Untitled Page

In order to accommodate the diverse belief systems, theological positions, and mission designs that currently exist within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and to encourage a kind of flexible equilibrium. the Presbytery of Beaver-Butler respectfully overtures the 219th General Assembly (2010) to direct the Stated Clerk to send the following proposed amendments to the presbyteries for their affirmative or negative votes:

1. Shall the first paragraph of G-11.0101 be amended as follows: [Text to be deleted is shown with a strike-through; text to be added or inserted is shown as italic.]

“G-11.0101 Membership

“~~Presbytery is a corporate expression of the church consisting of all the churches and ministers of the Word and Sacrament within a certain district.~~ Presbytery is a corporate expression of the church consisting of churches and ministers of the Word and Sacrament who have chosen to affiliate based on geographic, theological, missional, or other considerations of importance to those congregations. When a presbytery meets, each church shall be represented by an elder commissioned by the session with the following additional provisions:”

2. Shall G-11.0103 be amended by striking “j.”and re-lettering section headings for current “k.” through “aa.” As “j.” through “z.”

“~~j. to control the location of new churches and of churches desiring to move;~~”

3. Shall a new section, “G-11.0600,” be inserted after G-11.0504, which would read as follows:

“G-11.0600 Changes in Membership

“a. Congregations may choose membership in a particular presbytery based on geographic, theological, missional, or other considerations of importance to those congregations.

“b. A congregation may seek to change presbytery membership by a two-thirds vote at a properly called congregational meeting.

“c. The receiving presbytery will accept the congregation’s request for membership by a majority vote at a properly called presbytery meeting.

“d. The minister(s) of Word and Sacrament of the joining congregation become members of the receiving presbytery when it is determined by the committee on ministry of the receiving presbytery that their call is in order (G-14.0532–.0534).

“e. A church may only transfer its membership to another presbytery within one day’s reasonable travel.

“f. Upon transferring to another presbytery, a church may not change its presbytery membership for at least four years and shall covenant to not seek dismissal from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) for at least five years.”

RATIONALE

It is by following Jesus Christ, as attested for us in Scripture, that the unity of our faith will be made visible today as it has in the past.

Jesus Christ alone is head of the church. Jesus alone is the source of the church’s unity.

Section G-1.0100c affirms that “Christ gives to his Church its faith and life, its unity and mission, its officers and ordinances.” Our unity is rooted in Christ. The church’s purity does not spring from technical or legal means, but from Jesus Christ. Attempting to keep the church unified and pure without providing freedom for Christ’s Spirit to move is not helpful.

Section G-1.0301(1) (a) affirms that “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship.” Flexibility in presbytery membership provides options for theological and missional partnerships not possible under the rigid geographical criteria that worked well in other times.

Section G-3.0401d affirms that God is calling us “to a new openness to God’s continuing reformation of the Church ecumenical, that it might be a more effective instrument of mission in the world.” There are many signs that, on a changing cultural landscape, old models are breaking down and new forms of denominationalism in the United States are developing at local, regional, and national levels. These new forms cannot emerge from strict adherence to existing structures; they must be permitted and nurtured by a denomination willing to seek flexibility and equilibrium.

The intended purpose of flexible equilibrium in presbytery membership is to provide safe opportunity for congregations and judicatories to express shared, deeply held convictions. To seek flexibility regarding essential belief, without providing a corresponding freedom of association based on those very convictions, is contradictory and ultimately self-defeating.

Under a more flexible system of presbytery membership, the power of the upper judicatories is diminished (for example, in discipline and enforcement) and that of lower judicatories (congregations and presbyteries) increases.

A flexible plan of presbytery membership provides an affirmation of the Missional Church’s understanding of non-hierarchal structures and ministries. It affirms the congregation as the primary agent of mission and ministry and the presbytery as secondary agent for the support, encouragement, and accountability of congregations and pastors. Any other judicatories are tertiary agents for the support, encouragement, and accountability of the presbytery.

Allowing congregations flexibility in their presbytery membership provides the basis for mission and ministry under a generous and broad orthodox creedal Reformed Christianity. Membership flexibility acknowledges the current era of diverse styles and forms while maintaining the historic unity of the church.

Competing factions within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) appeal to Historic Presbyterianism. Flexible equilibrium is, by contrast, future-oriented while at the same time providing an affirmation of Presbyterianism in its connectional-accountable sense. It acknowledges the need for one another while rejecting both institutional coercion and radical ecclesiastical autonomy.

A flexible plan for presbytery membership allows congregations and judicatories to work for reformation and renewal in local congregations and in presbyteries only as they serve the local congregation. This flexibility allows the denomination to focus on positive change rather than defensive battles.

Finally, this overture grants a relief of conscience to those churches within a presbytery where the majority has chosen a theological path in which the minority cannot continue because of conscience. Rather than leaving the denomination, this overture offers a measure of grace through freedom of affiliation within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

For these reasons, the Presbytery of Beaver-Butler urges the 219th General Assembly (2010) to approve this overture.

COMMENT

ADVICE FROM THE ACC

The Advisory Committee on the Constitution advises the 219th General Assembly (2010) to disapprove Item 04-04.

The present overture is substantially similar in intent to Item 05-23 submitted to the 217th General Assembly (2006) by the Presbytery of Beaver Butler, and Item 03-05 submitted to the 218th General Assembly (2008) by the Presbytery of Beaver Butler. The Advisory Committee on the Constitution advised, and the General Assembly disapproved, both items (see Minutes, 2006, Part I, pp. 38, 40, 433–438; Minutes, 2008, Part I, p. 34, 140–144).

Rationale

The overture seeks to change the nature of a presbytery from a geographical expression of the church to one based on theological or missional affinity, or “other considerations of importance.” In so doing, it radically alters not only the nature of the presbytery, but fundamental affirmations of Presbyterian polity.

One of the core affirmations of our ecclesiology is the first “mark of the church” found in the Nicene Creed: the church is one. The connectional unity among congregations and governing bodies of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) contained in our theology and expressed in our polity is organic in nature. That is, the parts are connected to the whole not on a covenantal or voluntary basis, but as parts of a single body. As G-1.0400 states, “… the several different congregations of believers, taken collectively, constitute one Church of Christ …” and “… that a larger part of the Church, or a representation of it, should govern a smaller, or determine matters of controversy which arise therein; that, in like manner, a representation of the whole should govern and determine in regard to every part, and to all the parts united …” (Book of Order, G-1.0400).

The proposed amendment to G-11.0101 strikes at the heart of this organic connectionalism by affirming (1) that membership in a particular presbytery is primarily the choice of the individual congregation; and therefore (2) that participation of congregations in the connectional church is a function of “affiliation” from below rather than an inherent quality. The Advisory Committee on the Constitution believes that not only is this contrary to our historic understanding of the unity of the church, but may subvert the ability of the whole church to govern the individual parts.

The advice of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution to Overture 05-23 submitted to the 217th General Assembly (2006) is still relevant to the present overture:

This overture represents a dramatic departure from basic assumptions of the Constitution about the way the church is organized in three ways. First, the overture assumes that lower governing bodies should be able to choose their affiliation with higher governing bodies. By contrast, our polity has understood that the creation of lower governing bodies (sessions, presbyteries, and synods) is the responsibility of higher governing bodies (presbyteries, synods, and the General Assembly, respectively). By allowing lower governing bodies to select their places of membership, the overture fundamentally reverses the understanding of this relationship.

Second, this overture would permit congregations … to select governing body affiliation on grounds of theological and missional concerns, as well as “other considerations of importance” … Under the terms of this overture, it would become possible for congregations … to affiliate with presbyteries … with whom they find persons of similar mind on whatever is the controversial issue of the day. While the church has found value in the development of affinity groups and networks of like-minded individuals, they form an insufficient foundation on which to build a system of governance. Indeed, the foundations of our polity insist that the church “as it gathers for worship and orders its corporate life will display a rich variety of form, practice, language, program, nurture, and service ...” (G-4.0401). …

… [T]he effect of this overture could be significantly to increase the number of congregations whose presbytery membership lies outside their geographical location. This will make it difficult for the presbytery to fulfill its mandate to “... be responsible for the mission and government of the church throughout its geographical district ...” (G-11.0103), to “develop strategy for the mission of the church in its area ...” (G-11.0103a), and to carry out such geographically defined tasks as “to control the location of new churches and ... churches desiring to move” (G-11.0103j).

At stake here is not merely a style of polity but a central ecclesiological question: is the church finally a voluntary association of the like-minded, or is it called into being by the sovereign God through the grace of Jesus Christ, who gathered to himself persons of vastly different persuasion, background, and lifestyle? (Minutes, 2006, Part I, p. 437)

The formation of non-geographic presbyteries is currently governed by G-12.0103k, which gives the synod responsibility, “… to create non-geographic presbyteries in order to meet the mission needs (G-11.0103a; G-12.0102a) of identified racial ethnic or immigrant congregations; subject to the approval of the General Assembly” (Book of Order, G-12-0102k). The present overture would violate that right and responsibility of the synod and General Assembly.

The overture is unclear as to whether it intends that a transfer could be accomplished without the consent of (or even consultation with) the presbytery of membership. As G-11.0103i would not be amended by this overture, the Advisory Committee on the Constitution believes that under the proposed amendment, any transfer of a congregation between presbyteries would require appropriate consultation and action of the dismissing presbytery.

The overture cites obsolete references to chapter XIV of the Form of Government regarding the reception of ministers. The correct provision is found in G-11.0402:

The presbytery, through its appropriate committee, shall examine each minister or candidate who seeks membership in it on his or her Christian faith and views in theology, the Sacraments, and the government of this church, except as provided in G-14.0481. Every minister seeking membership in a presbytery shall have a call to a pastoral relation within the presbytery, or from a governing body or agency as defined in G-11.0410, or be entering a work defined in G-11.0411, for which the receiving presbytery shall give its permission, or shall be honorably retired as defined in G-11.0412. (Book of Order, G-11.0402)

Every minister entering the presbytery, whether by accepting a new call, or by the transfer of a congregation where a call currently exists, shall be subject to the examination of the receiving presbytery. For ministers previously ordained, this responsibility may be delegated by a presbytery to its committee on ministry.

The proposed G-11.0600e, limiting church transfers to another presbytery “within one day’s reasonable travel”is insufficiently defined, and potentially creates a double standard for congregations in populous areas and those in isolated areas.

The proposed G-11.0600f, which requires a four-year wait before a second transfer and a five-year wait before dismissal to another denomination, does not provide sufficient stability to presbyteries to carry out the mandated functions.

Finally, as stated in the Advisory Committee on the Constitution’s advice to the similar overture submitted to the 218th General Assembly (2008):

The effect of this overture will be to exacerbate the proclivity of the church to dissolve itself into associations based on affinity. This proclivity is antithetical to the call of God to engage Christ’s mission together, to honor the critiques of brothers and sisters of faith who disagree, and to plan and work together to live out our calling to be “the sign in and for the world of the new reality God is making available to people in Jesus Christ” (G-3.0200). Minutes, 2008, Part I, p. 144)

Implications for the proposed Form of Government: If both recommendations are approved, the proposed changes would have the effect of amending the proposed Form of Government at G-3.0301 and G-3.0303.

COMMENT

ACWC Advice and Counsel

Item 04-04 deals with amending G-11.0000 to provide flexibility in presbytery membership.

The Advocacy Committee for Women’s Concerns advises that the 219th General Assembly (2010) disapprove this overture.

Rationale

See ACWC’s rationale for Item 04-03.

GACOR Comment

The General Assembly Committee on Representation respectfully advises the 219th General Assembly (2010) to disapprove Item 04-04.

Rationale

When the PCUS and UPCUSA reunited in 1983, the Articles of Agreement established a process for determining presbytery boundaries. The decision to use geographic boundaries, rather than other criteria (i.e. racial/ethnic presbyteries), was stated as follows:

On the principle that a geographically related area makes possible greater fellowship and ease in the conduct of the business of a governing body, it shall be the further goal of the Special Committee that the resulting governing bodies shall be of sufficient strength and geographical proximity to enhance the total mission of the Church... (Book of Order, Articles of Agreement, 7.4)

Thus, the then-existing racial/ethnic presbyteries were to be dissolved and incorporated into their local geographical areas, with the understanding that committees on representation would be established to ensure that racial/ethnic leadership within the new presbyteries would be encouraged, retained, and monitored. The PC(USA) currently has five non-geographic presbyteries (Dakota, Hanmi, Midwest Hanmi, Eastern Korean, and Atlantic Korean American). At the 218th General Assembly (2010), the General Assembly reaffirmed, and the presbyteries concurred, that geographic presbyteries would be the norm by the adoption of amended language to G-12.0102k:

… When such mission needs arise inside a congregation that lies within a synod lacking such a nongeographic presbytery, that synod may permit, with the approval of the General Assembly and unless some legal or ecclesiastical issue would prohibit, that congregation to join a nongeographic presbytery inside the bounds of another synod with the consent of that other synod, the geographic presbytery, and the nongeographic presbytery; such presbyteries should be formed only on the basis of language, and there should be a sunset clause (end date) added at the formation of each nongeographic presbytery. (Book of Order, G-12.0102k)

To shift the establishment of presbyteries to a format based on “theological, missional, or other considerations of importance to those congregations” would ultimately reduce the PC(USA) to a ‘separate, but equal’ kind of denomination, which denies the call that Christians are to be one, as Christ prayed in John 17.

To exhibit the kingdom to the world, we need to find ways to work together and lift each other up in leadership and discipleship, not send each other to our separate corners. With our current model of presbytery, rooted in Christ’s prayer that we “may be one” and Paul’s vision that “[t]here is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female…” (Gal. 3:28), we are called to work together and not seek to establish presbyteries of only like-minded congregations. This is an important part of what is meant by the PC(USA)’s commitment to full participation of diversity and inclusiveness in G-4.0403: “The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall give full expression to the rich diversity within its membership and shall provide means which will assure a greater inclusiveness leading to wholeness in its emerging life…” (Book of Order, G-4.0403).

While GACOR believes that the above considerations are sufficient for disapproval of this overture, there is an additional aspect of representation that should be considered. From a strictly demographic perspective, the proposed amendment to the Book of Order discriminates against congregations in geographical areas where it would not be possible to transfer membership to a presbytery “within one day’s reasonable travel,” such as Utah or much of the western United States.