General Assembly of the Church of Scotland — Live Blogging The Lochcarron-Skye Overture Debate

Leave a reply

Greetings — I am semi-live blogging this session of the
General Assembly (2009) of the Church of Scotland.  I apologize to those with e-mail feeds or a feed
reader since you will probably only get the first section of the post
since I’ll be adding updates throughout the session.  Also, if you are
reading this on a browser live you will also need to refresh the screen
since I don’t have push technology on my blog.  It’s tough being Web
1.99999 in a Web 2.0 world.  Thanks for your patience.

This
blogging is semi-live since I am not there but only following on the webcast.  This session is to deal with the overture from the Presbytery of Lochcarron-Skye proposing specific standards for these cases.  It is being continued from Saturday evening from whence it was postponed because the judicial case ran until almost 11:00 PM.

4:00 PM local time – Right on schedule the Assembly turns to the order of the day, the Overture from Lochcarron-Skye.  There is a proposed motion to reverse the order of the motions in this section.  The Moderator asks for advice and when the Deputy Clerk begins a longer answer the Moderator reminds her “I was looking for advice, not a conversation.”  Based on the advice then given the Moderator says not to reverse the motion.

4:03 – The opening presentation by Rev Dr John L McPake moves the following:

For the sake of the peace and unity of the Church the General Assembly:
1. Appoint a Special Commission composed of nine
persons, representative of the breadth and unity of
the Church, to consult with all Presbyteries and to
prepare a study on Ordination and Induction to the
Ministry of the Church of Scotland in the light of the
issues (a) addressed in the report welcomed by the
General Assembly of 2007: “A challenge to unity:
same-sex relationships as an issue in theology and
human sexuality”, and (b) raised by the case of
Aitken et al v the Presbytery of Aberdeen, and to
report to the General Assembly of 2011;

2. Instruct all Courts, Councils and Committees of the
Church to observe a moratorium on issuing public
comment, whether in publications or otherwise,
and decision-making in relation to contentious
matters of human sexuality, in particular with
respect to Ordination and Induction to the Ministry
of the Church of Scotland, until 31 May 2011; and

3. Urge all members who are subject to the discipline
of the Courts of the Church of Scotland to act in
accordance with the process outlined in 1 and 2.

4:14 – Rev Dr Angus Morrison seconds

4:19 – The Assembly turns to Addendum.  There are three that are being read by the Deputy Clerk so commissioners know what is ahead.  In addition, the Deputy Clerk notes that the three addendum’s are no inconsistent with the main motion or the other addendum’s.

4:24 – Motion to amend so the Special Commission reports back to GA from 2011 to 2010.  Wants to minimize the time this process will take since it could be followed by an act sent to the presbyteries under the Barrier Act.  Another commissioner argues that this has been going on too long as it is.  Moderator asks him to speak to the amendment alone.  He says he will but continues on speaking to the whole motion saying that it should be denied and just adopt the presbytery overture and get a vote over with.  Give the presbyteries a vote not just a consultation.  Moderator stops him to commissioner applause.

4:30 – Other speakers on both sides of dates.  One speaker reasonably arguing for 2011 to take the time for real discussion and “cooling off.”  Commissioner in background can be seen rolling his eyes.

4:40 – Moderator calls for one more speaker on each side.  Speaker for 2010 speaks of media perception and “people in the pews” think the GA made a decision Saturday night on the whole subject not just that case.  Speaker against 2010 is convener of Special Committee on the Third Article — Committee was given two years and he wishes they were given three.

4:48 – Now there is an interesting polity question from the floor: Can this motion be taken outside the Barrier Act because it stops presbyteries from sending overtures to next year’s GA on this subject.  Deputy Clerk responds that this is a narrower focus (single issue) than the Lochcarron-Skye Overture so some reconciliation might be needed.

Motion to change to 2010 rejected overwhelmingly.

New addendum to include kirk sessions as part of the consultation, not just presbyteries.

5:03 – “and kirk sessions” agreed to
Section 1, as amended, is agreed to

Debate on Section 2
Active debate on exactly what the moratorium means:  no sermons?  no public comment at all?  how broadly is the topic of human sexuality to be avoided? what about discussion groups?  What about blogs?

The discussion tries to focus on “press statements” but there is concern about other statements which might be picked up by the press.  In deciding on the current amendment to the amendment the Deputy Clerk reminds commissioners that they are only voting on which version they prefer even if they dislike them both.

5:52 – This discussion continues, and there are still other motions and the overture to deal with this evening.  OK, I now see why the business from Saturday night was continued to today. 

Deputy Clerk weighs in that having made the decision on Saturday night it would not be advisable now to make a decision that would reverse that particular case.  [Editorial comment:  Then why was the specific dealt with before the general standard?]

The vote on Section 2 as amended by standing is ruled against, there is a challenge so they are now voting electronically.
Section 2 as amended is agreed to 314 to 285.  The Moderator apologizes for his previous incorrect call.

Section 3 – Motions for new Section 3’s

Motion to “instruct Presbyteries
to observe a moratorium on ordination and inductions which might appear
to prejudice the Special Commission before it reports.”  Moderator states that it is probably already agreed to based on the vote for Section 2.  Allows seconder to speak about how the Kirk now needs time and how the liberal side, which he is on, needs time to wait and maybe be uncomfortable.

While the Moderator acknowledged that this was already agreed to, he did call for a vote on this as a sign of support.  It was agreed to overwhelmingly.

New motion: For the avoidance of doubt, affirm that the provision of this whole
motion shall in no way be interpreted as offering grounds for
challenging the decision in the referred case Aitken and others against
the decision of the Presbytery of Aberdeen.

6:38 – The motion is approved

New motion to clarify other Assembly committees that may work during the discussion period.  Agreed to.

The Moderator declares the motion agreed to.  A commissioner protests that there was no vote on the whole motion.  The Moderator say that all the sections were agreed to but “for the avoidance of doubt” he calls for the Assembly vote.

6:46 – The Assembly turns to the Overture.  There is a request for the Presbytery to withdraw their overture.  One of the presbytery commissioners asks for time to consult with all the presbytery commissioners.  The Moderator suspends the meeting for 5 minutes.

6:55 – The Presbytery of Lochcarron-Skye agrees to withdraw the overture to a great round of applause.

6:58 – The Assembly adjourns with prayer.

So the Church of Scotland has a Special Commission to work on this for the next two years.  Blessings upon all those on the Commission.

General Assembly of the Church of Scotland — What Is Not On The Table But Waiting In The Wings

Leave a reply

The ordination/installation standards debate that has caught all the attention for the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland has distracted a lot of people from the other business of the Kirk.  This is too bad since there is a lot of other important business to be done at the Assembly and I hope that last night’s debate won’t take too much wind out of the rest of the Assembly meeting.

One of the things that has really impressed me about the Church of Scotland is the spirit and seriousness with which they have been addressing the changing place of the church, dare I say mainline church, in modern society.

I think that there are a number of reasons for the Kirk’s success in addressing this, not the least of which is that while the debate on various aspects of human sexuality has been on the table (such as the issue of blessing same-sex unions in 2007 and multiple reports from the Working Group on Human Sexuality) the various issues have not distracted the church the way they have in some other denominations — Presbyterian and otherwise.

But another aspect is the length of time that the church has been seriously dealing with this.  One major milestone was the “Church Without Walls” (CWW) report and group.  The original report was commissioned in 1999 and presented in 2001 and it’s purpose was

To re-examine in depth the primary purposes of the Church

and the shape of the Church of Scotland as we enter into the next
Millennium;

to formulate proposals for a process of continuing reform;

to consult on such matters with other Scottish Churches;

and to report to the General Assembly of 2001.

The recommendations of that report were:

  • Live with a Gospel for a year
  • Review community, worship and leadership
  • Integrate children and/or create new churches
  • Develop paths for the journey of discipleship
  • Plan strategically to develop leadership in congregations in worship, pastoral care and mission
  • Work in teams and partnerships
  • Recover the role of the evangelist
  • Turn the church “upside down”- priority to the local
  • Renew prayer life
  • Encourage sabbatical time from church activities
  • Fund new initiatives through special funding
  • Review overall financial strategy
  • Dare to take risks

Have a look at the summary of the 2001 report (DOC Format)  And this year there was a GA “fringe event” to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the start of the CWW which Liz at “journalling” talks about yesterday and today.

Since 2001 this work has not stopped.  While the 2009 GA voted on Thursday to fold the Church Without Walls Planning Group into the Mission and Discipleship Council the part of the charge “to formulate proposals for a process of continuing reform” has indeed been realized as have many other of the recommendations.

Monitoring of CWW, as well as changes to the Kirk structure originally fell to Assembly Council.  But when that body was restructured the next group charged by the GA to look at the future of the Kirk, and the group that was keeping an eye on the CWW Planning Group, is the Panel on Review and Reform.  It has as part of its charge:

…to listen to the voices of congregations and Presbyteries, to present a vision of what a church in need of continual renewal might become and to offer paths by which congregations, Presbyteries and agencies might travel towards that vision.

Formed in 2004 it has been holding discussion with presbyteries and congregations as part of its work.  In their 2009 Report to the Assembly they discuss the continuing discussion process and also encourage all governing bodies and entities of the Church of Scotland to include the Kirk’s vision statement on their publications.  That vision statement says:

The vision of the Church of Scotland is to be a church which seeks to inspire the people of Scotland and beyond with the Good News of Jesus Christ through enthusiastic, worshiping, witnessing, nurturing and serving communities.

However, the Church of Scotland has recognized that they have a constitutional, and traditional, impediment to reform in the Third Article of the Articles Declaratory:

lll. This Church is in historical
continuity with the Church of Scotland which was reformed
in 1560, whose liberties were ratified in 1592, and for whose
security provision was made in the Treaty of Union of 1707.
The continuity and identity of the Church of Scotland are
not prejudiced by the adoption of these Articles. As a national
Church representative of the Christian Faith of the Scottish
people it acknowledges its distinctive call and duty to bring
the ordinances of religion to the people in every parish of
Scotland through a territorial ministry. [emphasis added]

The Church of Scotland has a status that almost no other Presbyterian branch has and that is its standing as a National Church.  They are, by the Kirk’s constitution, required to be everywhere in Scotland, and as you can imagine there are costs involved in keeping small churches open.

At the 2006 General Assembly there was a request, and the assembly complied, with establishing a Special Commission on Structure and Change.  The purpose was to evaluate the changes to the central committees and offices of the church and to consider changes to the overall structure, including presbyteries.  In the report presented to the 2008 General Assembly (DOC Format) they discuss the Third Article.  Here is that section, absent the text of the Article which I included above:

13. The Third Article Declaratory

13.1 [Text of the Third Article]

13.2 The Church is accordingly constitutionally committed to providing a ministry, understood
as including a ministry of Word and
Sacrament, in every part of Scotland
without exception. It appears to us that everything that we have been called upon to
consider in the areas of structure,
finance and the allocation of resources,
flows from the imperative contained in the Third Article and, in particular, its third
sentence. It is the requirement to bring
the ordinances of religion to the people
in every parish of Scotland through a territorial ministry that determines that congregations
must be maintained, irrespective of
their ability to support themselves and
therefore that other congregations must take
on the burden of that support. It has implications for how resources are to be allocated.

13.3 We believe that the time is right for the Church to look critically at the Third Article and
decide whether it should be retained,
amended or removed altogether.

13.4 We question whether any valuable principle is dependent upon retaining the Third Article. We
would agree with the view expressed in Church Without Walls that it is a statement that needs to be
examined and questioned at the beginning
of the twenty-first century. It may be
that as a result of such an examination the Church will conclude that the time has come
humbly to lay down the title of
“National Church” and accept a new title
such as “A Church for the Nation”. It may be thought more meaningful for the Church to
“represent to” the Scottish people the
Christian faith rather than to assume
that the Church of Scotland is “representative of the Christian faith of the Scottish
people”. We are one of many Christian
denominations within our country and it
may be that an ecumenical outlook would be more effective in reaching all Scotland with
the Gospel. Major changes would not
necessarily see the Kirk lose its
Presbyterian identity. The Presbyterian Church in other countries has survived without being
“national” in its context. Our
self-identity would change in some ways but
so would the ability to earn greater respect within the nation. The example of Jesus as the humble
servant would seem to provide a helpful
model.

13.5 Whether there is a continuing role for the Third Article is helpfully discussed in a section of
Church without Walls. We have included that
section as Appendix IV to this report.
We commend it to the Church as a
starting point in its consideration of the question.

The 2008 Assembly established the special committee to look at the Third Article and how it impacts the church and it will report back to the 2010 Assembly.

This would be a major change as you can imagine and there is already discussion about what the implications are.  At the National Youth Assembly this past September the youth debated this as part of their discussion of “Future Church.”  In the National Youth Assembly Report to this General Assembly recommendation, or statement, number 10 is:

10. Believes that Territorial Ministries as outlined in Article 3 have a complex impact on the mission of the church; it could be perceived as the focal point in relation to the calling and training of ministers without appropriate attention to the possibility of using lay ministers and particular callings. At the same time territorial ministry offers a precious universality in the support of the country’s people.

And the news media has picked up on a proposal to use video technology to provide ministerial presence in churches that have vacancies, particularly those in remote areas that have difficulty attracting ministers to their charges.  The action item in the Ministries Council report says:

6. Note with concern the pressures being faced by the Church in Presbyteries facing numerous, lengthy vacancies, commend ministers, deacons, Auxiliary ministers, readers and elders who are enabling the Church in these presbyteries to evolve new patterns of life, and welcome in particular the possibilities that video technology, secondment and transition ministry offer.

Like other Presbyterian branches the Church of Scotland has difficulty getting their ministers distributed to all the churches with urban charges being preferable to small isolated churches on the islands in Orkney.

So as the Assembly continues this coming week we will see what other references are made to a church thinking out side the box and looking to the future to see what a 21st century church looks like.  But the Assembly will also be looking ahead to the 2010 Assembly and the report on the Third Article that is now waiting in the wings.

General Assembly of the Church of Scotland — Saturday Night Session

Leave a reply

Greetings — I am semi-live blogging this session of the
General Assembly (2009) of the Church of Scotland.  I apologize to those with e-mail feeds or a feed
reader since you will probably only get the first section of the post
since I’ll be adding updates throughout the session.  Also, if you are
reading this on a browser live you will also need to refresh the screen
since I don’t have push technology on my blog.  It’s tough being Web
1.99999 in a Web 2.0 world.  Thanks for your patience.

This blogging is semi-live since I am not there and since only part of the session will be webcast.  This evening session is to deal with two related items of business.  The first is the protest of the call of the Rev. Scott Rennie to Queen’s Cross Church in Aberdeen.  This is the business titled “Dissent and Complaint Against A Decision of the Presbytery of Aberdeen.”  Since this is a judicial case the tradition of British judicial cases will be honored and there will be no webcast.  There will be no official twitter comments either but there may be some from inside the Assembly Hall on the Twitter subject #ga2009.  The second business item is a related overture from the Presbytery of Lochcarron-Skye proposing specific standards for these cases.  Webcasting is announced to resume for that portion.

10:45 PDT (6:45 PM local)-  At this point the business should have been going for about 15 minutes.  An earlier Twitter comment indicated that the gallery was full and that the overflow room was going to be used.

10:55 – There are some Twitters (or is that tweets) from the Assembly Hall including Stewart Cutler.  With Stewart in attendance I know of two bloggers, Stewart and Chris Hoskins at GA.  Watch their blogs after the session for thoughts.  UPDATE: My mistake, those tweets, including Stewart’s, are not coming from the Hall.  Still, Stewart has good connections so read what he has to say when this is over.

11:05 – With nothing else to talk about there is a Twitter discussion going on about the session not being webcast but having observers and the media in attendance in the gallery.  It seems to me the point is tradition, precedence, and the freedom for commissioners to speak freely in their debate as they try to discern the will of God on this matter.  There is  some question about impartiality of commissioners if they have already spoken out, but in the Presbyterian tradition they are now working together to discern the will of God.  In fact, their opinions can come into play in the debate.  They are not asked to be impartial.  They are asked to be open to the Spirit’s leading as they discern the will of God.

11:45 – The Assembly Hall continues to maintain “radio silence” with no updates yet.

12:33 PDT (8:33 local) – Stewart reports on Twitter that there is a break and the “motions are about to be called for.”

12:51 – Then again, another on Tweet implies a decision is not close.
12:53 – Update from Stewart that the parties have presented their cases and now discussion/debate begins

2:35 PM PDT – Twitter has come alive to report that the Assembly has voted to refuse the complaint and dissent regarding the Presbytery of Aberdeen’ approval of the Rev. Scott Rennie’s call to Queen’s Cross Church.

Conclusion:  The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland passed the following motion (from the Update page, but that will disappear at the next business session.)

The following motion is agreed by the Assembly:

a)
refuse the dissent and complaint of Aitken and others and sustain the
decision of the Presbytery of Aberdeen on the basis that the Presbytery
followed the vacancy procedure correctly in Act VIII 2003.

b) affirm for the avoidance of doubt that this decision does not alter the Church’s standards of ministerial conduct.

The business regarding the overture has been remaindered (postponed) until 4:00 PM Monday.

UPDATE:  A couple more thoughts
1)  In good Presbyterian manner the motion that was passed is really about the process not the candidate.  While I have not yet gotten info on the debate it appears that the GA, correctly in my opinion, separated the individual from the issue and at least acted only on the issue.  And the issue here appears to be the process.  The debate on the overture will deal with the issue of standards.

2)  According to an early article in The Herald the vote was 326 to 267.  It will be interesting to see how Monday’s vote compares.

It will be interesting to see both the reaction to this decision and the debate on Monday.  I will follow up on both.

Presbyterians Amid Web 2.0 — The Institution And The Web

1 Reply

As I put the list of resources together earlier today and then followed the progress of the Church of Scotland GA on the webcast and on twitter (#ga2009) it struck me that different Presbyterian branches seem to follow very different paths in putting together their web presence.

While the Church of Scotland has been delivering the GA materials over the web for a number of years, has had their audio updates available on-line, and was an early adopter of webcasting the assembly, the official presence is still very much web 1.0.  There is one web site, and although they have a great extranet area with a lot of publicly available documents, everything is in a fairly typical web format.  And while the Moderator’s “blog” is nice, from a technical standpoint it is still one-dimensional being just a web page without RSS feed or comments.  Got to give them credit for the new twitter feed this year though, but at last fall’s National Youth Assembly the twitter feed was one of the top trending feeds.

The Presbyterian branch that really thought this through is the Presbyterian Church in Canada.  They have “branded” the denomination with PCConnect which contains various blogs, podcast, and PCConnect-TV weekly segment, all with a unified look and feel.

You have to give the PC(USA) credit for trying Web 2.0 out.  There are multiple official blogs from various leaders in the denomination, great on-line video segments about important issues, and Facebook pages.  But while all of this is great I have trouble finding a unified strategy, message, or feel in it.

Having said that it is only fair to say that the Church of Scotland and the PC(USA) are revising their web sites.  It will be interesting to see how much they integrate, unify, or at least brand the content, and introduce new Web 2.0 content.

(I probably should define Web 2.0.  There is not a completely agreed upon definition that I am aware of, but it is a web presence that is interactive in the sense that there are RSS feeds, comment sections, and individual publishing like blogs, twitter or Facebook.  The traditional static, or at least slowly changing, web pages are thought of as Web 1.0.)

But while following the CofS GA today I was reading an older post by Chris Hoskins on his blog “What is Freedom?”  In that post, Church of Scotland and Social Media, he muses about what more the CofS could be doing on-line.  There is a nice comment on the post from CofS leader and techie Stewart Cutler who says:

At present the CofS doesn’t allow Councils to have their own sites. No
‘brands’ allowed. NYA isn’t allowed its own site. COSY isn’t allowed
it’s own site. That limits the ways in which people can interact
because the CofS doesn’t understand that people don’t want to interact
with static, out of date websites. They want to discuss, share, link,
download, upload and all that web2.0 stuff.

So how do you solve the tension between central oversight to maintain uniformity in appearance, presentation and message, versus a more independent approach where lots of stuff gets out there and you need to figure out what is official and what is individual.  The PC Canada does the former well, the PC(USA) does the latter well.  It seems the CofS is trying to figure it out.

General Assembly (2009) of the Church of Scotland Convenes

Leave a reply

OK GA Junkies — Game On!

The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland convened a few hours ago and so the GA season has begun.  As I am watching it now there is notable discussion on the report of the Council of Assembly and the charitable trustees.

If you are interested in this Assembly you can find more information on the web:

The Church of Scotland does not have a Book of (Church) Order like many other branches do.  (Or The Code in Ireland.)  You can find the church law in the Acts of Assembly and The Regulations of Assembly.  For an more user friendly document check out An Introduction to Practice and Procedure in the Church of Scotland.

That will give you a start.  Have fun!

Voting Trends For Amendment 08-B — Part 3 – Breakout Sessions

Leave a reply

Since I posted the analysis last week eight more presbyteries have voted with the unofficial tally at 77-94.  There are only two more presbyteries left to vote.  This past week there were two more presbyteries that switched from “no” to “yes” bringing the total of presbyteries to switch in that direction to 33.

In the first post I looked at the total votes without regard to presbytery groupings.  In the second part I discussed the distribution of voting patterns for the presbyteries.  In this post I want to focus on the groupings of presbyteries and a couple of interesting features that appear.

From the usual sources 154 of the 171 presbyteries that have voted have numbers reported for both the 01-A voting and the 08-B voting. 

In the following frequency distribution plots the vertical and horizontal axes are the same in all the plots (except the All Presbyteries/Total vote plot has an extended vertical axis) and the horizontal axes are aligned with a reference line through the 1.0 (no change) point.  Data are binned and counted on intervals of 0.05 with the number on the horizontal axis the upper inclusive limit of the bin.

To look at the details the presbyteries have been grouped by those that voted “Yes” on 08-B and those that voted “No” on 08-B.  There are also subgroups of each of these for the presbyteries that switched their votes from the previous round of voting.  Since the “Yes” to “No” subgroup has only two presbyteries those are briefly discussed but not plotted.

Total Presbytery Votes

First the note that the top chart has a vertical axis from 0-30 while the upper limit on all of the other vertical axes is 20.

Looking at these distributions it can be seen that the changes in the total number of votes cast was very similar whether you are looking at the total population or the split-out groups.  Total votes are slightly higher in “Yes” presbyteries but it is not much.  All have averages and medians in the 0.86 – 0.90 range and while the standard deviations show a bit more variation ranging from 0.15 to 0.24, the difference is not extreme.

Presbytery “Yes” Votes

Here is where the division into groups and subgroups shows the most interesting results.  Just splitting the population into “yes” and “no” presbyteries shows no significant changes in the population.  The total, “yes” group and “no” group all have averages a bit above 1.00, medians very close to 1.00, and standard deviations in the 0.35 – 0.47 range.  It is tough to make a case that much is different between the “yes” and “no” presbyteries.

But if we split out the “yes” presbyteries that previously voted “no” it is clear that these presbyteries had a clear increase in the number of “yes” votes.  Of the 29 presbyteries, 7 had no change or a decrease and the other 22 had in increase in the “yes” vote.  I’ll return to this group at the end and take a detailed look at the behavior.

Presbytery “No” Votes

While the patterns in the “Yes” vote were not seen and the differences in the Total was slight, there is a bit more difference to be seen in the break out of the “No” vote.  All the presbyteries together had an average no-vote ratio of 0.76 while the average in presbyteries that voted “No” on 08-B was 0.83 and the average for “Yes” presbyteries was 0.68.  The numbers for the presbyteries that switched were statistically close to those for all the “Yes” presbyteries.

So presbyteries that voted “No” on 08-B generally had a lower decline in “No” votes, presbyteries that voted “Yes” had a higher decline, and no appreciable difference from that was seen for the subgroup that switched from “No” to “Yes.”  In other words, as a group a “No” to “Yes” switch was characterized by a statistically greater increase in “Yes” votes with a “No” vote decrease characteristic of the other “Yes” vote presbyteries.  This in contrast to a possible switch due to no increase in “Yes” votes but a statistically greater decrease in “No” votes.

Details of the “No” to “Yes” Switch
Taking a look at the 29 presbyteries that switched votes, two (6.9%) appear to be pure swing with almost equal numbers of lost “no” votes and gained “yes” votes.  (In this discussion “almost equal numbers” means a difference of usually zero or one, but no more than two votes.)  Six (20.7%) show little to no change in the number of “yes” votes and only a decrease in “no” votes, and five (17.2%) show a notable decrease in both “yes” and “no” votes with a larger “no” vote decrease.  These 11 (37.9%) appear to be more related to differential losses.  One (3.4%) shows a significant increase in both “yes” and “no” with a more pronounced increase in “yes,” but looking at previous votes 01-A has a significantly lower vote total and this is probably a special circumstance for 01-A.  Half the presbyteries, 15, show a more complex behavior with a gain in “yes” votes and decrease in “no” votes.  Five of those have a “yes” gain greater than the “no” loss and ten of those had a larger “no” loss than “yes” gain.  These, plus the two pure swing, suggest that 17 (58.6% of the switches and 11.0% of the total) presbyteries changed their vote from “no” to “yes” at least in part by a significant switch of voters between those positions.

Details of the “Yes” to “No” Switch
With only two presbyteries making the switch in this direction it is impossible to make generalizations, especially since their patterns of change are totally different.  In the case of San Francisco Presbytery the vote went from 216-186 on 01-A to 167-177 on 08-B.  There was a significant preferential decrease in the number of “Yes” votes attributed variously to complacency or attendance at conferences.  The case with Sierra Blanca is exactly opposite with the number of both “Yes” and “No” votes increasing, but the “No” vote increasing dramatically and preferentially.  On 01-A Sierra Blanca voted 18-17 while on 08-B they voted 23-30.  Again, special cases, but when you look at the details of many of the presbytery votes you begin to think that there is a back story to the voting.

Changes Relative to Strength of Voting
I will do a lot more with multi-variant statistics later, but this one jumped out at me and I thought it appropriate to include here.  I have previously commented that looking for correlations between various factors has yielded little, but here is a case where something of interest does appear.


I hope that this graph is not too confusing.  On the x-axis I have the “yes” vote on 08-B in percent.  All of the blue squares represent presbyteries that voted yes and so are above the 50% line, and all the red squares are presbyteries that voted no and so are on or below the 50% line.  On the top plot I show the change in the number voting in opposition from one vote to the n
ext as a ratio of 08-B votes to 01-A votes.  So on the left is the change in the number of “Yes” votes in presbyteries voting “No.”  And on the right are the change in the number of “No” votes in presbyteries voting “Yes.”  For the subgroup of presbyteries that switched from “No” to “Yes” the plot did not differ significantly so I did not include that data as a separate plot.

In the upper plot the trend for “No” votes to decline in presbyteries voting in the affirmative is strong with an R-squared=0.32 for the correlation.  The trend for the other half is not as strong and while visually suggestive the higher scatter results in an R-squared=0.02.  But based on the grouping of points in the down-to-the-left trend an argument could be made for some presbyteries with similar behavior, but a closer look at the outlying points for special cases would be necessary to really verify that.  It should be recognized that changes in small numbers of votes as is found near the ends of the X axis are amplified more than similar changes near the middle of the axis.

In the lower plot the change in concurring votes is plotted and for both the trend is statistically indistinguishable from flat.  In the “No” votes in “No” presbyteries there is a slight, but statistically insignificant, upward trend to the lower percentage votes that if true, and combined with the decreasing “Yes” vote in the upper plot, would actually suggest a swing from “Yes” to “No” in the presbyteries with the strongest “No” votes.  It is clear, both visually and statistically, that no such conclusion is even hinted at in the “Yes” presbyteries.  So there is a trend seen in “Yes” voting presbyteries, and suggested in “No” voting presbyteries, for the greater the strength of vote is the fewer opponents showed up, or were still around, for the vote on 08-B.

Well, enough of this for now.
One of the things I keep getting asked about all of this is something like “Wasn’t the vote on 01-A ‘different.'” There have been several ways that people have suggested the last vote was different but the most often mentioned one is that presbyteries voted “No” because the PUP Task Force was beginning work and they wanted to let that process play out.

Well, in multiple respects the voting on 01-A was different and in my next installment in this series I will look at that quantitatively and show, well, that every presbytery is different.  Actually, I’ll show that there are several different sets of behaviors seen for 01-A voting of which a shift to vote “No” is just one of them.  Sometimes that “No” shift came with no change in total vote, a true swing.  And sometimes that shift in percentages came with a significant increase in the total number of commissioners voting, a behavior that looks like a “get out the vote” campaign for those favoring the retention of the “fidelity and chastity” requirement.  My point right now is that an “undoing” of either of these would support some of the behavior seen in the data for 08-B voting.  So next time I’ll lay out those numbers.

 

General Assembly of the Church of Scotland This Week — The Media Build Up Continues

2 Replies

The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland convenes in Edinburgh this Thursday.  I’ll post once more before the Moderator calls the commissioners to order so that I can talk about something else.

But if you only read the mainstream media on this side of the world you would think that the Assembly is about one thing, and only one thing — The suitability of the lifestyle of a partnered gay man for service as the pastor at a church in Aberdeen.

I would like to think that the Assembly will deal with this in its usual decently and in order fashion.  In fact, I expect that it will having followed these debates for a while.  What I don’t know about will be what will happen after that.

The other problem that I have is that I am following this from 8261.97 km away.  (That would be 5133.75 mi for those of us who only know the metric system as 2-liter bottles.)  I have been struck in the last week by the prolific, and frankly hyperbolic, coverage by the media.  They seem to be almost exclusively focusing on the conflict and “impending doom” that this controversy in the Church of Scotland will cause.  Yes, there is coverage of other issues, but usually in an “oh, by the way” manner.

The hot topic of the week was the sermon preached on the last Lord’s Day by the Rev. Ian Watson.  The title was “Jude: Fighting Truth Decay #3” and it is available on the Rev. Watson’s blog.  (And I must trust that what is posted on the blog is what was preached.)  From that the media got the following headlines

Anti-gay ‘Nazi’ slur causes Church of Scotland outrage – Ekklesia
Anti-gay Minister the Rev Ian Watson in ‘Nazi battle’ outrage – Times Online
Minister compares fight against homosexual clergy to resistance of Nazis – The Telegraph

Having read these articles and the sermon they are based on there is clearly a reference and implicit analogy to the run-up to the Second World War that would strike a nerve in many people.  Related to that, here is exactly what the Rev. Watson posted on his blog.  The Introduction:

There are very few people who enjoy conflict.  The vast majority of
decent people will do almost anything to avoid situations of
confrontation.  So, the soup may be cold, the meat tough and the
pudding inedible, but when the waiter asks us if we are enjoying our
meal we’ll smile and nod.  We don’t want to complain, we don’t want to
make a fuss.  We’ll even pay for the privilege. 

This is how bullies succeed.  They realize that no matter how
unhappy we are with their behaviour we’re not going to stand up to
them, because the last thing we want is a shouting match. 

That was the gamble Hitler took when he marched German troops into
the Rhineland in March 1936 in breach of a condition forced on Germany
after World War 1.  It was a huge gamble.  If the French army,
stationed on the other side of the border, had marched against him, the
Germans would have had to retreat and there’s no doubt Hitler’s regime
would have collapsed.  But he guessed correctly that the French had no
stomach for a fight.  If only they had, then the tragedy of a second
World War might have been avoided.

And from the Conclusion

Let me assure you, neither I nor like-minded minsters enjoy
conflict.  We long to be getting on with the work of the gospel in our
parishes.  It’s a distraction we could do without.

But have we learned nothing from history?  Remember Hitler and the
re-taking of the Rhineland.  He got away with it.  No one stopped him. 
So next it was Austria, then Czechoslovakia, and then Poland and only
then world war.

I can’t help asking myself: if we say nothing, do nothing at this
time, what next?  What scriptural truth is next for shaving?  The
uniqueness of Christ as our only Saviour?  The nature of God as Holy
Trinity?  

What moral standards will we depart from?  Can we expected unmarried
couples in our manses?  A line has to be drawn in the sand, or the
whole edifice will come tumbling down (now there’s a mixed metaphor for
you!)

In between he makes no further reference to these events but talks about various conflicts in church history and his scripture passage, Jude 3-4, particularly v. 3 where it says

Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation we
share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for
the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

While many people found Mr. Watson’s sermon illustration disturbing, the press reports that I have read focused on the Germany analogy and did not properly convey, in my opinion, the full sense of the sermon.  In addition the media states that many religious and political leaders have expressed disapproval, but are weak backing that up with quotes.  The Telegraph article does give two reactions:

Rev Peter Macdonald, the leader elect of the Iona Community and
minister of St George’s West, Edinburgh, told The Times he found the
sermon disturbing while Rev Lindsay Biddle, chaplain of Affirmation
Scotland, a pro-homosexual group, said: “If you don’t like homosexuals,
then get on with it – but don’t use the Bible to justify opinions.”

And a defense from Rev. Watson

Rev Watson defended his sermon: “There is no doubt that there is a
conflict,” he said. “I was trying to explain why I am engaged in this.
People say to me, ‘This is not a hill to die on’, but I think it is a
fight worth fighting. “Evangelicals seek to defend the historic and
orthodox Christian faith. If we don’t what are we? I am a man of
convictions.”

So while I can see Rev. Watson’s perspective and why some are offended and concerned by the comments, I still find the media reports as superficial and too focused on the most controversial aspects.  (And I would note that I have searched Rev. Watson’s posted text a couple of times and he does not actually use the term “Nazi” himself, instead referring to “Hitler” and “Germany.”  I don’t know if the media uses the term for brevity or impact?)

The other thread that is going around related to this story, and again promoted more by the media than in direct statements that I am reading, is the prospect of schism.  In the Telegraph article I have already quoted from the second paragraph opens with

His [The Rev. Watson’s] comments will widen divisions within the Kirk over the appointment of an openly gay minister to a parish church last year.

As far as I can tell this article is firmly in the News section, not the opinion, so I would fault the writer, Alastair Jamieson, for the inclusion of the “will widen” without a direct attribution.  Yes, in the next paragraph he writes

Rev Kenneth MacKenzie, the minister at Crathie Kirk, near Balmoral,
which is attended by the Queen, has warned a schism would occur if his
appointment was confirmed.

But the way the article is constructed it appears Mr. Jamieson is using the Rev. MacKenzie’s statement to support his own thesis rather than report on other people’s concerns about divisions.  And in many of these articles quotes from those who do not think there will be division are missing.

I should point out some good coverage of the issue.  Two good examples come from the BBC.  There is one story that tones down the headline a bit with “Church Split Warning Over Gay Row.”  It also contains a 15 minute video that has a very good conversation between two CofS ministers, the Rev. Randall and the Rev. Gilchrist, discussing the issue and theological viewpoints.  And they make the very important point that this controversy is about standards for ordained office, something that you could not tell from two of the three headlines I listed above.  (Style points to the Telegraph for bringing that out in the headline.)  The second article is on William Crawley’s religion blog Will & Testament.  I enjoy William’s writing because it is usually balanced, well informed and relevant.  This article is no exception.

At a news conference earlier this week the Moderator Designate, the Rev. Bill Hewitt, refused to answer questions about the issue, just saying it was his job to oversee the Assembly debate.

Finally, in another post William Crawley notes that religious leaders in Northern Ireland have added their names to the petition from The Fellowship of Confessing Churches that urges the restriction on those called to the pastorate.  He points out that the list of signatories includes several former moderators of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.

I expect not to address this issue again before it comes to the floor of Assembly at the end of this week.  Debate on the filed protest of Aberdeen Presbytery’s actions is docketed for Saturday evening.  I expect to be live blogging it.  I do want to finish one more post before the Assembly begins, especially since there is another important matter that won’t come to the floor until next year, but will have an influence on several other items of business.   (Update:  Thanks to Iain I have been informed that there are not plans to webcast the Saturday evening debate.  I guess I’ll have to depend on the reports after the debate.)

What Does It Take To Get Ordained Around Here?

4 Replies

What does it take to get ordained around here?

You can tell that my younger son has grown up in a Presbyterian family.  This past weekend he had a telling Freudian slip when he was reading a line in a presentation and instead of saying the correct word “obligation” he substituted the word “ordination.”

But when you get down to it much of the current discussion and debate in the Presbyterian church branches is around what it takes to be ordained an officer in the church and the standards for ordination and ordained officers.

The PC(USA) is wrapping up the vote rejecting the replacement of the “fidelity and chastity” section in the Book of Order.  There are also judicial cases (Paul Capetz, Lisa Larges) in process related to declaring exceptions.

The EPC will be discussing transitional and affinity presbyteries at its GA to accommodate the various theological positions permitted under their “local option” and “in non-essentials, liberty” regarding ordination of women as officers.

The PCA is actively debating and discussing women in helping ministries and when their role begins to be comparable to that of a man’s role as an ordained deacon.  (This issue has been developing so quickly that I have not had time to properly package it up for posting so here is only one of many recent news items on this topic.)

The moderator designate of the GA of the PCI has received some notoriety for his views that women should not be ordained ministers.

And as the Church of Scotland GA rapidly approaches the discussion continues over the call of a partnered gay man to a church in Aberdeen and the protest of that call to be heard by the Assembly as well as an overture clearly stating the standards for ordination and service.

With all of that GA business, an additional story has taken on a life of its own…

Over the weekend Adam Walker Cleaveland over at pomomusings wrote about “When an M.Div. from Princeton isn’t enough…” and his attempt to come under care of San Francisco Presbytery and the requirement from their Committee on Preparation for Ministry (CPM) to take six more classes to fulfill their education requirements even though he has the degree from a PC(USA) seminary.  Getting ordained has been a continuing struggle for him and this is only the latest speed-bump, road block, brick wall, on-coming train… you pick the metaphor.

I have known many people who had trouble with their CPM’s like this but what makes Adam’s current situation interesting is that his friend the Rev. Tony Jones, who has a soap box on beliefnet to broadcast this far and wide, has take up his cause and started a petition to support Adam.  It currently has 130 signatories.  In the blog entry Mr. Jones writes:

Few things piss me off as much as the sinful bureaucratic systems of
denominational Christianity. When rules and regulations trump common
sense, then the shark has officially been jumped.

But what gets
to me even more is that bright, competent, and pastorally experienced
persons like Adam continue to submit themselves to these sinful
systems. They assure me that it’s not for the health insurance or the
pension. They do it cuz they feel “called.” And if I hear another
person tell me that they’re sticking with their abusive denomination
because, “They’re my tribe,” I’m gonna go postal.

So, it’s time
for us to do something. It’s time for us, the body of Christ, to ordain
Adam. To that end, I’ve started a petition, beseeching Adam to quit the
PC(USA) ordination circus and to accept our ordination of him.

This led another friend of Tony’s (FOT?), PC(USA) minister John D’Elia to argue, among other things…

On the other hand, your friend may have erred in being unwilling to
demonstrate that he could take direction and counsel from a governing
body—something that I believe has a place in the context of the
American religious free market. In the PCUSA, the process of becoming
ordained is partly an exercise in learning healthy submission to peer
authority (I can see the eyes rolling back in your head). Now setting
aside the not-nearly-rare-enough instances where the submission
required is unhealthy, it’s not a bad lesson to learn. More
importantly, once candidates have completed (survived?) that process,
we have enormous freedom to live and serve as our own calling leads us.
It’s OK with me that we disagree on this point. That’s not the problem.

(I should add that Rev. D’Elia has posted an apology to Rev. Jones for drifting into a personal attack in this post.)

Tony Jones has a follow-up post where he writes:

I’ve got a bunch of people upset at me for encouraging my friend, Adam Walker-Cleaveland, to forsake the ordination process of the Presbyterian Church (USA) denomination. I even went so far as to post an online petition
to attempt to convince Adam to drop out of the PC(USA) process and
consider himself “ordained” by the Body of Christ — that is, by all of
his fellow believers.

and then he continues the discussion responding to the Rev. D’Elia.  It ends with a “To be continued…”

This publicity provided by Tony Jones has resulted in some additional articles about Adam’s situation and this discussion, including Out of Ur, neo-baptist, and koinonia.

Two observations on all of this:

1)  The ordination standards debate is nothing new.  It was part of the disagreement in American Presbyterianism that lead to the Old-side/New-side split of 1741.  The question there was over, wait for it, THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION and “religious experience.”  The Old-side Presbyterians were questioning the preparation and theology of the New-side Presbyterians being produced by the Log College, an educational institution sometimes pointed to as a predecessor of, yes, Princeton.  (Note the argument that there is not an administrative lineage between the two schools like the theological heritage they share.)  The more things change…

2)  “The governing bodies are separate and independent, 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 governing body.” [from PC(USA) Book of Order G-9.0103]

This one sentence is at the heart of these ordination debates in the Presbyterian Churches.  In Presbyterianism the idea is that once an individual has been ordained by one governing body the whole church recognizes that ordination.  This sets up an appropriate tension between individual ordaining bodies and the broader church to set standards for ordination so that others are comfortable accepting an officer ordained by another governing body.

This is not to say that once ordained you are a “free agent.”  On the contrary, you agree to the discipline of the church and if you stray from the church, its standards and its beliefs, the discipline of the church is to restore you and reconcile you with your brethren.  Again “the act of one of them is the act of the whole church.”

It is interesting that one of the important points in the discussion between Tony Jones and John D’Elia is that the Rev. Jones was ordained in the Congregational church and the Rev. D’Elia was ordained in the Presbyterian church and that is reflected in their views and arguments.  The role of the “institution” is at the heart of their discussion.

In most Presbyterian branches the Presbyteries are responsible for the admission, preparation and examination of candidates for the Ministry of Word and Sacrament.  In the PC(USA) there are certain national standards for education and written examinations in particular areas.  But the presbyteries are given some flexibility even in these to set their own standards for candidates.  That is where Adam is getting tripped up.  And because of the presbytery’s control and authority it is recommended, as Adam points out, that you do not switch presbytery of care during the process.  I can point to several cases I know of where that was nearly disastrous for candidates.  I also know of cases where an individual was not accepted into the process in one presbytery but was later accepted by another.  That is the nature of the Presbyterian system and on-balance we believe that it works. 

From my reading of Adam’s transcript I would have accepted his education with the exception of the weak area he notes himself (Greek exegesis).  But I’m not on a CPM or in the presbytery he wants to come under care of so I have to trust it to them.  So if/when he is finally ordained I do accept the actions of that presbytery as the “act of the whole church.”

Are there problems?  “All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred.” [Westminster Confession, XXXI, IV]  So yes, problems arise.  But that is also part of our Reformed theology that we are more likely to get it right as a group than we are individually.

Where this is getting difficult at the present time is in declaring exceptions to non-essentials.  While the PC(USA) still has “fidelity and chastity” in the constitution one part of the church considers it at least binding if not essential.  Clearly there are those with the view that just because it is in the constitution it does not mean it is binding or essential.  But there are some on both sides that do recognize that if something so clearly stated in the constitution can be “scrupled” that this at worst will lead to a breakdown of the trust relationship between ordaining bodies, and at best court cases over the obligation of one presbytery to accept the ordination of another when an exception has been declared.  It makes an end-run around the established system that holds us in tension and accountable to each other.

So we will see how all of these develop.  There is a lot to watch in the coming weeks.

Voting Trends For Amendment 08-B — Part 2 – Summary Statistics For The Presbyteries

2 Replies

In the last week the news on Amendment 08-B includes: (1) Five more presbyteries have voted with one a repeat “yes,” three switching from “no” to “yes,” and one repeat “no.”  This puts the unofficial vote at 73-90.  (2) The official count at the Office of the General Assembly now confirms Amendment 08-B as being the only Amendment to be defeated in this round.

While the dominant “yes” vote this week has resulted in some minor changes in the summary statistics I discussed last time, the basic conclusions still hold and I will update those statistics later related to the overall conclusions.

I now want to turn to the numbers that first caught my attention and that probably stand by themselves with the least need of dissection or interpretation.

Presbytery vote counts
Much has been made of the change in the percentage of “Yes” votes between the Amendment 01-A vote and the 08-B vote.  This “vote swing” has been pointed at as an indicator of changes in the denomination, primarily changes in attitude concerning this issue.

But as I pointed out in the first part of this series, in the total vote numbers the actual number of “Yes” votes is substantially unchanged from the previous vote while the number of “No” votes has decreased by about 3000 or roughly 14%.  Now, I do believe it is more complex than just saying the “No” votes are not showing up for presbytery meetings or leaving the presbyteries, but if you want to reduce the changes in the vote numbers to a single cause that would be it — no changed attitudes just changed demographics.  (See the first post for a more detailed discussion of possible factors and combinations of those factors.)

Viewing this on a Presbytery level is when you see that it is a more complex situation.  (Again, my previous post on every presbytery is different.)  But as would be expected the general trend is the same as the combined numbers.

As before, my data comes from the usual sources, PresbyWeb and Presbyterian Coalition.  I am still considering 01-A and 08-B as similar amendments so that their voting records can be compared.  (As I will show in the second post from now this may not be valid for 100% of the presbyteries, but it looks like a good working hypothesis for most.)  And in the analysis I am about to present I use the ratio of the number of votes on 08-B to the number of votes on 01-A.  This can result in a divide by zero error if there were no votes in that category for 01-A and can produce large ratios when there were a small number in 01-A.  The number of instances of each of these are limited.

So here we go with the charts and graphs and the 27 8×10 color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one…  Or something like that.

The three frequency distribution graphs below illustrate what caught my attention from the very beginning of the voting on Amendment 08-B.  They are the distributions of the ratio of the number of votes in each category (yes votes, no votes and total votes).  The red arrow is the average and the solid line running vertically through all three is the value of 1.0. (no change)  As you can see they are aligned with the same horizontal scale for visual comparison.  Frequency count bins are 0.05 wide and the number listed on the x-axis is the upper inclusive value of the bin.  For the “yes” votes there are six more presbyteries off the right hand side of the scale but I do not show them so all three graphs can be scaled equally. (The large ratios are mostly due to changes in small numbers.)  Those presbyteries are included in the statistics.  For the two presbyteries that had no yes votes on either vote their ratio for “yes” is fixed at 1.0.  For the one presbytery that changed from no “yes” to one “yes” it was entered as 2.0.  (Yes, I probably should have discarded them but I haven’t.)

For the “Yes” votes the average is 1.06, the median is 1.00 and the standard deviation is 0.42.  For the “No” votes the average is 0.76, the median is 0.75, and the standard deviation is 0.21.  For the total number of votes the average is 0.87, the median is 0.86 and the standard deviation is 0.20.  For all three groups the number of presbyteries counted is 147.  While the distributions have the general appearance of being normally distributed and follow the central limit theorem I’ll address the exact nature of the distributions later in this series.

For those who are looking for the bottom line — The number of “Yes” votes in the presbyteries shows a slight to no increase, the number of “No” votes shows a significant downward shift, and the total number of commissioners voting show a more moderate decrease.  In fact, only 12 presbyteries, 8%, have an increase in the number of commissioners voting no and 43 presbyteries, 29%, show a ratio greater than 0.95 for the ratio of total number of votes cast on 08-B versus 01-A.  That would be a low probability of just being random variation.

Another interesting feature is how much wider the spread of values is on “Yes” votes than “No” votes with a standard deviation of 0.42 for the former and 0.21 for the latter.  Some of this can be attributed to presbyteries that have very low numbers of “Yes” votes so a change of one or two votes can produce a very large ration.  But in spite of that a visual comparison of the “Yes” and the “No” distributions shows a markedly wider distribution for the “Yes” differences.  So it can be said that the number of “No” votes more uniformly declined while the “Yes” vote showed no decline in the average but more variability in the changes.

Changes in vote percentages
As I mentioned above the percentages of yes and no votes, without regard to the changing size of the populations, has been a focus in this voting round.  So here for your viewing pleasure are those frequency distributions for the presbyteries.

For 01-A the average “Yes” vote was 0.42 and for 08-B it was 0.48.  While the average shifted upward the standard deviations were relatively close at 0.16 on the first and 0.19 on the second.  In this view the distributions show somewhat different shapes but the upward shift is still visible.

Total vote ratio with time
I throw in the following graph for fun.  It shows how the ratio of the total number of votes changed as voting proceeded.

It is tempting to attribute higher turnouts later in the voting to increased awareness, get-out-the-vote campaigns, or people getting nervous/hopeful about the outcome.  But note that the scatter also increases.  This slight, and maybe statistically insignificant (R-squared is only 0.01)
increase can be nearly completely accounted for by the fact that “No” presbyteries voted earlier and “Yes” presbyteries generally voted later so the sustained level of “Yes” votes late in the process tilts the trend line.

Well, now that I have gotten your eyes to glaze over properly today I will leave you with that data to ponder until next time.  No further discussion or conclusions now — I’ll leave that until I’ve spread a bit more data before you.  Having now looked at the numbers as the whole group of presbyteries next time I’ll split the presbyteries apart into a couple of different groupings and see if that shows anything interesting.  After that I’ll expand the study to include all four votes and ask whether any given year is different, or different enough.

Church Property Case Headed For The U.S. Supreme Court

Leave a reply

I was right in concept but picked the wrong case.  My money was on Episcopal Diocese of Rochester v. Harnish for the first case to go to the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify issues of church property and the trust clause.  That was the case earlier decided by a state supreme court (New York) as opposed to the case of St. James Episcopal Church, part of the California Episcopal Church Cases.  The California Supreme Court sent that back down to the trial court to have it heard and decided based on the concept of “neutral principles.”

Well, St. James Church announced yesterday that it would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the California Court decision.  As the press release on the church web site says:

St. James Anglican Church, at the centerpiece of a nationally
publicized church property dispute with the Episcopal Church, announced
today that it will file a petition for writ of certiorari with the
United States Supreme Court to resolve an important issue of religious
freedom: Does the United States Constitution, which both prohibits the
establishment of religion and protects the free exercise of religion,
allow certain religious denominations to disregard the normal rules of
property ownership that apply to everyone else?

To put the legal question another way – “Can a hierarchical church impose a property trust clause on a particular church without their explicit consent” as the California Supreme Court decided.  Or to put it another way, when the trust clause was added to the Episcopal Canons did the individual churches implicitly agree and accept them.  Hierarchical churches are the one case where California law allows a trust to be imposed on a corporation.  The particular church wants a decision if that is constitutional.  (Yes, I am highly simplifying the legal issue here while hopefully still conveying the essence of the question.)

I must admit that as I look over these cases again I have to think “be careful what you ask for.”  The majority California decision was argued that it was based upon neutral principles of law while basically siding with the hierarchical church in this case.  Justice Kennard’s separate decision basically called the rest of the court on this and said “if you are going to side with the hierarchical church in this way at least be honest and call it principle of government.”  And J. Kennard is very direct about it:

In my view, Corporations Code section 9142 reflects the principle of government approach. That statute allows a hierarchical church, such as the Episcopal Church here, through its bylaws to unilaterally impose a trust on the property of a local member parish. The statute does not state a neutral principle of law; rather, it creates a special principle applicable solely to religious corporations.

I’m not sure I would wager money that the U.S. Supreme Court would take this approach, but I could see them concurring with this overall case but using it to strengthen the principle of government theory.  My thoughts on it and I’ve been wrong before.

So we are back to watching this move through the judicial process.  We will have to see if the court accepts the case, when arguments are heard and when a decision is handed down.  Clearly this process will take a year if not more.  But the decision will affect court cases in multiple denominations with many different individual cases now in the courts.