Today's presbytery meeting was strictly business. Among other things I was formally elected as Moderator for 2008. I wondered if God would send a sign in the form of a floor nomination --but no!
The most significant action of the presbytery was the adoption of the following policy:
The Presbytery of New Covenant in its discernment of the essentials of reformed polity and for the sake of preserving the peace, unity and purity of the church does adopt the principle that compliance with the standards for ordination adopted and held authoritative in the Book of Order shall remain essentials of reformed policy and any departure from said standards for ordination will disqualify a candidate for ordination or installation by the Presbytery of New Covenant. Those provisions of the book of Order deemed to be standards and therefore essentials of polity include those statements using "shall", "is/are to be", "required", "requirement", or equivalent expressions.
This discernment of the essentials of reformed polity shall remain in effect until removed by a majority vote of the Presbytery of New Covenant.
Those of us who supported this proposal believe that it is important to make a statement to our congregations and community about what our presbytery's policy is with regard to ordination standards in light of the concerns raised by many of our congregations about the actions of the 217th GA in passing the PUP report with its "scruples" provision. Those who opposed it stressed that it was redundant because our Examinations Committee has abided by the Book of Order. It passed by an almost two to one margin.
The other significant action was the distribution of a comprehensive policy outlining a process for the presbytery to follow in working with congregations that are distressed by the actions of the last General Assembly and considering withdrawal from the PCUSA. General Council has been developing this process for several months, anticipating the problem. We distributed it today and encouraged everyone to send their comments and concerns about it to us so that the General Council can review it again at our next meeting. We don't want pastors and congregations to be afraid of talking to presbytery about their concerns. We want to encourage frank questions and honest answers.
In light of the events surrounding the recent vote by the session of Kirk of the Hills Church in Tulsa to withdraw from the PCUSA, it was very important to make it clear that our process is not secret and that it emphasizes a pastoral rather than a litigious approach. Friends, the PCUSA will not be preserved through litigation. We must find a more excellent way, and pronto.
What if congregations and pastors considering leaving the PCUSA could have open and honest conversations with representatives of presbytery about their concerns without worrying that they were opening themselves to pre-emptive legal action from the denomination? What if they knew that the presbytery was willing to work with them to resolve their concerns even if the result was their withdrawal from the denomination? What if they knew that they could discuss the property implications with presbytery in advance and negotiate that issue without fear of legal reprisal?
We hope that is what our process can achieve, and that it will build trust and thereby keep congregations from leaving or allow for a regretful parting of the ways without adding more rancor and angst. If you are interested in having a copy of the process, email me (click on the "view my complete profile" link in the sidebar and there is an email link). Maybe it would give some good ideas to your presbytery.
In light of the events surrounding the recent vote by the session of Kirk of the Hills Church in Tulsa to withdraw from the PCUSA, it was very important to make it clear that our process is not secret and that it emphasizes a pastoral rather than a litigious approach. Friends, the PCUSA will not be preserved through litigation. We must find a more excellent way, and pronto.
What if congregations and pastors considering leaving the PCUSA could have open and honest conversations with representatives of presbytery about their concerns without worrying that they were opening themselves to pre-emptive legal action from the denomination? What if they knew that the presbytery was willing to work with them to resolve their concerns even if the result was their withdrawal from the denomination? What if they knew that they could discuss the property implications with presbytery in advance and negotiate that issue without fear of legal reprisal?
We hope that is what our process can achieve, and that it will build trust and thereby keep congregations from leaving or allow for a regretful parting of the ways without adding more rancor and angst. If you are interested in having a copy of the process, email me (click on the "view my complete profile" link in the sidebar and there is an email link). Maybe it would give some good ideas to your presbytery.
25 comments:
Congratulations, Madam Moderator! May the Holy Spirit give you courage, grace and power, and keep you faithful to the Scriptures as you execute your duties. Wish you could have been our moderator in the Presbytery of the Pacific last year. (sigh)
Hope the Synod doesn't give you any trouble for your gracious stance toward congregations that wish to depart the PCUSA with their property (I assume they'll be allowed to leave with their property and perhaps be required to pay a small sum based on the presbytery contributions to purchase and improve their property). And then there's always Clifton Kirkpatrick and Mark Tammen to consider!
Good Luck and Godspeed. It looks now as if you are Mom of Presbytery.
Jon,
We haven't specified how congregations can leave with their property, because we want to take that on a case by case basis. For example, congregations that are significantly split on the issue of leaving present a different situation than where most are agreed on dismissal. But our intention is not to hold the property hostage if the church is leaving to affiliate with another reformed denomination as required by the BOO. We have no desire to administer a bunch of empty church properties.
Synod execs were briefed on our process this weekend at a meeting and I'm told were very positive about it. Tammen was present at that meeting and we'd sent a draft before to him--I'm told that he was also positive about it. So I'm hopeful it can help ratchet down the rhetoric from that quarter.
Thanks for the good wishes.
Congrats on being made official, but man how are you going to do that along with this wedding, but of course there is an end to the wedding.
I don't actually take office as moderator of the General Council (governing board) of presbytery until this January and I'm not the moderator of the whole presbytery until January of 2008.
And yes, the wedding will be over in about 10 days. But who's counting????
Congratulations, Madam Moderator. I'm sure that you'll do a great job - after all, God selected you for this time and place.
Russell
God has blessed your presbytery, Moderator Mom. I wish I lived there.
Since such is not the case, here's hoping that your presbytery sets an example for the rest of the country.
Blessings from the thirsty West.
Way cool Madam Moderator,
God's blessing be with you during this time in the PCUSA history. I haven't decided to "stay" or to "leave." I wish you were the moderator of my presbytery--I know that we could have open, honest discussions on this topic. I do not believe that I can have those discussion with my presbytery's moderator or EP.
May God give you wisdom and joy.
Pastor Lance
FullCourtPresby.blogspot.com
Congratulations! And God be with you as you walk down this path.
Congratulations! Looks like you have your work cut out for you, but that your Presbytery is on a path of thoughtful graciousness.
Imagine that...a presbytery can agree to take a Christ-like stance of dialogue and understanding towards its alientated members...
New Covenant Presbytery is now setting the standard for the rest of our presbyteries, by this principled and grace-filled approach to leadership.
You're an inspiration to the rest of us. Let us know if New Cov. will ever consider non-geographic church transfers into your presbytery! :)
This is really great news! I think that this method of dealing with the PUP report issue is excellent and Biblical.
How can I find out if my presbytery would consider adoption of such a resolution? As only a peon in the pew, I often feel that I don't have enough "behind the scenes" knowledge.
Anonymous,
This resolution was initiated by one church session and then several other sessions also endorsed it. Once the first church session had passed it, it went to the Ecclesiastical Affiars committee of presbytery which it the group that sets the agenda for the meeting. See if your pastor and session would take up the idea.
Congratulations! You are obviously going to do a great job!
Madam Moderator,
I just looked at New Covenant Presbytery's September 2006 newsletter, "Connections." I was disturbed to see Jack Rogers' book "Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church" reviewed very positively. (http://www.pbyofnewcovenant.org/forms/2006_08_SeptemberConnections2.pdf#page=8) Whoa, Nellie! Robert Gagnon has conclusively exposed Rogers' book as unbiblical claptrap. (http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/RogersBookReviewed.pdf) Looks like the Enemy has a firm foothold in New Covenant Presbytery. You've got your work cut out for you!
Congratulations, and may God be with you as you negotiate the next few years.
Jon,
Connections has also published several book reviews I wrote endorsing books written by more conservative authors. I don't agree with the viewpoint presented in Rogers book, but if I had submitted a review I am confident it would have been published as a contrasting analysis.
Jon-- are faithful Christians with differing viewpoints than yours really "the enemy"? Given New Covenant's truly good work in modeling pastoral ministry, I'm sorry that you feel the need to characterize us in that way.
Congratulations on your election.
The decision on essentials troubles me. I believe that this is the first step towards having "red" presbyteries and "blue" presbyteries.
The PUP report pushed for individual decisions on individual people, not lists of essentials. The denomination has very good historical reasons for avoiding lists.
Becky,
Differing viewpoints on non-essentials is not a problem. But the homosexuality issue springs from a basic difference on an essential: the Word of God. When I was talking about the Enemy, I did not mean people, which Paul clearly says is never our enemy, but I meant Satan, whose first line of attack is always "Did God really say...?"
In the grace and truth of Jesus,
Jon
Congratulations to you, Madam Moderator!
Congratulations, QG!
My belief is that when a presbytery announces a gracious approach on congregational departures, they are more likely to have fewer departures; a hard-line approach often ends up causing people to feel like they are "forced" to act.
Good for you! This is very important. I hope a lot of presbyteries follow your example. If it's okay with you, I'm going to add (when I get home from Germany) your Presbytery's resolution to the list of possible resolutions a presbytery or session might pass on the Constitutional Presbyterians web site.
Michael,
You're most welcome to share this resolution on your website.
But what if one of your pastors is caught being sexually impure _after_ he's been ordained. Hypothetically speaking, of course. We both know that would never happen here.
Post a Comment