The Value Of A Contrary Opinion

Leave a reply

I have wondered aloud, or at least in print, in the past about what I see as a fundamentally Presbyterian and Reformed trait when it comes to our polity — The tendency for us Reformed folk to hold, accept (or at least tolerate), and act upon divergent views on issues major and minor.  We seem to do this “better” than other religious branches that I have looked at.  In fact the PC(USA) enshrines it in our polity:

G-1.030(1) (a) That “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship.”

(b) Therefore we consider the rights of private judgment, in all matters that respect religion, as universal and unalienable: We do not even wish to see any religious constitution aided by the civil power, further than may be necessary for protection and security, and at the same time, be equal and common to all others.

(2) That, in perfect consistency with the above principle of common right, every Christian Church, or union or association of particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion, and the qualifications of its ministers and members, as well as the whole system of its internal government which Christ hath appointed; that in the exercise of this right they may, notwithstanding, err, in making the terms of communion either too lax or too narrow; yet, even in this case, they do not infringe upon the liberty or the rights of others, but only make an improper use of their own.

And our parliamentary procedure is based upon certain principles (thanks to Paul McClintock, RPR, for the quote):

There are five great principles underlying the rules of parliamentary law, namely: (1) Order. That is, there must be orderly procedure. (2) Equality. That is, all members are equal before the rule or law. (3) Justice. That is, justice for all. (4) Right of the minority to be heard on questions. (5) Right of the majority to rule the organization. — George Demeter, Demeter’s Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure, 1969 Blue Book Edition, p. 5. [emphasis mine]

In a future reflection I will argue that this majority-minority interplay in our governing bodies is in fact what underlies our deliberative process and makes it so powerful — it is the key to our “always being reformed according to the word of God.”

But what has struck me this week is how this process has significant similarities to the way that science progresses with its “multiple working hypotheses” to explain the data and as new data is collected hypotheses are tested and may be revised or discarded in favor of alternate hypotheses which better explain the observations.  It is also a discernment process where dissenting voices must be considered because they bring into focus alternative perspectives on data interpretation.

This has been on my mind this week as I read about the e-mails and documents obtained by hackers from the computers at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and posted on public servers. (news story, CRU response)  Some of the material contained in those e-mails could be interpreted as attempts by climate researchers to suppress the publication of research that does not support the “consensus position.”  (Today NPR had an interesting story about the controversy where one of the scientists they interview is a researcher who feels he was suppressed because his research shows more extreme warming than the “consensus position.” )  I have not yet looked into this controversy in enough detail to have formed a final opinion.  I am suspicious that only the most sensational quotes are being used in the mainstream media reporting.  However, what I have read does concern me.

An interesting thing about this is that one of the central figures is Dr. Michael Mann of the Earth System Science Center of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences at the Pennsylvania State University.  I bring this specific case up because while a student in the Geosciences Department there at PSU I had a formative experience that reinforced the role that contrary opinion plays in science, a lesson that I regularly remember up to the present day.

I began my undergraduate career at the tail end of the time of the paradigm shift resulting from the wide acceptance of the theory of plate tectonics.  (That in itself is a major century-long story of theory, data, the scientific method and the role that personality cults can play.  If you want to hear that one you’ll have to sit in on the two lectures where I cover that in the earthquakes class I teach.)  I have to admit that I don’t remember many of the speakers or talks I attended while at PSU, but I clearly remember a fascinating presentation given by Prof. MacKenzie “Mac” Keith.  In this presentation he presented alternate ways that certain features attributed to plate tectonics could have been generated.  While I was a bit skeptical at the time, and today am confident his theories don’t do the best job of explaining the data, it was reinforced on my developing scientific mind that alternate explanations must be considered, at least long enough to understand why they are less favorable.

So I don’t know how this climate change controversy will turn out, but I am forever grateful to Dr. Keith for the lesson in science, and life, that he taught in that one evening’s presentation.

Looking Ahead: 219th General Assembly Of The PC(USA) – The First Moderator Candidate

2 Replies

Last week the National Capital Presbytery voted unanimously to endorse Elder Cynthia Bolbach as a candidate for Moderator of the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  This news is brought to us from the Presbyterian Outlook, but I am expecting that a news story will soon appear from the PC(USA) News Service and be posted on the GA219 web site.

However, Ms. Bolbach is well ahead of the curve and has her web site/blog up and running.  She has titled it “Food for Thought” and her first, and only post so far, has the understandable title “Am I Crazy?”  In addition, the site includes pages “About Cindy” and “Why PCUSA [sic] Moderator?”  She has her own press release and a photo gallery. (And the National Capital Presbytery has a short note that links to the press release.  And I probably should mention that the news was also announced on the blog of the Presbytery of Silly Walks in the Pines.)

Elder Bolbach grew up Lutheran and joined the New York Ave. Presbyterian Church when she moved to D.C. after college.  There she was ordained a deacon and elder and served as the clerk of session.  She currently is a member of First Presbyterian Church in Arlington, Virginia.  Her other service to the denomination includes being a commissioner to the 209th GA in 1997, serving on and chairing the presbytery’s Committee on Ministry, and serving as Moderator of Presbytery.  But maybe the service that really answers the question she asks above, “Am I Crazy?” is that she has spent the last four years as the co-moderator of the denomination’s Form of Government Task Force.  On her web site she writes about this saying:

We have the opportunity to begin to change by adopting the proposed new Form of Government – a proposal that returns the Form of Government to its proper status as a Constitutional document, rather than the regulatory manual that it has become over the past 25 years. That’s a good start. We need to go further. We need our presbyteries to focus less on administration and more on empowering their congregations to be effective wellsprings of ministry and mission. We need to stop thinking and acting like a bureaucracy and start thinking and acting like disciples.

So why does she want to stand for Moderator?  In her “why” piece she writes:

[O]ur ability as a denomination to proclaim these messages effectively as we move into the second decade of the 21st century is in peril. Our multicultural, secular society no longer has Christianity, much less the institutional church, much less the P.C. (U.S.A.), at its center. It no longer trusts implicitly in the effectiveness of institutions. Yet we continue to believe that we can do ministry the same way we did fifty years ago.

It’s a simple choice, really: if we don’t change, we’ll die.
…
A denomination that proudly claims the resolve and resiliency of John Calvin cannot let this happen. A denomination that takes seriously Jesus’ command to “go out and make disciples” cannot let this happen.

How do we reclaim a prophetic voice that will be listened to and taken seriously? The first step is to understand that we must proclaim our message in new and different ways. We must understand that we can no longer rely on a denominational name brand or on denominational loyalty. We must understand that the corporate organizational structure that was created in the 1950s is no longer viable. We must understand that our primary responsibility is not to impose rules but to empower and enable our congregations and their members to go out into the world and proclaim the transforming message of the Gospel.

Coming from a legal career in the corporate world I’m sure she understands “corporate structure” and “brand loyalty.” I look forward to hearing more.  I also look forward to all those other things that come with a moderator candidacy these days including the Facebook group and the Twitter hashtag.

UPDATE:  The PC(USA) News Service article is now available.

Some Brief Updates

Leave a reply

There are a number of stories I have covered recently that now have updates that I have been collecting.  However, with no sign that there will be enough other related information for any to warrant a post of their own in the short term I now present a series of these in one general post.

Church of Scotland/Free Church of Scotland Discussions

In an update to the internal discussion in the Church of Scotland over ordination standards, it was announced by the Free Church of Scotland last week that they have decided to suspend their biannual talks with the CofS.  In the news item they say:

However, the Free Church has said that, in the light of the uncertainty over the Kirk’s position on homosexuality following the induction of an allegedly gay minister earlier this year, which appeared to be sanctioned by their General Assembly, it cannot for the time being continue “as if nothing had happened.”

The announcement goes on to say that the decision was accepted with regret and then quotes the convener of the Free Church committee:

Rev. Iver Martin, Convener of the Free Church Ecumenical Relations Committee, said, “Suspending the talks, whilst regrettable, was the most tangible way of expressing the Free Church’s discomfort with the failure of the Church of Scotland to take a thoroughly Biblical stand on the place of marriage between one man and one woman.” The Free Church continues to value and encourage the close relationship that there is between congregations of both denominations in many areas of Scotland.

Case heard by the Presbyterian Church in America Standing Judicial Commission

It has been over a year since I have touched on the Federal Vision discussions in the PCA, and in that time the controversy has been moving along quietly but steadily.  Since the 35th General Assembly adopted the report of a study committee that was critical of this theological perspective the denomination has been dealing with it in the regular presbytery review process.  For the Pacific Northwest Presbytery this began with a theological examination about 13 months ago and the presbytery accepting that examination.  A complaint was filed and this past week the Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA heard the complaint.  Jason Stellman over at De Regnis Duobus is one of the complainants in the case and has provided his observations of the proceedings.  He includes this description:

A couple of the eyebrow-raising statements from the respondant include: (1) His insistence that the Westminster Standards do not teach that the covenant of works sets forth a distinct principle by which we receive eternal life from that of the covenant of grace; (2) His encouragement to the SJC that they all read John Frame’s review of Horton’s Christless Christianity so as to learn from Frame how to avoid the dangers of Westminster Seminary California’s sectarianism; and perhaps the most telling of all was (3)seeing firsthand what happens when one flattens out redemptive history so as to take Yahweh’s dealings with Old Testament Israel under the conditional, Mosaic covenant as an unqualified, across-the-board paradigm for understanding how God relates to the church today. When asked by the commission, “In what sense are we saved by baptism?”, the response was given, “Well, in the same sense that God can pardon his people and then damn them.”

The PCA SJC has 42 days to render their decision (unlike the PC(USA) GAPJC which must render their decision before the meeting adjourns).  TE Stellman concludes with this:

And to those of you who love asking, yes, if they find in favor of Leithart [the respondant] and against us, I will submit to that and never bring it up again.

Deaconess Issues In The PCA

The more prominent discussion in the PCA recently has been the status of women serving in ordained office, or what seems to resemble ordained office.  Recently, the discussion was fueled by a video of a commissioning service at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, NY.  Well, Bob Mattes asked the senior pastor at Redeemer, TE Tim Keller, about the video and has posted the response at Green Baggins.  In short, Rev. Keller writes:

We do not ordain our deaconesses nor do we ask our congregation to obey and submit to them. The minister in the video is newer on our staff and he accidentally read the deacons’ questions from the BCO and did not use the different questions we commonly use for deaconesses.  Others who go to Redeemer can attest that this is not our practice, and it will not be in the future. The minister in the video apologized when he realized what he had done.

While Mr. Keller has provided this explanation I would note that the BaylyBlog, one of Redeemers strongest critics, has updated the original post to acknowledge the explanation, but they basically say there is still a problem with what Redeemer does.

Responses To A Minister’s Term Not Extended By The Uniting Church In Australia

A couple of months ago I posted some comments on my initial review of the polity in the Uniting Church in Australia and illustrated that with a controversy that had erupted when the Illawarra Presbytery declined to extend the term of the Rev. Gordon Bradbery to his present call at Wesley Uniting Church on the Mall.

Now, before we go getting too Presbyterian about this, let me remind you that this is the Uniting Church and while the Presbyterians were part of the union that formed the church the polity is a bit different.  In that denomination the pastors are called with specified term lengths which may or may not be renewed or extended.  In addition, even though a congregation may vote overwhelmingly to want the call extended by the fixed amount, the presbytery, and in this case the synod as well, have substantial input into the extension.

So in the last two months there has been no change in the presbytery’s decision not to extend Rev. Bradbery’s term, but there has been plenty of activity regarding the decision and trying to get popular support for reversing the decision.  This includes a meeting of presbytery leaders with Rev. Bradbery (what the Illawarra Mercury called “peace talks”) and a letter from the Presbytery, a Facebook page to gather support and communicate to his supporters, an online petition (currently 20 signatures), as well as a recent op-ed piece in the Illawarra Mercury.  Too early to tell if the popular support will sway the presbytery but it is interesting to see the role the Internet is playing in the rather local story.

And finally, not an update but a news brief…

New Official PC(USA) Blog – Beyond the Ordinary

There is a new official blog from the PC(USA) called Beyond the Ordinary that discusses the U.S. Congregational Life Survey.  It is written by staff from the PC(USA) Research Services office and, as you would expect from them, deals with their statistical numbers.  It will be interesting to see what they have to say.

Church Of Scotland Commission Of Assembly Meeting – Ordination Standards Debate And Manse Occupancy

This was an interesting meeting last Friday (Nov. 13) in a number of ways.  One way that it was interesting was because of the media attention that was paid to it.  I seldom see much, if any coverage, of the meetings of the Commission of Assembly.  But extending on that it was interesting in what the media coverage was about.  With two controversial decisions to be considered by the Commission, only one of them seemed to get any media attention, particularly in advance.  I will cover that item second, but a brief reminder of the role of the Commission and the other item that did not get much media attention.

In the Church of Scotland each General Assembly establishes a sub-group to act on important matters in the interim year until the next Assembly meets.  As a commission they are empowered to act with the full authority and power of the whole Assembly on many matters.  We are fortunate that the Rev. Ian Watson of Kirkmuirhill served as a commissioner to this meeting and brings us a lot of insightful details in his blog.

The first item relates to the continuing journey regarding ordination standards in the Church of Scotland, specifically as it relates to same-sex partnered clergy and candidates.  The short review is that after a church called a minister last spring the call was protested and the GA decided to deny the protest.  But, the GA also decided that the topic should be looked at by a special commission and during the two years the commission is working there are to be no calls or ordinations of same-sex partnered clergy.  But what about individuals starting the process?  An individual was approved by the Presbytery of Hamilton, a dissent and complaint was filed and the individual withdrew. However, that withdrawal did not halt the protest and there was a request for clarification whether the moratorium did apply to candidates.  That is the question brought to the Commission of Assembly last week.

In his detailed post about the meeting Rev. Watson tells us:

The end result was that the Commission decided to uphold the dissent and complaint against the Presbytery of Hamilton.  The practical result is that the deliverance brought in the name of Rev. Dr. John McPake at May’s General Assembly (amended after long debate)—the moratorium—is to be interpreted broadly and not restrictively.  When it instructs Courts, Councils and Committees of the Church not “to make decisions in relation to contentious matters of sexuality, with respect to Ordination and Induction” that includes training for the ministry, which, by its very nature looks towards ordination and induction.   Should a Court, Council or Committee be faced with making a decision in this regard they must decline to do so, sisting the matter if appropriate, until 31st May 2011.

In his description of the meeting he talks about the background to this presbytery’s decision and the advice they had received from the Principle Clerk’s office.  He also talks about what the intent of the moratorium was and how a literal versus intended interpretation was applied.  He sums up that section with this (emphases his):

While it might seem that the Presbytery had reached a wise compromise, it presented the wider church with a problem.  Was this indeed the outcome May’s General Assembly had in mind?  Some felt that this was too narrow an interpretation.  While Hamilton Presbytery might wish to add a rider to their acceptance of the candidate, other Presbyteries might not.   Were this decision to go unchallenged, it would appear that the Church of Scotland had not decided not to train sexually active homosexuals for the ministry. 

Many believe that the moratorium provided the church with the chance to calm down.  The relative peace which has descended upon the church would be endangered if it become known that the moratorium was being applied so strictly as to be null and void for all practical purposes.

In the end the Commission agreed 43-38 to the counter-motion, made by Rev. Watson, that the moratorium applied to those training for the ministry as well.

As I said at the beginning, outside of Rev. Watson’s account, and the blogs like this one that link to it, the coverage of this action has been limited.  I have seen no coverage in the mainstream media, but there is some in the alternative media.  One example is an article from PinkNews which mentions the meeting and decision in the first line, and then spends the rest of the article profiling the candidate who was approved and then withdrew.  In the blogosphere there are some interesting comments by John Ross at Recycled Missionaries.

The second item did get the coverage in the mainstream media leading up to the meeting including the Edinburgh Evening News and The Sun.

This question revolves around a provision in the Regulations of the General Assembly, specifically Reg VII 2007 item 2. (Reg. VII 2007 in Word Format.)  That item says:

2. A Minister has the right to live in the Manse and a corresponding duty to occupy it.

The question raised is “what does it mean to ‘occupy’ the manse?”

The specific situation is that the Rev. John Munro, pastor of Fairmilehead Church near Edinburgh, lives in his personally owned home about 1/2 km from the church.  He and his wife did live in the manse next to the church for about 5 years but moved about two years ago reportedly because his wife did not enjoy living in the manse.  However, Rev. Munro made a good-faith effort to “occupy” the manse by working there every day.  Edinburgh Presbytery ruled that using the manse’s library and having possession of the manse’s contents were not sufficient and that occupying the manse entailed living there.

The Commission of Assembly agreed with the Presbytery by a vote of 64 to 5 (as reported in the Edinburgh Evening News) and has sent the case back down to the Presbytery for its action.

At this point I, as someone outside the Church of Scotland, am scratching my head a bit.  First the action is reported but the reasons behind this regulation are not clear t
o me.  (Or maybe I should say that I can think of a dozen reasons for the regulation but I don’t know which one is correct.)  The best indication we have is one reference in The Sun article where an unnamed friend of Rev. Munro says “They fear if the Inland Revenue thinks manses are no longer necessary for the job, they will change its tax status. But they are being paranoid. Since 2003 only five people have asked to live out with their manse in Scotland.”

Here in the states many churches have done away with the manse for a variety of reasons.  These include the fact that a manse is “one size fits all” and the minister and their family don’t always fit the property.  Also, some view the opportunity to own their property outright as an investment to help when they reach retirement.  And in the recent “housing bubble” many new church plants could not afford to purchase land for the church, let alone a manse for their pastor.  Finally, in the states the tax codes generally allow a minister similar tax treatment if they are in a manse or receive a housing allowance for their own property.

So this case in Edinburgh goes back to the Presbytery and possible outcomes range from censure to full dismissal from the charge.  We will see what the Presbytery decides.

The 29th General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church — Working Out What It Means To Be Missional

Leave a reply

One of the most interesting items of business for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church at their General Assembly back in June was a statement on what it means to be “missional” and what that means for their structure and operations as a church.

Now, in the wider church these days it is the trend to be missional.  But what missional means is a bit like the statement in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone,” it means just what I choose it to mean –neither more nor less.”

For a good summary of the variability of the term there is an article from Christianity Today in March 2008.

Here is what the ECP GA adopted about being missional (taken from the Theology Committee report):

Our denomination wants to clarify for its member churches who we are and what we do as the United States becomes a mission field that is larger, more spiritually diverse and more antagonistic to the Gospel than ever before.

The term “missional” has become common and therefore highly nuanced. We desire to define missional in a simple and specific way so that each EPC church can commit to a unified, obedient pursuit of the expansion of the Kingdom of God.

  1. A missional church grasps that God is a missionary God and that “it is not so much that God has a mission for His church in the world, but that God has a Church for His mission in the world.”

  2. A missional church believes that the mission of God is rooted unalterably in the Bible, God’s infallible Word. Therefore, a missional church believes that the essence of God’s mission is to extend the reign of God and is summed up in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

  3. A missional church is a visible community of authentic disciples of Jesus Christ who gather for celebration, prayer and teaching and then disperse locally and globally as His missionaries to love and serve people. In so doing, a missional church both pursues and welcomes those who are searching as they are drawn into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. The greater purpose in all of this is that the earth will be filled with the worship of God.

  4. A missional church believes that it is more than just a collection of individuals, but that it is a community called together by God both to love Him and serve Him.

  5. A missional church is concerned with more than maintaining programs for existing members; it is called to mobilize itself both individually and as a community to daily self-sacrifice for the hurting world around them. A missional church is both inwardly strong and outwardly focused.

  6. A missional church perceives that the essence of these things is the essence of its existence. Therefore, a missional church will constantly seek to reevaluate itself as to whether or not it’s emphasis, organization, and activity effectively positions the church to partner with God in His mission.

  7. A missional denomination

    a. Believes that the location of ministry is the local church
    b. Is made up of local congregations committed to being missional
    c. Believes that the Presbyteries and General Assembly, being expressions of the larger church, have an important role to play in identifying, equipping and supporting leaders and churches. They are a key link in the principle of mutual accountability toward missional ministry and Biblical standards.
    d. Constantly examines whether its polity, structures and programs are supporting or inhibiting that missional commitment

First, this is clearly a very Presbyterian formulation of missional since it takes into account the full governing body structure of the denomination.  But, having said that it also affirms that the higher governing bodies are there to play a supporting role and for accountability.  The mission and ministry point of the church is the local congregation.

It has the sense of the sovereignty of God and the idea that God leads in mission and we in the church are participating with God.  To use my favorite phrase, “God acts first.”  It also reflects that God calls the church into being (“a community called together by God”).

In other business of the Assembly there was a very tangible result of the principles listed in #7 above.  The Committee on National Outreach proposed, and the Assembly approved, a change in their mandate that would reduce the size of the committee on the national level and move the responsibility for church planting to the presbytery level leaving the national committee to encourage and provide resources.  (It begins on the bottom of page 6 in this set of recommendations.)  The rational says:

Grounds: For the past three years the National Outreach Committee has engaged in a thorough review of its mission and ministry to the EPC. It has identified those activities that are best done at the national committee level and sought to “push down” to the presbyteries those activities that are best pursued at that level. During this time, the NOC met jointly with presbytery Church Development Committee chairs. Recognizing that the CDC’s are closer to the local level, NOC asked the CDC’s to experiment with meeting and taking care of those items focusing on church planting and church revitalization. Given the success of this experiment we are unanimous in proposing this change.

NOC has concluded that the best way to pursue church planting, church revitalization and evangelism is to support the presbyteries and churches as they take responsibility for these activities.

The adoption of this definition of a missional church did not spring out of thin air; there has been a build-up to this point.  It came out of the work of the Long Range Planning Committee which was formed by the 25th GA of 2005.  In 2006 they issued a white paper titled “Toward a Stronger Future” where they talked about evangelism and “recovering mission.”  They talk about their plan for the study and how they are basing it on the work of the Missional Leadership Institute and how “for real change to happen it must be owned from the
bottom up.”  (Although their links appear old and broken and the MLI has moved or folded.)  The Long Range Planning Committee wrapped up their work and presented to the 28th GA (2008) and based on their report specific actions of the Assembly were presented through the Theology Committee and the Committee on Administration.  While not having any action items directly deriving from the Long Range Planning Committee, the Committee on Administration does reflect in their goals the same approach as the National Outreach Committee where they list one of them as:

F. To “push down” activities historically directed out of the national office to Presbyteries and provide or recommend appropriate means of equipping and encouraging presbyteries in their mission.

And they share their vision for the structure and functioning of the EPC five years from now as:

Another way to describe our vision for the EPC is to describe what we hope to find as one examines our denominati
on five years from now. In 2014, anyone observing the EPC would find:

1. A General Assembly that oversees the work of the church by supporting the Presbyteries as they support the local churches.

2. Presbyteries that offer helps to local churches in such areas as evangelism, discipleship, training and other facets of Christian ministry.

3. The re-formation of the Great Commission in the form of the missional church widely accepted and firmly established in priorities.

4. A re-formation of the church – in our practice, not our doctrine.

I only share the first four items in the vision but there are 15 more for you to have a look at (it begins on page 8 of the committee report).

I think that give a good overview of what the EPC decided and where it sees itself going with the concept of “missional.”  If you want to look at it more take a detailed look at the Committee on Administration report as well as their 2007 “Missional Church Primer” and a series of reflections the stated clerk, the Rev. Jeff Jeremiah wrote leading up to their 2008 GA.

Now, on to missional from another vantage point…  Stay tuned.

Thoughts On Twitter And Its Theological And Ecclesiastical Implications

Leave a reply

“I have only made this letter longer because I have not had the time to make it shorter.”
Blaise Pascal, (1623-1662) Lettres provinciales

OK, I’ll admit it, I am addicted to Twitter. (http://twitter.com)  That does not mean that I like it, only that I see its usefulness.

I started out thinking of it like this cartoon from last Sunday (http://bit.ly/4stuAs) and to some degree still do.

(Other humorous references to Twitter include God tweeting creation http://bit.ly/N2Hvp and the twitter/knitting ban http://bit.ly/21Vrqq)

I became addicted during the massive Station Fire and then was monitoring Twitter for the Sheep Fire. For up-to-date info it is great.

Another example is the coverage of the ordination examination for Lisa Larges at the San Francisco Presbytery #sfpby meeting last night.

Twitter provides a medium for distributed and mass reporting of developing news in real time as well as receiving it on mobile devices.

And that, for my purposes, is the real value of Twitter – that information and links about developing situations can be quickly distributed.

Professionally it is great for rapid notification about earthquakes. Now with three major earthquake sequences my feed has been very active.

What probably bugs me the most about Twitter is that the information then gets redistributed, or Re-Tweeted (RT) as they say in the medium.

RT’s serve a purpose because each RT spreads the important or interesting information to a new group of followers.

But when I am filtering a topic and a particularly popular post is RT’ed by a lot of people all the RT’s can quickly overwhelm the screen.

You end up with only a little signal in all the noise.  (My view of it.)

I have found it both impressive and frustrating the amount of information you can place in a carefully crafted 140 character message.

It is long enough to convey significant information, particularly if you include a link, but short enough to inhibit nuanced discussion.

More than once I have been frustrated that my Twitter comments have been misinterpreted because of the limits on fully developing an idea.

Sometimes 140 characters is just not enough- The ability to Tweet the essence of the Athanasian Creed being an exception http://bit.ly/YHibv

However, I can appreciate the value of widely broadcasting your ideas and the potential for immediate feedback.

In general, for serious theological discussions, I have trouble finding usefulness in exchanging information in 140 character packets.

But in the case of Twitter the medium has become the message, as Marshall McLuhan would say. It is the democratization of info distribution.

Anyone with an Internet connection can send news to anyone else in the world-no corporate news filter, only the 140 character limit.

(BTW-In case you missed it in the midst of the other two big anniversaries, the Internet also just turned 40 http://bit.ly/4aZunE)

So, in a connectional church, does this mass interconnectedness of individuals change the hierarchical connections of our institution?

We are carrying to the logical conclusion the shift we have seen in the PC(USA) for the last several decades-we find identity around ideas.

In the “modern era” we have organized and advocated around affinity groups, but not strictly governed around them.

The 17th synod proposal would change that.  http://bit.ly/ccHf1

(And of course the caveats: previous splits created such affinity governing bodies http://bit.ly/2zRIDI;

The PC(USA) already has language non-geographic presbyteries, a form of affinity group;

And some may argue that certain geographic presbyteries have a strong affinity nature to them already.)

It strikes me that the increase in affinity groups was helped by many technological advances in communications and travel, not just Twitter.

But in this shift we are not becoming congregational in nature, although demographers say the church in general is becoming individualistic.

Consider the PC(USA) list of Advocacy Groups http://bit.ly/2exeSq – Is that the direction governance in the PC(USA) is headed?

Churches in the mainline seem to have these groups – I’m not aware of other branches having this many groups.

(For differences in technology use by ethnic churches consider this article http://bit.ly/2O01Rl on web sites.)

Now I don’t attribute all this to Twitter, but it is the latest in the technologies that allow us to organize well on this granular scale.

I don’t know what this means for the future – friends tell me twitter is here to stay but they said that about usenet. http://bit.ly/3aixMt

But the trend of technology has been to empower the individual (blogs, self-publishing) and to facilitate social networking.

I can only believe that the trend to communicate, coordinate, and organize outside of our current connectional structure will continue.

So maybe the question is not “Are we connectional?” but “In what ways are we being connectional?” and how that impacts our governance.

Oh ya, in case you are interested I do tweet occasionally as ga_junkie. http://twitter.com/ga_junkie

And if you did not figure it out, each of the lines in this post is 140 characters or less and therefore can be tweeted.

Ordination Standards In The Evangelical Presbyterian Church — The Current Discussion

Leave a reply

In the Evangelical Presbyterian Church the discussion on ordination standards appears to me to be more of a speed bump than the litmus test it seems to have become in other Presbyterian branches.  The church is holding their stated position, that whether or not women should be ordained is a non-essential and therefore a local standard, in tension with the incumbent position of the churches coming in from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the conflict they may be in with the geographic presbytery in which they reside.  Because the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery provides a temporary location for these churches the issue is important but not immediately pressing.

At the last General Assembly the Presbytery of Mid-America proposed one solution for co-existence which did not meet constitutional muster.  Recognizing this as an issue that required a solution the PJC recommended that an Interim Committee be formed to look at the situation.  The Moderator has now named this Committee and they held their first meeting in Memphis, TN, last week according to the article in the EP News.  The committee is composed of 18 members — one teaching elder and one ruling elder from each presbytery.  Its charge is to “explore ways to include those pastors and churches with conflicting positions on Women Teaching Elders in the presbyteries of the EPC” and is to report back to the 30th General Assembly in 2010.

I have seen no reports from the meeting itself yet but it will be interesting to follow the path they take in working through this issue.  In closing I will leave you with the words of the PJC about the importance of this discussion from its decision last summer:

The PJC wants the record to reflect that it recognizes and deeply appreciates the serious nature of the issues prompting the Mid-America Overture, the historical background and self-described struggle in the Mid-America Presbytery, the extraordinary effort and prayerful attention exhibited in working in harmony and love with one another, and the heartfelt and deep concern for the peace, purity, and unity of their presbytery reflected by the Implementation Committee in their presentation. Here it must be added that the PJC is saddened by the possibility that there may come a time when wonderful children of God might decide to divide themselves over an issue now established in the Church as a non-essential.

Current News In The Ordination Standards Discussion In The Church Of Scotland

2 Replies

Compared to my two previous notes on developments in the PC(USA) and the PCA this recap on developments in the Church of Scotland will be relatively short since their process is much more focused at the moment.

You may remember that the last General Assembly dealt with a protest filed by a group of presbyters who considered their presbytery’s action to concur with a church’s call to a partnered gay man to pastor the church to be out of order.  The GA upheld the presbytery decision and denied the protest.  Along with the protest there was also an overture filed by another presbytery to establish some standards for ordained office regarding lifestyle and sexual orientation.  Instead of acting on that the Assembly chose to structure an environment to engage the church in discussion over this issue.  This environment includes a Special Commission to study the issue and report back to the 2011 Assembly, a moratorium on installations and ordinations of partnered same-sex individuals as officers of the church, and a ban on officers of the church talking publicly about the issue.  The moratorium and the gag order are for the two years the Special Commission will be working.

Well yesterday brought news that Lord Hodge will chair the special commission.  Lord Hodge is a Judge of the Supreme Court and was previously Procurator to the General Assembly, among other legal and judicial positions.  The news article also lists an additional four members of this nine member commission:

Other members of the commission include the Rev John Chalmers, former minister of Edinburgh’s Palmerston Place Church; advocate Ruth Innes, a member at Palmerston Place Church; former Moderator the Very Rev Dr Sheilagh Kesting; and the Rev Peter Graham, former clerk to the Edinburgh presbytery.

Thanks to the Edinburgh Evening News for this, but I look forward to a formal press release from the CofS Newsroom, or a more detailed media article listing the full membership of the commission.

A sidebar here, (pun intended) on the leaders of these Church of Scotland special commissions.  For those of you keeping score at home, this is the third special commission in three years that I am aware of.  The first of these, created by the 2006 General Assembly, was the Special Commission on Structure and Change which reported back to the 2008 Assembly.  What I find interesting was that commission was headed up by Lord Hodge’s colleague on the high court, Lord Brodie.  Not every commission is headed up by a distinguish justice because the third commission, and one that is currently working, the Special Commission on the Third Article is chaired by the Moderator of the 2006 Assembly, the Very Rev. Dr. Alan D. McDonald.  (And if you want more on the Structure and Change and Third Article stuff, you can check out my earlier discussion of all that.)  But in summary, you have to be impressed with the church’s integration in the culture to be able to get such secular leaders onto GA commissions.  (And you have to wonder how they have time to do it.)

Finally, I was looking back and I probably should close the loop on one more related item.  Back at the beginning of September the Presbytery of Hamilton voted to admit to training for the ministry an individual whose lifestyle was the subject of the new discussion in the church.  The issue at the time was focused on whether this presbytery action was a violation of the GA action, in spirit if not in letter.  Subsequently, the individual, Mr. Dmitri Ross, withdrew his application after the controversy erupted.  In a Time article he is quoted as saying:

“I do not wish, and have never sought, to be a cause of division within the Church I love so dearly. Therefore, after much heartfelt deliberation, and after much prayerful consideration, I have decided to withdraw as a full-time candidate in training for ministry of word and sacrament in the Church of Scotland.”

Like the other ordination debates, all of this is a point in the journey, or a step in a process, that will play out.  Stay tuned…

The Continuing Ordination Standards Discussion In The Presbyterian Church In America

1 Reply

I know, this ordination standards discussion/debate is getting old.  It seems to keep on going, there are overtures to every GA about it, some congregations seem to ignore or nuance the standards that are in the constitution, and we keep having judicial cases over it.

Well, I could be talking about the mainline and the recent developments there, but today I turn to the ongoing discussion in the Presbyterian Church in America over ordination standards.

For those from any of the Presbyterian branches who just wish that ordination standards debates would go away… don’t hold your breath.  The discussion over ordination standards has been with the American Presbyterians pretty much since its founding three centuries ago and was one of the factors in the Old Side/New Side split of 1741.  The concept remains constant and the particular contested standard shifts.

The discussion in the PCA of course is over women serving as deacons, or more precisely as deaconesses.  Everyone agrees that the PCA Book of Church Order does not allow women to serve in ordained office.  (A fact that seems a little irritating to a few who joined the PCA when the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod, which had female deacons, merged with the PCA back in 1982.)  But there appear to be many ways to nuance this from having men and women as non-ordained deacons sometimes with commissioning, to having a board of deacons but having men and women assistants that are not particularly distinct from the board that leads them.

Within the last couple of days this has become a fresh news topic because of developments on both sides of the issue.

On the side of flexible implementation of the diaconate come copies of the e-mail that Redeemer Presbyterian Church sent out to its members soliciting nominations for church office.  The text of this e-mail is posted on both the BaylyBlog and the PuritanBoard.

Maybe the most amusing part is their terminology.  Since there is a general understanding in the PCA that a deacon is male and a deaconess is female, Redeemer apparently uses the term “deek” as a gender neutral title for a deacon/deaconess.

But it is clear from the email letter and from the Redeemer web site that, at least publically, there is no distinction or acknowledgment of ordained deacons being only men in the PCA.  From both of these sources you would never know that is a standard of the church.

In the email it says:

There are 49 men and women currently serving on the Diaconate and 20 men serving on the Session as ruling elders. These men and women have been elected by the congregation and have gone through theological and practical training to master the skills and the information necessary for these positions.

At least in the email there is implicit recognition of elders being men, a distinction that is not on the church’s Officer Nomination web page:

Qualifications of Officers

The following are requirements for all nominations.

FOR DEACON/DEACONESS NOMINEES: Nominees should be a Christian for at least three years and a member of the Redeemer for at least one year; OR, a Christian for at least three years and a regular Redeemer attendee who has been committed to Redeemer as their primary place of worship for at least two years and a member for at least six months.

FOR ELDER NOMINEES: At the time of nomination, an elder nominee should have been a Christian for at least three years and a Redeemer member for at least one year.

And on the Diaconate page it says:

Who We Are and What We Do

The Diaconate, a group of men and women nominated, elected and appointed by the Redeemer members, exists to contribute to the building of a repentant and rejoicing community through loving, truth-telling relationships where practical, visible needs are being met while hearts are being changed through encounters with Jesus and one another. We express in practical ways Christ’s command to all believers to love our neighbor as ourselves.

As I said, from everything I have seen from the church the PCA requirement that ordained officers are only men is, at a minimum, obscured to the routine observer.

Contrast this with the overture to the 38th General Assembly of the PCA that was passed last week by Central Carolina Presbytery. (Reported by The Aquila Report.)

Amend Book of Church Order 9-7 by adding, “These assistants to the deacons shall not be referred to as deacons or deaconesses, nor are they to be elected by the congregation nor formally commissioned, ordained, or installed as though they were office bearers in the church.”

That seems to directly address the ambiguity present in the material from Redeemer.  If there is any doubt, consider the last three “Whereases” in the resolution:

4. Whereas while some RPCES congregations had women on their diaconates, the RPCES resolved as part of the J&R agreement with the PCA to “Amend the existing doctrinal standards and Form of Government of the Reformed Presbyterian church, Evangelical Synod, by substituting for them the doctrinal standards and Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America” ; and

5. Whereas several churches in the PCA currently elect and commission women to the office of deacon and call them by the title deacon or deaconess and allow them to serve on the diaconate; and

6. Whereas BCO 9-7, which states that women may be selected and appointed by the session of a church to serve as assistants to the deacons, is often cited as pretext for this practice of electing and commissioning female deacons;

In the past few years the GA has usually had overtures that would set up study committees to make recommendations about the situation and constitutional language.  This addresses the constitutional language head-on proposing a clarifying addition.

Finally, there are complaints filed against Metropolitan New York Presbytery for actions taken at their presbytery meeting last March.  (And thanks to the BaylyBlog for their publication of the full text of the actions.)

The presbytery action in March affirmed that the various flexible implementations of deacons, such as commissioning instead of ordaining or women serving as non-ordained deaconesses in the same capacity as ordained men, was not a violation of the BCO. The first complaint, filed in April, argues that the practices permitted by the presbytery are in fact a violation of the BCO.

At the May presbytery meeting the presbytery rescinded it’s March action but took no further
action regarding making a statement that some of the existing practices in the Presbytery were in violation of the BCO.  They did begin considering ways to discuss the issue.  A new complaint was made by two of the original complainants with the Standing Judicial Commission of the GA.  In September the officers of the SJC ruled that the complaint was filed prematurely since the Presbytery had responded by rescinding its action and was still in discussion about the other requested items in the original complaint.

That is where this issue sits at the present time in that Presbyterian branch.  With nine months to go before the 38th General Assembly there will probably be a few more twists and turns before the Assembly convenes.  However, whether it be the PCA or the mainline relative I find it striking the similarities in the two situations and how they keep moving along in such parallel manners.

Three Decisions From The GA Permanent Judicial Commission Of The PC(USA) — Ordination Standards And More

Leave a reply

The Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) heard appeals in three cases last Friday, October 30, and yesterday published their decisions in the three cases, all of which were unanimous.

While the two decisions dealing with ordination standards were highly anticipated, and one of those does finally clarify a point in the PC(USA) ordination process, it is my assessment that for anyone following the polity closely they would not be surprised by the decisions handed down.  And while this closes the book on two of these cases the third decision does explicitly anticipate the possible continuation of the judicial proceedings.

This first one is unlike the other two…

In remedial case 219-12 Phinisee v. Presbytery of Charleston-Atlantic as you read through the history of the case it begins to sound like a comedy of errors.  Unfortunately, for anyone who has served on a Committee on Ministry for any length of time several of the aspects begin to sound too familiar.

In this case the church that the Rev. Phinisee was pastoring developed a conflict in the congregation which they were trying to work through with a consultant and the COM.  The pastor and session requested an Administrative Commission, the COM wanted to handle the process themselves.  So far fairly standard.

The issues of the case revolve around 1) a request in writing by three elders to the moderator of the session (Rev. Phinisee) to call a session meeting and Rev. Phinisee not calling the meeting and 2) the COM calling a session meeting to call a congregational meeting to dissolve the pastoral relationship with Rev. Phinisee.  This happened in December 2006 and the Rev. Phinisee filed his remedial complaint with the Synod PJC in early January 2007.  The case was further complicated by the Synod PJC failing to act within 90 days and the complainant then asking the GAPJC to assume jurisdiction.  The GAPJC then told the SPJC to get moving.  The SPJC did and basically found that everything was done according to process.

The appeal to the GAPJC had six specifications of error of which the GAPJC did not sustain five of them.  This included the error that the Presbytery should have appointed an Administrative Commission with the GAPJC noting that the appointment of a commission is “a discretionary function that resides solely with the presbytery.”  Where the GAPJC did sustain the error is in the SPJC’s finding that the congregational meetings were properly called.  In brief, they noted that a COM does not, of its own authority, have the power to call a special session meeting (which in this case called the special congregational meeting).  The presbytery may delegate that to the COM but the record is clear in this case that they had not.  The GAPJC also noted that the Rev. Phinisee was at fault as well for not calling the session meeting after receiving the legitimate written request from three elders.  Due to the passage of time no direct relief could be granted in this case but the GAPJC did order the Presbytery to establish an administrative commission to review policies and procedures.

In closing the GAPJC says:

This case demonstrates the consequences of failing to follow the Book of Order for calling meetings and dissolving pastoral relationships. The flaws of the COM procedure were exacerbated by the failure of the Synod to respond in a timely manner to Phinisee’s grievances.  Justice delayed was an impediment to the process and a fair proceeding throughout the course of this matter. Governing bodies are reminded that “all participants are to be accorded procedural safeguards and due process” (D-1.0101).

Case 219-08 – Bierschwale, Lenz and Shanholtzer v. Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area is a remedial case related to the process for restoring the Rev. Paul Capetz to the exercise of ordained ministry.  Without covering the full history, Mr. Capetz had, at his request, been released from the exercise of ordained ministry because of his conscientious objection to the “fidelity and chastity” section G-6.0106b.  With the 2006 GA Authoritative Interpretation allowing the declaration of an exception he requested, and was granted by the presbytery, his restoration to the exercise of ordained office.

The complainants filed their case with the SPJC on the grounds that in granting Mr. Capetz’ declared exception the presbytery failed to “adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108.”  The SPJC initially dismissed the case on the failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted but an earlier GAPJC decision sent it back to the SPJC for trial on one of the three points, the specifics of declaring an exception.  In their decision in the trial the SPJC found that the presbytery had properly carried out the process in G-6.0108 and were correct in their decision to grant the exception.  However, in conducting the trial the SPJC took the unusual step of excluding the public from the proceedings.

At this point is it important to note that the Constitutional standards, the GA Interpretations, and the previous GAPJC cases as they apply to process are nearly unanimous in their application to the ordination process only.  The declaration of an exception is something that is normally considered when an individual is being examined for ordination.  In addition, the application of these standards in the call process of a previously ordained individual is limited by the Sallade v. Genesee Valley decision to a “position that presumes ordination.”  Mr. Capetz was previously ordained and seeking validation of ministry in a position teaching at a seminary. In short, this case does not easily fall under any of the established polity and interpretations.  As has been pointed out in such cases before, if there is a question about Mr. Capetz’ manner of life under G-6.0106 that would be handled as a disciplinary case.

In their decision the GAPJC noted that all parties agree that the presbytery process was unique to this individual.  Consequently, the GAPJC concurred with the SPJC that granting the exception did not “infringe on the views of others and did not obstruct the constitutional governance of the church.”  Further, “There is nothing in the record to show that he [Capetz] has taken any action that could be deemed to be an act in violation of G-6.0106b.” and “This Commission reaffirms what it previously held in Bierschwale I that Capetz’ future conduct is not at issue in this case.”  The GAPJC did sustain the specification of error that the SPJC trial should not have been closed under the PC(USA) open meetings policy.  (The proceedings in a remedial case may be closed only for reasons of maintaining decorum.)

With that background we come to the third decision which revisits much of this under other circumstances…

Remedial case 219-11 – Naegeli, Stryker and Gelini v. Presbytery of San Francisco does deal with a candidate in the ordination process.

In this case Ms. Lisa Larges, who has been in the process for ordination as a Minister of Word and Sacrament for 20 years, was certified ready to receive a call with a declared exception by San Francisco Presbytery.

A couple of polity notes at this point.  The first is that previous GAPJC decisions have generally held that candidates that can not affirm the standards for ordained of
fice in G-6.0106 should not even be in the process.  With the 2006 Authoritative Interpretation explicitly introducing the declaration of an exception it has been ambiguous at what point the presbytery should act upon the declaration.  The second item to note is that the status of “certified ready” is one usually conferred by the Committee on Preparation for Ministry and need not be voted upon by the presbytery as a whole.  Both of these are noted in the decision.

To briefly summarize the history the CPM voted 12-9 on December 5, 2007 to certify her ready for examination for ordination pending a call.  At the January Presbytery meeting both a majority report for certification and a minority report to remove her from the rolls were presented and by a vote of 167-151 the Presbytery accepted the majority report.  In the remedial case heard by the SPJC that Commission rescinded the status of “certified ready” but did not rule on the declaration because an examination had not taken place.  (Ms. Larges was not present and therefore not examined at the January 2008 Presbytery meeting.)  (And in another side note, if you read the story as currently posted on the More Light Presbyterians web site you will note that they have the timing off — the original AI was from the 2006 GA and it was reaffirmed by the 2008 GA.  The CPM and Presbytery actions took place before the 2008 GA.)

The GAPJC grouped the nine specifications of error into four groups.  For the two related to the actions of the Presbytery, neither were sustained.  The GAPJC agreed that the proper time for declaring an exemption was at the time of examination for ordination.  Part of the reasoning was that the examination was the time when other waivers or exceptions were considered.

The GAPJC partly sustained one of the two specifications of error related to Constitutional Interpretation of G-6.0106b.  While noting that an examination had not formally taken place, they did note that in the action the Presbytery had followed they had not completely fulfilled the requirements of G-6.0108 for the policy and process of declaring an exception.

There were two specifications of error regarding the actions taken by the CPM and one of those was sustained in part.  On one level, actions of a committee of presbytery are not reviewable by a higher governing body since the principle of review applies to governing bodies themselves.  However, as noted in this case, when the action of a committee is the action of the governing body acting through the committee, in this case the CPM, it is reviewable.  However, the GAPJC concurred with the SPJC that while the CPM presentation to presbytery was “not as clear as it could have been,” there was no misrepresentation.

Finally, of the three specified errors related to the Procedures of the SPJC, two were sustained.  One related to the handling and admission of certain confidential documents in what was referred to as “Envelope B.”  The GAPJC decision notes that there are procedures for handling confidential and sensitive material, that the material need not be made public, but that at least the substance of the material (documents or testimony) must be disclosed to all parties even if it is only offered but not admitted to evidence.  If offered but not admitted it still becomes part of the record of the case.  In the point that was not sustained it was agreed that it was acceptable, but not necessarily advisable, to not have a verbatim transcript of pre-trial hearings.

So the result is that the previous action of the Presbytery has been rescinded but the Presbytery is now free to examine Ms. Larges for ordination, including in the examination her Statement of Departure from G-6.0106b.  This is expected to happen next week.

One of the points that the complainants wanted was for the SPJC to instruct the Presbytery that G-6.0106b was a standard of the church and a declared departure from that was not permissible.  Both the SPJC and the GAPJC declined to do so.

However, while emphasizing that each examination must be handled on a case-by-case basis, as part of the decision the GAPJC took pains to reiterate previous decisions about the process and procedures of the ordination process and examination.  They included an extended section from the Bush decision that begins:

It would be an obstruction of constitutional governance to permit examining bodies to ignore or waive a specific standard that has been adopted by the whole church, such as the ‘fidelity and chastity’ portion of G-6.0106b, or any other similarly specific provision. On the other hand, the broad reference in G-6.0106b to ‘any practice which the confessions call sin’ puts the responsibility first on the candidate and then on the examining body to determine whether a departure is a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity and the remainder of G-6.0108a with respect to freedom of conscience.

And the Commission also cited additional cases on this aspect including Buescher v. Olympia, and Wier v. Second Pres.

The Commission also made a point of cautioning against acting too hastily to ordain so as to preclude a judicial challenge to the way the examination was handled.  Again, there was a good length quoted from a previous case, this time McKittrick v. West End Pres., which includes the caution:

[When] an installation occurs immediately following the examination process, there may be no practical opportunity for a protesting or dissenting party to seek a stay of enforcement of the decision to install. The Presbyterian custom of conducting business ‘decently and in order’ should not be converted into a race in which the swift prevail.

On close reading I get the distinct impression that they are trying to send a message.  Whether that message is “be sure you sweat the details because this will be reviewed” or whether it is “we aren’t saying this in as many words but remember G-6.0106b is on the books” will have to be seen.  (And maybe they are saying both.)  But it is important to remember that up to, and including, these decisions the GAPJC has ruled unanimously but really only on technicalities.  The substance and handling of a declaration of departure has not been formally ruled upon.  If the exception is granted in this case, and a new remedial case is filed there is the very real possibility that it would work its way through the church judicial process parallel to the church taking another vote on G-6.0106b that might remove that section and render the judicial cases moot.

Just another day as we strive to be “reformed and always being reformed according to the Word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit.”