South Louisiana Under Siege: The Synod of the Sun takes the Reign.
I just learned this tonight from a friend on the bayou. The Presbyterian Polity Wars have taken a decidedly historic turn for the worse. Read this recent action coming from the Synod of the Sun towards the Presbytery of South Louisiana:
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION FOR PRESBYTERY OF SOUTH LOUISIANAFriends, this is bad news for the church of Jesus Christ. This is one of the worst examples of Presbyterians behaving badly that we have seen since the Re-Imagining God conference debacle of the 90's. For if this Star Chamber-like execution of 'justice' stands, our presbyterian form of government will crumble. Our votes are meaningless when we take them. Liberty gives way to tyranny.
(approved by the executive Committee of the Synod of the Sun on 04/24/08 and adopted by the plenary on 04/25/08)
In response to the April 8, 2008, letter from pastors and elders in the Presbytery of South Louisiana to Synod Executive Fletcher and to the April 22, 2008, letter from the Council of the Presbytery of South Louisiana, the Synod of the Sun approves the establishment of an Administrative Commission under the general provisions of G-9.0500.
A commission is empowered to consider and conclude matters referred to it by a governing body. The appointing body shall state specifically the scope of power given to a commission. A commission shall keep a full record of its proceedings, which shall be submitted to its governing body to be incorporated in its minutes and to be regarded as the actions of the governing body itself. (G-9,00502)
The decision of an administrative commission shall be the action of the appointing governing body from the time of its completion by the commission and the announcement, where relevant, of the action to parties affected by it. Such decision shall be transmitted in writing to the stated clerk f the governing body, who shall report it to the governing body at its next meeting. A governing body may rescind or amend an action of an administrative commission in the same way actions of the governing body may be modified. (G-9.0505).
This commission, by the review of records and by whatever face-to-face conversations the commission deems helpful, shall determine the validity of the presbytery’s procedures and decisions (past, present, and future) regarding various congregations and their properties. All pending and future decisions regarding property in the Presbytery of South Louisiana shall require the approval of the commission. This commission also shall listen to other expressions of concern and/or dissatisfaction with presbytery leadership and make suggestions as to ways the presbytery can move toward a fuller expression of the ministry of Christ’s church.
This commission shall make either an “in progress” or a final report to the adjourned meeting of the Synod, October 24, 2008, and at each stated meeting thereafter until the work is completed.
May God have mercy on us all. We know not what we do.
Or worse, maybe we do.
26 remonstrances:
If something was done out of order, someone should file a remedial complaint. Surely you could track down one commissioner to the synod who would be willing to do that.
If it was done in order, what exactly are you complaining about?
My immediate reaction is: WTF is this???
Heh heh ... I have a funny feeling no Synod would ever do this if a Presbytery was accused of allowing gay ordinations. No, it's all about property and money. Typical.
More and more this denomination resembles the late Medieval Roman Church, with such things as theological integrity and ethics going out the window, while clinging bitterly to money and property (h/t Barack Obama) become the chief concern of ecclesiastical enforcers.
Rev. John Erthein
Meghan can you tell us when the last time that a Synod put an administrative commission into a presbytery? Add to that the power to investigate all matters past, present, and future? Add to that no constraint upon how they react, and no time limit upon the commission?
There are many things that are decent and in order but they are not good. This would be one of them.
I guess I just don't have enough of a finely honed sense of outrage to be upset by this.
It seems like members of a constituent presbytery asked their synod for help in resolving a matter that they had not been able to resolve satisfactorily. The synod responded by establishing a commission, in accordance with the Book of Order, to investigate and resolve the matter.
I don't understand why that's a horrible thing to do.
I suppose they could have just told the presbytery to "do whatever Toby wants," but I'm not sure what the theological or polity warrant for such a response would have been.
Folks in the presbytery asked for help from the synod. The synod is trying to provide it in an efficient way. The AC MUST report back to the synod on October 24 and at EVERY synod meeting until their work is done. The synod can amend or rescind ANY action of the AC.
So what should the synod have done? Respond with silence? Say "too bad, so sad, but it's about property so some people might not like us to attempt reform/reconciliation"? Say that property matters are not their concern?
We don't have any idea what action the AC will take. Why not save the histrionics until we learn the result(s) of their efforts?
“just thinkin”, thanks for the information. The Cimarron Presbytery sent seven of our ministers to New Orleans to fill the pulpits in some of the churches the Sunday after Easter. They came back with stories of the continuing needs of these churches and New Orleans. The South Louisiana Presbytery is continuing to pay the staff of some of the churches. I am certain the have their hands full without dealing property issues. If the presbytery requested it, it is fine with me.
Reader's note:
In the critical comments to this post, we see the same old line from the progressives whenever an atrocious act is committed by our denominational judicatories.
Here's the pattern and we see it over and over, it's called Institutional Damage Control:
An abusive act is done, our denomination slips closer to oblivion, the situation escalates, people are outraged, we call attention to it and then the progressives and institutionalists step in to say that it is all just par for the course.
The next stage is to label those calling attention to the abuses as 'whiners' and malcontents making something out of nothing. And the downward spiral continues.
Meanwhile, the people in the pews who are not in the dark as to the situation (who are fewer and fewer with each passing crisis) are just plain perplexed--they have no idea what to do. So, in can step the Outlook and other media outlets to assure us that all in under control in the institution and all is right with the world...
Sometimes I wish things were not as utterly predictable in this denomination. But I guess there's nothing new under the sun.
It is interesting that Meghan's first thought was that the PSL did something "out of order." Can anyone point to a provision in the Book of Order that permits a synod to assume original jurisdiction over a power that is expressly delegated and limited to the presbytery?
I have a longer comment at http://aoundthescuttlebutt.blogspot.com/
Mac
OK - Meghan you didn't answer my questions your perogative.
Second the Council save one member lirally begged the Council not to do this. The majority of this presbytery will be appalled at this galling takeover of presbytery authority based upon unsubstantiated allegations.
Of course some would not be bothered because they are highly committed to a progressive takeover of every presbytery in the country.
My first thought was about why this was the place to complain. There is a process to file complaints, that the non-progressive side of the church has never hesitated to use in the past.
Bill, I didn't answer your question because I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of precedent, so I can't answer your question.
Toby, the issue I'm having is that I don't understand what has happened that is "abusive." Has the commission done anything yet? Is there not even the smallest chance that they will ultimately do what you want them to do? Or is there not a chance because it is impossible for the denomination to do anything good in your eyes?
What response would you like from progressives when you repeatedly tell us how horrible and evil we are? Roses?
There are a couple of problems with the action of they Synod. First, as Meghan said, if something was done out of order, a remedial complaint should be been filed with the synod and addressed by the synod PJC.
Second, this is the second time in as many years that the synod has done this. The last time, the administrative commission refused to even meet with any one from the presbytery before making their final report to the synod (the action was basically to call the presbytery a "bad dog" but take no official action).
I'm new to this controversy, having just been linked to your blog by a fellow pastor here in Beaver-Butler.
But it grimly interests me how the directive to the Admin Commission overtly assumes "concern and dissatisfaction," taking it for granted that the presbytery is lacking in their conduct and stewardship and needs to "move towards a fuller expression of the ministry of Christ's church." So they don't have to listen to voices defending the presbytery's actions? The AC isn't free to decide that PSL is ministering in a Christlike manner as they are?
So much for the AC being an impartial servant body seeking to do the Lord's will in humility towards Him and justice and grace towards all concerned!
Meghan,
I've never said or written that progressives are either horrible or evil. I have merely asserted that the progressive school of theology is un-Scriptural and not aligned with truly Reformed Christianity.
We're all equally sinful, whatever personal belief we hold. The HS speaking through Paul was pretty clear on that.
But what is also equally clear is that just because someone is within an organization does not mean that the person holds to that organization's actual value system. What I argue is that progressives within any Presbyterian Church are not being true to the organization's founding principles.
It's not a matter of 'goodness' for me, it's a matter of fidelity to the apostolic faith.
St. Blogwen,
Thanks for stopping by! You've got a great presbytery there.
I hope you come back often!
Toby, the point of your previous comment was that I was the same as every other progressive. Because of that, I thought it was fair game to assume that you were the same as every not-progressive, some of whom have indeed stated that all progressives are evil. If you don't want to be painted with a broad brush, I suggest you don't pick the brush up first.
St. Blogwen, I for one would assume that the people who contacted the synod about this matter were concerned and/or dissatisfied with the situation as it stands, therefore I don't think it was much of a leap for the synod to charge the commission to look into concerns and dissatisfaction.
I suppose it is possible that the people who contacted the synod were completely satisfied with the situation and had no concerns, but it seems unlikely.
And except for the glory that is Beaver-Butler Presbytery, can you name one human institution that could not use some help moving "towards a fuller expression of the ministry of Christ's church."
'And except for the glory that is Beaver-Butler Presbytery, can you name one human institution that could not use some help moving "towards a fuller expression of the ministry of Christ's church."'
Is it just me, or is it getting a bit warm here?
While you are argueing about the right and wrong of these actions
constitutionally and otherwise, the fact remains that now we have a Synod working for/against the presbytery. This, from my point of view, is a big change because now there is the possibility of not just a church leaving this denomination but the chance that a whole Presbytery may decide to leave or disintegrate.
That may be the ramification of this action where the jurisdiction to make property decision is taken away. The bottom line is that the property decision is underneath a Theological difference that is prompting the decision to leave and people are more willing to risk property and their very lives because of Theological issues. It may be that will involve whole Presbyteries, who have already been formulating thier 'core beliefs" in statements since the PUP. We know that presbyterians have voted against the dictates and wishes of the National Leadership of the church and even the General Assembly, and maybe we are headed for Presbyteries voting as a block to leave this denomination.
That is the real hazard of this move by the Synod.
Linda,
Your points are exactly what I fear and why I wrote what I wrote. This is an escalation and nothing less.
I fear the worst from this act.
To Mark: Yes, the air conditioning bills will be astronomical before this one is over. We'll be positoovly schvitzing!
To Toby: Thanks; I've now got you bookmarked.
To Meghan: Yes, obviously there were parties within the PSL who were dissatisfied with the presbytery's actions. Of course their concerns should not be ignored. But should it not be the Synod AC's charge to determine, in light of our most holy faith and the PCUSA constitution, whether those concerns are indeed justified? Why must the Synod a priori assume they are?
You were correct--partially--in your initial comment. This is a matter for a remedial complaint. But not now by the PSL against the Synod of the Sun re: the forming of the admin commission. But by the troubled parties within the PSL, sometime prior to this.
As for what you say about "the glory that is Beaver Butler," thanks, we'll enjoy that up here. I only pray that as we implement our new policies on gracious separation, our Synod of the Trinity will work with us and not against us, to the glory of Jesus Christ and the building up of His Church.
The right to dismiss churches with their property resides with the Presbytery. My understanding is that the Presbytery exercised its constitutional right by a majority vote. A minority didn't like the outcome and asked the Synod to intervene. So what we have is a Synod abbrogating the constitutional authority of a Presbytery because it did not like how it acted. Are we a connectional church or a hierarchial church. Perhaps we should elect a Pope at this year's GA instead of a Clerk, and then the Synod of the Sun can do away with the constitution as well.
Timothy Smith
Timothy,
this is proven in case after case. On my blog today I show how the Presbytery of the Western Reserve makes just such a case in fact within their own documents they refer to themselves as heirarchical church. Funny I thought we were supposed to be a connectional, "bottom up" kind of church.
The article on the Synod of the Sun’s website wants to paint the picture that the Synod's commission is not coming in to do anything other than to listen, review, and report. On today’s Presbyweb Greg Coulter has a letter today stating bluntly that is all the commission is to do. If that was all the commission was set up to do, then I think all would be fine and dandy with everyone.
The problem is there was much more authority given to the commission, authority to override decisions in an area given only to presbyteries. In the article on the Synod of the Sun’s website, this abusive authority is referred to with the comment, "The synod document further stated that ‘All pending and future decisions regarding property in the Presbytery of South Louisiana shall require the approval of the commission.’ That, my friends, is where they stepped over the line in just being one governing body helping another.
Hopefully, the commission will know enough not to require the presbytery submit to them any such action and the commission’s work will end up being as positive as they say they want it to be.
I know this will be hard to believe, but I'm not trying to be contentious with the following comment.
Listening to what feels like "presumed guilty until proven innocent" ranting about an AC that hasn't actually done anything yet, it's feels to me like there are people who have a huge investment in being outraged with the denomination.
It feels like these people need constant sources of outrage so that they can harangue their congregations about the horrible things the denomination is doing so that when they decide that it's time to leave the denomination the people in the pews will vote the way they want.
I hate to think that about people in the church, but having been on the receiving end of what amounts to ecclesial blackmail (A minister stood on the floor of presbytery and pointing at me said "if you allow this person to continue in the ordination process, my church is leaving the denomination") it's not that big of a leap.
Meghan,
Don't confuse me or the people that comment here with that jerk from your past. I am no one else but who I am. So are you.
That being said, however, the patterns are clear: those who adore an institution at the expense of the truth as revealed in Scripture are wrecking the ministry of the PCUSA.
That is what is happening all over this denomination--the wagons get circled against the 'threat' and the reactionary institutionalists lash out at any who would deign to differ or seek another path for faithfulness.
Besides, you might be surprised how little I speak of these controversies in my pastoral life with the congregation I serve. The elders know, but the preaching of the gospel, sharing of sacraments and pastoral care are almost entirely devoid of the denominational controversies that I blog about.
Why?
Because the Kingdom is so much bigger than the PCUSA! And I'm thankful for that fact daily.
Toby, I was trying, probably at the expense of clarity, to not accuse any particular person, but rather to assert that it is not hard for me to believe that such people exist.
I have to speak up though about the dichotomy you set up in your response. Are there really only two kinds of people, those who agree with you entirely on the interpretation of scripture and self-serving defenders of the institution?
Is it impossible for a faithful person to disagree with you on the interpretation of scripture? Or do you rally feel that you hold a monopoly on truth?
I have done my homework. I have studied the Bible, I have learned Hebrew and Greek. I have read primary sources and commentaries. I have prayed, I have worshiped and I have prayed some more. And guess what? I don't agree with much of what you believe is "truth as revealed in Scripture."
It's more than a little offensive that you then with a rhetorical flip of the wrist toss out all of my work and assume that I'm disagreeing with you for self-serving purposes.
I'm glad to hear that you are not trying to unduly influence your congregation. I applaud you for that.
And, yes, I agree that the Kingdom of God is larger than the PC(USA), I just think it's also larger than your philosophy allows for, Horatio.
Meghan,
There are PLENTY of people who share my Reformed orthodoxy yet who are solidly in the institutionalist category. Likewise there are many progressives who share my concerns about abuse of power by the institution and with whom we can work.
I am not intending to say that ALL progressives are institutionalist as that clearly is not the case.
And as far as the interpretation of Scripture goes, the Arminians, the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox and many other Christian groups differ with Reformed theology on the proper reading of Scripture.
I will always assert however, that the most clear, reasonable and coherently unified reading of the whole counsel of God is within Reformed theology as expressed in the confessions. (C-67 excepted)
That's my commitment and I'm sticking to it.
Post a Comment