The 219th General Assembly is now history. In all, the Assembly was well-run, and the commissioners were civil and deliberate in their work. There were not many surprises, as the moderatorial election pretty well signalled the assembly's preferences. However, there were also not many blunders.
Many people might consider the action on the same-sex benefits overture such a blunder. In that action, the assembly approved extending insurance coverage to same-sex domestic partners of non-ordained plan members. Voices on the right guarantee me that the move is a deeper offense to them than the proposed change in ordination standards, as there is no vote of the presbyteries required to enact it, and they are mandated to use the plan whether they approve of that provision or not.
It is, in my opinion, an issue that is the classic choice of competing values. On the one hand we have made a major priority of our commitment to equal treatment of persons in the civil arena regardless of sexual orientation or marital status. Through that lens, the benefits issue is one of justice and equitability. On the other hand we have a long history of freedom of conscience on matters that are theological non-essentials. And the nature of the plan requires churches to participate for their minister members. The approved "relief of conscience" clause allowing churches to opt out is of only limited comfort to those who believe that by extending such benefits the church is endorsing sinful behavior. (Let it be said that while I understand that point of view, I do not share either its premise or its conclusion.) As we look down the road, if this conflict of values continues to be a serious problem, we may be forced into a two-plan program, and segregate more fully the plan for minister members and their families from "affiliated members."
On the whole the commissioners were more often wise and constructive. The Middle East Peacemaking Committee proved to be just that as they avoided a major public relations disaster through amending the controversial report "Breaking Down Walls" in committee. The intervention of losing moderatorial candidate James Belle in the Middle Governing Bodies Committee helped heal a potential fallout among the Puerto Rican delegation over the report of the Special Administrative Committee.
Personally, I found that the commissioners were less polarized than in years past, and more willing to build community. Several times during the plenary proceedings, commissioners were encouraged to be in small group prayer with those around them -- which I think helped keep things in perspective. The refusal of the commissioners to consider amendments regarding the definition of marriage was clearly an attempt at easing the burden of change for those in the minority, even if it did not ease the burden of those desiring the blessing of their pastors, congregations, and denominatin on their legal same-sex marriages.
I have a correction to last night's post: the YAD (or YAAD) has in fact cried. It happened Friday night when I was out of the assembly hall, during the Mission Coordination and Budgets report (go figure). The as-yet-unidentified YAD allegedly wept while bemoaning the lack of a Presbyterian campus ministry on her campus during a discussion of higher education ministry cuts. I have confirmed this through multiple sources, so I think it is reliable enough to say the saying still holds true: "The Assembly ain't over until the YAD cries."
Well, the YAD has cried for another Assembly. I'll post some pictures and more wrap-up perspectives soon.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
The End Is Near!
The end of the 219th General Assembly will come sometime tomorrow morning around 11 a.m. The only "business" left on the docket is the approval of GA per capita assessments (scheduled to rise to $6.50 in 2011 and $6.63 in 2012 from the current $6.15). Then, it's "thanks for coming," "thanks for hosting," and "see you next time in Pittsburgh."
In all, this has been an extraordinary General Assembly meeting. Well-moderated, well-considered by the commissioners, and for the most part (tote bags excepted) smoothly functioning. Even a 5 p.m. Friday "Soulforce" demonstration at the Assembly (Over what? Two of the three major issues on gay rights were approved.) came off with little fanfare. The anticipated condemnatory headlines about the Presbyterian policy on the Middle East will not materialize, deftly deflected by a smart committee that listened and acted with justice and equanimity to all sides of the issue, and amended the study paper to provide greater balance.
Perhaps the most controversial news of the last full day of business was in the usually sleep-inducing committee report on the Board of Pensions. An overture seeking the extension of pension and medical benefits to same-sex partners generated heated and lengthy debate. In the end, the commissioners approved extending the coverage as a matter of justice and equanimity, despite a possible hike in plan dues of as much as 1% of effective salary, equal to about $500 based on the median pastor's effective salary (although it won't cover ordained persons). A provision for "relief of conscience" to those who object to supporting persons in same-sex relationships was little consolation to conservatives. There are some "weasel words" in the overture which could delay or even prevent its implementation; so this may not be a "done deal" yet.
As noted in a previous post, the real news of the last day was probably accorded little significance by most observers and commissioners, namely the Chernobyl-like near-meltdown of our constitutional core in the consideration of item 05-21. It just goes to show you can't always tell what will be of lasting significance at any Assembly until it happens.
A few highlights, lowlights, and other observations:
In all, this has been an extraordinary General Assembly meeting. Well-moderated, well-considered by the commissioners, and for the most part (tote bags excepted) smoothly functioning. Even a 5 p.m. Friday "Soulforce" demonstration at the Assembly (Over what? Two of the three major issues on gay rights were approved.) came off with little fanfare. The anticipated condemnatory headlines about the Presbyterian policy on the Middle East will not materialize, deftly deflected by a smart committee that listened and acted with justice and equanimity to all sides of the issue, and amended the study paper to provide greater balance.
Perhaps the most controversial news of the last full day of business was in the usually sleep-inducing committee report on the Board of Pensions. An overture seeking the extension of pension and medical benefits to same-sex partners generated heated and lengthy debate. In the end, the commissioners approved extending the coverage as a matter of justice and equanimity, despite a possible hike in plan dues of as much as 1% of effective salary, equal to about $500 based on the median pastor's effective salary (although it won't cover ordained persons). A provision for "relief of conscience" to those who object to supporting persons in same-sex relationships was little consolation to conservatives. There are some "weasel words" in the overture which could delay or even prevent its implementation; so this may not be a "done deal" yet.
As noted in a previous post, the real news of the last day was probably accorded little significance by most observers and commissioners, namely the Chernobyl-like near-meltdown of our constitutional core in the consideration of item 05-21. It just goes to show you can't always tell what will be of lasting significance at any Assembly until it happens.
A few highlights, lowlights, and other observations:
- The tote bags did arrive, finally, on Wednesday. They are quite nice, although the "free for all" distribution of them seemed a bit unfair to those who paid extra at registration to obtain one.
- For the first time in memory, there hasn't been a "crying YAD." Perhaps the shift to the designation of "YAAD" has jinxed it. Or maybe the mostly excellent moderation and pacing helped. Or maybe the crying will come with farewell comments tomorrow.
- Moderator Bolbach distinguished herself as one of the most fair, efficient, and competent moderators in memory. Not since John Fife in 1992 has a moderator been so impressive.
- The moderator's witty exchange with ACC member Paul Hooker was a personal favorite. I hope someone recorded the exchange. If I can find it, I'll reproduce it.
- Wonderful contemporary music that welcomed commissioners after meals and during breaks.
- The dining options at the Assembly were first-rate, if a bit pricey.
- Friday night was embarrassing in its low attendance. Abortion issues, which at one time could pack out an assembly, drew only the most hard-core observers. (Perhaps the overture under the Pensions report earlier in the day that would have restricted payment for abortions only when the mother's life was in imminent physical danger tipped the Assembly's hand on the evening's debate -- it was overwhelmingly defeated.)
- The new wireless voting system eventually worked fine, once the technicians and the platform personnel figured out how to instruct the commissioners correctly in their use.
- Committee leadership was reportedly inconsistent. Parliamentarians seemed to take the most flak; it was noted by many that a new generation of parliamentarians may need to be groomed.
- Despite the usual complaints about the ACC "advocating" rather than "advising" committees, committee votes followed ACC advice with rare exception, as did the votes in plenary.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Okay, it's not "WarGames" but a major crisis was still averted
Perhaps you recall the 1983 film "WarGames" in which Matthew Broderick played a teen computer hacker who thinks he is playing an online computer game but actually sets off a failsafe scenario for Global Thermonuclear War. A parallel event nearly happened in the world of Presbyterian constitutional governance Friday afternoon. There is a real danger when you get 700 commissioners and 200 advisory delegates together, when many have only a cursory understanding of our polity. That danger is that they could unwittingly be led into a decision that would have disastrous consequences, not merely for church policies or funding, but for the constitutional foundations of the church itself.
The Constitution of the PCUSA faced and averted a major crisis late this afternoon when a minority report on Item 05-21 was rejected by the Assembly. The report would have asked the Assembly to rule by its own Authoritative Interpretation that only its interpretations of the Constitution were, effectively, binding on the Church, in direct violation of G-13.0103r of our Form of Government. For the "unbaptized" in Presbyterian polity, that is like allowing the Congress to declare that no Supreme Court decision is binding on the nation unless it corresponds to Congress's own interpretation of the Constitution. That sounds easy enough to refute, except that in PCUSA polity, both "the Congress" and "the Supreme Court" are empowered to interpret the Constitution, and there is no "Marbury v. Madison" decision that allows the latter to review the acts of the former. The report, if adopted, would have restricted the "Supreme Court" to have the power only to rule on the Constitution in the limited scope of a specific case, but without binding authority on the whole church, if it contradicts an interpretation of "the Congress."
G-13.0103r says the General Assembly has the responsibility and power, "to provide authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order which shall be binding on the governing bodies of the church when rendered in accord with G-13.0112 or through a decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission in a remedial or disciplinary case. The most recent interpretation of a provision of the Book of Order shall be binding...." Two prongs of interpretation -- one from the plenary assembly and one from the Permanent Judicial Commission -- each of which may serve as a check and corrective on the other; each of which draws its authority directly from the Constitution.
Both the Advisory Committee on the Constitution and the GA PJC agreed that the Constitution does not establish a hierarchy between the two prongs. In fact, the Constitution anticipates that they will at times be at odds as demonstrated in the last sentence which says the most recent interpretation will be binding on the church.
The minority report was an embarrassing effort in short-sighted politics by one wing of the church which is unhappy with a recent PJC decision. The left wing was upset that just prior to the 2008 Assembly, the GAPJC overturned the authoritative interpretation of the plenary assembly in 2006 that established a loophole to allow persons to be exempted from mandatory provisions of the Constitution such as are found in G-6.0106b (the "fidelity and chastity" clause). Their answer -- to subordinate the GAPJCs work to that of the currently more liberal Assembly by the Assembly's own action -- not only constitutes an egregious arrogation of power, but is both dangerous for the future of the church and even to their own political ends.
A mere fifteen years ago, a then-very liberal GAPJC threatened to overturn the "definitive guidance" of the church on ordination of "self-affirmed, practicing homosexuals" which had recently been deemed an "authoritative interpretation" through its own authoritative interpretation. The General Assembly, it was determined DID NOT have the power to restrict the GAPJC from doing so short of an amendment, ratified by the presbyteries, that would write the language of "definitive guidance" into the Constitution. That amendment became G-6.0106b. Fifteen years from now, what one side of the church thinks will benefit them now could just as easily turn around and bite them.
The situation was compounded when a commissioner asked directly if such a change would require constitutional amendment of G-13.0103r. The moderator, in direct violation of G-13.0112 of the Constitution directed the question to the Stated Clerk instead of to the Advisory Committee on the Constitution. The ACC, anticipating the question, had caucused and voted that an amendment would be required. Instead of referring to the ACC, the Stated Clerk announced (erroneously) that an amendment would not be required.
That was when my heart started to race. I was not the appointed ACC person on the floor of the Assembly at the time, and it would have been terrible form to call out the Moderator and Stated Clerk on their error. Instead, the Assembly moved quickly to a vote after that, and the substitute motion to approve the minority report was soundly defeated by the Assembly anyway 451-173 (72%-28%). As one of my friends put it, "It's like handing a child a nuclear bomb and hoping he doesn't accidentally push the button."
Were the GA to have adopted such an interpretation, a constitutional crisis would certainly have resulted. There is no provision for filing a remedial case against the General Assembly itself. The only remedy would have been a new authoritative interpretation undoing the former (but implicitly acknowledging that the previous action was permissible), or an amendment to the Constitution explicitly to prohibit what should never have been permitted in the first place.
Within the PCUSA, the General Assembly does not control the Constitution. The Constitution belongs to the whole church (historically called the "General Synod"). Therefore the Assembly's power to interpret the Constitution is a derived power, not an inherent one. It is derived from the whole church, not from its own authority. For the Assembly to have arrogated control of the power of interpretation to itself would have been an offense against the whole church. Thank God, who in Jesus Christ is alone the Head of the Church, that it didn't happen.
Take us back down to Defcon 5.
The Constitution of the PCUSA faced and averted a major crisis late this afternoon when a minority report on Item 05-21 was rejected by the Assembly. The report would have asked the Assembly to rule by its own Authoritative Interpretation that only its interpretations of the Constitution were, effectively, binding on the Church, in direct violation of G-13.0103r of our Form of Government. For the "unbaptized" in Presbyterian polity, that is like allowing the Congress to declare that no Supreme Court decision is binding on the nation unless it corresponds to Congress's own interpretation of the Constitution. That sounds easy enough to refute, except that in PCUSA polity, both "the Congress" and "the Supreme Court" are empowered to interpret the Constitution, and there is no "Marbury v. Madison" decision that allows the latter to review the acts of the former. The report, if adopted, would have restricted the "Supreme Court" to have the power only to rule on the Constitution in the limited scope of a specific case, but without binding authority on the whole church, if it contradicts an interpretation of "the Congress."
G-13.0103r says the General Assembly has the responsibility and power, "to provide authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order which shall be binding on the governing bodies of the church when rendered in accord with G-13.0112 or through a decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission in a remedial or disciplinary case. The most recent interpretation of a provision of the Book of Order shall be binding...." Two prongs of interpretation -- one from the plenary assembly and one from the Permanent Judicial Commission -- each of which may serve as a check and corrective on the other; each of which draws its authority directly from the Constitution.
Both the Advisory Committee on the Constitution and the GA PJC agreed that the Constitution does not establish a hierarchy between the two prongs. In fact, the Constitution anticipates that they will at times be at odds as demonstrated in the last sentence which says the most recent interpretation will be binding on the church.
The minority report was an embarrassing effort in short-sighted politics by one wing of the church which is unhappy with a recent PJC decision. The left wing was upset that just prior to the 2008 Assembly, the GAPJC overturned the authoritative interpretation of the plenary assembly in 2006 that established a loophole to allow persons to be exempted from mandatory provisions of the Constitution such as are found in G-6.0106b (the "fidelity and chastity" clause). Their answer -- to subordinate the GAPJCs work to that of the currently more liberal Assembly by the Assembly's own action -- not only constitutes an egregious arrogation of power, but is both dangerous for the future of the church and even to their own political ends.
A mere fifteen years ago, a then-very liberal GAPJC threatened to overturn the "definitive guidance" of the church on ordination of "self-affirmed, practicing homosexuals" which had recently been deemed an "authoritative interpretation" through its own authoritative interpretation. The General Assembly, it was determined DID NOT have the power to restrict the GAPJC from doing so short of an amendment, ratified by the presbyteries, that would write the language of "definitive guidance" into the Constitution. That amendment became G-6.0106b. Fifteen years from now, what one side of the church thinks will benefit them now could just as easily turn around and bite them.
The situation was compounded when a commissioner asked directly if such a change would require constitutional amendment of G-13.0103r. The moderator, in direct violation of G-13.0112 of the Constitution directed the question to the Stated Clerk instead of to the Advisory Committee on the Constitution. The ACC, anticipating the question, had caucused and voted that an amendment would be required. Instead of referring to the ACC, the Stated Clerk announced (erroneously) that an amendment would not be required.
That was when my heart started to race. I was not the appointed ACC person on the floor of the Assembly at the time, and it would have been terrible form to call out the Moderator and Stated Clerk on their error. Instead, the Assembly moved quickly to a vote after that, and the substitute motion to approve the minority report was soundly defeated by the Assembly anyway 451-173 (72%-28%). As one of my friends put it, "It's like handing a child a nuclear bomb and hoping he doesn't accidentally push the button."
Were the GA to have adopted such an interpretation, a constitutional crisis would certainly have resulted. There is no provision for filing a remedial case against the General Assembly itself. The only remedy would have been a new authoritative interpretation undoing the former (but implicitly acknowledging that the previous action was permissible), or an amendment to the Constitution explicitly to prohibit what should never have been permitted in the first place.
Within the PCUSA, the General Assembly does not control the Constitution. The Constitution belongs to the whole church (historically called the "General Synod"). Therefore the Assembly's power to interpret the Constitution is a derived power, not an inherent one. It is derived from the whole church, not from its own authority. For the Assembly to have arrogated control of the power of interpretation to itself would have been an offense against the whole church. Thank God, who in Jesus Christ is alone the Head of the Church, that it didn't happen.
Take us back down to Defcon 5.
A Letter to Plains and Peaks Presbyterians
July 8, 2010
Dear Plains and Peaks Presbyterians:
We are writing this to you from the 219th General Assembly in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Undoubtedly, this will be regarded as one of the most significant assemblies in recent history. It has been presented with many challenging issues, and has not backed down from any of them. Our commissioners – Nancy D'Ippolito, Sue Hoenshell-Brown, Bob Powell, and Susie Reed – and our Young Adult Advisory Delegate, Luke Black, have served you, the church, and the Lord faithfully and well.
As with all important issues, those debated here have generated much controversy and anxiety, along with misinformation about the content and meaning of what was adopted. Of particular concern to many in our presbytery was the action of the Assembly to approve by a vote of 373-323 (53%-46%) an overture for consideration by the presbyteries that would alter the standards for ordination found in our Constitution.
The Assembly's action, if ratified by a majority of presbyteries, would replace the current language of G-6.0106b (our “fidelity and chastity” provision) with standards that are drawn from the long history of the Presbyterian Church. The new provision reads,
Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.
This particular amendment is both distinct from and constitutionally superior to the amendment rejected by presbyteries after the last assembly. Unlike the last proposed amendment, this calls for a rigorous examination and determination by the examining body based on external authorities (Scripture, confessions, constitutional questions of office), while also looking at the personal qualities of the candidate's calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for office.
The amendment seeks to restore the church to the historic Presbyterian model of the Adopting Act of 1729, to which the church has returned time and again when faced with conflicts over ordination standards. Those conflicts were as intensely fought as ours have been, with similar kinds of appeals from both sides – on the one hand, to external authorities like scripture and tradition; but on the other to the undeniable experiences of call, giftedness, and responsible preparation. The amendment approved by the Assembly lifts up both objective and subjective standards, and requires that the examining body apply them to candidates individually.
This was the practice of the church, with rare exception, from 1729 to 1975. In 1975, a liberal GA Permanent Judicial Commission overreached its authority to declare that a single doctrinal standard – the ordination of women – constituted an “essential tenet of the Reformed faith” to which all candidates must subscribe. Three years later, a conservative General Assembly adopted a single behavioral standard – unrepentant, self-affirmed, homosexual behavior – as an absolute bar to ordination, with the force of an essential tenet of the faith. Neither the GAPJC nor the General Assembly had the authority to declare an essential tenet, which is a power reserved to the whole church through the process of adopting confessional statements. While the ordination of women was given confessional status in 1991, the same cannot be said of “fidelity and chastity.”
In other words, the amendment under consideration by the presbyteries is not a departure from historic Presbyterian practices, but rather a return to them.
Would the amendment permit some sessions or presbyteries to ordain self-affirmed, active homosexuals? Probably, and that may very well stop the discussion for many in our presbytery. But any such ordination should happen only when it has been determined by the examining body that the person's theology, character, call, gifts, and suitability for ministry supports it. The same is true when any other part of the candidate's life and character is considered, because “Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000).”
On the other hand, the amendment would not prohibit a session or presbytery from applying the behavioral standards of scripture or our confessions in the examination of particular candidates. The same examination requirements for admission to office as an elder or membership in a presbytery would apply as they do now. “Scruples” must still be declared and defended. Examinations would still be subject to review by higher governing bodies on appeal in a remedial case. No session or presbytery would be required to ordain or install persons who did not satisfy their examinations, provided the judgment was based on the areas subject to examination (theology, character, call, gifts, suitability for ministry).
We will surely have a vigorous debate over this proposed amendment as we consider its ratification. It is our hope that this debate would be conducted with the same mutual respect, civility, and care with which our own commissioners, and the whole Assembly, has considered their action today.
In Christ's Service,
Daniel M. Saperstein
Executive Presbyer
Lynn A. Smit
Stated Clerk
Dear Plains and Peaks Presbyterians:
We are writing this to you from the 219th General Assembly in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Undoubtedly, this will be regarded as one of the most significant assemblies in recent history. It has been presented with many challenging issues, and has not backed down from any of them. Our commissioners – Nancy D'Ippolito, Sue Hoenshell-Brown, Bob Powell, and Susie Reed – and our Young Adult Advisory Delegate, Luke Black, have served you, the church, and the Lord faithfully and well.
As with all important issues, those debated here have generated much controversy and anxiety, along with misinformation about the content and meaning of what was adopted. Of particular concern to many in our presbytery was the action of the Assembly to approve by a vote of 373-323 (53%-46%) an overture for consideration by the presbyteries that would alter the standards for ordination found in our Constitution.
The Assembly's action, if ratified by a majority of presbyteries, would replace the current language of G-6.0106b (our “fidelity and chastity” provision) with standards that are drawn from the long history of the Presbyterian Church. The new provision reads,
Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.
This particular amendment is both distinct from and constitutionally superior to the amendment rejected by presbyteries after the last assembly. Unlike the last proposed amendment, this calls for a rigorous examination and determination by the examining body based on external authorities (Scripture, confessions, constitutional questions of office), while also looking at the personal qualities of the candidate's calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for office.
The amendment seeks to restore the church to the historic Presbyterian model of the Adopting Act of 1729, to which the church has returned time and again when faced with conflicts over ordination standards. Those conflicts were as intensely fought as ours have been, with similar kinds of appeals from both sides – on the one hand, to external authorities like scripture and tradition; but on the other to the undeniable experiences of call, giftedness, and responsible preparation. The amendment approved by the Assembly lifts up both objective and subjective standards, and requires that the examining body apply them to candidates individually.
This was the practice of the church, with rare exception, from 1729 to 1975. In 1975, a liberal GA Permanent Judicial Commission overreached its authority to declare that a single doctrinal standard – the ordination of women – constituted an “essential tenet of the Reformed faith” to which all candidates must subscribe. Three years later, a conservative General Assembly adopted a single behavioral standard – unrepentant, self-affirmed, homosexual behavior – as an absolute bar to ordination, with the force of an essential tenet of the faith. Neither the GAPJC nor the General Assembly had the authority to declare an essential tenet, which is a power reserved to the whole church through the process of adopting confessional statements. While the ordination of women was given confessional status in 1991, the same cannot be said of “fidelity and chastity.”
In other words, the amendment under consideration by the presbyteries is not a departure from historic Presbyterian practices, but rather a return to them.
Would the amendment permit some sessions or presbyteries to ordain self-affirmed, active homosexuals? Probably, and that may very well stop the discussion for many in our presbytery. But any such ordination should happen only when it has been determined by the examining body that the person's theology, character, call, gifts, and suitability for ministry supports it. The same is true when any other part of the candidate's life and character is considered, because “Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000).”
On the other hand, the amendment would not prohibit a session or presbytery from applying the behavioral standards of scripture or our confessions in the examination of particular candidates. The same examination requirements for admission to office as an elder or membership in a presbytery would apply as they do now. “Scruples” must still be declared and defended. Examinations would still be subject to review by higher governing bodies on appeal in a remedial case. No session or presbytery would be required to ordain or install persons who did not satisfy their examinations, provided the judgment was based on the areas subject to examination (theology, character, call, gifts, suitability for ministry).
We will surely have a vigorous debate over this proposed amendment as we consider its ratification. It is our hope that this debate would be conducted with the same mutual respect, civility, and care with which our own commissioners, and the whole Assembly, has considered their action today.
In Christ's Service,
Daniel M. Saperstein
Executive Presbyer
Lynn A. Smit
Stated Clerk
The "Stay Together" Assembly
Every General Assembly tends to develop its own identity and temperament. There have been “referring” assemblies; “backlash” assemblies; “confused” assemblies so on. This assembly is developing an identity as the “stay together” assembly. Time and again they have disapproved efforts, both obvious and subtle, to divide the denomination or to separate parties with differences. The report of the Assembly Committee on Middle Governing Bodies is a case in point. Several overtures were referred to this committee for recommendation to the Assembly. Some, like overtures from the Presbyteries of Santa Barbara and Beaver-Butler, sought accommodation for disaffected churches in “theological affinity” presbyteries or synods; others, like the request of the Synod of South Atlantic, or the Special Administrative Review Committee on Puerto Rico, addressed matters of unity and division regarding governing bodies united by language or culture. In each case, the Assembly preferred options that maximized the likelihood of staying together in multi-cultural and theological diversity.
Most surprising was the rejection (for the first time by a GA) of a request for a Korean-language non-geographical presbytery by the Synod of South Atlantic. What was jaw-dropping was that the rejection was by a vote of 80%-19%. Considerable debate focused on the factionalization of multiple language-based presbyteries; the generational differences among Korean-Americans; and the lack of ministry options for Korean-American women clergy within the language-based presbyteries.
Efforts to create theological affinity synods and presbyteries were disapproved by voice vote with little or no debate, after the assembly took the unusual action of approving the formation of an Administrative Commission to address a growing crisis in middle governing bodies. The commission was charged to study, report, and recommend to the 220th GA on matters related to middle governing body issues, as well as to have the authority “to organize new synods and to divide, unite or otherwise combine synods or portions of synods” and “to approve the organization, division, uniting or combining of presbyteries by synods,” when directed by the Assembly or requested by majority votes in the affected bodies. As an effort to protect against a “rogue commission” overreaching its authority, the assembly required a 2/3 vote for the commission to take any action.
By a vote of 373-323, the assembly approved passing along the Western Reserve overture on ordination standards for presbytery votes. While this may appear to be out of character for a "stay together" presbytery, it is in fact keeping with the theme. Although debate tended to cover the usual topics (with the twist that YAADS were pushing inclusiveness as an issue for youth evangelism), the amendment is really an effort at reconciliation between warring factions through the Adopting Act compromise rather than a frontal assault on the ordination issue.
Similarly, two of the most controversial topics at the assembly: the definition of marriage and a hotly debated study paper on Jewish-Christian relations were both met with caution. In the closest vote of the day, the assembly turned down consideration of a new definition of marriage to accommodate pastoral concerns in jurisidictions that offer same-sex marriages by a vote of 348-324. Earlier, both the majority and minority reports from the denominational task force were approved for circulation and study. In the same vein of "not rocking the boat" the study paper on the theological relationship between Christians and Jews was referred back for a rewrite after broader consultation.
An unexpected issue arising at the assembly was a protracted debate on the new Arizona anti-immigration law. A resolution to refrain from holding national meetings in states where travel by immigrant Presbyterians or Presbyterians of color might subject them to harassment due to legislation passed by a vote of 420-205 after pleas from two former GA moderators to "combat racism with action."
All in all a long day of significant actions, taken in a conciliatory tone. Tomorrow: Middle East Peacemaking tops the list of high profile topics.
Most surprising was the rejection (for the first time by a GA) of a request for a Korean-language non-geographical presbytery by the Synod of South Atlantic. What was jaw-dropping was that the rejection was by a vote of 80%-19%. Considerable debate focused on the factionalization of multiple language-based presbyteries; the generational differences among Korean-Americans; and the lack of ministry options for Korean-American women clergy within the language-based presbyteries.
Efforts to create theological affinity synods and presbyteries were disapproved by voice vote with little or no debate, after the assembly took the unusual action of approving the formation of an Administrative Commission to address a growing crisis in middle governing bodies. The commission was charged to study, report, and recommend to the 220th GA on matters related to middle governing body issues, as well as to have the authority “to organize new synods and to divide, unite or otherwise combine synods or portions of synods” and “to approve the organization, division, uniting or combining of presbyteries by synods,” when directed by the Assembly or requested by majority votes in the affected bodies. As an effort to protect against a “rogue commission” overreaching its authority, the assembly required a 2/3 vote for the commission to take any action.
By a vote of 373-323, the assembly approved passing along the Western Reserve overture on ordination standards for presbytery votes. While this may appear to be out of character for a "stay together" presbytery, it is in fact keeping with the theme. Although debate tended to cover the usual topics (with the twist that YAADS were pushing inclusiveness as an issue for youth evangelism), the amendment is really an effort at reconciliation between warring factions through the Adopting Act compromise rather than a frontal assault on the ordination issue.
Similarly, two of the most controversial topics at the assembly: the definition of marriage and a hotly debated study paper on Jewish-Christian relations were both met with caution. In the closest vote of the day, the assembly turned down consideration of a new definition of marriage to accommodate pastoral concerns in jurisidictions that offer same-sex marriages by a vote of 348-324. Earlier, both the majority and minority reports from the denominational task force were approved for circulation and study. In the same vein of "not rocking the boat" the study paper on the theological relationship between Christians and Jews was referred back for a rewrite after broader consultation.
An unexpected issue arising at the assembly was a protracted debate on the new Arizona anti-immigration law. A resolution to refrain from holding national meetings in states where travel by immigrant Presbyterians or Presbyterians of color might subject them to harassment due to legislation passed by a vote of 420-205 after pleas from two former GA moderators to "combat racism with action."
All in all a long day of significant actions, taken in a conciliatory tone. Tomorrow: Middle East Peacemaking tops the list of high profile topics.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
The Western Reserve Overture (06-09)
The Assembly committee on Church Orders and Ministry will report to the Assembly Thursday afternoon. The committee addresses all overtures having to do with ordination standards, which have divided the church over the last 30-plus years. The committee received eighteen different overtures (and numerous concurrences) regarding the "fidelity and chastity" provision of the PCUSA Constitution -- G-6.0106b -- and the related section on the freedom and limits of the conscience of church officers (G-6.0108). The history of G-6.0106b has been fraught with controversy from its inception in 1996 as a minority report adopted by the Assembly following a two year season of study and dialogue over the gay-ordination issue in the church. G-6.0106b currently says,
"Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament."
The provision, written on short notice and crafted to gain maximum support, is poorly worded from a constitutional point of view. In particular, the third sentence creates an impossible standard for any candidate or minister to meet. In practice, however, it is usually applied only to sexual sins (rather than other sins in the confessions such as Sabbath-breaking, "wasteful gaming," or making depictions of Jesus), and then, almost exclusively to the practice of homosexuality. In its short history, it has become one of the most contested and interpreted provisions of the Book of Order, and, I would add, misinterpreted as well. It has spawned a virtual cottage industry of "loophole overtures" trying to generate ways to sidestep its draconian terms. That is why recent attempts to interpret G-6.0108, on the freedom of conscience, have generated such attention.
The authoritative interpretations of G-6.0108 in the last two assemblies have compounded the constitutional problems. G-6.0106b requires a literal and absolute interpretation of the Book of Confessions -- which the confessions themselves say is contrary to their intent. This created the need to resurrect the archaic practice of "scrupling" (i.e., declaring departures) from the confessions. The recent authoritative interpretations have sought to apply the provisions regarding freedom of conscience in the examination process to the practice of scrupling both departures of belief AND behavior. There is an ongoing debate between majorities on the ACC and the GAPJC, who differ on whether it is constitutional to permit scrupling of mandatory provisions of the Book of Order.
The Western Reserve overture (item 06-09) is important for the life and health of the church because it stops this abuse of the Constitution by returning the church to the historic compromise on ordination standards known as the Adopting Act of 1729. The overture proposes replacing the current G-6.0106b with the following language:
"Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”
The overture stikes a balance between objective standards for office (scripture, confessions, constitutional questions) and subjective judgments of individual candidates (calling, gifts, preparation, suitability). Whenever the church has fought over ordination, it has been between those two poles of confessional subscription (adherence to objective standards) and the candidate's experience of God's call (subjective standards). These two different kinds of standards go back to the two different streams of Presbyterianism brought to America from the Old World. Historically, when these two traditions have clashed, they have been resolved only by returning to the balance first set forth by the Adopting Act and reaffirmed again and again, most recently in the Swearingen Commission reports of 1926 and 1927.
If we are ever to move beyond the sex wars of the last 33 years, it will be, as before, by returning to the Adopting Act compromise. The Western Reserve overture stands alone among the solutions before this assembly in claiming that middle ground. One well-known conservative journalist is reported to have said of this overture that it would have passed two years ago, were it the amendment sent to the presbyteries, and that it should pass this year as well. While many in the church who have been wounded on both sides of the issue may find such an outcome untenable, it is the only outcome that makes sense given our denomination's history and polity.
I will let you know what the Assembly says tomorrow.
"Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament."
The provision, written on short notice and crafted to gain maximum support, is poorly worded from a constitutional point of view. In particular, the third sentence creates an impossible standard for any candidate or minister to meet. In practice, however, it is usually applied only to sexual sins (rather than other sins in the confessions such as Sabbath-breaking, "wasteful gaming," or making depictions of Jesus), and then, almost exclusively to the practice of homosexuality. In its short history, it has become one of the most contested and interpreted provisions of the Book of Order, and, I would add, misinterpreted as well. It has spawned a virtual cottage industry of "loophole overtures" trying to generate ways to sidestep its draconian terms. That is why recent attempts to interpret G-6.0108, on the freedom of conscience, have generated such attention.
The authoritative interpretations of G-6.0108 in the last two assemblies have compounded the constitutional problems. G-6.0106b requires a literal and absolute interpretation of the Book of Confessions -- which the confessions themselves say is contrary to their intent. This created the need to resurrect the archaic practice of "scrupling" (i.e., declaring departures) from the confessions. The recent authoritative interpretations have sought to apply the provisions regarding freedom of conscience in the examination process to the practice of scrupling both departures of belief AND behavior. There is an ongoing debate between majorities on the ACC and the GAPJC, who differ on whether it is constitutional to permit scrupling of mandatory provisions of the Book of Order.
The Western Reserve overture (item 06-09) is important for the life and health of the church because it stops this abuse of the Constitution by returning the church to the historic compromise on ordination standards known as the Adopting Act of 1729. The overture proposes replacing the current G-6.0106b with the following language:
"Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”
The overture stikes a balance between objective standards for office (scripture, confessions, constitutional questions) and subjective judgments of individual candidates (calling, gifts, preparation, suitability). Whenever the church has fought over ordination, it has been between those two poles of confessional subscription (adherence to objective standards) and the candidate's experience of God's call (subjective standards). These two different kinds of standards go back to the two different streams of Presbyterianism brought to America from the Old World. Historically, when these two traditions have clashed, they have been resolved only by returning to the balance first set forth by the Adopting Act and reaffirmed again and again, most recently in the Swearingen Commission reports of 1926 and 1927.
If we are ever to move beyond the sex wars of the last 33 years, it will be, as before, by returning to the Adopting Act compromise. The Western Reserve overture stands alone among the solutions before this assembly in claiming that middle ground. One well-known conservative journalist is reported to have said of this overture that it would have passed two years ago, were it the amendment sent to the presbyteries, and that it should pass this year as well. While many in the church who have been wounded on both sides of the issue may find such an outcome untenable, it is the only outcome that makes sense given our denomination's history and polity.
I will let you know what the Assembly says tomorrow.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Historic Day at G.A.
Wednesday night, the General Assembly voted by a 69%-30% margin to pass on for presbytery approval a major overhaul of the PCUSA Form of Government -- the "nFOG," or new Form of Government proposal. The margin of the vote was a surprise to veteran observers, since major issues usually pass on a more narrow basis. The reason for the overwhelming majority can be attributed to a number of factors: a committee that was solidly behind the proposal 37-5 after some 30 amendments made it more palatable to moderates; an opposition that not only seemed confused, but overplayed their hand by making claims that were clearly unfounded and even characterized as "paranoid"; and a poorly presented substitute motion on the floor that forced the assembly to perfect the main motion prematurely before an up-or-down vote. In the end, the assembly adopted all 30 amendments in a voice vote, rather than allow any difficulties in the document to be displayed before the assembly.
The nFOG assembly committee did not do the church any service by allowing some of the amendments into the final document, which will be voted on an up-or-down basis in the presbyteries. Among the most serious flaws in the amended document are provisions that would allow interim or associate pastors to become the next called pastor of a congregation, and the removal of language explicitly permitting a presbytery to remove a pastor "if the ministry of the Word imperatively demands it." The latter is language that has a long history in the denomination and is central to the presbytery's authority to exercise oversight of the ministry of the Word and sacrament in its churches. The way the proposed language reads, one could interpret that a congregation must consent for the presbytery to remove a pastor. That would be an unprecedented move toward congregational polity.
The debate, which was incredibly civil, nevertheless almost generated the Assembly's first "crying YAD" (okay, they are now "YAADs" -- young adult advisory delegates) . Readers of last assembly's blog know that "the Assembly ain't over until the YAD cries." Word has it that there were sufficient instances of YADs in committees to ensure a crying YAD during Assembly debate sometime this week.
Earlier today, the Assembly approved two important motions regarding our Book of Confessions. By an overwhelming vote, the Assembly approved joining a process already underway by the Reformed Church in America and the Christian Reformed Church to retranslate the Heidelberg Catechism. By nearly as large a margin (77% - 22%) they voted to approve sending the Belhar Confession to the presbyteries for their votes to include it in our Book of Confessions. A 3/4 affirmative vote of the presbyteries is required for inclusion, plus an affirmative vote of the next assembly.
Yesterday's blog post was delayed by computer issues -- I received word from tech support at GA that my computer was officially "dead". I am still in denial about the situation and hope to experience a resurrection when I return to Greeley. As it is, I am still blogging on "borrowed ROM". The Assembly Committee on Middle Governing Bodies (which I have been advising) completed its business yesterday afternoon. The committee seemed to follow closely to the ACC advice. Of particular concern was the report of the Special Administrative Review Committee on the Synod of Puerto Rico, which has been experiencing "institutional meltdown." The committee report was riddled with constitutional flaws, which were worked out with a subcommittee of the assembly committee in a late night session Monday. Expect the commissioners from the Synod to launch to raise a floor fight against the committee recommendation, which is to form an administrative commission to work with the Synod, and at least in a limited way, take original jurisdiction, if necessary. The committee also approved forming a GA Administrative Commission to address other middle governing body issues in the denomination. If both actions are approved, only only one commission will be formed to address both issues. Controversial overtures to form non-geographic theological affinity synods and presbyteries were resoundingly disapproved by the committee.
As indicated in Saturday night's blog, this is giving every indication of being a far more progressive assembly than expected. After the 2008 assembly, which passed many liberal agenda items, one would have expected this to be a "backlash" assembly (like 1998 after 1997). Indeed, one left-wing activist admitted that they would have been happy just to hold on to the gains made last assembly. However, this gives every appearance of being an even more liberal/progressive assembly than 2008. "Party-line" votes are breaking nearly 70-30 progressive, versus the 54-46 votes two years ago. If this holds true, I will have some comments on why this might have happened in a future post.
Tomorrow (Thursday) there is a full slate of business, including Middle Governing Bodies in the morning, Church orders (ordination standards) in the afternoon; and gay marriage in the evening. Hold on tight, the road ahead is going to get rough!
The nFOG assembly committee did not do the church any service by allowing some of the amendments into the final document, which will be voted on an up-or-down basis in the presbyteries. Among the most serious flaws in the amended document are provisions that would allow interim or associate pastors to become the next called pastor of a congregation, and the removal of language explicitly permitting a presbytery to remove a pastor "if the ministry of the Word imperatively demands it." The latter is language that has a long history in the denomination and is central to the presbytery's authority to exercise oversight of the ministry of the Word and sacrament in its churches. The way the proposed language reads, one could interpret that a congregation must consent for the presbytery to remove a pastor. That would be an unprecedented move toward congregational polity.
The debate, which was incredibly civil, nevertheless almost generated the Assembly's first "crying YAD" (okay, they are now "YAADs" -- young adult advisory delegates) . Readers of last assembly's blog know that "the Assembly ain't over until the YAD cries." Word has it that there were sufficient instances of YADs in committees to ensure a crying YAD during Assembly debate sometime this week.
Earlier today, the Assembly approved two important motions regarding our Book of Confessions. By an overwhelming vote, the Assembly approved joining a process already underway by the Reformed Church in America and the Christian Reformed Church to retranslate the Heidelberg Catechism. By nearly as large a margin (77% - 22%) they voted to approve sending the Belhar Confession to the presbyteries for their votes to include it in our Book of Confessions. A 3/4 affirmative vote of the presbyteries is required for inclusion, plus an affirmative vote of the next assembly.
Yesterday's blog post was delayed by computer issues -- I received word from tech support at GA that my computer was officially "dead". I am still in denial about the situation and hope to experience a resurrection when I return to Greeley. As it is, I am still blogging on "borrowed ROM". The Assembly Committee on Middle Governing Bodies (which I have been advising) completed its business yesterday afternoon. The committee seemed to follow closely to the ACC advice. Of particular concern was the report of the Special Administrative Review Committee on the Synod of Puerto Rico, which has been experiencing "institutional meltdown." The committee report was riddled with constitutional flaws, which were worked out with a subcommittee of the assembly committee in a late night session Monday. Expect the commissioners from the Synod to launch to raise a floor fight against the committee recommendation, which is to form an administrative commission to work with the Synod, and at least in a limited way, take original jurisdiction, if necessary. The committee also approved forming a GA Administrative Commission to address other middle governing body issues in the denomination. If both actions are approved, only only one commission will be formed to address both issues. Controversial overtures to form non-geographic theological affinity synods and presbyteries were resoundingly disapproved by the committee.
As indicated in Saturday night's blog, this is giving every indication of being a far more progressive assembly than expected. After the 2008 assembly, which passed many liberal agenda items, one would have expected this to be a "backlash" assembly (like 1998 after 1997). Indeed, one left-wing activist admitted that they would have been happy just to hold on to the gains made last assembly. However, this gives every appearance of being an even more liberal/progressive assembly than 2008. "Party-line" votes are breaking nearly 70-30 progressive, versus the 54-46 votes two years ago. If this holds true, I will have some comments on why this might have happened in a future post.
Tomorrow (Thursday) there is a full slate of business, including Middle Governing Bodies in the morning, Church orders (ordination standards) in the afternoon; and gay marriage in the evening. Hold on tight, the road ahead is going to get rough!
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Living on Borrowed ROM
I apologize for not getting my daily blog up recently. As I indicated previously, my personal computer had a fatal system failure late Saturday as I was writing my blog, and I am currently writing on a GA-provided supply computer. The tech folks at the assembly have had my computer for 36 hours and haven't even been able to look at it yet. If they haven't done anything by the time my committee lets out tomorrow, I will take care of its repair myself.
Speaking of slow... everyone is still waiting for the GA tote bags to arrive. One of the problems of scheduling the assembly over a national holiday is that local businesses are shut down for a three day weekend, so if you need something, you could be waiting a while. At least one of the more common "giveaways" at the exhibit hall are reusable tote/grocery bags, so you see a lot of people carrying their materials in "Church Mutual" sacks.
Now to catch you up on Assembly business. Sunday was a day of celebration. The opening worship Sunday morning in the Assembly Hall brought over 5000 worshipers together for a pageant- and music-filled morning. For the first time in known history, a baptism was performed at General Assembly, a child born to a family at Kwanzaa Presbyterian Church. Some of the worship arts seemed a bit too over the top -- more to impress than inspire -- but on the whole it was a joyful, uplifting service. Outgoing moderator Bruce Reyes-Chow's sermon was more anecdotal than exegetical, but since he's been on the road for most of two years, what do you expect? The afternoon included the introductory assembly committee meetings, which are typically held Sunday night. The opportunity to hold the moderator's reception before the fireworks display in the evening caused the shift in schedule. While I only spent a little time at the reception/barbecue/fireworks event (I was celebrating my daughter Bethany's birthday with family and friends), it seemed to be fun. A gospel music concert (in the Memphis, rather than Nashville, tradition) fit the bill for entertainment.
The committees began their work in earnest today (Monday). The tone of the debate at this assembly is civil, indeed almost subdued. Bob Powell, our commissioner from Fort Collins First -- who sits on the ordination standards committee -- noted that the public testimony (which was concluded in only an hour and a half) was emotional, but respectful. The only committee where hostility seemed to be the mood was, of course, Middle East Peacemaking (sad, isn't it?).
So far, the bellwether of the Moderator's election seems to be bearing out. The business that has already been concluded seems to be tilting to the left. But there is too little information to draw any hard and fast conclusions. Our presbytery union church overture flew through committee. The overture on the new Form of Government hasn't received a committee recommendation yet.
On my own committee, Middle Governing Bodies, the committee has taken one major action: to recommend approval of a GA-level administrative commission to investigate and take action regarding the emerging crisis in presbyteries and synods. The committee is recommending that the commission be limited in its actions only to those that are directed by the Assembly, or that are initiated by request of synods and presbyteries. It is possible that further amendment may come from the Assembly floor to delineate and delimit the powers of the commission even further.
My assembly high point thus far was meeting up at the moderator's reception with a church couple from my field education church in Succasunna, New Jersey. I hadn't seen them in twenty-seven years, but that just made the reunion all the more amazing.
My assembly low moment came tonight when I witnessed an inebriated Presbyterian Gen-Xer practice projectile vomiting in a hotel bar. Fortunately I was able to move clear of the "splatter zone" just in time. I wonder what the hotel staff thinks of Presbyterians now. At least his friends helped him out.
Anyway, I will try to add more tomorrow, hopefully from my repaired laptop. I'm not holding my breath, though. Not for the tote bag either.
Speaking of slow... everyone is still waiting for the GA tote bags to arrive. One of the problems of scheduling the assembly over a national holiday is that local businesses are shut down for a three day weekend, so if you need something, you could be waiting a while. At least one of the more common "giveaways" at the exhibit hall are reusable tote/grocery bags, so you see a lot of people carrying their materials in "Church Mutual" sacks.
Now to catch you up on Assembly business. Sunday was a day of celebration. The opening worship Sunday morning in the Assembly Hall brought over 5000 worshipers together for a pageant- and music-filled morning. For the first time in known history, a baptism was performed at General Assembly, a child born to a family at Kwanzaa Presbyterian Church. Some of the worship arts seemed a bit too over the top -- more to impress than inspire -- but on the whole it was a joyful, uplifting service. Outgoing moderator Bruce Reyes-Chow's sermon was more anecdotal than exegetical, but since he's been on the road for most of two years, what do you expect? The afternoon included the introductory assembly committee meetings, which are typically held Sunday night. The opportunity to hold the moderator's reception before the fireworks display in the evening caused the shift in schedule. While I only spent a little time at the reception/barbecue/fireworks event (I was celebrating my daughter Bethany's birthday with family and friends), it seemed to be fun. A gospel music concert (in the Memphis, rather than Nashville, tradition) fit the bill for entertainment.
The committees began their work in earnest today (Monday). The tone of the debate at this assembly is civil, indeed almost subdued. Bob Powell, our commissioner from Fort Collins First -- who sits on the ordination standards committee -- noted that the public testimony (which was concluded in only an hour and a half) was emotional, but respectful. The only committee where hostility seemed to be the mood was, of course, Middle East Peacemaking (sad, isn't it?).
So far, the bellwether of the Moderator's election seems to be bearing out. The business that has already been concluded seems to be tilting to the left. But there is too little information to draw any hard and fast conclusions. Our presbytery union church overture flew through committee. The overture on the new Form of Government hasn't received a committee recommendation yet.
On my own committee, Middle Governing Bodies, the committee has taken one major action: to recommend approval of a GA-level administrative commission to investigate and take action regarding the emerging crisis in presbyteries and synods. The committee is recommending that the commission be limited in its actions only to those that are directed by the Assembly, or that are initiated by request of synods and presbyteries. It is possible that further amendment may come from the Assembly floor to delineate and delimit the powers of the commission even further.
My assembly high point thus far was meeting up at the moderator's reception with a church couple from my field education church in Succasunna, New Jersey. I hadn't seen them in twenty-seven years, but that just made the reunion all the more amazing.
My assembly low moment came tonight when I witnessed an inebriated Presbyterian Gen-Xer practice projectile vomiting in a hotel bar. Fortunately I was able to move clear of the "splatter zone" just in time. I wonder what the hotel staff thinks of Presbyterians now. At least his friends helped him out.
Anyway, I will try to add more tomorrow, hopefully from my repaired laptop. I'm not holding my breath, though. Not for the tote bag either.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Cynthia Bolbach elected moderator on fourth ballot
Elder Cynthia Bolbach was elected moderator of the 219th General Assembly on the fourth ballot at 10:40 p.m. Saturday night. The election process was riddled with technical difficulties, as it became apparent that the wireless voting system was not functioning as promised, and as many as 140 votes were not tallied in early votes. “I hope my new middle name doesn’t become ‘Florida’,” Bolbach quipped with a dry wit that characterized her responses. Earlier, after candidate James Belle responded to a question with a rambling response, she noted, “Ministers going off on tangents. Who knew?”
Bolbach’s election was perhaps more a result of the weariness of the voters in the face of candidates who did not distinguish themselves in the question and answer period. Nevertheless, it is a victory for progressives, as she has aligned herself with that wing of the church. More significantly, perhaps, it is a victory for the proposed new Form of Government, as she has served as vice-moderator of the nFoG Task Force since 2006.
The wireless electronic voting devices were a major problem in assuring an accurate vote count. In the first ballot for moderator, a total of 496 votes were tallied, of which Bolbach garnered 149, or 30%. By the fourth and final ballot, the technicians had managed to tweak the system to record 635 votes, of which Bolbach received 325, or 51%. It was estimated that the total number of voting commissioners was about 640, so the final tally was more or less accurate.
[I had a wonderful, insightful, complete analysis that was unfortunately lost due to a complete system failure on my laptop -- fortunately this much was saved and I can access it on my wife's computer. If I can restore my hard drive, we'll see if I can retrieve the column. In the meantime, I am in panic mode as all my ACC materials are on the other computer!]
Saturday, July 3, 2010
The Moderatorial Mix
One of the first events of an assembly is the election of a moderator. The moderator is a commissioner, who, with the endorsement of their commissioning body, "stands" for election to preside over the business of the assembly. It is a two-year responsibility, with the moderator serving as an ambassador of the church and interpreter of the assembly's work until the next one is elected. Perhaps more importantly, the moderator chooses the committee leadership from among the elected commissioners to the next assembly, which can affect significantly the outcome of controversial business.
This year there are six -- count 'em! -- six candidates for moderator, and they span the full spectrum of church politics. Alphabetically, they are: Philadelphia pastor James Belle; Elder Cynthia Bolbach of Arlington, Virginia; Minneapolis pastor Jin Kim; Burnsville, NC pastor Maggie Lauterer; Lompoc, CA pastor Julia Leeth; and Eau Claire, WI pastor Eric Nielsen. None of these are denominational "stars" who would be handed the position out of respect (such as Benjamin Weir or Marj Carpenter in years past). Some are better known than others, however -- Jin Kim has been a "rising star" on the right wing for the past decade; Cynthia Bolback co-moderated the new Form of Government Task Force -- but those identities may hurt their candidacy as easily as not.
Because of the range of positions and the lack of a standout candidate, it is more likely that the election to be held Saturday night (tonight) will be an early indicator of the leanings of this assembly as to its political makeup.
The official "moderator's booklet" introducing the candidates can be found at www.pc-biz.org/resource.aspx, but those who want to assess the candidates' positions on the more controversial issues of the day will find a helpful Q&A at www.presbyvoicesforjustice.org (the new successor to the Witherspoon Society and Voices of Sophia). Progressive blogger John Shuck has rank-ordered the candidates from the most to the least sympathetic with the progressive agenda. With the exception of James Belle, who is not quoted in the blog, I have eliminated the blogger's personal comments and just includedthe candidates' responses.
This year there are six -- count 'em! -- six candidates for moderator, and they span the full spectrum of church politics. Alphabetically, they are: Philadelphia pastor James Belle; Elder Cynthia Bolbach of Arlington, Virginia; Minneapolis pastor Jin Kim; Burnsville, NC pastor Maggie Lauterer; Lompoc, CA pastor Julia Leeth; and Eau Claire, WI pastor Eric Nielsen. None of these are denominational "stars" who would be handed the position out of respect (such as Benjamin Weir or Marj Carpenter in years past). Some are better known than others, however -- Jin Kim has been a "rising star" on the right wing for the past decade; Cynthia Bolback co-moderated the new Form of Government Task Force -- but those identities may hurt their candidacy as easily as not.
Because of the range of positions and the lack of a standout candidate, it is more likely that the election to be held Saturday night (tonight) will be an early indicator of the leanings of this assembly as to its political makeup.
The official "moderator's booklet" introducing the candidates can be found at www.pc-biz.org/resource.aspx, but those who want to assess the candidates' positions on the more controversial issues of the day will find a helpful Q&A at www.presbyvoicesforjustice.org (the new successor to the Witherspoon Society and Voices of Sophia). Progressive blogger John Shuck has rank-ordered the candidates from the most to the least sympathetic with the progressive agenda. With the exception of James Belle, who is not quoted in the blog, I have eliminated the blogger's personal comments and just includedthe candidates' responses.
1. Maggie Lauterer "Perhaps when we can speak with a strong majority on matters of human sexuality, we can move on with our mission."
2. Cynthia Bolbach "Those in favor of the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in our life together - and I include myself in that group - believe that we fail to satisfy the Gospel imperative of inclusiveness as we
continue to exclude gays and lesbians from leadership in our church."
3. Eric Nielsen "Assessment of the gifts for ministry of Elders, Deacons, or Ministers of Word and Sacrament should be returned to congregations and presbyteries. They know their people and churches best."
4. James Belle He quotes the Bible and Westminster with the slickest non-answer to the question.
5. Jin Kim "My reflections on the life of Jesus lead me to reject both complete equality in the matters of either ordination or marriage, and ruling out any further GA consideration of these questions for years to
come."
6. Julia Leeth: "I pray the Assembly maintains the traditional definition of marriage as supported by the Bible..."
Of course, ordination standards is just one issue to consider in selecting a moderator. And, while these are obviously highly excerpted quotes, and just one person's assessment of them, they are consistent with what else I have heard of the candidates' positions.
It will be interesting to see how they respond to the questions from the floor tonight, and how the assembly votes. I'll add a late post to update the news.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Getting Started
Technically, today (Friday) is day zero of the assembly, which doesn't formally convene until Saturday afternoon. However, the place is very much abuzz; there are pre-assembly events and training sessions, the "riverside conversations" about important issues before the assembly, lots of seeing old friends and some making new friends, too.
Veteran GA observers will note that the quality of the assembly experience can be affected by the quality of the facility, the local arrangements staff, and the assembly support infrastructure. There are two OGA staff persons who work full-time on Assembly preparations, and they are both seasoned professionals.
That being said, this assembly has shown signs of a sub-par performance, if initial impressions are to be trusted. The facility is fine: plenty of space for all the various meetings and events, although if there is an intuitive element to the design, I haven't found it yet. The Exhibit hall is spacious, so spacious, in fact, that the Cokesbury book center was not visible from the main area. It was tucked in the far rear corner of the hall.
Registration was a disaster. First, the signage in the hall is nearly non-existent; major offices are not visibly identifiable. Second, the registration booths were understaffed. It appeared that there was a single computer and printer combination for manufacturing name tags and tickets for late registrants. I was behind a registrant for whom it took ten minutes to obtain a badge (or at least it was already that long when I left, frustrated by the delay). When I did register, I was informed that the tote bags in which to carry your materials (and the various knickknacks and brochures from the exhibit hall) were "on a train somewhere in Texas" and might be available on MONDAY.
In all fairness, there are scores of people working very hard to try to make this an enjoyable and smooth-running assembly, most of them volunteers. We may be seeing one result of budget cuts at OGA, declining congregational membership and participation, or some other phenomenon, but it doesn't bode well so far.
Veteran GA observers will note that the quality of the assembly experience can be affected by the quality of the facility, the local arrangements staff, and the assembly support infrastructure. There are two OGA staff persons who work full-time on Assembly preparations, and they are both seasoned professionals.
That being said, this assembly has shown signs of a sub-par performance, if initial impressions are to be trusted. The facility is fine: plenty of space for all the various meetings and events, although if there is an intuitive element to the design, I haven't found it yet. The Exhibit hall is spacious, so spacious, in fact, that the Cokesbury book center was not visible from the main area. It was tucked in the far rear corner of the hall.
Registration was a disaster. First, the signage in the hall is nearly non-existent; major offices are not visibly identifiable. Second, the registration booths were understaffed. It appeared that there was a single computer and printer combination for manufacturing name tags and tickets for late registrants. I was behind a registrant for whom it took ten minutes to obtain a badge (or at least it was already that long when I left, frustrated by the delay). When I did register, I was informed that the tote bags in which to carry your materials (and the various knickknacks and brochures from the exhibit hall) were "on a train somewhere in Texas" and might be available on MONDAY.
In all fairness, there are scores of people working very hard to try to make this an enjoyable and smooth-running assembly, most of them volunteers. We may be seeing one result of budget cuts at OGA, declining congregational membership and participation, or some other phenomenon, but it doesn't bode well so far.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
An Overdue Post on Top Issues
I have not posted my usual Assembly previews this month. A month of crises in my presbytery has taken my time and energy. But now it's time to catch up -- hopefully not too late. First, let me share my "top ten eleven" issues at this year's assembly. (Former Stated Clerk Cliff Kirkpatrick did this annually. Current Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons has posted a list of "hopes" for the assembly at http://ga219.pcusa.org/news/hopes.htm - but the PCUSA server seems to have crashed tonight - not a good omen!)
Anyway, here is my list, with annotations:
Anyway, here is my list, with annotations:
11. Elections – There are six candidates for moderator this assembly, the result of a lack of strong candidates declaring early. I will post a separate assessment of the candidates, but suffice it to say that this will likely be a more reliable predictor of the assembly's leanings than in previous years, as none of the candidates are particularly well known and they seem to span the full spectrum of ecclesiastical politics.
10. Authoritative Interpretations – Several overtures seek to limit the powers of the GAPJC and/or the Assembly itself to make authoritative interpretations of the Constitution. The right wing is upset over the AIs adopted in 2008 (and 2006) that seemed to override mandatory provisions of the Book of Order; the left wing is upset that the 2006 AI (recommendation 5 of the Peace, Unity, and Purity Task Force report) was overridden by the GAPJC in the 2008 Bush decision.
9. Interfaith relations - New papers on relationships with Muslims and Jews will take collateral damage from the larger issue of Middle East Peace policy (below).
8. Theology of Life - A theological paper on the Theology of Life will be a target in the ongoing debate over abortion. Obscure overtures on "baptism and election" are stealth attempts to establish a foundation to change the denomination's policy.
7. Impending financial crisis for mission - This may in fact be the REAL story of this Assembly. It isn't #1 because it comes before the Assembly in the rather low-profile Mission Coordination and Budgets Committee. However, it affects the work of EVERY Assembly committee; most notably the Middle Governing Bodies committee (see below).
6. Confessional documents - Two study committees formed by the 218th Assembly report back with recommendations to grant confessional status for the Belhar Confession, and to participate in a new translation of the Heidelberg Catechism. The former is under fire from the right as a stealth attempt to mandate equal ordination status to gays and lesbians; the latter is the subject of controversy over whether question 87 properly translates the original to include "homosexual perversion" in a list of sins.
5. The future of middle governing bodies - The budget crisis in middle governing bodies and the ideological divisions in the church are generating various measures to rethink the roles of presbyteries and synods. A proposal from the Committee on the General Assembly would create a General Assembly Administrative Commission to take action between assemblies. As I am resourcing this committee for the ACC (Advisory Committee on the Constitution) I will leave it to the reader to draw your own conclusions about the relative wisdom of the overtures.
4. Ordination standards (G-6.0106b) and the limits of conscience (G-6.0108) - our perennial discussion, which seems to be so familiar that the assembly isn't even offering a "Riverside Chat" on the topic on Friday. One overture to watch: item 06-09 from Western Reserve Presbytery, which stands out among a slew of similar-sounding overtures. I may comment on this in a later blog.
3. Marriage - The legalization of gay marriage in some civil jurisdictions has led to several overtures from all sides regarding the definition of marriage and the permissibility of gay marriage. Up to now, the Assembly has avoided the issue by a two-track approach, on the one hand retaining a traditional understanding of marriage while permitting pastoral discretion to extend pastoral care to gay and lesbian couples through other means such as civil unions. The changes in civil law have forced the issue on this one.
2. Proposed new Form of Government - This is the great conundrum of the Assembly. Is anyone throwing political clout behind this other than folks in the OGA and on the Task Force? This may be a complete dud of an issue, or it could result in a major revision of our Book of Order. I'm betting on the dud, despite a large dose of institutional inertia behind the proposal.
1. Middle East peace policy - The secular press has already maligned the document before the Assembly, as have pro-Israel conservatives in the church. In fact, it does little to change the position held by the church for 60 years: a two state solution, security for the nation of Israel, and economic justice for the poor. No matter what the Assembly decides, the secular press is ready to make this the lead story of the Assembly.
Undoubtedly there will be a sleeper issue that arises in the Assembly, one that no one expected would be a big story. I'll keep you posted if one emerges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
