part of the New Wineskins Association of Churches have moved to the EPC New Wineskins Presbytery — many see their calling to remain with the PC(USA) for the moment.  And Presbyterians for Renewal has proposed a non-geographic synod for churches to be able to remain in the PC(USA) while holding differing views on ordination standards.  While the EPC option is available it appears that so far a minority has viewed it as the appropriate way forward.

There is a similar situation in the Anglican Communion even without the offer from Rome.  In the U.S. there is both the Anglican Church in North America that broke away from the Episcopal Church as well as some dioceses that are looking at staying, but just barely.  The Diocese of South Carolina has a special convention this weekend where it will consider five resolutions that would keep them in the church but withdraw from many of its functions.  Similarly, within the Church of England there are groups within the church that are eying the announcement from Rome, but seem to be leaning towards the loyal opposition route.  And then there is the Global South where the “liberal trajectory” in parts of the Communion is an issue, but not for them at home.

One area which does not seem to be a parallel is the politics of the exit strategy.  In the PC(USA) the EPC option seems to really be viewed as just that, an option.  Despite charges of recruiting PC(USA) churches, and the effort by the PC(USA) to hold onto property, it has seemed to be something that churches consider for the sake of their ministry.

Now maybe I am reading too much into some of these stories (or the media is writing too much into these stories), but over the last week I have gotten the impression that many of the conservatives in the Anglican Communion see the offer from Rome in political terms and a development to be used as a bargaining chip.  Maybe it is just me, but from the comments welcoming the new option (e.g. ACNA) it almost seems like some members of the Communion are using the Roman Church as a “white knight.” They are not so much interested in joining Rome as to use its offer to put pressure on the Anglican Communion to reinforce conservative views.  But maybe this is just me reading some conspiracy theory into all this.

If you are interested in more of the practical realities of this offer to the Anglicans from Rome I would suggest a piece by Diana Butler Bass on Beliefnet and Peter Smith at the Louisville Courier-Journal.  And of course, one of my favorite reads, GetReligion, has five different articles analyzing the coverage of the announcement.  (One, two, three, four and five)

Now, if you are regular readers of my blog you probably realize that I have an analytical interest in church realignments.  It will be interesting to see how this develops.  I think that my first Ph.D. degree is probably enough so I won’t be doing the comprehensive research and analysis, but there are probably a couple of good dissertations about church structure and realignment that will come out of this and I look forward to that research.

In addition, it will be interesting to see what develops in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America over the same issues after this past summer’s Churchwide Assembly.  So far about ten ELCA churches have had a first vote on realigning with the Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ.  But I need to start closely following another denominational branch like I need…

Anyway, it is interesting to see how both the structures and practicalities of these realignments are developing.  We will see what the actual outcome of all this will be.

Considering the Belhar Confession — The PC(USA), RCA And CRC Are All In The Process

6 Replies

In an inter-denominational synergy (or maybe a cosmic convergence or providential parallel) it turns out that the Belhar Confession is currently under consideration in three Reformed churches in the U.S. — In addition to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) it is also being looked at by the Reformed Church in America (RCA) and the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) for adoption as a confessional standard.

If you have not had a chance to get acquainted with the Belhar Confession yet, it was written by the Dutch Reformed Mission Church of South Africa, under the leadership of the Rev. Allan Boesak, and it spoke to the concern that the concept of apartheid was at odds with the justice and equality of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  The Belhar Confession is now one of the standards of unity of the Uniting Reformed Church of Southern Africa.

Of the three denominations the one furthest along in the adoption process is the RCA which has been studying it in the wider church since 2000.  In 2007 it was provisionally adopted by the General Synod and this past summer the General Synod approved the formal adoption process and it must now be approved by 2/3 of the 46 classes (like a Presbyterian presbytery) to become their first new standard in over 300 years.  (OK, the three standards, the Belgic Confession, Canons of Dort, and Heidelberg Catechism were written over 300 years ago but adopted by the RCA in 1771.)

As it turns out the process in the CRC is a bit ahead of the PC(USA) but their study period will close at the same time as the PC(USA) in 2012.  The CRC has been in consultation with the RCA about this and their Synod 2009 recommended that the church study the Confession and that it be adopted by Synod 2012 as their fourth confessional standard, the same as the RCA.  For the CRC the approval by Synod 2012 is the final step and no vote of the classes is required under their polity.  (A unique feature in my experience.)

Concerning the PC(USA), if approval is gained at each of the planned steps then it would enter the PC(USA) Book of Confessions following the 220th General Assembly in 2012.  The specific steps are the formation of a study committee by the 218th GA, report back of the study committee recommending adoption to the next GA, the 219th, and approval of the confession by that Assembly.  It would then be sent to the presbyteries for approval requiring an affirmative vote of 2/3 of the presbyteries.  There must then be a final vote of the next GA, the 220th in 2012, to finish the process successfully.  The first and second steps, creation of the study committee and a positive recommendation of that committee have now been completed.  The committee’s work has included consultation with the CRC and the RCA, even holding their first meeting back in June in Grand Rapids, MI, a location chosen to better dialog with the CRC.

While this is not the hottest topic (maybe this, or this, or even this is) in the Reformed circles of the blogosphere, it does have pretty good coverage.  Bloggers from the RCA (e.g. Steve Pierce and Kevin DeYoung) and the CRC (e.g. Algernon Peak) are weighing in on the confession.  And of course, there is plenty of opinion from the PC(USA) as well (e.g. Toby Brown, Byron Wade, Viola Larson, and Mark Koenig).

There is general agreement that the Belhar Confession would bring a couple of new items to the Book of Confessions — its focus on equality and justice as well as its Southern Hemisphere perspective.  Those are aspects that you may or may not agree should be represented in the Book of Confessions.

Regarding the justice aspect there is a concern among many of the bloggers that it comes from the perspective of Liberation Theology.  In the fourth section of the Belhar Confession, the second bullet-point reads “We believe…that God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged.”  The current debates revolve around the phrase “is in a special way” and what that means.  In some varieties of Liberation Theology the scriptures are viewed as saying that God not only comforts the poor and oppressed but is inherently against the rich and powerful.  Algernon Peak comments on this saying:

The first aspect of the Belhar that makes me uncomfortable is that it makes the claim, “that God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged.”  While Scripture makes clear that God cares for the poor, and Christ says in Luke 6, “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God”, we go too far to say that God is in some special way God to those who are impoverished.  According to the Scriptures, God is God in a special way to his chosen people, to go beyond that truth is to say more than the Scriptures do.  This does really concerns me, because that particular portion of the Belhar seems much more indebted to contemporary liberation theology than it does to the Bible.  We are lost if we start allowing our confessions to say that which God’s revealed written testimony does not give us the right to say.

The aspect of the Belhar that is probably the focus of the greatest debate is how the pronouncements about justice and equality regarding racial divisions can be extended to current controversies of gender orientation equality.  That this extension can be made seems
to be acknowledged by all engaged in the debate.  In the case of the Rev. Joseph Small of the PC(USA) Office of Theology and Worship this is a good and legitimate extension.  The official PC(USA) press release says this about his comments to the committee:

Adopting the Belhar also means more than presenting a simple statement against racism, Small said.

“It does speak to the contemporary reality of racial discrimination in our church and the world,” he said. The church can’t ignore the situation of apartheid that led to the Belhar, Small told the committee, but also can’t limit it to that. “Belhar is something that speaks about the diversity of the church but doesn’t restrict it to one dimension.”

That openness to a wide range of social conflicts could also be a barrier to adoption for Belhar, which some could argue opens the door to gay and lesbian ordination. That issue was raised recently when the national governing bodies of the Reformed Church in America (RCA) and the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) also considered Belhar.

But the confession mentions only membership in the church — not ordination — and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people have long been welcomed as members in the PC(USA), Small said.

One of the people raising concerns about the extension of the Belhar Confession to this current debate is Dr. Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary.  His is an interesting voice in this discussion because, as he describes in his recent piece about it, he has significant experience with all three of these Reformed branches as well as the individuals and denomination that wrote the Belhar.  (He has an earlier article from last Spring raising concerns as well.)  In the article from last week he wrote:

So why am I opposed to our—the CRC, RCA, and PC(USA)— adopting Belhar as a confessional document? When I wrote about this earlier I mentioned that Allan Boesak, also one of the gifted anti-apartheid spokespersons in South Africa’s Reformed community, had recently appealed to Belhar in support of including active gays and lesbians in the church’s ministerial ranks. I might also have mentioned that many fear that Belhar will now be used to reinforce an unnuanced anti-Israeli stance.

I think those worries are real. But my critics, many of whom share my views about same-sex issues and Middle East matters, rightly insist that this is no reason to oppose Belhar as such. What we must do, they rightly argue, is to make sure that Belhar is understood as a prophetic word against racial and ethnic discrimination within the Christian community.

We will see to what extent Belhar is held up as a “particular stance” in particular circumstances at a particular time versus how it is applied as applicable today to any perceived injustice or inequality.

But Dr. Mouw continues on from there to express an even greater concern on his part — the nature of confessional standards in general and how this one fits into that framework.  The nature of confessional standards is something I have discussed before and this is of concern to me as well.  I encourage you to read the whole discussion, but here are some excerpts that I hope gives you the basics of what seems to me to be the strong case that Dr. Mouw makes:

My real concern about adopting Belhar has to do with the broader issue of the nature of confessional integrity in our Reformed and Presbyterian churches. I think I know all three denominations very well. I was raised in an RCA pastor’s home, and attended two of that denomination’s colleges and one of its seminaries. I was an active member of the CRC for 17 years. And for two decades now I have been similarly active in the PC(USA).

When I was studying at an RCA seminary in the 1960s, one of my more conservative professors explained the differing views on the status of the Reformed “Standards of Unity”—Heidelberg, Belgic, and Dort—in this way. The CRC, he said, takes them very seriously. If you are Christian Reformed you are expected really to believe what is in them. […] Some people in the RCA, on the other hand, said the professor, tend to see the book of confessions as a kind of museum. […]

I think the professor had it right at the time. But today all three of the aforementioned denominations basically endorse the museum approach. Or it may be a little more like a “Great Books” approach. The documents from the past are all there up on the shelf, and we all acknowledge their importance, but some of us really like James Baldwin and others of us prefer Jane Austen.

[…]

These days it is rather common for people—CRC folks included—who have taken ordination vows publicly to express their disagreements with what I take to be essential Reformed doctrines. Indeed, I am often treated as a curiosity of sorts when I make it clear that I still subscribe to the actual doctrinal content of the Reformed “Great Books”—predestination, individual election, substitutionary atonement, the reality of hell, Christ as the only Way.

So, let me put it bluntly. If we—for all practical purposes—don’t care about genuinely subscribing to the actual content of, say, the Belgic or the Westminster confessions, why would we think that adopting Belhar would be in any way binding on the consciences of persons who take ordination vows? When detached from the content of the rest of Reformed thought, many of Belhar’s formulations—as stand-alone theological declarations—are dangerously vague. Belhar deserves confessional status only in a community that takes the rest of its confessions with utmost seriousness.

To sum up this whole issue his concluding paragraph is concise and to the point.  I leave you with that:

The most compelling case being made for adopting Belhar is for me the pleas of underrepresented racial-ethnic minority groups in our denominations. They have a right to ask us to declare our firm conviction that racism and ethno-centrism are not only unjust, they are theological heresies. But I fear they are assuming that we are more committed to confessional integrity than we actually are. When all of this debate is over and Belhar—as is very likely—is on the confessional shelf, I hope they will push us hard on whether we really take that whole shelf seriously.

Free Church Of Scotland General Assembly Moderator Designee

Leave a reply

The Free Church of Scotland yesterday announced that the Moderator of their 2010 General Assembly will be the Rev. David Meredith of Inverness.  The Rev. Meredith has pastored the Smithton Free Church for the last 25 years and is credited with building a tiny outreach congregation into a thriving one.  (That church name is from the announcement although the church web site lists the church as the Smithton-Culloden Free Church.  The church web site also brings news they had a 25 year celebration for Rev. Meredith just a couple of weeks ago.)

Mr. Meredith is a career minister having earned a degree in English and Politics at Strathclyde University before studying for the ministry at Free Church College.

I like the description that Rev. Meredith gives of his interest in ministry:

David says he has a desire to bring contemporary applications to
ancient truths, and to see vibrancy within a Free Church which is free
from parochialism and focused on the spiritual needs of Scotland.

In particular I like that idea of bringing “contemporary applications to ancient truths.”

The Free Church of Scotland General Assembly will convene in May in Edinburgh.  I look forward to Rev. Meredith’s leadership.

The PC(USA) New Revised Form Of Government — Introductory Thoughts And The Revised Foundations

7 Replies

I am sure that most of the G.A. Junkies in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) know that the Form of Government Task Force will be bringing their revisions to the New Form of Government  to the 219th General Assembly next July.  Having now had time to study the revisions I wanted to share my thoughts and observations.

It is important to keep in mind the goal and history of the revision of the Form of Government section of the Book of Order.  The goal is to make the Book of Order, or at least the Form of Government, a constitutional document that sets forth the basic principles but is not loaded up with the detailed procedures that the church is to follow.  In addition, it is to be a “missional” document reflecting the concept that the church exists for mission — to go out into the world and make disciples.

The first recent major revision to the Book of Order came from the 217th General Assembly when that Assembly sent a revised version of Chapter 14 to the presbyteries, and the presbyteries concurred.  (An interesting discussion at this time would be whether the presbyteries still think the new Chapter 14 is a good thing and how that will influence the outcome of the present decision.) What we have today in that chapter is the stylistic goal for the whole Form of Government section.  At the 218th General Assembly the Form of Government Task Force brought a complete revision to the rest of the FOG but the Assembly committee and the full Assembly decided it was “not ready for prime time.”  The tenure of the task force was extended, three Assembly commissioners were added to the task force, and given the opportunity one member of the task force opted out of the “extended mission.”  Just over a month ago the task force released their New Revised Form of Government for the review, consideration, and discernment of the church.  This revision is to reflect the vast amount of input the task force received both at the 218th Assembly as well as through the presbyteries and directly.

If you wish to follow my discussion closely, or you want to have a detailed comparison yourself, there are several documents that you might want to consult.  The first, of course, is the current 2009-2011 Book of Order.  From the 218th GA (2008) there is the Report of the Task Force as well as a great side-by-side comparison of the revision to the Form of Government section at that time.  From the extended mission we have Report of the Task Force with the full text, as well as the Foundations and Government sections separately.  As tempting as it is to refer to the first revision as the “revised version” and the new one as the “new revised version,” for my discussion here and in following posts I will refer to them as “nFOG 2008” and “nFOG 2010.”  (The dates are for the year of the GA that considers them, not the year of release.)

For those just joining the discussion, or those who wisely have better things to do between GA’s than remember all these details, I should point out that a major recommendation in the nFOG 2008, and maintained in nFOG 2010, is the division of the existing Form of Government section into two sections.  The first four chapters would be split out on their own, rearranged into three chapters, and called Foundations of Presbyterian Polity.  They would now be the “F” section of the Book of Order and their placement into a new section would emphasize their application to all the other sections of the Book of Order.

In this post I will focus on just the Foundations section and leave the remainder of the Form of Government section for another time.  If you are curious what I said two years ago about it you can check out my previous comments.  As I read back through them today, with the exception of one messed up sentence where I am not sure what I was trying to say, I think my attitude now is still the same as reflected in that post.

I would begin by saying that while the nFOG 2008 did a major reorganization of the first four chapters, nFOG 2010 leaves most of their reorganization in place and has done more modification of the text, mostly to improve readability.  To my ear the Foundations section reads better than before.  A good example of this language:

 Current nFOG 2008  nFOG 2010
G-3.0100 Form
The mission of the Church is given form by God’s activity in the world as told in the Bible and understood by faith.

G-3.0101 God’s Activity
a. God created the heavens and the earth and made human beings in God’s image, charging them to care for all that lives; God made men and women to live in community, responding to their Creator with grateful obedience. Even when the human race broke community with its Maker and with one another, God did not forsake it, but out of grace chose one family for the sake of all, to be pilgrims of promise, God’s own Israel.

God’s Covenant
b. God liberated the people of Israel from oppression; God covenanted with Israel to be their God and they to be God’s people, that they might do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with the Lord; God confronted Israel with the responsibilities of this covenant, judging the people for their unfaithfulness while sustaining them by divine grace.

  F-1.01 GOD’S MISSION
The sovereign mission of the one triune God—Father, Son,and Holy Spirit—gives substance and form to the Church’s activity in the world. The Church knows God’s sovereign work in creation and redemption through God’s Word in Scripture, the witness of the confessions, and the presence of Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. As the Church responds to God’s gracious call, it participates in the divine mission—proclaiming the time of the Lord’s favor, bringing good news to all who are impoverished, and announcing release to those who are imprisoned, sight to those who are blinded, and freedom to those who are oppressed. In its faithful mission, the Church is assured of God’s blessing and filled with hope in the fulfillment of God’s purpose. Along with Christians everywhere, Presbyterians have no higher goal in life or in death than to live in covenant fellowship with the triune God, to embrace and serve God’s mission, to glorify and enjoy God now and forever.		  F-1.01 GOD’S MISSION
The good news of the Gospel is that the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—creates, redeems, sustains, rules, a
nd transforms all things and all people. This one living God, the Scriptures say, liberated the people of Israel from oppression and covenanted to be their God. By the power of the Spirit, this one living God is incarnate in Jesus Christ, who came to live in the world, die for the world, and be raised again to new life. The Gospel of Jesus Christ announces the nearness of God’s kingdom, bringing good news to all who are impoverished, sight to all who are blind, freedom to all who are oppressed, and proclaiming the Lord’s favor upon all creation.

The mission of God in Christ gives shape and substance to the life and work of the Church. In Christ, the Church participates in God’s mission for the transformation of creation and humanity by proclaiming to all people the good news of God’s love, offering to all people the grace of God at font and table, and calling all people to discipleship in Christ. Human beings have no higher goal in life than to glorify and enjoy God now and forever, living in covenant fellowship with God and participating in God’s mission.

In this particular case I do think the nFOG 2010 reads better, theologically presents the might acts of God in a more logical manner, and I like the filling out of the nature of the triune God in the first line.

It does leave the question of whether this is the best opening for the Book of Order and as I argued before I still favor the current language for its force and gravity:

All power in heaven and earth is given to Jesus Christ by Almighty God, who raised Christ from the dead and set him above all rule and authority, all power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. God has put all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and has made Christ Head of the Church, which is his body. [G-1.0100a]

There are places where subtle changes were made that, to my reading, do have significant theological or historical implications.  One example is from the last line of F-2.02 on the confessions as subordinate standards:

 Current nFOG 2008  nFOG 2010
Yet the church, in obedience to Jesus Christ, is open to the reform of its standards of doctrine as well as of governance. The church affirms “Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda,” that is, “The church reformed, always reforming,” according to the Word of God and the call of the Spirit.
[from G-2.0200]		 Yet the church, in obedience to Jesus Christ, is open to the reform of its standards of doctrine as well as of governance. The church affirms “Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda,” that is, “The church reformed, always to be reformed,” according to the Word of God and the call of the Spirit.
[from F-2.02]		 Yet the church, in obedience to Jesus Christ, is open to the reform of its standards of doctrine as well as of governance. The church affirms Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei, that is, “The church reformed, always to be reformed according to the Word of God” in the power of the Spirit.
[from F-2.02]

First, I appreciate the extended Latin phrase being included as well as the use of italics rather than quotations.  But the change from the “call of the Spirit” to “power of the Spirit” is one that I currently am not persuaded of.  While I would fully endorse the power of the Holy Spirit, when used in the context of the church being reformed I would prefer referencing the initial action of God through the call of the Spirit in that reformation.  We affirm that reformation is not of human initiative but of God’s.

There is a similar change when the new version speaks of the Protestant Reformation:

 Current nFOG 2008  nFOG 2010
G-2.0400 Faith of the Protestant Reformation

In its confessions, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) identifies with the affirmations of the Protestant Reformation. The focus of these affirmations is the rediscovery of God’s grace in Jesus Christ as revealed in the Scriptures. The Protestant watchwords—grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone—embody principles of understanding which continue to guide and motivate the people of God in the life of faith.

 F-2.04 The Confessions as Statements of the Faith of the Protestant Reformation

In its confessions, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) identifies with the affirmations of the Protestant Reformation. The focus of these affirmations is the rediscovery of God’s grace in Jesus Christ as revealed in the Scriptures. The Protestant watchwords—grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone—embody principles of understanding that continue to guide and motivate the people of God in the life of faith.

 F-2.04 THE CONFESSIONS AS STATEMENTS OF THE FAITH OF THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION

In its confessions, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) upholds the affirmations of the Protestant Reformation. The focus of these affirmations is God’s grace in Jesus Christ as revealed in the Scriptures. The Protestant watchwords—grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone—embody principles of understanding that continue to guide and motivate the people of God in the life of faith.

Again, there are a couple of subtle changes that, to my thinking, make different theological and historical statements about the Reformation confessions.  The switch from “identifies with” to “upholds” is one that I think I disagree with, but I am still wavering.  On the one hand, “upholds” distances us from the confession like “it happened and we acknowledge it.”  On the other hand, while it has a greater sense of distance “upholds” does have, to me, a greater sense of affirmation or attachment than “identifies.”  I’m still debating these changes with myself.

One change that I am grateful for is the return of a paragraph related to the historical nature and “stance” of confessional standards:

 Current nFOG 2008  nFOG 2010
b. Thus, the creeds and confessions of this church reflect a particular stance within the history of God’s people. They are the result of prayer, thought, and experience within a living tradition. They serve to strengthen personal commitment and the life and witness of the community of believers.
[G-2.0500b]		 [not included] The creeds and confessions of this church arose in response
to particular circumstances within the history of God’s people. They claim the truth of the Gospel at those points where their authors perceived that truth to be at risk. They are the result of prayer, thought, and experience within a living tradition. They appeal to the universal truth of the Gospel while expressing that truth within the social and cultural assumptions of their time. They affirm a common faith tradition, while also from time to time standing in tension with each other.
[from F-2.01]

Well, if you have gotten this far in my post I thank you for caring so much about this.  As I said there are several subtle changes that have been made that may affect whether you do, or do not, like the revision.  I won’t give any more side-by-side comparisons, but another subtle change that jumped out at me was the opening paragraph of the Principles of Order and Government where nFOG 2008 talks about the historic principles of church order “which have been a part of our common heritage in this nation,” the nFOG 2010 drops the “in this nation.”  While I can appreciate an attempt to remove a nationalistic tone, I do want to affirm that the PC(USA) is only 25 years old and there are almost 300 years of American Presbyterianism before that.  In addition, I think the qualifier is useful since in my study of Presbyterianism globally there are certain distinctions to church order in the American branch that these principles reflect.

I would note that two additions I appreciate are the inclusion of more scripture references throughout the section as well as more attention paid to the triune God.  And while the changes in structure are few, I would also complement the task force on the few times they did move sentences and ideas around with putting them in places that they more logically fit.

I suspect that most G.A. Junkies have particular sections of the Book of Order that they appreciate and value for the precise wording as well as the doctrine behind the section.  I have three in the Foundations section that are dear to me.  In my post from the last go-round two years ago I ranted about the change to the beginning of Chapter 1 where Jesus Christ as the head of the Church has been moved one section later.  I am pleased to say that the Great Ends of the Church have remained untouched.  But between nFOG 2008 and nFOG 2010 they had to go and change the section [F-1.0301] that begins “The Church of Jesus Christ is the provisional demonstration of what God intends for all of humanity.” and ends “The Church is called to give shape and substance to this truth. The Church is further called to undertake this mission even at the risk of losing its life, trusting in God alone as the author and giver of life, sharing the gospel, and doing those deeds in the world that point beyond themselves to the new reality in Christ.”  In nFOG 2010 it is no longer the “provisional demonstration” but is to demonstrate the gifts through Jesus Christ.  Furthermore, it does not risk its life for the mission but for the community. No only do I miss the specific wording that I have memorized and love, but it gives the appearance that is intended to be a missional document is not quite as missional.  Then again you can’t please everyone.

I think that is more than enough for right now.  I am still working on the new Government section of nFOG 2010 and will post on that probably in a week or two.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — The Assembly Business Is Now Live

Leave a reply

While I have been anticipating the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) “going live,” I can now report that within the last week or so it has.

In this case, going live has two components:

1)  The anticipated official web site of the Assembly is now up and running complete with several sub-pages and lots of pictures of the 218th GA.  There is a greeting from GA Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons on the front page, a nice set of FAQ’s for commissioners, and the beginnings of an on-line commissioner orientation including a video tutorial of PC-Biz, the on-line business system.  A preliminary schedule is posted and the right navigation bar has a suggestive, but inactive, region titled “GA 219 Social Networking.”  There are still some broken and interesting links on the pages (particularly for the OGA graphic) but the web site represents a good start.

2) Speaking of PC-Biz, I had mentioned that it had been primed for the 219th but now when you check out the business there are three overtures posted.

Overture 1 asks the Assembly to issue an Authoritative Interpretation that essentially restores previous AI and General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission decisions regarding Book of Order section G-6.0106.  The previous AI’s on this section were removed by the 218th GA as part of the action that sent the ultimately unsuccessful Amendment B to the presbyteries for a vote.  This Overture comes from the Presbytery of San Diego with concurring overtures from Central Florida, Cherokee, Washington and Yukon.

Overture 2 is a fairly routine matter of transferring a church from one presbytery to another.  The original location of Community Church of Seattle Presbyterian Church was in the Presbytery of Seattle but in 2003 they relocated to a property that is in the Presbytery of North Puget Sound.  There is a bit of a twist because the transfer did not happen at the time of the move six years ago due to North Puget Sound not being in a position to accept a loan guarantee that would have transfered with the church.  As they say, now the way is clear.

Overture 3 requests a fairly substantial change to the position of Commissioned Lay Pastor (CLP).  At the present time a CLP receives basic theological training and can then be commissioned by the presbytery to serve in a specific congregation.  When the CLP finishes at that congregation they are available for work in another congregation but are not able to do freelance work.  This overture from South Louisiana Presbytery requests a change to the Book of Order G-14.0560 to allow a CLP to have “at-large” status between calls and be free to serve on an as-needed basis, even in their own congregation if requested by the session.  The rational section of the overture says this:

Given the current reality that many of our smaller membership congregations are unable to afford the services of a commissioned lay pastor, even if one were available in or near the community, much less a minister of the Word and Sacrament, it is incumbent upon the denomination to provide avenues where these congregations may be served by trained laity, especially for the celebration of the sacraments. Having adopted the essential tenets of the Reformed tradition, we should exhibit a visible expression of the Reformed tenet of “the priesthood of all believers” or what Scriptures call the “royal priesthood,” (1Peter 2:9; Ephesians 2:19–22; 1Corinthians 6:16–18).

The realities of ordained ministry in the PC(USA) are that many congregations can not afford ordained leadership and those that are seminary trained have less interest in serving small rural congregations.  This is a situation the church will have to address and this is one approach to it.  Personally, I’m not sure yet that this would be my preferred course although it is a very reasonable proposal.  On the other hand I was very much in favor of a parallel move about 12 years ago when the church changed the Book of Order to allow “commissioned” deacons so that individuals could serve in the ministry of the diaconate in a specified means of ministry without the particular congregation having a full board of deacons.

So hold on to your hats as this is only the beginning.  We have almost exactly nine months before the Assembly convenes, lots of overtures to go, I am sure, and several committee and task force reports to be issued.  In addition, I have gone through enough parts of the New Revised Form of Government that the 219th will have to address to begin making some comments, probably tomorrow.