Renewal Fellowship continues to track how all 45 presbyteries are handling the remits. Each court has until April 1 to submit their responses.
With 45 presbyteries of all shapes, sizes and theological leanings, the response has literally been all over the map.
For some, it was a quick decision. Presbytery of Peace River was the first to render a decision, voting ‘no’ to remits ‘B’ and ‘C’ on Sept. 7. It was a good example of a court which recognized that minds were made up, so why waste valuable time in fruitless debate.
Some presbyteries separated the discussion from the decision. Essex-Kent, for example, spent more than two hours on the issue on Nov. 19: the ‘yes’ and the ‘no’ sides were presented by a designated presbyter, which was followed by Q&A, then an open mic, in which anyone — members and adherents of each congregation — had time to state their cases. That presbytery will vote in February.
By early December, 22 presbyteries had decided: 14 courts in favour of Remits ‘B’ and ‘C’ and 9 opposed. (For current results).
The remits consist of recommendations to allow two parallel definitions of marriage (“a man and a woman” or “two adult persons”) and to allow congregations and presbyteries to “call and ordain as ministers and elect and ordain as ruling elders LGBTQI persons (married or single).”
Approval of those remits is required by at least half of the PCC’s presbyteries (50 per cent plus one equals 23 presbyteries) which represent at least half of the combined total of the constituent members of presbyteries on the day of the vote.
If the double majority is not reached, the matter dies. If it passes at the presbytery level, then it goes to General Assembly 2020 for final approval. The 2020 Assembly may approve them. Assembly may reject them and send the issue back to presbyteries for reconsideration. Commissioners could also take no further action, or they could send an amended or totally new proposal back to the presbyteries.