An analysis of each amendment will be given below, followed by pro and con arguments. Approval by a simple majority of the 173 presbyteries is required for enactment of both the amendments and the ecumenical statements.
The amendments:
08-A Vows of Membership
This amendment would require that all new members of a particular church make a public profession of faith before the congregation. Under the current rules, those making a profession of faith or reaffirmation of faith do this. Those coming by certificate of transfer are simply received by the session and welcomed by the congregation.
This amendment contains the remnant of the original overture from the Presbytery of Mission, which would have required specific wording for four (not three as stated in the booklet) membership questions and the answers to those questions. The Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) advised against the overture, saying among other things, that the church should “guard against assuming that profession of faith can be reduced to subscription to formulae.” The ACC noted that W-4.2003 provides the basis for similar questions, though not specific wording. The Assembly Committee on Church Polity approved alternate wording by a vote of 50-2-0 (for-against-abstain). The remnant we have left is simply a different opening paragraph with the membership questions lopped off. The effect of the amendment is to require public profession of faith for all three categories of new members in a congregation.
Pro: The Directory for Worship already encourages this in W-4.2004 by stating that public profession by all would be appropriate. With the current emphasis on discipleship, not merely membership, this would strengthen the commitment of transferees and their bonds with the community of faith.
Con: There is comfort in being part of the larger covenant community than our being part of any one particular congregation. It is a sense that the covenant community of Christ extends throughout the world, and that once we belong to that community, we do not join it again as we change congregations.
08-B Ordination Standards
This amendment would delete the current paragraph G-6.0106b, which contains the fidelity and chastity requirements for officers, and replace it with a different “standard of obedience” (ACC language).
The Presbytery of Boston originated this overture, which also proposed an authoritative interpretation (AI) that was approved by the 2008 Assembly and eliminated the 1978-79/1993 definitive guidance/authoritative interpretation prohibiting the ordination of practicing homosexuals. An AI does not require ratification by the presbyteries. The presbytery vote will be only on the amendment.
The ACC offered a long history of the authoritative interpretations, judicial cases, and amendments relevant to all the actions proposed to the 218th Assembly regarding homosexuality. The section relevant to the Boston overture advised that the Assembly could “submit to the presbyteries for their affirmative or negative vote an amendment to repeal G-6.0106b (or replace it with a different standard), and either withdraw or leave in place” the authoritative interpretation dating from 1978-79/1985.
The Assembly Committee on Church Orders and Ministry recommended approval of the Boston overture by a vote pf 41/11/0 with comment. The Assembly approved the recommendation by a vote of 380/325/3 (54 percent to 46 percent). The comment urged presbyteries to “consider this overture using a process of listening and discernment.”
Pro: Approval of this amendment would finally eliminate the jarring language of G-6.0106b, including the impossible last sentence regarding the confessions. It would remove this paragraph that singles out sexual sins in complete disregard of all others. It would allow sessions and presbyteries to examine and approve persons for office based on their whole lives, and not only on their sexuality. The new language is more constitutional, and it still holds candidates for ordination to the high standards of the lordship of Jesus Christ, the ordination vows, the Scriptures, and the confessions.
Con: Eliminating the fidelity and chastity wording opens the church to the appearance of loose living. In a culture that promotes sex as recreation, the church needs to be counter-cultural and stand up for Christian values. This is the primary place where the church takes that stand. With the re-approval of the authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 by the 218th Assembly (2008), there is no need to remove this paragraph to allow sessions and presbyteries to consider ordaining practicing homosexuals on a case by case basis. The current G-6.0106b needs to stand. The new wording is not specific, and the phrase in the last sentence about establishing “the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere” to the standards is weak. Removing the fidelity and chastity language would surely lead to a major split in the PC(USA).
08-C Sympathy, or Compassion?
This amendment would replace the word “sympathy” with the word “compassion” in two places regarding the role of deacons.
This overture originated with the Presbytery of Albany (N.Y.), which asked that the new word be “empathy.” The ACC advised against the change saying, “neither increased clarity nor precision of meaning is gained by the substitution,” and preferring the original term. The ACC further said that if the assembly wished to change the word, “compassion” would be better than “empathy.” The Assembly Committee on Church Polity chose to follow the ACC approach and voted 54/3/0 for it. The Assembly approved the recommendation by a voice vote.
Pro: “Compassion” is the choice of the Form of Government Task Force for the new, streamlined Book of Order and has the support of the ACC, if the more Biblical “sympathy” is not to be used.
Con: Sympathy, empathy, compassion — are we splitting hairs? Less talk, more action. Just do it! Besides, the original “sympathy” has more Biblical and traditional support.
08-D New name for GAC
This amendment would change the name of the General Assembly Council to the General Assembly Mission Council in the Book of Order, Organization for Mission, and the GAC Manual of Operations.
This amendment originated with the General Assembly Council (GAC). The ACC advised there was no constitutional impediment to the change. The Assembly Committee on Mission Coordination and Budgets approved the change by a vote of 57/1/3, and the Assembly approved the recommendation by voice vote.
Pro: The new name clearly identifies the role of the GAC as the coordinator of the mission work of the General Assembly, supporting the new missional emphasis of the Church.
Con: None.
08-E Non-Geographic Presbyteries
This amendment would allow a congregation to join a non-geographic presbytery in another synod under certain circumstances. It also places new limitations on non-geographic presbyteries: they are to be formed only on the basis of language, and each should carry a sunset clause (end date).
This amendment originated with the Office of the General Assembly in response to a referral from the 217th General Assembly (2006) regarding Korean American Presbyterians. The ACC advised that the original wording presented constitutional issues. The Assembly Committee on General Assembly Procedures addressed these issues and modified the wording accordingly. The Advocacy Committee on Racial Ethnic Concerns (ACREC) suggested the two limitations. The Advocacy Committee on Women’s Concerns (ACWC) urged that language-specific presbyteries fulfill the Book of Order requirement to ordain women. The Assembly Committee on General Assembly Procedures approved the amended wording 44/0/1, and the Assembly approved the committee’s recommendation by voice vote.
Pro: The amendment offers a compromise that supports the expansion of non-geographic presbyteries while limiting their long-term use. It makes it easier for immigrants to be a part of the PC(USA) while moving toward the General Assembly’s vision for a united, multicultural Church.
Con: This “con” is not to argue against Presbyteries voting for this amendment, but to reiterate the cautions expressed by the OGA, ACREC, and ACWC: We should move toward unity, not separate denominations; we should see this as a temporary step, not permanent; and we should support the constitutional requirement for the ordination of women.
08-F Voice for Educators
This amendment would make it permissive, not required, for a presbytery to grant the privilege of the floor with voice only (or with voice and vote for an elder) to a Certified Christian Educator who is not a Minister of Word and Sacrament. Currently, this is required. Also, it would specify that Certified Christian Educators and Certified Associate Christian Educators may have voice, or voice and vote for those who are elders, at presbytery meetings only while actively engaged in an educational ministry under the jurisdiction of the presbytery.
It originated with the stated clerk of the Presbytery of Santa Fe who requested clarification from the ACC. The ACC recommended the amendment in answer to the questions. The ACC advised that the amendment was “warranted.” The Assembly Committee on Church Polity recommended approval by a vote of 58/0/0, and the Assembly approved by consensus.
Note: Amendment 08-I is similar: each must be voted on separately.
Pro: The amendment is needed to allow the presbytery to “determine whom it will enroll.” (ACC language). It also clarifies that enrollment is contingent upon active engagement in educational ministry under jurisdiction of the presbytery.
Con: Changing from mandatory to permissive practices has the potential to create greater inconsistency in an already inconsistent system regarding the treatment of church members who are living out their vocation as Christians in educational ministry.
08-G Nominees
This amendment would strike a provision that allowed each synod to nominate a member to each of the permanent committees of the General Assembly, coordinated by the GA Nominating Committee. It would replace it with a provision that the General Assembly Committee on Representation advise the General Assembly Nominating Committee “of the need for nominations in particular categories needing increased representation.” The Committee on Representation would have a member from each synod. The GA Council would have at least one member from each synod.
This amendment originated from the General Assembly Assistant Stated Clerk and the Manager for General Assembly Nominations and was worded by the ACC. The ACC expressed concern about the size of these committees resulting from the 2006 revision of G-13.0107. It also questioned whether size should be defined by mission rather than by formalities. The GAC, GA Nominating Committee, and Committee on the Office of the General Assembly weighed in. The Assembly Committee on Mission Coordination and Budgets approved the alternate recommendation by a vote of 58/0/0, and the Assembly approved the recommendation by consensus.
Who controls the membership of these committees is of immense importance. The current rule, approved only in 2006, places that power more in the hands of the synods in a bottom-up style. The previous style, and that proposed in this amendment, places that power more in the hands of the GA Nominating Committee (top down). The diversity rules contained in G-4.0403 require full participation of “all racial ethnic groups, different ages, both sexes, various disabilities, diverse geographical areas, different theological positions consistent with the Reformed tradition, as well as different marital conditions (married, single, widowed, or divorced) …” It is no small feat to balance a committee among all these factors. What are the controlling factors, and what theological and political views does a person, say of a particular geographical area or a marital condition, bring to the committee? And is anyone paying attention to expertise, interest, experience, skills, and gifts for the work among committee membership?
The ACC in 2006 encouraged the Assembly to “consider whether the size of permanent committees should be defined by mission … rather than a formalistic approach.” One might equally urge the Assembly to consider whether the membership of permanent committees should be defined by mission rather than by a formalistic approach.
Pro: Maintaining the priority of inclusiveness and diversity requires a complex balancing of factors when nominating persons to serve on General Assembly committees. This is best handled by the General Assembly Committee on Representation and the Nominating Committee, who can see the whole picture.
Con: The amendment places power and control in the hands of the General Assembly nominating committee, (though the Assembly has the final vote). The current provision (G-13.0107) allows synods to have a share of the power, placing it closer to the broad base of the church.
08-H Exams
The intent of this amendment is to ensure that candidates are fully prepared before they take the ordination exams. It adds a stipulation that the presbytery’s Committee on Preparation for Ministry “shall first attest that the inquirer or candidate has completed adequate academic preparation in each examination area and adequate supervised experience in the practice of pastoral ministry.”
This amendment originated with the Presbyteries’ Cooperative Committee on Examinations for Candidates (PCCEC). The ACC advised that the language was clear and accomplishes the stated intent of the recommendation. The Assembly Committee on Review of GA Permanent Committees approved the recommendation by a vote of 39/3/1, and the Assembly approved the recommendation by a voice vote.
Pro: This ensures that candidates take the exams only after proper preparation, and not prematurely. This will help avoid failures, which have become too common, and frustration with the exam process.
Con: It places an extra burden on the Committee on Preparation for Ministry to verify a candidate’s or inquirer’s adequate preparation before being allowed to take the exams.
08-I Voice for Educators — Again
This amendment addresses the same paragraph G-14.0730 as amendment 08-F. An editor’s note in the amendments booklet says, “If both are approved, their wordings will be merged. Questions about compatibility will be sent to the Advisory Committee on the Constitution.”
This amendment would capitalize the first letters of Certified and Educator in G-14.0730, making it clear that this refers to the Certified Christian Educator and does not include the Certified Associate Christian Educator.
The amendment originated with a question to the ACC from the staff Associate for Certification and Christian Vocation. The ACC recommended an authoritative interpretation of G-14.0730b, which was approved by the Assembly, and suggested this amendment to G-14.0730c. The Assembly Committee on Church Polity approved the amendment by a vote of 46/12/0 with this comment: “That the inclusion of [Certified] Associate Christian Educators be examined by the appropriate General Assembly committee or entity.” The Assembly approved the recommendation and comment by a voice vote.
Five factors make the Assembly’s action in 08-I seem hurried and bumbling. An analysis of these factors is in the bullets at the end of this article.
This is all about which Christian educators are allowed to speak and/or vote at presbytery. The old (pre-2006) Chapter 14 had clear rules about this. The new Chapter 14 dropped the defined titles Certified Christian Educator and Certified Associate Christian Educator, muddying the issue. Under the old rules, Certified Christian Educators were allowed “the privilege of the floor” at presbytery, meaning they could speak. In the case of Certified Christian Educators who were also elders, they were allowed to speak and vote. Certified Associate Christian Educators were allowed neither voice nor vote. The new Chapter 14 substitutes the term “certified Christian educators” (note the lower case letters). What does this mean? Does this mean both Certified Christian Educators and Certified Associate Christian Educators are to be allowed voice (and vote in the case of elders) at presbytery? The AI approved by the 2008 Assembly says “Yes,” but asks for a committee to look into it. The amendment offered here says “No,” that voice and vote applies only to Certified Christian Educators.
Pro: Vote for this if you want to limit voice, and in the case of elder, vote, to Certified Christian Educators as was the case in the old Chapter 14.
Con: Vote against this if you want to extend voice, and in the case of elder, vote, to both Certified Christian Educators and Certified Associate Christian Educators.
08-J Alternative Resolution
This amendment would make it easier to use alternative forms of resolution in a disciplinary case.
The amendments originated with the ACC in response to questions from the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of National Capital. The ACC advised that it found a “deficiency” in the current Book of Order regarding the subject of these questions. The Assembly Committee on Church Polity approved the recommendation by a vote of 58/0/1, and the Assembly approved the recommendation by consensus.
Pro: The proposed language makes it clear that “all parties” refers to “those persons representing the governing body (i.e., the investigating committee or prosecuting committee), and the accused.” This is the meaning of the current language, but it is not specific. It avoids the mistake of giving the accuser veto power over using an alternative form of resolution.
Con: It may seem that the accuser or person being harmed is not accorded a voice under this amendment, even though when properly understood, they are not now a part of the decision-making process.
Ecumenical Statements
All four of these statements originated with the General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical Relations (GACER). All four were approved by the Assembly Committee on Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations (ACEIR) with no negative votes, though there were a few abstentions. The Assembly approved each with a voice vote, though a comment was added to 08-L with the Episcopal Church and 08-M with the Korean Presbyterian Church in America.
08-K Roman Catholic Church
This is an agreement with the Roman Catholic Church on mutual recognition of baptism. This is a big step for both denominations. No more re-baptisms. With it, both churches recognize the other’s baptisms if the Trinitarian formula “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” is used. No baptizing in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer, or other wording. “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” is in fact required by the PC(USA) Book of Order W-3.3606.
Pro: The ecumenical statements represent incremental steps toward the unity of the Church universal. Jesus prayed for such unity in his high priestly prayer (John 17:11, 21-22).
Con: None.
08-L Episcopal Church
This statement represents an important half-step toward the “full reconciliation of ministries” between the Episcopal Church and the PC(USA). The General Convention of the Episcopal Church must approve it in 2009, as well as by a majority of the PC(USA) presbyteries.
The sticking point has been the mutual acceptance of each other’s ordained ministers.
The Episcopal Church follows apostolic succession as practiced by the Roman Catholic Church — the laying on of hands of the apostles to ordained ministers carried over the ages by bishops. The Reformers broke with apostolic succession, believing that this was accomplished by the Holy Spirit, not by human hands (bishops). The Episcopal Church did not break with apostolic succession at the Reformation. In previous discussions, the Episcopal Church has insisted that to achieve “full reconciliation of ministries,” bishops would have to lay hands on Presbyterian ministers. The Presbyterian Church balked at this. This agreement allows the Churches to “acknowledge one another’s ordained ministries as given by God and instruments of grace, and look forward to the time when the reconciliation of our churches makes possible the full interchangeability of ministers.”
The Presbyterian practice of ordaining laypeople — elders — equal in governance to ministers is a whole other matter in this dialogue. The Reformed churches are unique in this practice among churches worldwide.
Pro: This is a very important step toward reconciliation with the Episcopal Church, and we need to approve it.
Con: None.
08-M Korean Presbyterian Church
This is an agreement with the Korean Presbyterian Church in America (KPCA) that forms a foundation for working together. Important points are that ordination is for both women and men and that the churches will develop a process for the orderly exchange of ministers and congregations.
The ACC recommended approval.
Pro: U.S. Presbyterian missionaries planted the seeds for the Presbyterian Church in Korea, but as Koreans immigrated to America, language, culture, and other differences prevented their integration into existing congregations. This will enable the sister churches to begin bridging the gap.
Con: None.
08-N Moravian Church
This agreement is with the Moravian Church with almost 800,000 members worldwide and approximately 43,000 members in the lower United States. Page 46 of the booklet gives a two-paragraph description of the Moravians. Five denominations have participated in the Moravian-Reformed dialogue, and they are described beginning at the bottom of page 45 — The Christian church (Disciples of Christ), the PC(USA), the Reformed Church in America (RCA), the United Church of Christ (UCC), and the Moravian Church.
The Moravian Church “recognizes a variety of historic creeds and confessions; it steadfastly maintains, however, that the Bible contains no single system of doctrine …” the agreement says. “Two mottos guide members’ life and work: ‘Our Lamb has conquered; let us follow him;’ and ‘In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love’” the agreement says.
Specifics of the covenant partnership include recognizing each other as valid churches; recognizing each other’s ordained ministries as valid and seeking to reconcile them; working cooperatively in mission; inviting mutual participation in governance; developing joint resources; and seeking opportunities to sit at table in fellowship and Communion.
Pro: In addition to Jesus’ desire for unity, this agreement allows the PC(USA) to draw closer to a denomination that holds love and the Lordship of Jesus Christ in high esteem. Any Church can use more of these.
Con: None.
Why 08-I is confusing
Here are the bullet points on why 08-I is confusing (see that earlier section in sequence):
• It deals with the same Book of Order paragraph as 08-F, and the Office of the General Assembly simply adds a note that “if both are approved, their wordings will be merged” and compatibility questions will be referred to the ACC;
• The AI approved by the 2008 Assembly ALLOWS the privilege of the floor with voice only to Certified Associate Christian Educators, but the amendment DENIES the privilege of the floor with voice and (in
the case of elders) vote to Certified Associate Christian Educators. It would also appear that a vote AGAINST this amendment would leave the Book of Order in accord with the intent of the AI the Assembly just passed.
• The AI refers to G-14.0730b, but the provisions for privilege of the floor are contained in a different paragraph, G-14.0730c. The previous amendment regarding Christian educators, 08-F, combines the two paragraphs into one, G-14.0730b, but that amendment has not been enacted until a majority of the presbyteries approve it. So it appears that the Assembly either approved an AI to a paragraph in the Book of Order that does not yet exist, or that the AI was intended to apply to both G-14.0730b and c;
• Since G-11.0407 could be interpreted to mean that Certified Associate Christian Educators are ALLOWED voice at presbytery, voting against this amendment would maintain consistency in the Book of Order and with the new AI.
• The quoted ACC advice refers to a paragraph G-14.0230c in the “present” Book of Order, but no such paragraph exists in the present (2007/2009) nor last (2005/2007) Book of Order. It probably means G-14.0730c.
Bill Lancaster is associate executive for new church development in Foothills Presbytery, S.C.
