New Ordination Standards Language In The PC(USA) And The Discussion Of Standards

2 Replies

As the polity wonks in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are well aware we have to be studying up on the changes to the Book of Order that go into effect this weekend.  The biggest change is the addition of a new section, Foundations of Presbyterian Polity, and the rewrite of the Form of Government, but there are a few other amendments that changed language elsewhere in the constitution. While the paper copy is still at the printer and the electronic copies are in preparation, especially the annotated version, we do have the vast majority of the new Form of Government from the amendment booklet.

However, there are about 20 locations where other specific amendments have made changes to the Book of Order, and seven of these are in the FOG.

Of these changes the only one to have any substantial opposition in the presbyteries is the new wording of G-2.0104b, the standards for ordination. This is the new number and wording for what was previously numbered G-6.0106b and we will have to learn to have the new number roll off our tongue as the old one did.

Some may say that this debate is over and we can move on to other things so there is no need to get used to the numbering of that section.  I think the evidence is that in the short- to intermediate-term there will still be substantial discussion about what it actually means so I at least am getting used to it.

For some this weekend is an occasion for celebration and More Light Presbyterians have released a suggested opening liturgy for this coming Lord’s Day that begins

Common Beginning of Worship and of Church Life
July 10, 2011

Procession
(run free with banners, scarves, ribbons, streamers, etc)

I have not seen a liturgy for those who favored the previous ordination standards language, but I suspect that if there is one it is a bit less exuberant.

The reason that I don’t think the Book of Order citation number will soon disappear from our vocabulary is that there is now a substantial amount of discussion about how to live into the new verbiage.

For example, More Light Presbyterians have issued a guide with their recommendations about moving forward with the new language titled Ordination Guide: So That G-2.0104 Shall Be a
Blessing for our Church and World. On the introductory web page they say:

Fair, accurate interpretation and implementation of 10-A, now known
as G-2.0104 is our top priority. We have created Ordination Guides from
an affirming perspective and we have sent them to staff in all 173
presbyteries…

We need to get this
affirming Guide in the hands, hearts, minds and actions of every
Presbyterian congregation, every Committee on Preparation for Ministry
and every Committee on Ministry. We believe that G-2.0104 can be a
blessing for our Church and world. For 10-A to make the difference it
can make, we need to make sure that it is understood, honored and
followed by every church and presbytery. We know this is a tall order:
11,000 churches in 173 presbyteries. All of us doing our part can make
this happen. Together we are building a Church that reflects God’s
heart.

The guide is not very extensive and addresses all the primary audiences briefly. It frequently says something similar to this passage that is part of the advice to seminaries:

For polity professors and administrators handling placement, help your seminarians study the exact wording of G-2.0104. Help them become as familiar as possible with the theological contours of their own presbyteries, other potential presbyteries where they might come under care and the presbyteries where they might seek a call. Prepare them to be ready to ground their responses to questions from Committees on Preparation or [sic] Ministry and from Pastor Nominating Committees in Scripture, the confessions and the constitutional questions.

Depending on your perspective, this advice could be seen a either practical advice about discerning and living into their call or as “teaching the test” and making sure the candidate knows the right thing to say when the time comes to improve their chances in a presbytery with some differences of opinion.

From the opposite perspective there is an equally interesting document now posted.  With the change in the ordination standards language the PC(USA) has removed their “mandatory church wide behavioral ordination standard.” Now that the mandatory standard has been removed, what will become of judicial cases that are in the pipeline?

The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission is scheduled to hear two of those cases three weeks from today on July 29th. In an effort to argue that their case is still relevant even with the new language, Parnell and others have submitted a Supplemental Brief in their case against the Presbytery of San Francisco. (And thanks to the Presbyterian Coalition for making it available on their web site.) The brief begins with this:

The question is posed whether this case is still at issue, given the recent ratification of Amendment 10-A, and if so, whether any of the specifications of error are mooted by that revision to Book of Order section G-6.0106b. The basis of Appellants’ case from the beginning has been the clear and univocal mandate of Scripture. Scripture has not changed, so the case is not moot.

The suggestion of mootness implies that when 10-A deleted fidelity/chastity from the text of G-6.0106, something new was achieved, either a new standard or a new procedure. Neither is the case. Changing the sexual ethic standard requires changing Scripture, while the procedures described in 10-A merely restate current ordination process (G-14.0452 and G-14.0480). Since 10-A presents nothing new, the case is not moot.

I applaud the writers of this brief for taking on the issue as it now stands and not under the previous language.  In response to a motion by the Presbytery they argue:

The Presbytery has suggested that this case should be decided with reference solely to the former language of G-6.0106b and without regard to the subsequently certified Amendment 10-A, that is, by applying only the text that appeared at the time. If a new rule had superseded an old one because it contradicts the former, this suggestion would be debatable. But this is not the situation before us. Simply, 10-A is neither a new rule nor a new procedure. Thus, nothing is gained by this Commission excluding 10-A from its consideration. In any case, there is no authority that mandates that a matter must be decided using only the rule that existed at the time.

With appreciation for their efforts and respect for their argument, it is my opinion that this effort will not be successful.  While the GAPJC regularly decides cases regarding procedures and interpretation of the Book of Order, with the removal of the mandatory standard I am not seeing a lot that the GAPJC would feel obliged to weigh in on.  GAPJC decisions seldom address doctrinal questions that have been interpreted on the presbytery level generally showing deference to the presbytery’s decision. They have been clear in the past that beyond the mandatory standard the presbytery is the body to decide fitness for ordination as a teaching elder.  It will be interesting to see how the GAPJC addresses the argument that scripture and the confessions still provide a mandatory standard and that nothing has changed.

Speaking of standards, I want to finish up with some thoughts about the definition and application of standards for ordination in the PC(USA) today.

First, the Bush v. Pittsburgh decision (218-10) set the bar for what presbyteries can do, or more generally can not do, in the way of standards and ordination examinations.  Some of the more relevant sections:

3. Statements of “Essentials of Reformed Faith and Polity”: 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; and are themselves an obstruction to constitutional governance in violation of G-6.0108a. [Headnotes, p. 1]

The constitutional process for amending ordination standards (or any other provision of the Constitution) is defined in Chapter 18 of the Form of Government. 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. [p. 5]

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. These standards are binding on and must be followed by all governing bodies, church officers and candidates for church office. Adopting statements about mandatory provisions of the Book of Order for ordination and installation of officers falsely implies that other governing bodies might not be similarly bound; that is, that they might choose to restate or interpret the provisions differently, fail to adopt such statements, or possess some flexibility with respect to such provisions. 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. [p. 6]

The Presbytery’s resolution would define the “essentials” of Reformed faith and polity by restating the Presbytery’s intention to enforce mandatory provisions of the Book of Order, when it has no authority to do otherwise. At the same time, declaring “essentials” outside of the context of the examination of a candidate for ordained office is inappropriate. As was stated in the 1927 Report of the Special Commission of 1925 (Swearingen Commission Report) Presbyterian Church in the United States of Am
erica Minutes, 1927, pp. 78-79:

One fact often overlooked is that by the act of 1729, the decision as to essential and necessary articles was to be in specific cases. It was no general authority that might be stated in exact language and applied rigidly to every case without distinction. It was an authority somewhat undefined, to be invoked in each particular instance. . . . It was clearly the intention that this decision as to essential and necessary articles was to be made after the candidate had been presented and had declared his [or her] beliefs and stated his [or her] motives personally, and after the examining body…had full opportunity to judge the man himself [or woman herself] as well as abstract questions of doctrine.

[ p. 6 ]

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. [p. 7]

There is a lot there, but let me boil it down to the probably over-simplistic summary that “ordaining and installing bodies must examine candidates individually and can not set blanket standards for those candidates.” (And any polity wonk has to appreciate a decision that works in the report of the 1925 Special Commission which in turn refers to the Adopting Act of 1729. Sorry, its a polity wonk thing.)

So, if a presbytery has an issue of conscience regarding ordination standards and wants to be on record with a particular theological stance but can not officially declare standards what might be some options?  A few that I see:

1) Prominently maintain the status quo.  If you have that stance, under the Bush decision you can not declare it as a standard. But if your stance is clearly stated and advertised then candidates not in agreement are more than likely to find a more obliging presbytery.

2) Declare your standards anyway. While it might not be in agreement with the Bush decision, a presbytery could try this and wait and see if anybody complains, particularly in a judicial sense by filing a remedial case.  At the present time there is a lot of talk of mutual forbearance and not making further waves so a presbytery might be allowed to continue with this approach for a while.

3) Set it as a requirement for membership. The Bush decision has a suggestive footnote — “2. Governing bodies may impose other requirements on church officers, after ordination and installation, such as requirements to abide by ethics or sexual misconduct policies.” So what if these requirements were set outside of the examination process? What if fidelity and chastity were part of a presbytery’s ethics and sexual misconduct policies?

4) Sub-presbyteries. While flexible presbyteries are not a reality at the present time, what if we were to administer this on a smaller scale?  What if a presbytery were to become more of a “super-presbytery” with two administrative sub-groups?  Clearly certain constitutionally required functions, such as the moderator and the clerk, could not be sub-divided, but I think that the new Form of Government might just provide enough flexibility for some creative polity to make this happen.

There is another possibility that while not presently sanctioned by the PC(USA) does have a model in the new changes to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church‘s constitution that just became effective with the conclusion of their General Assembly last month.  In their case they needed a system to allow for differing understandings of ordination standards regarding women so they have modified their system to permit what I call “fuzzy presbytery boundaries.” It is set up so that a church with one stance that finds itself in a presbytery with the opposite stance can move to an adjoining presbytery that has a stance agreeable to them. This preserves a geographic component to presbytery membership as well as a respect for theological affinity.  It is not a fully flexible presbytery but an alignment based on both geography and ordination standards.

How the new language is implemented by each ordaining body is an issue that is just starting to develop and it will be interesting to see how this develops and what creative solutions may arise. Or maybe we will find out that creative solutions are not necessary but that the new language provides the flexibility for each presbytery to examine candidates regarding their own understanding of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the candidates gifts and talents. Stay tuned as this has a long way to go.

The Presbyterian Rebellion

2 Replies

American Presbyterians frequently circulate the claim that King George III of England referred to the American Revolution as a “Presbyterian War.” Several years ago I set out to find the original source from which the quote is taken since I was curious about the context in which the king made this statement — if indeed he even did. The first time I discussed this quest with my dissertation director (who happens to be an elder in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)), he suspected I may discover it is a fiction manufactured by proud Presbyterian myth-makers, for indeed many such writers have spun their yarn.

So begins a doctoral dissertation I found this week in researching an idea for my blog post for today. In his dissertation, titled The Presbyterian Rebellion: An Analysis of the Perception that the American Revolution was a Presbyterian War, Robert Gardiner pursues this quote and investigates the cultural context in which it might have been made.

Did King George say this? Here is how Dr. Gardiner summarizes his research on whether King George III would have said this –

The answer to the overarching question, then, is a nuanced affirmative. Did King George III call the American Revolution a Presbyterian Rebellion? Maybe, or even probably, but primary source documentation is lacking. Did King George III consider the American Revolution a Presbyterian Rebellion? Definitely. …[H]e gave every impression that it was a sentiment he held. Nothing suggests that George III disagreed with the opinion of his advisor, William Jones, who said that the American Revolution was a Presbyterian war from the beginning.

[Gardiner, p. 275-276]

He puts together a good line of evidence to support this and traces the quote itself, in a couple of different variations, back to the late 19th century and suggests the quote may have been manufactured, or misattributed, between 1876 and 1919.

But the rebellion, or on our side the War of Independence, was a Presbyterian cause. American Presbyterians are today well aware that the only active minister to sign the Declaration of Independence was John Witherspoon, president of the College of New Jersey, a Presbyterian school. And people also point to the Mecklenburg Declaration from May of 1775 where a group of local citizens of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, who were all Scots-Irish Presbyterians (one account) passed a resolution declaring independence.  While the exact timing and existence of that first document are sometimes questioned for their historical accuracy, it is good enough that North Carolina carries the date on its flag today.

So yes, Presbyterians played a part, but Gardiner does point out that it was not just the Presbyterians who were involved, or maybe even dominant.

Anyone attempting to allege a Presbyterian vs. Episcopalian controversy at the bottom of the revolt must explain the contradictory evidence. In particular, some of the most important leaders of the revolution were, in fact, Episcopalians — members of the Church of England. Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence 34 were Episcopalians while only 6 were Presbyterians. In that light, it seems that the king would have had more warrant to call the revolution an “Episcopal Rebellion” than a “Presbyterian Rebellion.” All one has to do is cite the examples of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, Patrick Henry, and George Wythe; and the Anglican vs. Presbyterian interpretation of the war quickly breaks down. These men were all bona fide Episcopalians, but at the same time, promoters of American independence.

[Gardiner, p. 279]

He goes on to say

The loyalists were quite aware of these facts, but they did not concede the point. According to loyalists, although many of the rebels wore Anglican masks, their hearts were not in harmony with their facade. Such was the observation of a loyalist named Tingly who tried to explain in 1782 the contradictory behavior of these revolutionary Episcopalians.

Tho they always professed themselves Churchmen [i.e., Episcopalians], they have proved that their principles & professions were not unisons; or, in other words, that they are Churchmen by profession, but Presbyterians by trade, i.e., no friends to Church and state … And those of this stamp joined with the hot brained Zealots among the Presbyterians who have almost all, without exception, proved fiery advocates for independency.

[Gardiner, p. 279-280]

Embedded in all of this is a distinction that is very important to make, and that is the cultural meaning of the term “presbyterian” at that time in England.  It carried a lot of baggage, to say the least, after the restoration and was a catch-all term for trouble-makers and those that opposed the crown. (Remember, Jesus Christ is the “ head over all things to the church“) As Dr. Gardiner put it in the abstract of his dissertation

The label “Presbyterian” was a much more ambiguous designation than it is at present. Employed broadly as a synonym for a Calvinist, a dissenter, or a republican, the term was used with considerable imprecision in the eighteenth century. Furthermore, it was used as a demagogic tool to inflame popular passions. The term Presbyterian carried with it the connotation of a fanatical, anti-monarchical rebel.

Well, maybe those Mallard Fillmore cartoons are just a bit anachronistic.

Dr. Gardiner describes his motivation for this dissertation in the abstract by observing that “there indeed was a profound religious factor at the heart of the conflict, both perceived and real” and the Revolution can not be attributed solely to “socio-economic factors.” So in that respect it was a Presbyterian Rebellion where he describes the situation saying “Calvinists and Calvinism permeated the American colonial milieu, and the king’s friends did not wish for this fact to go unnoticed.”

While the Declaration signed on this day in 1776 may make heavy reference to political and socio-economic factors, it opens and closes (concluding words below) with passages heavy with divine imagery.  So, a happy Independence Day to my American friends as we remember this Presbyterian Rebellion.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority
of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Releases The Latest Membership Statistics

Leave a reply

Well, yesterday was July 1 – so a happy belated Canada Day to our friends north of the border.

It is also about the time of year that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) releases their annual membership statistics and right on schedule the Stated Clerk released them yesterday.  While the full comparative statistics will take a little bit longer, now we have the Summary Statistics, Miscellaneous Information, and the Press Release. In addition, you can find commentary on the numbers from The Layman, and I would expect the Presbyterian Outlook to have an article shortly and probably a few more entities will weigh in as well. 

Running through the numbers I don’t see much change in direction of any of the categories.  Here are a few of the numbers and their change from 2009 to 2010.

 Category  2010
Value 		 % change
from 2009
 Membership  2,016,091  -2.94%
 Churches  10,560  -0.91%
 Teaching Elders  21,161  -0.35%
 Candidates  1,189  +0.59%
 Ruling Elders  86,777  -3.62%
 Gain by
Profession of faith
17 and under 		 18,895  -7.83%
 Gain by
Profession of faith
18 and over		  40,106  -4.71%
 Gain by
Certificate 		 21,615  -13.34%

Yes, there are plenty more statistics but these are the ones related to membership that have a consistent trend, usually down, over the last three years. And yes, the PC(USA) is still above 2 million members so those that had numbers in the pool below 2 mil are out of luck, but at a loss of 61 thousand a year, we will see that next year.

The losses actually had some interesting variation this year.  For example, losses by certificate (transfer) have bounced around a bit but in this year the numbers bounced up 2,058 to 29,835.  That is still less than the 2008 losses by certificate of 34,340. Interestingly, the other losses, that is the people who left without transfer, hit a low for the last eleven years of 88,731, down from 100,253 last year.

So what does this mean in terms of breaking out the causes of decline.  The losses from transfer of members to the Church Triumphant (those that died) was 32,471 or -1.56%.  The internal replenishment rate in the form of youth joining the church was 18.895 or +0.91%. So our internal loss was 13,576 or  -0.65%.  By transfer the church gained 21,615 and lost 29,835 for a net of -8220 or -0.40%.  Adult profession of faith and other brought in 49,480 members while other losses were 88,731 for a net of -39251 or -1.89%.

Therefore, we can say that of the 2.94% decline, 0.65% is the deficit in internal replacement, 0.40% is the imbalance in transfers, and almost two-thirds is in the imbalance of those coming and leaving without formal transfer.

Regarding the ordained officers of the church there is a bit less clarity.  This first release always gives the total number of teaching elders (ministers) but we will have to wait a bit longer for the release of the bigger report to know how many are active ministers and how many are honorably retired. Last year, of 21,235 ministers 13,400 were listed as active.

The number of ruling elders listed I usually figure is the number currently serving on session.  With 10,560 churches and 86,777 elders that comes to an average of 8.22 per church.  (In case you are interested that is down from 9.26/church in 2001.)  The interesting thing of course is that while this is labeled “elders” we know it is not all the elders because the last Presbyterian Panel report says 21% of the members of the church have been ordained as ruling elders — so there should be closer to 423,379.  (An interesting juxtaposition with a workshop at Big Tent yesterday where the message was that “Being an elder is a ‘perpetual calling.'”)

Finally, I am never sure what to do with the candidates line because the full statistics always have a different number, a difference I have attributed to taking the “snapshot” at different times during the year.  For example, the new summary lists 1182 candidates in 2009 while the full comparative statistics list 1154. Another reason for the difference could be the data coming from different sources.

Anyway, for what follows I will just use the numbers as they appear in this preliminary release and the equivalent ones from earlier years.

I wanted to look at how all these categories are changing with time and relative to one another.  So taking the data back to 2001 I normalized each category to that year.  That is to say I took all the data in a category and divided it by the 2001 value so they all start at a value of 1 for that year and proportional changes can be seen more clearly.  Here is what I get:


Now we can see that the fastest declining category is the total membership of the church closely followed by the number of ruling elders.  One interpretation is that ruling elders are departing the church at almost the same rate at other members, but that would not be correct.  Remember that this number is actually a measure of those serving on sessions so it means that sessions are decreasing in size proportionate with the decrease in membership, not the decrease in the number of congregations.  I’m open to suggestions about why this might be – smaller sessions for smaller churches? smaller sessions to be more efficient? smaller sessions because the pool of ruling elders is decreasing?  An interesting topic for future thought.

For the other numbers, the number of churches has decreased slightly (5% over 10 years), the number of teaching elders has held very steady over that time, and the number of candidates has shown significant growth.  Clearly we have a window of opportunity with this abundance of candidates to revitalize congregations and develop those 1001 new worshiping communities.

At this point I think I’ll wrap this up leaving the finances completely untouched.  Echoing the sentiments of the Stated Clerk, I have found Presbyterians to be a very generous bunch, especially when the mission is compelling.  So the question is, with the denomination positioned in this present situation what compelling mission is out there for the financial and human resources that are at our disposal. There is apparently a lot of talent in the pipeline — I hope they are ready for some creative and out-of-the box ministry.

Amendment Voting In The PC(USA) — 1. Summary Statistics Of Amendment 10-A Passage

6 Replies

As General Assembly Season tapers off and the voting on the amendments to the constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) finishes up, I have finally found time to start crunching the final numbers on amendment voting.  While I have several different analyses planned, let me begin with the summary statistics related to the passage of Amendment 10-A and we will see how many of the other ones I would like to do actually get finished.

As of today it appears that the voting on 10-A has finished with a vote by the Presbytery of Kiskiminentas against the amendment 33 to 58.  However, the passage of the amendment was secured back on May 10 when the 87th presbytery voted in favor of it.  For the purposes of this analysis I am going to use the data at about the time of the passage, including a few presbyteries that voted shortly after the unofficial passage.  My intent is to eliminate any change in voting patterns that may have occurred after the concurrence was a foregone conclusion.

As usual, my data comes from an aggregation of the usual sources: Covenant Network, Reclaim Biblical Teaching, Yes on Amendment A, and The Layman Online.  I have posted my spreadsheet with the data and the analysis.

While the unofficial vote count currently stands at 97 yes to 74 recorded no and two not voting, my “freeze-frame” was from the point the count was 92 yes and 68 no. (Not much of a difference I will admit.) The objective of this analysis is to look at the change in voting from 08-B to 10-A. Accordingly, there were 86 presbyteries voting yes this time and 62 presbyteries voting no on 10-A that have recorded votes on both amendments. I will focus my analysis on those 148 presbyteries.

In this population there were 19,607 total votes cast on 08-B and 18,705 on 10-A, a decrease of 4.6%.  For comparison, the membership of the PC(USA) decreased by 3.0% between 2008 and 2009, so the voting decline over two years is a bit less than the projected total decrease if you double the 08-09 decline.  The number of yes votes increased from 9711 to 10,301, an increase of 6.1%.  The no votes decreased from 9896 to 8404, a 15.1% drop.

If the number of yes and no votes decreased in proportion with the total decrease we would have expected 9264 yes votes and 9441 no votes. The discrepancy is 1037 votes more for yes and less that for no.  So, in the simplest analysis, the change in voting can be viewed at a uniform decline of 902 votes (447 yes and 455 no) and a shift of 1037 votes from no to yes. If you wish to attribute all decline to the no votes, it could also be modeled as a decline of 902 no votes and a shift of 590 votes from no to yes. The best answer probably lies somewhere between these two end-members.

Let us now break this down on a presbytery level.  This gets a bit trickier because presbyteries that have small numbers of yes or no votes can have extreme values for ratios when these quantities change by even a few votes.  I have not gone into the data on this analysis to eliminate extreme values but will take this into account by comparison of the mean and the median statistical measures. As it turns out, while the extreme values do stretch out the maximum and minimum values as well as the standard deviations, the differences between the means and medians are generally not exceptional.

On the spreadsheet you will find that I calculated summary statistics for the whole population and for a series of subsets.  There are also some frequency distributions listed.  I will only touch on the measures of the center of the data, the mean and median, for some of those categories in the discussion that follows.  The data are there if you want to see all the numbers.

For the yes votes in presbyteries, overall there was an increase with the ratio of 10-A to 08-B votes having a mean of 1.14 and a median of 1.08. Interestingly, for presbyteries that voted yes on both amendments, the number of votes was on average unchanged with the mean being a ratio of 1.00 and the median 0.99. In an interesting match, presbyteries that voted no both times and presbyteries that flipped from no to yes had means of their yes vote ratios around 1.27 and identical medians of 1.20.  The presbyteries that flipped from yes to no, not surprisingly, is the category that showed a decrease  in the ration with a mean of 0.93 and a median of 0.91.

Overall, presbyteries had a decrease in the number of no votes with the overall mean a ratio of 0.89 and the median a ration of 0.86.  Presbyteries voting yes saw a bit larger of a decrease, presbyteries voting no a slightly smaller one.  Again, the category that was the exception was the presbyteries that flipped from yes to no where on average more votes were seen with an increase shown in a mean of the ratio of 1.21 and a median of 1.26.

Probably the most telling is the total number of votes for each presbytery.  For the total and all of the sub-categories, the ratios are pretty constant around 0.96 in both the mean and the median.  The noticeable exceptions to the down side are the presbyteries that voted yes both times with a median of 0.92.  The only categories having increased ratios are the ones for the switched votes — Presbyteries that flipped from no to yes had a mean ratio of 1.03 and a median of 1.07; presbyteries that flipped from yes to no had a mean and median ratio of 1.06.

It would seem that the message is that change came through better commissioner turn-out, whether it be an organized “get out the vote campaign,” or just informal increased interest on a particular side. And I find it striking that this was true for presbyteries that flipped in either direction.

This of course is only on average and when you consider the details for each presbytery individually you find variability.  For example, for the four presbyteries that flipped from yes to no, two had an increase in the number of yes votes, three an increase in the number of no votes, and one had a decrease in both. So three of the four were changed by improved no vote turn-out, but the one with both declining may be attributed to who showed up for a close vote. (That was West Jersey Presbytery which tied.)

Similarly, for the 20 presbyteries that switched from no to yes, 14 showed an increase in the total number of votes, four a decrease, and two a decrease that was small enough I would consider it noise. All but one had an increase in the number of yes votes, some a very marked increase.  And only one showed a clear increase in the number of no votes, the rest remaining stable or decreasing.

I am painting with a bit of a broad bush here by looking only at the group averages while each presbytery has its own story.  This stands out when you look at the voting in these two groups as combined total.  In the four presbyteries that switched from yes to no total votes increased from 431 to 436, an increase of 1.2% that falls into the range I would consider “noise” or “random fluctuation.” Again, for the 20 presbyteries that switched from no to yes the total of vote counts increased from 2698 to 2726, an increase of 1.4%, again not substantial.  It is on the presbytery level where these changes are larger and become more influential statistically.

So there is a bit about the summary statistics for the Amendment 10-A voting. I hope to write about other details including trends over time, cross-issue correlations, more specifics on the presbyteries, and maybe look at some other variables so see if there are correlations.

“We Are Presbyterian” And “We Are PC(USA)”

3 Replies

Yesterday was the anniversary of the birth of Ebenezer Erskine in 1680. He would become a respected figure in the Church of Scotland but later in his life he had a disagreement with the Kirk leading him to renounce jurisdiction and help lead a group that would secede and form the Associate Presbytery in 1733.  This was the second division in the Church of Scotland, the Covenanters having divided from the established church a bit earlier.

So where am I going with this?  The point is that even in the earliest days of American Presbyterianism to say that you were a Presbyterian did not necessarily mean the same thing to everyone.  At a minimum, and this is simplifying things a bit, there was a tradition from the established church that would become the mainline, but also the Covenanters of the Reformed line and the Seceders of the Associate line.  And I probably don’t need to tell you that over the last three centuries the complexity has increased and not decreased.  (As a physicist I could point to increasing entropy, but that is not the purpose of today’s post.)

Yesterday also saw the launch of a new project led by the Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). I was glad to see it launched because there has been some build-up to it around the Internet and I was interested to see what would come of it.  One thing I was particularly interested in was the different names for the project and how that would affect the focus.  For example, the Twitter account has the handle @WeArePCUSA but the long description is titled “We Are Presbyterian.”  If you go to the launch site the title is also “We are Presbyterian” yet in the narrative below it refers to the videos coming from a “diverse group of folks from across the Presbyterian Church (USA).”

Maybe I am being too picky here. Am I just splitting hairs with this one? As I spend my free time blogging on global Presbyterianism I am well aware that the PC(USA) is just one local manifestation of this broad and diverse ecclesiastical form. Having watched these videos the We Are PC(USA) title is very applicable, but remember this is one small slice of a bigger fellowship.

OK, soapbox mode off…

In these 16 locally-produced videos submitted to Bruce and his crew we have a great representation of the PC(USA).  If you have a spare hour I would suggest watching them. In the ones featuring individuals, each person comes across as speaking from the heart about their church and their vision and passion for it. The group ones are also interesting, particularly to listen to the individuals and where they agree and where they have different perspectives.

Bruce issued an open invitation to submit videos (with a video invite as well) and asked that they answer five questions:

  1. Who are you and how are you connected to the PC(USA)?
  2. What about the PC(USA) are you most thankful for?
  3. What about the PC(USA) are you most disappointed in?
  4. What do you believe that God is calling us to be in the next five years?
  5. What is one ministry, organization or hope that we should pray for today?

It is interesting that about half of the things mentioned regarding the second question could apply to Presbyterianism in general and are not specific to the denomination: connectional system, joint governance on the boards of the church, confessional nature of our faith, priesthood of all believers.  Likewise, the third question had some more general responses as well: could do better with racial ethnic diversity, need to do better with youth and young adults.

I was also impressed that the spectrum of viewpoints were represented, but while the full spectrum of the theological diversity in the PC(USA) was represented in these videos, progressive viewpoints were more likely to be presented.  In particular, several presenters specifically mentioned that they were thankful for the increased inclusivity in the denomination from the passage of Amendment 10-A.  On the other hand, several of the videos stayed completely away from the polarizing issues in the church and spoke of other bigger-picture issues without having an explicit leaning left or right. And some of the videos did not answer the questions at all and one is almost half promotional for a group. But all-in-all an interesting hour of watching.

Bruce has also scaled back his plans for this project which was originally to be focused on an Internet marathon of sorts. Now he has posted the videos and is considering how much time and energy he has for another phase of the project.

Personally, I may post my own “Why I am Presbyterian” two-part blog post later in the Summer.  Two months ago I finished up a post with my conviction that if we prefer the Presbyterian form of church government we need to let people know why. Having issued that challenge I have now outlined my response and within the next month or two hope to have it ready for prime time.  But don’t expect anything focused on one particular branch – I do intend to make it a “We Are Presbyterian” presentation in the broadest sense of the word.

31st General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church

5 Replies

Coming up this Wednesday, June 22, the 31st General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church will convene in Cordova, Tennessee.  Here is the rundown of what I know about the meeting…

The GA will meet from June 22 to 25 at Hope Presbyterian Church in Cordova, on the eastern edge of the Memphis metropolitan area. The theme for the meeting is “Transformation,” taken from II Cor. 3:18.

The materials for the meeting can be found on the EPC GA web page, including the Overview of the Assembly Schedule (and an earlier version), the Workshop Schedule, and the Children and Youth Program Schedule.

Business reports for the Assembly can also be found on the GA web page, at the bottom. In the group of reports most are from permanent committees but there are two from Interim Committees, one on Constitutional Revisions and another on Presbytery Boundaries.  More on both of those in a moment.

And if you are looking for background material you can check out the Book of Order and the EPC Position Papers.

There is also a preview of GA in the latest edition of the EPC’s official online newsletter EPnews. That would also be the place to look for official updates, and maybe on the Press Release page. (And my thanks to the communication staff for the email copy of the press release they sent me.) In addition, Hope Presbyterian Church has their own GA web page with a welcome and links to information about the facility and the warning that it is easy to get turned around or get confused where you parked your car.

There is a preliminary Twitter presence with the EPC’s official Twitter feed @EPChurch and the hashtag is #31ga (and not #epcga). In addition, the Director of Communications and IS will let the Assembly know on Thursday which presbytery has the most tweeting churches.

As I mentioned above, the theme of the Assembly is Transformation and the highlight of the first day on Wednesday will be a workshop titled “Transformational Church… A Day With Ed Stetzer.” (He can be found on twitter at @edstetzer.) He is the Vice-president of Research and Ministry Development at LifeWay Christian Resources, an agency of the Southern Baptist Convention. The workshop appears to be based on his latest book, Transformational Church, and he is a noted author and speaker on missional thinking. This fits in with the EPC’s recent Missional Church Primer.

Moving on to business, let me highlight the two Interim Committee reports since they are a good reflection of where this Presbyterian branch finds itself at the present time.

The Interim Committee on Constitutional Revisions is in the process of doing what some other Presbyterian branches are doing right now — revising their constitutional documents.  The committee has been working hard since they were created by the 29th General Assembly and their report indicates that their goal is to complete a new Book of Government section by early September and distribute it for internal review.  They then plan to have the final revision completed for the 32nd GA next year. For the benefit of those of us who might not remember their guiding principles they have included them again in this year’s report:

1. “No bloating”: we will continually ask, “Does this belong in the Constitution or should it go elsewhere in a supporting document?”

2. Language and stylistic elements are to be governed by the “KISS” principle: seek straightforward language as much as possible for clarity, readability.

3. Standardize nomenclature: identify significant titles, terms uniformly and avoid synonymous descriptions.

4. Keep in mind, Jesus’ commands are not burdensome: maintain a clear delineation between the authority delegated to each level of our governance and the responsibilities incumbent upon officers, members as part of Christ’s Body.

5. Allow the Westminster Confession of Faith and its fundamental principles to guide our work.

6. Recognize and preserve those rights reserved in perpetuity by our standards.

7. Scripture is our law; the Westminster Confession is our interpretation of Scripture; the Book of Order is our application of both.

For this year they provide only a progress report with no items for action by the Assembly.

The second Interim Committee is on Presbytery Boundaries. This committee was created last year by the 30th Assembly and their report does a good job summarizing the dynamics of the EPC at the present time and the need for their work:

• Identifying immediate boundary issues, particularly those arising from progressive dynamics within existing presbyteries.

• Assessing the impact of a large number of churches having joined the EPC in the last 12-18 months and anticipating the impact of a large number of congregations joining in the coming 12-24 months. This assessment and anticipation also included the dynamics resulting from the expiration of the transitional presbyteries at the conclusion of the 32nd General Assembly in one year.

• Communicating proposed and potential boundary changes to those congregations
affected and incorporating responses into present and possible recommendations
to the General Assembly.

• Reviewing and revising the criteria for a viable presbytery.

This is a very nice succinct summary of the situation, but at the risk of being repetitive for some readers and using two words when one will do, let me unpack a couple of these statements and the “presby speak” in them.

In the first bullet point
about identifying boundary issues they are particularly concerned about issues around “progressive dynamics” within presbyteries — Remember that the ordination of women is decided by the ordaining body and with the substantial changes within some presbyteries due to forces listed in the next bullet point there are some developing differences over this issue.  The question is whether differences in scriptural understanding can be remedied by adjusting boundaries to aggregate like-minded presbyters and churches.  [Any application of this approach to one or more mainline branches and their new latitude in ordination standards is left as an exercise for the reader.]

Speaking of these changes, the second point about assessing the impact addresses this issue.  This is not about ordination standards but about sheer numbers of churches. There are many churches “in process” now.  If you look at the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery report you find their tabulation of these numbers:

• 29 congregations and their pastors who are in the NWEPC Transitional Presbytery. The Joint Commission is working with these congregations and pastors to assist them in being received into a EPC Geographic Presbytery prior to the 32nd GA.
• 8 congregations and their pastors who have “become one” with their geographical EPC Presbytery while still maintaining relationship with the Transitional Presbytery.
• 8 congregations and their pastors have “become one’ with their geographical EPC Presbytery and no longer have any relationship with the TP.

For perspective, the EPC About Us page describes the church as having “about 300 churches” so this transitioning group represents almost 15% of the congregations.  And note that this does not include any potential future influx resulting from recent changes in other Presbyterian branches.

Quite a task — I wish them well.  They are proposing two new presbyteries be authorized at this Assembly meeting:  Allegheny Presbytery would be formed from churches in western New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, eastern Ohio and a good chunk of West Virginia, the churches coming from three present presbyteries.  Pacific Presbytery would be created by dividing out the Pacific Coast states and part of Idaho from the Presbytery of the West.

It is worth noting that the report of the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery shows no sign of asking for a continuation of their group but lays out the steps they are taking to fold churches into the geographic presbyteries before, or upon, the presbytery’s dissolution next year.  In addition, they recommend changes to the Book of Order that would facilitate a transitional status for congregations and teaching elders into geographic presbyteries when extenuating circumstances would favor a transitional status of up to 12 months.

Let’s see — revising the Government section, questions about the form and size of presbyteries, implications of ordination standards, what does it mean to be missional?  Some of this sounds familiar and not just regarding one particular mainline branch in the Americas but for some non-mainline branches and for other branches around the globe as well. I venture to say that there is a great deal of theme and variation on these issues circulating at the moment.  So as the EPC approaches these topics I look forward to hearing how they work out their approach to them.  Prayers for their meeting and I will be watching to see how they discern God’s will together.

78th General Assembly Of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Leave a reply

I have been a little behind the curve on one more General Assembly currently meeting.  So with apologies for the delay, let’s have a look at the 78th General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.


J. Gresham Machen
(from Wikimedia Commons) 		This denomination was formed on June 11, 1936 when the first General Assembly convened in Philadelphia.  J. Gresham Machen, the first Moderator of the Presbyterian Church of America (as it was know at that time) wrote of that meeting in the Presbyterian Guardian:

“On Thursday, June 11, 1936, the hopes of many long years were realized.
We became members, at last, of a true Presbyterian Church; we
recovered, at last, the blessing of true Christian fellowship. What a
joyous moment it was! How the long years of struggle seemed to sink into
nothingness compared with the peace and joy that filled our hearts!”

This year’s Assembly took time yesterday to mark the 75th Anniversary of that event. An afternoon special program, hosted by the Committee on Christian Education, included comments from one of the founders, the Rev. John P. Galbraith, author of the well known 1939 paper Why the Orthodox Presbyterian Church?  In the summary of yesterday’s session, it is reported that Mr. Galbraith emphasized “that adherence to and proclamation of the Word of God is central to the task of the church.” The celebration includes events all weekend and was highlighted by a banquet last night. And for more on the anniversary there is a Facebook page.

As for the business meeting itself, it convened Wednesday evening, June 8 at the Sandy Cove Retreat Center in Maryland and will adjourn no later than noon on Tuesday June 14.  Most of the background information you will need, like the Standing Rules, Book of Church Order, and GA papers giving denominational stands on particular topics, can be accessed through the regular General Assembly Page.

The web page specific to the 78th GA has links to the Daily Summary page and the Photo Album. I have not found a docket or reports to the Assembly available online.

There is a Twitter presence for the meeting and while small they are yet faithful.  You can get info from the meeting from @dlwelliver and @camdenbucey with a few others commenting using the hashtag #opcga. One of the more amusing comments to come down the line this year, in a play on the nickname “Machen’s Warrior Children,” the GA has been going so smoothly and harmoniously this year that Moderator has referred to them as “Machen’s cuddly children.”

Speaking of the Moderator, from the three nominees from the floor, the Rev. Danny E. Olinger was selected as the Moderator of this General Assembly. He has been serving as the General Secretary of the Committee on Christian Education and is the editor of an anthology of writings by Geerhardus Vos. (Side note: if you are not familiar with Vos, he was the first professor of Biblical Theology at Princeton Seminary.)

Other business already heard includes the report of the Statistician, Mr. Luke E. Brown, who was pleased to report the continued steady membership growth of 1.51% so that the denomination ended 2010 with 29.842 total members. The Assembly also approved the request of the Psalter-Hymnal Special Committee to work together with the United Reformed Churches of North America Songbook Committee to produce a joint OPC/URC
Psalter-Hymnal. The Committee on Home Missions and Church Extension reported that although only four new churches were planted in 2010, there have already been ten new ones planted in 2011 with four more that will probably open this year.  And there was an unusually brief report from the Committee on Appeals and Complaints, a circumstance that possibly contributed to the “cuddly children” comment.

Finally, the annual census of the Assembly regarding the decade of ordination of the commissioners:

With nine minutes until the order of the day, the moderator took the
annual survey of when each commissioner was ordained. This is not merely
a matter of trivia but, rather, it shows the Lord’s faithfulness in
working through men at the Assembly from a wide age range. The older
commissioners often set the tone and exemplify good churchmanship, while
the younger men add a bit of energy to the Assembly. The results from
the poll:

2010s — 9
2000s — 45
1990s — 19
1980s — 18
1970s — 21
1960s — 18
1950s — 3

I am impressed with the relative uniform distribution of numbers ordained in the 1960’s to the 1990’s range.

The Assembly left much of Saturday to presentations and celebration and the Lord’s Day is left free for worship and fellowship.  Business will resume at 8:30 AM local time tomorrow.  We pray for the Assembly and its remaining work.

207th General Synod Of The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church

4 Replies

With all of the meetings of highest governing bodies of Presbyterian branches currently in progress one would think there would not be anyone left, but we need to add one more to the list…

The meeting of the 207th General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church began yesterday, June 7, at Bonclarken, near Flat Rock, NC, and it will adjourn tomorrow.

The Synod has combined most of the materials for the meeting available as a single large packet, but in three formats — Web, PDF, or ePub.  (Is that a first for an Assembly or Synod distributing an ePub of the reports?)  And as a single packet I will warn you that it is 191 pages long.  In my comments below I will refer to the page numbers in the PDF, trusting in the Grace of God that the ePub numbers are at least close.  (And the web version is one very long page)

Yes, there is Twitter activity for this meeting as well with the hashtag #ARPsynod11.  The major contributors to this stream are @ARStager and @jmcmanus76.  In addition, the official feeds @ARPMagazine and @ARPChurch are tweeting, usually without a hashtag.

As I looked through the packet a few things jumped out at me.

If I read Appendix E correctly (beginning on page 33) there are seven pages of unfinished business from last year’s General Synod which was the first item of business yesterday.

Beginning on page 41 of the packet is the preliminary report of the Strategic Planning Committee. The final report will be presented to the 2012 Synod. The Committee proposes the following Vision Statement for the ARP on which to base the Strategic Plan:

As sinners being saved by the mercy of God in Christ Jesus, Associate Reformed Presbyterians are compelled by His grace to give glory to God in worship, life and witness. By the power of the Holy Spirit, we aspire to be people gathered into churches, who are living obediently to the Word of God; growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ; loving one another as Christ has loved us; proclaiming joyfully the gospel of grace freely to all; making disciples among all the nations; and working in unity with all who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

From this the Committee says the Plan must 1) be gospel-centered and gospel-driven, 2) empower the people of God to accomplish God’s purposes in God’s way, and 3) marshal the resources of the church in a wise and prudent manner.

The Committee then gives a frank comment about where the ARP finds itself at the present time:

The shape of the emerging Strategic Plan is also conditioned by the peculiar circumstances of the ARP Church today. We are a small denomination with a preponderance of small churches, many of them located in rural areas and small towns. Because of this, humanly speaking, our resources are somewhat limited. As noted above, we continue to wrestle with identity issues and a lack of theological unity that complicate the task of ministry focus. We have also inherited a remarkable variety of denominational agencies and institutions with their own histories and traditions, and most of these agencies look to the General Synod for significant resources. Given that the ARP Church is but a small part of the Evangelical community and the church universal (see sec. I [“Where We Come From”] above), we must be mindful of duplicating the efforts of others who may be better positioned than we to carry on certain kingdom work, and open to creative partnerships with others where such efforts will advance the kingdom of God. As the 2007 “Report of the Vision Committee” identified, “the ARP Church is tolerant of mediocrity. Some have observed that we are ‘addicted to niceness,’ and that we tacitly condone a lack of excellence so that feelings will not be hurt.” These peculiar circumstances present both limitations and opportunities.

Based on all this they present a preliminary list of five things the church needs: 1) Powerful Gospel-centered preaching, 2) Church planting, 3) Christian education, 4) Multi-generational ministry, and 5) Culturally-responsive ministry.

Other branches are also considering what they will look like going forward and so I am looking forward to what this Committee brings back to the ARP next year.

Writing new Form of Government sections is another thing being done in other Presbyterian branches, and a Special Committee is bringing a new FOG to this Synod for a first read and for the church to consider this coming year.  If you are interested, the brief report begins on page 49 and the new FOG is available as a separate download. (If you want to see the current version that is available online as well.)  I simply mention this now and have put this on my list of possible topics for future writing.

A couple of other reports you might be interested in include ones on multi-cultural ministry and lay ministry.  I will conclude with the report on the topic that has garnered the most media attention over the last couple of years.

The report on the denomination’s schools, Erskine College and Erskine Theological Seminary, begins on page 75.  The report updates the progress in the schools and the denomination working together to ensure that the schools properly reflect the church’s doctrine while providing a strong education to their students.  The schools’ responses to four actions of the Synod are included, including an extensive response concerning the ways that the college board is restructuring to reflect the church’s concerns. There is also much more documentation about the changes in the college’s procedures and activities in consideration of the Synod’s actions.  Again, plenty there to reflect on if you are interested and with the high-profile nature of this issue there might be a variety of viewpoints expressed on this after the meeting.

So there are some things to be aware of regarding the General Synod meeting of the ARP.  However, having seen pictures of the Bonclarken center and having heard such great things about it, I sure admire the commissioners that can get work done while visiting such a beautiful area.  Our prayers are with you for your meeting.

39th General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In America

6 Replies

Lots going on this week for GA Junkies.  Let’s add one more to the mix…

In a few hours the 39th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America will finish up their pre-Assembly committee meetings and activities and get down to business.  The formal meeting convenes at 7:30 pm local time today, June 7, in Virginia Beach, VA, with worship, the Lord’s Supper, and following worship the election of the Moderator.  The meeting is scheduled to adjourn at noon on Friday.

If you want to follow along these resources may be helpful:

The PCA is providing live streaming and has a Flickr stream as well.

The Twitter community is buzzing (is that a mixed metaphor?) already with the perennial hashtag #PCAGA. I am not aware of an official PCA GA Twitter account to follow but there is the official publication’s account for byFaith Online (@PCAbyFaith) which has been pretty quiet so far.  I am a bit hesitant to single out any of the many fine TE’s and RE’s tweeting the meeting so just follow the hashtag.  As things get going the tag may not trend but it will keep your reader busy.

I have to admit that in the past year the goings on in the PCA have been pretty weighty with the Administrative Committee funding plan push and continuing issues related to the Federal Vision theology.  I have been focused on some other issues and have not kept up with my updates here.  Maybe I’ll get caught up some day.

But looking at the Overtures to this Assembly it is worth noting that neither the Federal Vision issues nor the deacon/deaconess discussion is reflected there.  (There are other paths by which they could come before the GA this year.)  However, the AC funding plan is there in full view.

Three presbyteries have submitted alternate plans following the defeat of the Book of Church Order changes from last year that were necessary to implement that plan.

Overture 3 from Northwest Georgia Presbytery would create an Essential Budget for the AC of $1.5M which would have annual cost-of-living-adjustments and be reviewed every five years.  It would also set up an emergency relief fund that all permanent committees and agencies would be asked to contribute to. It would fund the capped budget with a $7 per capita assessment and churches that pay their per capita would receive discounted registration for their commissioners to GA. I would add that this is one of the most heavily footnoted overtures that I have ever seen.

Pittsburgh Presbytery has their recommendation in Overture 11 where they propose an amendment to BCO 25-13 that begins

Communicant membership in the church is voluntary, never to be founded on human coercion (John 3:3-7), and giving by members is always voluntary and never to be founded on coercion or compulsion (2 Cor. 9:7).  From this it follows that the church by its courts has no power to tax, nor to exclude from participation in the courts of the church, those officers who by ordination and/or election as a delegate are lawful delegates to any court of the church. The courts of the church through their committees, agencies and commissions may offer services, however, that are not of the essence of the office of elder, which may be denied to those who do not pay fees.

In line with this principle the BCO amendment calls for an assessment on a particular church of not more than 0.4% of their total budget to be used for specific committees and functions that are administratively related to the functioning of the denomination.  Failure to pay could result in the inability to access non-essential services but, as the language above suggests, the ability of commissioners to vote at GA would never be compromised.

Finally, Overture 15 from South Coast Presbytery takes a more detailed approach.  They present an extensive table that shows what each church would be expected to give to support the basic or essential administrative functions of the denomination based on their “tithes and offerings,” not the total budget as the previous overture did.  For making that payment in full a church could send its full contingent of TE’s and RE’s to GA for no additional registration fee.  For churches that only partially pay the asked amount there is no prorated registration fee and they would be expected to pay a $2000/person fee the same as a church that did not pay anything. Commissioners not affiliated with a particular congregation would register for $200.

Now, I suspect that the polity wonk’s will have something so say about this Overture:  At the beginning of the Therefore section the overture says “South Coast Presbytery overtures the 39th GA, other presbyteries, and the AC to join with us in embracing and approving the following numbered actions… or to improve them… Accordingly, we ask this Assembly to act as follows, without needing any BCO or RAO changes:” It sounds like this is intended as a voluntary consensus agreement.  However, point 5 of the Overture is “5. Any changes to the above table fee structure are to be approved by GA and 2/3 of the presbyteries in the PCA.”  So while the initial implementation is intended to be approved by only the GA, changes would require the same concurrence of the presbyteries as a BCO change. I await the debate on that polity point.

Finally this Overture asks for an item that three other Overtures ( 7, 13, and 14) ask for, and that is to discontinue funding the official publication byFaith magazine and byFaithonline.com and to make it self-supporting.  The contention is that this move alone would bring the Administrative Committee’s bud
get into balance.  (Overtures 7, 13 and 14 are essentially identical and probably written from the same template, as evidenced by the fact that in one instance the writers of 13 overlooked a point where they needed to change the name of the presbytery from that in Overture 7.)

The other category in which there are multiple Overtures are those where the presbyteries have been growing and now the number of congregations has reached a point that a new presbytery should be created to further the cause of the Gospel.  There is a request from Central Carolina Presbytery with a concurrence from Western Carolina and their agreement that an edge of their presbytery be moved to the new presbytery. There is also an Overture from Korean Eastern Presbytery to form Korean Northeastern Presbytery from it’s northern portion in New England and New York. 

The remaining six overtures contain some interesting business as well, such as a request to withdraw from the NAE and promoting a “faithful witness” in Bible translations and presentation of the Gospel among resistant peoples. I look forward to the Assembly’s discussion of these topics as well. [And in late-breaking news, I see that the Committee of Commissioners has recommended the approval of the “faithful witness” overture with some changes.]

So there is what stands out to me about this Assembly and I suspect there are a few more highlights that will emerge from the reports.  Keep on praying and stay tuned…

General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Ireland 2011

Leave a reply

Beginning tomorrow, June 6, we have the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.

The General Assembly will convene with worship and installation of the Moderator at 7 PM local time on Monday June 6 in the newly renovated Church House in Belfast, and will continue to Friday afternoon.

The Moderator Designate is the Rev. Ivan Patterson, pastor at Newcastle Presbyterian Church.  For a good opportunity to get to know Rev. Patterson I recommend a video of an interview with him by Alan in Belfast. Alan has a great article on his blog with a discussion of this interview as well as the video and discussion of the interview with the outgoing Moderator the Rt. Rev. Norman Hamilton. (And a note that there is a slightly recast version of this article by Alan on the blog Slugger O’Toole.)

So where do you find the info on this meeting?  The PCI has put together a great narrative of the daily business on the same page as the official programme.  The links to all the Assembly reports can be found on the reports page.  For official announcements and press releases keep an eye on the Press Office page.

There will be live coverage of the meetings of the Assembly, but I don’t see a link available yet.  I will update here when it is announced, but keep an eye on the General Assembly page for the link and Twitter updates in the widget.

Speaking of Twitter, it looks like an active Twitter community is gathering for the meeting. Official tweets come from @pciassembly and the announced hashtag is #pciga11.  Other official accounts for the PCI include @PCIYAC (PCI Youth and Children) which have responsibility for the 12 youth delegates from the Youth Assembly known as SPUD (Speaking, Participating, Understanding and Deciding).  And keep an eye on @AlanInBelfast for his twitter insights. (I will update others as appropriate)

And if you want to refer to their polity document, you can have a look at The Code.

As I said already, if you are looking for a good review of the business you can do no better than the narrative from the PCI.  I will point out just a couple of items.

One of the traditional highlights of the Assembly is the Wednesday evening Celebration that is held in the context of worship.  This year the celebration will focus on the 400th Anniversary of the Authorized Version or King James Version of the Bible.  The theme is “The Word Is Life.”  More details are available on the worship poster for the meeting.  Based on the great worship at this event in past years even non-GA junkies might want to consider tuning in.  (I hope it is being streamed.)

A couple of other business items include the consideration of holding the 2013 Assembly in Londonderry. (Holding the meeting somewhere other than Church House in Belfast is rare but not unheard of.)  Another is a proposed change in the process of electing the Moderator that would accomplish it in one evening by having the presbyteries not adjourn until the first count is complete in case there is a tie so a second vote can be held that same night.  The Board of Finance and Personnel is presenting new formulas for ministerial pay and congregational assessments.

There is more so read the summary, and I might find time to say something about the Board of Christian Training’s Accredited Preachers Scheme. And there will be time to consider and respond in a couple of different ways to the approval of a plan to help out the savers and investors in the Presbyterian Mutual Society.

So tune in and join me in praying for the Assembly.  I’ll see you on the live stream.