Those of you who read Steve Salyards post at GA Junkie regarding the EPCGA know there are a number of issues that he mentioned that I have not as yet. All have been dealt with this afternoon, so let me catch you up:
Overture 9-A requests that the EPC develop a position paper “setting forth the denomination’s beliefs and position regarding stem cells, the human embryo, and related questions of bioethics and human life.” Passed unanimously.
Overture 9-B asks “the Moderator to appoint a committee to review the Book of Order with the input of the Stated Clerks of all presbyteries for the purpose of identifying terms, sentences, paragraphs, and/or sections which are not clear and/or may cause confusion when applied.” Passed unanimously.
Overture 9-C would change the rules in a disciplinary case so that if the officer renounces jurisdiction before judgment is rendered the court would no longer need the individual’s permission to conclude the case and render judgment if “it is necessary for the purity of the church or the benefit of the offender.” Passed unanimously.
Overture 9-D had to do with the affinity presbytery, and the resolution of that is in my previous post.
Finally, Steve mentions the proposal for the creation of the position of “co-pastors,” which came with a positive recommendation from the Permanent Committee on Theology, but a negative one from the Ministerial Vocations Committee. The GA went with Ministerial Vocations and turned down the proposal.
June 27, 2009 at 9:34 am
On the Co-Pastor issue, where does that leave Kirk of the Hills (EPC) who claims to have Co-Pastors?
I seem to recall that one of KOTH’s pet peeves with the PC(USA) was that they couldn’t promote one of their Associates to Co-Pastor (PC(USA) allows Co-Pastors but you can’t create the position and then fill it from the ranks of your own Associates). I think one of the first things KOTH did after disaffiliating from the PC(USA) was create the position of Co-Pastor and fill it with the former Associate.
June 27, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Arthur: That’s a good question. According to their web site, they do have co-pastors. At this point, I suspect that that’s being permitted because they are in the New Wineskins Presbytery, but would have to change if they come into full EPC membership.
June 27, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Interesting, but I thought they were admitted into the EPC before the New Wineskins Presbytery existed.
June 27, 2009 at 7:21 pm
They started the process, but I don’t think they had completed it before the NWTP was set up, and they decided to go that route.
June 27, 2009 at 10:04 pm
They had co-pastors while still in the PC(USA). Tom and Wayne were co-pastors at the time of the 2d NWAC Convocation (July 2006) and before they had to seek refuge in the EPC.
June 27, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Ah ok. That makes sense. It just seems a little strange though that they would promote an Associate to Co-Pastor after they were in communication with a denomination that doesn’t allow it (to an even greater extent than the PC(USA) at that). It just seems a bit like they’re biting the hand that feeds them.
June 27, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Mac,
They may have said that, but the PC(USA) doesn’t allow promotion of an Associate to Co-Pastor where no prior Co-Pastor position existed in the particular church. That was indeed the case here. If the EOP allowed for the promotion, then they were in violation of the BOO along with KOTH. It may also be a matter of record that KOTH tried previously and failed to promote Wayne.
June 27, 2009 at 10:54 pm
BTY Mac,
Several news articles including one from the PC(USA) News Service from the 2007 time frame name Wayne Hardy as Associate Pastor of KOTH not Co-Pastor.
June 28, 2009 at 12:06 pm
In July 2006, Wayne and Tom were introduced to the NWAC Convocation as co-pastors. The Kirk was still in the PC(USA).
June 28, 2009 at 12:09 pm
And there were some folks in the PC(USA) in that same time frame who referred to me as “the EPC lawyer who was taking churches out of the PC(USA).” It was not true, but that didn’t stop them from saying it.
June 28, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Mac,
I’m not sure what your real point is here. Are you saying that those who introduced Tom and Wayne as Co-Pastors were not telling the truth?
Since the EPC is interested in talking things over with the PC(USA), maybe you as Stated Clerk of the New Wineskins Presbytery (EPC) could give EOP General Presbyter Greg Coulter a call (918-582-3077) and find out what Wayne’s status was just prior to their disaffiliation. I’m sure I would be initerested in what you learn, maybe others would be interested too.
June 29, 2009 at 10:58 am
I’m a little rusty – so maybe I’m wrong – I’m sure not dusting off my old PCUSA BOO but my recollection is this:
Misconception:
Associates cannot become copastors or pastors of the same church.
Truth:
Yes they can but it requires a 3/4 vote of the presbytery to do so and general practice is to discourage this occuring. However, it is technically possible.
June 29, 2009 at 11:00 am
I do not understand the oppostion to co-pastorates. I believe there is even a church in the EPC that celebrates a “Team Pastorate”. Anyway it will sort itself out. The body has spoken.
June 29, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Bill,
“Truth:
Yes they can but it requires a 3/4 vote of the presbytery to do so and general practice is to discourage this occurring. However, it is technically possible.”
Forgive me, but I think you’re mistaken.
There are 23 instances of the term co-pastor in the current PC(USA) Book of Order, and the term “three fourths” occurs 6 times, and in no instance does it say anything even remotely resembling what you stated. It does, however, state this:
“G-14.0513 Succession and Extraordinary Circumstances
The official relationship of an associate pastor to a church is not dependent upon that of a pastor, but an associate pastor is not eligible to be the next installed pastor in a church that they have served together, or to be called as pastor to serve as co-pastor of that church, except in churches that currently have a co-pastor model in place which has been in effect for at least three years and the congregation desires to continue such a model. An associate pastor shall be directed in his or her work by the pastor in consultation with the session.”
No exceptions are indicated.
So you see it is possible for an associate to become co-pastor, but the position already had to exist in the particular church. The position didn’t exist at KOTH before they wanted to make Wayne a co-pastor, so they would not be allowed to move him into it when they created it unless they first filled it with someone else for a period of at least three years. As far as I am aware, they didn’t do this.
No word from Mac yet.
I find it a little odd that an attorney would rely upon three year old hear-say evidence to make the case that Wayne was already co-pastor when KOTH left the PC(USA).
I just have to wonder, will KOTH move Wayne back into associate pastor status, or will they decide not to become a full fledged member of the EPC (as some have already predicted), or what.
June 30, 2009 at 8:36 am
Art,
No need for forgiveness – I clearly stated I was out of date on the information. My comment did get someone to put the facts into the discussion. Thank you for doing so.
I’m curious why the discussion of the general rule lead so quickly to a discussion of KOTH? Do I hear an axe grinding in the background?+
June 30, 2009 at 8:54 am
Let me clarify that last point.
It was a question – not a statment I am curious about Arthur’s investment in KOTH’s status. It may be just simple curiosity or dedication to the EPC Book of Order (which the NWEPC presbytery is not fully held by).
I would close in saying – there is a presbytery in place (NWEPC) when transition is complete there will be a new presbytery in place to discern KOTH’s obedience to ecclesiastical law. I apreciate the curiosity but to try the case before there is one seems, well, unpresbyterian.
To assert that KOTH was “biting the hand” is inappropriate unless you are a psychic. Considering what transitioning meant 1 year ago, two years ago – no church was sure where they would be permenantly in 2009, 2010, etc. They took action that made sense to them at that time.
June 30, 2009 at 11:41 am
Bill,
I don’t have an axe to grind here. Although, as many could rightly point out, I have been very critical of KOTH in the past. I really am curious as to the future of KOTH in the EPC, and I know many in the PC(USA) leadership are concerned about dismissing congregations to the NWEPC because of the potential loophole leading to independence (no reformed denominational affiliation at all). The actions of the KOTH just send up a red flag in that regard.
As I see it, this congregation set up a leadership structure that is contrary to the EPC constitution, and did it after they knew they were joining the EPC not the NWEPC (this was before the existence of the NWEPC), hence the “biting the hand” comment. They knew from past experience that the PC(USA) wouldn’t allow them to transition to co-pastors the way they wanted to do it. Did they not check with the EPC leadership or their constitution to see if that structure was ok? Was the EPC leadership unaware of its own rules? There are lots of legitimate questions here.
So far, I haven’t seen anything that would ameliorate the concern over the NWEPC path to independence loophole.
June 30, 2009 at 11:43 am
BTW
Art : Arthur
Same person, different computer.