by bob davis presbybob@cox.net

 

 

May 10, 2008: Whose Ox Is Gored?

As we consider the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) advice regarding "transitional presbyteries" (Item 07-13) and the questions regarding G-6.0108a (Items 05-16 and 05-17), a question comes up: why is the ACC so hot to have an authoritative interpretation in one, and not to make a clerical -- albeit constitutional -- change in the other?

This got me to thinking. The ACC is recommending a review process for something strictly limited to presbytery discretion; and seeking to avoid a review process for something that is specifically not limited to presbytery discretion. It seems backwards.

At the risk of being redundant, let me write it again to see if I understand it correctly:

On the one hand, the ACC advice is presbyteries should not be trusted with property decisions the constitution specifically grants to the presbyteries. Despite the specific constitutional provisions limiting the authority to make property decisions to the presbytery (G-11.0103i, G-8.0301), the ACC recommendation would function to restrict the authority of presbyteries by insinuating a review process by higher governing bodies.

On the other hand, the ACC advice is presbyteries should be exclusively trusted with ordination decisions that apply to the entire church. The ACC argued that no constitutional change was needed despite the GA PJC's footnote #3 -- which speculated about the impact removing ordination questions from the Form of Government had on the interpretation of G-6.0108a.

Presbyteries must not be trusted for property. Presbyteries must be trusted for ordination. Property is essential. Ordination is local option.

Hmmmm...

This is the old institutional mindset protecting property. Consciously or not, the message the ACC is conveying is that property binds us together, not our confessional heritage. You can have local option on anything but property -- because that's what is really important.

So what? What should we do about it? Remember. Remember what it is that the ACC is doing: it is advising. It does not have the authority to bind commissioners, to vote for commissioners, to compel commissioners to do or not do anything. It is an institutional version of this blog -- authoritative only insofar is it is persuasive.

As for these two bits of ACC advise, I am not persuaded. As for my two bits; well, that's up to you.

Posts older than May 6, 2008: Archives

May 9, 2008: Little Things Make A Big Difference

More on the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) advice and recommendations today. This one is going to take a little explaining. It took two days to write.

As I mentioned on Tuesday, the ACC receives questions about constitutional interpretation. The questions can come from individuals or governing bodies. It then is required to report its findings to the General Assembly and make recommendations.

The ACC received two questions (maybe more, I do not know, but the response has been issued for two) regarding an issue raised in footnote #3 of Bush et al v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh (pp. 5-6),

where the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) asks whether the movement of the question used in the ordination and installation of church officers from the Form of Government to the Directory for Worship recommended by the 217th General Assembly (2006) and approved by the presbyteries has created “an oversight that should be addressed by the General Assembly” by changing the reference from “Form of Government” to “Book of Order.”

The ACC response is found in Item 05-16 and 05-17. (You only have to read one, they are the same.)

You may be thinking to yourself, "why would anyone care about something that only merited mention in a footnote?" Ah, that would be the reason for the title of today's post: little things make a big difference.

1. What did the Bush decision say?

Bush (GA PJC decision 218-10) was one of the ordination standard cases decided in February, 2008. (I wrote about the three decisions here.) The gist of the Bush decision was that

• "freedom of conscience" did not allow governing bodies to permit departures from G-6.0106b,
  
  
• that candidates must be examined, and
  
  
• governing bodies cannot establish theological litmus tests (subscriptionist documents) as a way to preclude examining candidates.

During the discussion of the "freedom of conscience" portion of the case, the GA PJC stated,

G-6.0108a defines the limits of this freedom of conscience for ordained church officers. It first states the requirement that all church officers adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity as expressed in the Book of Confessions and the Form of Government.3 It next assures freedom of conscience, but only with respect to the interpretation of Scripture.

That's where footnote 3 appears in the text of the decision. The footnote itself says this:

3 This section [G-6.0108a] of the Book of Order refers only to the Form of Government, failing to recognize that standards for ordination of officers are now found in the Directory for Worship. This is an apparent oversight that should be addressed by the General Assembly.

The questions in Items 05-16 and 05-17 were questions posed to the ACC regarding the issue raised in this footnote. Specifically, they asked,

"Does the movement of the questions used in the ordination and installation of church officers from the Form of Government to the Directory for Worship recommended by the 217th General Assembly (2006) and approved by the presbyteries require amendment of G-6.0108a’s requirement that officers of the PC(USA) “adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity as expressed in The Book of Confessions and The Form of Government?”

In other words, does the last sentence of G-6.0108a need to be amended for clarity as follows:

"...adhere to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity as expressed in the Book of Confessions and The Form Of Government The Book of Order." (text to be deleted; text to be inserted)

Stated another way, did last year's amendment process changing all of G-14.000 (by moving ordination questions to W-4.4000ff) result in the unintended consequence that the questions are no longer considered part of the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity requiring "adherance"?

2. What difference does it make where standards are found, as long as they are in the Book of Order?

It makes a difference. Let this be a lesson to everyone considering the wholesale change proposed by the nFoG.

It makes a difference because words mean what they say -- or at least, they should. If G-6.0108a says that "adherence to the essentials of the Reformed faith and polity as expressed in the Book of Confessions and The Form of Government," it means only those standards found specifically in those places. Or, said differently, standards found in the Directory for Worship -- which are not in the Form of Government -- are not to be considered essential and require adherence.

What are the questions and what are we talking about?

The moderator of the governing body of those to be ordained, installed, or commissioned shall ask them to stand before the body of membership and to answer the following questions:

a . Do you trust in Jesus Christ your Savior, acknowledge him Lord of all and Head of the Church, and through him believe in one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
b . Do you accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church
universal, and God’s Word to you?
c . Do you sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do, and will you be instructed and led by those confessions as you lead the people of God?
d . Will you fulfill your office in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and be continually guided by our confessions?
e . Will you be governed by our church’s polity, and will you abide by its discipline? Will you be a friend among your colleagues in ministry, working with them, subject to the ordering of God’s Word and Spirit?
f . Will you in your own life seek to follow the Lord Jesus Christ, love your neighbors, and work for the reconciliation of the world?
g . Do you promise to further the peace, unity, and purity of the church ?
h . Will you seek to serve the people with energy, intelligence, imagination, and love?

(and then the specific questions for elders, deacons, ministers of Word and Sacrament, commissioned lay pastor and certified Christian educator).

Oops. That's kind of a big deal.

You can bet -- as the GA PJC footnote raises -- that the argument will come, "Removing those questions from the Form of Government was intended to allow more flexibility and range of 'freedom of conscience' for candidates."

3. How did the ACC respond and what did it recommend?

"The Advisory Committee on the Constitution finds that no constitutional change is necessary, but believes that the question presents the opportunity to clarify confusion as to the recent amendment of the Book of Order that moved the ordination questions to the Directory for Worship."

Here, it is important to remember that the ACC is giving advice. For what it's worth, I disagree with their advice.

The ACC disagrees with the assessment of the GA PJC (that is, an advisory committee is not as concerned as an elected administrative commission with the responsibility to make authoritative interpretations).

The ACC's reasoned that the Form of Government still requires candidates to be examined by governing bodies and that those examinations are capable of including the questions that have been moved. They argue that moving the questions to the Directory for Worship does not restrict governing bodies from asking.

The problem is that the questions are no longer part of the requirements. Under the unchanged language of G-6.0108a -- as the GA PJC footnote revealed -- those questions no longer in the sections that are part of the "essentials" to which a candidate must "adhere."

Then, the ACC wrote this:

The Advisory Committee on the Constitution further notes that G-14.0540 now states, “Ordination questions and installation service information may be found at W-4.4000.” This provision links the ordination questions to the Form of Government and should be understood to make clear that the service of ordination and/or installation remains a requirement of the Form of Government but is found in the Directory for Worship. With this understanding, the Advisory Committee on the Constitution advises that there is no need for any amendment to G-6.0108b.

With all due respect, this is nonsensical. First, the question was not about G-6.0108b -- it was about amending G-6.0108a. Second, G-6.0108a specifically refers to the Form of Government. The GA PJC noted that the questions were moved out of the Form of Government. The ACC is suggesting that the language "ordination questions and installation service information may be found at W-4.4000" should be understood as the functional equivalent as, "ordination questions and installation service information shall be among the essentials to which candidates must adhere."

May equals shall? Well, that's different.

Tomorrow: Whose ox is being gored by amending G-6.0108a?

Posts older than May 6, 2008: Archives

May 7, 2008: A Few Words of Advice

General Assembly is a physical marathon. It is long days and short nights. If you are at all introverted, it can become overwhelming with information and people overload. If you are technically challenged, it will be a test of your patience. If you are politically sensitive, it will be shocking. That said, it also is a lot of fun. There are some tips and tricks -- mundane things -- that help make the week a little better.

Many first-time Assembly attenders are surprised at how tired they get. It is why I am writing now -- at about the 45 day mark -- to encourage you to do a couple of things:

a. Think about the clothes you will be bringing -- think differently than you would a vacation. As much as you would like to think you will have plenty of time to sight-see around San Jose -- it is not real unless you are going to arrive several days early or stay several days late. Thus, plan on clothing for air conditioned hotel rooms.

b. Think about the other stuff you will be bringing. Your ability to pack and bring things to San Jose will be dependent upon your mode of travel. I have the luxury of driving, giving me a little more flexibility to have a broader definition of "absolutely necessary." One important thing: chapstick. It will be dry.

c. Think about what you will be eating. This is particularly true if you are planning on attending a lot of the meals in the convention center. If you eat differently than normal during the week, your body will feel different. Hotel and convention center coffee is not the same as your own (yes, I will be bringing my own...let those of you with ears to hear...).

d. Think about getting your walking shoes now -- and breaking them in. Even though the hotels and convention center are very close, there will be a lot, a lot, a lot of walking. You should figure that you will be walking 3 or 4 miles per day. Much of it will involve carrying a laptop (at least) and other notebooks and papers.

e. Think about your time. Plan times in your schedule for prayer. Make a mental commitment to stick to those times, regardless of what else is happening. The temptation will be to think, "Oh, I'll just make time later to pray." Don't succumb. You won't. Plan times in your schedule for alone time. Just because there are multiple events available does NOT mean that you must be doing something at all times. Just because you have purchased a ticket for something does NOT mean you must go. Go only to the things that will bless you.

More as we get closer.

Posts older than May 6, 2008: Archives

 

May 6, 2008: ACC recommends Authoritative Interpretation regarding transitional presbyteries

Just posted on PC-Biz is a recommendation from the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) to approve a new Authoritative Interpretation. The Presbytery of Charlotte presented the following questions to the ACC:

1. Can a presbytery dismiss a congregation to a transitional presbytery in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church?

2. Can a presbytery dismiss a minister of the Word and Sacrament to a transitional presbytery of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church?

Nothing too heavy there, eh? This particular item probably had not appeared on many radar screens before it showed up on PC-Biz yesterday. It took me a while to figure out what was going on:

First, who is the ACC and what is the ACC doing making a recommendation of an Authoritative Interpretation to the General Assembly? G-13.0112 c and d -- the sections of the Book of Order that deals with the General Assembly -- require the creation of the ACC and establish its responsibilities.

c . All questions requiring an interpretation by the General Assembly of the Book of Order arising from governing bodies of the church or from individuals shall be communicated in writing to the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly no later than 120 days prior to the convening of the next session of the General Assembly.

d . The Stated Clerk shall refer all such questions of interpretation to the Advisory Committee on the Constitution, except those pertaining to matters pending before a judicial commission. The Advisory Committee shall report its findings to the General Assembly along with its recommendations. Such recommendations may include proposals for constitutional change. The General Assembly shall vote on the recommendations, and may amend or decline to approve them.(emphasis mine)

Here, the ACC received from the Clerk a letter with two questions requiring constitutional interpretation. The ACC considered and is reporting its findings to the General Assembly along with the recommendation to approve an Authoritative Interpretation. This process -- where an individual or governing body writes a question requiring Constitutional interpretation -- has become more popular in recent years.

Second, what did the ACC recommend? I am not quoting it all here, but after re-stating the presbytery's responsibilities as trustee for real property provided in G-8.000 the relevant paragraphs are:

The provisions of G-15.0203 a and b do, however, require that the General Assembly, as the highest governing body of this denomination, advise its presbyteries in this matter. The 218th General Assembly (2008) therefore advises the presbyteries that they must satisfy themselves concerning the conformity with this denomination of a transitional presbytery of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) in matters of doctrines and order. Presbyteries may facilitate the exploration of conformity by means of an administrative commission, although such commissions may not be empowered to approve the dismissal of the congregation. In exploring this matter, presbyteries should consider such questions as whether the receiving EPC presbytery is

• doctrinally consistent with the essentials of Reformed theology as understood by the presbytery;
• governed by a polity that is consistent in form and structure with that of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A);
• of sufficient permanence to offer reasonable assurance that the congregation is not being dismissed to de facto independence.

Failure on the part of the presbytery thoroughly to explore and adequately to document its satisfaction in these matters may thus violate, however unintentionally, the spirit of the polity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

Third, what does it mean? It means that the ACC is recommending GA approve an Authoritative Interpretation. This AI would be a three part test for the review of any presbytery approving release of a congregation with property to a New Wineskins transitional presbytery. The test will be the sufficiency -- the thoroughness -- of the presbytery's evaluation of each of the three categories as they relate to the EPC. If, in the judgment of a reviewing higher governing body, the presbytery has not been sufficiently thorough in its evaluation (with no definition as to what is necessary to be sufficiently thorough) it seems the decision could be reversed on appeal.

Further, in the rationale there are cues that the ACC is not impressed with the EPC transitional presbyteries. The comments signal that the answer ought to be "no" on all three questions. It begs the question whether any presbytery decision in favor of releasing a congregation with property to the EPC transitional presbytery could survive review -- because the ACC's thoroughness already provides the answer. Along with the broad scope of the Administrative Commission approved in the Synod of the Sun regarding property questions in South Louisiana Presbytery, it does seem that there is a move to restrain or limit the discretion of presbyteries regarding their G-8.000 responsibilities.

This is another example of how the Form of Government follows our regulatory conduct; and not the other way around. (Think in terms of handling this issue in the context of the nFoG). This is a pure regulatory move. It is not missional in design. It would take away authority from the presbyteries and establish greater authority in the higher "governing" bodies. It would have a chilling effect on congregations trying to discern where God is calling -- heightening the sense of distrust. How different it would have been if it had only suggested the criteria for a presbytery to use in its considerations without adding the sentence that presumes a failure by the presbytery to do its job.

Posts older than May 6, 2008: Archives

 

April 15, 2008: An Item Unrelated to General Assembly: Allyson Roach

In October, 2003, wildfires struck San Diego County. I was serving Westminster Presbyterian Church in Escondido. A family in our congregation experienced a horrific tragedy: Ashley Roach, 16, was killed. Her older sister, Allyson Roach, was severely burned -- so severely that a doctor pulled me aside to tell me she would not survive. 85% of her body had been burned. She was wrapped up so that only her eyes and nose were visible.

We put our hands on Allyson's wrapped head that day. I remember praying out loud, asking God to heal her body, to show us His glory by making her a tangible witness of His sovereign power. "We know you are able," I prayed. I also remember thinking -- and here is a confession -- "I sure hope these are not empty words." I walked out of the hospital that day wondering how God would answer all of our prayers.

God healed Allyson.

God is so much stronger than my faith. God is not bound by the limitations I see. God's glory is bigger than my imagination. But this is not a story about me or my faith; it is about Allyson and God's continuing love for her.

Allyson's spirit and courage has been incredible. She has endured literally dozens of surgeries. She has persisted and persevered through trial after trial, step after step. It has not been an easy road, but this much is true: the fire left its mark, but it has not defined Allyson. She has more than survived. She is living.

Allyson has been an inspiration in the community. She is a blessing to me. Her "can-do" character, her genuinely encouraging personality, and her easy laughter have lifted up many around her. She went back to college. She is working as a photographer. She was a bridesmaid at her brother's wedding. She is active in the community. She and her family are working together with the medical community to minister to others who have incurred burn injuries. She has had a full life since being dismissed as dead.

And why am I writing about this now? Well, here's the news: Allyson is engaged to be married.

On that October Sunday more than four years ago, who would have imagined? Yet, God is able to do what is impossible in human eyes. How great is our God!