Subscribe to RSS
"As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." (Joshua 24:15)

All posts

John Knox Presbytery threatens to do business in secret

 

 

Blog Update, 2-18-10

A member of John Knox presbytery e-mailed me regarding Scott Anderson’s ordination, “he laid that aside years ago when our General Assembly ruled that homosexual practice was incompatible with ordained ministry.  Now that the General Assembly has set aside that ruling and allowed for a more presbytery-directed process, he entered the candidate process from the beginning, and is now ready to be examined for ordination.”

 

I assume the writer is referring to actions taken by the General Assembly in 2008 with the passage of the PUP report recommendation to nullify the 1978 Authoritative Interpretation regarding homosexual practice. That action will be reconsidered at the General Assembly meeting this year as Overture #1 from San Diego Presbytery with concurrences from many other presbyteries across the country. The standards of G-6.0106b, requiring all those who are ordained to live either in fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness has not changed. That too will be up for debate again at this year’s General Assembly meeting in July.

 

Again, from the member of John Knox Presbytery who wrote to me concerning this matter, “the purpose of a closed meeting (executive session) is to prevent half truths from being published from the meeting.  Unfortunately, The Layman is well known for its editorial practice in reporting that bends the facts to fit its own version of the truth … In an executive session, such sound bytes are not public and therefore not available for such misuse.”

We are sending a reporter to cover a presbytery whose business is the business of the entire denomination. What is planned is not an editorial or commentary, but an objective news article.

 

 

Related Blog Post

Time for a millstone?

Isaiah 45:18-19 says, “For this is what the LORD says – He who created the heavens, He is God; He who fashioned and made the earth, He founded it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited – He says: ‘I am the LORD, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, from somewhere in a land of darkness; I have not said to Jacob’s descendants, ‘Seek me in vain.’ I, the LORD, speak the truth; I declare what is right.’”

   

 

We worship a God of revelation – One who reveals the truth. One who speaks openly, not in secret. God does not do His business behind closed doors, but in the light for all to see.

You might think of it as transparency. Civil governments call them “sunshine laws.” Presbyterians call it “open meetings” policy. The point is, we do things in the light, in the public eye, proving ourselves to be above reproach by opening our deliberations to reporting by the press and scrutiny by our fellow believers.

 

But threats of closed doors and business done in secret loom.

 

We all know that John Knox Presbytery is considering re-instating the ordination of Scott Anderson to validated ministry with the Wisconsin Council of Churches on Saturday, Feb. 20. Anderson’s “departure” from G-6.0106b is well documented. His sexual practices are not secret, he has been quite public and open about his life.

 

So, why, when The Layman informed the executive presbyter of John Knox that it is our intent to have a reporter present for the meeting were we told essentially not to bother because that part of the meeting was likely to be closed?

 

Robert’s Rules says, “an executive session is simply any meeting or part of a meeting where the proceedings are to be secret.”1 So, a presbytery certainly has the privilege of voting to enter executive session, but why would it? If what its members are doing is on the up-and-up, if what they’re doing is within the bounds of our Presbyterian constitution, if what they’re doing isn’t shadowy or dark, why close the door? What might be said that they would not want others to hear? What might be done that if held up to the light would be found specious?

 

Closing the doors only breeds suspicion. What have you got planned that you’re ashamed for others to witness? What’s going to happen in the dark that you don’t want revealed by the light? If you shut out the public, all that remains is imagination (which can run wild).

 

II Corinthians 4:1-2 says, “Therefore, since through God’s mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the Word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.”

 

So, my fellow presbyters, work to defeat any attempt to close your presbytery meetings. Specifically, members of John Knox Presbytery, live into your own bylaws2, which state that you “are a people whose story is formed through God’s action in Jesus Christ;” including your “style of interaction with one another; willingness to discuss issues; (and) manner of making decisions.” Indeed, as you say, “God’s love story is a never ending story.” One that continues to “undergo subtle and radical changes in plot and in the characters.” We want to keep up with that storyline and in order to do so, your witness must remain “open to the public.”

 

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] Robert’s Rules of Order, Article VIII, Section 43, paragraph 6.

 

[2] http://www.jknox.org/ManualTableofContents.htm

 

 

Facebook DZone It! Digg It! StumbleUpon Technorati Del.icio.us NewsVine Reddit Blinklist Furl it!

Comments  12

  • Jim Yearsley 17 Feb, 04:37 PM

    C'mon Carmen, you know as well as I what is going on. And, while I wish you were likely to influence this decision by your public questions, it is unlikely to happen. Your questions would only have effect if the JKP folks were capable of feeling shame. As a denomination, we seem to be well past that...

    Further, have you ever opened the doors of an old barn and walked in? You know what happens when you introduce the light of day into that dark place? The rats and roaches scurry for cover.
  • Dennis Russell 17 Feb, 05:03 PM

    Carmen, You quote Scripture in your posts like you expect church leaders to actually know what scripture says and then follow it. I mean if that were the case the denomination, synods and presbyteries wouldn't bring legal action against churches that seek to depart from the denomination. I Corinthians 6:6.
  • Carmen Fowler 17 Feb, 05:55 PM

    Ah, my cynical friends. These are folks who embrace more light! I have every confidence that my fellow presbyters will indeed open wide their hearts and the doors of their meeting. Why wouldn't they want national attention for the stand they claim to be taking for the cause of justice in Scott Anderson's case? And in case you were worried that the blog would likely go unread in JKP, I sent it as a personal email to all the minister members of presbytery.
  • Kelly Dale 18 Feb, 10:43 AM

    You write "A presbytery certainly has the privlege of voting to enter execuive session, but why would it?"

    Perhaps, even though they plan nothing underhanded, they are operating in an enviroment where those who disagree with them make comments about, oh, I don't know...time for millstones around necks and such, and they thus understandably prefer to exercise a legal option that is open to them to prevent/lessen later harrassment and being the target of such comments, which when said in an earlier case, had an large impace on a lot of people on the left, middle, and even some conservatives in the denomination.

    That would be good reason!
  • Kelly Dale 18 Feb, 10:46 AM

    a correction to my spelling... I meant to say impact, not impace.

    (not that I really expect my previous post to get posted)
  • Cameron Mott 18 Feb, 01:38 PM

    I suppose there could be many legitimate reasons to hold an executive session that has nothing to do with Scott Anderson.

    I thought it was ruled that Scott Anderson was not eligible to become a candidate let alone be ordained. The PUP would have no bearing on that.
  • Carmen Fowler 18 Feb, 03:53 PM

    I agree that to close the examination of a candidate is highly unusual. The Book of Order expresses the general principle of openness for governing bodies.

    Whomever is seeking to close the meeting must have legitimate reasons. Fear of reporting by the press simply does not qualify.

    I have sought to engage members of the John Knox presbytery in this conversation. So far, the only reason given for planning to close the meeting is fear of what the press might say in reporting out.

    A candidate’s examination for ordination is the business of the whole church. Scott Anderson's ordination will not be valid within the geographic bounds of John Knox presbytery, but throughout the PCUSA. Ordination is an act of the whole church and the whole church has an interest in the qualifications and character of those who stand for ordination.

    I doubt that any special protection of the candidate is needed here. Scott Anderson has been anything but private about his living relationships. So, what is gained by closing the meeting?

    The members of the body beyond the bounds of John Knox Presbytery are going to have to weigh in on this.

  • John Knox pres member 20 Feb, 02:41 PM

    My sadness is that literate people believe revelation stopped when the committee decided on the writings to comprise the New Testament. This denomination ordained homosexual people for centuries following the discreet policy of keep your sex life to yourself. Now we are required to disclose our sexual interests as a theological qualification, and if someone tells the truth, he/she can be ousted. If one lied, that one could be ordained. The pedophile crisis in the Roman Church has been overextended to normal homosexuals, and the conservatives are ruling with fear, not gospel, as their banner. This entire commotion is disgusting. Until someone convincingly shows that homosexuality is a chosen--not genetic--behavior, I will continue to be hugely disappointed that the formerly most literate protestant movement must now be aligned with Lot's wife in looking backward.
  • Another John Knox member 20 Feb, 07:07 PM

    Most of the congregational members of the John Knox Presbytery are never privy to whats going to be on the agenda for the presbytery meetings. We find out about it long after the fact., especially if it concerns Scott Anderson. I wish the presbytery would take a poll of how actual congregational members felt.
  • Carmen Fowler 22 Feb, 11:52 AM

    According to the presbytery's website, www.jknox.org, the next stated meeting of the presbytery will be held on Tuesday, May 18 at Community Presbyterian Church
    Postville, IA. I am confident that if you communicate with the presbytery office that you would like to be notified of the agenda and given a link to the presbytery's docket for the meeting, they would accommodate your request. You can contact the presbytery office by calling 608-647-8828 or emailing jkp@jknox.org. I found lots of helpful information on their site, including a complete list of members of the presbytery with their contact information and email addresses.
  • Jerry Daniels 25 Feb, 10:58 AM

    Why the secrecy? Given your reporting I would say "Why not?" You are in the same camp as FoxNews and their hilarious "no spin" on the news. I would think John Knox is trying to protect itself from distorted reporting that has been the trademark of Layman since its inception. Actual event reporting is too boring for anyone at the Layman.
  • Tim Womack 26 Apr, 09:28 PM

    In response to your article about John Knox Presbytery going into closed executive session, I agree that it was an unfortunate and wrong decision. You conclusion is that our actions should be done in the light and above board. That is an excellent point.

    IN that same sentiment, it would be go for the Layman to request our churches membership list. The Layman seems to have ours but has never requested them from our Session. That seems to have been done in secret.

    May God bless,

    Tim Womack
Post a comment!

DISCLAIMER: The Layman Online is a news and information resource. We welcome letters and commentaries from readers. Letters and commentaries are selected for publication based on their clarity and brevity, subject to editing, and also are chosen to represent a diverse set of views on as many issues as possible. These letters and commentaries are provided as an informational service and do not necessarily indicate an endorsement by The Layman Online or the Presbyterian Lay Committee.