General Assembly 2024

What happened from an evangelical perspective

The following is an analysis of significant business at the 2024 General Assembly (GA) of The Presbyterian Church in Canada (PCC) as observed by Rev. Andy Cornell, Executive Director of the Renewal Fellowship within The Presbyterian Church in Canada. 

Liberty of conscience and action

After lengthy and spirited discussion at 2023 GA, there was anticipation of something similar in 2024. The audacious hope was that different liberal voices who spoke up in defence of liberty in 2023 might show similar support. Sadly, none of that happened. The entire report and discussion was concluded in only 28 minutes. 

While the clerks brought a slightly reworded recommendation than 2023, it had the same implications. The essential question posed by the clerks was “How does a member of a church court exercise liberty of conscience and action regarding the potential call ordination or induction of an LGBTQI+ person?” In 2023, the recommendation from the clerks was to amend the guidelines: “Such a person may, without fear of censure … vote against the ordination, induction or installation, provided reasons for that vote are not based on the candidate’s sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status and voiced publicly as such” (italics added for emphasis).  The primary concern by commissioners was that it would limit freedom of expression. It was referred back for more study. 

In their 2024 report, the Clerks referred to the Committee on History’s report in 2023, which stated that “there are two broad ways in which liberty of conscience has been understood” in the PCC. The first is that it’s limited to specific, agreed-upon terms which are decided in advance. The second is much broader: “any minister or elder or a member of a congregation could disagree with a doctrinal statement affirmed by The Presbyterian Church in Canada and, on the basis of individual conscience alone, act as they saw fit.” The Committee on History declared that Presbyterians in Canada have not traditionally accepted the second concept. The working example they used was ordination of women. In the LGBTQi matter, liberty would apply only to the extent of participation. The clerks stuck to their position that one is free to abstain from voting, vote against or send regrets and not participate in an ordination, induction or installation but one would be ruled out of order if the reasons were publicly expressed. The clerks basically rephrased their 2023 recommendation: “such a person may … vote against the ordination, induction or installation, provided reasons do not contravene the doctrine of The Presbyterian Church in Canada” (italics added)

Discussion by commissioners was limited. 

• Bob Sim (Presbytery of Hamilton) wondered if the matter should actually be referred to lower courts for consideration, similar to the remits which changed doctrine on marriage. The clerks disagreed. 
• Roland Devries (Montreal) pointed to the fact that the issue appears not to be about belief but rather about voicing the reasons. “To me, those are two different meanings … should the language reflect that?” In response, Deputy Clerk Don Muir said: “When a person votes, we don’t know what they’re thinking. When they express it out loud, then we know reasons contravene. It’s our hope that we don’t contravene doctrine of the church.” Added Principal Clerk Victor Kim: “If those reasons are not voiced, we would not know, so it’s not an issue.”
• Harry Currie (The Northwest): “Doctrine is for all of us. Whether we voice it or not, we know in our hearts whether we’ve contravened the doctrine of the PCC and it’s incumbent on us not to contravene the doctrine of the PCC. We have other options: you can abstain from voting or send regrets from the meeting if that’s how you want to exercise your liberty of conscience. But it’s very clear that if you want to vote against something because you don’t like the polity of the PCC, don’t do it.”
• Amanda Currie (Assiniboia): “We now live in a situation where the church has adopted two parallel definitions of marriage. This recommendation is, I believe, worded in such a way that allows us to be together, stay together even though we disagree on this point. To me, it’s not about whether reasons are voiced. I think it’s calling us to pay attention to our conscience and to abstain if we need to but not to vote against because of their identity or because of their stance on that particular question. … Someone with a progressive view would also need not to vote against a person who has a traditional perspective on marriage.”  
• Bethany McCaffrey (Pickering): “The clerks can correct me if I’m wrong, but part of liberty of freedom and conscience states that we cannot hold the ordination of one side or the other as being invalid.” The clerks did not take issue. 

After a call for an immediate vote, the motion was adopted. There were no dissents recorded.

Some personal thoughts: 

1. The clerks did not address the primary concern of freedom of expression. It’s just assumed that the right does not exist. Commissioners didn’t ignite this point like they did in 2023.
2. It’s good to know that some liberals (Amanda Currie) appear willing to defend the ordination and call of ministers who adhere to a traditional/Biblical definition of marriage.
3. The two broad ways to understand liberty, as presented by the Committee on History, appear to be at odds. The wider view is more commonly accepted. The narrower concept appears to be antithetical to liberty.  
4. The Committee on History (and the clerks’) understanding of the two concepts was news to me. Are they introducing a whole new way of thinking? It’s worthy of debate.  
5. Will this narrow view of the concept of liberty be applied elsewhere in doctrine and practice? 
6. Harry Currie’s comment about knowing in our hearts was chilling. Same with Amanda’s comment about abstaining rather than voting no.
7. In the end, we may have freedom of conscience – but please keep it to yourself. We have no freedom of speech or action on this matter. 
8. Another issue that wasn’t discussed is whether a presbyter can dissent (without reasons, obviously) if they vote no. 
9. All of this begs the question: are ministers required to teach the validity of both definitions, or can we just make congregations aware of the definition we don’t support? The assumption of some liberals is that both definitions should be taught by all ministers. 
10. Commissioners in 2024 routinely referred to two definitions of marriage, which was not corrected by the clerks. I’m reminded of what the principal clerk said at 2023 GA, that “we hold the one position on marriage, which is within the one position people may be aligned over on this side [motions with left hand] or over on this side [motions with right hand.] Let me be clear that we do not hold two separate positions, which would be one to the exclusion of another.” If “one position, two alignments” is the official working interpretation then it adds weight to the belief that ministers are expected to accept both theologies and make congregations aware of them. On the other hand, if there is “choice” then ministers are freely able to choose one to the exclusion of the other — therefore, I do not have to teach both. Which is it? 

Silent minority 

On the liberty issue, I wonder why more evangelical commissioners didn’t speak up.

1. Have we lost steam? Here is a comment posted in an online discussion in the Pray for GA Messenger group: “We had things to say to one another about this motion. I don’t know what kept any of us from speaking out. I’ve been introspective about this myself.”
2. Are we retreating? I accept that many are focused primarily on their congregations. Many evangelical ministers were mindful of the liberty issue and had thoughts but for some reason either the Holy Spirit didn’t compel them to rise. 
3. Is the enemy keeping us down? I know many evangelicals are embattled, many are frustrated and some bitter. 
4. Are we in survival mode? It’s well known that the human race is a stressed species and we are cocooning by necessity for health or even survival. I suppose that’s why PSALT was created and why Renewal fellowship still exists – to provide a voice and let evangelicals know they are not alone.

“. . . if I remain in the PCC, I am obligated to play a role in the higher courts. If I see or hear something that I judge as unbiblical, I am compelled to speak up.”

How do we encourage evangelicals to speak up? Here’s an online comment posted after the liberty issue concluded: “We are in the midst of a spiritual battle. Hold the line! You are the tip of the spear as you stand for integrity and Scripture and the orthodox faith. I am a new pastor in the PCC and proud to stand with you!” Amen.

I empathize with the lethargy. But if I remain in the PCC, I am obligated to play a role in the higher courts. If I see or hear something that I judge as unbiblical, I am compelled to speak up. I will operate by the command to be loving, loyal and faithful to God first, and to be loving to each other. The latter is the greater challenge by far. How do we love those who have strayed from Biblical authority?

Assets from withdrawn congregations – local flexibility

Overtures were received from the sessions of Chapel Place Church, Markham Chinese Church and Fraser Church Tottenham, with approval by the Presbytery of Oak Ridges, seeking permission for presbyteries “to use up to one half of their portion of the assets received from the dissolution of the withdrawing congregation to support the ministry of the new fellowship outside of The Presbyterian Church in Canada.” Assembly Council’s response was to maintain traditional practice: “. . . we need to assume that the assets accumulated through the gifts of Presbyterians over the years were intended to be used for the work and ministry of The Presbyterian Church in Canada. . . To allow presbyteries to risk their fiduciary and legal responsibilities around the assets entrusted to their care would be irresponsible and to grant the prayer of the overtures would also be disrespectful of the decision arrived at by the denomination through great care and difficulty.” 

The motion on the floor, based on a recommendation not to grant the request, was challenged by Nagi Said (Oak Ridges), who made an amendment that the prayer of the overtures be granted. He referencing the PCC’s Confession to its ethnic contingent for being silenced, mistreated and slandered and asked that the same spirit be applied to this matter. Second, he appealed to commissioners to consider that the work of the church is not confined to the PCC’s boundaries. There are many who have a “wider perspective.” Allowing departing congregations to leave with more than half of their assets “empowers them” to continue their work without the burden of loans and mortgages. It’s ecumenical work, in which the PCC already engages. It’s a “larger ministry of God’s people.” 

“I would rather be in a church that preferences the relationship we have with other worshiping congregations than holding onto money.”

He had support from David Sturtevant (Newfoundland) who pointed to the word of the Lord: “If someone sues you and asks to take your tunic, give them your cloak also. I would rather be in a church that preferences the relationship we have with other worshiping congregations than holding onto money.”

Roland DeVries (Montreal): wondered if there’s anything preventing presbyteries from supporting financial support to congregations outside the PCC. “Presbyteries support all kinds of organizations.” 

It’s a “complex” matter, said Principal Victor Kim. On the one hand, the church requires in this case to consider mission plans from presbyteries for their share. Some plans include ministries that are community based such as feeding the hungry and housing the homeless. “They are related to ministries supported by presbytery or congregations in that presbytery and we have said yes to those mission plans.” On the other hand, the guidelines state that funds should not be slated “for other denominations.” While no such plan has come forward to date, the commission on assets might have a different response than to support a community-based ministry. He added that the overtures sought permission to allow presbyteries to add additional funds to what the departing congregations are already receiving in the formula. These overtures would be a way of saying “we want something different” than what Assembly has already decided. 

Soong Huh (Oak Ridges): “We’re not asking to change polity but to give some freedom.” It’s about “discerning the mind of Christ.”  

Bill Grace (Pickering) pointed out that a clear majority have voted to remain not because their hearts were in it, but because of financial survival and the inability to afford remortgaging their properties. 

After a successful call for an immediate vote, the motion to grant the overtures was defeated and the original recommendation to deny the overtures was approved. 

I wonder . . .

1. If it’s okay for a mission plan to support the least of these, apparently there is nothing wrong with that. But what about a mission plan to support spiritual growth for those who have departed? It’s like social justice is more important than congregational and spiritual development.
2. The PCC already has an official Ecumenical Shared Ministries partnership with the United, Lutheran and Anglican denominations in Canada. There’s the precedent. What’s the harm with a partnership with closer cousins?

Narratives of Hope and Possibility

Assembly Council (AC) created a Narratives of Hope and Possibility working group to discern and recommend new ways for the PCC to operate. 

Responsibilities of the group include: 

• “. . . imagine, learn and act upon narratives that could lead to renewal, transformation and vitality for congregations, courts and agencies of the church.” 
• “Present an ecclesiology that informs any proposed changes to the current structures” of the PCC.

It’s all part of what the AC sees as the evolution (ie. expansion) of its “prophetic role” along with its “coordinating function with regards to the decisions of the General Assembly and the work of its committees.” Principal Clerk Victor Kim has convinced AC (although members of the Council are not united on this) to explore different governance paths based on what they deem to be their “foundational narrative” which is “the story of God’s love for creation, for humanity, for us, made known in the loving gift of incarnation, in the sacrificial story of agape love on the cross and in the story of the victory of life over death, the light that shines in the darkness, the resurrection of Jesus which brings redemption, forgiveness, restoration and peace. . . As an Easter people, we find our identity as those who are set free by the redemptive gift of Christ, baptized in hope and possibility.”

Some personal concerns:

1. This narrative is devoid of any concept of sin, redemption and human responsibility. It’s feel-good, weak theology.
2. Has General Assembly granted permission to the AC to exercise, let alone expand, its prophetic role? (It’s worth reminding that AC has no legal standing in our polity.)
3. Why is AC simply reporting on this when GA has never provided consent? It’s rather presumptive. Perhaps AC should first check in with GA to ask: “do you approve of what we are doing?” 

A growing deficit

Assembly Council was advised by its Finance Committee (“based on discussions with the Management Team”) that it “should avoid reductions in the programs of the church because we have sufficient financial resources in the medium term to continue their support . . . we believe that the overall financial health of the denomination remains strong and its ability to support the General Assembly’s Operating Fund budget is healthy on account of the substantial amount of resources in the restricted funds that are available to support the operations of the church.”

In 2023 actual spending was $7,975,623 on actual revenue of $6,263,928. Proposed 2024 spending is: $8,000,000 on revenue of $5,343,000.  The gap is expected to increase, with 2025 proposed expenditures of $8,901,000 and revenue of $5,413,000.

Clearly, the expectation by those in control is that whatever they are doing (See Narratives of Hope and Possibility) will result in a dramatic increase in attendance and ensuing financial support. 

Continued decline and a response

Membership in The Presbyterian Church in Canada peaked in 1964 and has been in decline since that year. Decline in Sunday School membership within The Presbyterian Church in Canada congregations began in 1961.

General Assembly in 2023 directed the Trustee Board to “create a demographic projection of the next three years and report to the next Assembly.” 

In response, the board formed an ad hoc committee, in which “most of the discussion . . . focused on how to define the purpose and scope of the demographic study. These were not identified in the additional motion and yet they have a tremendous impact on how the study should be structured. What questions is the study designed to answer? What kinds of data are needed to answer those questions? What board, committee or agency has access to the necessary data and also has the fiduciary responsibility to address the questions for the church?” As well, the committee noted that such a study is not within its purpose and responsibilities. 

The board concluded that “perhaps the best approach is to refer the request for a demographic study back to the church. Presbyteries and sessions routinely submit overtures to the General Assembly asking for work to be carried out that will answer questions or address issues that the overture authors believe are important for the church. Perhaps the identification of questions or issues that necessitate a demographic study will be presented by means of overture to a future General Assembly.” Commissioners accepted that. 

We now wait and see if an overture comes. 

The less we get together . . .  

At the March meeting of the Assembly Council, the idea of biennial Assemblies, which was last brought before the General Assembly in 2014, was revisited by the Council. The Assembly Council will consider presenting to the 2025 General Assembly a proposal for biennial Assemblies, with a trial period of six years, three cycles, beginning in 2026.

Unmarried, but living together 

“Who doesn’t get excited about moving into a new home!” the Assembly Council exclaimed in its report. Recently, The PCC signed a lease with the Anglican and United Church denominations, to share new national office space at the redeveloped site of Bloor Street United Church at 300 Bloor Street West in Toronto. This move is scheduled for the summer of 2026.

Ruling elders as interim moderators 

Presbyteries and sessions will be asked to weigh-in on proposed legislation by the Clerks of Assembly to allow specifically trained ruling elders to serve as interim moderators. Existing church law only allows ministers. The clerks were responding to a 2023 Overture from First Presbyterian Church in Regina which pointed out that in some presbyteries, the number of vacancies far exceeds the supply of ministers. In the Presbytery of Assiniboia there were 1.75 ordained, called ministers for nine pastoral charges) and the fact that “ruling elders are already considered competent to moderate high courts of the church,” the Overture stated. 

“The struggle is real,” said Amanda Currie (Assiniboia), who pointed to a neighbouring presbytery which has been unable to appoint interim moderators in some vacant congregations.

“We’ve worked our retired ministers until we buried them,” quipped Barry Holtslander (Assiniboia), a lay missionary. 

Deadline for sessions and presbyteries to weigh in on the proposed change is Jan. 31, 2025. 

Hungarian diaspora

An attempt by Hungarian congregations to seek immediate approval to form their own presbytery, similar to the Korean Han-Ca’s, was denied. The request came earlier this year in the form of overtures from four congregations, which the Committee on Bills and Overtures recommended be referred to Assembly Council for study and report. 

The Overtures pointed to the fact that Hungarian-speaking congregations are “scattered all over in various presbyteries from the east coast to the west coast and their ministry and pastoral care is not solved satisfactorily. . . The decrease in number of the Hungarian Presbyterian congregations, their financial situation and the closure of churches in some places” make it an urgent need, they said. 

To that end, Eszter Nemeth (Westminster) made an amendment that would give Assembly Council “power to issue” and grant immediate recognition of the Canadian Hungarian Presbyterian Churches Consultation Committee as “as an important constituency in its own right in The Presbyterian Church in Canada. . . and be recognized as equal partners with Presbyteries across the nation.”

Moderator Patricia Dutcher-Walls (Westminster) ruled the amendment out of order.

“I know how important this is to you . . . the passion you have behind this and how important this is to your ministry and identity,” she told the Assembly. “It’s so important that it needs the whole church to be thinking about it. And the only way to do that is to have Assembly Council think about it first and then to bring it back next year. To do it in a rush” would not be fair to commissioners who have no background information nor the rationale from the Hungarian congregations. 

Medical Assistance in Dying (Physician-Assisted Suicide)

In 2023, the General Assembly made the following decision: “That the Committee on Church Doctrine produce a document for the 150th (2025) General Assembly using the term Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) that will assist the church to respond faithfully and practically in pastoral situations.” In its report to 2024 GA, The Committee on Church Doctrine (CDC) stated: “The committee realizes that there is a need for pastoral care and non-judgmental guidance for both patients and their families. We also need to grapple with the role of suffering in end-of-life situations and the traditionally high-view Christians have regarding the sanctity of life.” (Italics added for emphasis.) 

I wonder — when the CDC says “non-judgmental” are we to understand that we, as a church, are not to make any attempt to discern whether medical intervention to specifically terminate life is ethical or even in God’s will? And do we no longer hold to a high-view of the sanctity of life?

“. . . are we to understand that we, as a church, are not to make any attempt to discern whether medical intervention to specifically terminate life is ethical or even in God’s will?”

How quickly we have changed course. In 2017, General Assembly approved a bold statement upholding the sanctity of life in a document accurately named “Physician Assisted Suicide.” It was intended as an interim response to an emerging issue and it was commended to the church for study and response. Feedback was received and in 2019, the CDC prepared a report with revisions to the 2017 statement. GA was canceled in 2020 so the following year, commissioners proposed adding “Medical Assistance in Dying” to the title. In 2022, in response to a significant number of requests, “Physician Assisted Suicide” was dropped from the name. Today (2023), commissioners directed the CDC to produce a new document for the 2025 GA which reflects the wide secular acceptance of the practice. Commissioners overwhelmingly voted in favour.”

This is a fundamental issue and I pray that anyone who upholds the sanctity of life from conception to natural conclusion – not just evangelicals – can muster the strength to make a judgmental call and speak out.  

Middle East witness – “Where is the church?”

Palestinian Christian Rula Odeh, chair of Canadian Friends of Sabeel and musician sister Samia Odeh told the story of the experiences of her people in testimony and song. “Genocide . . ethnic cleansing . . . dehumanized . . . apartheid . . . intergenerational trauma . . . can’t forget it.” Rula identifies her people as the “original Christians” who were once 10 per cent of the population in Palestine but are now down to two per cent. “We need your support to remain. . . .where is the church? Why aren’t you doing more?” It was a moving presentation. 

I wonder – how do we stand with Israel’s right to exist while at the same time standing up for basic human rights of those in Israel’s path? There is the two-state solution. But the issue is much more complicated. Polls routinely find that 85-90 per cent of evangelical believers in the West support some degree of Christian Zionism, which – generally speaking – is in favour of Israel’s occupation and further territorial expansion as divine destiny? What would Jesus do? 

Middle East resolution – “None of us know how . . .”

The International Affairs Committee (IAC) is charged with advancing divine justice outside our national borders. Its report is filled with moving testimony as the committee and staff work to improve the situation of the “least of these,” notably the victims of violence in the Middle East. It’s not enough to simply call it “complex” – millennia of conflict cannot be resolved quickly and, frankly, are too intractable to be resolved by human diplomacy. 

The position of the PCC is to advance a two-state solution and to stand against Christian Zionism. The IAC report is highly critical of Israel’s military methods and routine abuses of civilians, particularly children. “Since 1967, Israel holds the dubious distinction of being the only country in the world that automatically and systematically prosecutes children in military courts, which lack fundamental fair trial rights and protections.” It’s all documented and accepted as fact. It’s horrifying and absolutely heartbreaking. Again, how do we stand with Israel in light of this? Again, WWJD.

The tone of the IAC report struck some commissioners as overly skewed toward Palestine. In his written dissent to one of the motions that resulted from IAC recommendations, Blair Bertrand (Ottawa) stated: “ Hamas is explicitly and unabashedly anti-Semitic. They exist to eradicate Jews. . . . To not condemn Hamas for anti-Semitism, all the while supporting Palestine and vilifying Israel, is, at best, to remain silent about a mortal sin fundamentally at work in the conflict and, at worst, to tacitly approve of anti-Semitism.” Again, WWJD?

In response, an official ecumenical group of from the Canadian Anglican, Presbyterian, Mennonite and Roman Catholic churches teamed up in a letter “which asks the Christian churches in the West to confess our colonial doctrines and the ways in which we read the Bible that have been used to justify war, apartheid, discrimination and ethnic cleansing here in this land called Canada and to tolerate and justify it in Palestine and other places.” It included a commitment to “continue mobilizing our fellow Canadians for action . . . advocating to our federal government for a permanent ceasefire and for a process that will lead to a just peace (and) . . . to pray for you and your people.” The IAC asked Assembly to encourage “congregations, presbyteries and synods . . . [to] concrete ways to live out this commitment and use resources created by the church, KAIROS, Sabeel and Project Ploughshares on justice in the region.” 

Peter Bush (Waterloo-Wellington), who grew up in the Middle East, told Assembly he can still picture the occupants of a Palestinian refugee camp. “What’s going on in Gaza tears me up.” He agreed that we cannot write an unbiased report “because we’re all biased.” And so every statement must be made with “deep, profound humility. And in that . . . we need to recognize that we as a denomination have a history of antisemitism and that we have been guilty of colonialism and that ultimately, as the Declaration of Faith Concerning Church and Nation says, that ultimately the only tools we have are not of this world: prayers, spiritual reflection. And we need to use them as we participate in God’s vision for a just peace in the Middle East. None of us in this room know how this can find a way forward.” 

Commissioners agreed to an amendment by Peter to add the following: “And that this be done in humility, confessing the history of anti-Semitism within The Presbyterian Church in Canada and the church’s own actions of colonialism, using the church’s tools of prayer and spiritual reflection to participate in God’s vision for a just peace in the Middle East” be added to the recommendation after the word “region”.

Peter’s words were received with respectful silence. Similar to the Sabeel witness, they hit on something more fundamental than doctrine. Evangelicals seem to be preoccupied with theological issues on our own turf. While that is vital, I wonder if sometimes we are missing something larger on the geopolitical front.  

______________________

Rev. Andy Cornell‘s observations are presented as analysis rather than news – in fairness and love – while declaring his bias as a traditional believer in an officially progressive denomination. 

Photo courtesy of The PCC