137th General Assembly Of The Presbyterian Church In Canada

Leave a reply

If you thought the last couple of weeks were busy, hang on because now it gets even more active for the GA Junkies, beginning later today with…

The 137th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada

The General Assembly will convene with worship at 7 PM local time on Sunday June 5 at the University of Western Ontario, in London, OT.  The schedule of events and the business agenda are available online.

The Moderator Nominee is the Rev. Dr. H. D. Rick Horst, pastor of St. Andrew’s, Barrie, and who has been active in community organizations, including currently serving as vice-chair of the board of Barrie’s Royal Victoria Hospital.  He has been active helping congregations with strategic planning workshops.

The PCC places almost all of their GA resources on a single page with handy named links to the different sections.  This includes the Reports and News.

There will be live coverage of the meetings of the Assembly.

There is also an active Twitter community for the meeting with the official account @PCConnect and the hashtag #ga137.  In addition Colin Carmichael (@ccarmichael), the Associate Secretary for Communications of the PCC, will be present and tweeting. (I will update others as appropriate)

Links to other items that may be of interest to GA Junkies can be found on the Office of the General Assembly page resource section including the Book of Forms, Acts and Proceedings archive, as well as policies and guidelines. There is also a list of the referrals that this Assembly will consider.

There is a lot of business in all the reports published on-line so I will not attempt a preview of them all.  I will highlight just one committee, the Committee on Church Doctrine, since it touches on a couple of polity issues I have highlighted in other branches.

The first of these is “Ministers ceasing to act as agents of the state.”  This came to the Assembly from an overture in 2007, was referred to the Committee, and the Committee says “The authors of the overture are to be thanked for provoking a stimulating conversation within the Church Doctrine Committee.”  As a personal aside, this topic was also seriously discussed on the Special Committee I was on and while little was actually mentioned in our report, we acknowledge some significant theological issues related to both sides of this issue.

Two years ago the Committee circulated to the church a document titled “Doing Weddings Better.” The Committee received responses from 18 presbyteries and 52 sessions. They conclude “The overwhelming view of the church across the country is ministers in The Presbyterian Church in Canada should continue to sign marriage licenses, and a more significant role needs to be played by sessions and congregations in celebrating the covenant couples make between each other and with God in their marriage vows.”

The Committee recommends that the response to the original overture be this report and no change in policy.

The second item that caught my attention is a notice of future work, not an action item for this Assembly, on “A study of Presbyterian Polity: Its Distinctives and Directions for the 21st Century.” It is found at the end of the report beginning on page 7 and is an interesting read for polity wonks and others musing on what Presbyterian polity will/should look like in the future.  Let me give one extended extract:

A second factor that must be considered is that Reformed or Presbyterian polity at its beginnings, was remarkably flexible. What gave Calvinism, not only its theology but also its polity, an international character was its ability to adapt to different conditions and circumstances in the various lands in which it gained acceptance. This can be seen in the different polities that took root in Reformed and Presbyterian churches in France, Switzerland, Hungary, the Netherlands, Scotland, England, Canada, the United States, South Africa and Korea, to name a representative number. There are common elements in these polities but practices vary on a wide variety of matters. In other words, there is no pure, near-perfect Presbyterian Polity which a national church can therefore claim to possess and of which it can boast…. At the same time, Presbyterian polity is not infinitely malleable. Being an essentially conciliar system it is therefore incompatible with the hierarchical systems of the papacy and monarchical episcopacy. It is true that Presbyterianism opts instead for a hierarchy of church courts but in these courts the movement is both from top to bottom and from bottom to top. It is also incompatible with thorough-going Congregationalism or Independency. While Presbyterianism emphasises the importance and role of individual congregations it stresses their connection with one another within presbyteries, synods and General Assembly in order to maintain the unity of the church.

A related issue that has also to do with flexibility is that originally Presbyterian polity consisted of a number of basic principles as is evident from the Scottish First and Second Book of Disciple and the Westminister Assembly’s Form of Church Government. Inevitably these principles gave rise to more detailed rules of procedure which were necessary. Our book of Presbyterian polity originally bore the name Rules of Procedure and Book of Forms. (The members of General Assembly must have been asleep when it was proposed and adopted that the long title should be shortened to Book of Forms. This misnomer has been perpetuated for decades.) Moreover, we keep adding new rules almost annually. Rigidity sets in and flexibility is cast aside. All too often our rules stand in the way of carrying out our mission and are used by so-called experts in The Book of Forms to intimidate those not so well informed or as clubs to clobber one’s opponents over the head with. We need to heed Jesus’ critique of the multiplication of laws formulated by the Pharisees and Sadducees: “They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear” (Matthew 23:4). What are the principles that lie behind the minute rules? How is it possible to keep them at the forefront and maintain a measure of flexibility in the application of these rules?

Fourthly and finally, an aspect of our new context is that many of our congregations, unlike in the past, are now made up of Christians from other church traditions, Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, United Church, etc. The Pew Foundation, a few years ag
o found that up to forty percent of USA Protestant congregations are now made up of Christians from other church traditions. This is equally true of most of our Canadian Presbyterian congregations…

I should also point out that there are reports from one Special Commission and two Special Committees.  The Commission was constituted to hear the appeal in a disciplinary case and they upheld the findings of the synod trial court.  The first Committee is looking at how the recommendations of a 2002 report regarding Han-Ca Presbyteries (Korean language) have been implemented and is only a progress report.  The second Committee reviewed the “Synod staffing formula” agreed to in 2009.  The Committee was formed when overtures questioning the formula were brought to the 2010 Assembly. The Special Committee found “We believe that the current funding formula, with its emphasis on an equal provision of resources to each region of the church, and its secondary provision for communicant membership is a fair and transparent approach.” They recommend no change in the formula.

So, the time is getting closer (and I got this done in time) for the Assembly will be called to order. Lots going on this week but we look forward to beginning it with the 137th General Assembly.  Our prayers are with you.

General Assembly Of The United Free Church Of Scotland

Leave a reply

Today was the first full day of business for the General Assembly of the United Free Church of Scotland.  The Assembly convened yesterday evening and will conclude tomorrow evening with worship. They are meeting in the Scottish city of Perth.  Here is some information if you are interested in the meeting and what they are discussing:

The Moderator of this Assembly is Elder George H. McRobb from Aberdeen.  The official press release tells us that he is only the ninth elder to serve as Moderator of the General Assembly in the 82 year history of the church.  He has extensive experience and has given significant service to the UFC serving as Session Clerk, and Moderator of the former Presbytery of Aberdeen and the North and the current Presbytery of the North. He has also served as an Interim Moderator of church sessions and has been involved in supporting foreign missions.  Best wishes to him in his moderatorial year.

The docket can be found on the last page of the report of the Administration and Finance Committee. 

All the reports to the Assembly are available from the reports page.

In reading through the reports I find a lot of the business that is generally being done by any Presbyterian Assembly.  But one topic that many Presbyterian branches have been working through is what ordained ministry looks like in this modern age.  There are a couple of interesting items in the Ministry Committee report that reflect on this.

One of these is regarding Readers, a position like a Commissioned Lay Pastor, licensed elder or lay preacher.  The report says this about the new process and focus of the position:

It is the committee’s view that presbyteries should take up a new responsibility for the training and deployment of Readers. Candidates will be interviewed by presbytery, and hopefully space will be made available for Reader candidates to engage in a short church placement within the denomination. The reason for this is that the committee intends to make it possible for Readers to be involved in local situations of team ministry.

Overall and final responsibility for the preparation and approval of Readers will remain with the committee. The training will have academic and practical aspects…

…

After appointment it is hoped by the committee that Readers might be available to serve in a team ministry context, serving in a cluster of UF congregations. This will be overseen by presbyteries, and would be a new departure for the church. The committee has made recent efforts to meet with presbytery representatives, who obviously have a much clearer view of ministry needs on the ground. In the past Readers have been contacted informally by individual congregations about preaching and leading of worship. There is no reason why this should not continue, and the committee is very grateful to Readers for this excellent ministry.

However our vision now is that Readers can and should be deployed in more creative ways, allowing them to exercise a more focused ministry role within the United Free Church of Scotland.

The second topic the report touches on is the Sacraments.  This is the result of a referral last year after the 2010 Assembly adopted a report from the Panel on Doctrine on conduct of the Sacraments.  (I have looked and not found this report on-line so if anyone can point me to it or provide a copy I would be interested in reading it.)  In these days of reduced roles for Ministers of Word and Sacrament and increasing alternate forms of worship leadership, the report adopted by the last Assembly makes the theological case for the Sacraments to be administered by Ministers called out and ordained to that ministry.  The question referred to the Ministry Committee was under what exceptional circumstances could another person conduct the sacraments.  The bring the following response for the approval of the Assembly:

“Except in exceptional circumstances, it is only those who have been set apart and ordained to the ministry of Word and Sacrament who are authorised to conduct the Sacraments. Where there is difficulty in providing sufficiently those so set apart and ordained, a Presbytery may also nominate an elder appointed to serve as an interim-moderator of the congregation to preside at the Lord‟s Supper. Before being so authorised these elders must satisfactorily complete a course of instruction provided by the Ministry Committee. Such authorisation must be granted annually and the names of such elders intimated to the Ministry Committee which shall include the names in the report of the Committee to the General Assembly. Any elder who ceases to be a bona-fide elder within his own congregation, or whose appointment to serve is cancelled or not renewed by the Presbytery, shall not be permitted to preside.”

It is a with the changing nature of the church, tighter budgets and declining membership that each branch is examining what ordained ministry means, how to be creative in providing that ministry, and in what ways the ministry can be broadened to include more people in the ministry.

So best wishes and prayers for the final day of the UFC General Assembly.

Background info:  You might of guessed that the UFC is one of the smaller Presbyterian branches.  Referring to our handy guide to Scottish Presbyterian Churches we can see that the UFC was formed back in 1900 with the merger of the two major branches outside the National church, the Free Church of Scotland and the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland.  (The Free Church that is active today descends from the minority that did not join in the merger.)  Then in 1929 the United Free Church merged with the national Church of Scotland and the UFC that continues today descends from the minority that did not join that merger.

[Editor’s note:  The pattern you see here is typical of Presbyterian mergers in that time period.  Other examples are the present Cumberland Presbyterian Church which is the part that did not join with the PCUSA in 1906 and the Presbyterian Church in Canada which are those who did not join the United Church of Canada in 1925.  But more on this sometime in the future.]

According to the report of the Administration and Finance Committee, there are three presbyteries with 62 congregations, one less than at the end of 2009 — a 1.6% decline. There are 51 ministers, of which half (25) are not retired.  Membership at the end of 2010 was 3394, down 5.8% from 2009.

One more distinctive of the denomination is that the ordained ministry is open to both men and women.

The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland Chooses Their Trajectory

2 Replies

Yesterday, in a session on a single report that lasted all day, the 2011 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland chose the trajectory it would take regarding the service of partnered homosexuals in the ministry.  If all you want is the bottom line…

Executive Summary
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…

In addition, the Assembly lifted the moratorium on “induction into pastoral charges of ministers and deacons ordained before May 2009 who are in a same-sex relationship.”

So it is a resolution to keep on discussing it with an eye in a particular direction.  The prohibition on ordinations has not been lifted yet, but the Assembly has chosen to point the church in the direction of permitting them in the future.  While the action today is not subject to the Barrier Act it is anticipated, but not yet decided, that the final action would be.

For those who are very familiar with the Deliverance, it is my understanding (I did not hear the morning session) that every point passed as written (no amendments approved) with the Assembly choosing option 7b over 7a.

The Rest Of The Story…
First I want to comment on the nature of the discussion itself.  All who followed it on Twitter, myself included, gave very high marks to the Moderator, the Rt. Rev. David Arnott, and the Convener of the Special Commission on Same-sex Relationships and the Ministry, Lord Hodge. Even though the debate was serious, and at times intense, the Moderator, Clerk and several of the commissioners helped control the tension with a nice amount of dry humor and quick wit.  The debate itself was courteous and respectful and I did not catch any personal attacks or snide remarks.  As for the content, having been through many of these debates before nothing jumped out at me as being a new argument for or against with all the usual scriptural and cultural appeals being made by both sides.  None-the-less, at least one commissioner commented that he had his mind changed by the debate, but as to which specific point or item he did not say.  It was an interesting morning (in my time zone) of listening and the debate usually moved along well and seldom got bogged down in polity or semantics.

I will point out that in the time I was listening, by my count not a single amendment was agreed to by the Assembly.  Similarly, the Convener declined to accept any amendment on behalf of the Special Commission. He regularly expressed the view that the Commission had worked hard at crafting a Deliverance that reflected the work of the group and wanted to honor that work.

Walking through the Deliverance, found at the beginning of the Commission’s report, the Assembly worked through the first two items before lunch.  They accepted the report (23/1), agreed to the necessity for pastoral care and that orientation is not in itself a barrier to holding office (23/2), and affirmed the unlawfulness of discrimination within the church and within the bounds of church law (23/3).

After lunch there was a spirited debate about part 23/4 which would “allow the induction into pastoral charges of ministers and deacons ordained before May 2009 who are in a same-sex relationship.”  In case you did not pick up on the magic date of May 2009, that was the Assembly at which the Special Commission was created. While there were suggested amendments the item passed as written 393 to 252.

Item 23/5, to continue the silent period for public discussion on this issue was agreed to, as was item 23/6 to create a Theological Commission to carry this work forward.

And then the core issue was reached…

The Commission brought to the Assembly a choice between two options.  The first, 23/7a began:

Resolve to consider further the implementation of an indefinite moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship thus maintaining the traditional position of the Church…

The alternate, 23/7b opened with:

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…

Another alternative, a “third way,” was moved by a former moderator, the Very Rev. Dr. Finlay Macdonald, it proposed that the Kirk was not ready to limit their choices and presented instructions to the newly formed Theological Commission to help the church continue the discussion.  Specifically it opened with “instruct the Theological Commission to continue the process of
discernment initiated by the Report received by the General Assembly of
2007…”  While respectfully received and favored by many, after discussion it was defeated by one of the closest votes of the day, 303 to 347.

The Assembly then debated the two original alternatives, another amendment to 7a was defeated, and a final vote was taken on the item with the commissioners favoring 7b, to move towards lifting the moratorium, by a vote of 294 for A and 351 for B.

The remaining two items, 23/8 to continue the moratorium on actions related to this issue and 23/9 to dismiss the Commission with thanks, were passed quickly.  The Assembly then thanked Lord Hodge for his leadership with generous words from the Moderator and a standing ovation. And with that the consideration of the report, which began at 11 AM local time concluded a bit after 6 PM (with a break for lunch).

So, with the moratoriums on speaking and action on these issues still in place, for the moment nothing has changed in the Church of Scotland.  However, with the creation of the Theological Commission and the agreed direction of their deliberations the Kirk has set a direction for the future that everyone expects will result in the lifting of the restriction on same-sex partnered individuals being ordained to office.  For completeness, here is the full text of 24/7b which was approved:

7(b) 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 containing:

(i) a theological discussion of issues around same-sex relationships, civil partnerships and marriage;

(ii) an examination of whether, if the Church were to allow its ministers freedom of conscience in deciding whether to bless same-sex relationships involving life-long commitments, the recognition of such lifelong relationships should take the form of a blessing of a civil partnership or should involve a liturgy to recognise and celebrate commitments which the parties enter into in a Church service in addition to the civil partnership, and if so to recommend liturgy therefor;

(iii) an examination of whether persons, who have entered into a civil partnership and have made lifelong commitments in a Church ceremony, should be eligible for admission for training, ordination and induction as ministers of Word and Sacrament or deacons in the context that no member of Presbytery will be required to take part in such ordination or induction against his or her conscience; and to report to the General Assembly of 2013.

I want to wrap up here with two more items.  The first are links to several other blogs that discuss this change and give observations: Chris Hoskins, Stewart Cutler, Bryan Kerr, Stafford Carson, and Rev Shuna.

Second, I can’t leave this topic without looking at the numbers.  In the three votes I mention above the prevailing side in the vote had 60.9% of the votes on 23/4, 53.4% on the alternative amendment, and 54.4% on the selection of 7b.  For comparison, in my earlier post about the Commission report and the consultation they had with presbyteries and kirk session, they found that 48.9% of the responding presbytery members did not favor the church permitting partnered homosexuals in ordained positions while 41.4% did favor ordination.  The differences could be attributed to the fact one was a consultation and the other an actual vote.  There could also be differences in the populations sampled and as we see in other denominations the representatives to the national meeting being more progressive than the local members.  The differences could also be easily explained by the fact that the responses were to different questions.  Or, since this was only setting a direction and not making a final decision there may be an openness to continuing the discussion in this direction without the need to commit at this point.

In conclusion, it is worth pointing out the global community that was online for this session.  The Kirk streamed 1.7TB of data yesterday and those commenting on Twitter came from many corners of the world and stayed up late or got up early to follow the proceedings.  From my perspective it was a great social media community and a demonstration of how social media has enhanced Global Presbyterianism.  Thanks to all of you who were tweeting for the stimulating interaction.  But, this interest also demonstrated the “lightning rod” issue that I have talked about — This morning @generalassembly tweeted “We seem to be missing some several thousand viewers since yesterday. If you see them, please tell them we’re here all week!”  For those of you who could not join us, you missed another interesting day and some good discussion in the Assembly and on Twitter about youth and the church.  I’ll comment more on that at another time.

So, the Church of Scotland has more work to do, both in this Assembly and with their new Theological Commission to report back in 2013.  Stay tuned…

General Assembly Of The Free Church Of Scotland 2011

Leave a reply

The General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland will convene at 6:00 pm on Monday 23 May in St. Columba’s Free Church, Edinburgh, and continue through Friday 27 May.

For those interested in the meeting the Assembly page has a great summary of several committee reports and links to those full reports.  The reports page has the links to all of the different reports for the meeting.  And the church has posted a revised programme, or docket, for the meeting.

I will post a link to daily updates here, if they are made available, as well as hashtags or Twitter users that may be active during the meeting.  For blogs to watch, I would recommend Iain D Campbell at Creideamh and Gordon Matheson at Rev Jedi — they have been posting in advance and I would expect them to also reflect on the Assembly.  Again, I will update here if I find concurrent commentary and will link to others (which I know there will be) when the meeting concludes and I write a summary.

A few of the business items that caught my attention for this meeting.

The Board of Ministries will be bringing three ministers from other denominations to the Assembly for membership in the Free Church.  In addition, the Board is requesting a one year postponement in the previously approved Probationary Placement process for new ministers to allow for the refinement of certain details and to clarify the provision of the financial support for the probationers.  As the report puts it “The Board is recommending delay… to allow it to examine in greater detail the budgetary implications for the Board in providing stipends and for congregations in providing housing and meeting expenses.”

The Home Missions Board is proposing legislation to be sent down to the presbyteries under the Barrier Act to create Team Ministries to share full-time ministers between churches under certain circumstances.  The legislation is detailed with the responsibilities of the presbytery and Home Missions Board and represents a creative solution for charges with staffing challenges due to size or finances.

Speaking of financial challenges the report of the College Board acknowledges right at the beginning “The Board is aware that there are voices within the Church questioning the feasibility of maintaining a College. As the denomination continues to decline, the support base for the College continues to shrink.”  The report goes on to argue for the continued importance and utility of the College and its link to the Free Church identity and Scottish and Free Church history.  But it concludes with this:

More pertinent than any of these reasons, however, is the fact that the College provides the forum where students, committed to a common theological position, called to a common ecclesiastical work, and training for a common evangelical purpose, can live and learn together. Bonds are forged, fellowship is fostered, friendships are made, and the best interests of Presbyterian ministry are served as those who will work together first learn to train together. The denomination can surely only be enriched and enhanced by continuing to encourage and support such an institution.

What follows is a frank discussion of the challenges the College presently faces, particularly the difficulty filling certain professorial chairs.

The Communications Committee report contains three reports prepared to address public questions: Suicide, Transhumanism — Salvation by Technology?, and Sex Education in Scottish Schools: The Church’s Response.  All interesting reading but each a topic for another time.  (I would note that the topic of suicide is also an issue for the Church of Scotland Church and Society Council this year as well.)

Similarly, there is also an extensive (18 page) report from the Study Panel on Divorce and Remarriage.  And again, interesting reading and a topic for another time.

That brings us to what may be the issue at this Assembly that is drawing the most attention, the report of the Special Committee on Praise and the reverberations of the Plenary Assembly last Fall.  For more detailed coverage you can check out my post from that time, but to summarize, the special Plenary Assembly relaxed the church’s requirements for music in worship to be only unaccompanied singing of inspired words.  The Plenary Assembly also set up the Special Committee to “investigate, collect and, if necessary prepare from within the resources of the Church appropriate portions of Scripture, other than the 150 Psalms, in a form which accurately renders the thought of the original and is suitable for singing in public worship.”  At this juncture the committee is reporting in that it has begun its work and does not consider it necessary at this time to produce a specific supplemental worship resource for this music.

The other aspect to this topic is the response from the church to the actions of the Plenary Assembly.  There are seven overtures to this Assembly and two memorials and all of them address the action of the Plenary Assembly. (These can be found at the end of the Assembly Arrangements report and they make up most of that report)

[On a polity note, I ran across something here I did not expect and is outside my experience with Presbyterian polity.  It is usually the case that overtures can only be submitted by a lower governing body, but one of the overtures is from an individual.  Doing a read of the Free Church Practice it looks like a commissioner to Assembly can submit an overture where these are know as commissioner resolutions in other branches and frequently can not be submitted by a lone individual.]

The overtures generally address two issues.  The first is that the change in worship standards was not sent down to the presbyteries under the Barrier Act.  There are overtures from the Synod of North America, Western Isles Presbytery, Knockbain Kirk Session, and Lochs Kirk Session  that specifically ask for the legislation to be sent down to the presbyteries under the Barrier Act.  There are also overtures that deal with the nuances of the legislation regarding the existing secondary standards including relief of conscience consideration for officers who disagree with the decision and possible adjustments of of the Formula of Ordination.  These overtures come from Western Isles Presbytery (a second one from them), Edinburgh and Perth Presbytery, and Rev. Prof. John A. Macleod.

I will admit to personally being surprised at the time that the Plenary Assembly decision was not sent down to the presbyteries under the Barrier Act.  I want to publicly thank Mr. Horgan for some helpful discussion and insights into this polity question.  In particular he recommended an article from the Free Church on The Formula and the Psalms that answers many of these questions in a Q&A form.  This is a great article for polity wonks as it gives an historical perspective to the Acts of the church and the subtleties in the polity that do not require this to be sent down under the Barrier Act.  From a polity viewpoint I now better understand the situation, but the Assembly will wrestle with this decision themselves on Tuesday.  They get to make the decision and whether from the necessity of polity or from the desire to preserve connectionalism they may decide to put it to the presbyteries.

I want to conclude with mention of the two Memorials which are also related to the Plenary Assembly.  The first is from Officebearers, Members And Adherents of the Free Church.  It is a protest that, among other things, “the decision not to pass this unexpected and revolutionary Finding of the Plenary Assembly to Presbyteries through the Barrier Act is at variance with the constitution of the Church.”  They argue that the Plenary decision is null and void.

The second is similar, but is “From Young People of the Free Church.”  They begin:

We, the undersigned, are younger people who are concerned to ensure that we are not misrepresented in the debate regarding the worship practice of the Free Church. At the Assembly, and at other times, the assertion was made that the young people would welcome change and that the young would be lost to the church without change. „The young‟ are not some homogenous group who all think alike and who all have the same desires and preferences regarding the worship of our God. Many of us loved the Free Church as she was and believed her mode and manner of worship to have been both Scriptural and entirely honouring to our God. Following the decision taken at the plenary assembly to allow individual congregations to use hymns and instruments as part of their public worship we want to make our voices heard, to speak for ourselves in this matter and to detail our concerns. We care about our church and love her people. Above all we are concerned that God be exalted, that His will obeyed and that His Word be honoured.

They then argue against the actions of the Plenary Assembly and give give eight reasons they believe it will be detrimental to the church.

Lots and lots of interesting material here to mull over.  And lots for the commissioners to the Assembly to deliberate on this week.  May our prayers be with them as they join together to discern the will of God.  And we look forward to hearing about their discussions.  As the close of every overture says:

Or do otherwise as in their wisdom may seem best. And your petitioners will ever pray

The General Assembly Of The Church of Scotland 2011

Leave a reply

Probably the biggest General Assembly meeting of the year begins on Saturday as around 850 commissioners gather in the Assembly Hall in Edinburgh to do the work of the Church of Scotland.  The meeting will adjourn the following Friday.

For those following along at home…

The complete book with the reports, overtures, docket, and other material for the meeting, know as the Blue Book, is available as a single download.  The docket and other essentials alone can be found in the main Order of Proceedings. The daily agendas and information on other events is linked to the General Assembly page. Links to the individual committee reports can be found on the Reports and Information page.

Once the Assembly convenes we can expect to have the live webcast and daily updates in written and podcast form available from the Webcast page.  I would also expect the usual Assembly press releases from the News page.

Update:  In addition to the Webcast page there are also the twice-daily updates from the church done by the Rev. Douglas Aitken.  In addition, they have posted the transcripts of speeches and the Webcast page has updates from the publication Good News.

The Assembly is on Twitter at @generalassembly.  While the hashtag #ga2011 was initially proposed there appears to be a trend to use the #ga11 hashtag instead.  In addition to the official Twitter account I would recommend following the Church of Scotland Youth – National Youth Assembly at @cosy_nya and their ga2011 list. The list probably has the best collection individuals who will be tweeting about it, but to highlight two in particular, there is the official publication of the Church of Scotland @cofslifeandwork and  cosy_nya worker/leader Chris Hoskins @chris_hoskins.  I will update with others once the Assembly gets rolling. 

Update:  I should have gone with my intuition and included Stewart Cutler in this list, as I have done in past years.  He can be found on Twitter (@stewartcutler) and his blog.  Others who are following closely on Twitter and the blogosphere (with thanks to @chris_hoskins for the suggestions and his including me in his list of who to follow) include @shunad (blog), Bryan Kerr @revbk (and how can you not like his blog “blessed are the cheesemakers” ), and Lynsey Martin @lynsey1889. These are but a few, so go to the hashtag #ga11 and see the whole group that is there.

I have already discussed what is probably the highest profile issue, the report of the Special Commission on Same-sex Relationships and the Ministry. A couple of more items of interest:

At the last Assembly meeting a report was approved that would begin “refocusing” the mission of the church and the Ministries Council report continues with that work and updates the progress. To tweak the report, the Presbytery of Ayr has sent up an overture asking that it be classified as an “urban-rural” presbytery and not an “urban” presbytery as the report does.  On the other hand, the Presbytery of Greenock and Paisley has sent up an overture challenging some of the basic findings of the report.  The second whereas says:

2. We do not believe that the Ministries Council’s 20:20 vision has the support of the Church, particularly when the full implications for local congregations are explained and understood. We do not believe that the 20:20 vision reflects the widespread desire of local congregations to have their own minister to lead, inspire and equip them in worship, mission and discipleship.

In this overture they ask for a suspension of the work and the establishment of a Special Commission to look into this further and consult with the church broadly.  This report and overtures are docketed for Thursday.

Another interesting report is always the one from Church and Society Council.  This year’s topics include Responding to Climate Change, Science and Ethics – The Internet, Suicide Among Young Men, and “Are We What We Wear? The Ethics of our Clothing Choices.”  Interesting to see that latter one come out of last fall’s National Youth Assembly.

But from a polity and church-growth perspective, the Church and Society Council topic that caught my eye was the report on The Involvement of Young People in Decision Making in the Church of Scotland.  In terms of what is already happening the report highlights the National Youth Assembly which I have particularly appreciated as a vehicle for involvement of young people and moving their concerns and deliberations upward to the General Assembly.  As I said above, several of the items from Church and Society bear the imprint of the NYA.  I am also intrigued how much of the report reinforces what I have been reading, especially the book Almost Christian, about the benefits of taking teenagers and young adults seriously in the church and integrating them into the multi-generational framework.

Look for Church and Society Council on Tuesday.

Finally, on Sunday afternoon (where the garden party used to be) will be a public festival called Roll Away the Stone. This event will “Celebrate the life of the church” with Celebration, Inspiration and Discovery.  And 5-a-side football.   The web page says

“Significance comes from the Cross and resurrection life flows from the
Tomb.” So celebration, inspiration and discovery will begin with
reflections around a huge cross in the garden area near the Ross
Bandstand. Meantime at the Bandstand itself, in the picturesque avenue
and fountain areas, and in St Cuthbert’s Church at the west end of the
[Prince Street] Gardens there will be space for worship, praise and singing amongst a
whole range of other things to see and do.

Looking forward to hearing how it goes.

So there we go — Lots going on at the Assembly.  But wait, there is more…  At the same time (Monday to Friday) the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland will be meeting near by.  Lots of interesting and important decisions there as well and I’ll review that in the next day or two.

A Couple Of Changes In The PC(USA)

2 Replies

In the last few hours in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) there have been indications of a couple of interesting changes which I think are telling of the direction of the denomination.

Yes, the first one is the unofficial passage of Amendment 10-A — as of this evening the gahelp web site lists the vote as 88-68.  The official vote tally will require a bit of additional time for the current voting to be reported and recorded. From the buzz on the internet, especially Twitter, we know that today the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area became the 87th presbytery to approve the Amendment giving it the majority for approval, followed by Pacific Presbytery. The vote is not over, because this is about the discussion as much as the outcome, but unofficially it appears that its passage is assured.  It will be effective on July 10, 2011.

While that is a change, we must remind ourselves exactly what the change is.  What amendment 10-A does is remove a specific categorical restriction to the ordination standards by replacing the “fidelity and chastity” standards section with new language that calls on officers to “to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life” and for ordaining bodies to examine them on the Scriptural and confessional requirements.  But we must also remember that 10-A does not require a new inclusive standard when it comes to self-affirming practicing homosexuals.  The patch-work of interpretation I have heard over the last few days does regularly affirm the renewed importance of the ordaining body in the examination and the expected issues that will arise as different ordaining bodies reach differing conclusions from their examinations.  In short, the PC(USA) has allowed, but not mandated, the ordination of same-sex partnered individuals and passed the control to the lower governing bodies.

The second happening this evening I think is equally telling and that happening is the power of social media and the open source church.  Consider this – the Office of the General Assembly issued a news item, letter and Advisory Opinion, and some video messages within minutes of the announcement of the results of the vote in the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area.  In my experience, for the denomination to act this quickly or before official confirmation is unheard of.  Got to give them credit for 1) being prepared and 2) taking the social media crowd seriously.

Speaking of social media, at the height of the presbytery meetings this evening I was getting tweets with the #pcusa hashtag at the rate of about one per second.  While we were not trending, several people reported the “fail whale” (The Twitter screen for heavy system use) and so we may have been contributing to the server overload.

It was also interesting to note that the OGA was not the only ones ready.  Within an hour or two several groups had statements up including the Covenant Network, Presbyterian Outlook, Presbyterians for Renewal and More Light Presbyterians.

The point here is that the rapid response to this news shows how the denomination’s landscape has changed regarding social media and instantaneous communication.  Organizations were on-line watching and responded very quickly to the news with either new material or were ready with prepared remarks.

Finally, several mainstream news organizations were ready with stories but I think the first one out was from the Associated Press and writer Rachel Zoll is to be commended for a good article that gets our Presbyterian polity correct.  I’m sure we will see some good examples of the opposite tomorrow.

Well, I have lots more to say but it is late so no more tonight.  Over the next few days I’ll try to find time to crunch numbers and consider some more of how we got here.  But the heavy use and response on social media was to me just as interesting as the voting result itself and just as telling about what is happening in certain corners of the PC(USA).

PC(USA) Polity Implications Of Amendment 10-A Passage

7 Replies

Since the voting in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) on Amendment 10-A swung towards the affirmative I have had a number of people asking me, in one way or another, “So what will it mean?”  Well let me tackle that question with what I understand to be the knowns and the unknowns of the polity implications.

And as the voting gets down to just a few more votes required for approval there appears to be enough of this uncertainty circulating that the Office of the General Assembly has issued a Frequently Asked Questions paper.  The interesting thing is that I have not found it on the OGA web site yet, but it is being posted by presbyteries.

Now, this will become very polity wonkish very fast so if all you want is my opinion, and that is all that this discussion is, I do think that the new wording of the section we currently know as G-6.0106b shifts the responsibility back to the presbyteries and in doing so opens up the denomination for more local interpretation of ordination standards.  I also think that the moment there is more local interpretation there will follow the need for new GA Authoritative Interpretation, whether it comes from the Assembly or the Permanent Judicial Commission.

Let me first set out my presumptions that are going into the discussion leading to this conclusion:  1) Amendment 10-A becomes part of the Book of Order replacing the current G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” section. 2) The New Form of Government passes (currently leading 69-59 in the official tally and 72-65 on an unofficial one. 3) The Belhar Confession is not affirmed by 2/3 of the presbyteries. 4) The Authoritative Interpretation associated with the Report of the Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity is still in affect. 5) That procedural aspects of GAPJC decisions related to the PUP AI are still in place. 6) That other GAPJC decisions regarding (i) ordination standards (with the one exception noted below) and (ii) marriage are still valid.

The best place to begin is probably with the wording of the proposed G-6.0106b:

Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003).  Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”

First, some clean-up – Since the New Form of Government is being used for this exercise this is no longer G-6.0106b but is now G-2.0104b.  The reference to G-1.000 is now a little tricky since it refers to a whole chapter which exists in a new form.  The reference could be pointed to the beginning of the material that is in the old form which would now be at F-1.0200.  In general the wording has not changed but the change in position means the “Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life” has been pushed down in priority and the missional nature of the Church now gets top billing. 

Section G-14.0240 is now G-2.0402 and for this analysis appears to contain identical material regarding the examination for ordered ministry as a ruling elder or deacon.  The reference to G-14.0450 is regarding the final assessment for teaching elder and has been substantially reduced to remove the procedural items. However, I don’t see that these changes resulting in the new section G-2.0607 have substantial consequences relative to this amendment.  And the reference to the directory for worship (W-4.4003) remains the same.

Let me make just a couple of brief observations about the actual wording of the amendment.  The first is that it does explicitly make reference to installation, as well as ordination, of officers.  The second point is the inclusion of the phrase “shall examine.”  The old language was about the standards and the examination was left to other parts of the Book of Order, but always with the “shall” condition. Having said that, this adds a bit of required territory to the examination.  For ruling elders and deacons the Book of Order says in G-2.0402

…the session shall examine them as to their personal faith; knowledge of the doctrine, government, and discipline contained in the Constitution of the church; and the duties of the ministry.

And this section now adds

…shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and
suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall
include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s
ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the
constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003).

(Anybody want to submit an overture either consolidating this or adding the cross-reference to G-2.0402?)

The final point I want to make here is what I see as the awkwardness of the final sentence relative to our ordination language.  The new language says “Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions…” while the ordination questions in W-4.4003 uses slightly different language:

d. Will you fulfill your office in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and be continually guided by our confessions?

These may or may not be at odds with each other, but it will clearly be a point of discussion for some polity wonks.

The stated objective of this change, as expressed by the advice from the Assembly Committee on the Constitution is:

This overture seeks to restore the ordination practice and principles
affirmed in the Adopting Act of 1729, the paradigm through which the
tension between the differing points of view and the unity of the church
have been maintained through much of our denomination’s history.

And what is the Adopting Act of 1729?  This was an agreement by the members of the Synod of Philadelphia (at the time the highest governing body) about ordained officers agreeing to the Westminster Standards or being examined on their departures.  The preliminary notes to the Act include this:

And we do also agree, that all the Presbyteries within our bounds shall
always take care not to admit any candidate of the ministry into the exercise
of the sacred function, but what declares his agreement in opinion with
all the essential and necessary articles of said Confession, either by
subscribing the said Confession of Faith and Catechisms, or by a verbal
declaration of their assent thereto, as such Minister or candidate for
the Ministry shall think best. And in case any Minister of this Synod,
or any candidate for the ministry, shall have any scruple with respect
to any article or articles of said Confession or Catechisms, he shall
at the time of his making said declaration declare his sentiments to the
Presbytery or Synod, who shall, notwithstanding, admit him to the exercise
of the ministry within our bounds and to ministerial communion if the
Synod or Presbytery shall judge his scruple or mistake to be only about
articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship or government.
But if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge such Ministers or candidates
erroneous in essential and necessary articles of faith, the Synod or Presbytery
shall declare them uncapable of Communion with them.

Having that as a historical basis the 217th General Assembly adopted an Authoritative Interpretation recommended by the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity which said:

a. The Book of Confessions and the Form of Government of the Book of Order set forth the scriptural and constitutional standards for ordination and installation.

b.
These standards are determined by the whole church, after the careful
study of Scripture and theology, solely by the constitutional process of
approval by the General Assembly with the approval of the presbyteries.
These standards may be interpreted by the General Assembly and its
Permanent Judicial Commission.

c.
Ordaining and installing bodies, acting as corporate expressions of the
church, have the responsibility to determine their membership by
applying these standards to those elected to office. These
determinations include:

(1)
Whether a candidate being examined for ordination and/or installation
as elder, deacon, or minister of Word and Sacrament has departed from
scriptural and constitutional standards for fitness for office,
(2) Whether any departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108 of the Book of Order, thus barring the candidate from ordination and/or installation.

Whether
the examination and ordination and installation
decision comply with the constitution of the PCUSA, and whether the
ordaining/installing body has conducted its examination reasonably,
responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately in deciding to ordain a
candidate for church office is subject to review by higher governing
bodies.

e. All parties
should endeavor to outdo one another in honoring one another’s
decisions, according the presumption of wisdom to ordaining/installing
bodies in examining candidates and to the General Assembly, with
presbyteries’ approval, in setting standards.

At the present time this AI is still in effect, with certain modifications as noted below.

As presbyteries began working through this some of their procedures were challenged and several resulting remedial cases were summarized in the Bush v. Pittsburgh decision.  While this decision gave us several polity points, there are four relevant points, only the first of which will be nullified by the passage of 10-A.

  1. Candidates and examining bodies must follow G-6.0108 in reaching determinations as to whether the candidates for ordination and/or installation have departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity. Such determinations do not rest on distinguishing “belief” and “behavior,” and do not permit departure from the “fidelity and chastity” requirement found in G-6.0106b.
  2. The freedom of conscience granted in G-6.0108 allows candidates to express disagreement
    with the wording or meaning of provisions of the constitution, but does not permit disobedience to those behavioral standards. (quoted from the SJPC decision)
  3. Ordaining and installing bodies must examine candidates for ordination and/or installation individually.
  4. 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.

With the modification of G-6.0106b the part of the Bush decision which says “The church has decided to single out this particular manner of life standard and require church wide conformity to it for all ordained church officers” will be out of date and irrelevant.

Regarding point 2 above, this has been a point of, shall we say “discussion,” between GA entities as  the 218th GA affirmed, in response to the Bush decision, that a departure can be in belief or practice.  And clearly point 3 from Bush is still applicable, as evidenced by the fact that the OGA FAQ makes repeated reference to needing to do examinations on a case-by-case basis.

There are several other relevant decisions on which the GAPJC mostly delivered procedural decisions that clarified that the examination regarding a declared exception must come at the same time as the final examination for ordination.  It would seem that this provision must still hold if a candidate sees a need to declare a departure in a particular presbytery.

Finally, it is interesting to note that the Sallade v. Genesee Valley decision may still be relevant.  This decision pre-dates the Book of Order “fidelity and chastity” language and was argued on the basis of the Interpretations of 1978 and 1979.  While the “fidelity and chastity” language appears to be gone, and the General Assembly has eliminated the earlier Interpretations, for a presbytery that finds that an active same-sex lifestyle does not reflect “…the desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life,” the GAPJC’s finding may still be applicable: “Therefore, this commission holds that a self-affirmed practicing homosexual may not be invited to serve in a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) position that presumes ordination.”  On the other hand, since this decision is based on Interpretations which are no longer in effect it may need to be completely relitigated. The other polity aspect that could make this decision irrelevant is the fact that it addresses call and 10-A is about membership.  While these two parts are closely linked, in our polity they are different steps in the process.

So, at this point the general agreement seems to be that there is no longer any specific prohibitions in the Book of Order to ordination and installation but that each ordaining body, Session or Presbytery, “…shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”

In that light I think we are all well aware that a particular governing body could come down on either side of the question as to whether a self-affirmed practicing homosexual would meet the church’s “standards.”  The arguments from Scripture are well rehearsed at this time and attendance at your presbytery meeting where Amendment 10-A was voted upon is probably all that is necessary if you want to get an introduction to them.  The confessions are a bit quieter on the question.  The Heidelberg Catechism revision is not completed yet so the controversial wording is still present there, but with the knowledge that the new translation will probably temper that language.  It appears we do not yet have the Belhar Confession officially adopted to provide a model of broader inclusion of individuals as an extension of the racial inclusivity it speaks of.  And when the confessions speak of marriage it is usually in the context of “one man and one woman,” (e.g. 5.246, 6.131 & 6.133 ) or as an eschatological image.

While the Book of Order is not cited as a source of guidance here, the argument for “fidelity and chastity” as a standard could be made by extension of the definition of marriage in W-4.9001.  On the other hand, those who are arguing for inclusion can appeal to new language in section F-1.0403 where it says:

The unity of believers in Christ is reflected in the rich diversity of the Church’s membership. In Christ, by the power of the Spirit, God unites persons through baptism regardless of race, ethnicity, age, sex, disability, geography, or theological conviction. There is therefore no place in the life of the Church for discrimination against any person. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall guarantee full participation and representation in its worship, governance, and emerging life to all persons or groups within its membership. No member shall be denied participation or representation for any reason other than those stated in this Constitution.

So, if an explicit reason for exclusion has now been removed from the Constitution and no specific reason is listed, an argument could be made that now there must not be a barrier to ordination.

(For reference, this section is based on the old section G-4.0403 which said:

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall give full expression to the rich diversity within its membership and shall provide means which will assure a greater inclusiveness leading to wholeness in its emerging life. Persons of all racial ethnic groups, different ages, both sexes, various disabilities, diverse geographical areas, different theological positions consistent with the Reformed tradition, as well as different marital conditions (married, single, widowed, or divorced) shall be guaranteed full participation and access to representation in the decision making of the church. (G-9.0104) )

I could go on, but suffice it to say that governing bodies will now have to wrestle with the ambiguity and different interpretations and understandings that the theological breadth of the PC(USA) embraces.  But lets tackle one more question…

What happens when a presbytery says “No!”?

I think that this is really the question that is on everyone’s minds and I think that over-all this will be an uncommon occurrence.  Most of the individuals and governing bodies are politick enough to try to defuse this before it becomes an issue.  However, I think that it is almost certain that there will be a case in the next few years that will be brought to a synod PJC as a remedial case.

It should be noted that the OGA FAQ is clear about this point:

6. What practical changes will we see?< br>

If pastors, elders, and deacons who are ordained in one area move to another location, they shall be examined by that ordaining body before being able to take up their office. That body may choose to apply ordination standards differently from the officer’s previous body.

7. Is the ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians mandated?

No, it is not required, but it is no longer prohibited by specific Constitutional language.

12. May a presbytery continue to function with the standard of “fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” when examining candidates for ordination?

Yes, as long as the application is on a case by case basis. The new language calls the ordaining body to be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying ordination standards to each candidate.

13. Is a presbytery required to receive, by transfer of membership, an ordained sexually active gay or lesbian minister?

No, each presbytery determines which ministers to receive into its membership.

But, this would be just an opinion expressed by the OGA.  This is not a binding interpretation since that can only come from the Assembly or the GAPJC and they could decide differently on these questions.  (In fact, the two entities have been issuing different Interpretations on declared exceptions relative to practice as well as belief.)  To resolve the uncertainty will require a test case to go through the judicial system, an Authoritative Interpretation from the Assembly, or more definitive language added to the Book of Order.

As I indicate above, I think that there are enough Interpretations currently in place that a presbytery’s decision against a candidate, provided that the presbytery actually followed the detailed procedures the GAPJC has laid down so far, would withstand the challenge.  I think that this is particularly true of a candidate for ordination.  There is a “wildcard” regarding the decision most likely to arise in regards to an ordained teaching elder who is a candidate for an installed position in a different presbytery.  The issue that the American Presbyterian Church has always had with presbyteries deciding standards going all the way back to the Adopting Act is what we now have as F-3.0203.

These presbyters shall come together in councils in regular gradation. These councils are sessions, presbyteries, synods, and the General Assembly. All councils of the church are united by the nature of the church and share with one another responsibilities, rights, and powers as provided in this Constitution. The councils are distinct, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate council. The larger part of the church, or a representation thereof, shall govern the smaller. (emphasis added)

So if ordination is an “act of the whole church” can a differently governing body “choose to apply ordination standards differently from the officer’s previous body” as it says in question 6 of the FAQ.

There are other unknowns here are well.  One is what the nature and authority of the definition of marriage (W-4.9001) will be in the next few years.  Another, is the inclusivity statement in F-1.0403 mentioned above and whether this new wording, combined with the removal of an explicit requirement, will provide the basis for a new Interpretation.

As I wrap this up let me move on to the item that half of you are probably saying “when is he going to get to it” and the other half are saying “don’t go there, don’t go there, don’t go there…”  As much as we would like to think of this as ancient history, in many of the discussions I have been in this has been hovering like a ghost in the background and I think no discussion of the topic can really avoid it. SO…

One word – “Kenyon.”

Yup, I went there. 

Now for those who have not picked up on this it refers to a GAPJC remedial case in the United Presbyterian Church in the USA branch back in 1975.  The case is officially known as Maxwell v. Pittsburgh Presbytery. It involves Mr. Walter Wynn Kenyon, a candidate for ordination as a teaching elder who declared an exception to the church’s stand that women should be ordained as teaching and ruling elders.  He stated his Scriptural basis for this matter of conscience, said that he would not participate in the ordination of a woman, and that he would let others know the basis for his belief.  However, he also said that beyond that he would work with elders who were women and would not interfere with their ordination if it were done by others.  (For reference, the mainline Presbyterian church had been ordaining women as ruling elders for 44 years and as teaching elders for 18 years.)  The presbytery accepted his departure as non-essential and sustained his examination but the Synod PJC found that the presbytery had erred and on appeal the GAPJC concurred.

The GAPJC wrote:

The United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and guided by its confessions, has now developed its understanding of the equality of all people (both male and female) before God. It has expressed this understanding in the Book of Order with such clarity as to make the candidate’s stated position a rejection of its government and discipline.

This is pretty much the same conclusion that the GAPJC came to in the Bush decision – that you can depart in belief but not in practice.  (It is argued whether or not Mr. Kenyon was departing in practice as well as belief, but the GAPJC decision rejects his argument that it is only in belief and provides their reasoning for that conclusion.)  But I find the language of the recent decisions an echo of this decision.  Consider one of the concluding paragraphs which makes no mention of the nature of the standard in question:

Nevertheless, to permit ordination of a candidate who has announced that he cannot subscribe to the cited constitutional provisions has implications for the Church far beyond that one instance. The precedent, if applied generally, would affect every session, presbytery, synod, and the General Assembly, and more than one-half of our Church’s members. The challenged decision of Presbytery was not unique or of but minimal significance. The issue of equal treatment and leadership opportunity for all (particularly without regard to considerations of race and sex) is a paramount concern of our Church. Neither a synod nor the General Assembly has any power to allow a presbytery to grant an exception to an explicit constitutional provision.

The implications of the Authoritative Interpretation from the Assembly permitting declaring departures in belief and practice is left as an exercise for the reader.

No, a Kenyon-like decision in the current debate regarding ordination standards is not very likely in the near or intermediate-term.  Before we get to that point additional Interpretations or explicit constitutional language will have to be in place.  But it is interesting the number of people on both sides of this issue that expect a similar decision sometime in the future.

Well, as you can see from the length of this article there is probably not a simple answer to what the polity landscape will look like in next few years.  It is why I am cautious in accepting the OGA FAQ as “the answer.”  There is plenty of room for new interpretations in the next few years even if no new language is added to the Book of Order. It will be interesting to see from whence the next refinement of this polity question comes.

Stay tuned…

General Assembly Season 2011

Leave a reply

We are entering the 2011 General Assembly Season.  GA Junkies get ready!

For those who may be interested in the upcoming gatherings here are the meetings of governing bodies that I have on my calendar and will be trying to track: (Information marked with * is updated from the original posting)

51st General Synod
Presbyterian Church in Trinidad and Tobago
27 April 2011
San Fernando

General Assembly
Free Church of Scotland
23-27 May 2011*
Edinburgh

General Assembly
Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)
23 May 2011*
Edinburgh

General Assembly
Church of Scotland
21-27 May 2011
Edinburgh

General Assembly
United Free Church of Scotland
1-3 June 2011
Perth

137th General Assembly
Presbyterian Church in Canada
5-10 June 2011
London, Ontario

137th General Assembly
Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America
6-8 June 2011
Dallas, Texas

General Assembly
Presbyterian Church in Ireland
6-9 June 2011
Belfast

207th Stated Meeting of the General Synod
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
7-9 June 2011
Flat Rock, North Carolina

39th General Assembly
Presbyterian Church in America
7-10 June 2011
Virginia Beach, Virginia

78th General Assembly
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
8-14 June 2011
Sandy Cove Conference Center, Maryland

181st General Assembly
Cumberland Presbyterian Church
20-24 June 2011
Springfield, Missouri

180th General Synod
Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America
20 June – 1 July, 2011
Indiana Wesleyan University

31st General Assembly
Evangelical Presbyterian Church
22-25 June 2011
Cordova, Tennessee

75th General Synod
Bible Presbyterian Church
August

These are the ones that I am tracking at the moment.  I will update as appropriate.  Remember, that not all the Presbyterian branches have Assemblies or Synods this year — This includes the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand, Presbyterian Church of Australia, and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  If I have missed one, or have information wrong, please provide the appropriate information and I will update the list.

To go along with GA season, I have two more items…

The first is the series of articles I wrote as an introduction to Presbyterian General Assemblies three years ago.  My GA 101 series consists of the following

GA101: Preface
GA101: Introduction – Why in the world would anybody want to do it this way?
GA101: Connectionalism – The Presbyterian Big Picture
GA101: The Cast of Characters – A score card to identify the players
GA101: The Moderator – All Things In Moderation
GA101: Where does the GA business come from? – Incoming!
GA101: Doing the business of GA — Decently and in Order

Yes, what started as a six part series expanded into seven completed articles with two more unfinished ones in the queue.  (Maybe this will give me some motivation to finish those up.)

And finally, on to the ridiculous.  Lest we take ourselves too seriously, last year I had a little fun with the General Assembly and in the post passed along the GA drinking game and GA Bingo. Please play both responsibly.

So, for all the GA Junkies out there I wish you the best of GA seasons.  May you enjoy the next three months of watching us do things decently and in order!

The General Synod Of The Presbyterian Church In Trinidad And Tobago

Leave a reply

The 51st General Synod meeting of the Presbyterian Church In Trinidad and Tobago was held this week. This Presbyterian branch has three presbyteries broken down further into 23 Pastoral Regions with four or five churches in each region.  The church has 72 primary schools, five secondary schools and a theological college.

At the beginning of the week the Trinidad Express reported that the election of the Moderator of this General Synod was much less of a formality and more of a contended election.  As they put it:

Sources told the Express “members are in favour of a young, vibrant
minister to heal the decay in the falling membership of the church,
while the diehards are supporting a former moderator who had served two
terms in that office”.

And later they say

The Express learned Rev Brenda Bullock, current minister serving at
Couva, has the support of the younger members of the synod, as well as
those who want to see changes in the operations of the church. “We have
been losing members steadily, and now is the time for us to introduce
changes that would attract young people into the fold,” said a member of
the synod, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

So it looks like the “young, vibrant minister” prevailed and the Rev. Brenda Bullock was elected for a two year term as Moderator with 80 of the 102 votes, according to The Guardian.  In addition to this election being a more contested race, the election of the Rev. Bullock is notable since she is the first woman to serve as General Synod Moderator.  We wish her well and pray for her work.

The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland — Discussion Over Ordination Standards

1 Reply

One of the reasons that I started writing this blog was the objective to focus on Presbyterianism broadly — not just one branch or one region, but its ebb and flow as a global institution.  And one of the motivations for doing this was the fact that Presbyterian branches in different areas may be working through similar issues.

Well, as the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) nears the climax of its voting on Amendment 10-A regarding ordination standards the Church of Scotland is preparing for the 2011 meeting of its General Assembly where they will be addressing the same issue.

The issue came before the GA in the context of a specific case back in 2009 when a church called a partnered gay minister and while the presbytery concurred some members of the presbytery filed a protest and the full Assembly heard the case.  While the Assembly upheld the decision of the presbytery it took two additional actions.  First, it formed the Special Commission on Same-Sex Relationships and the Ministry which had the remit to “to consult with all Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions and to prepare a
study on Ordination and Induction to the Ministry of the Church of
Scotland” in light of this issue and a past report.  The Assembly also placed a broad moratorium on the church that prohibited both the induction and ordination of partnered homosexuals as well as restricting discussion of this topic to meetings of governing bodies.

The commission has been hard at work for the last two years and their report and study is coming to the 2011 Assembly.  The report has the deliverance, which I will get to in a moment, and contains the results of their consultations as well. The reports web page also has five additional resources, including spreadsheets containing their data.

There are nine items in the deliverance and the first and last are straight-forward — to receive the report and to discharge the commission with thanks.

Some of the remaining items are related to the church’s relationship to homosexual Christians in a broad sense and includes 2(i)(1) “It is contrary to God’s will that Christians should be hostile in any way to a person because he or she is homosexual by orientation and in his or her practice,” as well as 2(i)(2) that Christians are to be welcoming “regardless of [a person’s] sexual orientation and practice.”  In 2(i)(3) it also recognizes that the church needs to reach out pastorally to those “who find it difficult or impossible to reconcile their orientation with their understanding of God’s purposes as revealed in the Bible.”  And finally, there is a statement [2(ii)(4)] that it is not sexual orientation itself which is a barrier to membership or leadership roles in the church.  The deliverance also reaffirms discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unlawful in the church, with certain exceptions contingent on other parts of the deliverance.  But within this section, while it declares that “we view homophobia as sinful,” it clarifies this with the statement “We do not include in the concept of homophobia both the bona fide belief that homosexual practice is contrary to God’s will and the responsible statement of that belief in preaching or writing.”

As to the contentious part concerning ordination standards the Commission presents the Assembly two options in item 7 that would represent a step in one or the other direction.  Option “a” is “an indefinite moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship thus maintaining the traditional position of the Church.”  Option “b” is “the lifting of the moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship.”

As I said, each option is a first step and does not represent final language but comes with enabling language to have the Theological Commission, Ministries Council and Legal Questions Committee consider the position and propose the appropriate language to the 2012 Assembly if the prohibition remains and the 2013 Assembly if it is lifted.  In other words, if anything were to go to the presbyteries under the Barrier Act it would not be this year and probably not the next.  That Theological Commission I mentioned is a new entity proposed in item 6.

The deliverance, in item 8, would continue the moratorium on accepting candidates and conducting ordinations for at least another two years and item 5 would continue the moratorium on talking publicly about it.

That leaves item 4.  The language throughout the deliverance is generally related to “training and ordination” and induction and installation are not addressed except in this item.  In number 4 it is proposed to permit “the induction into pastoral charges of ministers and deacons ordained before May 2009 who are in a same-sex relationship.”

So that is the deliverance for the Assembly to debate. This is the only report docketed for Monday 23 May beginning at 9:30 AM Edinburgh time.

Now, taking a look at the body of the report it is interesting to see where the leaders of the Church of Scotland are on this issue.  The Commission sent out a series of questions to both Kirk Sessions and presbyteries to get feedback on this issue.  This was not a random sampling but an effort to get full participation in this consultation.   They got 1237 responses from 1273 sessions (some linked and neighboring sessions responded together) out of 1473 congregations.  There were 22,342 ruling and teaching elders that participated in this.  But the numbers come with this qualification:

2.4 We wish to state clearly that although exact figures are given in the following analysis this appearance of precision is to some extent illusory…

The report then goes on to detail certain data issues, such as how some questions have fewer responses than participants and how a few have more.  But they make the case that these are minor issues and while the results may not be ideal, or represent a truly statistical sample, the results are none-the-less pretty reliable and representative.

Regarding the presbyteries, the Commission received responses from all 45 presbyteries representing 2624 teaching and ruling elders.

The questions were divided into four sections and several of the questions gave a range of possible answers.  For example, question set 2 was on Approaches to same-sex relationships and the first question asked “Do you hold a clear position on same-sex relationships and how they should be regarded or do you find yourself uncertain as to the precise nature of God’s will for the Church on this issue?”  To this question 72.8% of members of Kirk Sessions and 77.5% of the members of Presbyteries responded that they had a clear position.  The section then went on to ask:

2b: Do any of the following descriptions help you to summarise your present position fairly and accurately?

i) We regard homosexual orientation as a disorder and homosexual behaviour as sinful. Gay and lesbian people should avoid same-sex sexual relationships, and, ideally, seek to be rid of homosexual desires. Unrepentant gay and lesbian people should not have leadership roles in the church.

ii) We accept homosexual orientation as a given, but disapprove of homosexual behaviour. We do not reject gay and lesbian people as people, but reject same-sex sexual activity as being sinful. Gay and lesbian people in sexual relationships should not have leadership roles in the church.

iii) We accept homosexual orientation as a given and disapprove of homosexual behaviour but recognise that some same-sex relationships can be committed, loving, faithful and exclusive – though not the ideal, which is male-female. However, because of the different standards required of those in Christian leadership, gay and lesbian people in sexual relationships, even if civil partnerships, should not have leadership roles in the church.

iv) We accept homosexual orientation as a given, and accept homosexual behaviour as equivalent morally to heterosexual behaviour. Civil partnerships provide the best environment for loving same-sex relationships. Gay and lesbian people, whether in sexual relationships or not, should be assessed for leadership roles in the church in an equivalent way to heterosexual people.

v) We accept homosexual orientation as a given part of God’s good creation. The Christian practice of marriage should be extended to include exclusive, committed same-sex relationships which are intended to be life-long. Gay and lesbian people, whether in sexual relationships or not, should be
assessed for leadership roles in the church in an equivalent way to heterosexual people.

Position (i) was favored by 8.8% of Session members and 11.3% of Presbytery members, position (ii) by 17.9% and 21.7%, position (iii) by 21.5% and 15.9%, position (iv) by 24.4% and 23.9% and position (v) by 19.4% and 17.5% respectively.

Question set 1 was about The Biblical Witness, set 2 Approaches to Same-Sex Relationships, set 3 about Ordination/Leadership in the Church and set 4 about the Unity of the Church of Scotland.  The section of the report that follows the enumeration of the responses discusses the findings.

As you can see from the responses to question 2b above, the church is evenly divided with respect leadership with the first three opinions, which argued against leadership positions, having 48.2% of the Session members responding while 43.8% favored one or the other of the last two responses which included leadership.

Question 3b specifically addressed the ordination of ministers (3b: Should a person in a same-sex relationship be permitted to be an ordained minister within the Church?) and members of Kirk Sessions answered 38.2% yes and 56.2% no.  It is interesting to compare this with the question on the Presbyterian Panel survey from the PC(USA) which asked “Would you personally like to see the PC(USA) permit sexually active gay and lesbian persons to be ordained to the office of minister of Word and Sacrament?”  In that 2008 survey 30% of ruling elders currently serving on sessions answered probably or definitely yes and 60% answered probably or definitely not.  For those classified as Pastors in that survey it was 44% yes and 48% no.  As another point of comparison, the vote at the 2009 General Assembly to refuse the dissent and complaint was 326 (55%) yes and 267 (45%) no – if that has any application to the present debate.  And in the PC(USA) the voting on Amendment 10-A is currently trending 55% yes votes by the presbyters.

When question 3b was reported as if it were a Presbytery vote on the issue it came out 7 yes, 37 no, and one tie.  However, question 3d, which asked about someone in an civil partnership being in a leadership position, did have majority support — 31-14.

Question set 4 asked about the Unity of the Church of Scotland with 4a giving a range of five responses ranging from changing the ordination standards would be heretical to not changing the standards being heretical with “deep-seated disagreement and personal disappointment” in either direction and not regarding the decision “particularly significant” for the church in the middle.  The session members responded with 9.7% saying it would be heretical to change, 28.1% would strongly disagree with the change, 19.6% did not consider it significant, 24.3% would strongly disagree if it did not change and 3.5% saying it would be heretical if it did not change.

In the discussion section the Commission notes this about the Presbytery responses:

3.13 In relation to question 4a: it is clear that a majority of Presbyteries opposed the ordination of a person in a committed same-sex relationship. If that vote were to be replicated in a vote on an innovating overture under the Barrier Act, that proposal would fail.

Question 4b asked “Would you consider it obligatory to leave the Church of Scotland under any of the following conditions?”  The conditions given include allowing the ordination of people in committed same-sex relationships to be ordained as ministers or to be in leadership, forbidding either of these, or if the GA were to make no clear statement.  The responses for each of the five are somewhat similar with between 8% and 20% answering yes and 73% to 78% answering no.

And finally, for the polity wonks, the last question asks about leaving the decision up to the lower governing bodies and 61.1% of session members and 71.2% of presbytery members say that the decision must lie with the General Assembly.

I hope this summary gives you a good idea where the leadership (remember, this was not a survey of the members but a consultation with the ruling and teaching elders) of the Church of Scotland is on these issues.  The section with the questions and the following section with the discussion have some other interesting points buried in them.

This study has a lot more in it besides the results of the consultation including the results of Consultation with Other Churches which gives a great summary of where other Presbyterian branches globally are on this issue.  (If you are wondering what it says about the PC(USA), it is not mentioned specifically but probably falls into the paragraph that says: 4.9 All the other responding churches continue in a process of discernment aimed at maintaining fellowship and unity.)

The study also contains the usual review of the scientific literature (Sexual Orientation: The Lessons and Limits of Science) and the web site has two additional review papers. There is also a section discussing the personal stories the Commission heard. And there is a section discussing the nature of ordained ministry.  But near the end of that section, and as transition to the next, the report says in paragraph 7.28: “Nonetheless, we see no basis for allowing the ordination of people in same-sex relationships unless or until the Church has resolved the broader question of the theological status of such relationships.”  As they note at the end, helping resolve this question would be part of the work of the Theological Commission.  (And this ordering is probably striking to me since the PC(USA) is taking it in the other order with marriage questions being debated but the ordination standards about to change.)

While the Commission report ends with a Conclusions and Recommendations section, the extended discussion in the second-to-last section attempts to synthesize all of the preceding work.  It is a good summary of the situation including what the church can agree on and where the members of the Commission, and by extension the church in general, disagree. It covers much of the same ground that similar reports have so I won’t attempt a summary of the 82 paragraphs over the 12 pages.  I will note that, as suggested above, the topic is considered in parallel with the consideration of the nature of marriage.

As I mentioned earlier, the Commission is proposing two options that offer a first step in a particular direction.  In the conclusion the Commission describes it like this:

9.2 In our recommendations we put forward as alternatives two options. In each case they are trajectories rather than firm decisions which can be reached now. This is because the divisions do not point to the adoption, here and now, of a radical stance in either direction. The General Assembly is therefore invited to express a view on the direction which it thinks the Church should take; but, if our recommendations are accepted, it will be the task of a future General Assembly in either 2012 or 2013 to determine whether or not to move in that direction, assisted by the further work which we propose that the Church should undertake.

9.3 Both trajectories recognise the need for further discernment and engagement between those of differing views. By working together for twenty months, we have learnt from each other; and we believe that the Church will benefit from such genuine engagement. Both trajectories also involve, among other things, the creation of a theological commission to assist the Church in deciding the direction it wishes to take. The Special Commission, of which we are the members, is not a theological commission as several of us have no theological training. We recommend that an authoritative theological commission should be composed of theologians of standing. This theological commission will ensure the
continuance of engagement and discernment under whichever of the trajectories the General Assembly may choose.

My only polity comment here is my bias to see both teaching elders (Ministers of Word and Sacrament) and ruling elders on the Theological Commission if it is created.

Let me return for a moment to question 4b, option (i).  The question asked if the elder would consider it obligatory to leave the Church of Scotland “if the General Assembly were to allow people in committed same-sex relationships to be ordained as ministers.”  To this question 19.4% of the members of Kirk Sessions answered yes, 30 Kirk Sessions were unanimously yes, 19.5% of members of presbyteries answered yes, and three presbyteries had a majority vote for this position.

I single out this question because much of the media coverage leading up to the Assembly seems to be on the Commission report, and many of those articles are questioning the unity of the church.  The Just Out blog has the headline “Church of Scotland fears schism over gay clergy.” Pink News says “Thousands could leave Church of Scotland over gay clergy.”  Of course, there are more moderate headlines and articles, like the Herald Scotland column “Church needs dialogue over gay ministers.”  How much these stories are trying to get attention with dramatic predictions is yet to be seen.  And in the end, the process will be as important as the final decision that is reached.

So mark you calendars for the Church of Scotland GA beginning on 21 May, and include the order of the day on Monday 23 May.  And pray for the body as it gathers to discern God’s will together.