Now We See In a Mirror…

One of my friends in the Consistory (a Presbyterian blog circle I’m in; if you don’t know the others, check out the links on the sidebar) sent me this. Does it remind you of anyone you know?

What? Who? Me?

Never!

(Hat tip: Chris Larimer. From xkcd.com)

Peace River Shows Its Colors

The Peace River Presbytery of the PCUSA last week denied the request of Covenant Presbyterian Church in Fort Myers to be dismissed with property to the Evangelical Presbytery Church. This week, the general presbyter, the Rev. Graham Hart, has put out a statement on the Valentine’s Day meeting. He wrote:

In a first motion, the Presbytery was asked to declare Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) of Fort Myers Florida a “church in schism,” under Book of Order G-8.0601. By a standing vote the Presbytery overwhelmingly voted to declare that Covenant was a  “church in schism.”

In a second motion, the Presbytery by a 98-16 written ballot voted ‘no’ to a motion to dismiss the Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church via the New Wineskins Presbytery. While 787 members at Covenant’s congregational meeting on February 3, 2008 voted for dismissal, 554 members, by either not voting (317) or voting against dismissal (237), did not express that desire. The Presbytery’s action recognized that with a divided congregation, the Presbytery could not vote to dismiss Covenant Presbyterian Church (USA) as a congregation with all of its members.

So without making any effort to find out the opinions of the 317 non-voting members, the presbytery simply assumed that all of them wouldl have voted to stay. I call that an abdication of responsibility, and an attempt by the presbytery to declare this congregation more divided than the evidence would indicate. Why would they do that? For no other reason than to be able to justify keeping the property in the hands of the minority. It may be argued that it was up to the congregation to find out what the other 317 thought. Fine. Then why schedule the presbytery meeting for so soon after the congregational vote? So the leadership would not have adequate time to do what both sides should have agreed was necessary.

One might also say that this is a bizarre approach to vote counting. When only 60% of registered voters show up to cast a ballot on a public referendum, do we assume that the other 40% would vote with the minority? Do we take that into account at all? Of course not. The parallel to the Covenant situation is that those who, despite knowing about the vote, decided for whatever reason, not to appear, were in effect forfeiting their right to express an opinion, or were essentially abstaining. But instead of taking them at their word, the presbytery decided that their absence must mean they were against the request for dismissal. As the Church Lady would say, “How convenient!”

The Presbytery noted that those who wish to remain with the PCUSA are long-time, deeply committed members of the congregation. As they demonstrated over the past year, they are a strong and organized group who have made it clear that they are committed to remaining with the PCUSA.  This group began worshiping together on February 10, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. in the fellowship hall of the church with approximately 200 in attendance.

How exactly did the presbytery know that those who voted to stay were “long-time, deeply committed members of the congregation”? They knew no such thing, I am certain, but were simply attributing to them qualities they wanted them to have. One correspondent who knows the situation wrote me to say, “And the 200 they had in attendance is, in fact, about what you’d expect to have given the vote. What about the 317 whose non-votes were counted as being against dismissal? Why weren’t they there to show their support for staying in the PCUSA?

In a third motion, in order to provide a means of honoring the requests of members and clergy who in good conscience cannot stay in fellowship with us, the Presbytery voted that an Administrative Commission be appointed to: (1) facilitate transfer of their memberships to the EPC New Wineskins Presbytery; and (2) communicate, discuss, and negotiate with individuals and groups for the purpose of bringing the Lord’s peace, good order, and reconciliation to Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCUSA). This Administrative Commission will provide the Presbytery with an interim report at the next Presbytery meeting.

I’m not at all sure what any of this means. If the folks who voted on this know anything about Presbyterian polity, they know that the only people whose “membership” they may transfer to the New Wineskins Presbytery are those who are ordained teaching elders. Non-ordained members of Covenant can’t be transferred to the NWP, but only to a congregation within it. As for their desire to bring “the Lord’s peace, good order, and reconciliation” to Covenant, they are doing that by splitting the congregation in two and ordering those who desire to go to the EPC to leave. That’s may make for “peace” and “good order” for those who remain, but it’s hard to see how reconciliation is supposed to take place. In fact, I wonder whether any effort of the sort will be made, since it’s questionable whether any has been made to date. One correspondent with knowledge of the situation wrote me to say, “You wondered if anyone from the presbytery has tried to bring about reconciliation between the two blocs.  The answer to that is no.  My impression is that any decisions about schisms, property, jobs, and Covenant’s future were made before yesterday [the February 14 meeting]; the vote was merely a formality.  Presbytery required that our leadership allow a time of dialogue at every meeting regarding the vote (going back a year to a series of Town Hall Meetings).  The Loyalists held one congregational meeting of their own, supported by Presbytery, at which there was no public Q&A or dialogue.”

So there you have it: peace, good order, and reconciliation, PCUSA-style.
(Hat tip: Larry Rued.)