PC(USA) GAPJC Decision — Tom and Others v Presbytery of San Francisco

8 Replies

It was a busy and significant week for the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). A bit over a week ago they heard three important cases and a week ago issued their decisions. I am taking these individually because of the importance of each one and taking them in order of their case number. I have already posted 221-02 Newark v. McNeill and am hoping to have 221-04 Larson v. Los Ranchos posted in a couple of days.

But here is today’s case…

Remedial Case 221-03: Wilber Tom, David Hawbecker, and Thomas Conrad, Appellants (Complainants), v. Presbytery of San Francisco, Appellee (Respondent)

This decision includes a concurring opinion. It is also notable that, as the decision says, “Presbytery of San Francisco (Presbytery or Appellee) waived its appearance at the hearing and chose to rely on its written submissions.”

If you want the bottom line, from a polity standpoint, here you go:

When a congregation seeks dismissal under G-11.0103i (now G-3.0301a), it is the responsibility of the presbytery to fulfill its fiduciary duty under the Trust Clause.

OK, now let’s dig into this. I will first discuss the case, make a few comments about the GAPJC arguments themselves, and conclude with some thoughts on what this decision means.

To begin, few preliminary notes:

First, two types of issues were part of the appeal: the Trust Clause and process issues including possible conflict of interest of commissioners and documents received into evidence. The latter is specific to this case, I will make some mention of it, but because it does not provide any real polity issues I won’t do a lot with it.

Second, while this was tried under an earlier version of the Book of Order the language of the cited sections has not changed, only the section numbers. The two most important sections are the Trust Clause (G-8.0201 is now G-4.0203) and the presbytery’s authority to dismiss (G-11.0103i is now G-3.0303b).

Third, this case is a bit unusual in that no remedy could be provided the Complainants. The Presbytery has changed their Gracious Dismissal Policy (GDP) and the church in question has been dismissed. As the decision says “[I]n cases where circumstances prevent a remedy, this Commission may exercise its declaratory authority to provide guidance to lower councils and prevent future violations. Daniel J. McKittrick v. The Session of the West End Presbyterian Church (Remedial Case 215-5, 2003).”

This case results from the dismissal of Community Presbyterian Church of Danville (Danville) by the Presbytery of San Francisco in November 2010. The church was dismissed under the Presbytery’s Gracious Dismissal Policy (GDP) with their property and an agreement to make payments representing per capita and mission funding to the Presbytery over five years. Right after the dismissal the Presbytery voided their first GDP and began work on a new one. Following the dismissal decision a remedial case was filed with the Synod PJC of the Synod of the Pacific and in March 2012 the SPJC ruled in favor of the Presbytery and affirmed the dismissal of Danville. In May, as the GAPJC was accepting the case, the Presbytery signed a quitclaim deed and finalized the Danville dismissal. Based on this the Presbytery argued the GAPJC case was moot but as noted above the GAPJC proceeded with the case. This helps explain the fact that the Presbytery only submitted written briefs.

There were 15 specifications of error by the SPJC which the GAPJC reordered in their decision, but they did not consolidate any.

The first seven specifications of error deal with issues related to the Trust Clause and the last eight deal with proceedings at the trial concerning conflict of interest of a commissioner, questions asked and receiving evidence. All specifications of error in the first group were sustained and only two specifications of error in the second group, those regarding documents that were not received as evidence, were sustained.

The seven dealing with the Trust Clause were answered as a group. Several of these specifications are related to specific details and that the Presbytery “failed to consider or to understand the meaning of the property trust clause (G-4.0202, formerly G-8.0201) or that the church property in question was in fact unequivocally owned by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).” The specifications include that the testimony of a witness was not properly considered, that the meaning of the trust clause was not properly interpreted, that the Presbytery did not properly consider two General Assembly (GA) Authoritative Interpretations (AI), that the Presbytery’s Engagement Team did not properly consider the Trust Clause in their negotiations and that the Presbytery had exercised too broad a power with regards to the Trust Clause.

The GAPJC in their decision says:

Under the Trust Clause, a presbytery’s discretionary authority to determine property rights, while broad, must be guided by the presbytery acting as a fiduciary for the benefit of the PC(U.S.A.), the beneficiary of the Trust Clause. A congregation’s financial and all other assets are also understood to be covered by the Trust Clause. Chesterbrook Taiwanese PC v. National Capital Presbytery, Remedial Case 217-12, 2006.

Under the fiduciary obligations inherent in the Trust Clause, a presbytery must take into consideration the PC(U.S.A.)’s use and benefit of the property in every decision concerning its disposition. To comply with the Trust Clause, the presbytery must consider the interest of PC(U.S.A.) as a beneficiary of the property. Payments for per capita or mission obligations are not satisfactory substitutes for valuations of the property held in trust. (G-4.0203)

Note that the case cited (217-12) regards a dissolving congregation so the application to this case beyond the scope of the Trust Clause is somewhat limited. The decision continues:

Based on an examination of the record, this Commission finds that the GDP developed by Presbytery, its implementation, and SPJC in its trial decision, failed to duly consider the economic interests of the PC(U.S.A.). Such consideration is essential. SPJC’s exclusion of documents which were the most convincing evidence of the position of PC(U.S.A.) in regard to the Trust Clause and of the financial position of Danville, strongly supports the allegation of erroneous interpretation. Failure to consider the property value and the PC(U.S.A.)’s beneficial interest in the property was a fatal omission of the trustee’s duty to the PC(U.S.A.).

The justification given by Presbytery for dismissal of the Danville church with property, which included only “Great Ends of the Church” and avoidance of litigation, was erroneously upheld by SPJC. While certainly valid, such considerations alone are not sufficient to satisfy the due diligence requirement imposed by the Trust Clause. SPJC erred in finding that due consideration had been given to the interest of the PC(U.S.A.) as the trust beneficiary under the Constitution. Due diligence, of necessity, will include not only the spiritual needs of the congregation and its circumstances, but an examination of the congregation’s financial position and the value of the property at stake. It is undisputed that Presbytery failed to make such an examination. SPJC erred in failing to require that financial due diligence be undertaken by Presbytery.

So, based on that can we determine exactly what steps a Presbytery needs to take to do “due diligence” and fulfill it’s “fiduciary responsibility”? More on that in a minute.

The other specifications of error related to process – questioning of witnesses, possible conflict of interest, and documents received or not received as evidence. With the exception of the documents alluded to above none of these specifications were sustained. The two documents that should have been received are the GA Stated Clerk’s Amicus Brief to the California Supreme Court and the Annual Statistical Report of the Danville Church.

[On a side note: I had to laugh where the decision refers to the Amicus Brief as “a clear statement of the legal position of the PC(USA).” Have a look. It is 5,294 words written for a civil court case with legal citations and vocabulary. For a document that is here described to as a “clear statement” I have always found to be a slow read. And I sometimes wonder if a document written for a civil judicial proceeding has much value in an ecclesiastical judicial case. In this case it reinforces the nature of the Trust Clause but does not really enlighten a Presbytery in determining how to properly consider it.]

The final decision section is brief, but important. Here it is in its entirety:

When the lower council’s actions cannot be undone, this Commission may exercise its declaratory authority to provide guidance to lower councils and to prevent future violations.

When a congregation seeks dismissal under G-11.0103i (now G-3.0301a), it is the responsibility of the presbytery to fulfill its fiduciary duty under the Trust Clause. This fiduciary duty requires that the presbytery exercise due diligence regarding the value of the property of the congregation seeking dismissal. Due diligence, of necessity, includes not only an evaluation of the spiritual needs of the congregation and its circumstances but also financial analysis of the value of the property at stake. Payments for per capita or mission obligations are not satisfactory substitutes for the separate evaluation of the value of the property held in trust.

There is a helpful concurring opinion that, while not authoritative, helps suggest some details for the process.

We also join in the majority’s conclusion that the language of the Gracious Dismissal Policy adopted by the Presbytery of San Francisco did not require adequate consideration of property retention issues. The needs of future congregations, the involved debt, the probability that a substantial number of dissenting members may be enabled to continue a PCUSA congregation would compel retention of a property or equity facilitating those or similar interests are all matters to be considered to be involved in the Presbytery trustee’s decision. The Gracious Dismissal Policy did not require the PET to deal with those aspects of the dismissal decision.

However erroneous the omissions of the GDP, and the construction given by its PET, it may well have been within the discretion of the Presbytery to dismiss the Danville church with its property.

and after considering the circumstances of the Danville situation

In short, there may have been no apparent reason to require retention by the PC (USA) of any property interest. With the evidence in that stature, the burden of proof that the Complainant would had to have met to show an abuse of discretion by the Presbytery would have been heavy.

And they conclude:

What the Presbytery did in securing additional mission and per capita payments may or may not have been sufficient to “balance the books” in this particular scenario, but it was within their discretion once they exercised due diligence and considered all the factors inherently required by the fiduciary duty of a trustee.

Let me take a brief look at a couple of the points in the arguments before the GAPJC that an observer at the hearing passed on to me. One point that the complainants argued for was step by step instructions that show the presbyteries understand the Trust Clause. Beyond this there also was a request that the GAPJC constitutional interpretation include payment of just compensation. In questions from the commissioners there was one of the nature of “Aren’t you in effect asking us to write the rest of the trust clause?” The response was along the lines that they wished they didn’t have to but it is clearly not understood so the presbyteries need procedural steps.

So we have this decision and it does not contain a step-by-step checklist as the complainants suggested. How does it fit into the patchwork of interpretation and what does it mean? Well, I had to chuckle when I read the two Authoritative Interpretations cited in the Specifications of Error. The first, 9-88, was from a stated clerk asking for guidance in these matters. The second, 89-10, was the same stated clerk coming back to GA a year later asking for further clarification. Yup, clear as mud.

So what interpretation do we have? The first AI says:

A presbytery may dismiss a church with its property pursuant to
G-11.0103i and G-11.0103y, provided the request is made in proper form
and provided proper consideration is given to the interests of the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) as provided in Chapter VIII. In particular,
G-8.0201 recognizes the principle that all property by or for a
particular church is held in trust for the use and benefit of the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Thus the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is a
party in interest when a presbytery takes action with respect to a
request to dismiss a church with its property.

The second expounds on this:

When dealing with a request by a church for dismissal with its
property pursuant to G-11.0103i and G-11.0103y, the presbytery is
responsible for exercising the expressed trust provisions of G-8.0201
recognizing and protecting the interests of the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.). Separate consideration should be given to the questions of
dismissing the congregation, the disposal of property, and the
relationships of ministers of the Word and Sacrament.

Each request for dismissal should be considered in the light
of the particular situation and circumstances involved. If guidelines
are established, it should be done with extreme caution. Any guidelines
which restrict presbytery in its deliberations and in the exercise of
its responsibility and authority might be subject to question in a case
of judicial process within the church. Instead of establishing
guidelines a presbytery might be better advised to trust its good
judgment in particular situations.

This decision says:

Under the Trust Clause, a presbytery’s discretionary authority to determine property rights, while broad, must be guided by the presbytery acting as a fiduciary for the benefit of the PC(U.S.A.), the beneficiary of the Trust Clause. A congregation’s financial and all other assets are also understood to be covered by the Trust Clause.

and later

Under the fiduciary obligations inherent in the Trust Clause, a presbytery must take into consideration the PC(U.S.A.)’s use and benefit of the property in every decision concerning its disposition. To comply with the Trust Clause, the presbytery must consider the interest of PC(U.S.A.) as a beneficiary of the property. Payments for per capita or mission obligations are not satisfactory substitutes for valuations of the property held in trust. (G-4.0203)

and finally

Due diligence, of necessity, will include not only the spiritual needs of the congregation and its circumstances, but an examination of the congregation’s financial position and the value of the property at stake.

At the present time there is Advisory Opinion 19 from the Office of the General Assembly that talks about the Trust Clause for the Unity of the Church. The detail contained in there talks about dismissing a church but does not address the due diligence discussed in this decision. There might be an update in the works based on this case. There is also a constitutional musing on Transferring Congregations that talks a lot about process but does not detail the property aspect.

Based upon all of these let me make a few observations and suggestions that relate to this and what these passages suggest to me is due diligence.

In spite of the AI above cautioning against a fixed policy the 218th General Assembly encouraged the development of Gracious Dismissal Policies. It would seem that based on the interpretations above these policies would entail process and guidelines but not specific dismissal terms. It should also be noted that the GDP postdates the two AI’s.
The thoughts that follow are contingent on a number of conditions including that the dismissal is to another recognized reformed body, there is near unanimous agreement in the congregation for dismissal, the process has been followed and there are no encumbrances on the property or at least all sides can agree on how loans and deed restrictions will be handled.
The first thing that these guidelines seem to say is that the real and other property must be specifically accounted for in the dismissal agreement and an acknowledgement that they are presently held in trust for the PC(USA) as a whole.
The requirement for due diligence indicates that the value of the property should be determined by appraisal or some other reasonable method.
As the concurring opinion suggests, a case can be made in the agreement for dismissal with property, possibly without financial compensation in consideration of the property, where the case for mission supports it. But it appears that this case needs to be laid out in detail in the agreement or an associated document.
One spiritual and fiduciary consideration should be the cost, in money and good will, of civil litigation.

As I look at the collection of documents this is the conclusion that I reach. Your mileage may vary.

There is certainly the possibility that there will be official clarification on this by one of the usual channels. We can get official interpretations by an AI from the General Assembly or a future judicial case that has the GAPJC clarify this decision. There can also be clarifications, recommendations and guidelines that might be issued by various entities or individuals (like my thoughts above) that are helpful but do not rise to the level of Constitutional Interpretation like those from GA or the GAPJC. [Guidance has been issued by the Office of the General Assembly – See UPDATE at bottom.]

On thing I would not expect and would caution against is a definitive number that is recommended. I often hear suggestions of a payment of 10% of the value of the property but the AI above talks about taking these on a case-by-case basis and the Assembly Committee on the Constitution gave the advice to the 220th General Assembly, regarding a different matter, not to enshrine specific numbers in the constitution as that was against the spirit of the new Form of Government.

Let me conclude with some thoughts on the implications of this decision. The original San Francisco GDP has been held up as a model for use by other presbyteries, my own included. At the risk of inviting a remedial case I would add that the agreements with the churches we recently dismissed would probably not meet the test the GAPJC puts forward in this decision. I have to wonder how many other dismissal cases currently in process or recently completed would be in the same category. Clearly all future agreements need to seriously address the Trust Clause and provide due diligence regarding property.

In addition, I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that the Trust Clause has become a bit of a Rorschach Test across the denomination and different people and groups see it differently.

But the bottom line is that the GAPJC did not give a definite process or very many specific steps as to what would constitute due diligence. Until or unless such authoritative guidance is given each presbytery that dismisses congregations has some latitude in determining for itself what it’s good faith due diligence work entails.

Enough about that for the moment. Something tells me this question may arise again in the future.

Now I set my sights on the last of the three cases, Larson and other v. Presbytery of Los Ranchos. We will see how quickly I can get that written. Stay tuned…

UPDATE: 11/12/12 – Late last week the Office of the General Assembly issued a Frequently Asked Questions document about this decision. There guidance is a bit less detailed than the suggestion I had above but my thoughts are pretty much in line with the guidelines they gave.

PC(USA) GAPJC Decisions — Presbytery of Newark v McNeill

1 Reply

This was a busy and significant week for the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). A week ago they heard three significant cases and earlier this week issued their decisions. I am going to take these individually because of the importance of each one and taking them in order of their case number hoping to have all three finished by the end of the weekend.

Disciplinary Case 221-02: Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) through Presbytery of Newark,
Appellant (Complainant) v. Laurie McNeill, Appellee (Accused)

This decision includes three concurring opinions and a dissent.

The GAPJC decision gives a good summary of the origins of this disciplinary case:

On October 17, 2009, McNeill, a minister of the Word and Sacrament, Pastor of the
Central Presbyterian Church in Montclair, New Jersey of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (PC(U.S.A.)), and member of Presbytery, was married under the state law of Massachusetts to
Ms. Lisa Lynn Gollihue. The ceremony took place at Christ Episcopal Church in Harwich Port,
Massachusetts, and was officiated by a minister of the United Church of Christ and two priests of
the Episcopal Church, according to a modified marriage rite from the Book of Common Prayer of
the Episcopal Church.

Upon the announcement of the marriage a complaint was filed with the presbytery, an investigating committee was formed and TE McNeill was tried on two charges:

Charge 1: You, Laurie McNeill, on or about October 17, 2009, did commit the offense of participating in a same-sex ceremony, in which two women, namely yourself and Lisa Lynn Gollihue, were married under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in violation of W-4.9001 of the Book of Order, and thereafter representing to your then congregation and others that such ceremony was a “marriage” all in violation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

Charge 2: You, Laurie McNeill, during the period beginning at least as early as October 17, 2009 and continuing until the date hereof, did commit the offense of being involved in a relationship described as a “happy marriage” with Lisa Lynn Gollihue, a person of the same sex as yourself, in violation of G-6.0106(b) of the Book of Order, in failing to live a life either in fidelity in marriage between a man and a women [sic] or chastity in singleness, all in violation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

You will note that the charges were filed under the previous Form of Government and before G-6.0106(b) was changed.

The Presbytery PJC acquited her on both charges and on appeal the Synod PJC concurred. The case was then appealed to the GAPJC.

The GAPJC consolidated the 32 specifications of error by the SPJC down to 11 specifications. For the sake of space I will be consolidating a bit further and summarizing the specifications. None of the errors were sustained by the GAPJC.

The first error addresses the Directory for Worship and the definition of marriage in W-4.9001 and the second error addresses the SPJC determination “that the Constitution of the PC(U.S.A.) does not regulate the conduct of ordained officers of the PC(U.S.A.) in services conducted outside the auspices of the PC(U.S.A.).”

While the present decision does not reference the Southard decision at this point, part of that decision does reflect on this:

This Commission further held in Spahr, for prospective application, “that the liturgy should be kept distinct for the two types of services.” In light of the change in the laws of some states, this Commission reiterates that officers of the PCUSA who are authorized to perform marriages, when performing a ceremony for a same-gender couple, shall not state, imply, or represent that the same-gender ceremony is an ecclesiastical marriage ceremony as defined by PCUSA polity, whether or not the civil jurisdiction allows same-gender civil marriages.

In response to these two specifications of error the present decision says:

The Directory for Worship “…sets standards and presents norms for the conduct of worship in the life of congregations and governing bodies of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).” In this case the service of worship did not occur in a PC(U.S.A.) church nor was it conducted under the auspices of the PC(U.S.A.); therefore, the Directory for Worship does not apply. The Constitution is silent regarding the marriage of an officer of the PCUSA in civil marriage ceremonies. Further, Scripture and Confessions were not argued as part of the trial record and, therefore, could not be considered on appeal.

Note that there are two circumstances that combined brought this ceremony outside of the established legal precedent for the PC(USA) — First, is that it was not “conducted under the auspices of the PC(U.S.A.)” and the second was that prior decisions involved those that preformed the ceremonies not simply participate in them. Since this ceremony was only connected to the PC(USA) in that a teaching elder in the PC(USA) was one of the individuals getting married under a narrow reading of the Directory for Worship and previous decisions they would not apply in this case. This rational also applies regarding specification of error number four not being sustained.

The third specification of error said that it is a violation of the Constitution to describe this relationship as a marriage to which the GAPJC points out “The stipulated facts from the record reflect that, although Appellee did describe herself as married, she made it clear that the PC(U.S.A.) did not recognize her marriage.”

The fifth and sixth errors were regarding G-6.0106b — what constitutes a violation of it and when it should be applied. In the rational the decision says “the evidence did not support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that McNeill committed an offense.” In part, as one of the concurring opinions points out, this is a diplomatic way of saying that there was no evidence presented of sexual activity in this marriage.

But the decision leaves unanswered one part of the fifth specification of error where it says “The SPJC erred in determining that it was not clear in what circumstance or to whom G-6.0106b applied and that G-6.0106b was only applicable in the context of an examination and, therefore, could not be enforced in a disciplinary process.” Without answering if G-6.0106b was applicable outside the context of an examination they have affirmed that view in this case but do not give the church guidance for future cases. (And even though G-6.0106b is now in a different form in G-2.0104b it does raise an interesting question of the applicability of this or other specific standards for ordination in the Book of Order.)

The next three specifications of error address the applicability of Scripture and the Confessions in this case. These errors were not sustained because, as you can see in the charges above, the charges focused on the Book of Order provisions and did not include support by Scripture or the Confessions and support from these sources was not introduced at the original trial. The decision says:

Appellant charged Appellee for violating two specific provisions of the Book of Order. In the trial before PPJC, Appellants neither argued nor presented evidence of violations of Scripture or Confessions. An appellate body cannot find that a trial court erred by not considering argument or evidence when neither the argument nor the evidence was presented to the trial court. Further, it is impermissible for an appellate body to consider new arguments and evidence on appeal, except on application as set out in D-14.0502. No such application was made in this case. By not arguing or presenting evidence of violations of Scripture or Confessions at the trial level, Appellant waived making such arguments and presenting such evidence on appeal.

Finally, the last two errors suggest that the case was proved beyond a reasonable doubt but the GAPJC in their decision sides with the opinion of the PPJC that it was not.

Most of the rational is in the reply to the specification of charges but the GAPJC adds a bit of commentary in the formal decision section:

This case illustrates the tortuous place in which the PC(U.S.A.) finds itself on the matter of same-gender marriage. Previous cases, which dealt with teaching elders officiating at such services, state that unions between same-gender couples, whether legally recognized or not, cannot be declared to be marriages under the current interpretation of W-4.9001. Our Constitution, specifically this section of the Directory for Worship, did not anticipate the range of issues facing the church today surrounding same-gender relationships. In light of the number of cases coming before this Commission and the convoluted grounds upon which cases are brought and decided, it would be beneficial for the church to provide a definitive position regarding participation of officers in same-gender ceremonies whether civil or religious.

No errors were sustained, all appeals are exhausted and no PJC found grounds to affirm the charges against TE McNeill.

Now some other opinions in the matter.

The first concurring opinion, signed by three commissioners, takes the main and expands upon it saying that the General Assembly needs to supply clear guidance regarding same-sex marriage because of the spiritual and financial toll these cases are taking on the church.

The second concurring opinion, signed by two commissioners, is a bit more specific about discussing whether sexual activity could be addressed. The bulk of the opinion says:

There was no evidence of sexual activity here. Appellee entered into her civil marriage on October 17, 2009, when former G-6.0106b was in effect. Since PPJC refused to presume sexual activity, there was no evidence that G-6.0106b had been violated. While it is tempting to assume that “happily married” persons are engaging in sexual activity, it would be inappropriate to reach a guilty verdict exclusively on a presumption. See Wier v. Second Presbyterian Church, Minutes, 2002. Defendants in disciplinary cases are presumed innocent until proven guilty (D-11.0401), and have a right to remain silent. (D-10.0203c). If a rebuttable presumption of sexual activity were allowed, a defendant would have to waive the right to remain silent in order to rebut the presumption. The PPJC verdict was therefore supported by the evidence and was properly sustained by SPJC.

And in case you are thinking “does this really hinge on sexual activity” the answer is “yes” and you can refer to decision 220-01 White and Crews v. Session, St. Paul Presbyterian Church of
San Angelo, Texas.

The third concurring opinion addresses the very narrow scope of the charges and the decision when it says that the Directory for Worship guides “congregations and governing bodies” but does not mention individuals. This opinion says, in part:

…Clearly the Directory for Worship does not reach to services of worship held outside of Presbyterian Churches without absurd consequences. For example… Presbyterians may worship in churches that do not share our theology of the Word or the sacraments without being accused of an offense.

However, “the Directory for Worship reflects the conviction that the life of the church is one, and that its worship, witness, and service are inseparable. …. [I]t describes the theology that underlies Reformed worship.” (Preface, Directory for Worship) Here is suggested an integrity of theology, worship, and life.

It is troubling that the Appellee in this case, by virtue of being a subject in a marriage ceremony held in a church over which the Directory for Worship has no jurisdiction, succeeded in doing for herself what she would be unable (under Spahr and Southard) to do for others, i.e., enter into a marriage that, while not recognized by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), is legally recognized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

This Commission is bound by the charges brought by the Complainants/Appellants. Therefore, this case is limited to considering the application of W-4.9001 and G-6.106b. The Commission was restricted to these particular matters of polity and could consider neither Scriptural and Confessional arguments nor standards of pastoral accountability rooted in the Constitutional questions for ordination. It is conceivable that, had the charges referenced Scripture and/or Confessions or the ordination question concerning the peace, unity, and purity of the church, the argument and outcome of this case may have been different.

The dissent in this case is filed by two commissioners. This dissent takes issue with all of the underlying issues in this case and how they were viewed by the majority. It is not diplomatic about arguing for the presumption of sexual activity. It argues for the applicability of the Directory for Worship to the conduct of individuals:

[T]he argument that the Directory for Worship, which is an integral part of our Book of Order, does not provide grounds for which to regulate the conduct of our officers outside the context of worship, is also troublesome given that “This Directory for Worship reflects the conviction that the life of the Church is one, and that its worship, witness and service are inseparable.” (Preface). It also states in Section W-1.1005 that “a Christian’s personal response to God is in community” and that “the Christian community worships and serves God in shared experiences of life, in personal discipleship, in mutual ministry, and in common ministry in the world.” How can any officer of the church, or any member for that matter, separate his or her life as being within the church in part, and outside the church in part, or as was argued in this case, single in the eyes of the church and married in the eyes of the state? Our life as Christians is integrally a part of the church, or as stated in W-1.1005, “A Christian’s personal response to God is in community”.

And finally, they argue for the applicability of G-6.0106b in this case.

There is one additional expression of dissent in this case beyond the GAPJC decision and it comes from a press release from Mauck & Baker, LLC, the law firm that worked with the prosecution throughout the case. In addition to expressing their disappointment they provide more details on their case and take issue with all the reasoning by the GAPJC majority in the decision.

Regarding the lack of admissibility of Scriptures and Confessions on appeal the press release says:

This
is in clear distinction to the recent Davis case from 2009 in which a
Presbyterian Teaching Elder was accused of viewing pornography on a
church computer. There the charges were as unspecific as to what had
been violated as in this case, citing the ordination vows generally,
there being nothing at all in Scripture or the Constitution which
addresses pornography. Nevertheless the GAPJC had no trouble sustaining
the conviction on the general grounds that viewing porn disturbed the
peace, unity and purity of the Church.

I would first note that, unlike this case, in the Davis case (Decision 219-09) the charges on which the trial was held contained specific reference to Scripture (the Seventh Commandment as explained in the Confessions) and ordination vows (guided by the Confessions and furthering the peace, unity and purity of the church). I would also note that in the current decision I could find no reference to the Davis case.

But this press release is correct that in the Davis case G-6.0106b was cited in regards to prosecution based on standards in daily life and not just in the context of examination. The decision says:

The Book of Order and the Book of Confessions make it clear that church officers are to conduct themselves within certain limits. While there are few specific church-wide standards of proscribed conduct, (e.g., G-6.0106b), there are many aspirational statements in the church constitution for how church officers should behave. Notwithstanding the church’s preference to avoid a code of forbidden conduct, the church expects that the life and character of its officers be marked by adherence to Biblical and confessional principles.

The Davis decision later goes on to say

This Commission finds that a session or presbytery may determine whether one of its members acted or failed to act in a particular manner that “is contrary to the Scriptures or the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)” (D-2.0203b)… The question before this Commission is this: “Was Davis’ use of pornography on a church computer a constitutional offense?” The governing body of membership first determines whether a church officer has departed from biblical and constitutional standards (G-6.0108b) and whether to impose a censure (G-11.0103n and r). The PPJC did make such determinations about Davis’ use of pornography. The SPJC affirmed that decision and this Commission concurs.

There are a number of other outlets that have expressed opinions on the outcome of this case including More Light Presbyterians, The Layman and the Covenant Network.

A couple of my thoughts on this case…

First, Detail Matter! From reading the GAPJC decision much of the outcome was related to the way the charges were drawn up and the trial conducted. Once the trial is concluded it is only under specific circumstances that additional arguments can be introduced.

I was reminded of the importance of details listening to the news this evening regarding insurance coverage for those affected by Superstorm Sandy earlier this week. One important distinction relates to the cause of damage to your house. If you have rain or wind damage than standard homeowners insurance will cover it, but if the damage is due to flooding you better have special flood insurance. The second distinction regards the storm itself. If your homeowners insurance has the higher hurricane deductibles it matters if the storm that hit you was Hurricane Sandy or Superstorm Sandy.

In a way this decision came down to details and how the GAPJC decided to interpret the constitution. They could have applied G-6.0106b to manner of life similar to the Davis case, they could have interpreted the Directory for Worship to have had greater applicability to an individual’s life and not just congregational worship, but they kept to narrow interpretations. As the one concurring opinion says, “It is conceivable that, had the charges referenced Scripture and/or Confessions or the ordination question concerning the peace, unity, and purity of the church, the argument and outcome of this case may have been different.”

My second comment is the implication of that last quote: This was one case but because it was so tightly tied to the details I believe it has very little applicability and interpretive importance going forward. Those interested in prosecuting these cases know what does not work so clearly the roadmap now is to construct charges and prosecution strategy that includes Scripture, the Confessions and interpretation of the Directory for Worship that balances both the covenant community and the individual within it. Charges should have a theological depth like the Davis charges or the charges against Charles A. Briggs.

Enough on that for this evening. Next stop: San Francisco and the trust clause. While I think the McNeill case has a limited scope going forward I think the San Francisco decision presents us with the most important decision of the three this week. It is a decision that could have significant implications and broad applicability. At least that is my read on it – your mileage may vary. Stay tuned…

For All The Saints 2012

You Say You Want A Reformation? OK, Now What?

Church Of Scotland Sexuality Discussion And Resulting Departure Actions

5 Replies

Over the last few weeks and months there have been some significant developments regarding ministers and churches that are concerned with the direction the Kirk is headed.

Briefly, the background to the recent actions is in the on-going discernment by the Church of Scotland through the General Assembly to determine the church’s stand on same-gender relationships. The current stream can be traced back to January of 2009 when Queens Cross Church in Aberdeen extended a call to the Rev. Scott Rennie who was in a same-gender relationship. This call was sustained by the presbytery and later that Spring the dissent and complaint concerning the presbytery decision was refused by the General Assembly. The Kirk has done what in my opinion is a wise thing and that is to deal with the matters of same-gender relationships as a whole including consideration of ordination standards and civil unions and marriages. The 2009 General Assembly, after refusing the dissent and complaint, considered some additional overtures and ended up setting up a Special Commission to consult with the church more widely concerning these matters. The Special Commission brought to the 2011 GA a set of recommendations which included a choice of which direction to head concerning this matter. By a vote of 351 to 294 the General Assembly chose to “Resolve
to consider further the lifting of the moratorium on the acceptance for
training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship, and to
that end instruct the Theological Commission to prepare a report for the
General Assembly of 2013…” So that is where we are, waiting for next year’s GA to see how the report of the Theological Commission is acted upon. From there, any polity changes based on the Theological Commission report would take another year.

Except that not everyone is waiting. With a trajectory chosen some members of the Church of Scotland are concerned with what they see as a non-biblical direction and are considering their options.

Most recently, the Rev. Paul Gibson has moved from the Church of Scotland to the Free Church of Scotland, being accepted by the Commission of Assembly on 4 October. In the Free Church news article he is quoted as saying:

I’m under no false illusions that somewhere out there is the perfect denomination or Church.

However, in these days of political correctness, pluralism and great
moral confusion, I believe that what is so desperately needed is not
further confusion and liberal ambiguity from the Church, but instead a
consistent appeal to the unchanging truths of God’s word, the Bible.

The Church should, by God’s grace, do all in its power to further,
rather than hinder, the good news of Jesus Christ in Scotland.

Something about this transfer caught the attention of the mainstream media and Rev. Gibson did an interview with The Scotsman which was picked up by several other news outlets. Something that caught my attention was the nuance that each headline writer gave. In The Scotsman it is said that he “defects” to the Free Church. The Christian Post says he was “forced out,” and at least they use that term again in the body of the article. And in the Christian Institute article the headline says he “quits Kirk.”

The other news is related to the congregation of St.George’s Tron, a landmark church in the centre of Glasgow. (Hey, if your URL is thetron.org you have something going for you. )

Back in June, after a year of prayer and discernment, the church decided to leave the Church of Scotland because of their disagreement with the GA’s chosen trajectory. This past Tuesday the Presbytery of Glasgow received a report from a special committee and, based on documents online, approved the report’s recommendations to retain the property — the buildings as well as the contents, bank accounts and church records. The presbytery decision is fresh so the situation is still developing but this disagreement could certainly head to the courts. In the statement from last Sunday the Rev. Dr. William Philip addresses this:

Now, we mustn’t pre-judge the issue, Presbytery on Tuesday night can
reject this report, but I have to tell you that I think that seems
extremely unlikely. And so, barring an intervention of God, that means
that we must be prepared for the fact that we must soon be forced out of
this building where we meet and where we so delight to share the gospel
of the Lord Jesus Christ. It may also be that the family and I are
forced to leave the manse and that we as a Church may lose all of our
other assets as well. (These things are more complicated, we may have a
better legal defence there, although it does seem that the Scottish
charity regulator has tended to side with the Church of Scotland view.
But as I say, these things are complex.)

Nevertheless, the deliverance being urged upon Presbytery on Tuesday
night includes taking further legal action without delay to dispossess
us of these things. As you know, there is already legal action underway
personally against myself and our Session Clerk and our treasurer.

[Note: the last action he is referring to is most likely the already initiated legal action to recover the church records.]

There are articles about the decision from The Scotsman and the Herald Scotland.

Let me make a few comments on church polity and legal precedents in this matter.

The Church of Scotland does not have a “trust clause” as American Presbyterians are familiar with. As I understand the property situation in the Kirk, title to church property in Scotland is, with minor exceptions, held by the General Trustees at a national level. This clearly presents a major legal hurdle for a congregation to overcome to retain their buildings and as noted in the statement above the charity regulator tends to side with the Church of Scotland.

Now, I have been advised that Scottish laws, and property laws in particular, have some unique aspects to them so I don’t want to go too far out on a limb here, but from the reading I have been doing the current situation does appear to present an up-hill battle for the congregation.

There is one recent church property decision that may present a precedent that supports the denomination and that is the July 2009 decision in the case of Smith and other v Morrison and others. In this case the Free Church of Scotland successfully sued the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) claiming that when the two groups split in 2000 the Free Church (Continuing) congregations were not entitled to take the property with them.

There is an interesting nuance here because it appears that under Scottish law a church may keep property if they separate after, and because, the denomination has “departed from fundamental principles.” The Free Church decision talks extensively about fundamental principles and how they are not an issue in that case. One such passage says

[63] The national church cases were of limited importance to
the essential issues in the present case. Each dealt with the issue of
fundamental principles in a different context. The pursuers here did not aver
departure by the defenders from fundamental principles.

The implication throughout is that if fundamental principles were at stake the decision might have been different. Since this case does involve doctrine we will have to see if that does qualify as a fundamental principle and makes a difference in any legal proceedings.

[A couple of interesting points for those familiar with current happenings in American cases. The first is that American courts stay clear of doctrinal issues in property cases under the “neutral principles” concept and can not judge whether one side or the other has departed from fundamental principles of doctrine. The second is that for PC(USA) folks this idea of fundamental principles probably carries echos of the ongoing discussion about essential tenets and if this question goes forward it will be interesting to see the arguments made about where these issues are, or are not, fundamental principles of doctrine.]

It is interesting to note that the Free Church (Continuing) is now trying to cast their continuing property dispute with the Free Church as a fundamental principles case. Now that the Free Church has relaxed their position on exclusive unaccompanied hymn singing the Free Church (Continuing) is claiming that they have made a change regarding their fundamental principles. (Opinion: I personally don’t think that will go very far.)

If you want more on the FC/FCC property dispute you can find it with Martin Frost and Scottish Christian. There is also the statement by the Free Church regarding the decision on the Sleat and Strath Free Church blog. These actions do continue and about a year ago the decision was upheld on appeal. In the decision regarding the appeal one of the judges, Lord Drummond Young, wrote

In this respect, the exhortation to long suffering forbearance and unity
of the spirit within a congregation may be as relevant to Broadford and
other communities in Scotland in the 21st Century as it was to Ephesus
in the First Century.

And so just as there is the prospect of more Free Church cases to reclaim property there is also the prospect of not just St. George’s Tron but other Church of Scotland congregations getting involved in legal actions if they decide to leave the denomination.

As with so many things Presbyterian there is a long way to go here. Stay tuned…

UPDATE: 15 October – Herald Scotland brings the report that legal proceedings against St. George’s Tron have been initiated.

UPDATE: 21 October – The Church of Scotland has issued a statement about the St. George’s Tron situation. In the statement it is pointed out that the congregation has unpaid contributions to the Presbytery of Glasgow and has a loan of almost £1M from the General Trustees. (H/T Peter Nimmo)

Changing Attitudes In The PC(USA) – Some Thoughts On Interpretation

4 Replies

It has been a very interesting couple of days with the release of some new data sets from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Research Services office. I don’t think I had seen the 2011 Comparative Statistics on the web site before today and in the last couple of days a new Presbyterian Panel report was issued on Current Issues in Church and Society. (For the record the summary report was issued and I am interested to see the full report when it is made available.)

There are a number of interesting items in that summary report but the one that got a lot of play yesterday was the attitude of members towards same-sex marriage. This was highlighted by a Christian Post article about one of the findings headlined “Poll: PCUSA Members Increasingly Favoring Same-Sex Marriage.” This article has been tweeted about a number of times in the last day or two.

Here are the details of the findings from the second paragraph of the article:

In research conducted by Presbyterian Research Services and published in
October, the number of PC(USA) members and pastors supporting the denomination
redefining marriage grew. In 2005, 23 percent of PC(USA) members
supported same-sex marriage; in 2012, the number had increased to 34
percent. Among pastors, support for same-sex marriage in 2005 was at 35
percent; in 2012, it is at 49 percent.

The article then presents two interpretations.

From the author of the original research article, Mr. Jack Marcum, coordinator of Research Services the news article has the quote:

This
result indicates a broad-based shift in opinions across the church in
only a few years. Longer term, the effect of generational change will be
felt: 75 percent of young adult advisory delegates at the General
Assembly supported the redefinition of marriage.

The article also quotes Dr. Paul E. Detterman, executive director for Presbyterians for Renewal, with a different perspective:

There
is a substantial number of conservative individuals and congregations …
who have disengaged from these debates within the PC(USA) or who are
now in the process of departure.

This survey is
probably quite accurate in reflecting the views of people responding in
the PC(USA) in 2005 and people responding in the PC(USA) in 2012. As
different from the U.S. demographic analysis, however, these are not
people who have changed their views – these are simply not the same
people.

Without a longer baseline on the study it is difficult to distinguish between these two interpretations since, along the lines of what Dr. Detterman points out, the study group for the Presbyterian Panel is refreshed every three years. But in thinking about this I figured it was possible to put some constraints on these possibilities with a few end-member models. While these do not definitively answer the question I think they point to the interpretation that the answer is somewhere in between these two viewpoints. Probably no surprise there.

OK, now things are going to get geeky – you have been warned.

And what follows comes with this caveat: As you will see these are back of the envelope calculations. I could do more detailed modeling, and someday I might, but for now I think these ballpark models give good enough results to constrain the viewpoints further. And being back of the envelope calculations I am going to assert things in a couple of places that I am not going to chase down the citations for. Also, the survey divides between members, ruling elders, teaching elders in parish ministry and teaching elders in specialized ministry. Since this deals with membership changes I am only going to consider the members.

So here are the data: The statement is “same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.” In the current survey 51% of members answered disagree or strongly disagree. There were 34% of members who said agree or strongly agree and 15% who were neutral or not sure. This compares with the 2005 report where 61% answered disagree of strongly disagree, 17% were neutral or not sure and 23% answered agree or strongly agree. And from here on I will use “agree” to mean agree or strongly agree, “neutral” to mean both neutral and not sure and “disagree” to mean the combined disagree and strongly disagree. (And note that in the summary report they are not further broken down either.)

Since these are membership models we need to state that in 2005 the PC(USA) membership was 2,313,662 and in 2011 it was 1,952,287.

Model 1: The simplist model is just to say that all those that left the PC(USA) in this time period were those that disagreed with the statement. This would mean that if we extrapolate the sample population to the total membership 532,142 members agreed with the statement, 393,323 were neutral and 1,179,167 disagreed. Since 2005 the PC(USA) has lost 361,375 members so if all of those come out of the disagree population that leaves 818,593 members in that group. That means that out of the new total population the group that agrees is now 27%.

On a number of levels this model is a bit of a stretch, not the least of which is the fact that losses include three categories – transfers, deaths and other – and it is tough to make an argument that those that have gone on to the Church Triumphant all disagreed with that statement. (I personally know several that strongly agreed.) But what this model does do with this particular stretch is to demonstrate that just with departures attaining the 34% is not likely.

Model 2: Let’s try something similar but introduce another factor. This end-member says that every individual that leaves (even those that die) disagrees with the statement and every individual that joins is in favor. We can add up those that joined from the Comparative Statistics and find that is 605,063 members. For the record 966,438 left in that same time period. That means that our group that agrees has grown to 1,137,205 or 58% of the denomination.

So if you want to argue that the shift in the PC(USA) is due to change in people and not attitudes this is clearly your starting point for a more refined model. The model is underdetermined so you can move a lot of variables around to figure out ways to make the replacement population grow to 34% agree.

But one observation regarding this – the PC(USA) does not have well defined patterns of church growth and decline along the lines of theological viewpoint. (Something else I am working on but that is for another day.) If this replacement model is workable then the replacement is happening across large numbers of churches in the denomination and not in concentrated pockets of congregations.

On a side note, one of the things that always amazes me when I crunch these numbers is seeing that the denominational turnover is about 100,000 a year and so we become a new church every 20 years. Whether this is truly enough replacement with individuals with differing opinions from those they replace is an open question.

Model 3: OK, let’s look at this a little differently and, in my mind, maybe a bit more realistically. I have a model I have used elsewhere that breaks the PC(USA)’s 3-ish percent decline into a “mainline” component of about 1.5% and a “controversy” component of about 1.5%. So what if the mainline component is across the board and the controversy component is only for those that disagree?

Well, it turns out that it only results in a 2% increase in the number that agree. So this does not get us very far by itself and replacement and changing individual opinions are still necessary.

Discussion: Since these are only back of the envelope calculations I am not going to draw hard conclusions from these numbers. But I will say that as I look at these models the answer is probably somewhere in between. Sure, you can find a combination of variables that will give you the results of the survey based on turnover alone, and maybe that is Dr. Detterman’s point. I can’t disprove it at the moment but as I look at the model it would seem to require not just some significant turnover in the PC(USA) but significant turnover with one fairly homogeneous group being replaced by another.

On the other hand I think Dr. Detterman is correct that departure of those that disagree needs to be considered in the conclusion. My point is that this is a complex system and that both the departures from the denomination and the change in attitudes of those in the denomination are probably involved. If I had to guess, and this is purely a guess, I would think it would be in roughly equal parts.

(And it is worth noting that I may be placing too much emphasis on the two different views and maybe the news article just quoted them in a way that makes their explanations look mutually exclusive.)

So maybe I’ll add some more variables into Model 2 and see how realistic the numbers are to make the current number of 34%.

In case you are still with me I thought I would throw in a couple more interesting tidbits from the Panel report.

When asked if they were familiar with various groups and initiatives in the PC(USA) 17% said they were familiar or very familiar with the Fellowship of Presbyterians, 7% said the same for ECO, 3% for 1001 New Worshiping Communities and 1% for NEXT church.
Regarding the 1001 New Worshiping communities 32% of members and 40% of pastors said it was a realistic or very realistic goal. (And those are the numbers in the narrative because the quantities shown in Figure 2 look different to me.)
For members, 17% recall any discussion in the past year about their congregation leaving the PC(USA).
There is a big difference between members and pastors regarding whether a split is inevitable – only 20% of members think it is while 53% of pastors do.

Well, hopefully that gives you something to think about. I hope to revisit a couple of those with more data.

General Assembly 2012 of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand

2 Replies

Earlier today (yesterday in their part of the globe) the final General Assembly that I know of for this year convened. General Assembly 2012 of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand is meeting October 4-7 at the Rotorua Boys High School in Rotorua towards the middle of the North Island. (And in the middle of a volcanic caldera.)

The incoming Moderator, the Rev. Ray Coster, has chosen for the theme of GA12 “Reviving the Flame.” As is traditional, he has put together a four-part Bible study based on this theme for the whole church to participate in. In choosing this theme he writes:

I love the word revive. It speaks to me about God never giving up on God’s people. In some ways I feel as though our Presbyterian Church has been in a wilderness for many years. We are all now aware of our Church’s downward statistics. We have moved from a denomination of about 130,000 people at weekly worship in the early 1960s to around 30,000 today. It could be very easy to become despondent about this, give up and feel like we are failing. But the desert or wilderness is a place of meeting and restoration. That’s where revival, refreshment and restoration begin.

It appears that the White Book with a docket and reports is not available online but supplemental reports are posted. (Have to admit that I am a little uncertain here because the web site says they are “not for distribution and publication outside of our Church.”) However, for those interested in the multi-ethnic nature of the church in general the PCANZ is an interesting branch to pay attention to because they probably have the best integration of indigenous peoples into the structure and polity of the denomination. In particular, Discussion Paper 2: The self-understanding of a multi-ethnic Church looks interesting (I have only had a chance to briefly review it) and it contains comparisons to the Uniting Church of Australia, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the United Reformed Church.

During the Assembly the commissioners will be hearing from the Rev. Tim Keel of Jacob’s Well church in Kansas City. The information says that he will be speaking on “how we understand and embody the Gospel in our communities.”

That information, and more general background, can be found in the media pack.

If you are interested in following along relevant information and documents are being posted each day on pages linked to the General Assembly 2012 page. The only page there at the moment is for Thursday and it contains the order of worship for the opening worship service and the Moderator’s sermon, among other things. (Note: Many of the documents are in Word format so I am not directly linking to them but giving you the page with the link.)

The General Assembly 2012 page also has a widget where you can sign up for email updates from the Assembly. Finally, their is the Facebook Page but I have not seen anything fresh posted there yet.

There does not appear to be any live streaming but a small Twitter stream is present on the hashtag #GA2012. So far Margaret Mayman ( @mmayman ) and Jason Goroncy ( @jasongoroncy ) look to be the tweeps to follow. As always, I will update as appropriate.

So our prayers and best wishes for the deliberations and discernment of the commissioners at General Assembly 2012. May you have a great Assembly.

National Youth Assembly 2012 Of The Church Of Scotland

An Open Letter Of Thanks To The PC(USA) Mid Councils Commission

2 Replies

Dear Members of the Mid Councils Commission;
I would like to thank you for the time, effort and sacrifice in your service on this important Commission. Having served on a GA special committee myself I know that the task is not easy. I appreciate the long hours you have all put in, the time away from friends and family, the time of prayer and reflection in your discernment process and the testing of the values and beliefs you brought to this work – all the while working under the pressure of an unforgiving deadline. And maybe the greatest pressure is that once you complete your report it no longer belongs to you – rather it is a gift to the greater church and to the General Assembly in particular. As I previously wrote in this space, I considered the business around your work to be the most important business the Assembly would have to deal with this year.

And what is more, it is all this while sitting in a fishbowl with media watching your every move and the denomination expectantly waiting for your decisions that will help save us from our division and decline.

Having served on a similar committee I know some of what you have gone through and having watched your report at General Assembly, both in committee and plenary, I am concerned that your gift to the church could have been better utilized. I was hoping that the Assembly would be more open to change – maybe not specifically what you were suggesting but at least that the issues you pointed out in your report would be thoughtfully discussed and that your recommendations would provide at least a catalyst if not a framework. Walking away from the Assembly I really felt like your fellow commission member John Vest did when he wrote:

But in committee and on the plenary floor, what I heard most was what I
feared the most: passionate pleas based on predetermined opinions about
synods and non-geographic presbyteries. I don’t think I ever heard a
commissioner talk about the post-Christendom realities we find ourselves
in and how our recommendations might or might not address them.

Let me be clear at this point that I appreciate the hard work and dedication of each and every member of the Commission. But there are four of your number I do wish to specifically thank for being the public face of the Commission to me.

The first has to be the Commission Moderator Tod Bolsinger. Tod, from the very start, and I really mean from the very start, you have been a tireless cheerleader for this work. From your appearances at events in our synod to your blogging, videos, Twitter and Facebook, I don’t know how you could have made the work of the Commission more transparent and accessible. And in your work guiding the Commission and presenting at GA you presented with clarity, honesty and integrity. For the multitude of hours that this consumed I deeply thank you.

The second face of the Commission for me was John Vest. I can not say enough good things about the honesty and unreserved nature with which you spoke on your blog. In particular, you earned a lot of respect from me for your great discussion about changing your mind about provisional experimental non-geographic presbyteries. John, my deepest thanks for putting so much on-line, and on the line, in working with this Commission.

The other two members of the Commission might be surprised to see their names here, but they were no less important to me in helping me understand the Commission’s work. So to Jane Smith, thanks for being there at so many of our Synod events to give us updates, insights and interpretations of the Commission’s work. And to Miriam Dolin, thank you for doing much the same thing on Twitter. I like to hear a multitude of voices and yours was a particularly clear and insightful one in the whole Commission process. (exempli gratia: So…just for the record, I actually am not a fan of non-geo
presbyteries, but I am a fan of conversation, creativity and progress. ‪)

And to all the other members of the Commission, I am sure all of you were similar friendly and helpful faces to your various constituencies and I thank you for that work.

So to all the Commission members, I thank you for your time and dedication. Committees and commissions may seem like a crazy way to do our ecclesiastical work, but we have to trust that it is though the discernment of groups of us actively seeking God’s will and direction that we make the best possible decisions.

   Having just said that it is with a certain amount of irony that I again point out that in my reading of the situation I find it hard to believe that the General Assembly made the best possible use of the gift you gave to them. But the Assembly has done their work and has spoken on this subject — the report now belongs to them. They too were seeking discernment for the whole church in their deliberations and discussions. We trust in God’s Providence and the work of the Holy Spirit in these matters. Some of your recommendations continue to move forward in modified form, and your full report with your great volume of collected data is available for us to pour over and drill down into. I hope that others make good use of what you have given us. (And to the web spirits at PC(USA) – please make sure it is available and easy to find for some time to come.)

   It is with great respect and sincere appreciation that I thank all of you for your hard work. May you know the depths of our thanks and may God’s blessings be upon you all.

Sincerely
Steve Salyards

220th General Assembly of the PC(USA) — A Summary Of Summaries

4 Replies

Well, the 220th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church is behind us. I am taking a little while to digest a lot of what I saw and heard and will probably have at least a few things to say about it, and maybe a lot. However, I have completed my summary sheet that I make available to my congregation and anyone else is welcome to it as well. This year it was particularly tricky to compile because a lot happened but in the end not a lot changed. I ran out of room to mention the debut of the new hymnal, corporal punishment, the language about “repentance for sin” and the various “means of grace” that is being proposed for the ordination standards (G-2.0104a) and the immigration and social justice issues (besides the Middle East), among other things.

If you want to see an official summary there is the traditional church-wide pastoral letter from the PC(USA) leadership. UPDATE: The PC(USA) has also now issued their summary, Assembly in Brief.

I have not seen other comprehensive summaries yet (please point them out if I am missing them) but there is plenty of information out there. (There is of course the published summary from the Presbyterian Outlook available for purchase and distribution to congregations.)

From the mainstream media there is a good article from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

If you want to drink from a fire hose there are these news feeds with copious articles about individual actions and issues

There was also a feed from the Presbyterian Layman and their collection of writers. In addition, Robert Austell has started ramping up the post-GA coverage on his GAhelp site.

Update: Christie Ramsey has put together a great collection of links to points of interest in the videos – Mountaintops, Valleys, Memorable, Important, and The Best of Gradye

There are also official reactions on specific topics from various organizations. There are comments from:

Covenant Network (marriage)
More Light Presbyterians (marriage)
Israel/Palestine Mission Network (Middle East)
Presbyterian Peace Fellowship (Multiple news items)
Presbyterians for Family, Faith and Ministry (Marriage)
Presbyterian Lay Committee has produced a Post GA Issues Report

[ Update – I originally had the following sentence above but on rereading I realized that the article was an extremely prescient and prophetic entry from before the Assembly that Tod reminded us of because it could have just as easily been written after the meeting – “Most notable is probably the reflection from Tod Bolsinger on the Mid Councils Commission blog about the fate of their report.” ]

Beyond this there are numerous individual reactions. At the moment I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to go through those, but I reserve the right to add a few of the ones I find particularly enlightening.

More later

The GA Junkie

The Politics of Presbyterianism