General Assembly Season 2012

Leave a reply

GA Junkies ready? It is the start of General Assembly Season 2012!  Get your coffee ready, alarm clocks set and your internet streaming tuned up. Here is what I am looking forward to… (based on best available information – I will update as I get full details)

General Assembly
Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)
May 2012
EdinburghGeneral Assembly
Church of Scotland
19-25 May 2012
Edinburgh

General Assembly
Free Church of Scotland
21-25 May 2012*
Edinburgh

General Assembly
Presbyterian Church in Ireland
28-31 May 2012
Belfast

138th General Assembly
Presbyterian Church in Canada
3-7 June 2012
Oshawa, Ontario

138th General Assembly
Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America
4-7 June 2012
Huntsville, Alabama

208th Stated Meeting of the General Synod
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
5-7 June 2012
Flat Rock, North Carolina

General Assembly
United Free Church of Scotland
6-8 June 2012
Perth

79th General Assembly
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
6-12 June 2012
Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois

182nd General Assembly
Cumberland Presbyterian Church
17-22 June 2012
Florence, Alabama

40th General Assembly
Presbyterian Church in America
19-22 June 2012
Louisville, Kentucky

181st General Synod
Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America
(researching – will update)

32nd General Assembly
Evangelical Presbyterian Church
20-23 June 2012
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

220th General Assembly
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
30 June – 7 July 2012
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

76th General Synod
Bible Presbyterian Church
9-14 August 2012
Lakeland, Florida

General Assembly 2012
Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand
4-7 October 2012
Rotorua

These are the ones that I am tracking at the moment.  I will update as
appropriate. [* These entries have been updated since the original post.]  If I have missed one, or have information wrong or incomplete, please provide the appropriate information and I will update the list.

And, to make the GA season complete here are two more items…

The first is the series of articles I wrote as an introduction to Presbyterian General Assemblies four years ago.  My GA 101 series consists of the following

GA101: Preface
GA101: Introduction – Why in the world would anybody want to do it this way?
GA101: Connectionalism – The Presbyterian Big Picture
GA101: The Cast of Characters – A score card to identify the players
GA101: The Moderator – All Things In Moderation
GA101: Where does the GA business come from? – Incoming!
GA101: Doing the business of GA — Decently and in Order

Yes, what started as a six part series expanded into seven
completed articles with two more unfinished ones in the queue.  (Maybe
this will give me some motivation to finish those up.)

And finally, on to the ridiculous.  Lest we take ourselves too seriously, a couple years ago I had a little fun with the General Assembly and in the post passed along the GA drinking game and GA Bingo. Please play both responsibly.

So, for all the GA Junkies out there I wish you the best of GA
seasons.  May you enjoy the next three months of watching us do things
decently and in order!

Presbyterian News Headlines For The Week Ending April 21, 2012 — Federal Vision, Ghana Elections and Economics

Leave a reply

[ Greetings – It has been pointed out that my subject line gives you little to go on so I have added a few key words, or keywords, to highlight the subjects I found in this week’s headlines. ]

PCA Missouri Presbytery overwhelmingly finds Teaching Elder Jeff Meyers not guilty of charges against his views on theology

The Aquila Report, 16 April 2012
In a trial before the whole Presbytery, not a judicial commission, TE Meyers was found not guilty of holding views regarding covenant, or federal vision, theology that are outside the bounds of the Westminster Standards. The source for this article was a post by Wes White on his blog Johannes Weslianus. [ed. note: If you are not familiar with both of these they are good sources of info on the PCA as well as the other non-mainstream Presbyterian branches.]

With the fall elections approaching in Ghana there have been messages from the Presbyterian Church in Ghana including a call from the Moderator of the General Assembly to move up the election date to allow more time if a run-off is needed and for transition.

Presby Moderator Wants Election Date Changed

Daily Guide, 17 April 2012

And there have also been calls to:

Focus debate on issues not personalities – Politicians told

Vibe Ghana, 19 April 2012

Similar calls were made at the opening of the Anniversary celebration for a Akuapem Presbytery

Akuapem Presbytery Launches 90th Anniversary

Vibe Ghana, 20 April 2012

Charles Munn: Bank on the Kirk to help

Scotsman, 17 April 2012

Church of Scotland outlines vision for a moral economy

Christian Today, 18 April 2012
One of the reports coming to this year’s Church of Scotland General Assembly, the report of the Special Commission on the Purposes of Economic Activity titled ‘A Right Relationship with Money‘, made headlines in the media this week. As the second article summarizes it, the report makes the case that “good economic practice is embedded in social relationships.” Coverage was prompted by a Church of Scotland press release.

Those are some of the things in the news last week. Coming up this week the news includes the big happenings in Colorado Springs.

PC(USA) GAPJC Decision — Hwang v. Synod Of Southern California And Hawaii

2 Replies


Last fall there was an interesting case decided by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission that seems to have gotten relatively little notice. One of the interesting features is listed right up front in the decision in the first few words of the Arrival Statement –

This is a remedial case of original jurisdiction…

For those not up to speed on their PJC lingo this is one of those rare instances when the GAPJC is the trial court for a remedial complaint. (And thanks to our Synod EP/Stated Clerk Doska Ross for some history on these cases and they are a roughly once per decade occurrence. It is also useful to note that two similar cases were recently denied by the GAPJC because the claimant did not have standing – 220-06 and 220-07 )

Before we dive into the background of the complaint and the details of the decision I need to give full disclosure and clarification — As many of you know I have been active in the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii (the Synod) for a number of years and as a recent officer of the Synod I have a strong connection to the Respondent in this case and know many of the individuals involved.  However, in my time working with the Synod, while I am familiar with the events that led up to the complaint, I have not been a member of the Administrative Commission that is at the heart of this case and I have not been involved with the day-to-day events the Commission has dealt with. Now, having said that let’s move onward…

At the center of this case is the Hanmi Korean language non-geographic Presbytery. The presbytery was first authorized for ten years by the 195th General Assembly (1983) and organized on January 28, 1984. The 204th General Assembly (1992) granted the request for a fifteen year extension with the instructions for the presbytery and the synod to
“prepare an intentional plan for the transfer of congregations, as they
are ready, to the proper geographic presbytery … .” As the fifteen years were winding down another request for reauthorization was made and the 218th General Assembly (2008) granted the request that Hanmi Presbytery be “continued without term limit.” This was in contrast to the 219th General Assembly (2010) that declined to create a new non-geographic Korean language presbytery elsewhere in the country.

Back in February 1999 the Synod created an Administrative Commission (AC) to take jurisdiction of Hanmi Presbytery and help it work through various problems. The AC is still in place today – that would be 12 of the 28 years the presbytery has been active – and through its history the Synod has modified the AC’s powers and in general has over time reduced its authority with responsibility being transferred back to the Presbytery. In addition, at this time Hanmi has four administrative commissions of its own working with different churches. At a called Synod Assembly meeting on 18 December 2010 the Synod granted the AC some additional authority which became the basis on which this remedial complaint was filed.

The case is Remedial Case 220-05: Steve S. Hwang, Complainant v. Synod of Southern California and Hawaii, Respondent. The GAPJC heard the case almost one year later in October 2011. (The case was tried under the Book of Order in effect at the time of the alleged irregularities but some portions of the decision drift into using current Book of Order citations.)

At the December 2010 meeting the Synod added to the jurisdiction of the AC by:

(i) adding the responsibilities of the Presbytery’s Committee on Ministry (COM) outlined in G-11.0502 a, b, c, and j of the Book of Order, (ii) adding jurisdiction over the administrative commissions previously created by Presbytery, specifically including the Administrative Commission for Torrance First Presbyterian Church (TAC), and (iii) prohibiting the Presbytery and its COM from taking any actions from those designated responsibilities without the prior consent of the SAC.

Through the pre-trial conferences the trial was limited to two specific issues:

(i) Whether on December 18, 2010, the Synod committed an irregularity under G-11.0502 when it added to the jurisdiction of the pre-existing Synod Hanmi Presbytery Administrative Commission by giving the Commission full jurisdiction over the responsibilities of the Presbytery’s Committee on Ministry as outlined in G-11.0502 a, b, c, and j, without giving the Commission complete jurisdiction over the Presbytery itself; and

(ii) Whether on December 18, 2010, the Synod committed an irregularity under G-9.0502 when it gave the pre-existing Synod Hanmi Presbytery Administrative Commission complete jurisdiction over administrative commissions previously constituted by Hanmi Presbytery, including specifically the Administrative Commission for Torrance First Presbyterian Church.

In their decision a majority of the GAPJC did not sustain these complaints and the reasoning was fairly brief and direct. Regarding the first alleged irregularity they write “while it may be questioned whether the Synod wisely allocated G-11.0502 responsibilities between the SAC and the Presbytery, this Commission declines to substitute its judgment for that of the Synod.” They then go on to cite the sections of the Book of Order that as “currently interpreted” permit a synod to take original jurisdiction.

Concerning the second irregularity they say:

As to the second alleged irregularity, it may be questioned whether the Synod should have included the TAC as one of the administrative commissions over which it was taking jurisdiction, since the record is unclear as to whether the TAC existed on December 18, 2010. However, the Synod’s action did not rise to the level of an irregularity since, if the TAC did then exist, the Synod would have had authority to assume jurisdiction over it under G-9.0503…; if it did not then exist, the assertion of authority would have been of no effect.

So there is the core of the decision, but there is a lot more here for us polity wonks to chew on. Let me begin with a bit more of the decision. The GAPJC does note that “the authority to assume original jurisdiction over a lower governing body is not a specifically delegated authority in the Book of Order, except in the case of a presbytery assuming original jurisdiction of a session.” But in rendering their decision they defer to a General Assembly Authoritative Interpretation from 2003 “which listed the assumption of original jurisdiction over a presbytery by a synod as one of the remedies available to the synod if a presbytery within its jurisdiction is not obeying decisions of the General Assembly’s Permanent Judicial Commission.”

But they go on to point out the tension in the Presbyterian system with the presbytery as the basic unit of the system and say

This
Commission lifts up to the church for its consideration the question of whether the 2003
Authoritative Interpretation adequately embodies the principle of F-3.0209 (formerly G-9.0103)
that “the jurisdiction of each council is limited by the express provisions of the Constitution, with
powers not mentioned being reserved to the presbyteries.” While the provision of former G-9.0503a(4) (now G-3.0109b(5)) makes it clear that councils may appoint administrative
commissions to “inquire into and settle the difficulties” in bodies within their jurisdiction, this
Commission suggests that assuming original jurisdiction of a lower body is a matter of such a
serious nature that the authority to do so should be explicitly prescribed in the Book of Order.

But wait, there’s more… This decision also has a concurring opinion, a dissenting opinion and two opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. Lot’s of stuff here for polity wonks to chew on.

Two commissioners signed the concurring opinion noting that they concur reluctantly because the issues on trial were so narrowly defined. They go on to say “this case demonstrates the difficulties that can arise when a synod administrative commission assumes original jurisdiction over a troubled presbytery.” For synods working with presbyteries, particularly language-specific ones, they argue that original jurisdiction is an “inadequate and confusing response” and note that with the AC in place the inalienable right of members to chose their leaders has been restricted for a dozen years. They conclude

If a presbytery is so fragile or so conflicted that it cannot govern itself then it should be asked if
the presbytery is viable. If not, the presbytery should be dissolved and its congregations
transferred to other presbyteries. However, a presbytery, having been established, should first be
given a fair opportunity to succeed or fail by its own efforts. The current situation, where a
presbytery is deemed viable but denied self-government, is unworkable. The congregations and
ministers of Hanmi Presbytery deserve better.

The next opinion is concurring in part and dissenting in part and signed by two commissioners with a third agreeing with most of it. Their point is that the Torrance Administrative Commission was properly concluded before the Synod took the action and they conclude “Neither a declaration by the Synod nor a Decision of this Commission can call back into existence an AC which no longer exists.” But along with this they are critical of the AC and the Synod for not being transparent about the facts and possibly even being obstructive. As they write, “it was inappropriate and even misleading for the SAC’s recommendation to have given specific emphasis to the Torrance AC.”

The dissenting opinion was signed by two commissioners and three more signed on to all but the concluding paragraph.  This is a good read for polity wonks as the dissent talks about the nature of Presbyterian government and the relationship of governing bodies. They note that while there is the right of review and control of a higher governing body over a lower one, they argue that “such a reviewing authority does not provide authority for a pro-active taking over of the jurisdiction of a lower governing body.” Combined with the provision that “with powers not mentioned being reserved to the presbyteries” (G-9.0103, now F-3.0208-.0209)” they write in conclusion:

Our constitution has no explicit provision whether a synod can appoint an Administrative Commission to assume the original jurisdiction over a Presbytery. Applying a provision for
Presbytery to Synod is over-reaching interpretation of the Constitution and may not be well
reflected the principle of Presbyterian governing (F-3.0208, F-3.0209). We believe the
empowering of the SAC by the Synod to intervene in the existing Presbytery’s power to govern
its congregations through its committee on ministry and administrative commissions is un-Presbyterian and an erroneous decision and, therefore, the complaints must be sustained.

The final concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion takes issue with the Synod granting to the AC only four of the ten responsibilities of the Committee on Ministry. They argue that to fragment a committee’s responsibilities is disruptive and even if legal with “its threat of disorder it rises to the level of irregularity.” The commissioners argue that the granting the AC the powers of the COM should be all or nothing:

The functions of a Committee on Ministry as outlined in G-11.0502, a-j, are not to be pastorally
or operationally fragmented because its processes and procedures are holistic by nature. The
segregation of selected functions or divided authorization between a committee and a
commission is unwieldy and unnecessary. It fractures the operations of work that is often
pastorally delicate and operationally intricate.

So there you have a run-down of the decision. Several great polity questions in there which the GAPJC had to deal with. Probably the one with the widest future applicability is whether a synod can take original jurisdiction of a troubled presbytery. While the dissenting opinion argued “no” the majority gave a “yes, but…” It is interesting though that while they said it would be helpful to have it explicitly stated in the constitution and they stated that they would not overturn the previous interpretation, to some degree they seem to have expanded that previous interpretation. The AI on 03-04 by the 215th General Assembly dealt specifically with the powers of enforcement when a GAPJC decision was not being complied with. In this case the rational is extended to a synod stepping in to work with a troubled presbytery. (And there have been enough judicial cases in all this to argue that it is in response to one although the decision does not specifically cite any.) (You can see if this link to the AI works. And the report of the Special Committee on Existing Authoritative Interpretation recommends retaining this AI.)

This decision, while reinforcing the status quo, should also cause us to think about the nature of a presbytery and the current expectations for it. Our presbyteries are much more institutional than they were about a century ago and when they don’t function as the institution they are expected to be the question is not what are the legal ways to help them out but what are the best ways to support them. The other side of the coin to this, of course, is asking the question the decision does as to whether presbyteries are being created that are not viable in our current institutional structure.

So the GAPJC decision enhances the strength of connectionalism and higher governing bodies’ powers of review and control. While it would be interesting to see if future cases are helpful in further defining these powers between the rarity of these cases to begin with and the prospect of the re-purposing of synods would seem to make this unlikely.  However, this decision could be relevant to some of the “reflective experimentation” that could come out of the Mid-Councils Commission recommendations if a higher council felt that a presbytery experiment was getting out of hand.  It will be interesting to see if this decision has future implications.  Stay tuned…

A Full Slate For Vice-Moderator Nominees For The PC(USA) 220th GA

3 Replies


After a burst of activity on Tuesday that filled out the field we now have all five Vice-Moderator selections for our five Moderator candidates.  Here they are in alphabetical order:

TE Jeff Kerhbiel (standing with TE Janet Edwards) – Jeff is the pastor of Church of the Pilgrims in Washington, D.C. and has served two other churches in urban settings. He did his undergraduate work at Hope College and his M.Div. is from McCormick. He also has a D.Min. from Columbia and has recently published a short (60 page) book on Reflecting with Scripture on Community Organizing. Church of the Pilgrims is associated with The Pilgrimage Seminar Center which is a service-learning hostel for groups doing work in that area. You can follow his church on Twitter at @pilgrimsdc.

TE Shamaine Chambers King (standing with TE Randy Branson) – Shamanine serves as the pastor of Windsor Presbyterian Church in Windsor Heights, Iowa. From her Facebook page we know that she has also served internships in Austin, Texas, and as a pastoral assistant in Virginia.  She is a graduate of Trinity University and Austin for her M.Div.

TE Hope Italiano Lee (standing with TE Robert Austell) – The lead pastor (their title) at Kirkwood Presbyterian Church in Bradenton, Florida. She is a grad of Eckerd College, studied at Princeton, has her M.Div. from Columbia and her D.Min. from Gordon-Conwell. She has long been active with farm worker ministry in Florida as well as working with youth. She also preached at the opening worship service of the recent FOP/ECO gathering in Orlando. You can hear her preach in the sermons posted on the church web site and follow her on Twitter at @pastorhope.

TE Sanghyuan James Lee (standing with TE Susan Krummel) – He is the pastor of Korean Community Presbyterian Church of Columbia, South Carolina, with an M.Div. from Yale Divinity School and an D.Min. from Union PCSE, Richmond. The web site press release tell us about his extensive experience working with Korean Presbyterian Churches on the presbytery and synod level and currently serves as the Adjunct Executive of the National Council of Korean Presbyterian Churches.

TE Tara Spuhler McCabe (standing with TE Neal Presa) – In what is probably a first, the Rev. Presa introduced Rev. McCabe as his Vice-Moderator selection in a live streaming video. Nice social media introduction but the audio on Tara was tough to hear.  Rev. McCabe is the Designated Associate for Congregational Life at New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C. Between the Moderatorial web site, the church web site and the NYAPC blog we don’t get much specific information on her previous positions but a general trend in her congregational, presbytery and national work is in youth work.  We are informed that Neal and Tara first worked together on a Young Clergy Pastors Event. She did her undergraduate work at Agnes Scott and has her M.Div. from McCormick. She has a presence on both Facebook and LinkedIn.

A few general observations. First, what’s with this grouping of names in three consecutive letters of the alphabet?

OK, on a more serious note, let’s have a look at some of the demographics across the whole group of ten – five Mod and five Vice-Mod candidates.  First, geographically we are mostly along the eastern seaboard. There are two west of the Mississippi and none from the Rockies westward. Second, the educational backgrounds are pretty firmly Presbyterian. There is a lot of Presbyterian heritage in this group with famous ancestors with Presbyterian connections, mention of multi-generational Presbyterian families, and a lot of Presbyterian education. There are a couple of Presbyterian Colleges in there, eight of ten of the M.Div.’s are from PC(USA) seminaries (and the other two are both from Yale). Between the M.Div.’s and the D.Min.’s there are a couple from SFTS, from McCormick and from CTS. Princeton is under-represented (one degree) and Dubuque, Johnson C. Smith and Pittsburgh don’t appear. In the graduate degree category Gordon-Conwell seems popular.

But the most noticeable item, at least to me, is that they are all teaching elders. I am faulting no one for this because after watching what the position of Moderator of the General Assembly has become I don’t see how there can be many ruling elders who can put that much of their lives on hold for two years to do everything the Moderator is expected to do.  I was hoping that the report of the Committee to review Biennial Assemblies would at least acknowledge this but I don’t see this in the report.

Based on past history, this is probably the field of nominees standing for the office of Moderator, but there is still time for additional nominees to declare. We now await the official booklet with the information on each nominee and whatever additional endorsements each might receive. Lots to reflect on as GA gets closer and once the information book comes out I’ll probably have some additional comments and maybe handicap the field.

Presbyterian News Headlines For The Week Ending April 14, 2012

Leave a reply


Some interesting news items that crossed my screen this past week

Synod of Livingstonia Pledges to Support JB

Nyasa Times, April 10, 2012
In a continuation of the story last week about criticism from the Nkhoma Synod of the President of Malawi – who died of a sudden heart attack at the end of the week – another CCAP synod has spoken up in support of his successor Joyce Banda ( JB ).

Mizo church body issues dress code

Times of India, April 9, 2012
The Synod Executive Committee
of the Presbyterian Church of Mizoram, India, issued guidelines for modest dress for attending worship services and church gatherings. Another, probably updated, Times of India story about it is titled “No revealing, tight clothes in Mizo church“

Her Calling, Now With Ordination

The Herald-Sun, April 12, 2012
One of several stories about the ordination of Katie Ricks as a teaching elder, the first open homosexual woman to be ordained since the passage of PC(USA) Amendment 10-A.

Pitt cuts off some grad applications

Pittsburgh Tribune-Reivew, April 13, 2012
This article is about the University of Pittsburgh cutting applications to certain graduate programs as a potential first step to eliminating programs due to budget considerations. While the article does not mention it there is a Presbyterian connection in that one of the impacted departments, the Department of Religious Studies, has a Ph.D. Cooperative Program in Religion with Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.

104-year-old preacher gave up driving, golf, but not the pulpit

wistv.com, April 14, 2012
And the feel-good story of the week about retired professor Dr. Joe Gettys who is about to turn 105 and still ministering at his Presbyterian Home and at the church he attends. The best quote from him is “The Lord left me here for a reason so I try to do something with it.”

Presbyterian News Headlines For The Week Ending April 7, 2012

Leave a reply

In this week’s news articles the most complex come from the country of Malawi and the Nkhoma Synod of the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian. It began with a church-wide pastoral letter on Sunday April 1 that was critical of Malawi’s President Mutharika and his government for economic conditions and government corruption.

Blame Mutharika Govt. for Suffering of Malawians –CCAP Nkhoma Synod

Maravi Post, April 1, 2012

The Government responded a couple of days later saying that the church was not acting in good faith, was promoting unrest and was motivated by money because of a K10 million pledge by the government that was not fulfilled.

Govt says Nkhoma Synod crying for K10 million

Malawi Today, April 3, 2012

This story took an unexpected turn at the end of the week when President Mutharika died unexpectedly of a sudden heart attack. (BBC Article)

In other Presbyterian news…

Second Church of Scotland minister quits amid finance probe

Daily Record, April 7, 2012
The Convener of the Church of Scotland’s Mission and Discipleship Council became the second member of that Council to step down as the Kirk conducts an internal inquiry into “issues” regarding that committee which are reported to be related to financial business.

Iconic property sold near Glen Ellen

Press Democrat, April 4, 2012
The Presbytery of San Francisco is reported to have agreed to a sale of a camp property north of the San Francisco area.

Presbyterian Church In Canada Announces Nominee For Moderator of the 138th General Assembly

Leave a reply


This morning the Presbyterian Church in Canada announced the results of the voting for the nominee for the Moderator of the 138th General Assembly (2012). The wider church has chosen The Rev. Dr. John A. Vissers (B.A., M.Div., Th.M., Th.D.) as their Moderator for the upcoming assembly and the following year.

For over twelve years Mr. Vissers has served as Principal of The Presbyterian College, Montreal
and Adjunct Professor of Christian Theology at McGill University. He was ordained to the ministry in 1981 and served in churches in British Columbia and Ontario as well as an academic position at Tyndale Seminary. His academic degrees are from, in the order listed after his name above, University of Toronto, Knox College (Toronto), Princeton Theological Seminary and Toronto School of Theology. He has given significant service on the presbytery level, including having served as Moderator of the Presbytery of Montreal. At the national level he has served on the Committee on History, including as convener, as well as the Committee on Theological Education and currently on the Committee on Doctrine. He and his wife, Lynn McEwen have three children all currently persuing college studies – a son working on an M.Div. at Princeton Theological Seminary and another studying engineering at John Abbot College as well as a daughter studying Occupational Therapy at McGill. (Appreciate the OT since that field is a “family favorite” around my house.)

It seems a bit awkward writing some of the text above since it was just announced late last week by Knox College, Toronto, that Mr. Vissers would be taking a new position as their Director of Academic Programs (Knox announcement, PCC news release, Presbyterian College news release)

(As long as we have hit two of the three theological colleges of the PCC in one shot, it is worth pointing out that their third institution is St. Andrew’s Hall in Vancouver, B.C.)

And so, just as one of the other nominees for Moderator, the Rev. John Borthwick, has congratulated the Rev. Vissers on his blog, we also extend our congratulations to the Rev. Vissers on both of the recent developments in his life and assure him of our prayers for what will certainly be a very busy year.  (And for the record, we presume that the other candidates for Moderator also extend their congratulations and well wishes but Mr. Borthwick is the only one regularly blogging the journey.)

Presbyterian News Headlines For The Week Ending March 31, 2012

Leave a reply

[Editor’s note: I have decided to start a weekly rundown of news stories
related to, or that have implications for, the various Presbyterian
branches. My blogging time has been restricted lately and while I would
love to comment at length on a few of these I probably will not get to
them in a timely manner.  I do however reserve the right to do so if I
get around to it.]

PC(USA) Santa Barbara Presbytery lays the groundwork for a Union Presbytery with ECO

Santa Barbara Presbytery Letter and web site
In an effort to retain the viability of the presbytery a union presbytery between the PC(USA) and ECO is proposed.

Presbyterian synod approves parish split with property

Chicago Tribune, March 26, 2012
The Synod PJC of the Synod of the Pacific found that San Francisco did have the authority and acted in good faith in dismissing a church with their property.  [I have already posted my summary and analysis]

Sanctuary Movement Turns 30

Fox News Latino, March 27, 2012
The 30th anniversary of the Sanctuary Movement was celebrated at the originating church, Southside Presbyterian Church of Tucson, Arizona.

Church moves to combat metal theft after sharp rise in incidents

Church of Scotland News Article, March 27, 2012
With the harder economic times congregations in the Church of Scotland have been suffering metal thefts at the rate of more than one a week. The church is working with risk management companies to put deterrents in place.

PC(USA) Synod PJC Decisions — Per Capita And Property

Leave a reply

For us Presbyterian Polity Wonks this past weekend was a good weekend for interesting PJC decisions. I will say at the onset that both were decided as I expected, but that does not make them any less interesting. And of course the interest and importance is enhanced by the fact that they deal with two of the hot-topics in the PC(USA) today — per capita and property. And the obvious reminder, these are synod PJC decisions so there is no broad application at this stage and as I will discuss I think they both rely on and reinforce current precedent.

If you want an executive summary of these two remedial cases here you go:  The SPJC of the Synod of the Trinity found that changes to the new Form of Government were not substantial in the area of per capita and that Pittsburgh Presbytery could not make a new policy to avoid paying per capita it did not collect. In the second case, the SPJC of the Synod of the Pacific found that San Francisco Presbytery did have the authority under the Book of Order and acted in good faith when it dismissed a church with its property.

Now the details…

Last December Pittsburgh Presbytery
adopted as part of its Manual of Presbytery the line “Presbytery shall only remit to the General Assembly the per capita assessment it receives from the particular churches that is designated by those councils.” In their decision in the trial of this remedial case – David C. Green, Complainant, vs. The Presbytery of Pittsburgh, Respondent – the SPJC of the Synod of the Trinity boils down the argument of the Presbytery and the SPJC’s disagreement with that argument nicely into two paragraphs:

Pittsburgh Presbytery argues that the adoption of the New Form of Government by the 219th (2010) General Assembly set aside the applicable previous decisions of General Assembly, Permanent Judicial Commission and Authoritative Interpretations since the General Assembly “chose not to include the strict construction language from the 1999 Authoritative Interpretation (Request 99-1)”.

We disagree with this argument. The substance of the previous relevant language, now found in G-3.0106, was adopted except for the addition of the clause, “but in no case shall the authority of the Session to direct its benevolences be compromised.” We do not believe the addition of this clause has changed the obligation of presbyteries to remit per capita to synods and General Assembly.

So, at this point the opinion is that the language in the Book of Order has not changed to a substantial degree and previous General Assembly Interpretations still stand. This decision is in agreement with the Report of the Special Committee on Existing Authoritative Interpretations of the Book of Order, released a few days after the SPJC decision, which recommends that Authoritative Interpretation 99-1 be retained. The SPJC decision also discusses GAPJC cases where the same conclusion was reached. They wrap this up by saying “We fully agree with the previous authoritative interpretations.” They then conclude the formal decision itself by noting that not passing on per capita is a “serious breach of trust and love” (Minihan v. Presbytery of Scioto Valley, 216-01) and then applying it to themselves:

If this form of congregational protest were to be passed on to synod and General Assembly by our judicial action, then we would be unconstitutionally encouraging a form of protest that is outside of our understanding of how change can and should be effected within our denomination.

The decision concludes with a Comment that first points out that the constitutional obligation to pay per capita can only be changed by the General Assembly and that for the realities of the current circumstances “The time has come for the General Assembly to provide more guidance on this point.” They then take this a step further and conclude the narrative with this observation:

The loss of per capita funds from financially strapped congregations is another issue altogether, and is addressed, in our opinion inadequately, by the vague standards relating to whether funds are available within presbyteries. Further, we would be remiss in not noting that reality of declining funding is a symptom, not the disease. The underlying causes must be prayerfully addressed at local, presbytery, synod and General Assembly levels, not in the denominational courts or in unconstitutional actions.

The second decision comes in a remedial case filed against San Francisco Presbytery related to its process in dismissing Community Presbyterian Church of Danville, California. In September of 2009 the Presbytery adopted a Gracious Dismissal Policy (version from Summer 2010 with corrections). In November 2010, after a ten month process that included a special informational presbytery meeting, the Presbytery dismissed the church with an agreement for payments to help offset the loss of per capita and mission funding, but no payments required for the congregation to keep the property. Three presbyters filed the remedial complaint charging that the Presbytery had not properly handled the case considering that property was involved. In their unanimous decision – Rev. Wilbert Tom, HR, Rev. David Hawbecker, HR, and Thomas Conrad, Complainants, v. The Presbytery of San Francisco, Respondent – the SPJC of the Synod of the Pacific did not sustain any of the charges, but for a variety of reasons.

As we delve into this we first need to pull that previous version of the Book of Order off the shelf since that was the constitution in effect at the time of the contested process and all citations are to that version.  Two sections were front and center in this case and I am sure that you know what they are.

G-8.0201  Al l property held by or for a particular church, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.), whether legal title is lodged in a corporation, a trustee or
trustees, or an unincorporated association, and whether the
property is used in programs of a particular church or of a more
inclusive governing body or retained for the production of income,
is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

and one of the responsibilities and powers of a presbytery

G-11.0103i . to divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches in consultation with their members;

I want to add two more notes at this point which were not in the forefront of this case but which were kept in mind. The first is the continuation of the section on property:

G-8.0301 Whenever property of, or held for, a particular church of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) ceases to be used by that church as a particular church of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in accordance with this Constitution, such property shall be held, used, applied, transferred, or sold as provided by the presbytery.

The second is a paragraph from the 1993 Nature of the Church Report to General Assembly (pg. 16)

The American tradition was being formed. In the Scottish church, all ultimate authority rested in and came from the assembly. But in the American church, the presbytery was the originating authority, relating particular churches into a larger whole. The 1788 Form of Government declared that “. ..no act of a General Assembly could become a standing rule without first being referred to the presbyteries, and securing the consent of at least a majority of them.” The presbytery is the very heart of the Presbyterian system.

The core thesis of the charges in the remedial case were that at worst the presbytery did not have the authority to dismiss a church with property because property “is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)” [i.e. the whole church must be involved]. At best, the case charged that the presbytery did not fulfill its duties as the trustee for the wider church by letting the property go without payment.

In the amended charges there were 13 specifications of error two of which were withdrawn by the Complainants during trial. I won’t go through all of them since most were not sustained either because no relief could be granted or Complainants failed to meet the burden of proof. Three charges form the core of the complaint and the rational of the decision:

Specification of Error No. 1. Complainants contend that the Presbytery’s vote of November 9, 2010, to approve dismissal of the CPCD under terms which included Presbytery’s relinquishment of any and all interests of the PCUSA in the Property without compensation in favor of the EPC is an action which is based on an error in Constitutional interpretation, in that the Presbytery does not own the Property but holds the Property in trust for the use and benefit of the PCUSA (G-8.0201).

Specification of Error No. 2. The Presbytery failed to meet its Constitutional responsibility as trustee in accordance with the Form of Government Part G, Chapter VIII of the Book of Order. As trustee, the Presbytery is obligated to act on behalf of the greater church, to ensure that all property held or used by its particular churches and their respective congregations is held, used and applied in a manner that faithfully advances and serves the ministry and witness of the PCUSA.

Specification of Error No. 4. The Presbytery acted against the Constitution of the PCUSA in that it failed to hold, use, apply, transfer or sell the Property for the benefit of the PCUSA. G-8.0301 provides:
[quoted above]

…Taken together, the provisions of Part G Chapter VIII require the Presbytery to act as a faithful trustee on behalf of the PCUSA in exercising its responsibility and power under the above-referenced Chapter and at Part G Chapter XI, to “divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches in consultation with their members” (G-11.0103i). By its vote on November 9, 2010, the Presbytery failed to act as a faithful trustee under the Constitution.

The rational from the SPJC is remarkably brief in not sustaining these charges. They note that all parties agree the Trust Clause means the property is held for the benefit of the wider church. They then reiterate “Under G-11.0103i, Presbytery has the authority to dismiss a church in consultation with its members to another reformed body” and note that the Presbytery had a process in place and that process was faithfully followed. Having followed the process and in consistency with its policy, they note that the Presbytery exercised its discretion granted under G-8.0301. They then conclude:

In good faith, Presbytery determined that acceptance of the PET [Presbytery Engagement Team] recommendations for dismissal would best serve the overall witness and ministry of the Church of Jesus Christ, thus benefitting [sic] the PC(USA).

Other charges not sustained because no admissible evidence was supplied or the burden of proof was not met include a couple financial ones – the small ratio of payments to Presbytery versus the value of the property and the cost of starting new ministries in the Presbytery. There were charges concerning the flawed nature of the Gracious Dismissal Policy and consideration of state law in the process which were not sustained because no relief could be granted. And two charges, one withdrawn and one not meeting the burden of proof/could not grant relief, questioned the qualifications of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church as a Reformed body a church could be dismissed to.

In summary, the Presbytery did have the authority and did act faithfully and in good faith in dismissing the congregation with their property.

And now, the rest of the story…

This decision also contains a comment which notes the limited applicability of this decision not just because it was decided at the Synod level but because the Gracious Dismissal Policy has been suspended. In light of this first application of the policy the Presbytery decided to suspend the policy and review it and you can read the review team’s September 2011 report. Regarding revisions specific to property and the Trust Clause, here is the relevant portion of the report’s rational (edited slightly for length):

Moreover, San Francisco Presbytery’s original dismissal policy has been challenged in our church courts because of Presbytery’s responsibility for enforcing the property trust clause. It is simply not an option for a presbytery to opt out of a required constitutional responsibility for its enforcement.

We believe that the revised dismissal policy needs to address not only the requirements of the property trust clause, but also the importance of every church in fulfilling Presbytery’s mission (as it becomes clearly defined) within our geographic area. When a congregation seeks to withdraw, Presbytery should consider whether it needs to establish a replacement church in that community and the cost of such action. If a congregation walks away from our denomination without consideration for the injury suffered by the whole, by that departure, it will remind us of every congregation’s sinful tendency to be separate and self-sufficient. We all belong to one another and together constitute the risen Body of Christ.

We have therefore proposed that, ordinarily, a departing church will pay to Presbytery a minimum 10% of the value of the church property. This guidance is based, in part, on the Biblical concept of tithing. However, our policy provides flexibility for the teams negotiating on behalf of Presbytery and the congregation to adjust the recommended amount of compensation depending upon the particular circumstances of the congregation in question… In addition to the property issues, Presbytery will also have to discern in each situation its past, present and future mission with respect to the number of members withdrawing and those wishing to remain with PCUSA, the presence of other Presbyterian congregations in that vicinity, and ongoing mission and outreach efforts in the area.

This revised policy, and proposed amendments to it, are still under discussion by the Presbytery and will probably be influenced by this SPJC decision.

So we have one decision that affirms presbytery obligations under our connectionalism, admittedly as interpreted as by the GA and its PJC. And we have another decision that affirms the presbytery as the basic unit to deal with congregational and presbytery property under the Trust Clause.

What next? Good question. Both decisions strike me as sound and consistent with current constitutional interpretations so I would be skeptical of the success of an appeal to the GAPJC. That does not mean that there won’t be one. For the San Francisco case in particular, with the revision of the policy underway and the limited number of specifications of error that were considered to be in order and could be dealt with, I could see an appeal not being accepted because the case would be considered moot. We will see if any of the parties in these cases consider it beneficial to appeal.

Stay tuned…

Presbyterian News Headlines For The Week Ending March 24, 2012

Leave a reply

[Editor’s note: I have decided to start a weekly rundown of news stories related to, or that have implications for, the various Presbyterian branches. My blogging time has been restricted lately and while I would love to comment at length on a few of these I probably will not get to them in a timely manner.  I do however reserve the right to do so if I get around to it.]

Maryland bill would help congregations in fight over control of church assets

from The Washington Post on March 18, 2012
This proposal in Maryland to repeal a 1976 state law regarding implied trust on property specifically relates to two Methodist Congregations that desire to separate from their denomination.  However, the broader implications for all hierarchical denominations are interesting.

Self acclaimed prophets cautioned against predicting winner in elections

from Ghana Broadcasting Corporation
Here is the core of the article

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church Synod Moderator for the West Volta
Presbytery, Reverend Joce Kofi Kodade, has called on Ghanaians to ignore
public pronouncements by self acclaimed prophets who predict winners
ahead of the conduct of this year’s general elections.

He said such proclamations may cause tension, adding that it is rather
necessary for religious leaders as unifiers to uphold and demonstrate
ethical virtues of neutrality and integrity during political campaigns.

National Council of Churches releases their 2012 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches

from National Council of Churches on March 20, 2012
In which we learn that overall giving to churches dropped $1.2 billion last year, that six of the 25 largest denominations that reported data saw an increase in membership (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, National Baptist Convention, Seventh-Day Adventists, Assemblies of God, Pentecostal Assemblies of the World and the Jehovah’s Witnesses), and the largest decline in membership was in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (down 5.90%). The PC(USA) reported a decline of 3.42%.

Minister calls for Presbyterians to include gays

from gaynz.com on March 21, 2012
In a funeral sermon preached for his gay colleague The Rev. David Clark, the Rev. Dr. Allan
Davidson ONZM called on the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand to rescind their 2004 General Assembly action prohibiting active homosexuals from holding ordained office.

Stated Clerk Nomination Committee selects Parsons for a second term

from PC(USA) on March 21, 2012
The Stated Clerk Nominating Committee of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has endorsed the Rev. Gradye Parsons for a second term as Stated Clerk of the General Assembly. There were no other nominations submitted to the committee.

PC(USA) Synod of the Trinity Permenant Judicial Commission rules that the new Form of Government still requires payment of per capita

SPJC Decison on March 23, 2012
The Synod PJC found that the language in the new Form of Government is not less restrictive regarding the payment of per capita and the change in language is not significant enough to render a previous Authoritative Interpretation as no longer in force.
[Ed. note: I will revisit this in more detail, hopefully later this week.]