The Top 10 Things that Happened at the 222nd General Assembly

Anyone who’s ever been to a General Assembly knows it’s a rich feast. The business agenda of the Assembly alone is massive, and there are a host of auxiliary meetings and social events as well.

Boiling the work of the Assembly down to just a few items is a challenge, but I’m going to try. Here’s my list of the Top 10 Things that Happened at the 222nd General Assembly:

10) The most talked-about business in advance of the Assembly was the "Foothills Overtures," a collection of constitutional amendments and rules changes that would have radically altered the way the Assembly does its business. I’ve written about these overtures — named for the Foothills Presbytery of South Carolina, from which they originated — in an earlier blog post. The effect of these overtures would have been — by restricting how often certain topics could come up and by adding supermajority voting requirements — to eviscerate the Assembly’s ability to do almost anything related to social justice. In the end, the Assembly carefully considered these overtures in a special committee, then resoundingly voted them all down.

9) In the early twentieth century, Presbyterians could be found at the forefront of the Fundamentalist movement, advancing a literalist interpretation of scripture. We are very far from that place a century later, interpreting scripture with the full range of literary and historical tools available. In two separate actions, the Assembly stated definitively that science and faith are not enemies, that evolution — rather than a literal reading of the Genesis creation stories — is a reasonable explanation of how God created the universe, and that Christian disciples should not shrink from using the full range of their God-given intellectual abilities to advance scientific inquiry.

8) Could the “sex wars” really be over? Generally, the atmosphere at this Assembly was far less contentious than some of recent memory. This is largely due to the changes that took place at the last two Assemblies, allowing freedom for GLBTQ believers to assume ordained office, and a similar freedom for pastors and sessions wishing to offer same-sex marriage ceremonies where permitted by civil law. There was an overture to return to the “one man and one woman” language once present in the Directory for Worship’s section on marriage. This was resoundingly defeated by a more than a 4-to-1 margin. Another overture, coming from the opposite end of the theological spectrum, called on the church to formally apologize to GLBTQ Christians who have been marginalized by past church teachings. The Assembly declined to use the emotionally-loaded “a”-word, speaking instead of “regret.” This was in order to provide gracious space for those who continue to be dissent from the church’s tolerant stance on same-sex marriage, honoring their freedom of conscience.

7) After contentious debate, the Assembly rejected a call for aggressive divestment of the church’s stock-market holdings in two hundred corporations that produce fossil fuels. Instead, the Assembly opted for a less-confrontational strategy of engaging these companies in dialogue through stockholder resolutions.

6) The Assembly approved an amended report, “Israel-Palestine: For Human Values in the Absence of a Just Peace.” This supports the two-state solution to that intractable conflict, taking particular note of the imbalance of suffering between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Assembly refrained from moving beyond phased divestment from Hewlett-Packard (the position of the last Assembly) to an outright boycott, continuing to work with that corporation to encourage them to do less to support the Israeli occupation of Palestinian areas.

5) The last two Assemblies have pondered the future of synods, opting for consolidation of our existing synods into even larger regional bodies — but not specifying exactly how this was going to take place. By a large majority, the Assembly rescinded that mandate. Commissioners approved the appointment of a high-level “2020 Vision Team” that will explore our governance structures at every level and make recommendations for change.

4) In a surprise move, the Assembly resoundingly approved an overture calling for a return to “minister of the word and sacrament” as the prevailing title for the order of ministry that has been called, since the adoption of our present Form of Government, “teaching elder.” Both terms will still be used, but - if a majority of presbyteries approve the change - “minister” will now be primary, as it has been through every other era of the church’s history. I have written about this issue previously in an article in the Presbyterian Outlook. In a related development, the wordy title, “ruling elder commissioned to limited pastoral service” (commonly called “commissioned ruling elder”) will now be called simply “commissioned pastor.”

3) New faces in leadership: for the first time ever, there is no Anglo male face among the senior leadership of the church. The Assembly elected the Revs. T. Denise Anderson and Jan Edmiston (of National Capital and Chicago presbyteries, respectively) as its first-ever co-moderators. It also elected the Rev. J. Herbert Nelson (formerly director of the church’s Washington Office) as Stated Clerk. Tony De La Rosa continues as interim director of the Presbyterian Mission Agency. Look for great things, in particular, from J. Herbert Nelson. He’s a powerful orator in the tradition of Martin Luther King, Jr. and a change-agent. While he has never been a stated clerk before at any level, he promises to be a quick study.

2) The Assembly approved a draft of a new Directory for Worship that will now go out to the presbyteries for approval. The changes have to do mostly with making the Directory for Worship more concise and usable, although it does offer new flexibility to welcome unbaptized inquirers to the Lord’s Table, as long as the invitation to be baptized is made clear to them.

1) And now, the number-one thing this Assembly did was to complete the process of adding the Belhar Confession as the twelfth confessional document contained in the Book of Confessions. While this was pretty much a foregone conclusion — since more than three-fourths of the presbyteries have already given their required assent — still, it is of great historic significance. After the positive vote, theologian Allan Boesak of South Africa, one of the authors of the Belhar Confession during the apartheid era, addressed the Assembly. He ended his remarks by saying, “We may not know what tomorrow may bring, but I know this: tonight, we have overcome. I know this: because of Jesus, we shall overcome. I know this: whatever may come in our world, we shall overcome.” In a moving moment, the Assembly responded by spontaneously breaking into song, singing — what else? —“We Shall Overcome.”

The Marriage Amendment and Mutual Forbearance

It’s only a matter of time.

Anyone who’s been monitoring the count of presbyteries voting on Constitutional Amendment 14-F, allowing same-sex marriage in Presbyterian churches, can see the tally's been running nearly two-to-one in favor. It’s almost a mathematical certainty that, in the coming weeks, we’ll hear the news that the required minimum of 86 ratifying presbyteries has been reached. The Directory for Worship will have been amended, to define marriage as “a unique commitment between two people, traditionally a man and a woman, to love and support each other for the rest of their lives.” (The full text of the amended section can be found below.)

“So, what happens then?” That’s the question on the minds of many Presbyterians.

For more than 40 years, Presbyterians have been debating the question of full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of the church. That theological struggle has been going on for longer than I’ve been in ministry. With each year that’s gone by, the number of Presbyterians favoring full inclusion has gradually been increasing, a slowly rising tide.

Three years ago, a majority of presbyteries agreed with the General Assembly, voting to remove the constitutional bar to ordination for those who do not “live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness.”

A year ago, the Assembly voted to recommend changing the definition of marriage from being “between a man and a woman” to being “between two people” (although noting that the two parties have traditionally been a man and a woman).

In large part, the rising tide of change has been generationally-driven. Pollsters tell us huge majorities of 30-and-under Christians do not view same-sex relationships as inherently sinful — and that most of them have little interest in any church that teaches differently. As younger people have been elected as commissioners to presbyteries, and as a corresponding number of older leaders have aged out, the shift has gradually taken place. There’s an old saying that “the church is always just one generation away from extinction.” From a purely demographic standpoint, it’s hard to see how any church that favors moral convictions more common to retirees than to younger and mid-life adults can survive for long.

Although there’s sometimes a tendency for those on the conservative side of the debate to dismiss the convictions of their opponents as unbiblical, anyone who takes an objective look at the arguments pro and con will see that it’s not a matter of biblical fidelity, but rather of differing biblical interpretations. Advocates of same-sex marriage truly do not love their Bibles any less than those who oppose it. They just understand the scriptures differently.

The new language doesn’t force any Presbyterians to change their views. It is permissive, not mandatory, speaking of what “may be appropriate” rather than what must happen. More than that, it offers explicit protection for any teaching elder (minister) or congregation who fears being forced to approve a same-sex marriage ceremony: “Nothing herein shall compel a teaching elder to perform nor compel a session to authorize the use of church property for a marriage service that the teaching elder or the session believes is contrary to the teaching elder’s or the session’s discernment of the Holy Spirit and their understanding of the Word of God.” Individual conscience is protected.

Well, what about those who feel offended that they must live under a Book of Order that even tolerates same-sex marriage? 

The answer to that is that the Book of Order is not a confession of faith. Those ordained to ordered ministry in the Presbyterian Church don’t swear allegiance to the Book of Order (they don’t even do that for individual passages from the Book of Confessions: in the ordination questions, they promise not to subscribe to individual confessions word-for-word, but rather to “be instructed and led” by the entire collection of confessional documents). What they do promise, in the ordination questions, is to “be governed by our church’s polity” and to “abide by its discipline.”

There’s a subtle — but important —  difference between affirming a constitutional document and agreeing to be governed by it. After the marriage amendment takes effect — with its explicit guarantee that no one in ordered ministry will be forced to participate in a same-sex ceremony — there will be nothing in the Book of Order to force pastors or session members to affirm or do anything against their consciences, when it comes to same-sex marriage ceremonies.

There is, however, something of great importance the Book of Order does expect every Presbyterian leader to do: and this has certainly not changed. This obligation, expressed in our Historic Principles of Church Order for over 200 years, is to strive to exercise “mutual forbearance” towards fellow presbyters whose viewpoints differ from our own (F-3.0105).

And what is mutual forbearance? It’s a biblical concept — although it’s a little hard to locate in most English translations, because the word “forbearance” is something of an antique.  Scrupulous readers of the Authorized (“King James”) Version will recognize it in Ephesians 4:2. In the face of persistent church conflict, Paul’s prescription for good health in the body of Christ is “forbearing one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” The New Revised Standard Version renders it “bearing with one another in love.”

The essential feature of the biblical concept of mutual forbearance is the presence of a third party in the relationship: God. Whether the opposing parties are facing off across a kitchen table or a Session conference table, two individuals in conflict have little chance of permanently resolving their differences unless they first acknowledge their mutual reliance on a higher authority. Such is the message of the Ephesians passage as it recommends “making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

Note that unity in the relationship does not come from the parties themselves. It is unity of the Spirit. Further, the peace that reigns over the two opponents is not something that appears automatically, requiring little effort. The scripture speaks of the “bond” of peace: literally, a chain or fetter. A lifelong commitment to living and working with one another, despite our differences, means sacrificing something of the freedom we would otherwise have, were we not accountable to another.

It’s not unlike living through change as a family. Change does not typically happen, in families, in slow and incremental ways. It happens by leaps and bounds, often driven by the passions of the younger generations, to which the older members eventually learn to accommodate. The younger generations, for their part, come to accept the likelihood that they will never fully convince their elders.

What happens, then? Does the family splinter, its unity destroyed?

Sadly, in some cases this is what happens. Most observers, though, would describe that as a failed family. Its members have failed to do the one thing they were expected to do: to stick together through thick and thin.

What keeps any family healthy and strong is mutual forbearance. It must be intentional, and it must happen on both sides. We bear with each other because we love one another in Christ. That’s the bottom line.

So, what will happen after the new constitutional language becomes the law of the church? My hope is that together we will enter a new period of mutual forbearance, coming to appreciate the theological and practical value of this historical — and deeply biblical — principle of Presbyterianism.

(The description of mutual forbearance is adapted from my forthcoming book, tentatively titled Principles of Presbyterian Polity, that is under contract with Westminster/John Knox Press.)

Amendment 14-F. Marriage

On Amending W-4.9000

Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family. Marriage involves a unique commitment between two people, traditionally a man and a woman, to love and support each other for the rest of their lives. The sacrificial love that unites the couple sustains them as faithful and responsible members of the church and the wider community.

In civil law, marriage is a contract that recognizes the rights and obligations of the married couple in society. In the Reformed tradition, marriage is also a covenant in which God has an active part, and which the community of faith publicly witnesses and acknowledges.

If they meet the requirements of the civil jurisdiction in which they intend to marry, a couple may request that a service of Christian marriage be conducted by a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), who is authorized, though not required, to act as an agent of the civil jurisdiction in recording the marriage contract. A couple requesting a service of Christian marriage shall receive instruction from the teaching elder, who may agree to the couple’s request only if, in the judgment of the teaching elder, the couple demonstrate sufficient understanding of the nature of the marriage covenant and commitment to living their lives together according to its values. In making this decision, the teaching elder may seek the counsel of the session, which has authority to permit or deny the use of church property for a marriage service.

The marriage service shall be conducted in a manner appropriate to this covenant and to the forms of Reformed worship, under the direction of the teaching elder and the supervision of the session (W-1.4004–.4006). In a service of marriage, the couple marry each other by exchanging mutual promises. The teaching elder witnesses the couple’s promises and pronounces God’s blessing upon their union. The community of faith pledges to support the couple in upholding their promises; prayers may be offered for the couple, for the communities that support them, and for all who seek to live in faithfulness.

A service of worship recognizing a civil marriage and confirming it in the community of faith may be appropriate when requested by the couple. The service will be similar to the marriage service except that the statements made shall reflect the fact that the couple is already married to one another according to the laws of the civil jurisdiction.

Nothing herein shall compel a teaching elder to perform nor compel a session to authorize the use of church property for a marriage service that the teaching elder or the session believes is contrary to the teaching elder’s or the session’s discernment of the Holy Spirit and their understanding of the Word of God.

Photo credits: Rodrigo Valladares, Stephen Eastop, from freeimages.com

Alternative Presbyterians

I love our new Form of Government - most of it. It's lean, efficient, and places our historic principles of Presbyterian governance clearly at the foundations, building upwards from there. Because of the way we had to vote it up or down, though - as a single package - I made the decision to support it, even though I had serious reservations about one aspect. Still do.

My reservations are about the swapping of the term "minister of the Word and Sacrament" for "teaching elder." It's not a total swap: the book uses "teaching elder" throughout, but allows for "minister of the Word and Sacrament" as an alternate title (G-2.0501).

In the couple of years we've been living under our present Form of Government, I've seen us benefit from its simple, intuitive structure in more ways than I can count. I'd never go back to the unnecessary, cobbled-together complexity of the old one.

I dutifully use "teaching elder" in technical discussions about polity. When I teach Presbyterian Polity at Princeton Seminary this fall, I'll use it. But there's a part of me that winces every time I hear the term, or even say it.

It's not that "teaching elder" is without virtue. Laid alongside "ruling elder," the term highlights our central principle of the parity of ministries: in presbytery, synod and General Assembly, equal numbers of teaching elders and ruling elders call the shots. It's a vital check-and-balance that helps define who we are as Presbyterians.

Still and all, I have a feeling that the decision to change this essential terminology solved one problem, but delivered a host of new ones. "Teaching elder" arises out of just one tributary stream that makes up the mighty river of Presbyterianism. It so happened that a lot of the team who wrote the new Form of Government nostalgically recalled their days by the banks of that particular stream. They doggedly made sure the draft document didn't make it to the General Assembly without "teaching elder" becoming the term of choice.

The complexity of crafting an amendment to the draft document that would substitute dozens of occurrences of "teaching elder" for "minister" was a near-impossibility on the floor of the Assembly, and - once the Assembly had recommended it - the presbyteries were required to vote the draft up or down without amendment, so here we are.

It's part of our Constitution, now, and I'm walking with it. But I'm walking with a limp.

Outside of technical polity discussions, I still use "minister" to define who I am and what I do. Since that's the alternative term, I guess that makes me an Alternative Presbyterian.

So, after that lengthy introduction, let me share my...

Top Ten Reasons Why I Continue to Use “Minister” Rather Than “Teaching Elder”

10. Ministry is about so much more than teaching.

9. Sticking with “minister” means I can still say, simply, “elder” — which doesn't require a wonky linguistic discourse on the word "ruling" before ordinary people can understand what those leaders do (G-2.0301).

8. I’d rather celebrate how the names of two of our three orders (minister and deacon) have direct linguistic ties to biblical diakonia - "servanthood" - instead of just one.

7. I’m proud of my Scottish heritage, but not at the expense of Dutch, French, German, Czech and other Reformed traditions that make up the PC(USA) - and not even the Scots, who thought up "teaching elder," ever officially adopted it as their term of choice.

6. One word: Sacraments.

5. “Minister” doesn't muddy the waters of the World Council of Churches' historic Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry agreement the way “teaching elder” does.

4. Better to stick close to the trunk of our theological tree (John Calvin) rather than one of its several branches (Andrew Melville).*

3. I love the Presbyterian idea of parity of ministries, but there are far more important things we need to be saying to the world right now than “Check it out! We've got a really cool system of government.”

2. Other churches of the Reformed Tradition have no idea what we’re talking about.

And now, the number one reason why I continue to use “Minister” Rather Than “Teaching Elder”....

1. I’ll never see the day when someone from our local hospital calls up and says: “Can you come down here? One of our patients is dying and needs to speak with a teaching elder.”

* = Andrew Melville was the great Scottish systematizer of Presbyterian governance, but even he didn't succeed in getting the Church of Scotland to forgo "minister" in favor of "teaching elder" - it was only some of his wide-eyed true believers in the New World who did that.

One Foot in the ECO?

Many of us have been following with keen interest - and, in some cases, deep concern - the news of the formation of the Fellowship of Presbyterians, and especially the newer group calling itself the Evangelical Covenant Order, or ECO.  Periodically throughout our history, disgruntled Presbyterian conservatives have formed such breakaway denominations, but their history is not encouraging.  The new denominations have tended not to flourish in the long term, and they have often been subject to repeated splits.  Our history has demonstrated, over and over again, that the habit of schism, once indulged, is a difficult one to break.

Unlike earlier breakaway movements, the ECO, in its published statements, seems reluctant to use the “D” word - “denomination” - in describing itself.  It prefers the word "order," and in using it, has drawn parallels between itself and religious orders of the Roman Catholic Church like the Jesuits and the Franciscans. This is troubling, because the woolly language may mislead some congregational leaders into thinking they can vote to affiliate with the ECO without involving Monmouth Presbytery in the decision-making process.  ECO leaders may prefer to speak of “affinity groups” and “a new way of being the church in a post-denominational era,” but such vague language doesn’t alter the fact that the ECO is, in fact, a new Presbyterian denomination.

Despite its leaders’ hesitancy to use the “D” word, the ECO looks, walks and quacks like the proverbial duck - the “D” referring to “denomination,” of course, not “duck.”

This is not true of The Fellowship of Presbyterians.  Congregations who are so inclined may affiliate with The Fellowship without involving the Presbytery - although it would certainly be courteous to inform their Committee on Ministry liaisons of their intention to do so, and even to invite them to come speak to congregational leaders before a vote is taken.

The ECO, however, is a horse of a different color. While the “Polity” document of the ECO welcomes both congregations that wish to be "graciously dismissed" from the PC(USA) and become outright members, and those who wish to remain in the PC(USA) but have dual affiliation, the PC(USA) Form of Government has some very explicit provisions relating to the formation of “Union Congregations” - those that are affiliated with the PC(USA) and another denomination simultaneously.

Our Constitution does not permit congregations to simply vote to affiliate with the ECO – nor any other denomination – without first obtaining the permission and support of their PC(USA) presbytery for doing so.  This is true even of those who envision themselves maintaining dual affiliation: one foot in the PC(USA) and one foot outside it.

The PC(USA) Office of Constitutional Services in Louisville has recently issued Constitutional Musing #25, “Joint Congregational Witness,” on this very topic.  Ruling elders and teaching elders of any congregation who are considering establishing a relationship with the ECO would do well to read this document very, very carefully, and then to officially notify Monmouth Presbytery, in writing, that they are contemplating such a step, well in advance of any Session or Congregational votes on the subject.  A Session or Congregation who votes to affiliate with the ECO without bringing the Presbytery into the decision - even under the understanding that they will have “one foot in and one foot out”of the PC(USA) - is in violation of the Form of Government and could be subject to ecclesiastical discipline.  The Form of Government is clear that such Union Church relationships may only be established by explicit consent of the PC(USA) presbytery (G-5.05).

“But, aren’t we living in a post-denominational age?” some may counter.  “The ECO is simply ‘pursuing a new way of being the church.’  This is merely a ‘mission partnership’ we want to be involved in. We want to be nimble and flexible, ever open to the Holy Spirit’s leading. We mean no harm.  In fact, we mean to do a great deal of good, for the sake of the Lord!”

That may well be - and in that case, those interested in the ECO should easily be able to convince the Presbytery, through its Committee on Ministry, that their motives are pure, and that they wish to pursue their decision-making process with total transparency.

In John 12:36, our Lord encourages us to be “children of light.” Ephesians 5:8-13 says: “For once you were darkness, but now in the Lord you are light. Live as children of light.... everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that becomes visible is light.”  If a decision to affiliate with the ECO - with both feet, or just with one - truly belongs to God’s light, then it can certainly withstand the light of scrutiny by the Presbytery at every step along the way.  The Presbytery is, after all, but a group of brothers and sisters in the Christian faith who are likewise striving to live in the light.

We never do agree on everything, in the church – haven’t, since the days of the Apostle Paul – but at least we in the Presbytery of Monmouth ought to be able to agree that, for the sake of our common relationship in the Lord, we owe one another clear communication and full transparency on anything and everything relating to the Fellowship of Presbyterians and the ECO.

Navigating the New Form of Government

One of the most helpful resources I've seen for Sessions to understand the new Form of Government better is this one, that was put together by my colleague, the Rev. Val Fowler, Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of Genesee Valley in New York state. It's essentially a checklist that pastors and clerks of session can use to make sure their church is making the appropriate adjustments for life under the new Form of Government.

The interesting thing about Val as the author of this document is that he started out as an opponent of the nFOG. Once the General Assembly passed it and a majority of presbyteries approved it, though, it became the law of the church. So, Val changed gears and began focusing on how he could best educate the sessions of his presbytery as they prepared to take the necessary actions.

Val's Navigating the New Form of Government guide is the result. It got some great press at the recent Fall Polity Conference in Pittsburgh, attended by executive presbyters and stated clerks from around the nation.

With Val's permission, I pass it on to you, with the recommendation that the session of your church use it to guide their discussions about how to adapt to the nFOG.

Top Ten Things for Sessions To Do To Adapt To the nFOG

It's not every day I recommend an article from The Presbyterian Layman.  Over the years, I've found their reporting on controversial church issues to be far from objective and accurate, and some of their attacks on church leaders I respect and trust to border on the libelous.

Imagine my surprise when I found an article in their current issue called "PCUSA has time to 'live into the nFOG,'" in which they actually refrain from saying anything bad about the denomination!  In fact, the article is filled with useful tips for Sessions that are working to become familiar with the new Form of Government (nFOG).

The article is a straight-up summary of a recent webinar sponsored by The Presbyterian Outlook (a much more moderate independent journal reporting on the denomination).  The teacher behind the webinar was the Rev. Dan Williams, co-moderator of the General Assembly's New Form of Government Task Force.

The article's worth reading in its entirety, but here are some highlights, including a "Top Ten List of Things to Do Sooner, Rather Than Later" with respect to the nFOG:

Sessions should look in the following sections for:

• G-1.03 for membership matters
• G-2.01-2.04 for ordered ministries or deacons and ruling elders
• G-3.01 for general procedures for all four councils
• G-3.02 for specific items that are the responsibility of the session
• G-4.01-4.02 for information on trustees, church property and so forth

Top 10 list

Williams then presented his top 10 list of “Things to do sooner, rather than later.” He told those listening to the webinar that “it’s better to do things thoughtfully and carefully rather than do it right now. … I can’t emphasize enough that you do not have to do anything right away. … No one will rap your knuckles if you do them later.”

10. Study the foundations. “Make sure you have done your homework in that section first,” said Williams. “Building well starts with the foundation.” The “Foundations of Presbyterian Polity” can be found in section F of the nFOG.

9. Quorum. Williams said this issue received a lot of discussion from Presbyterians when the final presbytery votes were being taken. The passage of nFOG removed the system-wide minimum standard for congregational and session forums, he said, “But it does not change your quorum. The number remains your quorum until you have a meeting and take the action to make the change.”

8. Notice for special meetings. Sessions and congregations can now determine how much required notice is needed to hold a special meeting. “It’s now up to you, as to what ‘reasonable notice’ must be,” he said.  “What works best for your situation will inform what your notice will be.”

7.  The nominations process. Williams said that G-2.0401 says the congregation can form the nomination committee in whatever way it deems acceptable. “You can continue to do it the old way,” he said, adding that that the nomination committee must include at least three active members on the committee and one ruling elder who is a current session member.

6. Length of term for the church treasurer found in G-3.0205.

5. Length of term for the clerk of session found in G3.-0104.

4. Strategy for dealing with members who have ceased active participation. “There is no ‘inactive roll’ as a requirement in the nFOG,” said Williams. “You are not required to maintain an inactive roll, but it does not mean you can’t have one. ... If this works best for you and your session then by all means have one.” Williams called the term “inactive member” a “contradiction in terms” and that the task force wanted to get away from that.

3. Sexual misconduct policy. All churches now must have a sexual misconduct policy. This change came from an amendment passed by presbyteries this year to the former Form of Government that also amended the nFOG. Williams advised those on the webinar to “look to your presbytery for guidance.”

2. Preparation and examination of those elected to ordered ministries, found in sections G-2.0402; G-2.0403 and G-2.0104b.

1. Develop or amend a manual of operations.  Williams said that nFOG takes the “how” and “who” matters out of the constitution, and these matters now belong in a church’s manual of operations. “You may not have a manual of operations, but you have standing policies that will likely be in a manual of operations,” he said. Examples include policies on creating committees and on building use. All of those policies should be collected into a manual of operations than can be as “detailed or brief as you need,” he said. “For smaller churches that operate more informally it may be a few pages.”

New Book of Order Available for Free, Online

The new Book of Order, 2011-2013, including the new Form of Government (nFOG), is now available in PDF format as a free download from The Church Store, part of the PCUSA web page.

If you don't have an account with The Church Store already, they're going to make you go through the process of registering with your contact information and submitting a credit card number, but don't worry, the bill will come out to "0.00" in the end, so you won't be charged anything.

Print copies are of course still available, for $10 plus shipping, but this electronic version (searchable through Adobe Reader or whatever other software you use to read pdf files) is a convenience.

Please spread the word.

Where to Get the New Book of Order

This information arrived today from the PC(USA) Office of the General Assembly:

The Book of Order (2011-2013) is available in print. Item #OGA-11-001. Price: $10 for 1-9 copies, 10% discount for 10-24 copies; 15% discount for 25-49 copies; 20% discount for 50+ copies. Order from the Church Store or call (800) 524-2612.

Here are the many electronic formats of the Book of Order (2011-2013) that are or will be available:

· Available now: A downloadable PDF version of Foundations of Presbyterian Polity, the new first section of the Book of Order.

· By July 20: a CD-ROM with both the Book of Confessions and the Book of Order (2011-2013) in PDF formats. Item #OGA-11-007. Price: $15. Order from the Church Store or call (800) 524-2612.

· By August 1: the Book of Order (2011-2013) will be in the Kindle bookstore (for Kindle and PC users) and in the iBookstore (for Mac and iPad users). Price: $9.99.

· This fall (date subject to the work of the Special Committee on Authoritative Interpretations): A free annotated, online, searchable version of the Book of Order (2011-2013) will be added to the PC(USA) Document Library. The library currently contains the most recent version of the Book of Order, the Book of Confessions, General Assembly Minutes (1986-2008), Social Policy Compilation, and Selected Theological Statements.

Parliamentary time bombs?

There's been some discussion, lately, about how local congregations ought to transition to the new Form of Government, that's due to take effect on July 10, 2011. I've been hearing, in particular, about one alarmist critique of the nFOG, that suggests there are a couple of hidden parliamentary time bombs in there that are all ready to blow local churches sky-high if somebody doesn't get in there like MacGyver and defuse them.

In particular, say the alarmists, there are two things local churches need to do, pronto:

1) Set the quorum for congregational meetings, and
2) Establish the most recent edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised as the parliamentary basis for congregational meetings

Everyone's agreed that, because the nFOG doesn't explicitly adopt these two standards in the case of local churches, congregations do need to vote on these two items at some point, if their By-Laws don't already address these issues. The question is whether this is a matter of such urgency that Sessions need to rush to call a congregational meeting prior to July 10, when the nFOG takes effect. The doomsday scenario - raised by partisans who are no friends of the nFOG and have been opposing it - is that if congregations allow July 10th to come and go without formally adopting the 10% quorum that was in the old book, then they will for all practical purposes be unable to ever meet again, because they'll need to roust out 50% of their membership in order to conduct any business.

The problem with that argument is that it's self-contradictory. If we accept that, after July 10th, the default 50% quorum from Robert's Rules applies to congregational meetings, but we also accept that Robert's has no constitutional basis for congregations after July 10th - unless and until congregations specifically act to adopt it as such - then, how can Robert's impose a 50% quorum from the get-go?

If a congregation can't, or doesn't want to, meet before July 10th, then all it has to do at its first meeting is to adopt a rule stating that, in accordance with former practice, the quorum for a congregational meeting is 10%. Then, it can go on to adopt a second rule, stating that Robert's Rules is the parliamentary authority for all matters not addressed by the Constitution of the PC(USA).

There's actually an easier way to handle this, though, with a single motion (as I describe below).

Furthermore, this is a classic case in which "Jenkins' Law" applies. The late Fred Jenkins was, at one time, our executive presbyter here in Monmouth Presbytery. Fred - who was both an attorney and a minister - left Monmouth to go on to fame and glory as Director of the Office of Constitutional Services in Louisville. Fred had a question he habitually asked, in certain situations in which a council (what we used to call a "governing body") was about to get itself tied up in knots. His question was: "Who's going to sue?"

Let's say a congregation's By-Laws make no mention of either quorum or Robert's Rules - or, worse yet, that a congregation doesn't have any By-Laws at all. Let's also say that congregation tarries, and doesn't hold a meeting until after July 10th. If it makes a good-faith effort at that time to set a reasonable quorum (especially the 10% quorum that, as years of minutes will show, they've been following since forever), and then goes on to establish Robert's as its parliamentary authority (which many successive Books of Order likewise show has historically been our steadfastly reliable guide), then there's not a court in this country, ecclesiastical or otherwise, who's likely to throw a wrench into the works because of such a technicality. And besides, as Fred would say: WHO'S GOING TO SUE, anyway? Who even cares about such a nit-picky point of procedure, when a congregation that takes the steps I've outlined above is doing the most reasonable thing, based on years of past precedent, in order to get through a transitional time?

Now, on to the solution...

Here's what I think all clerks of session ought to do, as we make the change:

1) Find the By-Laws, blow the dust off them, and see what they say about quorum and Robert's Rules. If they already address these matters, you're home free.

2) Failing that, at the next Congregational meeting, have someone propose this motion:

"With respect to any item that the new Form of Government leaves to be set as policy at the discretion of the Congregation, which was formerly included as part of the 2009-2011 Form of Government as amended by the 219th General Assembly (2010), that item is temporarily adopted as Congregational policy until superseded by further action of the Congregation."

Presto! You've just re-established everything that was in the old Book of Order with respect to how congregational meetings operate.

I wouldn't advise keeping that action in place forever, though. If you do, you'll eventually be carrying around a tattered, yellowed copy of the 2009-2011 Book of Order, with all the pages falling out, along with your latest copy of the nFOG. The intent of the change is that every council (formerly "governing body") of the church will go through a careful, deliberate process of writing a policies manual. (From the Presbytery, we'll be sending out guidelines and suggestions in the coming months to help you do so.) This enabling motion is just to buy some time to go through that process in a measured, unhurried way.

The Session ought to to adopt a similar version as well:

"With respect to any item that the new Form of Government leaves to be set as policy at the discretion of the Session, which was formerly included as part of the 2009-2011 Form of Government as amended by the 219th General Assembly (2010), that item is temporarily adopted as Session policy until superseded by further action of the Session."

If you want to, you can add a sunset clause to the end of the motion, saying that it remains in effect until, say, December 31, 2012. But, that's optional.

I think this is a reasonable way to proceed. If you're still concerned about it, of course, you could always suggest to the Session that they call a special congregational meeting before July 10. There's still plenty of time to do that.

We Have a New Form of Government

It’s happened, as expected. As confirmed today in a churchwide letter from the leaders of the national church, unofficial tallies indicate that the new Form of Government has now received a sufficient number of “yes” votes in the presbyteries to become part of the Constitution. The new provisions will take place just over a month from now, on July 10, 2011.

We have our work cut out for us, in the coming months. While the new FOG is much simpler and more concise than the old one, key details have intentionally been left out of the new version, in order that the church’s councils (session, presbyteries, synods and General Assembly) may develop policies and procedures that best suit their particular situations.

The word “council,” by the way, is now the generic term of choice to describe what we used to call “governing bodies.” That means we need to find a new name for the Presbytery Mission Council.

A few of our churches have also been using the word “council” to describe a type of committee or working group. It would be wise to find a new name for those groups, as well, so as to avoid confusion.

At the meeting of the Presbytery Mission Council this Thursday evening, we’ll be discussing an enabling motion to recommend to the Presbytery, that will effectively retain, for a period of time, all provisions of the old Form of Government not covered by the new book. This will allow us the time we need to adapt our present Presbytery Standing Rules into a new Manual of Operations.

It would be wise for sessions to do the same. In the next few days, we’ll be getting a recommended text for this enabling motion out to the sessions for their consideration.

Some may choose to see this whole business as an annoyance, as extra work that needs to be done. "Just tell us what we need to do, so we can keep doing things the way we always have," may be the first reaction.

I think it's a mistake to look on the new Form of Government that way: as an obstacle to be overcome. I look on it more as an opportunity. In response to a growing sense, across the denomination, that the Form of Government had grown too large, regulatory and generally unwieldy, the General Assembly has approved a new version that's simpler and more flexible. There's freedom, now, for sessions, presbyteries and synods to cut away certain former rules and regulations they believe have been hindering effective mission.

If, in our sessions and in the presbytery, we take this opportunity to enter into a time of missional reorganization, we'll very likely find that we'll come out of that process better able to respond to the call of Christ in our particular locale, and a lot less likely to allow our shoelaces to get tied together by unnecessary regulations.

For those interested in looking ahead at the decisions that will need to be made by each session, the Office of the General Assembly has issued an Advisory Handbook on implementation of the new Form of Government. The first section of that booklet deals with sessions, and questions they will need to ask themselves in the coming months.

Those curious about the impact of these new provisions will want to examine the Office of the General Assembly’s Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list on the subject, which is below:

Frequently Asked Questions about the New Form of Government
Office of the General Assembly
June 2011

When will the new Form of Government take effect?
The new Form of Government will take effect on July 10, 2011, which is one year after the adjournment of the 219th General Assembly (2010) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

What has changed with the adoption of the new Form of Government?
The same basic polity that has defined the core work of the councils (governing bodies) of the Presbyterian Church continues with the new Form of Government. This revision is not so much about the “what” that councils do – our essential polity – as it is about the “who” and the “how.” Increased flexibility in structures and procedures in a less regulatory environment is the major change that has occurred. The new Form of Government allows councils to increase their focus on God’s work and how the church can most effectively participate in that work in each situation, rather than being focused on an increasingly lengthy and burdensome list of requirements.

Will a council need to immediately revise its manual of operations?
Existing manuals – already required of presbyteries, synods, and the General Assembly, and also in use by many sessions – remain in force until changed by a council. Revisions do not have to be made immediately, affording a council time to determine what structures and procedures will work best to carry out its identified mission for Jesus Christ. The “Advisory Handbook for Councils” identifies policies and procedures required by the new Form of Government for each council, most of which should already be in place and would be revised only if and when a council deems it necessary.

What about sessions that have no manual?
Sessions will need to create a manual of their policies and procedures that will, at the least, need to define certain discretionary powers now given to them. These are described in the Advisory Handbook and include such things as quorums, adequate notice for special meetings, any changes to the nominations process, and so forth. Many of these might already exist as standing policies (prior actions) of the session. The size of the manual will depend on how detailed the structure is that the session has in place.

What happens to existing Authoritative Interpretations under the new Form of Government?
Authoritative Interpretations (AIs) of the Constitution can only be made or rescinded by the General Assembly. All current AIs remain in effect until changed by a future General Assembly, which is precisely the situation that has always existed with any amendment to the Form of Government that has been previously interpreted. A task force is currently working to make recommendations to the 220th General Assembly (2012) on the continuing status of all AIs, based on guidelines provided by the Advisory Committee on the Constitution to the 219th General Assembly (2010).

How will accountability be enforced in the new Form of Government?
The new Form of Government continues the long-standing Presbyterian principle of right-of-review of one council by the next higher council (F-3.0206, G-3.0108). Emphasis is also placed on the need for consultation between councils on mission strategy, structures, and procedures. Enforcement of administrative and judicial directives relies even now on trust and mutual accountability, undergirded by our belief that all church power is ministerial and declarative (F-3.0107).

Our work together as Presbyterians gathered in congregations and councils of the church will continue to be guided by this important declaration: “The polity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) presupposes the fellowship of women, men, and children united in covenant relationship with one another and with God through Jesus Christ. The organization rests on the fellowship and is not designed to work without trust and love” (new G-1.0102; compare to current G-7.0103). No Form of Government can legislate this trust and love, but by answering the new Form of Government’s call to work cooperatively and collegially to identify and implement the mission of each council of the church, we may find a deepened sense of commitment and connection to Jesus Christ and each other as the journey progresses.

What impact will the adoption of Amendment 10-A have on the text of the new Form of Government?
The passage of Amendment 10-A that changed the text of current G-6.0106b will also change the text of the same passage in the new Form of Government, G-2.0104b. The new language of the amendment will replace the current language in G-2.0104b. The same is true for several other amendments adopted this year. At the end of each amendment in the booklet published by the Office of the General Assembly (Booklet #3) is a statement that indicates the impact of the adoption of the amendment on the new Form of Government.

When will the new edition of the Book of Order that contains the new Foundations of Presbyterian Polity and new Form of Government be available?
It is anticipated that the print version of the new Book of Order will be in the warehouse by the second week of July, after which orders will begin to be processed.

Ordination Standards Have Changed

It's official. A news bulletin from the Office of the General Assembly reports:

"It appears that a majority of the 173 presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) have approved a change in PC(USA) ordination standards.

At its meeting on Tuesday, May 10, 2011, the Presbytery of Twin Cities Area became the 87th presbytery to approve an amendment that will remove the constitutional requirement that all ministers, elders, and deacons live in 'fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness' (G-6.0106b in the church’s Book of Order)."

Those who read the new constitutional language carefully will discover it's really an affirmation of the historic freedom of local congregations (in the case of deacons and elders) and presbyteries (in the case of ministers) to seek to discern God's will as they choose their own leaders.

Now we'll see if the media is capable of reporting that nuance.

Hold onto the FAQ list related to this issue, that I posted in the previous blog entry. It just may come in handy.

We may be in for a rough ride. Or not. Some in the church will be predictably outraged by this decision, while others - especially a large majority of the younger generation of Presbyterians - will likely say: "What's the big deal? We just hope the church is finally done fighting over this change, which just seems like common sense to us."

Here's the perspective of the General Assembly Moderator, Elder Cynthia Bolbach:



Wherever on the theological spectrum readers of this blog may find themselves, let's all pray for the peace, unity and purity of the church. The prayer offered by our denominational leadership in their pastoral letter (cited in the OGA's article) puts it beautifully:

Almighty God, we give thanks for a rich heritage of faithful witnesses to the gospel throughout the ages. We offer gratitude not only for those who have gone before us, but for General Assembly commissioners and presbyters across the church who have sought diligently to discern the mind of Christ for the church in every time and place, and especially in this present time.

May your Spirit of peace be present with us in difficult decisions, especially where relationships are strained and the future is unclear. Open our ears and our hearts to listen to and hear those with whom we differ. Most of all, we give thanks for Jesus Christ, our risen Savior and Lord, who called the Church into being and who continues to call us to follow his example of loving our neighbor and working for the reconciliation of the world. We pray in Jesus’ name. Amen.

FAQ - Change in Ordination Standards

Recently I came upon a FAQ list for the proposed new language of the church's ordination standards, developed by another presbytery. Because 80 of the required 87 presbyteries have already approved the new G-6.0106b, it now appears likely that the new language will become a part of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Constitution. With a few minor adaptations, I'm presenting the FAQs here:

Frequently Asked Questions
The Change in Ordination Standards of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

1. How is the change in ordination standards happening?
It appears likely that a majority of the 173 presbyteries will approve the change in language for ordination standards recommended by The General Assembly in 2010. In all, since the General Assembly met, 55% of the total number of ministers and elder commissioners voting in presbyteries have voted to approve the amendment.

2. What does the change in ordination standards mean?
The ordination standards have changed from “to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” - wording that was added to the Constitution in 1997 - to: “to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life.” This removes a national standard categorically prohibiting the ordination of persons in sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

3. What does the change in ordination standards represent?
The Presbyterian Church (USA) has shifted the authority for applying its ordination standards from the national level to the local presbytery and session level. This represents a decentralization of the church and puts more discernment in the hands of people at the local level.

4. May congregations now ordain people who are openly gay?
The previous standards were never based on a person’s orientation, but on his or her behavior. The new standards do not list specific behaviors that automatically exclude someone for consideration for ordination. Each examining body is responsible to look at all possible factors to determine if someone is being called into ordained ministry.

5. Specifically, what was changed?
The primary change is the removal of language requiring those ordained “to live either in fidelity in the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness.” It also adds language referring to obedience to Christ, and indicates that fidelity to church standards is judged case-by-case by the examining body.

6. What practical changes will we see?
As ministers, elders and deacons move to another location, and are examined by the new presbytery or session, that body may choose to apply ordination standards differently than the officer’s previous governing body. In that event, such a person could be prevented from being installed.

7. Is the ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians mandated?
No, it is not required, but it is no longer prohibited by specific Constitutional language.

8. Will a congregation be required to change anything?
A congregation cannot be forced to ordain or receive pastors or elders or deacons of whom they do not approve. The congregation retains the right to determine who will serve as officers.

9. May a congregation continue to consider sexual activity outside marriage between a man and a woman as impermissible for its officers?
Yes, as long as the application is on a case-by-case basis. The authority for ordaining elders and deacons is fully vested in the local congregation. The new language calls the ordaining body to be guided by Scripture and the Confessions in applying ordination standards to individual candidates.

10. May a congregation or presbytery now ordain or install a sexually active homosexual?
Yes, if after a thorough examination, the congregation or presbytery believes the person to be called by God to serve as a Minister of the Word and Sacrament, elder or deacon and not to be living in violation of the PCUSA's ordination standards, its Confessions, or Scripture.

11. Does the new language give candidates who are sexually active outside the covenant of marriage between a woman and a man the “right” to be ordained?
Nobody has a “right” to be ordained. Ordination is based on a sense of God’s call as confirmed by the ordaining body.

12. May a presbytery continue to function with the standard of “fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” when examining candidates for ordination?
Yes, as long as the application is on a case-by-case basis. The new language calls the ordaining body to be guided by Scripture and the Confessions in applying ordination standards to each candidate.

13. Is a presbytery required to receive, by transfer of membership, an ordained sexually active gay or lesbian minister?
No, each presbytery retains its existing right to examination, by which it determines which ministers to receive into its membership.

14. May questions about a candidate’s sexuality be asked or are such questions forbidden?
All questions are allowed during an examination. The acknowledgment of being sexually active outside the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman does not automatically disqualify a person from being ordained.

15. Is a congregation required to call a pastor who is openly gay or lesbian?
No.

For further discussion of these or any other questions, please call Interim Executive Presbyter Eric Springsted, or Stated Clerk Carl Wilton, who will be glad to speak with you.

Proposed new text of G-6.0106b:

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

Original text of G-6.0106b:

Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.

Taxation? Representation?

Recently I felt led to submit a letter to the editor to The Presbyterian Layman. They're not my favorite publication - due to what I've come to perceive as a longstanding pattern of deliberate distortion of the news - but recently they published an open letter that seemed so obviously based on a misunderstanding of Presbyterian polity that I felt I just had to respond.

The open letter was written by Winfield Casey Jones. I'm copying the text of my response below:


Open letter based on two common misunderstandings of Presbyterian polity
Posted Tuesday, February 22, 2011

The February 21, 2011 article by Winfield Casey Jones, "Larger churches systematically under-represented," appears to be based on two common misunderstandings of Presbyterian polity.

The first has to do with representation. The Form of Government says there are two types of members in a presbytery: ministers and churches. That's why the elders who vote in presbytery meetings are called "commissioners," not "representatives." Commissioners are not members of presbytery; their churches are. It's a fine distinction, but an important one. Never has our polity incorporated the Congregationalist idea that presbyteries are meant to be "representative" of the people in the pews, either numerically or in accepting instructions on how to vote.

Mr. Jones bases his analysis on the concept of what he calls "representative power." While that may be how Congregationalists operate, in a Presbyterian system it's a misnomer. When ministers and elder commissioners come together to constitute the presbytery, they are forming a body that's intended to become, by the power of the Spirit, more than the sum of its parts. "Presbyters are not simply to reflect the will of the people, but rather to seek together to find and represent the will of Christ" (G-4.0301d). The presbytery – not the congregation – is, in fact, the fundamental unit of church government (hence, our name). That's why the constitution declares that powers not specifically assigned to congregations, synods or the General Assembly are "reserved to the presbyteries" (G-9.0103).

Practically speaking, as Mr. Jones accurately points out, ministers and elders sitting in a presbytery meeting continue to be informed by the "life, values, ethos and theology" of the congregations in which they spend much of their time. Distinctive local perspectives are extremely valuable, and ought to be freely shared. Yet, when such individuals enter into the common life of the presbytery, they agree to take a larger view, collectively assuming responsibility "for the mission and government of the church throughout its geographical district" (G-11.0103). They pledge themselves to represent the interests of every congregation in that area, not just their own.

The Form of Government does, of course, contain a fixed formula for increasing the numbers of commissioners from larger churches. Up to the 2,000-member mark, it's one additional commissioner for every 500 members; above that mark, one for every 1,000. Personally, I could be convinced that amending the formula to apply the 1-500 ratio consistently, even above 2,000 members, is a good idea. Many presbyteries, including my own, allocate some of their additional elder-commissioner slots resulting from the annual rebalancing of minister-elder parity to accomplish just that.

The second misunderstanding implicit in Mr. Jones' article has to do with per-capita apportionments. "The system" does not in fact say to congregations, "we want you to pay a per-capita that is strictly proportional to your membership." This form of direct apportionment is not used by every presbytery. Individual presbyteries may choose to say something like this – and most do – but the Form of Government does not require it. The Form of Government only mandates that presbyteries pay per-capita. How the presbyteries come up with the money is up to them.

The General Assembly PJC has ruled that, even in presbyteries that do expect congregations to remit per-capita contributions, those contributions are voluntary. The General Assembly has declared, however, that sessions deciding how to respond to such an appeal ought to consider it "a solemn moral obligation" to comply.

Mr. Jones' argument evokes echoes of "no taxation without representation." In fact, that association is wrong on two counts, because per-capita is not taxation, nor is the election of elder commissioners representation.

Carl Wilton, Stated Clerk
Presbytery of Momouth