The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland — What Is Making The Rounds Of The Press (And What Is Not)

1 Reply

I will admit that I do use the reports that crop up in the media to help track the news from a particular Presbyterian branch.  The news from the Scottish media in advance of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland is no exception.  But it also needs to be recognized that the Kirk itself is driving the reporting with their own press releases and associated news conferences about the business of the Assembly.  (Maybe they would consider putting an RSS feed on their press releases and I could track them directly.)

I have already mentioned two reports to the Assembly that have had accounts circulate in the mainstream media.  The first chronologically (second in my posting ) was the Ministries Council report with the Panel on Review and Reform.  What got picked up was the reduction in staffing with coverage by many national and local news outlets including the Scotsman, Herald, Aberdeen Press and Journal, and Inverness Courier among many.

The other one that I have talked about is the second report on the Third Article Declaratory which got some coverage, but usually in association with the Ministries Council report like this article from the Herald.

While my counting of media reports is not scientific, my informal count places the second most covered story as being the third press release about the General Trustees’ report and goal of a strategic plan for buildings in the church.  The coverage of this issue includes a good report from The Herald which goes well beyond the press release, as well as the Aberdeen Press and Journal and the religious news outlet Ekklesia.

It is interesting to note how the coverage spun on the fourth press release .  The church gave it the headline “Women make up half of Kirk’s eldership” but the media picked up on the “sexism” (a word that does not appear in the press release but comes from a verbal response at the associated press conference) related to some congregations having no female elders and only 20% of the ministers of word and sacrament being women.  Outlets that picked this up include the Aberdeen Press and Journal – “Minister Hits Out At ‘Sexism'” – and the Scotsman – “Kirk admits it is still sexist towards women ministers.”  It would be interesting to know if the headlines and stories are more sensational than the press conference made this point out to be.

It is interesting that press release five on HIV/AIDS and press release seven on solidarity with persecuted Christians have gotten almost no press coverage that I can find but they have only been released yesterday and today respectively.  (I will update here if a flurry of articles appear in the next day or two.)

However, yesterday’s press release on new models of church has been quickly reported on by a number of outlets including the Press and Journal, Ekklesia, and Christian Today.  The new models of church part is actually not new, but is part of an on-going Ministries Council program named the Emerging Ministries Fund.  What is new is the plan expressed in the Joint Report of the Mission and Discipleship and Ministries Councils on the Emerging Church to leverage this funding and study the projects underway to identify the most important features in these new models.  This report to the GA is a progress report and a final report from this Joint group is not due until next year’s Assembly.

That is what the church has identified so far but two other items have been making the news.  The biggest story related to the Church of Scotland right now is the British elections later this week in which it is looking likely that “son of the manse” Prime Minister Gordon Brown, will likely lose that position with seats in parliament for his party.  But throughout the campaign he has appealed to his religious and humble roots with frequent references to his father, the late Rev. John Ebenezer Brown, maybe to a fault as one columnist views it.

The other item appears to have started with a story in the Aberdeen Press and Journal and has been picked up in some specialized media is regarding the work of the Special Commission on Same-sex Relationships and the Ministry.  The news story appears to be trying to discern the possible outcome of the consultation with the church based on the Consultation Paper.  In particular, they are looking at the section on the “Context of the Civil Law” (p. 4-5) and seeing how that could force the church in a particular direction.  The section says, in part:

The regulations allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in relation to an occupation for the purposes of an organised religion in two circumstances.  They are where the employer applies a requirement related to sexual orientation (i) so as to comply with the doctrines of the religion or (ii) because of the nature of the employment and the context in which it is carried out, so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion’s followers.

The legal advisers suggest that the courts will interpret the exceptions to the prohibition against discrimination narrowly and that it will not be easy to satisfy the tests…  The legal advisers disagree on whether it would be easier for the Church to defend a ban on all sexual relations outside marriage. If the Church were of one mind on the issue of homosexual practice, it might be possible to argue that the ban was a proportionate means of complying with the doctrines of our religion.  But having regard to the divided views of the Church, which the 2007 Report recorded, it may be that an employing organisation within the Church would have to rely on the second circumstance (ie. circumstance (ii) above).

Our legal advisers are agreed that, if the Equality Bill is enacted, there is a problem in that the civil law requires any occupational requirement which involves discrimination to be proportionate. In that context there may be greater scope for compliance with the civil law if the Church were to leave the decision whether to require celibacy of a homosexual candidate to each Presbytery and Kirk Session rather than to impose a Church-wide rule, which might be held to be disproportionate and therefore illegal. But this is not clear and it may be possible for the Church to defend a prohibition on any sexual relations outside marriage in the civil courts.

(On a side note the suggestion in there on local option would return the ordination decision to the presbytery and session as the ordaining bodies.  The irony is that the civil context may end up mirroring our polity understanding.)

The newspaper may have properly assessed this situation and the way it fits within UK civil statutes and the very last line I quote from the report is the solution they predict will at least be presented to the church for their consideration as a possible resolution.  But, that is not for this GA and rather it will be waiting in the wings for the 2011 meeting.

PC(USA) Ecumenical Statment Not Approved By the USCCB

3 Replies

Continuing with the theme of the previous post on Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and Roman Catholic connections, I discovered recently that one of the Ecumenical Statements approved by the 218th General Assembly and having the concurrence of a large number of the presbyteries, did not receive the approval of one of the ecumenical partners, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops ( USCCB ).

Now this is not recent news, but in reviewing the report of the General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical Relations (GACER) to the 219th General Assembly as I was researching another issue, I found that just about a year ago the USCCB declined to approve the “Mutual Recognition of Baptism with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops” that came out of the Catholic-Reformed Bilateral Dialogue.  On the PC(USA) side this document was overwhelmingly approved by both the GA (voice vote) and the presbyteries (169-2).  On the USCCB side, they announced in May 2009 that it was not acceptable as it stood.  No specifics were given in any of the information I could find but the web site of the Ecumenical and Interfaith News Network – PCUSA [sic] says:

In May 2009 the chair of the Catholic bishops’ committee on ecumenical
and interreligious affairs reported that the
bishops had examined a Common
Agreement on Mutual Recognition of Baptism growing out of the
Catholic-Reformed dialogue and had “voted not to approve it in the form
in which it had been adopted.”…  In order for the document to have become
acceptable to the bishops, changes would have been necessary that were
not acceptable to the Reformed dialogue partners.

The Reformed partners issued a Statement in Response to the refusal.  Having failed to be mutually agreed upon this statement gets no second chance and it is “archived,” as the terminology goes, as a historical note in this dialogue.

What I find interesting is that for most of the PC(USA), dare I speculate 99% or more, this document is voted upon and then shelved since, as the FAQ indicates , it has no substantive effect on our practice, only on how we understand the practice.  Reinforcing this non-concern for the ecumenical statement is how “under the radar” the non-approval was.  Yes, it was there if you were looking for it on the EIF-PC(USA) web site, or until recently on the GACER page, but both using search engines as well as checking over the press release pages for the PC(USA) and the USCCB from that time period I found nothing that “average” Presbyterians or Catholics would see in the normal course of events.  (It might be hiding behind some cleaver headline that did not catch my attention.) I think this is relevant because the report has a section on “Pastoral Recommendations: Tangible Expressions of Mutual Recognition of Baptism.”  Without the “mutual recognition” part do any of these “tangible expressions” change?  In reading through the recommendations they appear pretty generic so I’m not sure anything changes there, but it would be nice to know.

Anyway, the Ecumenical Dialogue is off to bigger and better things… The Eucharist.  If there are still differences on Baptism I’m not sure what the next round will produce, but that is for a future GA.

You Never Know Where A Story Will Take You — Finding The Presbyterian Connections

Leave a reply

you find the PC(USA) in the most interesting places…

So, during my morning coffee break I am skimming through one of my regular blog reads, Clerical Whispers , an Irish Roman Catholic blog at heart but one that does a good job of also covering Irish and Scottish Presbyterian news as well as Anglican developments.  And as I’m scanning through I find an article with not one, but two links to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

The story is about a group derived from the Roman church that is ordaining women as priests in the RC tradition.  Of course, as the article notes this is not the teaching of the wider church:

Noting that church law and teachings prohibit the ordination of women, Sister Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that ordinations of women are invalid.

“You don’t wake up and say, ‘I’m going to be a priest today,'” Walsh said.

This is not news to the group who clearly post on their web site

Yes, we have challenged and broken the Church’s Canon Law 1024, an unjust law that discriminates against women. Despite what some bishop may lead the faithful to believe, our ordinations are valid because we are ordained in the line of unbroken apostolic succession within the Roman Catholic Church.

OK, I’ll leave that for them to sort out.  We Presbyterians have enough questions of our own.

Anyway, over the weekend the group ordained (or is that “ordained”?) two women as priests and three more as deacons at Spiritus Christi Church in Rochester, New York, a church that “was established in 1999 in a split with the Rochester Diocese ” according to the article.  One each of the priests and the deacons are from Rochester with the other priest from New Hampshire and the other deacons from Pennsylvania and Maryland.

PC(USA) Connection #1:  In listing the work of the Rochester woman ordained as a priest it includes her work as a Peacemaker for the Presbytery of Genesee Valley.

PC(USA) Connection #2: It is also interesting to note that the church that hosted the ordination service, Spiritus Christi, is a church that now shares facilities with the Downtown United Presbyterian Church in Rochester.

So we Presbyterians are finding connections into all sorts of doctrinal debates and places the boundaries in other denominations are being stretched.

An Interesting Section In The Strategic Plan

Leave a reply

At the present time I am in over my head in a whole bunch of report reading so I am not quite prepared to present my analysis of the Strategic Plan from the Presbyterian Church in America .  For a great list of many of the bloggers that have weighed in so far I would suggest a post by Wes on the blog Johannes Weslianus.

Having said that, I will comment that it seems to me the Strategic Plan does a good job of assessing where the PCA is at the present time.  As for what it should do to get where it wants to go, and even maybe even figure out where it wants to go, I have to agree with many of the other reviewers that I am not as positive about those sections.

However, one section in particular struck me for its relevance across multiple Presbyterian branches.  Here is that section with only minor editing to make it generic and I’ll leave it to the reader to filter out a couple of other lines if your branch doesn’t fit that category.  So now, anything in here sound familiar to your situation?

III. IDENTIFYING OUR CHALLENGES

Because the animating values of those in the PCX are so much more diverse than its formal values, the PCX has struggled to maximize its organizational strengths. For example, despite our formal values of connectional polity and cooperative ministry, less than half of the churches of the PCX support any denominational agency or committee (less than 20 percent give at the Partnership Share level). Presbyteries are increasingly perceived as mere credentialing bureaus or discipline courts with little ability to unite members in ministry. The cooperative efforts that do exist are often directed toward affinity gatherings or the ministries of large churches that have become missional expressions of the animating values of specific groups.

This is not to suggest that overall there has been a great deal of cooperative effort. We remain an anti-denominational denomination – excusing individualistic ministry by re-telling the narratives of past abuses in former denominations, demonizing denominational leadership or movements to justify non-support of the larger church, or simply making self-survival or self-fulfillment the consuming goal of local church ministry. In these respects we simply reflect the surrounding secular and religious culture where institutional and organizational commitments have been eroded by the demise of family systems and loss of community identity. These losses are exacerbated by economic and technological changes that simultaneously shrink our world and allow each of us to live in personal isolation or in shrinking, special-interest enclaves. However unique we may feel is our struggling to maintain historical distinctions, ministry continuity and generational cohesion, we actually echo struggles occurring in every major Evangelical denomination. The response of most has been to focus increasingly on their own security, not recognizing that (for denominations as well as local churches) allowing people to focus on themselves inevitably destroys the selflessness that is the church’s lifeblood.

In order for those of us in the PCX to see beyond self-interests and to be willing to work cooperatively despite differences in our animating values, we must have a renewed sense of collective mission. The catalytic power of our founding was fueled by a shared zeal to wrest a Biblical church from mainline corruptions. Differing understandings of what it meant to hold to Reformed distinctions in ministry and mission were either unrecognized or suppressed to support the primary mission of combating liberalism. That mission was compelling enough to unite us in ministry despite our differences. Willingness now to honor our differences while harnessing our shared blessings will again require a sense of being united in a cause that is of similar Biblical consequence.

Such a cause cannot be concocted from marketing schemes or designed to reflect the ministry preferences of a particular branch of our denomination. The cause that is our present calling must be forged from a comprehensive and realistic understanding of the challenges this generation must face in order to live faithfully before God and for his Kingdom. Some of these challenges are external, thrust upon us by dynamics of our history and culture. Other challenges are of our own making and will have to be honestly faced and fairly handled in order for our church to participate meaningfully in God’s purposes.

General Assembly Season 2010 Is Almost Upon Us

Leave a reply

It is the First of May and among other things that means we have entered the month when the intense General Assembly activity begins.  Here is what I know of and am trying to follow:

55th General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church in Taiwan
6 April 2010

General Assembly of the
Free Church of Scotland
17-21 May 2010
Edinburgh

General Assembly of the
Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)
May 2010

General Assembly of the
Church of Scotland
20-26 May 2010
Edinburgh

136th General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church in Canada
6-11 June 2010
Sydney, Cape Breton

206th Stated Meeting of General Synod
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
8-10 June 2010
Bonclarken, Flat Rock, NC

General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church in Ireland
10-13 June 2010
Belfast

180th General Assembly of the
Cumberland Presbyterian Church
13-18 June 2010
Dickson, Tenn.

Uniting General Council of the
World Communion
of Reformed Churches
18-27 June 2010
Grand Rapids, Mich.

179th General Synod of the
Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America
21-25 June 2010
Beaver Falls, Pa.

30th General Assembly of the
Evangelical Presbyterian Church
23-26 June 2010
Englewood, Co.

38th General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church in America
29 June – 2 July 2010
Nashville, Tenn.

219th General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
3 – 10 July 2010
Minneapolis, Minn.

77th General Assembly of the
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
7-14 July 2010
Palos Heights, Ill.

74th General Synod of the
Bible Presbyterian Church
5-10 August 2010
Sharonville, Oh.

General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church of Australia
13-? September 2010
Surry Hills, Sydney, NSW

General Assembly 2010 of the
Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand
30 September – 3 October 2010
Christchurch

I will update as appropriate.

Stated Clerk Nominee For The Cumberland Presbyterian Church

Leave a reply

With the announced mid-term retirement of the Rev. Robert D. Rush as the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church a search team was formed, the job was posted, and yesterday the General Assembly Ministry Council announced that their nominee to fill the partial term is the Rev. Michael Sharpe.

Rev. Sharpe currently works for the denomination as the executive director of the Missions Ministry Team, previously the Board of Missions before the denominational reorganization. (And still reflected in the web site architecture.)  The press release cites his leadership through the reorganization as well as his denominational experience as strengths he brings to the position.  While he began in parish ministry he has been working for the denomination in the area of missions since 1989.  He has been the director of the Board of Missions and now the Missions Ministry Team since 1999.  The press release lists an extensive number of ministries and units that he has worked with in his 21 years with the denomination.  He is a member in good standing of Red River Presbytery.

Our best wishes and prayers for the Rev. Sharpe as he assumes this position following his confirmation by the General Assembly in June.

The Emmaus Project — Transforming, Recharging And Refreshing Presbyteries Within The Presbyterian Church In Canada

1 Reply

After spending two days working on new directions in the Church of Scotland I thought it only appropriate to mention the kick-off  of a conference today in the Presbyterian Church in Canada.

The Emmaus Project began their first conference this evening in Alliston, Ontario with 145 individuals from 17 presbyteries.  It grew out of the Long Range Planning Committee of Assembly Council identifying five statements as relevant for “strategic planning and developing an overall vision.”

  1. Visibility and relevance that result in change in the world. — How can the PCC make a visible and relevant
    contribution to positive change in the world?
  2. Christ-centred living that nurtures and empowers individuals to
    embrace God’s world. — How can that kind of
    living be nurtured?
  3. Committed leadership that is prepared to take risks. — How can we encourage and develop that kind of
    leadership?
  4. Congregational vitality that enables courageous choices. — How can we encourage congregations to move forward
    in intentional mission?
  5. Effective structure that supports meaningful ministry and mission. — How do presbyteries and the national church
    support this goal? How may our structures become more effective?

The conference looks to address five “qualities” of presbyteries:

  • Become encouraging and supportive of congregations
  • Assist and challenge ministers through the struggles and growing
    pains of ministry
  • Become proactive rather than reactive
  • Be visionary rather than plodding
  • Help shape new directions in mission

through the exploration of:

  • What it means to be on the road to Emmaus
  • How to recognize Jesus’ presence on our journey
  • How to turn and move to Jerusalem with confidence
  • The implications of the risen Christ walking with us
  • How this shapes our mission for the future
  • Ways for presbyteries to become both prophetic and pastoral

So this conference is underway.  While it has a Twitter hashtag (#emproj) it seems that only @PCConnect is posting tweets (and that is reported to be @ccarmichael ).  There is also a Facebook page for the Project.  And there should be regular updates on the Project Emmaus news blog.  I am looking forward to hearing how the conference goes.

A blog entry yesterday gives a brief overview of the conference and an insight into the planning that has gone into it.  Some excerpts:

This marks the culmination of a three or four year process emerging
from the Long Range Planning committee as a follow up to the Flames and
Sabbath year initiatives. LRP went through a very long strategic
planning strategy when it was finally decided that the best way to
transform the institution of the PCC was to work through the basic
building blocks which are the presbyteries.

The decision was not to do new programs but rather develop a
strategic plan. Each selected presbytery (we had 27 presbyteries apply
but could only accept no more than 17) sends a critical mass 5-10 reps
depending upon the size of the presbytery, sufficient to effect change
within their own framework.

Please pray for us during these next four days as we seek to not
simply renew, but actually transform the workings of our presbyteries so
that they may become more forward thinking, engaging in appropriate
mission and providing support to congregations for this century.

We understand that the stakes are high, and we need courage to look
at significant change and movement forward. So we do ask that you join
us on our Emmaus journey through your prayers and support during these
next few days.

You might want to look through the other blog entries a bit including one on Presbytery Best Practices and one on 1925 that considers the PCC’s “Presbyterian identity” in light of their resistance to church union in 1925.

So it will be interesting to watch the Twitter feed, blog, and Facebook page as the conference proceeds through the weekend.  But maybe more interesting will be watching how each of these presbytery groups returns to their homes after the conference to begin re-visioning their own presbytery.  As always, Semper Reformanda, so stay tuned…

The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland — Review And Reform And Ministries

Leave a reply

Nothing like starting off with a “bang.”  But Mike gave us the heads-up on this…

Monday the first two reports to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland appeared on the Kirk web site and you know they are significant when the Kirk also issues a press release .  The two reports are for the Ministries Council and the Panel on Review and Reform .  And I intentionally let the names run together in the title since there is a great deal of review and reform in the Ministries report.

As anyone who has served on a ministries board would expect, the Ministries Council report contains a varied set of action items (25 total) dealing with various aspects of the ordained ministry from the system of tenure, to the process of training for the ministry, to the new Priority Areas Action Plan.  While all important items I will concentrate today on the part of the report that is the high-profile section, the proposal to reduce the ministerial work-force in the Kirk to “1,000 full time equivalent” posts.  And this is not central office staff but parish ministers and remember that all parish ministers are paid from the General Assembly level out of their budget, not at the congregation or presbytery levels.  Key among the reasons for this proposed change is the budget situation which due to the combination of economic factors and declining membership will leave the Ministries Council with a deficit of £5.7 million in 2010.  Because of the payment of salary to clergy through the Ministries Council it’s budget represents 87% of the total budget of the church.  The report has recommendations with both 2014 and 2020 target dates.

But as the report says “Out of crisis, however, can come both vision and opportunity.”  Specifically, the Council says of their work:

Undoubtedly the most urgent part of the 2020 Vision in terms of decision-making this year will be Building for Sustainable Future Patterns of Ministries, Finance and Presbytery Planning (1.4). In presenting the overall vision for the future, the theological and economic challenges contained in the proposals for reshaping ministries, planning for variety and achieving a sustainable pattern for the future through pruning for growth, the Council recognises the size of the task ahead for all of us. In the overarching context of 2020 Vision, however, it is a task which is full of opportunity if we can grasp the vision together. The task is both theological and financial: there is a budget to be balanced and that is a financial challenge. There is also, of more lasting theological significance, the need to establish patterns of ministry for the 21st century which see the stipendiary ministries of the Church more clearly in their proper context, the ministry of all God’s people. The Council invites the General Assembly to step forward into the future boldly and with hope.

The bottom line for this assembly, and almost certainly the next few as well, will be the summary of the report of the Special Commission on the Third Article Declaratory that the church has a call from Jesus Christ to bring the Gospel to the whole of Scotland, but not an obligation to keep doing it the same way.

To this end, the section on Building for Sustainable Future Patterns of Ministry (1.4) begins with this introduction:

1.4.1 Introduction
To address the issues facing the Church in terms of ministries will require both vision and discipline. The Council has offered such vision to the General Assembly in successive years… In receiving these reports the General Assembly affirmed ‘the concept of a “mixed economy church” within the Church of Scotland, where both existing and fresh expressions of church co-exist, not at the expense of the other, but for the benefit of the whole.’ (Deliverance 4, 2008).

In reality there is nothing new in this. This is the story of the church through two millennia. In dependence on the Holy Spirit every generation has gratefully accepted the best that exists and supplemented it with fresh ideas. Change is the norm rather than something surprising in the life of a Church which moves in tune with God’s Spirit.

As we embark on a process towards balancing the budget of the Council, it is crucial to see this in context. The theological work which has been ongoing to enable a rethinking of patterns of ministry is not an innovation to try and give some positive ‘spin’ to bad news about financial cuts! Far from it: the Council has been urging serious thinking about the shape of ministries since at least 2006 because it believes this is right for the mission and growth of the Church in the new millennium. That it is now also urged upon us by the economic circumstances should not allow us to lose sight of the genuine opportunity to find a future shape for ministry which recovers more strongly our historical and reformed commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ as a ministry of all God’s people.

And the Council points out they can not do it alone and there is no single “fix.”  The major “levers,” as they call them, that must work together are territorial ministry, presbytery structure, presbytery planning, training for ministries, and congregational resourcing.  The report then goes on to discuss the new staffing model:

The Council is absolutely clear that the issue of creating sustainable ministries is both a theological and an economic question. Theologically, we are being challenged to create new patterns of ministry which can carry the mission of the Gospel forward in the communities of Scotland and, where appropriate, beyond. Economically, there is the stark reality of a £5.7M deficit which must be addressed at once.

Having looked carefully into this, the Council has concluded that the Church can now afford 1000 full-time ministries and 75 two-day locums.

For reference, the report says that there are currently 1,234 posts although roughly 10% are usually vacant at any time.  The report allocates ministry posts across the presbyteries (Appendix 1) and explains:

It is the intention of the Ministries Council to move towards allocating each Presbytery a ministries budget which relates to the number of FTE posts. It wants to encourage Presbyteries to think creatively about ministries and believes that giving each Presbytery responsibility for its own ministries budget will help it do this.

The body of the report paraphrases the action requested in the deliverance (items 7 and 8) like this:

The Council invites the General Assembly to instruct all Presbyteries to review their plans with a view to achieving 1000 ministries by 2014. The intention is that all Presbyteries will begin this process at once seeking to implement the figure in column 4 of the table as soon as possible.

But as I quoted at the beginning “Out of crisis, however, can come both vision and opportunity.”

The need to create sustainable units in non-urban areas has often resulted in a series of linkages and/or unions, so that a minister today is often serving an area that four people might have served 50 years ago…

Now is the time to turn that notion on its head. Instead of asking, what area constitutes a viable unit that can justify the employment of a full-time minister, we should ask, what form of ministry is appropriate for the people of faith in this distinct community. If effective ministry and mission occurs in community networks we need to find ways of fitting ministry into existing communities, rather than creating artificial communities that fit a particular model of ministry.

Our planning has essentially worked with a single model of ministry, full-time Parish Ministers. While there are many places where this is the appropriate model of ministry and therefore should continue, in others places it is not.
…
While it is possible for paid and unpaid, ordained and lay people to work together, current structures do not encourage this. Those who try to work in this way often feel they are fighting against the structures rather than being assisted by them.

To this end the report lists several different types of pastoral ministry.  These would include non-stipendiary ministers, bi-vocational ministers and ordained local ministers which would all be filled by individuals “assessed, trained and qualified” for Ordained National Ministry but serving at different levels of church employment possibly with additional non-church employment.  In addition there are Readers who are locally trained and assessed and would receive payment just for pulpit supply.

To reach this goal the report notes the “chicken and egg problem” of planning and training.

The Ministries Council is currently engaged in a thorough review of training. Serious thought is being given to an approach to training that would lead to people serving not simply as full-time ministers of word and sacrament, but also in all the different styles mentioned. It thus makes sense for Presbyteries to begin thinking about how their mission might be enhanced if they could use people in these roles alongside full-time ministers of word and sacrament, and also to begin encouraging people to consider offering themselves for service in these roles.

Change is not easy, and at the end I’ll return the Ministry Council’s comment on that, but additional evidence for this is provided in the report of the Panel on Review and Reform where their first action item (after receiving the report) is

Approve the request for an extension of time to develop the proposals for reform set out in section 2 of the report and instruct the Panel to report further to the General Assembly of 2011.

The Panel has been involved in consultation and gathering input on at least five different models of presbytery restructuring and implications for devolved powers, resourcing, and the role and size of presbyteries, among other things.  The Panel comments on the complexity of the process saying:

2.1.4 There is no one single or normative model of church life. The Panel believes an agreed model for an alternative structure should take into account the particular circumstances in which a presbytery may find itself at any given time. For example, Highlands and Islands, central belt, urban, suburban, priority area and rural charges will have a common operating structure but require sufficient flexibility according to regional and local need. The Panel recognises that one size does not fit all and invites Presbyteries to work with them on a more dynamic model for the Church.

So to develop models the Panel proposes forming “Presbytery Pilot Regions [PPRs] to plan and prepare the Church for reform.”  To implement this the report says:

2.1.9 The Panel proposes a progressive implementation of these proposals to begin in September 2010. Those presbyteries choosing to participate in the pilot will work with the Panel to develop their own structures and procedures that support mission. During 2011 and 2012, more presbyteries will be encouraged to join the pilot.
…
2.3.1 The Panel proposes to test a new model of regional church by establishing a scheme the purpose of which is to encourage presbyteries to focus on mission in the local context and to experiment with different forms of operation appropriate to their own situations…This is not about structural change for the sake of it but about renewal and engagement within and beyond existing structures where the presbytery is the regional resource and support for delivery of local mission initiatives.
…
2.3.4 The Panel’s consultations with Presbyteries demonstrated their wish to be mission-oriented rather than administration-driven. The primary objective of the pilot scheme is to strengthen presbyteries in ways that enable them to further the mission of the Church, to share the Gospel with all, and to provide resources and effective encouragement for the total Christian effort within the region. They would need to be adaptable to change and continual review, flexible enough to be aware of the possibilities for different forms of ministry, and open to exploring new directions where missional imagination could be realised.

The report then goes on to discuss at great length the vision of the church and the role of presbyteries as well as aspects of implementation of the pilot plan.  It does not discuss the structure or plan for any pilot region since that is to come from the pilot region itself.  This section of the report concludes with this:

2.20 A Church under reconstruction and unafraid of change

The Book of Nehemiah
is an important one for church
leadership. It is a significant model for the church
today: the origin of vision through prayer, the need to
share vision, and enable and empower others to become
involved in making it happen, and the need to maintain
leadership through periods of conflict and opposition.
(Panel on Review and
Reform, Strategy Paper, 2009)


2.20.1 Nehemiah challenged his people with a compelling vision to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. He created an atmosphere which encouraged people to speak up. He recruited the leaders of the city to do the work. He used forty leaders with their teams working side-by-side and shoulder-to-shoulder to rebuild the wall. Some built large sections; others built next to where they lived. They each did according to their ability and resources.  The wall was just the pilot project for Nehemiah’s plan to restore the nation. He had mechanisms in place to enable feedback about progress.

2.20.2 The Panel has tried to follow Nehemiah’s model as it works to

1. offer a method to determine an alternative presbytery structure
2. ensure that enough time is allowed to do the task thoroughly
3. highlight the financial implications of reform
4. ensure the appointment of staff with the appropriate skills
5. provide training in place for those who need it
6. create an opportunity for all presbyteries to participate throughout the process.

2.20.3 It is our reformed tradition that we have been able to improve – sometimes quite radically – yet we retain our identity and our sense of calling and purpose as God’s people. We must constantly seek to re-articulate our vision, re-interpreting what it means to bring the ordinances of religion to the people in every parish of Scotland through a territorial ministry.

2.20.4 The whole witness of the Bible points to a God who calls his people out and on from where they are, not knowing where they are to go, and the true image of the Church is of the community of the future and not of the past.

2.20.5 The Panel offers a vision for taking measured steps to reform the regional structure of the Church to align with a mission strategy. We are excited by the challenge and opportunity that lies before us and trust that the wider Church will become enthused by the prospect of together reforming a church whose structures would be more focused on bringing the kingdom closer to the people of Scotland.

Similarly, the penultimate part of this section of the Ministries Council report is titled “It can’t be done!”  It echoes the need for a model of ministry appropriate to the local situation.  I leave you with this section:

In many Presbyteries there is a belief that it will not be possible for charges to continue to serve their communities if there is a further reduction in ministries numbers. This belief is found from cities to islands. Each Presbytery faces particular issues and each Presbytery believes the issues it is facing are unique and merit special dispensation. Through its contact with Presbyteries the Ministries Council is aware of the challenges facing the Church across the country. The Council does not believe that the answer is to give one Presbytery additional ministries, which can only come at the expense of all the other Presbyteries. Instead the Council believes that the answer lies in tackling ministry using these different models.

The Council has for some time been casting a vision of a different approach to ministries. Rather than having a single model of ministry (the full-time, professional minister serving a charge whose size is determined by the need to be sustainable as a full-time post), the Council believes there needs to be a range of ministry models, some full-time and some part-time, some paid and some not. The proposal to allocate each Presbytery a ministries budget based on FTE posts will gradually allow each one to determine what patterns of ministry are best suited to serve all the communities for which it is responsible.

The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland — Reaffirm The Third Article Declaratory

Leave a reply

The report of the Special Commission on Third Article Declaratory to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was posted on the reports web page today.  The decision to reaffirm the Third Article Declaratory is a big deal because it essentially says the church has a “commitment to maintain worshipping, witnessing and serving Christian congregations throughout Scotland.”  (I stole that from the report.)  This has been under study for two years and the 2008 National Youth Assembly suggested change saying that Territorial Ministries were an “unnecessary burden.”  In contrast the Special Commission recommends keeping the Third Article as is, effectively saying “we must remember our mission from Jesus Christ, but find new ways to do it.”

First, for reference here is the Third Article from the Articles Declaratory :

lll. This Church is in historical continuity with the Church of Scotland which was reformed in 1560, whose liberties were ratified in 1592, and for whose security provision was made in the Treaty of Union of 1707. The continuity and identity of the Church of Scotland are not prejudiced by the adoption of these Articles. As a national Church representative of the Christian Faith of the Scottish people it acknowledges its distinctive call and duty to bring the ordinances of religion to the people in every parish of Scotland through a territorial ministry.

Now here are excerpts from the report.  I think it speaks for itself so I won’t be adding much additional commentary.
The deliverance itself:

1. Receive the Report

2. Pass a Declaratory Act anent the third Article Declaratory of the Constitution of the Church of Scotland in Matters Spiritual in the following terms:

The General Assembly declare as follows:

(1) The Church of Scotland reaffirms the principles enshrined in the third Article Declaratory and declares anew its commitment to be a national church with a distinctive evangelical and pastoral concern for the people and nation of Scotland;
(2) The Church of Scotland asserts that, while this commitment is recognised by Act of Parliament, namely the Church of Scotland Act 1921 and Articles Declaratory appended thereto, its true origin and entire basis lie not in civil law but in the Church’s own calling by Jesus Christ, its King and Head;
(3) The Church of Scotland remains committed to the ecumenical vision set out in the seventh Article Declaratory and, in pursuit of that vision, stands eager to share with other churches in Christian mission and service to the people of Scotland;
(4) The Church of Scotland understands the words “a national church representative of the Christian faith of the Scottish people” as a recognition of both the Church’s distinctive place in Scottish history and culture and its continuing responsibility to engage the people of Scotland wherever they might be with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
(5) The Church of Scotland understands the phrase “bring the ordinances of religion to the people in every parish of Scotland through a territorial ministry” to mean a commitment to maintain worshipping, witnessing and serving Christian congregations throughout Scotland.

3. Call upon the whole Church to give heed and respond with a sense of real urgency to the challenges coming from the Ministries Council, the General Trustees and those charged with the Church’s stewardship and distribution of resources.

4. Affirm the key role of Presbyteries in the delivery of the commitment expressed in the third Article Declaratory as understood by the Church and instruct Presbyteries anew to engage with the process instructed by the General Assembly of 2008 to create a Presbytery structure which can more effectively manage the deployment of the Church’s ministerial and other resources.

5. Instruct the Ecumenical Relations Committee, in consultation with the Ministries Council and relevant Presbyteries of the bounds, to seek discussions with sister churches with a view to identifying areas where a sharing of ministries and buildings would enable a more effective ministering to communities throughout Scotland and to report to the General Assembly of 2012.

6. Instruct the Ministries Council to give consideration to the establishing of arrangements similar to the Shetland arrangements for other remote areas and to report to the General Assembly of 2011.

7. Urge ministers of word and sacrament to give prayerful consideration to serving urban priority area and remote rural parishes.

8. Instruct the Ministries Council, as it takes forward the Presbytery planning process, to engage with the General Trustees and Presbyteries on the development of a strategic plan for church buildings and to report to the General Assembly of 2012.

9. Instruct the Ministries Council in consultation with the Worship and Doctrine Task Group of the Mission and Discipleship Council to consider authorising identified and appropriately trained individuals to celebrate the sacraments in the absence of an ordained minister and to report to the General Assembly of 2011.

10. Instruct the Ministries Council, in consultation with the Legal Questions Committee, to review the helpfulness of Act VI, 1984 anent Congregations in Changed Circumstances with regard to ministerial flexibility and to report with proposals to the General Assembly of 2011.

11. Thank and discharge the Special Commission.

And here are excerpts from the 31 page report that help explain the recommendations.
I will include the very first paragraph because I really like it and because it seems any committee struggles with this — I know the special committee I was on really struggled with how to have people read the report, not just jump straight to the recommendations.  This commission says:

1.1 The tradition of placing the proposed deliverance at the very beginning of a General Assembly report is rather like opening a novel with the final chapter in which all is revealed. To read the deliverance is to see, before reading any further, precisely where the report is heading.  Nevertheless, the Commission trusts that commissioners will read on and follow the reasoning which has led to the conclusions reflected in the deliverance.

The report continues:

1.2 The Special Commission believes that the Church does indeed have a divine call and duty in this regard and holds with passion to the commitment enshrined in the third Declaratory Article. The Commission also dares to hope that the General Assembly will capture its enthusiasm for rising to the challenges and embracing the opportunities which the spirit of the Article lays upon the Church today. These include a readiness to take difficult decisions on the distribution of resources, an acceptance of the need to develop fresh models of ministry and mission, a new willingness to work ecumenically and a refusal to adopt some kind of “supermarket model” which maintains a Church presence only where there is the “customer base” which makes it economically viable to do so.

1.3 In the course of one meeting of the Commission all the ministerial members acknowledged that the parish dimension was an integral part of their calling and a crucial aspect of their ministries. Along with the other members they are grateful for the opportunity which the work of the Commission has given over the past two years to test those convictions. It is now the Commission’s earnest hope that the General Assembly will judge that it has exercised due diligence and accept the recommendations which it brings.

The report then continues with a discussion of the Commission’s remit and the history and background of the Articles Declaratory.  It notes that the language used is “national” and not “established” church and within that it refers to it as not “the” but “a national church.”  Regarding their consultation with the presbyteries they comment that “It is noteworthy that in every response, though with varying degrees of emphasis, Presbyteries were in favour of the retention of the Third Article Declaratory. It is clear that Presbyteries viewed the Third Article not as an onerous obligation but as a Gospel imperative.” (5.2)

There is an interesting comment on the cultural significance of the Kirk in the section on Ecumenical Relations:

7.4.4 The Commission was also informed of a recent conversation amongst denominational Ecumenical Officers which indicated that, were the Church of Scotland to depart from its territorial responsibility, the whole church in Scotland would lose something important. In such circumstances it would be likely that other churches would feel a need to rise to the challenge. However, it is recognised that their resources are also stretched. Certainly there is a willingness amongst Scottish churches to explore the concept of ecumenical team ministry (not necessarily exclusively clergy), to provide ministry in a given area.

Another paragraph caught my eye which discusses a tension we are now seeing in the States with what we call “designated giving” where individuals control what their giving is used for.  This is an issue for us not just in the church but in the culture in general:

7.7.7 The meetings with office-bearers from a number of south Glasgow suburban churches threw into sharp focus the issue of wealthier churches contributing significant sums of money… to support work such as that carried out in priority areas parishes. There was a ready recognition of the need for this work, a concern that it should be encouraged and expanded and a willingness to support it. At the same time there were voices which indicated that those congregations which were significant net contributors to the Ministries and Mission Fund should have some kind of say in how “their money” was being spent. The Commission also heard a challenge to this approach on the grounds that, as one minister put it, “once the money is in the plate it’s the Lord’s, not yours”.

There was considerable recognition of the need for “shared ministry,” how one congregation had resources of location and knowledge to work in a high priority area but depended on others to provide the financial resources.  The concept of “twinning” was mentioned in this regards noting that “when these work well they provide a valuable two-way flow of information and enrichment.”

The consultation phase was very wide in every sense including many parts of Scotland, the Ecumenical Partners, and input from communities and secular organizations.  The deliberations of the commission were just as wide ranging considering the Ministries, Review and Reform (I will post on those next), General Trustees and their oversight of buildings, Finance and Stewardship and the financial situation of the Kirk, the Church Without Walls initiative, the trend towards a secular society, the feeling of a “sense of place” as well as a “sense of call.”  They also noted the extensive process of amending the Articles Declaratory — approval by three sucessive GA’s and two-thirds of the presbyteries in between.  They also say of the phrase “ordinances of religion”:

8.7.1 The Commission is quite clear that the task of bringing the “ordinances of religion” to the people of Scotland cannot simply be understood as the passive supplying of the religious needs of the population on request in terms of ‘matching, hatching and dispatching.’ The phrase must be interpreted dynamically in missional terms, not statically in reactive terms. Our calling is nothing other than the challenging of the people of Scotland with a vision of God’s kingdom and asking them to respond to it in faith and love.

The Commission recognizes that this will not be easy and as the deliverance shows it will require doing new things in the areas of Ministry, Finances and Stewardship, property through the General Trustees, ecumenical partnerships, and individual congregations.

To get a real taste of what territorial ministry means I will close with the words of the members of the church printed in the report. First, the report contains two letters from pastors.  The first is from the Rev. George Cringles who has a linked ministry that includes the only church, with 15 members, on the Island of Coll, almost three hours by ferry when the ferry runs.  He describes the church and its ministry saying:

The Basis of Linking with Connel requires that I visit the island and conduct worship there at least four times in the year. Depending on circumstances the nature of the services will vary. I try to include communion on two occasions (sometimes three) and also have a family service that will include the island Choir – the Coll Singers, and the children of the local primary school on special Sundays – e.g. harvest thanksgiving. I have made it my policy to try and visit the island for one of the main festivals every second year. So far this has included Easter, Harvest, Remembrance and Pentecost. I have yet to pluck up the courage to go over at Christmas! At other times I will visit for funerals and weddings or other pastoral needs as required.
…
Two of the elders have undergone basic training in leading worship and they will readily conduct worship if no one else is available.  Indeed they sometimes have more than one service in the winter months if there is sufficient demand.

Provision is made in the basis for weekly worship between Easter and the end of September. This is normally provided by visiting preachers – ministers (quite a few who have retired), readers and lay people, who enjoy a holiday in the manse in exchange for the Sunday service… This system seems to work quite well. There are the regulars who like to return every year, and others who find that once is enough! … It is a system which seems to be advantageous to all parties – the visitors enjoy a cheap holiday while the congregation doesn’t have to worry about paying pulpit supply and travelling expenses, which they simply could not afford.
…
There is no other active church on the island. The Free Church is effectively closed and there are very few Free Kirk folk left. I am delighted to say that one of them has even been joining with us for worship. The Parish Church is therefore the only remaining source of Christian work, witness and worship on the island. I feel it is vital to do all we can to maintain that work and encourage the Lord’s people in what is a far from easy situation.

The second letter is from the Rev. Ian Galloway from the Gorbals inner city area of Glasgow:

I understand the financial pressures being experienced by those congregations who are the net financial givers – and appreciate that to give beyond the bounds of the parish substantially is costly in terms of what local mission can be pursued. However I also consider that supporting local mission in other, poorer, places is a high calling worthy of our financially strongest congregations. The return on such investment will sometimes be hard to determine, though I know that within Priority Areas a range of examples can be given that enable measurement in both financial and human terms.

Of course Gorbals is the place I know best, and here we can point to Bridging the Gap – 11 years on with a budget of £200k and making a measured and evaluated difference to hundreds of lives each year… None of this would happen without the support of the wider church for ministry here.

We also have a few people who have chosen to belong here though they live in more affluent places. In a way they embody the same issue but this is not possible or indeed appropriate for many people.

When I look round our congregation I am, as always, aware of vulnerability and suffering as well as resilience and strong character. Lone parents and their children, kinship, caring granny, unemployed men, recovering alcoholic, gambler deep in debt, people with chronic diseases and cancers to manage, elders still faithfully taking decisions in their late eighties not through choice but necessity. The odd thing is that, even in transition without a building (though one is getting nearer) the congregation may even
be growing………

I am deeply grateful to the Church of Scotland’s redistributive model which is, I think, a real and lasting witness to the God we serve and is so deeply counter-cultural as to be more radical now than ever.

All in all, I think we need to develop clear priorities and find better ways of enabling congregations to take pride in the way their financial giftedness is put at the service of the whole church.

If we are to depart from the parish model – and by that I mean across Scotland – I think that we have to do so because there is a strong sense of God’s call – to all of us – to discover how our discipleship will evolve in a new shape.

That has to be about much more than money, and until we hear the debate move in that direction I have some difficulty in recognising God’s hand on the tiller of this particular change.

Finally, the body of the report closes with these words from a kirk session which appropriately sums up the whole report:

There are no disposable parts of Scotland and no disposable people in Scotland. The Kirk has an obligation to the whole country and all its people. It does not have an obligation, however, to do things as we always did them, and in particular to stick to one model of paid, full-time ordained ministry. The third Declaratory Article should remain, but radical rethinking of how we fulfil it is essential.

The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — Recommendations Of The Committee On Ecumenical Relations Regarding The Evangelical Presbyterian Church

3 Replies

The report from the General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical Relations with their Recommendations Regarding the Evangelical Presbyterian Church has been released and it is “interesting” reading in a number of senses of the word.  This report to the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) resulted from a referral from the 218th GA .  The opening paragraph of the report probably does as good a job as I could summarizing how we got here:

This report comes in response to an overture from the Presbytery of Peace River to the 218th General Assembly (2008) of the PC(USA) that would have asked the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC) to investigate the role of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) in persuading PC(USA) congregations to disaffiliate from the PC(USA) and be dismissed to the EPC. The assembly referred the overture to the General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical Relations, which appointed a task group to make recommendations.

So it is looking at the “role” of the EPC.  Going back to the original overture it asks of the Assembly:

The Presbytery of Peace River respectfully overtures the 218th General Assembly (2008) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to request the Executive Office of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches to investigate the actions and conduct of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, as described below, and to take appropriate action.

The described “actions and conduct” are:

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church is actively pursuing a strategy to persuade Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) churches to disaffiliate with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and be dismissed to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church has created a transitional presbytery to facilitate the process.

So this began not with the “role” of the EPC but with two specific complaints – “a strategy to persuade” and creating “a transitional presbytery.” The report addresses this in the Findings section at paragraph VI.4.l:

l.    There was no evidence that the EPC took the initiative in entering PC(USA) congregations to speak against the PC(USA), for the EPC, or about affiliation with the EPC. However, there was ample evidence that when invited by a session or pastor, EPC representatives went in without consultation with the appropriate judicatory within the PC(USA) and spoke freely.

OK, there is the answer that the presbytery asked for in the overture – The Evangelical Presbyterian Church did not initiate but did not discourage.  So now that we have the answer we can now turn off the lights, lock the door, and go home, right?  “By no means” — we are Presbyterians so there are 15 pages of report to document this and present recommendations to try to patch up relations with the EPC, acknowledge the pain of separation within the PC(USA), and try to find ways to do better in the future.

OK, having gotten my snarky comments about “mission creep” out of the way, let me begin again by saying that I found a lot to like in this report.  It is precise and accurate about many historical and polity points, a feature I appreciate.  That said there are some aspects that bother me but these are mostly in what was left unsaid.

It is worthwhile to begin the detailed analysis with the remainder of the Preface which makes a very important distinction in this:

The task group met with presbyteries in which congregations had departed the PC(USA), with pastors and members of congregations who had departed or were considering departing the PC(USA) including those affiliated with the New Wineskins Association of Churches, and with leadership of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. In listening to people’s stories and in reviewing documents, the task group sought to distinguish between actions of Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and actions of the New Wineskins Association (which consists of PC(USA) pastors and members, as well as former PC(USA) pastors and members who are now affiliated with the EPC).

The distinction is important in that the actions of the New Wineskins members can be considered matters internal to the PC(USA), at least at their root. Actions of the EPC, on the other hand, are matters between churches—churches that are both members of WARC. It is this latter category that is the focus of the original overture. The report that follows presents the findings of the task group regarding activities that are internal and external to the PC(USA), and presents recommendations on how the PC(USA) should move forward in its relations with the EPC.

I very much appreciate the tone throughout this report that this is a very complicated issue and that the EPC as a denomination must be viewed as an independent player despite the fact that it has the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery.  It is also important to remember, and this is one of the points that I think is passed over too lightly in the report, that the New Wineskins Association of Churches is a broad organization with members, individual and congregational, that have a wide range of opinions about departure from the PC(USA).  Any categorization of the NWAC should be done carefully.  The disaffiliation portion of the strategy report must not be viewed as the guidelines for all the members.

Maybe the historical point I most appreciate is the honest appraisal of the origin of our two denominations (V.1):

The histories of the EPC (with its organizing General Assembly in 1981) and the PC(USA) (with its organizing General Assembly in 1983) are deeply woven together, particularly since a large number of the congregations and ministers making up the EPC in its formative years had previously been a part of the PC(USA) or its predecessor bodies. Both the EPC and the PC(USA) lay claim to deep roots within the Presbyterian and Reformed traditions of the larger Christian family tree.

Yes, the EPC and the PC(USA) share the same root stock in American Presbyterianism, we are not some distant cousins but very close siblings.  And yes, the EPC predates the PC(USA).  And the report shares the vision of the EPC from its founding – “From those beginnings, however, the EPC was determined to grow by planting new congregations.” (V.3)

This section goes on to discuss the “trust clause” and I must compliment the Task Group on their historical footnote on the legal basis for it.  (And some of the members of the special committee I was on thought one of mine was long )  The report says of the differing perspective of the two denominations (V.3):

The EPC had developed a denominational understanding of property that is substantively different from the understanding in the PC(USA). The EPC and its leadership see no reason for holding onto congregations, ministers, or real property if those assets will help those persons to be more effective in their mission. In this area, the EPC’s ecclesiology differs significantly from the PC(USA)’s.

And later (VI.5.b) the report says this about the disagreements over the trust clause:

b.  During the task group’s visits, the issue that garnered the most theological—and legal—disagreement was that of the PC(USA)’s property trust provision in Chapter 8 of the Book of Order. What was debated among the NWI/NWAC’s national leadership played out “on the ground” in local congregations regarding property. Those desiring to leave saw this as a violation of their conscience, and their understanding of the nature of the church. The PC(USA) loyalists defended the ownership of property under the trust provision as biblical and held in Presbyterianism long before the explicit Book of Order clause. The different ecclesial understandings of the two denominations led to disagreement not only around ordination standards, property, and theology, but also around the meaning of congregational independence and connectionalism/congregationalism.

As I read this report I kept thinking that the task group, and often the denomination as a whole, seems to miss the tension inherent in the trust clause and only concentrates on the ultimate communal ownership of the property.  Yes, we have the trust clause (G-8.0200)

All property held by or for a particular church, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)… is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

But the question that I don’t hear asked as loudly, here or anywhere, is why do we have the concept of the trust clause to begin with?  While the language of the trust clause itself was inserted to make the concept explicit following a U.S. Supreme Court Decision (see that historical note ) the report and a PC(USA) OGA Advisory Opinion (#19) are correct in pointing out that it intrinsically flows from our view of the church as a connectional system.  We belong to each other not because we chose to belong but because Christ calls us together.

But this is then viewed in the light of why Christ calls us together and in Chapter 3 of the Book of Order titled “The Church and Its Mission” it says (G-3.0400) “The Church is 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.”  And regarding the list of responsibilities of the presbytery all relate back to the opening statement that (G-11.0103) “The presbytery is responsible for the mission and government of the church throughout its geographical district.”  The tension of holding property is to be good stewards so it does the most good for building the Kingdom and furthering the mission given us by Jesus Christ.  I’m not sure we are as good as we could be about “a time to keep and a time to let go.”  In light of the ultimate call to forward the Kingdom, and acknowledging the theology behind the trust clause, I see no reason that the line from the report could not be rewritten to say “The PC(USA) and its leadership see no reason for holding onto congregations, ministers, or real property if those assets will help those persons to be more effective in their mission.”  In both branches the property is for the purpose of mission, the branches differ as to which governing body has responsibility for discerning the best use of the property in furthering mission.

Following from that the most meaningful part of this report, to me, is the section of the findings that demonstrate how our “keeping” and “letting go” need some work.  Here are excerpts from the report:

j.    In several cases, both New Wineskins representatives now in the EPC as well as PC(USA) representatives said that when presbytery processes were followed, the outcomes were better than if a congregation entered into litigation against the PC(USA) presbytery. In every instance where the civil courts were involved, representatives of both New Wineskins and loyalist PC(USA) leaders said it became extremely painful. (VI.2.j)

b.   The size of the congregation was often a driving factor in the approach to discussions and the process for departure. Smaller congregations with fewer human and real property assets were often more easily resolved. In other cases, especially when the congregation was larger, the presbyteries recognized the need to be immediately engaged, and the situation often led to civil litigation, resulting in very large costs—emotionally and financially—for all involved. (VI.4.b)

c.   In general, those congregations that followed an ecclesiastical process… fared better. Although it depends upon the state, courts generally have sided with the PC(USA)’s understanding of Chapter 8… In some cases, departing congregations relying on a legal strategy alone or in concert with an ecclesiastical one, lost additional money or property, and would have been much better off without civil action. Situations that involved a higher degree of trust and communication usually resulted in a negotiated settlement with which all parties could live and still feel respect for one another. Some of these situations even seemed to result in what was perceived by many as a “grace-filled” process. (VI.4.c, emphasis mine)

Friends, the single most important thing I took away from this report was those two final lines.  We need to remember the “trust clause” is ultimately there for advancing mission and nothing else.

Having said that I want to highlight one more plus and one more negative I see in this report and then get on with the recommendations to the 219th GA.

First, looking beyond the trust clause and discussing Presbyterian connectionalism in general, the report does a good job of developing the concept that congregations must be dismissed to another body.  There is no such thing as an independent Presbyterian church within the Presbyterian understanding of the church.  For those not familiar with the issue at hand, the EPC New Wineskins Presbytery is a transitional presbytery and is simply a place that a congregation can momentarily stop on their journey.  While there may be an intent to join a geographic presbytery there is also the possibility of being released as an independent congregation.  Unless the relationship is fixed and not transitional the PC(USA) understanding of the relationship finds it wanting.  (Now I want to go back and look at how churches transferring into PC(USA) non-geographic presbyteries were handled since those were also intended to be transitional presbyteries with limited life times.)

Second – On the one hand I found the report refreshing in the acknowledgement of the existence and role of what have come to be called the “Louisville Papers.”  These are documents put together by the Stated Clerk’s office to help guide presbyteries in the legal work of property disputes.  It is important to remember that they are legal memos and read as such.  They are strongly worded and have the touch of a lawyer out to win his/her case.  I talked about all this back in August 2006 when they were made public by the Layman.

The report also makes a big deal of a document that in some ways serves a similar role produced by the New Wineskins Association of Churches, New Wineskins Initiative: A Time for Every Purpose Under Heaven.  It is a publicly released document that talks about the future of the NWAC and in part acts as a guide for NWAC churches for the disaffiliation process.  Section VI.5 of this task group report says “The task group’s findings in local situations regarding a desire for ‘theological clarity’ mirrored the language of the New Wineskins Initiative’s national spokespersons.”  The report also constantly refers to the various disaffiliation options mentioned in the strategy paper.  What I did not see in the report was the view from the other side — when viewed from the perspective of a church trying to depart the PC(USA) the legal action taken by a particular presbytery followed the advice in the “Louisville Papers.”  Now I agree that the legal documents covered the full range of responses so basically anything the presbytery did could be seen as following that guide, but what the report does not say is that each side saw the other as having their own strategy piece.

Most of the Findings in the report were gathered from visits to presbyteries where members of the task group spoke to the presbytery leaders as well as leaders and members of churches, including disaffiliated churches, in that area.  It is worth noting that the group visited nine presbyteries out of around 40 that one list shows having churches that disaffiliated or considered doing do.

There is a lot more in the report but having covered the major points I got out of it let me turn to the recommendations.

1.   Affirm that

a.   the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is in correspondence with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, by virtue of our common membership in the World Alliance of Reformed Churches;

b.   our common membership in the World Alliance of Reformed Churches is a visible sign of our oneness in Jesus Christ; and

c.   as members of the body of Christ, we are all called to treat one another as followers of Jesus Christ.

2.   Request the World Alliance of Reformed Churches to create guidelines offering basic protocols for interactions and behaviors between its member denominations.

3.   Call the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to

a.   confess to the rich tradition of freedom of conscience that we claim as Reformed, Presbyterian Christians, and

b.   recognize that this same tradition causes us to be prone to separation, demonization of those with whom we disagree, and a captivity to insistence on our own rightness.

4.   Invite the Evangelical Presbyterian Church to enter into such a season of confession with us.

5.   Acknowledge the unique complexity of the relationship between the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, given the fact that the ecclesial roots of many churches, members, and ministers now in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church lie in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and its antecedent denominations.

6.   Invite the General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church to engage in bilateral dialogue concerning various dimensions of the relationships between the two denominations and its member churches, members, and ministers; and that a report from this dialogue be made to the 222nd General Assembly (2016), with an interim report made to the 221st General Assembly (2014).

7.   Direct the Office of the General Assembly to develop resources to support presbyteries with congregations and/or ministers engaged in a process of discernment or undergoing the process of dismissal, in light of denominational learnings in the recent past.

8.   Acknowledge the deep pain caused by the experiences of congregations departing or going through schism and of ministers departing, and call upon synods to consider developing care teams to listen to people’s stories, thereby enabling healing, with presbyteries also urged to extend extra care during such vulnerable times of congregational and presbytery life.

9.   Encourage presbyteries, congregations, and individual families who experience the pain of separation to recognize that there is more than one way to understand the same event and to pray for one another through our shared faith in Jesus Christ.

I will not analyze these recommendations on a point-by-point basis but take an overview of them generally.  It is important to note that they all reflect a sense of restorative and not punitive church discipline.

Having said that, I have to admit that after reading the report I am very surprised at the nature of the recommendations.  The first six recommendations, some with sub-points, of the nine total (two-thirds of them) in one way or another touch on the PC(USA)’s relationship with the EPC.  While the report discusses the NWAC very heavily there is only a light treatment of the EPC role in the text as a whole and the findings in particular.  The process says there was a meeting with four representative of the EPC but I did not see any discussion of how that meeting went, specifics of the discussion, or any formal or informal agreements mentioned in the text and therefore don’t see from where these recommendations derive.  After having had bi-lateral contact why do the recommendations have such a unilateral nature to them?  While I don’t expect a specific agreement with the EPC in the recommendations, I was searching the text for some indication of how these invitations would be received.  Yes, at present the PC(USA) GA action would be an invitation from us, but the body of the report characterizes the current situation only from the perspective of the one side.  Can it give us an indication of how the EPC would take the invitation “to enter into such a season of confession with us”?

So I don’t see the same proportionality of rational in the text as I see in the recommendations and from the information in the body of the report I have having trouble “connecting the dots” to arrive at what is asked in the recommendations.

I really like recommendation #2 that would have WARC create the “guidelines offering basic protocols for interactions and behaviors between its member denominations.”  As the history of this situation shows the PC(USA) and the EPC have been operating with different expectations and procedures for the exchange process and to somehow come to a standard understanding would be helpful for all involved and may help relieve pain and confusion that result when different bodies have different expectations.  The report says (VI.3.a)  “In various conversations with PC(USA) presbytery representatives, their expectation that normal, standard ecumenical courtesy would be extended by local or national EPC judicatory leaders was repeatedly frustrated.”  Is “normal, standard ecumenical courtesy” something that is codified somewhere (Miss. Manners for the Ecclesiastical?) or an unwritten set of expectations that can vary from denomination to denomination even in the Reformed stream?  It appears to be the latter if WARC is being asked to develop these.

Similarly, I appreciate #7 which would have the church develop resources that are pastoral rather than legal.

Finally, I think the task group did a good job with recommendations 8 and 9 that acknowledge the pain involved in these events and encourage everyone to recognize that “there is more than one way to understand the same event” and to deal with this in a pastoral manner.

UPDATE: The EPC has now issued a press release saying it is “grateful” that the task group find the accusation unsubstantiated.  It with holds additional comments until after the GA acts on the report.

So this report took 15 pages to not only answer the original question but to look at the whole mess, and yes it did get messy, and to provide us with a perspective and lessons from what has happened and recommendations to help heal the pain and move on with being the Church.  With that in mind let me return to, and close with, one of those quotes that made the report for me.  Remember, the 218th GA also called us to a “Gracious Separation” and it is not just what we do but how we do it that is a witness to the world.  This report has much to support that Gracious Separation —  And the world is watching .  From section VI.4.d:

In those situations where matters went to civil court… the time, energy, and money expended on both sides was enormous. Some New Wineskins leaders who sought membership in the EPC expressed that if they had it to do again, they would likely follow an ecclesiastical process with the presbytery. Likewise, the presbyteries that had to respond to civil action, or that chose to initiate it, regretted the court costs and intervention into the life and work of the presbytery. Court proceedings were universally perceived as draining of the financial and other resources of the presbytery. Also, what trust might have been present prior to legal proceedings was often ruptured once those proceedings began.