This is part 2 of a series covering what I learned after reading all the GA Minutes of the EPC. You can read part 1 here, which explains why I decided to read them.
HOW PRESBYTERIAN ARE WE?
A common theme emerges when one reads the Moderator reports of the early years of our General Assemblies. There’s been a Congregationalist mindset since the beginning of the EPC. Many of our early Moderators admonish the Assembly to be more connectional in our polity.
From the minutes of the 10th General Assembly (pages 10-12): A second problem we have among us is rampant congregationalism…we have certain obligations in the connectional system to function as Presbyterians rather than independent congregations who have no duty or relationship or responsibility to anyone else…A fourth problem that is widespread among us in the EPC is a lack of common vision. This is in part due to our problem with congregationalism where each of us seems too concerned about our local situation without reference to the broader picture of the whole church. All of us — pastors, sessions, and congregations, need a broad vision of what God can and will do through us when we share common goals, common dreams and visions of what we can do…a desperate need for leadership in our Presbyteries…Being Presbyterian means being active not only at the local level, but at the Presbytery and Assembly level as well. We will never become the denomination I believe God is calling us to be unless each of us commits himself to involvement and leadership…A pastor or a Ruling Elder or a Session that is not actively involved in the work of the church at the presbytery level is denying its duty and denying its own commitments as Presbyterians.
From the minutes of the 22nd General Assembly (page 11): Although we received six churches from independence this past year, we dismissed five churches to independence. Five churches have left the EPC with the expectations that somehow things will go better for them without being connected. They somehow lost the value of the greater community. They cut themselves off from their extended family. This is such a reflection of our culture. We don’t want to be accountable to people. We don’t want to be vulnerable. We want to do it our own way and we want to be independent.
From the minutes of the 40th General Assembly (page 101): Many of us share a different definition of what it means to be connectional, and how we embrace connectionalism. These divergent definitions allow us each to proclaim the idea but practice it differently. This leads to poor stewardship of our collective resources, a lack of efficiency in shared mission efforts, and the potential charge of hypocrisy in that we may talk one talk, but each takes our own walk.
Two additional observations highlight our need to return to being Presbyterian rather than independent churches with Presbyterian in our name. First, is our recent lack of requesting provisional opinions from the office of the Stated Clerk. As one can imagine, Ed Davis, our first Stated Clerk, offered numerous provisional opinions. Mike Glodo, though only serving for six years as Stated Clerk, offered provisional opinions during three of his years as Clerk. Jeff Jeremiah offered provisional opinions during six of his years as Stated Clerk. During Jeff’s time as Stated Clerk, many of his provisional opinions came during, or in response to, Covid. Prior to Covid, five years had passed since his last provisional opinion.
I’m not blaming Jeff for this. What I am suggesting is that, in forgetting how to be Presbyterian, many presbyteries no longer practiced requesting provisional opinions from the office of the Stated Clerk. It’s easier to ask for “guidelines” or “advice” or “pick your favorite non-provisional opinion language” that’s convenient as it won’t require PJC and GA involvement. I get it. Provisional opinions aren’t the most efficient way to make decisions. But they are Presbyterian.
Second, is the participation, or lack of it, in our EPC medical plan. As stated in the BRI Board of Directors report from the 45th General Assembly: The BRI Office and Office of the Stated Clerk often receive inquiries regarding the requirements for participation in EPC Benefit Plans as mandated by the Acts of Assembly. The Acts reference the intent that all benefits-eligible EPC Ordained Ministers and all benefits-eligible church staff are to be provided with medical coverage through the denominational medical plan administered by BRI. Although there are many Acts that reference EPC medical and retirement programs, Act 81-04 mandates participation of EPC ministers, and Act 84-08 mandates benefit-eligible ministers and lay employees’ participation in the denominational plan. This requirement has been repeatedly affirmed by the General Assembly.
Some will argue that Acts of the Assembly are not constitutional. That is technically correct. But if the Assembly decides on something, what does that mean? Surely it means that we are to submit to that decision. Yet when it comes to Act 84-08 many have chosen to opt out as if Acts of the Assembly are suggestions to take or leave depending on what benefit you get out of it as a local church. That sure sounds a lot like an independent church mindset and not a Presbyterian one.
Yet our medical plan participation has always been a source of division in the EPC. During the 19th General Assembly this overture was presented (page 15 of the minutes): Overture 99-J from the presbytery of the West for the Assembly to reconsider mandatory participation in the denominational health insurance plan. Standing committed recommended that the overture not be adopted. Which passed (page 35). A motion was made that the board of pension and benefits enforce Acts 81-06 which states, ‘The denominational group insurance plan providing health, disability, and life coverage shall be mandatory for all ministers within member churches,’ and that the board of pension and benefits contact every church not complying with Acts 81-06 and instruct them of their duty and obligation to enroll immediately, and that the board of pension and benefits should report to the 20th General Assembly the churches which are not compliant with Act 81-06. The motion was not adopted (page 36).
During the 23rd General Assembly the chairman addressed the unpopular issue of enforcement in the plan…An option that has been tabled indefinitely has been to link the health plan and the pension plan participation. This was felt to be divisive to the denomination at this time. He mentioned that genuine enforcement authority resides at the presbytery level, since all terms of call must be approved (page 32).
This was the last time participation in the EPC medical plan was brought up on the floor of the General Assembly.