Washington Presbytery in Pennsylvania (PCUSA) has voted to dismiss Peters Creek Church to the EPC, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
“With sadness and regret,” an administrative commission of Washington Presbytery has recommended that Peters Creek Presbyterian Church be dismissed from the Presbyterian Church (USA) to join the more theologically conservative Evangelical Presbyterian Church.
The date has not been set for the special meeting to vote on that recommendation.
But Tuesday night at Thomas Presbyterian Church in Eighty Four, the presbytery created two new administrative commissions for Peters Creek, which voted 273-86 on Sunday to change denominations. One will negotiate all legal matters, including how much property the departing congregation can keep. The other will arrange pastoral care of the minority who want to stay in the Presbyterian Church (USA).
Not everything is a done deal, apparently, and I would hope that this wouldn’t bog down in property disputes. Interestingly enough, at the same meeting, the presbytery decided to appeal a church court decision that exacerbated the situation:
At the same meeting, the presbytery learned that its attempt to enforce certain moral standards for clergy had been struck down by a regional church court.
The presbytery then authorized its representatives to appeal to the national court, if they believed “an appeal “furthers the interests of our presbytery.”
In March the presbytery passed two resolutions. Resolution A declared that the denomination’s ordination standards – which include a requirement of chastity in singleness and fidelity in heterosexual marriage — would be “essential” in Washington Presbytery. The other listed 16 “biblical standards for Christian leaders within Washington Presbytery.”
Two congregations and a dozen pastors challenged the resolutions. The church court struck them down on both theological and procedural grounds. It said that “essential” teachings are not “mandatory” and, when applied to candidates for ministry, must be considered on a case-by-case basis. It also said that the Washington statute was impossibly broad.
“Essential” teachings are not “mandatory.” Doesn’t that just sum up the state of the big mainline Protestant denominations these days?
The Reformed Pastor 
September 16, 2007 at 1:25 am
I wonder what other essential teachings they don’t consider mandatory.
September 16, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Excellent question. I suspect the trust clause would not be among those.
September 18, 2007 at 8:57 pm
I wrote the resolution in question. And no, I don’t really understand what the heck the Synod is saying.
The actual resolution adopted by Washington Presbytery had nothing to do with sexual ethics – at least not directly. I came about in response to the 2006 General Assembly’s instruction that ordaining bodies have the responsibility to determine whether candidates for office meet the standards of the Book of Order, and if not, whether the departure “constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity”.
Washington Presbytery – by a voice vote with only a handful of dissenters – determined that “it is an essential of Reformed polity that the Presbytery of Washington adhere to and comply with the standards for ordination adopted by the whole church and expressed in the Book of Order.” Simple enough, right? Clears up the confusion.
Or not.
In response to the complaint (filed by several close colleagues, a former pastor, and my own distant cousin), the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Trinity (the “church court” of the article) spanked us and sent us home. We were lectured on the obvious difference between what is essential (that which would break communion) and that which is mandatory (that which must be complied with). Which, I admit, would almost have made sense…
If the word “mandatory” actually appeared in the ordination vows or standards. It doesn’t. “Essential” does. The Synod PJC tipped its hand in astonishing fashion when it remarked that if one regarded the so-called “fidelity and chastity clause” of the Book of Order (G-6.0106b) as essential, it would be mandatory. Which, apparently, would be bad.
To which most of the presbytery said, “Um, yeah. That was the point.” The case has, by the way, been appealed. (The full text of the Synod decision, along with the offending documents, has been kindly posted by the Covenant Network at: http://www.covenantnetwork.org/pjc/SPJC.pdf)
On a side note, last year, the stated clerk’s office produced a non-binding “constitutional musing” arguing that mandatory ordination standards that are non-essential are “aspirational” in character. In other words, we hope you follow them, but no one is going to be looking over your shoulder.
So what IS essential? Apparently, as David notes, G-8. And the ordination of women to all offices (with which I happen to agree, but come on, is it THE gospel issue?). And whatever else a Synod or GA PJC decides is essential. So take that, you peasant scum.
We really have stepped through the looking glass on this one…
September 18, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Sorry. I lapsed into jargon. G-8 is the property trust clause. My apologies.