What Language Do You Speak?

Leave a reply

In our presbytery Pentecost takes on additional meaning:  On any Sunday we have congregations worshiping in ten languages.  While not quite up to the list of fifteen enumerated in Acts 2, (and seventeen if you implicitly include Aramaic and Greek), our area is over half-way there.

But yesterday, as I was making my way on public transportation to a meeting at the synod offices, I began reflecting on the “other” languages.  Now this is Los Angeles, so while the local list might include several of the spoken languages mentioned in Acts, it was actually the “unspoken” languages that grabbed my attention.  What began this line of thought was a car that stopped in the second lane to let the subcompact that was trapped behind my stopped bus get out and around.  The gentleman in the fancy SUV behind the car that allowed the other in must have been in a hurry because this moment of grace on the first driver’s part elicited a honk on the car horn and a hand wave (not obscene) that said “what are you doing” or “get moving” from the driver of the SUV.  Communication in non-spoken language.

This triggered my asking the question: In this day and age, what does it mean to be empowered by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the Gospel to “every nation under heaven”?  Yes, foreign missions are important.  But with all the discussion over the last week about what it means to be “evangelical” (again) and whether there is a coherent concept of “emergent,” I began reflecting on speaking the “cultural” languages.

Do we, the institutional church, speak in a language that those who have never been to church will understand?  Do we, as the mainline church, speak in a language that my children will hear?  Do we, as a historic church, speak in a language that modern upwardly-mobile professionals will listen to?  Do we, as a traditional church, speak in a language that those throughout the theological spectrum can relate to?

Please be very clear:  In the Pentecost account Peter preached the Gospel message rooted in the scriptures of the Hebrew tradition.  I am not advocating changing the Gospel message for the audience.  I am asking whether we communicate it in a language, form or way that the different “nations” (think “people groups”) of our modern American society can understand. 

Now, I realize the argument can be made that there is not agreement on some of the fine points of the Gospel message.  That is not my point here.  Whatever nuances a church may put on the Gospel message, they may present the same consistent message in multiple ways to multiple groups. (traditional, blended, contemporary, modern, emergent, to use some of the buzz words)  The point is that a consistent message can be delivered faithfully in multiple cultural contexts.

Also, I realize that the Pentecost story in Acts is first and foremost about God taking the initiative in the sending of the Holy Spirit.  (Being in the Reformed traditions we believe that the initiative is always with God.)  So God acts and the apostles respond, to the end that the Gospel is preached and people come to believe in Jesus Christ.

So in this day and age, are we open to contemporary movements of the Holy Spirit empowering the church to proclaim the Gospel in faithful ways, yet in a different “tongue”?

Upcoming PC(USA) General Assembly — I Posted Too Soon

Leave a reply

In my post yesterday I said that I had no word of additional challengers for the position of Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA).  Well, this afternoon brings a Presbyterian News Service article that there are four candidates:

The search committee nominee, insider and heir apparent – Rev. Gradye Parsons

The initial challenger – Rev. Edward Koster

Newly announced – Rev. Winfield “Casey” Jones

Newly announced – Rev. William P. Tarbell

You can read about the Rev. Parsons all over the PC(USA) web site, such as his own GA page, as the official nominee, and there is the original Presbyterian News Service article and my initial comments.

While Rev. Parsons is currently featured on the Stated Clerk search web page, to be fair the page currently reprints part of today’s article and will soon have info on all the candidates now that the declaration deadline has passed.

I talked about the Rev. Koster when he first announced and he had a News Service article written about him as well.

The article says that both Rev. Jones and Rev. Tarbell filed their declarations at the deadline on Wednesday.  Also, both of these pastors challenged the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick for the job back in 2000. 

Rev. Jones is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Pearland, Texas, and the article says that his experience includes serving as a pastor in Texas in several congregations since 1979 and serving on Presbytery committees.

Rev. Tarbell has similar experience but his parish service has been much more traveled including South Dakota, Wyoming, Oregon, Missouri, and currently South Carolina serving as pastor of Saluda Presbyterian Church.

Now that all the candidates are know there will be a book with more information on each one published shortly.

GA 101: Doing the Business of GA — Decently and in Order

5 Replies

In the last post I discussed where the business for a General Assembly comes from.  We now turn to the question of once an Assembly convenes and has the docketed business in front of it, how does it go about dealing with the business.

The short answer is “Decently and In Order.”  There is a lot of business to get through, there are a lot of commissioners who want to discuss a few hot topics, and so the Assembly sets about systematically working their way through the business, typically using parliamentary procedure as specified and adapted by the standing rules.

How much work is there?  I think that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is probably the extreme example.  The picture above shows you what there was to deal with at the PC(USA) 212th General Assembly of 2000.  This is from “back in the day” when everything was on paper.  The PC(USA) has now gone all electronic, at least when the electronics work.  The behemoth in the lower left corner is the Reports to General Assembly.  This was a small-print document mailed out in sections ahead of time that contained all of the national committee reports and the reports from the national agencies.  The stack of papers on the left side of the orange notebook is the overtures to GA, the commissioner resolutions, and all the comments on them.  The other half of the orange notebook is the reports generated by each of the General Assembly Commissioner Committees that were than debated in plenary.  And in the upper left corner is that tote bag that they give you to carry it all in.  I will try to get an estimate of the number of megabytes of the material from this year’s GA.

In terms of volume of business, probably the number two branch is the Church of Scotland, or maybe the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand.  For 2008, the reports from 25 committees and other entities to the Church of Scotland GA are 1.2 MB in plain text format with a PDF of a statistical report the same size.  That is everything, including supplements and appendices.  If you want it in Word format you can roughly triple that file size.  The printed contents of this, plus the commissioner lists and standing orders (rules) comprise what is know in the church as the Blue Book, which in 2007 was 112 pages long.

Almost all Presbyterian General Assemblies are convened by the outgoing Moderator elected at the previous meeting of the Assembly.  And, in almost all cases, the first major item of business, after the opening prayer or worship, is electing a new Moderator to lead the current assembly.  I have covered the Moderator and the selection process in detail in a previous post in this series, but there are two general models.  If there is a single nominee selected by a process before the Assembly, there is usually a formal vote and the new moderator is installed.  If there is an open nomination process to elect one of the commissioners as Moderator, then candidates are nominated, there may be candidate statements, maybe a question and answer session, and a vote is taken.  And then the new Moderator is installed.  In almost all cases the election process happens very close to the convening of the Assembly; the PC(USA) is an exception with the election proceedings taking up the whole of the first evening.

Also at the beginning of the Assembly, in association with the whole “changing of the guard” thing around electing the new Moderator, the outgoing Moderator will present a report, or at least make some comments, about his/her term of office and the activities they were involved in.  And, for the Church of Scotland, the monarch, or their representative the Lord High Commissioner, will be honored and the statement from the crown will be delivered.

With the business of leadership done the Assembly now turns to the business of, well, business.

In almost all cases there is a period of time when the Assembly as a whole takes up the list of business and begins working through the business item by item.  But in many (most?) branches of American Presbyterianism, such as the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Presbyterian Church in America, and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Assembly commissioners are assigned to committees to work on the business in smaller groups first and report back to the plenary sessions.  With the large amount of business to be covered, this allows a group of commissioners to focus, or at least try to focus, on all the business related to a particular topic and work on that business only in detail.  They become the experts on it and in general the Assembly will then usually trust their judgment.

In those branches where commissioner committees are used the meetings of Assembly in plenary halts for a day or two so the committees can do their work.  In the PCA there are eleven commissioner committees that mirror the denominational structure.  Presbyteries get to elect which of their commissioners to GA will sit on each committee, observing proper balance between teaching and ruling elders.  In the PC(USA) every commissioner is assigned to a committee by random assignment.  The number of committees varies slightly from  one assembly to the next, but is usually around the 16 that there are for 2008.

It is now the responsibility of the committee to take all of the business assigned to it, fine tune it, and bring a report back to the full Assembly with their recommendations.  It is important to note that on the PC(USA) commissioner committees the delegates (youth, theological student, ecumenical, mission) have a vote as well as voice, just like the commissioners.  Sometimes, particularly in the case of the PC(USA), there are conflicting overtures about a controversial subject or an overture differs from a standing committee recommendation and it is the responsibility of the committees to listen to, in open hearings, the overture advocates and other members of the church who wish to speak on the subject.  The committee must then try to craft a compromise position, or failing that, recommend a position on the issue.  On a controversial issue there will almost always be a minority report.  In some cases the committee will hear reports from related agencies or denominational committees and may have the responsibility of reading minutes from lower governing bodies and entities, such as a theological seminary’s board of trustees like I had to do the year I was a commissioner.

Because of the volume of business, when an Assembly uses commissioner committees the Assembly trusts the committee to do the work and there will frequently be no objection to a committee report in full Assembly.  This makes the work of the committee and the quality of its leadership very important.  While a committee member can not put a new item of business on the table, they can have a significant impact on shaping the business that is assigned to the committee and so business shaped with particular viewpoints has been known to make its way through committee and assembly “under the radar.”

An interesting personal story:  As happens frequently at GA, commissioners can get lost in the parliamentary language and sometimes end up voting one way when they think they are voting another.  On my committee in 1997 one report was defeated and I was pretty sure that was not the way most of the members of the committee wanted it to go.  My approach, rather than raise a point of order and ask to clarify the vote just taken, was to ask to submit a minority report about the issue.  This was immediately acknowledged by the chair, but people started asking what happened and soon it was apparent that many were confused by the vote.  Of course, the vote was retaken and the minority report became unnecessary.

When the full Assembly meets it begins going through the reports in the order docketed.  Sometimes a controversial item, imp
ortant visitor, or special presentation will be docketed as an “order” or “order of the day” and so another report will be “arrested” before it is finished to meet the order.  In the same way, meals and worship can be the scheduled items that cause a report to be arrested.  Under good conditions an arrested report can resume following the special item.  If time is tight, not an unusual occurrence, the balance of the arrested report may be moved to the end of the docket which could be a day or two later.  In really difficult circumstances it can be referred to the next GA, such as the OPC Revision of the Directory for Worship.

Frequently with Church of Scotland or PC(USA) reports the item will also contain an educational or recognition moment connected back to the denominational committee or agency that relates to the report.  This can include the premier of a video related to that ministry, celebration of a milestone reached, or roll out of a new educational or stewardship campaign or material.  These provide an interesting window into the workings of the church and, if nothing else, give your brain a chance to recover between business reports.  Also, a good Moderator will recognize the need to take a mental break and may insert something into the docket like a chance to stretch, prayer, singing, hearing a story or joke, or something else to provide the needed mental break and transition between reports.  It may seem like it is taking extra time but my experience has been that a well placed break will help refocus the commissioners to more efficiently deal with the next item of business.

When the committee reports the committee chair or convener gives the report, sometimes calling on other committee members or staff to help with the presentations.  (Note that this is pretty much the same whether the “committee” reporting to the Assembly is the denominational committee like the Church of Scotland or the commissioner committee like the American Presbyterians.)  It will frequently begin with introductions, thank you’s, and an opening statement.  There may then be a time for questions about the report in general, questions usually answered by the denominational chair or staff member.  There may be a vote to receive the report.  The Assembly then begins walking through the action items in the report.  These may begin with consent items which are not debatable but can be removed from the consent agenda for debate.  (I asked for an item to be pulled from the consent agenda in 1997 and was later thanked by a YAD who also wanted to speak to it, which he could do if debated, but he did not have the standing to ask for the item to be removed from the consent agenda.)  The Assembly then moves on to the items docketed as debatable.

In the Church of Scotland this part is known as the “deliverance.”  While this term is also seen in American Presbyterianism, it is not a widely used in Scotland.  The Moderator walks the Assembly through the deliverance item by item.  They debate those that commissioners want to debate, amending the item, and then approving that item.  If no one jumps up at a particular item it is taken as approved by consensus and the next item is announced.  When every item in the deliverance has been walked through individually there is then one final vote to accept or reject the whole deliverance.

As Presbyterians our debate is decent and in order.  That does not mean that it is not passionate because we also balance ardor and order.  And being Presbyterians the parliamentary procedure can get complicated.  Interestingly, the Church of Scotland does not have minority reports, but in the PC(USA) a minority report is dealt with as a substitute motion which means that the first couple of times commissioners deal with it they are still trying to figure out the way it works.  And when the Moderator gets lost, or does something wrong, the Moderator can look over at the Clerk to help straighten things out.  And frequently the Principle Clerk or Deputy Clerk, or Stated Clerk can get on the microphone and either explain where they are parliamentary wise, or suggest a more efficient way for the Assembly or commissioner to accomplish whatever they just made that last confusing or out-of-order motion about.

At the larger Assemblies there can be several microphones and the Moderator has the duty of calling on speakers at the different stations.  While the Church of Scotland may still be using paper for its reports, it excels in being electronic at the microphones.  Each commissioner and delegate has an ID card they swipe at the microphone station and the Moderator has a video display that allows him/her to know not only if the individual is speaking for, against, or on procedural issues, but to also be able to address them by name and presbytery.  The PC(USA) has recently adopted a similar system with an assistant at the microphone entering the individuals ID number, but they still use colored cards that those intending to speak hold up to indicate the intent of the speaker to the rest of the body.  Smaller meetings may designate one microphone for, one against, and one for other items.

In many smaller branches voting is done by holding up a card when the vote is called for.  If a formal vote is necessary in the PC(USA) there are electronic key pads at each commissioner’s and delegate’s seat.  You use your own and don’t vote for your neighbor if they are not there.  The PC(USA) Moderator asks “Advisory delegates vote now.”  There are about 15 seconds to vote, the results display on the big screen and the Moderator continues “Commissioners you have been advised.  Commissioners vote now.”  For the Church of Scotland the commissioners get out of their seat and go to the voting station to swipe their card and enter their vote.

And with that the Assembly works its way through the business.  By the end of many of these Assemblies there have been some late nights to get everything done (except for that Revised Directory for Public Worship) and the commissioners and delegates are physically and mentally tired.  The last night of the PC(USA) GA it is not unheard of to adjourn at 2:00 AM.  In 1997 we passed an omnibus motion to push a bunch of minor stuff off on the 210th in 1998.  A wise Bills and Overtures committee will be sure controversial items are docketed while commissioners are still attentive.  I know that by the end of the 209th GA I was mentally burned out.  Those of you there as observers can help the commissioners by getting them out of the Assembly hall area for dinner late in the meeting so they can get their mind off the business, even if it is only for an hour or two.

Usually Assemblies conclude as they began with a day of formal reports and ceremonies and nothing that will result in debate pushing the Assembly past its docketed closing time.  The business of the Assembly is concluded, but there is still more.  In the next two posts in this series I will discuss the other stuff that goes on at an Assembly and what happens after the Assembly.  We will see if I can get them done by June 21, 2008.

Upcoming PC(USA) General Assembly — Early May Update

Leave a reply

Today, May 8, is an exciting day.  General Assembly is getting closer and I, an unrepentant GA Junkie, can hardly wait.  With only a week to go…  Only a week to go?  Yes folks, the General Assembly season begins one week from today in Edinburgh, Scotland, with the convening of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.  Did I say I can hardly wait?  (Yeah, I’m pretty hard core about Presbyterian General Assemblies.  But if you have not figured that out from this blog I’m not doing my job.)

I’ll do a preview of that GA in the next day or two, but first this is also an important day for the Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly.

Yesterday marked the 45 day deadline before the convening of GA and according to the Standing Rules there is lots of stuff that has to happen by that day.  First, while the usual cut-off for submitted business is 60 days before the start, under rule A.1.b the Stated Clerk has the discretion to include business submitted up to the 45 day point.  (Note, this is the postmark date so there could be business to still arrive in the next few days.)  Forty-five days is also the cut-off for overtures [A.3.c.(3)], but the deadlines for constitutional changes and those with financial implications has already passed.  In addition, nominees for Vice-moderator must be announced [H.1.c.(1)] and challengers for the Stated Clerk election must declare [H.2.b.(3).(k)].  And in general, most papers, communications, commissioner committee assignments, and a lot of other routine items needed to by done by yesterday.

Let me move on to the business.  Taking the easy one first, I have heard of no other applicants besides Edward Koster who have declared that they are challenging the nominating committee’s selection Gradye Parsons for the position of Stated Clerk.

As for the Vice-moderator nominees, thanks to Moderator candidate Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow we now know that the Rev. Diane Givens Moffett, pastor of St. James Presbyterian Church of Greensboro, NC, has been selected by the Rev. Carl Mazza as his Vice-moderator nominee.  I don’t see this announcement on his Moderator candidacy web site yet.  Rev. Moffett, according to the bio on her church web site, is a native of Oakland, CA, and her education was in the Bay Area as well with a degree from Berkeley and an MDiv and DMin from SFTS North.  She has been recognized for her preaching and if you Google her there are a lot of hits returned for her.  This rounds out the field of eight with seven clergy and one elder (way to go Roger!).  Now we wait for the election.

The committee leadership was formally announced earlier this week, but if you surfed around PC-biz, that has actually been posted there since my last update.  The committee leadership is very important, maybe the most important business aspect of GA.  Since all business is dealt with in committee first, and generally shaped there, how the committee functions is crucial.  In most cases the full assembly has neither the time nor the interest in doing anything more than fine-tuning a committee report.  In general, the committee report is adopted almost exactly as the committee presents it.  Pray for these people in leadership.

Well, that brings us to the business itself.  The total number of items in PC-biz is 283 and with 99 overtures last time the count now appears to be up to 109.  With numbers like that you can see why the Assembly must trust the committees.

I have been a bit connected to overtures 100, 101, and 102 which were submitted by my Synod and concern Hanmi Presbytery, a non-geographic Korean-language presbytery, and its churches.  Beginning with 102, which was assigned to Committee 3 – General Assembly Procedures, this overture asks for the continuation of Hanmi Presbytery on an indefinite basis.  The rational is interesting reading because it not only lays out the trials and tribulations Hanmi has been through, but it also describes the history of non-geographic presbyteries in the PC(USA).  Authorized in 1983 and established in 1984 Hanmi was to be a transitional presbytery (yes, the PC(USA) had transitional presbyteries, but that is another issue) with a ten year life time.  The status as a transitional presbytery was renewed for another 15 years, to expire in January 2009.  That was to be the last extension and instructions were given to develop a plan to transfer churches out.  In the mean time, non-geographic presbyteries were enshrined in the Book of Order by the church in 2001 by adding them to G-12.0102k so as to meet “mission needs.”  Now that non-geographic presbyteries are no longer a transitional structure, the request is for Hanmi to continue indefinitely.  But this is with the note that overtures 100 and 101 are requests to transfer churches out of Hanmi into Riverside and Pacific Presbyteries respectively.

It is interesting to note that the 217th GA in 2006 referred to the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly a request to study the feasibility of non-geographic synods, particularly Korean-American ones.  That referral is coming back as item 03-07 and recommends that when there are not enough congregations within the bounds of a synod for a non-geographic presbytery that congregations may join, with the permission of everyone in sight, a non-geographic presbytery in another synod.

Now, without financial implications or constitutional changes what is left?  Social witness policy of course.  Overture 103, from Pittsburgh Presbytery, is supporting single-payer universal health care.  Overture 105, from Santa Barbara Presbytery, asks that the PC(USA) becomes a non-partisan advocate for peace and would direct that the denominational offices not take sides.  And 106, also from Santa Barbara Presbytery, would have the 218th GA answer all overtures concerning Israel and Palestine with a single statement.  That statement says that the issues are complex and the PC(USA) will not take a position that favors one side or the other.  Furthermore, it calls on the church to pray for peace, render humanitarian aid, condemn terrorism, and advocate for a negotiated solution.

It is interesting that another group of overtures deal with disaster assistance in various ways.  Overture 104 from South Louisiana Presbytery asks the denomination to look into group wind and hail insurance policies.  Overture 107, from the Synod of the Sun, would thank Presbyterians throughout the country, and Presbyterian Disaster Assistance, for their help rebuilding the Gulf Coast communities.  And 108 addresses a current issue in the denomination, the incorporation of Presbyterian Disaster Assistance.  This overture, from Peace River Presbytery, instructs General Assembly Council to continue to move forward with the process of incorporating PDA.  At its meeting at the end of April the GAC voted unanimously not to incorporate PDA because they decided that things were good now and “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”  They did keep the task force in place until September 2009.  It is not evident if this overture pre-dates or post-dates that vote.

Finally, overture 109, from Heartland Presbytery, asks the Stated Clerk to gather resources and examples of ordination examination procedures and materials for use across the church.  This is of course related to the PUP report and we will see if it is affected by other action the GA may take on PUP issues.

That is it for now.  I’ll be focusing on the Church of Scotland GA for the next couple of weeks but will try to also update the PC(USA) business if anything arises.

The Theology of Dr. Who

3 Replies

As long as I’m tackling some of the less polity-oriented items today, I’ll go ahead and do this post on Doctor Who.

Actually, it begins with the actor who plays the title character, David Tennant.  Now, this would just be an interesting SciFi bit if it were not for the fact the Mr. Tennant’s father is the Very Rev. Alexander “Sandy” McDonald, a respected Church of Scotland minister and Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1997.  For more details you can check back to a post of mine about this in September 2006.  But as the tenth Doctor Who begins his third season the publicity has increased.

First, there was a very nice tribute piece that David did for his father excerpted on Irregular Bones.

Second, there has been a lot of buzz recently about the theological parallels to Christianity in the Doctor Who series.  It appears to have started with a Sunday Telegraph article about a Church of England conference that encouraged the use of the series in sermons and other church contexts as a tool to connect with youth in the church.  This has, of course, been picked up in the blogosphere including The Lead on the Episcopal Café, a long article at Heresy Corner, and at Sola Dei Gloria.  There are a host of other blogs as well.

Now, I was a fan of the show, particularly the Fourth Doctor, but I have not seen a lot to draw from any more than other forms of popular media.  A clip here, a quote there.  Just the usual.  Now popular media is a useful tool, but I find it interesting that there was a whole conference on this one series.

Cartooning at Lambeth

4 Replies

In the midst of my present chaos, taking care of all my regular stuff and still trying to write and research three “in works” blog posts, I came across this on The Lead.  It turns out that at the major Anglican “A-list” Bishop’s conference this summer at Lambeth Palace, there will be a cartoonist to “capture” the event.  Have a look at featured cartoonist Dave Walker’s web site/blog cartoonchurch.com.

While his subject may originally be the Anglican church, there is so much universal humor at church-related topics in these cartoons that even the “frozen chosen” can find a lot in there to laugh at about themselves.  These are not so much side-splitting ROTFL cartoons as they are a humorous look at the way the church runs.  For example, in his cartoon of the “Parochial Church Council” I can put names of some of the members of my church’s session on those people, including finding my wife in the bunch.  The group does lack a “polity wonk” or “polity fundamentalist” like me, unless that is the “inspirer of tangents and pointless discussions.”  There are a bunch of other great ones on the site, but check out the one on “What the clergy do all week.”

This blog has now been added to my reader.

I can’t remember a General Assembly being cartooned as a regular practice.  Sure, some political cartoons have come out of it, but not as a regular daily, focused, product like this is.  But we did have that great whimsical commentary by Houston Hodges during GA, including “Some Assembly Required.”

PC(USA) General Assembly Moderator Candidate Events

2 Replies

Over the last week there has been some local activity for the four candidates standing for Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

The series of events began with the attendance of the candidates at the regular meeting of the General Assembly Council in Louisville.  This seems to not so much be a “moderator” event as it is a “reality check.”  It gives the candidates an opportunity to see the state of the denomination one last time before GA, and it lets the “inner circle” of the denomination check out the candidates.  From these two days Bruce Reyes-Chow has posted some of his reflections.

After Louisville, all four traveled to New Jersey for two “meet-and-greet” events, one in the afternoon at Bloomfield College and one that evening at First Presbyterian Church of Lawrenceville.  The evening one is well covered, complete with pictures, by lead organizer Mark Smith in his blog Mark Time.  For full details and impressions check it out, but it had a great format with time for candidate’s remarks to the whole group, breaking up into four groups, one with each candidate and then rotate candidates, and finally an informal time to mingle.  In addition to Mark, candidate Carl Mazza has his own comments on his blog.

Finally, Bruce Reyes-Chow and Bill Teng were able to continue the “whistle-stop tour” with an event the next day at New York Avenue Presbyterian Church, in Washington, D.C.  You can find reflections on this event by Carol Howard Merritt on her blog Tribal Church.

All the comments are positive about these events and it sounds like a useful exercise to get the candidates together out in the “real world.”  So often we hear about the election at GA, those that did not get elected fade from view, and the Moderator is now someone out traveling the world on our behalf that we may read about, but usually don’t meet and who also has pretty much faded from view when the next GA rolls around.  Now I realize that even with the new two year terms of moderators, for them to visit every presbytery would require visiting an average of close to two presbyteries per week.  So getting face time with each of the two-million-ish members is not realistic.  But we in the particular church need to be attentive to our connectionalism more than the one week every-other year that GA is in session.

PC(USA) GA PJC Decision in Spahr v. Redwoods Presbytery: Reaction and Analysis

Leave a reply

The publication Tuesday of the decision in the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission case 218-12, Jane Adams Spahr v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) through the Presbytery of Redwoods has had a variety of reactions.  Early popular media articles, like this Reuters article or this WHAM-TV piece, basically picked up the story that the Rev. Spahr was cleared of the charges against her.

However, as the day went on the sophistication of the popular media reporting increased and is catching up with the discerning comments of Presbyterians familiar with the issues.  Among the first out with a story was the Presbyterian News Service whose article referred to the decision as “complicated.”  In a statement about the decision the Acting Executive Presbyter/Stated Clerk of Redwood Presbytery, the Rev. Robert Conover, refers to the decision as “nuanced and lengthy.”  In her own statement, the Rev. Spahr expresses her gratitude for the GA PJC upholding the original decision by the Presbytery PJC.  Later articles, such as one by the San Francisco Chronicle, began to recognize that Rev. Spahr’s acquittal is only the easy part of the story and there is still more there. The Chronicle writes “The ambivalent ruling –
affirming the rights of gays and lesbians to have their relationships
sanctioned by the church but not considering them equal to those of
heterosexual couples – is likely to disappoint both sides in the debate.”  And on the KGO-TV web site they write “Tuesday’s ruling is a complicated, split decision. It essentially
clears Reverend Spahr of disciplinary charges, saying she can’t be
found guilty of doing that, which by definition, cannot be done — the
marriage of gay couples. However, they say no one should try it again.”

As for official reaction, the Office of the Stated Clerk on Tuesday updated the Advisory Opinion 7 on Ceremonies Blessing Same-Sex Relationships to reflect this new decision.

Reaction from the web and blogosphere is still developing.  Most progressive web sites that have posted something, like That All May Freely Serve and JustPresbys, are pretty much linking to or quoting other statements or reports.  In the next few days we are likely to see more official statements from these groups.  On his blog the Rev. Ray Bagnuolo recognizes this as a victory, but only a beginning for the cause of equality for LGBT individuals.  Finally, the Rev. John Shuck and the Rev. David Fischler on each of their respective blogs from very different ends of the theological spectrum call this an “odd” and “bazaar” decision.

After reading it through a few times I must agree with them.  After putting together the available pieces, it seems to me that this was a divided PJC and they made the effort to put together a central kernel that they could all affirm and then five of the twelve commission members put together a dissent to the other significant part of the decision.  In addition, there are three other concurring decisions that comment on other parts of the decision.

The real focal point of this decision is Specification of Error No. 1 and No. 2.  Error 1 is that the Synod PJC should not have concluded that same sex marriages are prohibited by Presbyterian polity and Error 2 is that Rev. Spahr committed a disciplinary offense.  The GA PJC recognized that the Book of Order in W-4.9001 and the 1991 Authoritative Interpretation (see Advisory Opinion 7) prohibit ceremonies that represent marriages between persons of the same sex but other commitment or blessing ceremonies are not prohibited.  They also cited that marriage is between a man and a women as stated in W-4.9001.  It would then appear that all of the members of the PJC agreed on the following statements:

The ceremonies that are the subject of this case were not marriages as the term is defined by W-4.9001. These were ceremonies between women, not between a man and a woman. Both parties acknowledged the ceremonies in question were not marriages as defined by the Book of Order.

The SPJC found Spahr guilty of doing that which by definition cannot be done. One cannot characterize same sex ceremonies as marriages for the purpose of disciplining a minister of the Word and Sacrament and at the same time declare that such ceremonies are not marriages for legal or ecclesiastical purposes.

The PPJC was correct in finding that by performing the two ceremonies at issue, Spahr did not commit an offense as charged. Therefore, the SPJC erred in determining that Spahr was guilty of violating W-4.9001 or the 1991 AI.

And at the end of the section the decision says:

In summary, Specification of Error No. 1 is not sustained because by definition, “marriage is . . . between a man and a woman.” (W-4.9001) Specification of Error No. 1 and Specification of Error No. 2 are sustained because W-4.9001 does not state a mandatory prohibition on performing a same sex ceremony. The charge was for performing a marriage ceremony, which by definition cannot be performed.

So, if I read this correctly the question is not whether you intend to conduct a ceremony that you are calling a marriage or view as being equivalent.  The question is whether you did conduct a marriage ceremony.  Since same-sex couples, by definition of W-4.9001, can not be in a relationship called marriage, it is impossible to conduct such a ceremony and therefor no charges can be filed.  (And it appears that by this logic can never be filed.) So “poof,” under PC(USA) polity there is now no such thing as same-sex marriage.

As I look at this decision, this seems to be the mental gymnastics that were necessary to get a unanimous decision.  In addition, the sentence “Both parties acknowledged the ceremonies in question were not marriages as defined by the Book of Order” appears to be carefully constructed to be conditional on the Book of Order definition because it is made clear in the history of the case that Rev. Spahr intended these to be marriages and the evidence includes the fact that she signed a “Certificate of Marriage” in each case.  Even now, in her statement following the decision, she consistently uses the term “marriage” to describe her ministry.

But if you look at the substantive parts quoted above the real emphasis is on Book of Order W-4.9001.  The dissenting opinion by five of the members of the commission takes issue with the additional verbiage in this section that tries to expand on W-4.9001 using the 1991 AI or a previous PJC decision.  W-4.9001 talks about marriage and always refers to it being between a man and a woman.  There is no reference to the ceremony itself in this section or to any other ceremonies that may be for same-sex couples.  Strictly the constitution does not prohibit or regulate same-sex ceremonies except to say they are not marriages.   The 1991 AI and the previous Benton decision do make reference to the ceremony, that it should not be the same as a marriage ceremony and that it would be improper to use the church for such a ceremony.  This decision in the Spahr case extends this by saying:

In holding that Spahr was not guilty as charged, this Commission does not hold that there are no differences between same sex ceremonies and marriage ceremonies. We do hold that the liturgy should be kept distinct for the two types of services. We further hold that officers of the PCUSA authorized to perform marriages shall not state, imply, or represent that a same sex ceremony is a marriage. Under W-4.9001, a same sex ceremony is not and cannot be a marriage.

The five members of the commission who signed the dissent take issue with this extension.  They argue:

In rendering its decision, the majority has taken the liberty of legislating in the guise of interpreting inconsistencies between W-4.9001 on the one hand, and the 1991 Al and this Commission’s decision in Benton v. Presbytery of Hudson River, Remedial Case 212-11 (2000), on the other hand. For the reasons stated herein, we respectfully concur in the result of the majority, but disagree with the decision of the majority to the extent that it rests on the 1991 AI or Benton.

This seems to hearken back to the recent GA PJC decisions on the 2006 AI concerning declarations of exceptions in ordinations.  The idea is that the constitution is primary and AI’s and PJC decisions should not be used to extend the reach of the constitution.

On the other side, three commissioners in a concurring opinion write, in total:

We join in the foregoing Decision and Order (Decision). We understand the Decision to be an authoritative interpretation of W-4.9001, to mea
n that officers of the PCUSA who are authorized to perform marriages shall not hereafter perform a same sex union ceremony in which or with respect to which such officer states, implies or represents to be a marriage or the equivalent thereof. While the Commission did not find Spahr guilty as charged herein, in part because her conduct occurred under prior authoritative interpretations, we understand that future noncompliance with the authoritative interpretation of the Decision will be considered to be a disciplinable offense.

So, now that it is in the books, you have been warned and don’t do it again.

For the polity wonks, an interesting polity point is that the GA PJC dismissed arguments base on Benton right from the start of the decision in the Preliminary Statement pointing out that Benton resulted from a remedial case and this was a disciplinary case so it was not relevant case law.  With the exception of reference to it in the dissent I have not found other reference to Benton in the rest of the decision section.

In the reasoning on Errors 1 and 2 the main opinion continues on for roughly another page discussing Rev. Spahr’s ministry and the part of marriage ceremonies in it.  It acknowledges her sense of call to “participate in a caring and compassionate ministry to persons who have been marginalized, who are faithful Christians, and who wish to be accepted in every way as full members of the body of Christ.”  It also says that the Rev. Spahr may consider herself acting in the role of a prophet to the church, and points out that the role of a prophet contains risks and carries consequences.  The decision goes on to say “It is the burden of a church officer to accept the consequences of his or her actions that are the ecclesiastical equivalent of civil disobedience.”  The third of the concurring opinions expands on this and the Book of Order basis for it, even further.

The rest of the decision is fairly routine, procedural, and straight-forward.  Most errors were rendered irrelevant once Rev. Spahr was cleared in the first section.  It was noted that for Error 3 there was no disciplinary action to be taken, but originally the Synod PJC was out of place imposing a punishment and it should have remanded the case back to the Presbytery PJC for the consequences.  And it noted that while Rev. Spahr on appeal had referred to the 2006 AI, that was irrelevant because that applied only to conscience issues related to ordination standards.  Error 6 also refers back to conscience but the decision replys “Submission to the current standards of the church may not always be comfortable, but it is not optional.”  Finally, Error 7 was about a member of the Presbytery PJC and whether they should have been disqualified from serving on the case.  The decision says it was correct to let them go ahead and serve but a concurring opinion says that while it may be procedurally correct, for the appearance of a fair decision disqualification would have been wise.

So that is the decision, but where does that leave us?  As one statement said, this seems to imply a “separate but equal” structure in the PC(USA).  The ceremonies just can not look the same.  Rev. Spahr says that she will continue conducting “marriages.”  It also seems like muddled case law that neither side in the debate will be comfortable with.  It seems ripe for clarification and expansion by a future GA PJC.  And the similar case of the Rev. Janet Edwards in Pittsburgh Presbytery is awaiting a trial date.  It will be interesting to see how this as case law influences that decision.

Breaking news: PC(USA) GA PJC finds for Spahr in Same-sex Unions Case

Leave a reply

The decision in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission case 218-12, Spahr v. Presbytery of the Redwoods was issued shortly after noon Pacific Time.  The decision is posted.

Bottom line:  Rev. Jane Spahr was found not guilty of conducting “same-sex marriages.”

Quick and dirty summary of the legal reasoning:  The Book of Order prohibits same-sex weddings but permits blessing same-sex unions.  These were not weddings, there for Rev. Spahr should not be disciplined.  Here is a quote from the decision:

The ceremonies that are the subject of this case were not marriages as the term is defined by W-4.9001. These were ceremonies between women, not between a man and a woman. Both parties acknowledged the ceremonies in question were not marriages as defined by the Book of Order. It is not improper for ministers of the Word and Sacrament to perform same sex ceremonies. At least four times, the larger church has rejected overtures that would prohibit blessing the unions of same sex couples. By the definition in W-4.9001, a same sex ceremony can never be a marriage. The SPJC found Spahr guilty of doing that which by definition cannot be done. One cannot characterize same sex ceremonies as marriages for the purpose of disciplining a minister of the Word and Sacrament and at the same time declare that such ceremonies are not marriages for legal or ecclesiastical purposes.

Later in that section the PJC seems to reason their way out by saying “The charge was for preforming a marriage ceremony, which by definition cannot be preformed.”  It sounds like they are saying that no one can ever be found guilty of preforming a “same-sex marriage ceremony” because there is no such thing in Presbyterian polity.

Where does this leave us?  In my quick reading it appears that this decision has maintained the status quo:  no weddings but there may be blessings.

Reaction:  I have seen none yet but I suspect in the next couple of hours there will be a reasonable amount.  I would also guess that while there will be some approval on the progressive side that Rev. Spahr was acquitted, I also suspect that neither progressive nor conservative side will be satisfied because it appears that this decision dodges the issue of breaking ground and brings no additional clarity or precedent to what a “wedding” is.

My initial take:  The GA PJC seems to be operating in the same mode it has in other decisions by crafting a central body that the whole commission can sign on to.  This one appears a bit more frayed at the edges than the others because there are four minority reports, one of which dissents with regard to certain parts of the main decision.

Now, I’ll get back to work and analyze this decision in more detail on my commute home.  More later.

Synod of the Sun (PC(USA)) Establishes Administrative Commission for Presbytery of South Louisiania Property Cases

3 Replies

The big news over the weekend in the Politics of Presbyterianism was that the Synod of the Sun established an administrative commission to work with the Presbytery of South Louisiana regarding the Presbytery’s handling of church property cases.

Background
Back on October 28, 2007, the membership of First Presbyterian Church of Baton Rouge, LA, voted 422-60 to leave the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and transfer to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC).  It is interesting to note that the pastor of the church is the Rev. Gerrit Dawson, who is co-moderator of the New Wineskins Association of Churches along with the Rev. Dean Weaver.  Rev. Weaver’s church, Memorial Park Presbyterian Church in Allison Park, PA, just came to terms with Pittsburgh Presbytery concerning its release to the EPC.

The total number voting at the meeting, 482, represents only one-quarter of the membership of the church according to the article published by the Presbyterian News Service.

The significant piece of background noted in that article is that the Presbytery of South Louisiana had granted to First Presbyterian clear title to their property roughly a year before the vote so the church was free to take their property with them without further legal action or negotiation.

Synod Meeting
The published facts in this action are from a single source, a Synod of the Sun news story about the matter on the Presbyterian Neighbor News.  The action appears to have been taken at a twice-annual stated meeting of the Synod of the Sun but the packet for the meeting does not contain any advanced information about this business.

The news story says that in a letter to the Synod Executive dated April 8 presbytery pastors and elders “expressed a concern regarding our presbytery’s leadership,
particularly pertaining to the presbytery’s response to churches
seeking title to their properties.”  The letter “further stated that presbytery leaders gave insufficient
consideration to denominational protocols on such matters and gave
insufficient consultation with other churches.”  Finally, the letter is said to ask for an administrative commission to look into this.

According to the article the next step was a meeting:

Synod Executive Judy Fletcher met with members of the presbytery
council of South Louisiana, April 22, and said they concurred that
outside consultation would be helpful. The council sent a letter to
synod supporting an administrative commission but asking that the power
of original jurisdiction not be given.

The news story says that this past weekend those at the Synod meeting unanimously approved the administrative commission:

Synod commissioners established an administrative commission charged
with determining the “validity of the presbytery’s procedures and
decisions (past, pending, and future) regarding various congregations
and their properties.”

The synod document further stated that
“All pending and future decisions regarding property in the Presbytery
of South Louisiana shall require the approval of the commission.” The
commission shall also listen to expressions of concern regarding the
presbytery’s leadership and suggest ways the presbytery can move toward
a fuller expression of the ministry of Christ’s Church.

Reaction
I probably don’t need to tell you that from the conservative quarters of the PC(USA) the reaction has been swift and strong.  With the past history of the “Louisville Papers” and the perception of the Office of the General Assembly wanting to hold onto the property at all costs this appears as top-down punitive and corrective action on the Presbytery for being gracious and pastoral with churches that wanted to depart the denomination.  In particular Bill Crawford at Bayou Christian, Toby Brown at A Classical Presbyterian, David Fischler at The Reformed Pastor, and Michael McCarty at Around the Scuttlebutt have particularly negative views of this action and the possible conspiracy with Louisville it represents.

Comments
On one level this action can just be viewed as the way that our connectional system operates.  When there is a disagreement on one level we move up to the next-higher governing body to get help and direction from the collective wisdom of that body to help us get around a disagreement or rough patch.  Not knowing any facts from other sources, and ignoring that a controversial topic is in play here, the sequence of events, steps taken, and the unanimous vote, all would make it appear that this is our Presbyterian system working properly, decently, and in order.

But as the reaction in the blogosphere demonstrates this is a loaded topic.  It is my view that there has been a disconnect between the national structure of the PC(USA) and the “people in the pews” which makes an action like this, even if innocent, appear disciplinary and controlling.  And with the Louisville Papers in circulation this can also be interpreted as conspiratory.  The press release is carefully crafted and with no other sources to go on it appears that a concerted effort was made to put a controlled positive public relations spin on this.  The two areas of concern for me are the short lead time which prevented information from being in the advanced packet, and that the only governing body to speak on this is the Synod of the Sun and there is no comment from the Presbytery of South Louisiana.

But related to both the “innocent” and the “conspiratory” interpretations of this action is a question I always ask:  Is an administrative commission the best option?  I always keep in mind that an administrative commission like this one is the second most powerful action a governing body can take regarding a lower governing body.  It is only out-done by an administrative commission that is granted the power of “original jurisdiction.”  In a real sense this can be the “Ecclesiastical Nuke” that Rev. Fischler refers to it as.

For those readers who may not understand the full implications, in Presbyterian lingo a “commission” is a group elected and given certain powers and responsibilities to act on behalf of and with the authority of the governing body that created it.  When granted original jurisdiction, the commission can take full control of the lower governing body.  When a presbytery establishes an administrative commission to work with a church, if that commission has original jurisdiction they can set themselves up as the session of the church if they decide it is necessary.  In general Presbyterians have two types of commissions, administrative and judicial.

So, was an administrative commission the best option?  Not being there and having all the facts I can not say.  I will say that when I was working with my presbytery, particularly as the moderator of the Committee on Ministry, it was my view and experience that an administrative commission was a last resort.  Creating one to work with a church was often viewed as a power play by the presbytery much as this is viewed in some quarters as a power play by the synod.  Yes, there are cases were a body with the authority was needed and yes there are cases where an administrative commission is welcomed.  But I have found that beginning with task forces, listening teams, or discussion groups was at least a “kinder and gentler” way to begin the process.  Showing up at the door as an administrative commission, however well intentioned, was not always viewed as a friendly gesture.  “Hi.  We’re from the presbytery and we are here to help you.”

I was aware that in other presbyteries and other synods some of my counterparts felt that administrative commissions were the way to go.  The idea was to send in the big guns, get things cleaned up quickly, and get out.  (Commando Presbyterian governance?) 

Maybe they are right but it never sat well with me both from a connectional and pastoral perspective.  This is a view reaffirmed by a friend of mine at a recent presbytery meeting where the administrative commission he was chairing made their final report and was dismissed.  After delivering the final report he was allowed some personal comments in which he said that administrative commissions are a painful solution in many situations and while they sometimes may be necessary they should only be used as a last resort.

Preach it brother!