The first significant matter this morning is the report of the Permanent Judicial Commission. In particular, the General Assembly is being asked to affirm a PJC ruling on a proposed overture.
The overture asked that Mid-America Presbytery be allowed to divide into two “affinity” presbyteries.” One would ordain women to the office of teaching elder, the other would not. The two presbyteries, known as “Mid-America A” and “Mid-America B,” would both cover the same geographical area (Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, and parts of Kansas and Oklahoma), and would have porous boundaries–in other words, pastors and congregations could move between the two simply by asking. The two would meet together and and handle all business that didn’t have to do with the ordination of teaching elders. It’s an interesting idea for dealing with the issue of women’s ordination to the teaching eldership–I’m not sure whether I support it or not, but I applaud the fact that it is an attempt to deal with a potentially divisive issue that would allow us to be able to keep working together in love, even while accommodating the differing views in question.
The PJC has ruled that the proposal is unconstitutional, and would need to be offered as an amendment to the Constitution. It did not rule on the wisdom of the proposal, but commended the spirit in which it was offered.
As debate opened, it turns out that Mid-America has decided not to contest the PJC ruling. Paul Heidebrecht from Mid-America is indicating that there has been a respectful discussion that recognized significant differences between complementarians (who oppose women’s ordination) and egalitarians (who support it), while affirming that all wanted to maintain the unity of the presbytery. The presbytery is willing to wait on the Lord to see what direction He may take going forward.
The assembly voted to sustain the ruling. The PJC then offered a recommendation to form an interim committee “to explore ways to include those pastors and churches with conflicting positions on women Teaching Elders in the presbyteries of the EPC,” to report to next year’s GA. This has been done in the past with controversial questions with great success, from what I’m hearing. The assembly voted to send this to the Standing Committee on Overtures and Resolutions, and after they’ve looked at it, we’ll vote on it later in the GA.
The Reformed Pastor 
June 25, 2009 at 11:39 am
Dave,
I am unable to attend the GA, but I was aware of and thought about the affinity presbytery proposal and I am strongly opposed to the idea. I’m glad it has been dropped. My main reason isn’t that I don’t have sympathy with the idea, I do, but that in an effort to avoid being divisive, the proposal actually encourages being divisive. This, I think goes against the presbyterian tradition, and why I think it is a bad idea even for the PCUSA (to have a conservative and a liberal synod). It’s no secret that I am against women TE’s, and even against women RE’s. However, my church which voted in the POTE against women TE’s had women RE’s when I joined the church and when it joined the EPC from the PCUSA. We disagree, as I know you seem to be in favor of women TE’s. (On a side note, my understanding of the scriptures allows for women Deacons, where I would have issue with the PCA.) I think it is a serious issue, but it isn’t one that we need to split on at the moment. In a session, or in a presbytery or even a GA, there may be decisions that we disagree with, but in our ordination vows as TEs or REs, we agree to be in submission to one another. Just my thoughts.
I hope you are having a blest time at the GA.
June 25, 2009 at 12:14 pm
David,
Thank you for these GA updates. Wish I could be there.
June 25, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I wish you could, too, Steve. We’ll miss you.
June 25, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I’m an egalitarian – but firmly agree. Changes like this should go through as amendments and having presbyteries overlap will lead to problems no matter how much we intend to avoid them.
Thanks for the reports.
June 25, 2009 at 2:41 pm
You’re welcome, Bill. Are you here? I haven’t seen you (though it’s not like I’ve seen everyone here–I haven’t even seen some of the folks from my own congregation).
June 25, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Nope safely at home this year. I suspect you can count on us being there next year – God willing – as full members of the Central South Presbytery. But all in his time. I just couldn’t be away at this time.
June 26, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I don’t understand why this even came up if this issue is non-essential and there is freedom in non-essentials.
June 26, 2009 at 1:59 pm
There is freedom in non-essentials, which means that each presbytery has the freedom to set its own policies as long as they are in harmony with the EPC Constitution. What Mid-America is seeking to do is accommodate those with strong beliefs on both sides of this issue, rather than forcing one or the other to accede to the view that has the most votes.
June 26, 2009 at 3:14 pm
I guess what I don’t get is if a candidate is qualified and gender is non-essential than personal conviction on gender is not a bar to ordaining any qualified candidate in any presbytery.