“The Sledge Hammer Did Not Do The Ceiling Any Good”

1 Reply

Don’t you love church renovations?

My son is part of the tech crew at church and spent his day off from school on Monday helping redo the sound system in our sanctuary.  And he come back with stories to tell.

Now, the church leadership was not crazy.  As much as one person thought it could be done by the tech crew alone the Session said that they would spend the money not just for the new equipment and supplies, but also for a professional to coordinate the project and hire competent sub-contractors to do the more difficult work.  I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out what might have happened if we left this as an inside job, but let’s just say that it is getting done mostly on schedule and we are all still friends.

However, there are a lot of details and minor jobs the tech crew did.  So my son spent the day assembling equipment racks, taking down old ceiling speakers (each one mounted differently), and helping snake wires through walls.  I stopped by a couple of times to cause trouble:  Asking about the integrity of the worship space, commenting on the color clash between exposed audio wiring and the stained glass windows, joshing them about the number of holes they were putting in the walls.

All-in-all it went well.  It was not a “Murphy’s Law” kind of day although it did have its moments, according to my son.  One was when he and another member of the tech crew were taking down the speakers and one was particularly stubborn.  A few hits with a hammer and it was out, but not before covering them and the choir loft with debris.

The title of the post is from my son telling about the biggest problem of the day.  One of the contractors was on a lift opening up the speaker enclosure above the chancel.  It was a three hand job for one guy on the lift requiring a hand on the sledge hammer, one on the bracing, and one on the cover being removed.  Well, the contractor missed on one swing, put the sledge hammer into the chancel ceiling raining paint chips and plaster down on the chancel.  We’ll see if it gets patched by Sunday and if not how many people notice.

GA 101: The Moderator – All Things in Moderation

2 Replies

In my last post on the Cast of Characters I talked about the Moderator of the General Assembly with a brief introduction to the role they play and the way in which they are chosen.  I don’t know about other GA Junkies, but when I have been elected as a moderator of a governing body in the Presbyterian Church I have found it hard to properly communicate to someone not familiar with Presbyterian polity the proper significance of the position in a sentence or two.  (Although you may have noticed from my blog that it is difficult for me to say anything in a sentence or two.)

The easy answer is that the Moderator chairs the meeting.  In the previous post I quoted The Book of Order of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) which describes the position by saying “The Moderator of a court has the necessary authority to keep order, to expedite business, to convene, recess and adjourn meetings in conformity with rules of the court.” [16-4A]  Pretty much the chair of the meeting.  But within our system to say that the Moderator is the chair of the meeting is like saying the Clerk is the secretary.  The position takes on a greater ecclesiastical role.

At the opposite end it is tempting to describe the position as being like a bishop.  While this may convey some of the ecclesiastical significance of the position, the power and authority is extremely limited and a Moderator generally does not have the authority to assign other individuals here and there.  Furthermore, the simple mention of a “bishop” sends shivers down the spines of hard-core Presbyterians since we don’t like the image of a single individual with significant authority.  Authority is held by the covenant community.

The answer to “what is a Moderator?” lies between these two images.  The closest one-line description that I have found is that they are like the Speaker of the House in the U.S. Congress.  They have the authority and power to not only run the meeting but to set the tone and to help set the agenda.  There is a bit more honor and prestige to the office than a simple chair has and selection as the Moderator frequently reflects recognition for time spent working for the church in other ways. (Although previous experience in other positions is also important training for the position of Moderator.)  And finally, the Moderator becomes not just the spokesperson for the governing body, but its representative and maybe even its embodiment.

In a national church, like the Church of Scotland, the Moderator of the General Assembly is a national figure and represents the church at important occasions and ceremonies.  In any Presbyterian branch, the Moderator can speak for the General Assembly where the Assembly has spoken.  If there is no resolution concerning the matter from the Assembly the Moderator must be clear that if they speak, they are speaking only their personal opinion.  At a presbytery level, when the presbytery has examined and approved the ordination of a minister/teaching elder, it is usually the Moderator of the presbytery, or their designee, who convenes the commission to ordain, helps lead the worship service, and asks the questions and pronounces the declaration on behalf of the presbytery.

Within and during the Assembly the Moderator sets a tone for the proceedings, may call for breaks from business with singing, prayer, stories, or “ice breakers” among the commissioners, and generally leaves their stamp on how business was done at that Assembly.  After an Assembly they, frequently with their immediate predecessor(s), may have the responsibility to appoint the members of task forces that the Assembly has established.  And they are frequently the ambassador for the church and in large Presbyterian branches, like the PC(USA) and the Church of Scotland, they can spend much of their term as Moderator criss-crossing the country, if not the world, representing the denomination.

The Moderator can usually invite any other commissioner to chair the
meeting and in most branches past Moderators, if they are not commissioners, are
automatically corresponding members with the privilege of the floor.  In most branches the polity states that a former Moderator, usually
specified as the most recent that is present, would chair the Assembly in
the event that the current Moderator can not.  While rare, this could be the case at the opening of a General Assembly where the Moderator of the previous Assembly would normally preside long enough for the Assembly to elect the new Moderator.

In my opinion, the most unique method to chose the Moderator of the General Assembly is that used by the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.  On a given evening in February all 21 presbyteries meet at the same time and vote on their choice for Moderator of the upcoming General Assembly.  In 2008 for the first time they had a list of nominees to chose from.  In previous years each presbytery came up with their own list independent of the others and nominated one of those individuals.

Most Presbyterian branches around the world seem to use a nominating committee approach where the committee meets months ahead of time to consider individuals that have been nominated and select one to serve as the Moderator.  There is usually an election vote taken at the beginning of the Assembly meeting that is an uncontested formality.

The EPC and the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand
elect a Moderator-elect at each GA who is the “presumptive nominee” for
the Moderator of the next Assembly.  However, this designee must be
formally elected by the next Assembly and can be subject to challenge by
a nominee from the floor.

American Presbyterianism seems to be the exception in selecting the Moderator.  Their polity generally requires that the Moderator be a commissioner to the GA and elected by the other commissioners so an election can not be held ahead of time (EPC obviously excepted).  There are generally nominating speeches, comments by the candidates, maybe questions to the candidates, and then an election and it is over.  The outgoing moderator asks the commissioning questions of the newly elected moderator, an installation prayer is said, the sign of the office is passed, and the new guy (yes, it is usually a guy since the PC(USA) is the only American Presbyterian branch that uniformly ordains women as elders) takes over running the meeting.  A simple election done “Decently and in Order.”

And then there is the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) who may do it decently and in order, but it is more complex than any other Moderator election process that I know of.  They do follow the basic pattern of the other American Presbyterian branches:  the nominated candidates must be commissioners to GA and the election is held the first evening of the Assembly with nominating speeches and candidate Q & A.  But there are a lot of other steps and formalities thrown in.

First, it is to be understood that a person does not seek the position, the position seeks the person.  That is, God through the voice of the community calls the person to the position.  Therefore, a person does not “run” for the office but “stands” for election.  It is also why they must go through two other votes before the Assembly.  They must be first elected a commissioner by their presbytery and then endorsed by the presbytery to stand for election as Moderator.  I don’t know how many cases there are of potential moderator candidates not being elected as a commissioner to start with, but I know of one case where the person ultimately chosen as Moderator of the General Assembly was barely elected a commissioner.

Once elected a commissioner and endorsed as a candidate for Moderator the person can begin campaigning.  There are however tight restrictions set out in the Manual of the General Assembly (Section H) on what they can do to campaign.  General expenses may be no more than $1500, excluding travel and meeting expenses.  The candidates may not send mailings, e-mail, or phone calls to commissioners but information may be placed in commissioners’ mailboxes at GA.  There is also a time and place for Moderator candidates and their selected Vice-Moderator candidates to be available to commissioners and delegates, but each has their designated floor space and you get a stern warning if you stray outside your boundary line.

After the speeches and questions the delegates and commissioners vote.  The Youth Advisory Delegates take great pride on identifying the eventual winner with a plurality on their first ballot.  But the commissioners keep voting on all nominated candidates until one receives a majority of the votes cast.  I don’t know what the record is, but the highest I can remember is five ballots.

It is a favorite game of GA Junkies to “read the tea leaves” of the Moderator election for the PC(USA) to determine how commissioners may vote on the controversial issues that will come up later.  While there may be a minor degree of that in the voting patterns, after following 10-plus Moderator elections I have concluded that there are several other factors that more significantly influence who is elected.  It is my conclusion that the important factors are (in slight order of influence):

  1. Service to the denomination (it could be because of the experience or just that it gives the candidate name recognition)
  2. Warmth, wit and wisdom in the Q & A
  3. Campaign message of understanding, reconciliation and unity
  4. Moderate theological stance (or lack of extreme position)

There have been exceptions to each of these, maybe especially #4, but on balance this is what I have seen.  Things that I have seen that to me have not appeared to work are catchy campaign slogans, major endorsements, cute campaign buttons.  My observations.  Your conclusions may be different.

The one other polity item to mention is that the PC(USA) and the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church also elect a Vice-Moderator as part of the “ticket” with the Moderator, although the Moderator gets virtually all the attention.  This is relatively new in the PC(USA) and almost no other Presbyterian branchs have a Vice-Moderator of GA or General Synod.  And the Vice-Moderator is not the presumptive nominee the next time.

It was once the case across all Presbyterian branches that only clergy could be the Moderator of a governing body, and of course it was the case that all ordained officers were male.  It has only been in the last century that ruling elders have been eligible for election as moderators but for whatever reasons male clergy still seem to dominate as those selected for the position of Moderator of the General Assembly.  While male clergy still have an edge in the PC(USA), they are not quite as dominant with one-third of the Moderators since reunification in 1983 being female and exactly the same proportion being elders. (Note of current significance:  At the present time all three of the candidates for PC(USA) Moderator for 2008 are male clergy.)

Well, that pretty much covers the position of the Moderator.  With all that has been going recently on this entry took a bit longer than I wanted to get polished off.  Next:  On to the Business of the Assembly.  How does it get there?

Update:  In the time since this post was written others have weighed in on the role of the Moderator.  Here are the ones that I know of.

Nothing Has Changed! Reaction to the PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions

4 Replies

I quite intentionally used “Nothing has changed!” as a double entendre in the title because watching the reaction to last week’s General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission’s decisions about ordination standards it seems that neither PC(USA) polity nor the various interest groups’ rhetoric has changed.  As far as I can tell, the PC(USA) is pretty close to where it was two years ago on this controversy.

I first want to highlight, acknowledge, and thank two other bloggers for their thoughtful and detailed analyses on the decisions.  Even though Rev. David Fischler at The Reformed Pastor and Mr. Mark Smith over at Mark Time approach these decisions from different theological perspectives they come to basically the same conclusions about these decisions and where it puts us.  And that they both came to a similar conclusion as I did encourages me that I was not off-base on my reading.  Both of these are wonderful blogs in their own right, and part of my regular reading, but you can check out the specific posts from Rev. Fischler and Mr. Smith on the GAPJC decisions.  In a few moments I’ll be turning to the reaction to the decisions of various interest  groups, but you can check through The Reformed Pastor for Rev. Fischler’s reactions to those as well.

There has been little “official” reaction to these decisions.  The Office of the General Assembly Department of Constitutional Services has issued Advisory Opinion 21 which contains only a summary of the GAPJC decisions and nothing new beyond that.  It appears that the Presbyterian News Service is not issuing a news article of their own, but rather they carry the article that Leslie Scanlon of the Presbyterian Outlook wrote for that publication. 

The Outlook also has another article by Scanlon about GA Moderator Joan Gray’s reaction to the decisions that she shared with the General Assembly Council at their just concluded meeting.  Rev. Gray is reported as sharing her theme from her moderator campaign that “I do not think polity is the way to the resolution of our issues in the Presbyterian church.  Polity will not fix our problems.”  The Moderator goes on to encourage three things: 1) Humble ourselves, “get off our high horses.”  2) Ask forgiveness of one another. 3) Accept unconditional love to reach out.  She also called this a kairos moment for the PC(USA).  Are we going to miss it?

Reaction from affinity and interest groups has started rolling in and I guess I would call it “predictable.”  Presbyterians for Renewal had one of the early statements (On their GA2008 web site).  To simplify their statement down to one line:  The rulings promote the Peace, Unity, and Purity of the church by affirming what has been in place and clarifying the confusing Authoritative Interpretation passed by the last GA.

On the other side of things there is reaction on the web sites of the More Light Presbyterians, That All May Freely Serve, Witherspoon Society, and the Covenant Network.  In addition, More Light Presbyterians has issued a more general reaction to the whole PC(USA) situation titled “It’s about time!”  I won’t quote and comment on them one-by-one since they all say about the same thing in varying degrees.  As a whole, they feel the GAPJC at best set things back and at worst made a serious error.  There is concern that the GAPJC is not interpreting the whole of the Confessions and the Book of Order but focusing on one line or section.  And that the GAPJC did not understand what the last GA wanted to accomplish.  They do agree with the GAPJC on one point:  As things stand now the only way to change things is to change the Book of Order.  As That All May Freely Serve puts it: “The decision, however, puts in stark relief the necessity for swiftly and finally removing the homophobic and heterosexist policies from the Presbyterian constitution.”  I think that pretty clearly states their position.

And the two individuals who have declared exceptions have indicated their disappointment in the decisions, Paul Capetz on the Witherspoon Society web site and Lisa Larges in an Alameda Times-Star article.

A couple of my own comments:

First, the three decisions were decided by the GAPJC with out a dissenting opinion.  All the GAPJC members were apparently in agreement.  Whether these were unanimous or consensus decisions, or all adopted the majority position so that they could present a united front in deference to the unity called for in the PUP report I don’t know.  But I find it difficult to say the GAPJC erred in light of this wide agreement.

Second, back in 1996-1997 when the “fidelity and chastity” section was being debated and ultimately adopted there was a report that one of the reasons that the amendment was needed for polity reasons was because the GAPJC was beginning to have concerns about upholding the Definitive Guidance of 1978 and similar interpretive statements without any clear corresponding constitutional language.  These current decisions, now from the situation of having the constitutional language but an additional AI interpreting it, seem compatible with the 1997 reports.  It is consistent that the GAPJC places more weight on the presbytery adopted language of the constitution then the interpretive language adopted by a General Assembly alone.  From a polity point of view that makes sense.

With the apparent return to status quo in the PC(USA) it does raise the question of whether there will be a slowing or suspension of congregations looking to leave.  I personally think that most of the churches looking to depart are trains that have “left the station” and there will be no discernible slow-down in requests for dismissal.  But if you want an interesting imaginary debate on the issue you can check out Toby Brown’s post today (and the real debate in the comments) o
n his blog Classical Presbyterian.

So in the realm of polity it does look like “Nothing has changed.”  From what I can tell in a strict polity sense the PC(USA) is now at almost the same point as about two years ago before the PUP report.  And having been one of the voices to express skepticism that “Nothing has changed” I acknowledge my haste and will try to be better at what I preach, to be patient and trust the system.

But as I thought about this more, I realized that the GAPJC decisions mean something has changed and that threatens That All May Freely Serve and More Light Presbyterians among others.  For a couple of decades churches that are part of these organizations have been effectively scrupling behavior.  There is now an explicit GAPJC ruling that you can not do that so the implicit permission (or lack of explicit prohibition) is gone.  And I suspect that with the 2008 GA approaching progressive advocacy groups are now reformulating strategy.  It seems everyone now agrees that the only way to reliably change the ordination standards is to change the constitution.  Looking at the proposed overtures concerning ordination standards there seems to be some that in the perceived success of the AI last time are proposing new AI’s.  I suspect that a bunch of those are now going to be off the table with this new GAPJC ruling that weakens the reach of AI’s.  We are back to needing to make a change that must be sent down to the presbyteries.  Don’t expect a resolution to this at the conclusion of General Assembly.

PC(USA) Headlines

Leave a reply

Things have been busy the last couple of days for me, and there is no way I’m getting away with writing a long entry at home this evening, so here are a couple of highlights from the Presbyterian News Service, with quick comments done on my lunch hour.

General Assembly Highlights:  The Presbyterian News Service has an article today about the preliminary list of issues facing the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA).  The list includes some of the widely anticipated items:  Form of Government Task Force, a wide array of actions related to the PUP report, justice and peacemaking issues, and the moderator and stated clerk elections.  (I found it interesting that on a top 10 list these were listed together.)  Other items that may not be on observers’ radars yet:  Action on “a wide variety of ecumenical concerns,” starting the process to add the Belhar Confession to the Book of Confessions, an evaluation and possible modifications to the ordination exams, and two committees of commissioners working on “A church for future generations.”  Interestingly, no mention of the Heidelberg Catechism overture and a lot is getting lumped in the justice and peacemaking issues.  If you want another perspective on this list by James Berkley you can read his discussion of Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick’s comments to ACSWP on the Institute on Religion and Democracy web site.  While the News Service article is about Rev. Kirkpatrick’s comments to the joint meeting of the General Assembly Council Executive Committee and the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly, much of the same territory was covered.

New General Assembly Council Officers:  Congratulations to Elder Carol J. Adcock and Elder Michael W. Kruse who, according to the announcement, were unanimously elected the new Chair and Vice-chair of General Assembly Council.  This appears to be the same Michael Kruse who writes the blog the Kruse Kronicle. He even admitted to being at GAC.  (This Blogger Lounge at GA may have the problem that more bloggers are on the floor than in the lounge.) I am heartened to see the election of elders since I was a little bummed to see that the outgoing chair of ACSWP and both the new co-chairs were clergy.  It is admittedly the statistics of small numbers and we trust that across the board and over time the leadership evens out to an equitable balance of elder and clergy.

Well that is it for today.  May you all have a good Feast of Saint Valentine.

Upcoming PC(USA) General Assembly — Mid-February Update

Leave a reply

From an “official” point of view it has been a fairly quiet couple of weeks since my last post looking forward to the upcoming 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church(USA) (PC(USA)) in June.  We have had some personal business as I arranged for a hotel room for myself and we had to get release forms notarized for my son, who will be a YAD.  But on the PC(USA) web site there have been only a couple of items come up, and no new Moderator candidate endorsements or new overtures posted.  So, let’s get started…

First, shortly after that last post I found that Moderator candidate Carl Mazza has started a blog that he appears to update weekly, usually it seems in the early hours of Saturday morning, with moving stories about individuals and situations that he ministers to in his Meeting Ground ministry.

Second, I discovered that I was not drilling down quite far enough to properly follow the work of the Stated Clerk Nominating Committee.  So, now following their news page I find that they report having 14 applicants, all eligible for the position, and they are having phone interviews this month.

The last official item is the business sent to the GA by the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) from their meeting the last week of January.  This business is discussed in a news article from the Presbyterian News Service and will provide a lot of reading for the commissioners and delegates.

The ACSWP is sending two documents about Iraq to GA.  The resolution is titled “Costly lessons of the Iraq War” which includes a call for increased Christian-Muslim dialog as well as reducing anti-American pressure on Christian churches in majority-Muslim countries.  The study paper sounds like it is further reaching (I have found none of these documents on-line yet) covering “developing a plan to continue responding to concerns of Iranian and Iraqi churches during and after the war; providing ethical reflection and guidance to the PC(USA); and steps for education, advocacy and relationship building for members, congregations, soldiers, chaplains, governing bodies and the denomination’s United Nations and Washington
offices.”

The second topic was homelessness and a resolution titled “From Homelessness to Hope: Constructing Just, Sustainable Communities For All God’s People” was sent to GA.  This resolution is said to affirm those congregations and other entities involved in working with the homeless and calls on the church to be involved in a more comprehensive approach to ending homelessness.  It also asks the denomination to use investment money to work with the Local Initiatives Support Corporation to create a revolving loan fund.

Another resolution recognizes those that have contributed to clean-up and rebuilding efforts following Hurricane Katrina and calls for continued rebuilding work, to not abandon segments of society, and for better coastal public policy.  There is also a resolution on Voter Rights and Electoral Reform that, among other things, calls for the reauthorization of the voting rights act of 1965 and the standardization of voting across the country.  And there is a resolution calling for improved Human Rights in Columbia.

There is also a resolution on Energy Policy, that builds on the last policy statement from 1981.  This statement was ordered by the 214th General Assembly (2002).  The resolution calls for alternative fuels, conservation, sustainable agriculture, and for Presbyterian families, congregations and governing bodies to be “carbon neutral.”  A moratorium on coal and nuclear power plants is also called for.  I note the trade-off here since nuclear power plants are one path to carbon neutrality.  And expect more on carbon neutral policy in the future since the ACSWP web page has a page on Carbon Neutrality with a link to a working paper that was requested by the 217th General Assembly (2006).  That will probably come back in 2010.

Another issue that GA has looked at before is serious mental illness and ACSWP will bring to this GA a resolution that came out of their study requested by the 211th General Assembly (1999).  The resolution addresses justice-related issues and calls for full inclusion of the seriously mentally ill in the church and in society without having a stigma attached.

The resolution that probably hits closest to home is one on pay equity titled “God’s Work in Women’s Hands: Pay Equity and Just Compensation.”  In addition to society in general, the report looks at compensation within the PC(USA) and the differential between men and women in the same position.  It makes recommendations for congregations and bodies to examine and reform this.

The final ACSWP item is a new “ Social Creed for the 21st Century” that marks the centenary and updates the 1908 “ Social Creed for the Churches.”  This is an ecumenical document that will involve the National Council of Churches.  The news article says that the United Methodist Church is working on a version for “singing,” which should be interesting, unless that is a typo and they mean “signing.”  (Spell checkers don’t always help you).

This meeting of ACSWP was covered by James D. Berkley on behalf of the Institute on Religion and Democracy.  His article on the GA business is titled “ Commentary: ACSWP swamps General Assembly with papers.”  I must agree with him that the shear volume of material for commissioners to work through will be daunting.  We will have to see how it gets divided between committees.  But he talks about the volume being too large for ACSWP itself and how many of these papers were still in various stages of preparation.  In what condition will they make the February 22 business deadline?  In his commentary you can read Mr. Berkley’s comments on all this business from ACSWP I just outlined.

There are two other items that are floating around that I will mention, even though they have not made the official overture list yet.

It is reported that Pittsburgh Presbytery has passed an overture calling for a new translation of the Heidelberg Catechism.  The news is covered on, among other places, the More Light Presbyterians web site.  There have been concerns about the accuracy of the translation for a while.  As an elder commissioner to the 209th General Assembly (1997) I was lobbied to support a new translation.  For details on the perceived problems there is an article on the MPL web site about that as well.

The other overture that is “out there” is one calling for the reconsideration of the PC(USA) being in correspondence with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.  I discussed some of the reasons behind this last week, but the short version is that if the PC(USA) is not in correspondence with the EPC then churches can’t be dismissed to it and it would stem the flow of churches out of the PC(USA).  Well, according to Bill Crawford of Bayou Christian and his sources the overture failed in the Mississippi Presbytery meeting last night, but the news is circulating that other presbyteries may try to pass it.

Finally, the preparations are beginning for GA at the various affinity and special interest groups.  In particular, More Light Presbyterians and the Presbyterian Coalition have started building out their web sites with GA specific sections.  But at this point Presbyterians for Renewal has the most impressive preparations with a whole new site dedicated to GA at GA2008.com.

Well, we are approaching the February 22 Constitutional Business deadline so things will get busy in the next two weeks.  Stay tuned and let’s see what develops.

PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions — Walking a Center Line?

8 Replies

First, I need to clarify my previous post now that I have had a chance to more carefully review the three decisions.  While all three General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission decisions went against the presbyteries, I read too hastily and it now appears to me that these three unanimous decisions should be seen as a decision against “restating” the Book of Order, not as a decision in favor of declaring scruples and granting exemptions.

Executive Summary:  The three decisions can probably be best summed up with this quote from 218-10: Bush and Others v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh.

Restatements of the Book of Order, in whatever form they are adopted, are themselves an obstruction to the same standard of constitutional governance no less than attempts to depart from mandatory provisions.

My reading of this is that the GAPJC is waking a center line:  You can’t adapt the Book of Order in any special way, whether that be declaring provisions as mandatory or by granting an exemption.  It is what it is.

Full Discussion
With that summary out of the way, let me turn to a more detailed discussion of the cases.  Late last week the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) of the Presbyterian Church (USA) (PC(USA)) heard arguments on three cases that involved Presbyteries passing resolutions about Book of Order requirements, especially G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” requirement, being mandatory or “essential.”  For the sake of completeness I will list the cases here with full title and in the rest of the post will refer to them by number and presbytery.

218-09:
Barlow J. Buescher, Dave R. Brown, Mary D. McGonigal, Jeanne Howell,
Serena Sullivan, Eileen Dunn, Wayne H. Keller, Don E. Keller, Dwight W.
Whipple, David R. Kegley, F. Mark Dowdy, Brian Heath, R. Sidney Cloud,
Isaac H. Jung, Irene Van Arnam, Michael Baugh, Chuck Jenson, Donna Lee,
and the Session of Lakewood Presbyterian Church v Presbytery of Olympia (218-09 Olympia)

218-10: Randall Bush, Wayne Peck, and the Session of East Liberty Presbyterian Church v Presbytery of Pittsburgh (218-10 Pittsburgh)

218-15:
Session of First Presbyterian Church of Washington, 1793, Session of
First Presbyterian Church of Charleroi, Jeffrey A. Kisner, Frances
Lane-Lawrence, D. Jay Losher, Robert Miller, Kenneth E. Nolin, Charles
Puff, John Rankin, Susan Vande Kappelle, Robert Vande Kappelle, Betty
Voigt, Robert Randolph, and Linda Mankey v Washington Presbytery (218-15 Washington)

It should also be noted that 218-10 Pittsburgh was the lead decision and the other two reference it.  Also, while none of the decisions contain a dissent, 218-15 Washington contains two concurring decisions that comment on some details but not on the final decision.  However, 218-15 Washington did arrive at the GAPJC to have some procedural issues decided and the decision states that the other two decisions should stand as the answer to the validity of the Presbytery resolutions that are at the heart of the case.  Other than to say that reading the history of the case is a good lesson in why we keep detailed minutes, I’ll leave the discussion of 218-15 Washington at that and for the constitutional questions focus on the other two cases.

In all three cases the Presbyteries, in the wake of the report as adopted of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity and the associated Authoritative Interpretation, adopted a resolution that basically said that mandates in the Book of Order are binding, the implication being that they are not up for negotiation as “scruples” or “exceptions.”  One part of the Presbytery of Pittsburgh resolution reads:

Adopts the principle that compliance with the standards for ordination approved by the Presbyterian Church (USA) in the Book of Order is an essential of Reformed polity. Therefore, any departure from the standards of ordination expressed in the Book of Order will bar a candidate from ordination and/or installation by this governing body. Provisions of the Book of Order are signified as being standards by use of the term “shall,” “is/are to be,” “requirement” or equivalent expression

The Washington resolution is very similar and Olympia has the same sentiments in briefer form.

Well each was appealed to the respective Synod PJC  The PJC of the Synod of the Trinity heard 218-10 Pittsburgh and 218-15 Washington and overturned the presbytery resolutions in both cases.  The PJC of the Synod of Alaska-Northwest ruled on 218-09 Olympia and upheld the presbytery’s resolution.

The GAPJC ruled against the Presbyteries resolutions.  However, in the written decisions for Pittsburgh and Olympia the GAPJC appears to be saying “Nothing has changed so you don’t need to change anything.”  In addition to the lead quote above, the GAPJC also writes in 218-10 Pittsburgh:

As finally adopted by the General Assembly, the Authoritative Interpretation does not equate “polity” with “behavior.” Nevertheless, the church has required those who aspire to ordained office to conform their actions, though not necessarily their beliefs or opinions, to certain standards, in those contexts in which the church has deemed conformity to be necessary or essential… The candidate and examining body must follow G-6.0108 in reaching a determination as to whether the candidate for office has departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity, but that determination does not rest on distinguishing “belief” and “behavior,” and does not permit departure from the “fidelity and chastity” requirement found in G-6.0106b.

And later on they write:

While the General Assembly and the GAPJC may interpret these standards, the Authoritative Interpretation did not (and constitutionally could not) change any ordination standard, including the requirements set forth in G-6.0106b. Similarly, no lower governing body can constitutionally define, diminish, augment or modify standards for ordination and installation of church officers.

And finally:

Ordaining bodies have the right and responsibility to determine whether or not any “scruples” declared by candidates for ordination and/or installation constitute serious departures from our system of doctrine, government, or discipline; to what extent the rights and views of others might be infringed upon by those departures; and whether those departures obstruct the constitutional governance of the church. At the same time, attempts by governing bodies that ordain and install officers to adopt resolutions, statements or policies that paraphrase or restate provisions of the Book of Order and/or declare them as “essentials of Reformed faith and polity” are confusing and unnecessary. G-6.0108a sets forth standards that apply to the whole church.

So the decision is:

For these reasons, the Resolution is unconstitutional and in error. It is not permissible for a presbytery or a session to define “essentials of Reformed faith and polity” outside of the examination of any candidate for office. Such a determination must be made only in the context of a specific examination of an individual candidate.

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-6.0108(a) with respect to freedom of conscience. The ordaining body must examine the candidate individually. The examining body is best suited to make decisions about the candidate’s fitness for office, and factual determinations by examining bodies are entitled to deference by higher governing bodies in any review process.

The GAPJC decides 218-09 Olympia by quoting long sections of 218-10 Pittsburgh, overturning that Presbytery’s resolution and overturning the Synod PJC decision that upheld it.

So what do these decisions mean?  It looks to me that the GA PJC is setting itself up to hear the Larges and Capetz case. If they hold to the reasoning in these decisions, as I read it, they look to overturn those presbytery actions as well.  Or, this could be viewed as setting the case law so that if the Synod PJC’s refer to this case and decide against the ordinations the GAPJC may have no reason to hear the cases.   But in the big picture, it looks like the GAPJC really is trying to walk a center line on this and to really show that “Nothing has changed.”  And I think the unanimity of the decisions may be a signal of this as well.

The issue of course is that those other two cases will take some time to work through the system and the Assembly meeting this June could change the constitutional and polity landscape, or the membership of the GAPJC for that matter.  However, in my opinion, the GAPJC has written reasonable decisions that set a precedent upholding the current PC(USA) constitution’s balance between conscience and standards that will be reviewed by upcoming cases.  Stay tuned for the next cases, and for other people’s views of these decisions.

Breaking News: GAPJC Decisions that Presbyteries Must Consider Exceptions to Ordination Standards

Leave a reply

UPDATE:  After reading the decisions in detail, while the presbyteries’ actions were all overturned, it appears that it is more to maintain a “status quo” rather than supporting the declaring of scruples.

The Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly of the PC(USA) has just posted decisions in three similar cases where Presbyteries (Olympia, Pittsburgh, Washington) passed resolutions declaring the “fidelity and chastity” requirement among the essential tenets.  In a quick read it appears that the PJC ruled against the presbyteries.  The central decision appears to be 218-10 dealing with the Presbytery of Pittsburgh resolution.

Three decisions will take some time to digest.  Back with more analysis when I can find time to deal with them.

Recent News from Louisiana Presbytery and the PCA SJC Trial

6 Replies

Over the weekend there was another meeting of the Louisiana Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and we are once again indebted to HaigLaw for his first hand information about the meeting.  (And as an aside, HaigLaw has a nice new look to his blog page.)

The quick rundown of the most recent events that got us here:  At a January 19 meeting of the Louisiana Presbytery they decided to plead guilt to one charge and not guilty to the second charge they faced in church court and turn the trial of Federal Vision (FV) advocate TE Steve Wilkins of Auburn Avenue Church over to the higher church court but within days the church and the minister decided to leave the denomination for an FV friendly denomination and everyone figured that would be the end of that.  But wait, it can’t end that easily…

The February 9 special meeting was called because the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) of the PCA has decided to go to trial on March 6 in Atlanta on the one count that Louisiana Presbytery pleaded not guilty to.  HaigLaw gives a blow-by-blow description of the meeting but a few interesting points add to the convoluted nature of this specific proceeding.

The first is that while attendance appears small from the report of the voting (5-5, 6-5, 7-7), the numbers suggest good turnout since the Louisiana Presbytery web site lists seven churches in the presbytery.  (Yes Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church has been removed from the list).  Figure there should be 14, or slightly more, total votes since it would be one Teaching elder and one Ruling elder from each church.

But the second point, as you can gather from my numbers above, is that the votes show the Presbytery is split on this.  A motion to change their plea to guilty on the second charge failed on a 5-5 tie.  The written content of their defense passed by a 6-5 vote.

The next, but related, item of business dealt with the request of Rev. Duane Garner to continue as a member of Louisiana Presbytery laboring outside its bounds.  Rev. Garner is an associate pastor at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church but would prefer to stay with the PCA rather than departing to the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC) with his church and his senior pastor Rev. Steve Wilkins.  Permission to labor outside the bounds was denied on a 7-7 tie and a request that TE Garner show his exact adherence to the PCA constitutional standards at the next Presbytery meeting passed on a 6-5 vote.  The question arises out of the fact that Rev. Garner is second author on a Federal Vision book with his boss, TE Steve Wilkins, so there is a paper trail.

Finally, I will conclude with the fact that the prosecutor for the case, Ruling Elder Sam Duncan, was a guest at the meeting.  HaigLaw relates that Mr. Duncan recommended to the SJC that the remaining charge be dropped since with Rev. Wilkins’ departure it was moot, but the SJC voted to continue to trial.  Mr. Duncan declined to give his opinion of what the possible punishment would be if the Presbytery was found guilty.  And Mr. Duncan also said that he would be resigning as prosecutor for the case. 

There was one more comment by RE Duncan that was outside the scope of HaigLaw’s post but came out in the comments and in Jeff Meyers’ blog Corrigenda Denuo.  Jeff Meyers relays information from Mr. Garner that Mr. Duncan said that “No one from Louisiana Presbytery is going to get a fair trial before the SJC.”  This has lit up the blogosphere including the comments on both HaigLaw and Corrigenda Denuo.  Well, TE Lane Keister was a member of Sam Duncan’s prosecuting team and took the time to call him up, find out about the context, and post it on his Green Baggins blog.  The comment boils down to the fact that details in Federal Vision cases are so wide spread now that you could not find a “jury” that had not been influenced by “pre-trial publicity.”  It is not that the SJC members are inherently biased against the Presbytery.  This has unleashed a significant discussion and the comments on the Green Baggins blog post are up to sixty at the moment.  If you are interested, check it out.

The Church and New Technology — The Thrill and the Threat

Leave a reply

Today I had an interesting synergy of several items that got me thinking and reading about technology and the church.  In my web surfing today over lunch I read or found:

All of this got me going on my comments on the Church in a Web 2.0 world.

Bruce and Shawn have some great points about what churches are (should be?) doing in the new technological environment and how it fits with our past concepts.  I’ve got a few extensions:

First, as Reformed churches, we are a people of community.  Our religious life and government are completely about community.  Web 2.0 is also about community, but about a community that is not necessarily all in the same geographical place but in the same virtual place.  But since the gathering is virtual, does this still reflect the new covenant community that we are called to be?  Maybe, maybe not.  I’ll save that for another time, but note now that the question is there.

Second, in my coverage of Presbyterianism globally on this blog, I think I can say that many Presbyterian branches have nice web sites, the new EPC site being an example, but the best Web 2.0 interactive site I can think of is the Free Church of Scotland Online Forum.  The PC(USA) now has some limited blogging, such as Linda Valentine‘s which does get interaction in the comments.  But at what level should we expect the online community to be built or gathered?  If it is indeed “viral” (spread by non-standard communication) we would expect to see the communities organized around affinity groups or distributed across several nodes (blogs?).  Don’t expect things to be the way they used to be.  But this is fully compatible with ministry being carried out at the most practical level closest to the congregation and with being a missional church.

Finally, a brief comment on bringing in a younger audience.  While I fully acknowledge that Web 2.0 will get the attention of a younger generation, and it might get them in the door of a church, will it actually have an impact on the age of those involved in Presbyterian government?  I would note that Bruce and Shawn are both ministers.  They do church as a profession.  For elders, it is a vocation, and we usually have to have jobs to pay the bills.  I was fortunate that I have a wonderful family that is supportive of this crazy Presbyterian government stuff, and I have been blessed by an employer and supervisor who have provided me with the flexibility and generous vacation days to actually follow this calling.  It is the unfortunate situation that many younger Presbyterians, while they might serve on their church sessions, and follow all this Web 2.0 stuff, are too busy with a young family and young career to have the time necessary to serve on a Presbytery committee, to say nothing of taking over a week’s vacation to be a commissioner to GA.  Yes, elders of any age must make a choice about being active in the government of the church, but once we are older, we have accumulated the necessary vacation, and our career is more stable, then we have a greater comfort level being active, especially being GA commissioners.

For the last 15 years I have frequently been the youngest elder in the room at governing body meetings and committees.  I have taken it as a part of my calling to encourage younger elders to become active in church government above the session.  And to encourage governing bodies to modify the way they do things so that younger elders are able to participate around their jobs.  A couple of presbytery committees have moved their meetings later for me and others, much to the dismay of some respected ministers who wanted to get it out of the way early in the day.  But if you want younger elders, you must compromise for them.  You can expect them to compromise some as well if you make the effort to show you are serious.

Anyway, my contribution to the discussion for now.  I think this one has legs and will continue for a long time to come.  As I look at this post I think I raised more questions than I answered.  And about all this new technology…  Way back in 1997, as an elder commissioner to the 209th General Assembly, I believe that I was the first GA commissioner to post my comments and pictures daily to a web site for my presbytery to read.  I have it archived and I’ll find a place to repost it some day.  Ya, I was always this geeky.