Federal Vision Controversy News — Report that Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church Has Voted to Leave the PCA

2 Replies

Rev. Doug Wilson, a prominent proponent of the Federal Vision Theology, in his blog “ Blog and Mablog,” reports today that the congregation of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church of Monroe, Louisiana, yesterday voted unanimously to leave the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and affiliate with the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC).  There is no confirmation of this on the Auburn Avenue web site.  This comes in the wake of Louisiana Presbytery being indicted and choosing to plead guilty over their improper examination of Auburn Avenue’s Teaching Elder Steve Wilkins.  They also voted to turn over the trial of TE Wilkins to the denomination’s Standing Judicial Commission (SJC).  (For more on this see my post yesterday on this topic.)

While we are waiting for confirmation and more details, there has been reaction, particularly about whether TE Wilkins would be released to CREC and if this would stop a trial before the SJC.  David Booth, in a post on his blog post tenebras lux, raises these questions and argues in favor of the trial saying: “Trials are painful, but I believe that it would be healthier for the PCA to actually have held a trial of Pastor Wilkins in an actual church court rather than on the Internet and through administrative
maneuvering.”  And the blog Green Baggins has confirmed an e-mail from Doug Wilson with this information as well as the announcement by the blog’s owner, the Rev. Lane Keister, of his resignation from the PCA prosecuting team since his services there will no longer be needed due to these developments.  Stay tuned to Green Baggins both for its spirited discussion of this topic and, I am hopeful, that Rev. Keister will provide some insight into the process and proceedings he helped with.

UPDATE January 29, 2008: As of today the front page of the web site of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church has been updated to reflect, both in the body and in the headlines side bar, the move from the PCA to the CREC.

UPDATE January 31, 2008:  Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church has now posted a letter from TE Steve Wilkins explaining the rationale for leaving the PCA.

Upcoming PC(USA) General Assembly — Late January Update

1 Reply

Things are beginning to pick up as we approach the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) in June.  Here is an update of new developments since my last post about this a couple of weeks ago:

The number of candidates for moderator have now increased to three.  Back in November National Capital Presbytery endorsed the Rev. Bill Teng as a moderator candidate. ( Presbyterian News Service Article) At the time of my last post San Francisco Presbytery had just endorsed the Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow as a candidate on January 15.  Rev. Reyes-Chow quickly announced the news by starting his moderatorial campaign blog and the Presbyterian News Service (PNS) caught up with Web 2.0 with their news story last Thursday.  Rev. Reyes-Chow is the founding pastor of Mission Bay Community Church that the news story describes as a “multi-cultural, multi-generational New Church Development of San Francisco Presbytery that makes extensive use of cyberspace to communicate and conduct its ministry.”  The news story also describes Bruce as “a highly sought-after speaker.”  The fact that the news story makes significant use of his blog as a source is noteworthy.

On January 18, shortly after that endorsement, New Castle Presbytery endorsed the Rev. Carl Mazza as the third candidate for moderator.  According to Friday’s Presbyterian News Service article, Rev. Mazza is the founder and leader of the organization Meeting Ground, described in the article as “a community-based ministry with the homeless and other marginalized people.”  The extent of the organization’s ministry is impressive, running two shelters, a transitional house, and a residential facility, as well as a winter homeless shelter ministry that combined provided over 21,000 bednights and 30,000 meals in 2007 according to the news story that cited the groups annual report.  In the web page about his endorsement on the Meeting Ground web site Rev. Mazza describes his ministry with this opening sentence: “The call of my life, and my reason for entering the ministry, is with and among persons who are experiencing homelessness or otherwise struggling to survive at the margins of our society.”  And in a Web 2.0 touch, there is an page about him and his moderatorial campaign on the New Castle Presbytery wiki.  This appears to be the same content as is on the Meeting Ground site.

In looking over these PNS articles again, I would note an interesting style difference in the news story about the Rev. Reyes-Chow.  While the other two contain embedded links to at least the endorsing presbytery, Rev. Reyes-Chow’s contains no embedded links at all.  A simple omission I am sure since I know from my writing this blog it is difficult to chase every possible link.

I would also note that we now have three Ministers of Word and Sacrament but no Elders endorsed for Moderator.  I have to wonder if the new biannual format of General Assembly has made it more difficult for an elder to take the time to serve as Moderator, but that is a topic I will delve into more in an upcoming Commentary.  Stay tuned.

Turning our attention to the business before the GA, the Business page is now up to thirty overtures, counting Overture 3 which was withdrawn.  Three of the seven new overtures address social witness policy.  Overture 24 is from Heartland Presbytery and is titled “On Reinstating the Office of Environmental Justice as an Integral Part of the Mission of the Church.”  Unfortunately, the link from the official business page is broken and the minutes from the presbytery meeting where it was passed no longer seem to be posted, but there appears to be a copy in Word format on the web site of Presbyterians for Restoring Creation. (Isn’t Google wonderful.)  The title of the overture is pretty much the action item in the overture and the rest of the text is reference to past GA statements and actions.

Overture 25, from the Presbytery of Lake Huron, calls for the PC(USA) to encourage and advocate for assistance to, and resettlement of, Iraqi refugees, and particularly for action from the U.S. government towards those ends.  And the Presbytery of Chicago has overtured GA ( Overture 26) “On Pursuing a Culture of a Just Peace in Israel and Palestine.”  This overture calls for internationally recognized human rights in Israel and Palestine, denominational advocacy with the U.S. government to work towards that goal in the Middle East, and for PC(USA) groups to study the situation there.

Along other lines, Overture 27, from the Presbytery of Central Nebraska, would have the Board of Pensions of the PC(USA) “Expand the Definition of Medical Necessity to Include Habilitative Services for Children with Congenital Developmental Disabilities.”  This expanded definition would then have the Board of Pensions medical plan covering speech, physical and occupational therapy for children with conditions such as Downs Syndrome and Autism.  At the present time the medical plan only covers “restorative” therapy to recover from accident or illness and the overture rational cites studies to show that the additional cost would be very minimal.

Reading through Overture 30, this sounds like a “ Blood on Every Page” development where the overture was occasioned by specific financial irregularities in a church in the Presbytery of the Pacific, the originating presbytery.  The overture requests changes to the Form of Government and the Rules of Discipline to tighten up financial practices in churches.  These new rules include not having any pastors serve as a corporate officer, making sure the annual financial review is done by two unrelated persons, and making changes to accounts an act of the session and recorded in the minutes.  Reading through the proposed changes it is possible to put together a specific scenario that led to this overture.  F
inally, the Discipline change would make the three-year limit on disciplinary action for financial misconduct start at the time the misconduct was discovered.

And the “Reverse the PUP” overture in this batch is Overture 28 from the Presbytery of Central Washington which basically does what the title says: “On Requesting That All Actions of the 217th General Assembly (2006) Related to the Report of the Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity Be Fully Rescinded.”

I have saved Overture 29 for last because it hinges on a polity subtlety that a GA Junkie would appreciate.  This overture, titled “On Amending G-5.0200 to Add the Vows of Membership to the Book of Order,” from the Presbytery of Mission, is motivated by the fact that members of a congregation are received by the Session unlike elders and deacons who are elected by the congregation and ordained and installed in public worship.  At the present time the membership “vows,” actually statements from which worship books have provided specific vows, are contained in the Directory for Worship (W-4.2003) right along with the ordination vows (W-4.4003).  But this sets up an interesting paradox – the session receives the new members but they declare their faith, take their vows if you will, before the full congregation.  This overture would add the specific vow language to the Form of Government section of the Book of Order (G-5.0200) so that the vows are taken before the Session at the time of reception into membership.  There appears to be nothing in the overture to remove it from the Directory for Worship so it would seem that new members would declare their faith twice in the membership process.

Finally, I wanted to mention that there is at least one name floating around as an applicant for the position of Stated Clerk of the General Assembly.  Toby Brown on his blog Classical Presbyterian mentions in one of his posts that the Rev. Ed Koster, currently the Stated Clerk of Detroit Presbytery, has his name in the pot.  Toby gives no source so it may be personal contact, and I have found no other mention of his name, or any other names, elsewhere in connection with the Clerk job.

Louisiana Presbytery Enters Mixed Plea in SJC Case

Leave a reply

The Louisiana Presbytery decided, after four hours of debate, to enter a mixed plea to the indictment by the Presbyterian Church in America Standing Judicial Commission according to HaigLaw in his blog entry of January 19.  This one seems to have really been under the radar and my thanks to JHG for bringing it to our attention in an entry on his blog In Light of the Gospel.

Specifically, the presbytery voted to plead “not guilty” to the charge that they failed to properly handle the differences that Teaching Elder Steve Wilkins declared with the “Confessional Standards.”  On the other hand, the presbytery voted to plead “guilty” to the charge that the failed to find a strong presumption of guilt in TE Wilkins’ views being out of conformity and with that vote are forwarding the case of TE Wilkins to the SJC.

It is important to note that count 1 was a technical charge (see my previous post on the subject for more details) so pleading not guilty to that one seems to be more about the precise wording than the intent.

HaigLaw reports that several proposals were floated during the meeting but other approaches, including having the LA Presbytery conduct the trial of TE Wilkins and a vote of confidence for TE Wilkins, could not garner a majority.

I would quote HaigLaw about the meeting: “…I was impressed with the charity with which these
elders debated their divergent views on these issues, and the courtesy and fairness extended to Pastor Wilkins. “

Needless to say, there is also analysis over on Green Bagginses.  I will let that (mostly) speak for itself, but read through the comments if you care about this stuff because HaigLaw contributes to the discussion comments and provides more detail than he did in his original post.  Thanks HaigLaw, or “Grandpa David,” for all of this info. I just added you to my regular reading list.

From that discussion I would state here one point made by HaigLaw, that it was conveyed to them that the SJC would likely drop charge #1 if there were a guilty plea on charge #2.  Also, the discussion touched on the point that TE Wilkins might not be able to avoid trial by resigning from the PCA since the resignation must be accepted.  I have been involved in two cases in the PC(USA) were the pastor resigned, or in polity language “renounced jurisdiction,” to immediately avoid trial.

Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area Approves a Non-essential Departure

Leave a reply

First it was San Francisco Presbytery almost two weeks ago, yesterday it was the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area that approved a non-essential departure from the PC(USA) reformed standards.  This was in the case of Mr. Paul Capetz who in May 2000 requested and was granted release from the exercise of ordained office as Minister of Word and Sacrament since he could not in good faith affirm the PC(USA) “fidelity and chastity” amendment, G-6.0106b.  This was a postponed meeting that I wrote about the details back in November.

The web site of More Light Presbyterians is reporting that yesterday the presbytery accepted the departure by a vote of 197-84-2, that Mr. Capetz be restored to ordained office by a vote of 196-79-3, and that his position at United Theological Seminary was validated as ministry on a voice vote.

I would note that the vote was not as close as it was in the San Francisco case.  Because of that, and the fact that there does not seem to be a minority report, I am not as sure this will go to the PJC, although it could get consolidated into a PJC case, or a GA PJC decision could influence it, as could action by the GA in June.

Recent Developments in Churches Breaking with the PC(USA)

Leave a reply

I made a decision a while back to not worry about posting the updates and details of the several and on-going cases where churches are leaving the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (PC(USA)), particularly those associated with the New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC) and particularly those moving to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC).  The reasons for my not covering them in detail are many:  Others, particularly the blog PresbyLaw and the Layman Online, are already doing a good job keeping all of us up-to-date on the details.  Also, while each case is different, many can be grouped in the different categories of “leaving with property,” “leaving with property after a settlement with the presbytery,” “leaving without property,” and those that are still in the process tied up in either church processes or civil litigation.  So, not to deny the significance of any individual church, from a process point of view I was afraid that blogging the individual cases would start to sound repetitive.  Finally, it looked like posting updates on the 60-100 churches that are going through this would consume a good portion of my blogging time that I would rather target to a broader range of polity issues.

Having said that, I do want to comment on the current high-profile case since it has a number of interesting distinctives.

At a congregational meeting yesterday the members of Memorial Park Presbyterian Church in Allison Park, PA, voted by a margin of 664-25 to leave the PC(USA).  Among the distinctives of Memorial Park are that it is the largest church in Pittsburgh Presbytery with over 1650 members and the senior pastor, the Rev. Dr. D. Dean Weaver, is the co-moderator of the New Wineskins Association of Churches.  But the most distinctive thing that brought them to the vote yesterday was the way in which this journey unfolded.

The first vote was on June 3, 2007, when the congregation voted 951-93 to request dismissal from the PC(USA) to the EPC. ( church press release)  Memorial Park then began negotiating with the Pittsburgh Presbytery to be dismissed.  It should surprise none of us that the negotiations were basically about money, at least if the latest information is accurate.  According to a letter the church sent out on January 3, 2008, the church and the presbytery were far apart on offers and request, and no progress had been made in several months.  The church then initiated legal action to secure the property (“quiet title claim”) in the Allegheny County Common Pleas Court. ( Pittsburgh Post-Gazett Article)  Following the court filing the Presbytery’s Administrative Commission appears to have tried to invoke “original jurisdiction” and take control of the church, including the instruction that the congregational meeting yesterday be canceled.  The church requested from the Common Pleas Court, and got, an injunction against the presbytery so that the meeting could procede.  The Presbytery agreed not to further contest the injunction as long as the church did not transfer the property yet.  At the meeting the congregation voted 664-25 to dissolve all ties to the PC(USA) and affiliate with the EPC.  ( Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Article about the new developments)  Following the court filing the Presbytery also sent a letter out to members of the Presbytery.

That is where the case sits at this moment, but this is far from over.  Because the congregation now considers itself a member of the EPC, or at least not a member of the PC(USA), the Administrative Commission should have no further power or authority.  The Presbytery emphasizes that the church did not follow the process for departure and was never released, therefore it is still a PC(USA) congregation.  As you can probably guess, Judge Judith L. Friedman of the Court of Common Pleas will probably have the next, but certainly not the last, say on this.  Court arguments will resume tomorrow.

Are We Presbyterians Really All That Joyless?

Leave a reply

This topic surfaces regularly and the last time I posted on it was back in October, 2006.  However, this past week two new items appeared that brought this into focus again.

Specifically, it is usually the Scottish Presbyterians that get typed as too serious and joyless.  This past week press coverage brought my attention to an article in the September issue of the regular publication of the Free Church of Scotland, the Monthly Record.  The press coverage brought other people’s attention to it as well since the church set up a special page for it on their web site.  The issue of the magazine is about “Enjoying God” and the editor, David Robertson, wrote the lead article is titled “ The Joy of Calvinism” and begins with this sentence:

The definition of a Calvinist as being a person who is miserable at the thought that someone somewhere is actually enjoying themselves’ is sadly all too typical of the popular misconception of the Free Church (and other forms of Reformed Christianity) in Scotland today.

The writer goes on to say how the culture sees religion, particularly the Scottish Presbyterian kind, as “doom, gloom, blackness, depression and joyless,” how everything that is wrong with Scottish society and even the weather get blamed on Knox and Calvin, and how the Prime Minister of the UK, Gordon Brown, is always labeled by the media as a “dour Presbyterian Scot (the three words always going together).”

The article then reminds us that if we are miserable at our human condition, if we “complain, moan, and have a spirit of bitterness” it is “not because of [our] Christianity — it is in defiance of it.” (emphases in the original)  The author is not denying the true pains and challenges of our human lives.

His point in the article is that Christians should enjoy life more than non-believers because we know the source of our blessings, God the giver of all good gifts.  In so doing, we should enjoy the good things in life as gifts from the one we worship, not worship the good things as idols unto themselves as those who do not know the ultimate source was God.  “The ultimate joy is to know God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  And if we cannot thank the triune God for what we are doing, eating, drinking or watching then we should not be involved with them.”  He goes on to talk about worship and say “Every service should be a celebration.”  It is not an argument for a particular “style” of worship, but our attitude towards worship and how we approach such things as the content of prayers and the tempo of hymns.

While not a current article, I and others discovered it this week and it stands in contrast to some comments from a politician about Scotland that reinforces this stereotype.  Interestingly the comments are also old, five years old to be exact, but were brought to light this past week by a Freedom of Information request.  The comments were made in an e-mail by Mr. John McTernan, now serving as a top aide to the Scottish Secretary.  In that old e-mail he tells a colleague that they will enjoy their trip to Sweden, “It’s the country Scotland would be if it was not narrow, Presbyterian, racist, etc, etc. Social democracy in action.”  At the time Mr. McTernan worked for the Scottish Arts Council.  Mr. McTernan is claiming that the comments were taken out of context and are old.  The ruling Scottish National Party is using this as evidence of what Mr. McTernan’s Labour Party really thinks of Scotland.  I won’t go any further into the national politics of this, for that you can see the news on-line, including a story from Scotsman.com.

The point here is that the church can be joyful about the proper things and that would help to not only reverse the perception of Reformed Christians, but attract people to Christ.

New Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church

1 Reply

At a meeting last night in Dungannon, Ireland, the Free Presbyterian Church, also know as the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, elected a new Moderator.  The Rev. Ron Johnston was elected the new Moderator, replacing the Rev. Dr. Ian Paisley who founded the denomination 57 years ago and served as its Moderator for much of that time.  Dr. Paisley’s involvement in both church leadership and civil political leadership had raised questions within the church and Dr. Paisley agreed to step down as Moderator in the fall as dissent grew.  (My September post on the developments.)

The Rev. Johnston has served as Deputy Moderator to Dr. Paisley and serves a parish in Armagh.  In the press conference following the meeting the Rev. Johnson made it clear that the Free Presbyterian Church would continue in doctrine and practice as it has in the past.  There is good coverage of the news conference on the Belfast News Letter web site.

It should be noted that the Free Presbyterian Church does not share many of the polity characteristics of other Presbyterian churches.  While it broke from the Presbyterian Church in Ireland in 1951 and the new Moderator was elected by a meeting of elders, it has no published Book of Church Order and the Moderator position does not rotate as in other Presbyterian branches.

PC(USA) 218th General Assembly — Mid-January Update

Leave a reply

With the passing of the Christmas quiet period new items, news, and business related to the June General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) will begin to get more plentiful.

First, while the Presbyterian News Service has released no news articles about additional moderator candidates, we know from the blogs that the Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow was endorsed by his presbytery, San Francisco Presbytery, at their meeting yesterday.  This will be an interesting Moderator campaingn to watch since, in my memory, this appears to be the first Web 2.0 Moderator campaign.  If you need an introduction to Web 2.0, you can look at the November 12, 2007, issue of the Presbyterian Outlook (free registration required) but it is the new technologies of interactive blogs and dynamic web sites.  If you want to see what Bruce is doing with it you can check out his new Moderator campaign web site/blog launched within minutes of the presbytery’s formal endosement.  And you can still find out about the non-moderator side of Bruce at his regular blog.

For us good old “frozen chosen” “we’ve never done it this way before” traditionalists it will be interesting what impact the new technology has not just on the Moderator election but on GA as a whole.  As a point of personal privilage I am delighted to announce that my son has been elected the YAD from our presbytery. (OK, proud Dad moment)  But in the next year I am hoping to use him as a lens to view the PC(USA) through much younger eyes.  And I do recognize that he is not a typical high school student.  After all, he wants to spend a week in San Jose doing Presbyterian Government.  But he is typical enough that he had more pressing issues to worry about until he was elected and only then were GA items worth his time.  And he did jump at Bruce’s web site when I showed it to him last night.  Whether Bruce and other candidates who have a Web 2.0 presence win or lose the Moderator vote, I think they will have an impact through their connection to a younger generation in the PC(USA).

Moving on to business before GA there is not much new here.  No new overtures have been posted to the GA Business web page in a while.  And Overture 3, the transfer of a church from a traditional to a Korean language presbytery has been withdrawn.  The next deadline is February 22 for the 120 day deadline for constitutional business.  And things will be quiet for a while longer in the Stated Clerk search.

I should also note that a couple of weeks ago the old and significantly outdated Office of General Assembly GA page that I commented on in my first GA Preview Post has disappeared and that link is now broken.  In fact, the whole set of pages for the Office of the General Assembly has been redone including a new general General Assembly page with basic information and the dates of the future Assemblies.  The 218th GA page is now easier to find and the COLA (Committee on Local Arrangements) web site is developing nicely.  However, it does take some doing to drill down to the web page for General Assembly Meeting Services with the information on registration and hotel reservations for the meeting.

Finally, a mention that all of the groups associated with the PC(USA) are starting to look ahead to the Assembly, but so far web pages highlighting their issues are just beginning to appear.  A few more and I’ll start mentioning those.

That’s it for now, but stay tuned because a lot will be happening shortly.

San Francisco Presbytery Approves a Non-essential Departure

Leave a reply

At their meeting yesterday the San Francisco Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church (USA) discussed the request of Ms. Lisa Larges to declare a non-essential departure from the standards of the  church constitution and they approved the departure as non-essential by a vote of 167-151 making her certified ready to receive a call as a Minister of Word and Sacrament and to be ordained to that call.

What did he just say?  That is the “polity correct” description of the action taken by San Francisco Presbytery yesterday in the case of Lisa Larges, a self-acknowledged homosexual, who is seeking to be ordained as a minister in the PC(USA).  For the background on this and information on her two previous attempts and the associated GA PJC case I would refer you to my previous post on the subject.

Yesterday, the presbytery Committee on Preparation for Ministry brought her request to the whole presbytery for action.  The request was to agree with her declaration that her theology departed from the PC(USA) constitution’s prohibition on ordination of self-acknowledged practicing homosexuals (good old G-6.0106b in the Book of Order) but under the 2006 General Assembly Authoritative Interpretation she requested that the section be declared non-essential to the Reformed faith.  By doing that, the way would be clear for her to accept a call and be ordained.

I do not have much on the specifics of the report or the debate but I do know that there was a minority report.  Based upon the news accounts (such as this Contra Costa Times story) we know the vote was close – 167 to 151.  And based on other information I know the debate went late.  I’ll update as information is disseminated since the story is now starting to circulate on the news feeds and blogosphere.  The news has been posted on the web site of Ms. Larges’ employer, That All May Freely Serve.

What is next?  In the normal course of the ordination process Ms. Larges would receive a call and would be examined on the floor of presbytery for ordination.  So there is still another presbytery vote yet to come.  That examination and vote has been announced to be in April.  But this is now the test case for the 2006 Authoritative Interpretation (AI) so I would expect this ordination exam to be held up by the Synod PJC as a case is filed and whichever way the Synod PJC goes I would expect an appeal to the General Assembly PJC, unless developments at the June General Assembly, like the requested repeal of the AI, change the landscape.  The ordination and maybe the exam could be held up for a while.

The Report of the Form of Government Task Force — New Form of Government and Concluding Comments

Leave a reply

The bulk of the material and changes in the Form of Government Task Force report are to chapters 5-18 of the current Form of Government.  While the changes to the Foundations of Presbyterian Polity were mostly reorganization with some modification, this part is probably better described as modifications with some reorganization.  As I mentioned in the previous post, sort of the part 1 of this series, the objective of the task force was to create a new Government part that preserved the essentials of the PC(USA) polity, while making it more flexible, streamlined, and missional.

I can understand
and applaud the desire to make the polity more flexible.  After serving on the
Committee on Ministry in a presbytery with several congregations that
worshiped in languages other than English, Spanish, or Korean the
flexibility is appreciated.  For example, what does it mean to conduct
a proper pastoral search for a pastor for a language group for which
there are less churches in the PC(USA) than you can count on one hand
and you have to be blessed to be searching at a time when even one candidate who
speaks that language is qualified ready.  Or working with a church who
needs a pastor who speaks a particular language but a theological outlook
that is not typical for that culture.  Or there are language groups who have so
few minister candidates in any Presbyterian branch in North America
that they regularly include pastors in their country of origin in their
searches.  These are examples of times when our COM had to be
“creative” with the existing PC(USA) polity to accommodate the
realities of our presbytery.  By the same token, geographically large
rural presbyteries are coming up against situations where the polity
can make things difficult when churches are small, interested pastors are few, and compensation is at minimums or the position is part-time.  There are times when the flexibility is desirable if not required.

Does the proposed Form of Government do that?

As I mentioned before, fourteen chapters have been consolidated to six:  1 – Congregations and their Membership, 2 – Ordained Ministry, Commissioning, and Certification, 3 – Councils of the Church, 4 – The Church and Civil Authority, 5 – Ecumenicity and Union, 6 – Interpreting and Amending the Constitution.

Now, there is no way that I can touch on all the changes the proposed revision has.  (If you are really interested, you can read the report and side-by-side comparisons yourself.  If you see something that I missed or I did not think was significant enough to include feel free to leave a comment.)  Most of the changes fall into the category of “procedure” so if you are thinking of something in the Book of Order and it seems like a procedure rather than a principle it is probably not in the new Form of Government (Government).  This includes a lot of the details.  For example, quorums and meeting notification times for any meetings, congregational, session, presbytery, etc., are no longer in the text.  Just that “adequate public notice” be given, and for congregational meetings it must be at a worship service (G-1.0501).

Likewise, the proposed revision tells governing bodies what must be done, but now how to do it.  This means that committees, like the Committee on Ministry, the Committee on Preparation for Ministry, and even the Nominating Committee and the Committee on Representation are not specified and not required of governing bodies.  For example, a governing body shall “…have a process for nominating persons to serve in positions requiring election…” (G-3.0112).  They can use a Nominating Committee, but can also have a different mechanism.  An extension of this is that presbyteries must simply examine ministers for membership in the presbytery, it does not say how so there is no longer a requirement to examine before the whole presbytery (G-3.0307).  A third example is the session representation to presbytery (G-3.0301).  It says that each session gets at least one commissioner and that the numbers of teaching elders and ruling elders should be as equal as possible.  Beyond that a presbytery may decide how additional ruling elders are apportioned to churches, but it does say that the membership of the church should be taken into account.  Other cases like this are found throughout the revised Government.

One exception to the lack of procedures is that the procedure for
amending the Book of Order is still present complete with the
specifications for the Assembly Committee on the Constitution and the
120 day submittal deadline before an Assembly. (Chapter 6)  Another
exception which could be viewed as procedural is that the six-year
limit of consecutive service of ruling elders and deacons on session
and the board of deacons respectively is still included (G-2.0206).

The use of new language in the document has attracted some attention.  Governing bodies are now referred to as “councils,” a great word from church history but it will be confusing at first because the current councils of our governing bodies are usually executive boards.  While the terms “minister” and “Minister of Word and Sacrament” are still found in the proposed revision, the use of “teaching elder,” to coordinate with to the term “ruling elder,” is now favored.  Another one, which will take me some getting used to, is the use of the term “ordered ministry” instead of “office” or “ordained office.”  Finally, “congregation” is used in place of “particular church” at times, a swap I am not as favorable to of since I know of several churches that have multiple congregations that worship in different languages but join together on one session.

There are at least two sets of terms which have been removed from the proposed Government.  The first is “inactive” when referring to a member of a church or a minister member of presbytery.  To the task force considering missional polity the term “inactive member” was an oxymoron.  Another set of terms that you will not find are those wonderful descriptors of “temporary pastoral relationships.”  The new Government says that there are temporary pastoral relationships (G-2.0303b) but that “Titles and terms of service for temporary relationships shall be determined by the presbytery.”  While “pastor,” “co-pastor,” and “associate pastor” remain, gone are specifications of “interim,” “designated,” “temporary supply,” and “stated supply” pastor.  From my experience working with churches and our stated clerk to match the right designation to the needs of the congregation and the requirements of our polity, I personally won’t miss this matrix.  This is one point where the flexibility is welcome. 

That brings us to an important point about the proposed Form of Government.  There are points where the task force did propose significant changes to the polity and in a nice gesture of full-disclosure and integrity they have included these as separate recommendations in the report.  After the full text of the Government part there are four more recommendations that would change significant items in the Form of Government should it be approved.  This will allow the GA and presbyteries to vote specifically on these polity changes.

The first possible adjustment deals with associate pastors and their ability to become the pastor of that church.  In the proposed Government the task force included the clause that the associate could become the installed pastor if the presbytery concurred by a 3/4 vote.  This proposed change would strike that clause returning the polity to our current status that an associate shall not become the next senior pastor in the congregation they serve.

The second is the similar change for temporary pastoral relationships.   As currently written any temporary pastor could be declared eligible to become the installed pastor by a 3/4 vote of presbytery.  The possible new language would make it so that any temporary pastor but an interim pastor could become eligible to be the next installed pastor by the 3/4 vote of presbytery.  But this sets up a very interesting situation in the proposed polity.  As I already mentioned, no temporary pastoral relationships are defined or even listed in the new Government.  In fact, doing a search of the Task Force report for “interim” this is the only use I find in the whole report!  If adopted, it would set up polity for a position we know by tradition, and probably by external definition, but would use a term that would be an orphan in the text without any internal context.

The third Additional Recommendation would remove an addition the task force made to make the polity more missional.  In the new G-2.0302a, the section on validated ministry, the sixth item in the list of what a validated ministry shall include is “include proclamation of the Word and administration of the Sacraments.”  This is not something associated with all validated ministries but the reasoning goes that if you are a Minister of Word and Sacrament shouldn’t you be living into that title by doing those things.  This third adjustment would eliminate that requirement.

Finally, the fourth adjustment is language that, while not mandating the Committee on Representation, would at least make reference to something like it in G-3.0104 by adding “Councils above the session may establish committees to advocate for diversity in leadership.”

I would also note that the proposed Chapter 6 on amending includes a section (G-6.0501) that prohibits the new Foundations of Presbyterian Polity from being amended for six years following their adoption.

For me, one of the “sleepers” of this report is the change in language from “per-capita” to “raising funds.”  This is not just a semantic change but the last paragraph of proposed section about administration, G-3.0107, (a long section with minimal citation) reads:

The funding of mission similarly demonstrates the unity and interdependence of the church. The failure of any part of the church to participate in the stewardship of the mission of the whole church diminishes that unity and interdependence. All mission funding should enable the church to give effective witness in the world to the new reality of God in Jesus Christ. Each council shall prepare an annual budget. Councils higher than the session may request funds for their mission and for support of the meetings and ongoing functions through which the interdependence of the church is lived out. Presbyteries are responsible for raising their own funds and for raising and timely transmission of requested funds to their respective synods and the General Assembly. Presbyteries may apportion requested funds to sessions within their bounds.

While I will grant you that this section is theologically based and it clearly eliminates the procedures of splitting mission and per-capita funding and then soliciting the first and collecting and arm-twisting the second, the open-ended nature of this section seems to invite creative accounting and blurred lines between ecclesiastical and mission budgets.  But I know, the new polity is all about mission; everything we do is now supposed to be mission.  However, the current Book of Order is like it is because we have a fallen nature and we use the rules not as a legalistic tool, but a device to guide and focus us in our ministry.  There is a place for hard and fast rules and without those to guide our finances I see this as one of the points for possible abuse.  OK, soap box mode off.

At this point I am down to my “laundry list” of numerous changes trying to decide what else to include in this post.  One of interest is that the section on “Preparation for Ministry” does make mention of the written Ordination Exams, but no longer specifies the topics (G-2.0407d).  The number of members of a commission and the fact that you can not have elders from the same church are details that are no longer specified (G-3.0110).  I would also note here that like the Foundations part, the proposed Government part is also minimalist with citations and that section 3.0110 is quite long with very little numbering to assist citation.  Another interesting change is that the responsibility of the session to instruct and examine those who join the church by reaffirmation of faith has been dropped, but it is still there for those who join by profession of faith (G-1.0304).  Finally, the proposed polity lets presbyteries decide if synods should have “reduced functions.”  Section 3.0404 says “When a two-thirds majority of its constituent presbyteries so decide, the function of a synod may be reduced but shall in no case be less than the prov
ision of judicial process and administrative review of the work of the presbyteries.”

There are a whole bunch more of this type of changes, but I think you should have the idea by now.  The report concludes with an Advisory Handbook for Councils for the Development of Policies and Procedures and the recommendation to GA that it be commended to the governing bodies-turned-councils.

Talking to several other “polity wonks” we all agree that if this revision to the Form of Government is approved by the GA and adopted by a majority of the presbyteries in anything like the form in the report there are likely to be two important consequences.  The first is that presbyteries will begin, and could be preoccupied with, a writing process to create the procedure and policy pieces that will have been removed from the Book of Order.  The second consequence will be an increase in the number of Permanent Judicial Commission cases as sessions and presbyteries deal with, and are challenged on, the new flexibility, including the freedom to set quorums and notification times for meetings.  The present Book of Order has the detail and procedures that it does because of cases like these in the past and the perceived need to codify certain items.  The governing bodies can delay, or cover themselves during, the writing of policies and procedures documents by adopting the procedures of the old Form of Government the way several (many?) presbyteries did this past year following the approval of the new chapter 14 which similarly makes use of Advisory Handbooks which were still in preparation.

The flip side of this is that there is great uncertainty about the applicability of current authoritative interpretations and PJC decisions that help us interpret the current Book of Order.  In fact, in my reading the new Government appears to be silent on these and the affect of existing or new guidance on the new Form of Government.  Do these remain in effect, but we have to figure out how they apply to new citations and new wording?  Do they get thrown out and we start over building a new framework?  Or something in between?

I have expected a bit more reaction to this report than I have found so far.  On his blog Pastor Bob has made some comments both positive and negative about the Foundations and the Government part and has some good points beyond what I had thought about.  I have found on the web a letter from the Session of Chula Vista Presbyterian Church which expresses the opinion that the revision is not an improvement on the current and offers suggestions for improvement and clarification.  There is also a movement to have the church look it over for the two years between the 218th and 219th General Assembly.  According to a commentary by Jim Berkley on the Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD) web site there were several members of the General Assembly Council who advocated for this at their September meeting where they got an advanced look at the task force recommendation.  In this article Mr. Berkley seems to advocate this as well and the Presbytery of Mississippi has sent an overture (16) to GA requesting this.  Jim Berkley also has an earlier article on the IRD web site addressing the obvious confusion that could result from overtures to amend Book of Order text that may not exist if the FOG report is adopted.  Finally, Jim has on his own blog, The Berkley Blog, a commentary titled “ Ready for a Book of Order Downgrade?“

As for myself, I am withholding judgment on this part until GA gets done working it over.  If I had to vote today on how it currently reads I would probably vote no.  I appreciate the increased flexibility and would like to see a Form of Government that can adapt to a variety of unique situations.  However, I have also seen my own congregation go to the Committee on Ministry and say “we like our interim, can we keep him?”  Fortunately the COM turned them down and it was a good thing too.  Besides the fact that it was it against the rules, the pastor we did call was truly God’s gift to our congregation and shows what can happen when you do a search right.  As a former moderator of COM, I am trying to figure out how I would write it to provide flexibility without undue temptation.  And I will acknowledge that the current Book of Order has become a patchwork with amendments to answer particular issues but not necessarily added in a big-picture way.  I do not want to argue against a rewrite, just something that is in the middle ground between the current and the proposed.

But, this report has a long way to go in the next six months.  It will be poked and prodded in GA committee and on the plenary floor.  It can be amended, modified, rewritten, or abandoned at both stages.  Throw into the mix the numerous overtures for Book of Order changes and how they may, or may not, apply to the rewrite.  And then the final product will be ready to go back out to the presbyteries for approval (but not modification).  We will see what the process brings.