The 67th, and last, General Synod of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Ghana

Leave a reply

As the “General Assembly Season” winds down we come to the meetings of the two Presbyterian Churches in Ghana.  First, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Ghana.

The title of my post does not imply that the church is going away, rather that one of the actions of the EPCG was to reorganize their highest governing body to be the General Assembly instead of the General Synod.  In an interesting move, the EPCG is also “upgrading” their presbyteries to synods, apparently leaving the church without presbyteries at this time.  It is not clear if the church structure is intended to stay this way or if this paves the way for the creation of new presbyteries within the synods.  It was announced that this change is being made to bring the EPCG in line with “international practice.”

The theme of the General Synod, which concluded today, was “Called to Serve” and it was attended by 133 delegates.  The new moderator of the EPCG is the Rev. Francis Amenu who succeeds the Rev. Dr. Livingstone Buama who has reached the eight year limit on his service in that position.  In addition the Rev. Godwin K. Osiakwa was elected the new clerk.  The Rev. Amenu is a second-career minister, having been originally trained as a mining engineer.  Both Rev. Amenu and Rev. Osiakwa received their theological training abroad, Rev. Amenu in Indianapolis, Indiana, in the US and Rev. Osiakwa in Cambridge in the UK.

In line with the theme of the Synod, the Rev. Buama, in his sermon marking his conclusion as Moderator, said:

“Called to serve” was meant to be a wake-up call that can remind us and
challenge us to change our posture and disposition towards our vocation
and calling.

My key submission is that, if things are not
changing as they should, it is because we are not serving as we
should.

The kind of service that move things forward or effect a
change for the better in the church, the nation and the world at large
is not lip-service, but visible, tangible purposeful and sustained
service.

We are to excel in serving and not in power struggle and self-aggrandisements.

The Synod also heard from Mr. Kofi Dzamesi, the Volta Regional Minister, who urged the church, with its influence on the people of Ghana, to encourage and work for a peaceful election in December.  He urged the church’s nutrality in the elections to enhance its position as a steadying influence.  He also promised to work with the District Assemblies to help with financial support for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church University College.

For more coverage of this General Synod there are articles on Joy Online and Ghana News.

Closely Watched Judicial Cases Affecting the PC(USA) Scheduled For October

Leave a reply

We got news this week that two closely watched judicial cases with implications for the Presbyterian Church (USA) will be heard by their appropriate judicial bodies this coming October.

The first of these will be the trial of the Rev. Janet Edwards by the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbytery of Pittsburgh on October 1.

This hit the news last week with a news release by the Presbyterian News Service about the case.  I am at a bit of a loss to explain the release of this news item at this time unless a) it was a slow news day or b) the trial date was announced.  I’ve been looking for documents related to the trial on line and not finding any so all I can say is that I suspect, but can not confirm, option b.

A quick recap of this case:  The Rev. Janet Edwards preformed a same-sex ceremony for a lesbian couple back in June, 2005, and everyone involved with the ceremony is describing it as a “wedding.”  A complaint was made, an investigating committee formed, and the investigating committee filed charges.  One little problem… The charges were filed four days past the deadline that investigating committee had to meet so the Presbytery PJC dismissed the charges.  A new complaint was made, a new investigating commission went to work and filed five charges, in a timely manner, and back in June the PJC reviewed the charges and dismissed three of the five.  Among the new charges was the accusation that parts of the ceremony were not Christian, but contained Buddhist elements related to the beliefs of one of the partners.  That was part of what was dismissed on the theory that if a ceremony is prohibited in the first place you can’t specify how it should be done properly and what is improper.  (If that theory sounds familiar hold the thought, I’ll get back to it in a minute.) (Story on the dismissal from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.)

A few notes and comments on the story so far:  In researching this I have seen several references (like this article) to the original dismissal as being for “statute of limitations.”  While I am not a lawyer I understand the statute of limitations to relate to the offending action not to the judicial process itself.  Since the investigating committee missed a deadline this would be an administrative problem.  And since the charges were brought up again clearly it is still within the time limit on the alleged infraction.  Related to the charges being brought up again, this new hearing has also been referred to as “double-jeopardy.”  Again, the first case did not actually go to a “guilty/not guilty” decision, therefore it is not double jeopardy in my understanding of the process.

It is interesting to consider the outcome of this case.  It would have been within the realm of possibility, based on the current legal precedent, that all the charges against the Rev. Edwards were dismissed back in June since that hearing was after the Spahr v. Redwoods Decision in April.  That decision said “By the definition in W-4.9001, a same sex ceremony can never be a marriage.”  It went on to conclude that since it can’t be a marriage the minister can not be guilty of preforming a same-sex marriage.  All the Presbytery PJC had to do was cite this precedent and “game over.”  But this result would have been about as unsatisfying as the GAPJC decision.  And the dismissal of three of the charges does have that similar ring of legal reasoning.  (I am not a church lawyer so if I missed a critical point in our polity here related to the hearing or dismissing the case please let me know.)

So it appears that the PJC sees a point in hearing this case.  It could be that Edwards will be acquitted based on the Spahr decision.  It could be that she will be acquitted or found guilty on the merits, rather than the definitions, of this case alone.  If it is decided on its own merits I would expect this to make its way up the judicial ladder and it could be the case for a more satisfying decision by the GAPJC.  The GAPJC has eight new members elected at the last GA so the balance or dynamics of the body may change.  We will have to see.

In the latest Presbyterian News Service article Rev. Edwards is quoted as saying “I’m sure that we will press the parts of the Spahr decision that
supports my presiding at the wedding and calling Brenda and Nancy’s
relationship a marriage. We see a lot of positive
things in the Spahr decision.”  I would say to be careful what you ask for because by the Spahr decision says that by definition the relationship can not be a marriage.  The Rev. Edwards has a web site with information about the case called “A Time To Embrace” on which she has posted a statement in her defense.  The brief makes specific reference to W-4.9001.  After the GAPJC made clear in the Spahr decision that this is the definition of marriage and anything that deviates from this is not a marriage, Rev. Edwards now argues (p. 31) “[W-4.9001] is definitional in nature only, and contains none of the language that the Book of Order instructs must be present to set forth a mandate or a prohibition.”  The brief goes on to argue that there is no prohibition on same-gender marriage ceremonies, seeming to ignore that the fact that one of the decisions they cite says there are no such thing as same-gender marriage ceremonies based upon the Book of Order passage Edwards’ cites.  While Edwards’ brief does briefly mention the definition in the Spahr, it puts much more emphasis that an acquittal is in order because the charges are vague and not defensible.

There is one additional point in the brief that I find interesting.  It makes note of the action by the 218th General Assembly to vacate previous Authoritative Interpretations regarding the ordination of self-acknowledged practicing homosexuals, and it discusses the GAPJC’s divided interpretation of W-4.9001 as to its applicibility as a prohibition against future same-gender marriage ceremonies.  The brief does not mention that the 218th General Assembly, by a wide margin (I got it right that time), voted not to propose changes to W-4.9001.

Well, that was more of a point-by-point analysis than I had planned.  OK, on to the second case…

Regarding the second judicial case, I was notified two days ago that trial is now set to begin on the “Episcopal Church Cases” before the California Supreme Court on October 8.  Don’t let the “Episcopal” distract you; there are amicus curiae briefs for this case filed by Clifton Kirkpatrick and the national office, the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii, and the Presbyterian Lay Committee.

This case is a test case on church property in California and comes from three linked cases out of Los Angeles and Orange Counties where three Episcopal Churches tried to realign with other Anglican communions outside the US and the Dioceses went to court to keep the property.  The case is highlighted by the fact that in this particular case the Appellate Court decision used the “highest government” legal theory, which favored the hierarchical church and ruled against the particular churches in their bid to hold onto property, while other Appellate Court decisions have used the “neutral-principles analysis” which would favor the particular congregation.  With both on the books the Supreme Court took the case and will decide on the proper legal theory for our state.

I probably don’t need to remind any regular readers that there is a lot riding on this state Supreme Court decision.  Along the length of the State of California there are Presbyterian, as well as Episcopal, churches trying to get out with their property and there are rumblings of more waiting in the wings for this decision.  I don’t know how the decision in this case could influence other places in the country, but it could have a major influence on the denominational map in California.  Then again, we could go with the “Graceful Seperation” that General Assembly endorsed.  Again, time will tell.

72nd General Synod (2008) of the Bible Presbyterian Church

1 Reply

The 72nd General Synod of the Bible Presbyterian Church was held in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, from July 31 to August 5.  This is the highest governing body of the BPC which is the smallest of the Presbyterian Branches that I try to follow.  It has only five presbyteries and lists 25 churches on it’s church directory web page.  The theme of the General Synod was “Beholding God, Pursuing Godliness, Proclaiming Christ.”

I have seen no official news about the General Synod yet, but in response to a specific question posted on PuritanBoard the new Stated Clerk of the Synod, the Rev. John T. Dyck, posted a brief summary and an answer to the question.

Rev. Dyck summarizes the meeting saying “Overall, we had a very good synod. There is a renewed resolve amongst
our men to focus on evangelism and church planting as we seek to
rebuild our federation.”

What seems to be the major item of the meeting, and what prompted the question, was the vote by the South Atlantic Presbytery (SAP) to disassociate from the BPC.  (No future association was specified.)  Now, under BPC polity it is clear that congregations and ministers may freely leave the denomination “no questions asked,” or at least without any resistance.  The action by SAP brings up the polity question of whether the same holds for presbyteries, to which the General Synod made it clear that it does not.  First, “the presbytery is a creation of the synod and subject to its oversight; it does not exist independently.”  Second, “we do not believe that [the members of presbytery] had authority to speak for their individual churches without congregational meetings.”  Finally, some members of presbytery voted against the action and by doing so chose to remain associated with the BPC.

Rev. Dyck also notes that a protest was filed with the denomination’s Judicial Appeals Commission and as an administrative action (as clarified in a second post) the Commission has declared them the continuing presbytery and minister members and sessions of the previous SAP are being asked to clarify their status with the denomination.

I noted in my comments on the Orthodox Presbyterian Church General Assembly that the fraternal representative from the BPC to the OPC GA explicitly mentioned the differences of opinion in the BPC over the continuing correspondence with the OPC.  Rev. Dyck hints at that when he says “The BPC continues to have Corresponding Relations with the OPC. Rev Tom Tyson was their representative to our synod.”  (It is helpful to understand that the BPC broke with the OPC shortly after the OPC broke with the mainline Presbyterians back in the late 1930’s.)

I’ll post a follow-up if there is new and interesting information in either an official report on the General Synod, or actions appear on the BPC’s Resolutions Passed page.

Sprint or Marathon

Leave a reply

Watching the Olympics this evening it was interesting the juxtaposition of the pre-recorded men’s 100 m sprint (dash) interspersed with the live women’s marathon.  Then later in the evening again the live swimming coverage began with the women’s 50 m and was followed by the men’s 1500 m.  It both categories was the shortest event paired with the longest event.

In each case the strategy for running (or swimming) the race is different:  all-out for the sprint, pace yourself for the distance.  The start is incredibly important for the sprint, not as much for the distance.  When the sprint starts the eyes are on the finish line, when the marathon started every one of the competitors looked down at their watch as they started it so they would know their pace.  For me, the latter image of starting the watch so you have a “standard” or “measure” to guide you is one of the strongest object lessons I have seen in these games.

Now you could come up with all sorts of object lessons from both the sprints or the distance events:  Pacing yourself versus keeping your eyes on the goal; having the endurance for the long race versus the importance of all aspects, start, sprint, and finish for the short distance.  One of the interesting lessons from the Romanian woman who won the marathon (who lives and trains in the US) is the commentators’ comment that she figures out her strategy for the race and then runs it regardless of what is happening around her.  Another interesting and related object lesson is that after she made her move (she was about a minute ahead of her closest competitor for the last 10 miles of the race) she did not look back until she got close to the finish. 

[Other inspirations this evening: The marathon winner, Constantina Tomescu, and U.S. Swimmer Dara Torres, with an individual silver in the 50 m freestyle, were second oldest and oldest competitors in the events at 38 and 41 years old.  As Dara said later “You don’t have to put an age limit on your dreams.”  And the 1500 m swimming event was won by Oussama Mellouli from Tunisia, the first swimming medal ever for Tunisia (although he also lives and trains in the US).]

So, if our Christian life is a marathon, set your pace, run your race, don’t let the pack throw you off your plan to reach the goal.

Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses,
let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily
entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. – Hebrews 12:1

The Church — Integrated Not Institutional?

3 Replies

There are some big happenings just south of here in Orange County this weekend.

The Presbyterian Global Fellowship is holding their third annual Inside-Out Conference in Long Beach this weekend. For details of what is happening you can check out the PGF Outbox blog.  (For the GA Junkies out there this is the same convention center that was the site of the 212th General Assembly (2000) of the PC(USA).)

There’s also some political event going on at a megachurch down there.  With the price of one of the good seats at $2000 I’m skipping it.  But seriously, this blending (blurring?) of church and state has raised issues with some people. (Example 1 and Example 2 from On Faith)

But I want to take a step back from this direct and high-profile political involvement and mention another church and culture article.  This comes from David Virtue of Virtue Online and in a recent post he discusses a book by Dr. Peter Hammond titled Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat. (now apparently out of print)  Mr. Virtue begins his entry with this:

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.

Islam
has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The
religious component is a beard for all the other components.

You may or may not agree with this and if you agree you may consider the concept of a complete system a positive or a negative (Mr. Virtue goes on to discuss it as a negative).  But it struck me that a scholar and friend of mine views the ancient Hebrew society as a complete system with implications for the modern Christian Church to be integrated in society, not an institution outside it.  This is not that the United States should be a theocracy, but rather how Christians corporately and individually participate in our culture.  And yes, this flies in the face of American individualism and the church as just a spiritual institution.

The Rev. Dr. Robert Linthicum is a parish associate at our church and head of the parachurch organization Partners in Urban Transformation.  Previously an urban parish minister and leader at World Vision in urban ministry, he is an expert in community organizing.  With his background and study he has a theological perspective that sees the Biblical instructions to ancient Israel as a complete system, an integration of their spiritual, economic and political life so that there are no rich or poor but a culture that is equitable to everyone.  And through this lens he reads the rest of the Bible to see God’s people as the workers for God’s social vision even today.

Now, you may not agree with his theological viewpoint; I can say that I am not in total agreement with some of the things I have heard Bob say.  But in the same way that Mr. Virtue is discussing Islam as a complete system, this particular view has ancient Israel intended to be a complete system and the Christian Church the inheritors of that legacy.

I have been trying to find a good resource on line that explains some of this but have not located any.  You can get some of this viewpoint from one of Rev. Linthicum’s sermons (larger mp3, smaller wma).  His central books on this are Transforming Power and Building a People of Power.

For consideration.  Your mileage may vary.

For All Have Sinned And Fall Short Of The Glory Of God

1 Reply

When the rumors about John Edwards’ sexual impropriety turned into a full-blown news story and then a confession I sort of shrugged and thought “this is not news, it is a reminder.”  First, this has happened before, and second being in a Reformed denomination “sin” is not just something we do, “sinful” is something that we are.  So I pretty much stopped following the story, what with the situation in the country of Georgia and the Olympics seeming a lot more important.  One thing that did catch my attention in many of those news reports was that so many of them contained a litany of other politicians from both sides of the aisle that had their own problems with marital infidelity.

But today I came across an article on Ethics Daily that pointed out an interesting twist on this story:  Back in June of 2007 on a CNN candidates forum about politics and religion Edwards was asked about the “Biggest sin he had ever committed.”  He gave a typical non-committal answer that he sins multiple times every day and that we are all sinners, that we all fall short, and we all need to confess and repent.

What caught my attention was not so much that he said this on the air after his affair had ended, but rather the article pointed out that when he issued his statement this week the affair was not referred to in terms that would sound as much like a “sin” but “a serious error in judgment.”  While this wording avoids the cosmic implications, I will give him credit that at the end of the statement he acknowledges that he lost perspective and uses scripture-like language about being “stripped” and “made low”:

In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was
special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you
want to beat me up — feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have
already beaten up myself. I have been stripped bare and will now work
with everything I have to help my family and others who need my help.

But in thinking about this another thing jumped out at me which has been one of my criticisms of G-6.0106b in the PC(USA) Book of Order:  At the present time we have two ethics situations playing out among prominent national politicians — John Edwards’ sexual impropriety and Ted Stevens’ indictment for financial impropriety.  Which is getting more press?  Is one of these a “bigger sin” than the other.  OK, I’ll admit that there is a confession and the “other woman” in the Edwards case and Stevens’ is denying any wrong-doing.  Still, in the case of Edwards no civil laws were broken while Stevens has criminal charges against him.  In general, it seems to me that a national figure’s sexual sins get bigger play in the media than other types of wrong doing.  If you believe Google News counts, John Edwards has 17,500 while Ted Stevens has 7,000.

As I suggested above, the PC(USA) has done something similar with the Book of Order.  While G-6.0106b talks about “any self-acknowledged practice the confessions call sin” the section singles out “fidelity and chastity.”  I am not so much advocating change in the language as I am for perspective and balance in how we regard different sins.  Even in sexual sins, do we give the same weight and seriousness to heterosexual adultery by officers of the church as we do with homosexual relationships?

For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. [Romans 3:23]

(And just in case you thought about the irony of John Edwards name, some headline writer at the Hartford Courant did produce “J. Edwards in the hands of an angry God” for one of their columnists although the column seems to have no religious references.  Sometimes a good headline is hard to pass up.)

75th General Assembly (2008) of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Leave a reply

The 75th General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church was held at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, Washington, from Wednesday July 9 to Wednesday July 16, 2008.  There were around 150 OPC commissioners and fraternal delegates.  The OPC web site has a GA Report web page that was updated regularly throughout the week written by the Rev. James J. Cassidy with editing by Stephen Pribble, Linda Foh, and Barry Traver.  My report below is a summary and commentary on that report.

Business began with worship, including the Word preached by the Moderator of the 74th GA, the Rev. Robert Y. Eckardt.  After the roll call of commissioners and seating of fraternal delegates the floor was opened for nominations for Moderator.  The Rev. Alan Strange, Associate Professor of Church History at Mid-America Reformed Seminary was the only nominee and so was elected by acclimation and applause.  Following his installation of the Moderator the commissioners received their Advisory Committee assignments and the Assembly adjourned for the night.  [The Advisory Committees are the commissioner committees of the GA’s of other branches and as a PC(USA) based GA Junkie I have to keep straight their acronym “AC” which to me stands for “Administrative Commission.”]

On Thursday the commissioners worked throughout the day in committees and gathered in plenary in the evening to hear the reports of the Stated Clerk, Trustees, Statistician.  In addition all of these individuals were re-elected to serve again in those capacities for the coming year.  The Statistician reported a growth in the OPC of eight churches and 221 individuals.  Proportionately this is growth of about 3/4 of 1%, but it is growth even with the departure of one large congregation.

The evening session also included the report of the Committee on Coordination that works with three other standing committees for a unified Worldwide Outreach by the OPC.  One of these three committees then reported, the Committee on Christian Education.  One emphasis of the committee has been on recruiting young men for the ministry since at this time almost half of the active OPC ministers are over the age of 50.  It was also reported that a new Psalter-hymnal is in preparation for publication in 2011 and a report on the continued partnership with the PCA in their publishing arm, Great Commission Publications.

On Friday the Assembly heard the report from the Committee on Home Missions and Church Extension, including the information that there are currently 20 church planters working around the country with support from the denomination.  There was also a report on Foreign Missions and the outreach work of the church around the world.

There was a greeting from fraternal delegate the Rev. Kevin Backus from the Bible Presbyterian Church who was straight forward in his report of disagreements in the BPC over the relationship with the OPC.  In the end the BPC has chosen to remain in communication with the OPC despite the loss of some members over that decision.

On Saturday Dr. D. Clair Davis brought a word from the Presbyterian Church in America.  The report describes his comments:

He expressed how happy he was to hear the foreign and home missions
reports—”God has been good to you!” Dr. Davis explained that the PCA
grew by 1.5 percent last year, but 1/3 of the congregations are under
50 members, and 2/3 under 100. In other words, Redeemer Church in
Manhattan is not a typical PCA congregation. “Have we traded in
doctrine and life for church growth? I don’t think so. If we did, we
got cheated.” He went on to say that WCF 15:5 (which reads: “Men ought
not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every
man’s duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins particularly”)
has something to teach us. We need to repent of not just being
separate, but for what we have said and left unsaid. He encouraged us
to get to know each other better, and have lunch with a local PCA
pastor. And lastly, Dr. Davis shared something of what the PCA is doing
to reach Muslims today. More and more Muslims are making their way into
Europe and America, and thus we have an opportunity to reach them: “I
urge you to support us and work with us in the conversion of Islam for
the glory of Jesus Christ.” After his address Dr. Davis received a
standing ovation.

[If you did not get the reference to Redeemer Church in New York City, that is the multi-site “mega-church” whose head of staff is the Rev. Tim Keller.]

On Monday the Assembly considered the two overtures (yes, two compared to the 100+ for the PC(USA) and 19 for the PCA) presbyteries had sent to the GA.  The first considered was a request that the Presbytery of New Jersey expand its boundaries to include Puerto Rico.  The Assembly Committee that considered it recommended approval and the Assembly agreed.  The second overture, from the Presbytery of the Northwest, proposed a change in the process for a congregation to withdraw from the denomination (Form of Government XVI:7:a) that would change the time for the presbytery to respond from three weeks to “as soon as possible.”  The requested change was disapproved.  (I have not found the texts of the overtures but I am curious if the rational wants to allow the presbyteries less or more time to respond, probably more.  It is also interesting that this change is in the spirit of PC(USA) Form of Government revision that proposes to remove specific time frames from the polity.)

Other regular business before the Assembly included the approval of the records review, ratification of new member denominations for both the North Americans Presbyterian and Reformed Council and the Presbyterian and Reformed Joint Committee on Chaplains and Military Personnel, invitation of churches into corresponding relations with the OPC, and hearing reports on Interchurch Relations, Chaplaincy, and from the Historian.  These routine matters also included the rejection of a change to the constitution of the International Conference of Reformed Churches that would have introduced a bit more flexibility in the confessional standards a denomination must hold to be a member.  In another difficult matter, the committee on pensions had to report that while the pension fund was doing all right, the medical fund was not.  The Assembly voted to disband the fund in early 2009 and assist churches in finding alternate medical coverage for ministers.  In this and other reports churches were encouraged to look after their ministers.  On a better note, there were no judicial appeals for the Assembly to hear and deliberate on this year.  (Much as the PJC or SJC would hear and decide a case on appeal from a presbytery or synod.)

The balance of the Assembly’s time was spent deliberating and discussing the Amended Proposed Revised Version of the Directory for the Public Worship of God (APRV).  This has been in the works for a number of years, and in fact the 74th General Assembly began work on the revision last year, knowing that they would not finish the task.  It was with great rejoicing that this year’s GA did finish, but not without a significant amount of time and parliamentary deliberation.  By my count, of the rough equivalent total time of five days of plenary meeting time, almost three full days were spent on the APRV, and as I said, they picked up with they left off last year.  If you want the blow-by-blow description you will have to check out the report, although Rev. Cassidy says in the report that even he is not capturing everything.  I have picked out three details of the discussion that struck me to highlight.

1)  As I read through the report, it seems that the most time was spent debating the third membership vow:

Do you confess that because of your sinfulness you abhor and humble
yourself before God, that you repent of your sin, and that you trust
for salvation not in yourself but in Jesus Christ alone?

There was extended time, like a whole evening and then continuing on into the next assembly session, debating the precise wording of this vow.  Among other things, how the word “abhor” was used and its context in the vow.  In the end, after several (numerous?) proposed changes, the original language was retained.

2)  The second item was closely related to this:  Later in the debate a protest was filed that begins:

The undersigned protest against the action of the seventy-fifth General
Assembly in mandating the use of the exact language of the membership
vows, and furthermore in adopting language that is not acceptable to
several members of the Assembly, thereby binding consciences beyond
what was required of them at their ordination vows.

It then goes on to argue that  this has pastoral implications and that by requiring specific language a session can not have scruples over the specific language.  (Scruples are not just a concept or issue in the PC(USA))  A motion to reconsider was requested.  Seeing a time-sink ahead of them they did the logical think and took a break for dinner.   After dinner the motion was made and passed to reconsider the previous action.  Specifically, all this dealt with a revised footnote that now allowed modification of the vows only in the case where an individual could not understand them in their exact form.  After further consideration the Assembly returned the footnote to say that a session did have the power to modify the language of the vows for their church but  must note the change in the minutes.  With passage of that wording the protest was withdrawn.

3)  Monday morning the motion was made to recommit the APRV to the committee that drafted it with instructions for them to review it and break out the portions of it that are not specifically guided or directed by scripture and place those portions into a manual.  (Like one of the guiding principles in the PC(USA) for the revision to the Form of Government.)  This would have reduced the Directory in size and brought it back to the next GA for word smithing.  The vote on this motion to recommit was first postponed to Monday evening, then postponed again to Tuesday morning, and postponed again to Tuesday evening where the motion was finally voted upon and failed 46 to 88.

This is not the end of the saga for the APRV, but it is now one major step closer to being published in a few years.  The next assembly will have to finalize the changes, and propose the changes to the Book of Church Order where the new Directory affects it.  While the process was long, and from Rev. Cassidy’s fine description it appears to have been as loaded with parliamentary procedure as any major decision in a Presbyterian General Assembly is, the Assembly took the job seriously and got through it.  In the PC(USA) the Assembly did not have the time to work through the revised Form of Government.  For this and other reasons they handed it off to a task force for further review and comment by the presbyteries.  But in our Presbyterian system this is not just a parliamentary exercise but our way of discerning God’s will.  As Rev. Cassidy says in the report:

It is a humbling thing to know that we are working on something so
awesome. This is all about the glorification of God’s great name! May
we not lose sight of this as we work to the point of weariness on this
Directory. This is not mere word-smithing or an exercise in rhetoric or
debating skills. This is to the end that God might be glorified in the
worship of his people.

Thank you Rev. Cassidy for your report.

Finally, and if this was in the report in past years I don’t remember it, the OPC GA presented the “jack-in-the-box award.”  This award is for the commissioner who jumps up to the microphone to speak from the floor the greatest number of times and is a regular unofficial report from the Church of Scotland staff.  The award itself was a Machen bobble-head doll.  How appropriate.

PC Ireland Church Technology Camp Follow-up

2 Replies

About two months ago I posted about a summer camp the Presbyterian Church in Ireland holds for youth who are interested in technology.  Well, that camp happened last week and if you want a report on their activities you can check out the entries by Alan in Belfast, one of the organizers/leaders of the camp.  He currently has two posts, one about Day One, and another with some more of their Creative Activities.

Modern Echos of the Adopting Act of 1729

3 Replies

The past couple of weeks I have been vacationing with extended family
and doing more reading and thinking than writing here.  I finally had
time to concentrate on the book Seeking a better country:  300 years of
American Presbyterianism by D. G. Hart and John R. Muether (2007,
P&R Publishing).  As a GA Junkie, I have found it a fascinating read
that fills in a bunch of details about events that I’m generally
familiar with.  It provides an expanded version of Hart and Muether’s
great series of articles in New Horizons, a publication of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.  (I was not the only one reading this on vacation this summer.)

As they trace American Presbyterian history and get closer to the
modern day their OPC perspective becomes a bit more significant in both
an obvious protagonist as well as one basic thesis of the work.  They
do a good job of developing this thesis and (spoiler alert) I’ll
mention it in my discussion below. (Don’t read on if you want it
developed their way.)

So, in tracing our history they show how we
Presbyterians are still involved in the same types of dysfunctional
behavior, if not necessarily arguing over the same issues, that have been part of our collective history for over 300 years now.  For them, the root problem can be summed up as “Presbyterian Identity” and if we have any now, and maybe whether we every really had it.

Part I of the book deals with American Presbyterian History from 1706
to 1789.  If those years don’t immediately register with you, 1706 is
the establishment of the first presbytery, and 1789 the first meeting
of the General Assembly.  But Presbyterian history in this time period
is dominated by the Adopting Act of 1729, a document which still casts
a long shadow even today.

If the Adopting Act does not ring a bell, it may surprise you that the
PC(USA)’s current controversies have a direct lineage back to the
Adopting Act.  It is the originating document for the concept of
“scrupling” which was recommended by the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity and which the PC(USA) has been trying to
figure out the last few years.

The Adopting Act of 1729 dealt with the need for doctrinal unity
through subscription to the Westminster Standards at a time when the Presbyterian church was looking for something to unite them.  Throughout the book it is Hart and Muether’s argument, at least as I read it, that the Westminster Standards are central to our “Presbyterian Identity” so that departing from them is to confuse or blur, if not abandon, our identity.  It is interesting
to note that within American Presbyterianism today I think that almost all the other
American Presbyterian branches, other than the PC(USA), still has subscription to the Standards, or one of the American revisions (that is another topic).

So where does “scrupling” fit in?  The Adopting Act says:

All the Ministers of this Synod now present, except one, [list of ministers deleted] after proposing all the scruples that
any of them had to make against any articles and expressions in the Confession
of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines
at Westminster, have unanimously agreed in the solution of those scruples,
and in declaring the said Confession and Catechisms to be the confession
of their faith, excepting only some clauses in the twentieth and twenty-third
chapters, concerning which clauses the Synod do unanimously declare, that
they do not received those articles in any such sense as to suppose the
civil magistrate hath a controlling power over Synods with respect to
the exercise of their ministerial authority; or power to persecute any
for their religion, or in any sense contrary to the Protestant succession
to the throne of Great Britain.

The Synod observing that unanimity, peace, and unity, which appeared
in all their consultations and determinations relating to the affair of
the Confession, did unanimously agree in giving thanks to God in solemn
prayer and praises.

While the Task Force report mentions this as the origin of scrupling, it does not point out that what was scrupled were not sections dealing with what we usually think of as central Christian doctrine, but were clauses dealing with the civil magistrate and church and state relationships, something that was more attuned to the state church environment the Westminster Standards were written in than colonial America.  But the book also makes clear that ever since the church has been arguing over what is “essential.”

It is important to note that the content of these passages was pointed out at the time of the release of the Task Force report by, among others, Toby Brown on Classical Presbyterian.

Another interesting note is that the very next year the Synod (at that time the highest governing body) was overtured for clarification of what could be exceptions, and their response was that they understood the clauses that were open to exception “in the same manner, and as fully as the members of Synod did, that were then present.”  In other words they pointed to their exceptions from the year before.

Now I am nowhere close to being an expert on the Adopting Act, but Hart and Muether, while acknowledging disagreements and ambiguity in strict subscription, seem to hold up these limited points of departure as what was acceptable to the original 1729 Synod and reaffirmed by the 1730 Synod.

But the outward unity of the American Presbyterian church only lasted another decade until 1741 when there was the Old Side/New Side split over “experiential” requirements for ordination in some New Side presbyteries.  These presbyteries were looking for “spiritual zeal” demonstrated in, among other things, having a conversion experience.  This was brought to a head by the arrival of George Whitefield and the “Great Awakening.”  (Note: Don’t confuse this with the much more serious and prolonged Old School/New School division of the next century.)

But one of the issues that was heavily debated was the role of Synod in ordaining candidates.  While New Side leaders passionately argued for presbytery sovereignty, Old Side members wanted some assurance of doctrinal consistency in the process.  (Sound familiar?)

Interestingly, after the division the New Side instituted creedal subscription and presbytery adherence to synod decisions.  The Old Side and New Side were really not too far apart and for much of the 17 year division were in correspondence about reunion.  While not exactly the same, there may be a modern echo here in some of the renewal groups calls for “parallel” churches, or as the PFR statement says “remaining engaged but distinct.”

One of the interesting results of reunion was that in places the two Sides did remain engaged but distinct with the perpetuation of Old Side and New Side presbyteries.  In particular there was the New Side Philadelphia Presbytery and the Old Side Second Presbytery of Philadelphia.  To anyone following the last two PC(USA) General Assemblies it is interesting to note that there is a precedent for the affinity presbyteries for which there have been overtures.  And it is also interesting to note that Second of Philadelphia continued almost right up to the Old School/New School split of 1838.

Finally, there are multiple echoes of the theological education controversy of that time period.  There was an on-going discussion and dispute over the “Log College” in Pennsylvania.  While it is an indirect predecessor of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), the Log College itself was a small theological training institution tied to the New Side and revivalism.  The discussions held then about the educational depth of ministers trained at the Log College versus the larger institutions like Harvard, Yale or European Universities sounds almost exactly like the discussions currently happening in the Church of Scotland over whether ministers can be trained at the Highland Theological College or whether they must get their education at the larger established universities like Edinburgh or Glasgow.

But the subscription question related to theological education that was present in the controversy around the Log College is also present today in the controversy related to Prof. Peter Enns departure from Westminster Theological Seminary.  In a current article on the WTS web site, Carl Trueman, Vice-president for Academic Affairs discusses the idea that academic freedom does not trump confessional standards and the need for a seminary to adhere to denominational norms.  (H/T: Heidelblog)

Now, I have been intentionally brief in summarizing these controversies because my focus here was simply to note that in my reading the book it struck me that “there is nothing new under the sun.”  In any one of these controversies there is a lot more depth and complexity that I did not touch upon.  Further investigation of those is left as an exercise for the reader.

But across different Presbyterian branches today we are sill engaged in discussions about theological, doctrinal, and polity tensions that have been with us since the founding of American Presbyterianism.  “Reformed and Always Reforming According to the Word of God”