218^th General Assembly
2008

The 2008 General Assembly

A Special Report to Witherspoon Society Members and Friends

By Gene TeSelle
Witherspoon Society Issues Analyst

[7-5-08]

Comments?
Questions?
Please send a note,
to be shared here!

The previous General Assembly, in 2006, was relatively cautious, electing a middle-of-the-road Moderator and adopting the recommendations of the Theological Task Force (specifically its interpretation of G-6.0108) by a close margin.

This Assembly indicates a turning of the tide. It elected a Moderator who was clearly progressive and forward-looking, and most of the moderatorial candidates assumed that the framework of discussion was the pluralism encouraged by the last Assembly's action. It approved a number of measures that move the church ahead, including several changes to the Book of Order, though it is also clear that these will be highly contested in the presbyteries. It elected a new Stated Clerk who decried "fear" inside and outside the church; he represents continuity and a reaffirmation of the Kirkpatrick approach. A strong social witness was also affirmed, including a new "Social Creed for the 21st Century."

Before and Around the Assembly

Witherspoon held two pre-Assembly events, much appreciated by those who attended.

On Friday afternoon we held our annual Semper Reformanda conversation, with two stimulating leaders who have worked together before. Rita Nakashima Brock, an "engaged theologian" who has written on themes ranging from the sex trade to the Iraq war, summarized her new book (with Rebecca Parker) entitled Saving Paradise: How Christianity Traded Love of This World for Crucifixion and Empire (Beacon Press, 552 pp., $34.95) and autographed copies both at this meeting and in the Cokesbury bookstore. The argument is that Christian language and art, despite awareness of sin, emphasized creation, the presence of grace, and re-creation until a new stress on guilt and the cross became predominant during the middle ages. Noelle Damico, director of the Presbyterian Hunger Program's Fair Food Campaign, spoke about the work of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (who, she said, were the real "leaders" in the campaign for fair wages in the Florida tomato fields) and more broadly about the Coalition's exposure of human trafficking inside the U.S. Together, they helped us see many of the things that we have known in a new way.

On Saturday morning we held our orientation for commissioners, moving through the major themes coming up in the Assembly's breakfast. After formal presentations, commissioners had the opportunity to meet with others on the same committees and focus more closely on their specific issues.

At our Sunday awards luncheon we heard from Carol Hovis, Executive Director of the Marin Interfaith Council, about its varied work in one of the wealthiest counties in the country. We presented our Whole Gospel Congregation Award to the First Presbyterian Church of Palo Alto, "in grateful recognition of its broad and multifaceted ministry to its community and all its people." And we presented our Andrew Murray Award to the retiring Stated Clerk, Clifton Kirkpatrick, "in grateful recognition of his good-spirited ministry as Stated Clerk, his responsiveness to the General Assembly, his commitment to ecumenical partnerships, and his eloquence and courage as the public voice of our church." Ours was not the only celebration of Clif's contributions to the church, but it was probably the first at this Assembly.

Dorothea Murray, the widow of Andrew Murray for whom the award is named, sent a very nice note of tribute to Clif, which was read in the presentation of the award.

The Society's biennial membership meeting was held following the luncheon. A new class of officers and a new two-year nominating committee were elected. Results are reported elsewhere.

And of course the Witherspoon Dance on Tuesday night enabled everyone to unwind after several days of committee meetings and get ready for even more grueling work in the plenary sessions.

Dave and Mary Ellen Zuverink were our very own COLA (Committee on Local Arrangements), securing food for both events and transporting supplies as well as making arrangements with the Ramada Limited at 455 S. Second Street. If you are staying in San Jose, we recommend it, since the staff took good care of us.

As usual, Vicki Moss was our Booth Coordinator and the most public face of the Witherspoon Society, greeting people throughout the GA except when she was spelled by volunteers (and we thank them, too).  Once again our buttons attracted many people to the booth; they picked up our printed materials and signed petitions and met others; and commissioners and visitors in need of a boost were always able to get some W & W's (what some call M & Ms).

We can't help commenting that the San Jose Convention Center and its related hotels were the most expensive we have encountered. We had to charge $45 for our luncheon, and refreshments for the Dance cost $1200. These hotels must be "profit centers" for their corporations. It is our understanding that the convention center has a commitment to a living wage, which we support; but that doesn't explain the high charges. We ought to mention that we let the Interfaith Council Commission on Worker Justice circulate a petition, since hotel workers are entering new negotiations with the Hyatt Regency.

Election of the Moderator

This year there were four candidates nominated by their presbyteries for Moderator: Carl Mazza of New Castle Presbytery, director of Meeting Ground, a ministry with homeless and otherwise marginalized people in Cecil County, MD; Bruce Reyes-Chow of San Francisco, pastor of a new church development, still a young 39; Roger Shoemaker, an industrial engineer and an active elder endorsed by Homestead Presbytery; and William Teng, pastor of Heritage Presbyterian Church in Alexandria, VA, endorsed by National Capitol, recently president of Presbyterians for Renewal.

All of the candidates come out of settings in which they have dealt with people who are, in one way or another, "marginalized," and they affirmed the role of the congregation as a supportive, active, transforming community. They set a moderate tone in their initial statements and in their answers to questions from the floor.

Teng was the only one to support the current prohibition on ordination of GLBT church members, even as he affirmed inclusion. Shoemaker said he was aware of the tension between personal gifts and the law of the church but said that "there are walls that we must take down." Mazza, citing his experience with Meeting Ground, affirmed the need for full inclusion, honestly relating with each other and treasuring the gifts of all. Reyes-Chow clearly championed inclusive ordination, but he also emphasized the need to converse with those who have heard the call of Christ differently. A blogger who also encourages dialogue on Sunday mornings, he said that honesty and transparency offer the best way to grow in faith.

On the first ballot, the results were:

At his press conference after the election Reyes-Chow said he could not wait to get back to his hotel room to see what kind of Internet buzz his election was generating. The Internet, he said, is "part of my way of being," and he hopes to keep using it to generate dialogue.

Other reports >>

Nominations to General Assembly Committees

The ongoing activity of the PC(USA) and its national staff is governed by various boards, agencies, and committees whose members are elected by the GA. More than 200 positions had to be filled. The General Assembly Nominating Committee (GANC) carefully vets the people who are nominated, with attention to diversity — geographic, gender, racial ethnic, age, proportion of ministers and elders.

Nominations can be made from the floor, and each year alternative candidates are proposed, usually from the conservative coalition. This year three mainstream leaders ran unsuccessfully for the Foundation board. The only successful challenge was for a seat on the Nominating Committee. The Rev. William E. King of the Synod of the Trinity lost a seat to the Rev. Katherine Purves of Pittsburgh, also of the same synod, a leader in Presbyterians for Renewal.

Election of the Stated Clerk

The Stated Clerk is elected to four-year terms, and Clifton Kirkpatrick, who has served for three terms (1996-2008), decided not to seek reelection, declaring his hope to work more closely with the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, whose president he has been since 2004, and with other ecumenical linkages.

The office of Stated Clerk is crucial to the life of the church, since it involves working with presbyteries and synods, maintaining records of many sorts, interpreting the constitution of the church, maintaining ties with the many churches around the world (not only Reformed) with which we are in communion, communicating with Congress and the President when the GA makes statements on issues related to public policy, and even communicating with corporations, as in the successful negotiations between the Immokalee Workers and several fast food chains.

The procedure is that a special Stated Clerk Nomination Committee reviews all applicants, interviewing them and checking references, functioning, in effect, like the search committee in a local church. Their choice was Gradye Parsons, who has been associate stated clerk and director of operations for the Office of the General Assembly (OGA). His down-home accent probably reassured a number of commissioners that he is not a long-time "Louisville bureaucrat." He came out of Eastern Tennessee, where he was a pastor and then Executive Presbyter and Stated Clerk of Holston Presbytery, joining the Louisville staff only in 2000.

Three other persons, all of whom had been reviewed by the committee, also stood for election. They were the Rev. Winfield "Casey" Jones, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Pearland, TX, who has twice challenged Kirkpatrick on a conservative platform; the Rev. Ed Koster, stated clerk of Detroit Presbytery; and the Rev. William Tarbell, pastor of the Saluda (SC) Presbyterian Church.

Parsons was elected on the first ballot, with votes as follows:

Parsons' election promises continuity with the past operations of the OGA, without the dramatic changes of direction that several of the candidates have called for.

Per Capita

Continuity rather than dramatic change was also signaled by the GA's reaffirmation of the long-time tradition, going back to 1857, of per capita assessments, based on the total number of members of congregations in each presbytery. Its primary purpose is to fund the "ecclesiastical" functions that are administered by the Stated Clerk. It also funds some of the "mission and service" activities that are administered by what is now called the General Assembly Mission Council (GAMC).

In recent years, some congregations have withheld per capita payments to protest various actions of the GA, seeing this kind of monetary boycott as a powerful way to exert pressure on the national church. This year there were four overtures proposing new restrictions on per capita funds and transferring control of all ecumenical relations to the general mission budget, which is voluntary and is controlled by the GAMC.

The motivation was made explicit in a "briefing paper" circulated by Presbyterian Action, an affiliate of the Institute on Religion and Democracy. It complained about the amount of PC(USA) money going to ecumenical bodies — the World Council of Churches, the National Council of Churches, and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. All three, it said, receive "generous, disproportionate support" from the PC(USA), and all three have focused increasingly on "political advocacy" that "all leans in one direction: leftward."

These attempts to limit the Stated Clerk's office, and especially its ecumenical work, were soundly defeated by the Assembly.

Social Justice

Committee 9 on Social Justice Issues always has a heavy work load, considering various studies and policy statements that have been called for by past Assemblies, or initiated by the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) and other continuing bodies, or overtured by presbyteries, or introduced as Commissioners' Resolutions. Typically its members groan about the impossible amount of material they are expected to read, then ask how the Assembly could ever make judgments about so many issues.

Discussion in committee and on the floor brings out the diversity within the PC(USA), covering the whole spectrum of attitudes. Discussion often starts with truculent comments, based on conventional wisdom purveyed by the networks and their pundits, about the positions being proposed. Then, after testimony from those who worked on the studies and those who have signed up for the open hearings, committee members see the point and end up overwhelmingly approving most documents, with a few amendments that are usually helpful.

This year there was a timely report entitled "The Power to Change: U.S. Energy Policy and Global Warming." Elder Toby Gurley, a chemical engineer from South Alabama, took the microphone and said that he printed out the whole report, researched it thoroughly, and agreed with everything in it. That pretty much deflated any further nitpicking. But a commissioner from Iowa took offense at the statement asking people to reduce their consumption of meat because livestock produce methane, worsening global warming. He said that he could not go back home saying the GA had made a statement harmful to his state's economy. But he and another commissioner who made the same point in the plenary session did not prevail. The report was approved with almost no negatives in the committee and on the floor. It challenges the hard path of fossil and nuclear fuel, documenting the virtues of green power development.

The committee also dealt with an overture from the National Capital Presbytery "On Addressing the Tragedy of America's Gun Violence." The overture advocate, the Rev. James Atwood, who is a hunter and gun-owner, called gun violence "the major spiritual issue" in our country. The Rev. Catherine Snyder, campus minister at Virginia Tech and Witherspoon Board member, testified about the impact of the shootings there. Elder Stephen Hardin of Sierra Blanca Presbytery (New Mexico) raised objections, claiming that the call for micro-stamping (which transfers identifying information from a gun onto cartridges fired from it) is an expensive ploy by the gun control lobby and insisting that there is no clear difference between military and civilian arms, citing the Barrett .50 caliber rifle, used in competitions but also by military snipers. Atwood pointed out in reply that the manufacturer had once boasted that it could bring down an airliner. The statement was approved by the committee, with a few clarifying changes, by a vote of 55/4/12. The next day's news brought the Supreme Court declaration of an individual right to bear arms, though it is not absolute. With this reminder of the timeliness of the issue, the statement was approved overwhelmingly by the Assembly.

A Commissioners' Resolution questioning "local enforcement of national immigration laws" once again highlighted the diversity of the church and the importance of on-the-ground experience. Some local police departments have been certified by federal agencies to enforce national immigration policies, and the initial reaction of many commissioners may have been that this is a good thing. But local ministers pointed out that such an arrangement causes immigrants to hesitate about calling the police in cases of street crime or domestic violence. Immigrants even hesitate about going to church, since police set up roadblocks near churches to catch illegal immigrants, dividing families in the process. Once again a resolution that seemed alarmingly "controversial" at first glance received overwhelming support.

Major reports on homelessness (and affordable housing), public education, and voting rights and electoral reform were approved in committee and on the floor. Other items approved included an overture on rebuilding the Gulf Coast in the wake of several devastating hurricanes; studies of pay equity for women and people of color within the PC(USA); a Commissioners' Resolution declaring opposition to torture; and a resolution to continue monitoring the labor-management struggle at the Smithfield Foods factory in Tar Heel, NC. An important statement in support of a single-payer universal health care system, "in which health care services are privately provided and publicly financed," was recommended by a different committee and approved on the floor. Both public education and gun violence are to be monitored and reported back to the 2010 Assembly.

The New Social Creed for the 21st Century

The 2004 GA called for a study of ways to commemorate the centennial of the 1908 Social Creed, adopted at the founding meeting of the Federal Council of Churches. This was a Presbyterian initiative, and a broad-based writing committee chaired by Elder Lidia Serrata of Nueces County, TX, drew up a draft. It was then adopted, after some modifications, by the National Council of Churches, and the revised draft was submitted to this GA.

The opposition was waiting. In testimony before the committee, Alan Wisdom of the Institute on Religion and Democracy criticized most features of the draft creed. When the committee turned to this item of business, the Rev. Conway Lanford of New Hope Presbytery (North Carolina) immediately moved to disapprove, throwing many members of the committee into confusion about what to do next. After some discussion this motion was itself disapproved by a vote of 10/64/3. Then the Rev. Paul Terry of Southern New England moved that the creed be "received and commended" to the churches as "worthy of study and holy conversation." He mentioned the new Moderator's call for conversation in the church and said that it was "a New Wineskins way of doing things." But a YAD said that young people are leaving the church because of this kind of cautious attitude and asserted that the creed says exactly what Jesus would say. This motion came to an exact tie.

The committee broke for lunch, and several members found a resolution. Much of the confusion had come from the statement that the draft creed represented a "consensus" of the church, prompting several people to say that it did not represent their views. In reply, the Rev. Chris Iosso, Coordinator of ACSWP, noted that the draft had been drawn up after an opinion survey conducted by the Presbyterian Panel and that all its statements were consistent with positions already taken by the General Assembly. The confusion was resolved when "consensus" was replaced with "synopsis." The committee then approved the action by a vote of 54/19/1.

A minority report was still filed by ten members of the committee, asking the Assembly to "commend" the document and "disseminate" it to the church for study and comment, leaving any consideration of adopting it to the next GA. This was defeated on the floor by a vote of 60 percent, and the creed was then adopted by a strong majority of 83 percent.

Heidelberg and Belhar Confessions

The Heidelberg Confession as printed in the Book of Confessions says, in Answer 87 (C-4.087) that "no fornicator or idolator, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers or drunkards or slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God."

It has been pointed out for many years that "homosexual perversion" is not in the original German or its Latin translation, if for no other reason than that the term "homosexual" came into being only about a hundred years ago. Defenders of the words point out that the catechism cites 1 Cor. 6:9, which includes the words "soft" and "lying with men," usually interpreted as the passive and active partners in homosexual acts but susceptible of other meanings, too. It turns out that "homosexual perversion" was used in the New English Bible, and from there entered the Osterhaven-Miller translation published by the Reformed Church in America to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the Confession. The committee that drew up the Book of Confessions simply took over that translation, without checking the original. In the Sixties, with all the talk about a sexual revolution, you could at least be against homosexuality! (That was before Stonewall in 1969, with its convincing assertion of GLBT rights.)

Presbyterian professors of theology entered the fray. A group of 31 signed a statement supporting the corrected translation. A retort came from Bruce McCormack and David Willis of Princeton Theological Seminary and Michael Bush of Erskine, arguing that "these overtures appear to us to be a disturbing effort to change the church's normative teaching about homosexuality under cover of historical-theological scholarship, instead of using the legitimate, above-the-table process our Constitution provides for considering such a change." (This process was also being followed, of course, and we'll come to it later.)

Several overtures to correct the translation came to this GA. The one approved by the committee was from Newark Presbytery, which also suggested several other corrections, including changes from "covenant" to "testament" in C-4.074. A minority report from the committee was disapproved in the plenary by a vote of 51 percent, and the majority report was then approved by 60 percent. A study committee is to be appointed, and the next GA may be asked to send the proposed changes to the presbyteries for approval.

The Advocacy Committee for Racial Ethnic Concerns (ACREC) also recommended that the church initiate a process of considering whether the Book of Confessions should include the Belhar Confession, adopted in 1986 by the Dutch Reformed Mission Church in South Africa. This condemns any forced separation in the church "on the grounds of race and color." But there were some who feared the broader implications of its rejection of any doctrine that "maintains that descent or any other human or social factor should be a consideration in determining membership of the church" — namely sexual orientation. The study process was approved, however, by a vote of 76 percent.

Thus far we have been looking at issues that, however controversial they may have been, were eventually approved by the GA. There were other issues that were simply too much, even for this GA. They include, not surprisingly, Muslims, Israel and Palestine, the Iraq war, reproductive rights, and the definition of marriage.

Dialogue With Muslims: On What Terms?

The Committee on Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations received three overtures aimed at improving relationships with Muslims.

An invitation to dialogue and cooperation entitled "A Common Word Between Us and You," developed by 138 Muslim clerics worldwide, was commended to congregations, governing bodies, and seminaries as a source for interfaith dialogue and a "pathway to a new era of global peace and justice."

An overture from Chicago Presbytery on peaceful relations between the Christian and Muslim communities was also approved. It involves preparation of new printed resources, encouragement of local dialogue, and working for "human rights and civil rights protection for Muslims."

Controversy mostly swirled around an overture from Newton Presbytery that included the statement that "Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship a common God." The committee changed this to "the God of Abraham," so that the passage read:

. . . though we hold differing understandings of how God has been revealed to humankind, the PC(USA) affirms our belief in one God, the God of Abraham, whom Jews and Muslims also worship; . . . as children of this loving God, we share the commandments of love for God and neighbor, the requirement to care for the poor; and acknowledge Abraham as an expression of our common commitment to one God.

On the floor, there was still debate whether "one God" means "the same God." In 1987 the GA affirmed that Jews and Christians worship the same God, despite differences over the Trinity and incarnation. But it was too much to say anything like that about Muslims. In the end, only a truncated statement survived, with a focus shifted from faith to ethics:

though we hold differing understandings of how God has been revealed to humankind, the PC(USA) affirms that we share the commandments of love for God and neighbor, the requirement to care for the poor.

The Assembly approved an action that built upon the Greater Atlanta overture, combined with features of several other overtures. This included endorsement of the "Amman Call" issued by a conference of the World Council of Churches in 2007, which affirmed a "two-state" solution, a shared Jerusalem, and the human rights of refugees and occupied peoples. This was approved in plenary session by a vote of 74 percent.

Also approved was a study of the entire Israel/Palestine issue in the broader context of the Middle East.

There was residual grumbling about the proposal, aired at previous GAs, that the Foundation divest its funds from Caterpillar, Motorola, and other companies instrumental in the continuing occupation of Palestinian territories. The Assembly declined to let the GAMC authorize any MRTI (Mission Responsibility Through Investment) actions before the next Assembly. But "corporate engagement" continues with these, as it does with many other corporations, because of our longstanding commitment to responsible investment.

The greatest controversy was caused by an overture from the Presbytery of Santa Barbara (echoing another from National Capital), declaring the Arab/Israeli conflict so complex that the PC(USA) should "defer from taking actions or making statements that align the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) with unilateral support for any of the specific parties in the struggle." "Unilateral" was not defined, and the assumption was that "taking sides" is contrary to peacemaking. Others cited the precedent of the prophets, and mission personnel said that their work often means standing with Christian partners in the region.

Also included in the overture was an appeal to the GAMC to "ensure that employees, entities, affiliated organizations, and networks abide by these directives." This raised the specter of disciplinary action, not only against staff employed by GA entities but against the many unofficial "affinity groups" in the church. In answer to questions from the floor, Hunter Farrell, Director of World Mission, said that the "validated mission organizations" with which his division works are independent and not subject to its direction; but he never addressed the issue of possible action against its own personnel. The topic was so confused that a motion to delete the entire paragraph was supported by a vote of 71 percent.

A minority report, asking that this overture be answered by the action taken on the Greater Atlanta overture, prevailed by votes of 60% and then 72%. Neutrality on Santa Barbara's and National Capital's terms seemed not to appeal to this Assembly.

Iraq

The war in Iraq triggered even greater anxieties. During debate on an overture from Baltimore Presbytery, a woman commissioner said she had gone to the tented indoor chapel to pray about the issues, and on the way back just happened to meet two chaplains wearing their uniforms. She invited them into the committee room and secured permission for them to speak.

They turned out to be Maj. John Kiser, chaplain and ethics instructor at WHINSEC (Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation), formerly known as SOA (the School of the Americas), and Col. James Boelens, command chaplain for the U.S. Army South, coordinating ministry to U.S. Army personnel in Latin America. The two of them had been making the rounds of booths in the exhibition hall at the Assembly. When they encountered the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship they said, "We're the other peacemakers." (They have often worked together. To find articles about them, mostly from the Right, you might Google their names along with SOA or WHINSEC.)

Perspectives on their activities vary, of course. They are commissioned by the PC(USA) to minister to the spiritual needs of military personnel. When asked about their statements about the Iraq war, they said they were expressing their own personal opinions. But of course they were doing it in uniform. Asked whether they would be able to criticize the war while in uniform, they conceded that it would be unwise.

The Baltimore overture was softened by the committee, changing "permanently closing all military bases in Iraq" to "providing security, peacekeeping forces, and funding the rebuilding of the country." A minority report sought to go even farther, replacing the committee's recommendations with four others that were premised on staying until Iraq could maintain itself in a stable and just way.

The plenary session adopted a motion to add these four points to the four offered by the committee majority; this was approved by a vote of 61%, and the amended recommendation was approved by 76%. It is not always possible to achieve unity by affirming both sides of a question, but in this case it did happen.

By not clarifying the distinction between resolutions and overtures, and by giving the chaplains time originally slated for the ACSWP, the committee did not seriously consider ACSWP's thoroughly reasoned report on the Iraq war, though it did commend its study paper.

The Assembly approved an overture from Scioto Valley to disapprove the use of "mercenary soldiers" after the terminology was changed to "armed private military contractors." And a Commissioners' Resolution opposing "military action against Iran" was approved, after it was changed to "preemptive military action by any nation . . . " Wordsmithing can make controversial statements more acceptable to a parliamentary majority.

Reproductive Rights

The PC(USA) is "pro-choice," not "pro-abortion," championing freedom of conscience and the ability of women to make their own informed and prayerful choices. Presbyterians Pro-Life has tried each year to reverse, or at least to compromise, this position. This year the focus of attention was an overture from Pittsburgh Presbytery to direct GA entities to "reflect balance in advocating both sides of the abortion issue," and specifically to redevelop printed resources in a way that would reflect "the full spectrum of biblical, theological, and pastoral counsel," while remaining consistent with the 1992 and 2006 statements. This had enough appeal in committee and on the floor to lead to commitment of funds to publish new resources, although many argued that the existing resources are quite adequate.

Defining Marriage

The times are changing.

The Assembly convened in California just a few days after the state began performing marriages for same-gender couples. Two long-time activists, the Rev. Susan Craig and the Rev. Bear Ride, were married on June 19 in the All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena. During the Assembly, Derrick Kikuchi and Craig Wiesner were married at the More Light Presbyterians banquet on June 19.

Furthermore, the GA's Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC) had issued a ruling in April concerning a complaint against the Rev. Janie Spahr, a Presbyterian minister who serves in the GLBT community, for conducting two same-gender services in 2004 and 2005. The PJC looked at the Directory for Worship (W-4.9001), which defines marriage as between "a man and a woman," and at an Authoritative Interpretation (AI) by the 1991 GA, which did not prohibit the blessing of same-gender unions but declared that they should not be called weddings and should not even look like them. In view of these authoritative statements, the PJC said, Spahr could not be held guilty "of doing that which, by definition, cannot be done."

What was the Assembly to do in the face of these new "facts on the ground"?

On the one hand it approved overtures from New Brunswick and from Denver whose joint effect is to affirm, once again, equal rights for families of same-gender partners, and to appoint a commission to study changing marriage laws and examine the unique needs of pastoral care for such families.

On the other hand it had trouble dealing with an overture from Baltimore and Denver proposing a broader definition of marriage as a "covenant between two people." This was disapproved in committee by a vote of 38/20/2. A minority report in favor of the overture was defeated on the floor by 80 percent. Disapproval then passed by 77 percent.

The Protestant churches regard marriage as a civil contract under the jurisdiction of the state (W-4.9001). The new situation is that Massachusetts and California, and countries including the Netherlands, Spain, and Canada, recognize same-gender marriage. And the Directory for Worship encourages acts of worship during life's important transitions (W-6.30010). Certainly one kind of transition is a same-gender commitment.

What is a marriage in the eyes of two states in the U.S. cannot be called a marriage in the eyes of the Presbyterian church. There are many uncertainties, as More Light Presbyterians points out. Some pastors will encourage eligible couples to be legally married in a civil ceremony, then perform a religious ceremony. Some will engage in "ecclesial disobedience," performing ceremonies that they boldly call marriages, but risking disciplinary action. Some will perform legal marriage ceremonies in Massachusetts or California, though they recognize that these may be problematical within the law of the PC(USA).

The two years until the next GA may help to sort out issues like these, offer a backlog of experience that will reassure sceptics, and suggest a resolution that this GA was not ready to approve.

Who Can Be Ordained?

Committee 5 on Church Orders and Ministry dealt with three issues in logical order, and the committee's recommendations were approved by the Assembly as a whole.

1. The Assembly overwhelmingly approved the overture from Scioto Valley, with many concurrences from other presbyteries, to direct the Stated Clerk to collect or develop "best practices" for the examination of candidates. In the spirit of the authoritative interpretation (AI) of G-6.0108 by the 2006 General Assembly, such procedures have already been developed in many presbyteries, with the particiption of their Committees on Ministry and Committees on Preparation for Ministry, and even in some sessions. This grassroots initiative will now, quite appropriately, become more regularized, with plenty of opportunities for mutual stimulation.

2. The Assembly approved, by a vote of 53 to 47 percent, the John Knox overture, an AI designed to correct the decision of the General Assembly's Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC) that the "fidelity and chastity" sentence in G-6.0106b is binding and cannot be "scrupled." The new AI, which has already taken effect, says:

The requirements of G-6.0108 apply equally to all ordination standards of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Section G-6.0108 requires examining bodies to give prayerful and careful consideration, on an individual, case-by-case basis, to any departure from an ordination standard in matters of belief or practice that a candidate may declare during examination. However, the examining body is not required to accept a departure from standards, and cannot excuse a candidate's inability to perform the constitutional functions unique to his or her office (such as administration of the sacraments).

The PJC may have felt that it ought to make its judgment in a strictly legalistic way. If so, it provoked a corrective action by the General Assembly. The constitution is interpreted by both the PJC and the General Assembly, but the PJC has only an appellate role, and the General Assembly's new AI now changes the terms under which it will make its future decisions. As several commissioners pointed out in our pre-Assembly orientation, there is no place in the church for "judicial activism," since the PJC is not an independent branch of government like the U.S. Supreme Court.

3. The most heated debate was over the Boston overture (a) to replace the language of G-6.0106b with new language, and (b) to adopt a new AI declaring that past AIs concerning "ordained service of homosexual church members" (starting with the "definitive guidance" of 1978/79 in the two churches and including the AI of 1993) have "no further force or effect."

This AI would take effect immediately upon approval by the General Assembly. The amendment to the Book of Order, of course, would be sent to the presbyteries for approval. The new wording links decisions about ordained service to the whole range of the ordination vows, not singling out the "fidelity and chastity" clause, which has caused so much damage and dissension, as the crucial standard. It now reads:

Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate's sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.

It occurred to many people that these two actions might be voted on separately. But no one asked for separate votes. Instead a commissioner moved to delete the AI, arguing that action on the proposed AI would be more appropriate after the presbyteries vote on the proposed amendment. This motion failed, getting only 36 percent. The Assembly then voted on the Boston overture, with both parts included, approving it by the relatively close vote of 54 to 46 percent. Later in the day a commissioner asked for reconsideration of the action so that the two items could be voted on separately, but this was rejected by 60 percent.

Some commissioners may have been uncomfortable about letting the AI go into effect immediately, feeling that the Assembly would be "jumping the gun" on the proposed amendment. But it appears that most of them thought it appropriate to let it happen, since it changes the climate within which the proposed rewording of G-6.0106b will be discussed and debated in the presbyteries.

Opponents will say, of course, that adoption of the AI tilts the discussion in favor of the amendment. In a sense that is true — but only in that it lets the church discuss the amendment on its own merits (including the improved wording, more in keeping with the whole context of the sixth chapter of the Book of Order) without the oppressive presence of the AIs predating the insertion of G-6.0106b in 1996/97.

Why Can't Presbyterians Just Get Along?

Two long-simmering problems within the Presbyterian Church were dealt with at this GA, though the long-term results remain uncertain.

The Presbyterian Foundation controls assets of $1.9 billion. These often include gifts made with stipulations about their use and recipients. Needs and circumstances change, and there has been dispute between the Foundation and the GAC, now called the General Assembly Mission Council (GAMC) about use of restricted funds. The Foundation makes much of its "fiduciary responsibility" to scrutinize the terms of the gifts very carefully. It has been criticized for overstepping its investment role to determine mission policy, and for "freezing" over 300 funds, preventing use of their income. But it is clear from the 1986 "deliverances" that both missional and fiduciary responsibility rest with the General Assembly. The Foundation's tactics have also been criticized. A video sent to all commissioners questioned the work of the GAMC, and the Foundation even tried to file a remedial case against the GAMC, despite an ACC decision affirming the Assembly's authority.

The GA has now said that the Moderator will appoint a Restricted Funds Resolution Committee, comprised of two representatives designated by the Foundation board, two designated by the GAMC, and three appointed by the Moderator who are not involved in either agency. The conclusion is clearly stated: "all the agencies of the General Assembly (GA) are bound to follow the directives and priorities of the GA." The success of this process is to be reported to the 2010 GA.

There was one quarrel that could not be laid at the door of the Foundation — a debate over funding of new church development (largely suburban), transforming existing congregations (largely urban), and congregation-based ministries (also urban). There were several motions, apparently from "church growth" types, to give priority to new church development (NCD), but these failed. The staff commented that the percentages granted to these various kinds of projects (all from Church Extension funds held by the Foundation) remain fairly constant through the years. Then it emerged that the GAMC has already given priority to NCD, even though about half of these eventually fail.

A far more bitter dispute has swirled around congregations that try to leave the PC(USA) with their property — usually because of positions the church has taken on same-sex issues. All congregations are required to include in their deeds the provision that property is held in trust to the PC(USA), and the Supreme Court has upheld this provision as long as it is stated explicitly in the documents. But conservative groups have openly encouraged congregations to sue in state courts, and some courts have ordered presbyteries to stop exercising their authority. Attempts are being made to change both state laws and the constitution of the PC(USA).

The alternative proposed by many conservatives is to let them cluster in non-geographical presbyteries that would be more homogeneous, enabling them to pursue their own course without having to deal with other tendencies that inevitably surface in the traditional geographical presbyteries. This has been encouraged by the so-called New Wineskins movement, and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church has set up a "transitional" non-geographical presbytery which breakaway churches can join.

The Advisory Committee on the Constitution has said that the Presbyterian structure is not "affinity-based," and this Assembly agreed to disapprove the non-geographical approach except for the Korean presbyteries.

That was the easy part. It was more difficult to deal with the property disputes. The Presbytery of Northern New England has been engaged in litigation with the Londonderry, NH, church, running up costs that are more than 50 percent over its total budget. A Commissioners' Resolution asked the GA to set up a voluntary $2 million fund (an Extra Commitment Opportunity, not part of the GA budget) "for the purpose of sharing the costs of legal fees defending our Constitution against the New Wineskins non-geographic presbytery of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church." As many as forty presbyteries currently face lawsuits of this sort.

Commissioners from the presbyteries of Greater Atlanta, Western North Carolina, and Pittsburgh explained that 33 of the 39 current lawsuits had been instigated not by presbyteries seeking to retain property but by departing churches, usually without any discussion with their presbyteries. One of them pointed out ruefully that ministers and elders have promised to "be governed by our church's polity" and to "abide by its discipline." Another bluntly called for "gracious separation," by which he meant telling the dissidents to "leave the keys with the people who wish to stay." The special fund was approved overwhelmingly in committee and on the floor. Although the Layman called it a "war chest," it is totally voluntary and defensive.

Where Do We Go From Here — and How?

The 2006 GA appointed a special task force to develop a revised Form of Government, simpler than the current one, which is the product of years of time-tested accretions as new problems emerge. The task force rewrote the fist four chapters, entitling them "Foundations of Presbyterian Polity," and offered a replacement for chapters 5-18. The so-called "FOG report" was considered by a special committee of the GA. (Various speakers could not resist asking whether we would get lost in the fog, whether the ground we stand on would turn to mud, or whether the report would only muddy the waters.)

The FOG committee spent most of its time at round tables, discussing issues of polity. As it turned out, they did not look at the revised text proposed by the task force until their work was almost finished, and some members of the committee felt in hindsight that this was a mistake.

The committee recommended, by a vote of 63/1/1, that the proposed FOG, along with written testimony received by the committee and comments from the committee itself, be referred to the Office of the General Assembly for consultation and study. Participation by every presbytery was strongly urged. The task force is to be expanded with several new members chosen by the Moderator from the FOG Committee of this year's GA. It is to revise the draft, taking into account "the concerns and suggestions gleaned from the consultation and study process." This recommendation passed overwhelmingly, without changes, in the plenary session.

In all of this the committee and the Assembly seem to have exhibited a typical "approach/avoidance" pattern of behavior: we may desire something, but the closer we get to it the more apprehensive we become. As Gradye Parsons, the new Stated Clerk, put it, the FOG report outlines "the church we would like to be." But we have anxieties about how to get there.

The proposed shift from structure to function, or from regulatory to "enabling" style, reflects some strands in current organizational theory. It is also reminiscent of the slogan "the church is mission," widely used by progressives during the Sixties but currently most emphasized by the conservative New Wineskins movement. Commissioner Dean Strong, Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of North Puget Sound, commented that rules can keep people from making good judgments, and when something good is proposed we figure out how to bend the rules.

We would all like to be less legalistic and more permission-giving. But this presupposes like-mindedness, or at least mutual trust. And many Presbyterians perceive not merely diversity but lack of trust in the proceedings of governing bodies, from the presbytery to the General Assembly.

When we can assume that all of us have the same goals, then our questions may be the merely "technical" ones of finding the best way to achieve them. If not, discussion becomes "political," an encounter of those who are not like-minded but must still share the same turf. Then we need procedural rules governing debate, decision, implementation, and even enforcement and adjudication.

A Dilemma in Place of a Conclusion

This dilemma is reflected in most of the disputes currently raging in the church. At exactly those points where one faction champions spontaneity, another finds good reasons to champion legality.

The Theological Task Force that made its report in 2006, and whose recommendations were adopted by that year's GA and reaffirmed by this year's, emphasized the value of discussion and "discernment" in making decisions. Those who disagreed with its report have made use of every parliamentary maneuver they could find, and conservative voices are often heard scorning "discernment" and informal "committee-of-the-whole" discussions, championing Robert's Rules instead.

And yet the conservative New Wineskins movement emphasizes "flexibility" in the structures of the church, seeks non-geographical presbyteries based on "affinity," and wants everything to be "missional" in character. All of this, paradoxically, is regarded as quite compatible with insistence upon very specific tests of orthodoxy.

Presbyterians for Renewal declared that Presbyterians "can no longer assume a common framework of conversation." The organization promised to work to defeat the proposed amendment in the presbyteries and to bring a new AI regarding homosexual practice to the next GA; to pursue a revision of the property provisions, to allow congregations to depart with their property without the lawsuits that are "a disgrace to God's mission in the world"; to encourage congregations to contribute to ministries "beyond the current forms of the PCUSA"; to pursue missional partnerships "within and beyond the PCUSA"; and in the meantime to reshape the denomination so that a formal split will not be necessary, including non-geographic "missional" presbyteries and synods.

While this goes on, presbyteries will find themselves engaged in further disputes over church law and state law, and exhortations about Christian forbearance are not likely to have much effect. This year's commissioners seem already to have lost patience with the non-geographical approach, and they did not heed the pragmatic argument that approval of changes to G-6.0106b would be "divisive."

What are we to do? Witherspooners can start by heeding a "comment" added by the committee and the Assembly in approving the amendment to G-6.0106b, urging the presbyteries to discuss it in ways that will foster understanding and discernment. We should also remember the Assembly's constructive direction to the Stated Clerk's office to gather examples of "best practices" in examining candidates, already developed in many presbyteries. We will try to post reminders on our web site and on JustPresbys, and perhaps even link to the texts.

We will want to remind fellow presbyters of the many good reasons for replacing the damaging language in G-6.0106b with other wording more appropriate to the examination of candidates. And we will have to point out, unfortunately, that the battle lines have already been drawn by some conservative groups, declaring their intent to dismantle Presbyterian polity before they depart from the church that we all share.

In the meantime, be sure that your membership is up to date, and stay in touch with us via our list-serv, our web site, or old-fashioned mail and telephone. May grace, mercy, and peace be with us all.

Eugene TeSelle
1925 19th Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37212-3805

Comments?
Questions?
Please send a note,
to be shared here!

Eugene TeSelle has written a thorough analysis of the actions of the General Assembly of the PC(U.S.A.), A Special Report to Witherspoon Society Members and Friends. I urge you to read it carefully. Especially interesting to me were his comments on the right wing of the church and their strategies because of the GA's amendment regarding G-6.0106b. Gene writes: 

Presbyterians for Renewal declared that Presbyterians "can no longer assume a common framework of conversation." The organization promised to work to defeat the proposed amendment in the presbyteries and to bring a new AI regarding homosexual practice to the next GA; to pursue a revision of the property provisions, to allow congregations to depart with their property without the lawsuits that are "a disgrace to God's mission in the world"; to encourage congregations to contribute to ministries "beyond the current forms of the PCUSA"; to pursue missional partnerships "within and beyond the PCUSA"; and in the meantime to reshape the denomination so that a formal split will not be necessary, including non-geographic "missional" presbyteries and synods.

I agree that the lawsuits are a disgrace. But who has been initiating them? Gene also wrote about the property issue: 

The Presbytery of Northern New England has been engaged in litigation with the Londonderry, NH, church, running up costs that are more than 50 percent over its total budget. A Commissioners' Resolution asked the GA to set up a voluntary $2 million fund (an Extra Commitment Opportunity, not part of the GA budget) "for the purpose of sharing the costs of legal fees defending our Constitution against the New Wineskins non-geographic presbytery of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church." As many as forty presbyteries currently face lawsuits of this sort. 

Commissioners from the presbyteries of Greater Atlanta, Western North Carolina, and Pittsburgh explained that 33 of the 39 current lawsuits had been instigated not by presbyteries seeking to retain property but by departing churches, usually without any discussion with their presbyteries.

I don't think it is going to work this time. I think the great middle of the church is on to the right wing and their fear-mongering. That is why the right is so desperate and so apocalyptic. Belittling gays as a theological and political weapon is old, tired news. The threat of putting a gun to the denomination's head if we ordain gays is less fearful than it was a few years ago.

This General Assembly has shown that Presbyterians are not afraid this time. People will vote with their conscience. As for those who cannot possibly remain Presbyterian if we ordain gays, well, there is the door. But you are not going to take the denomination down with you on your way out.

Changing G-6.0106b has an excellent chance to pass in the presbyteries. The new paragraph is far superior theologically to the old. I think people are going to get that.

If you like what you find here,
we hope you'll help us keep Voices for Justice going ... and growing!

Please consider making a special contribution -- large or small -- to help us continue and improve this service.

Click here to send a gift online, using your credit card, through PayPal.

Or send your check, made out to "Presbyterian Voices for Justice" and marked "web site," to our PVJ Treasurer:

PVJ's Facebook page

Mitch Trigger, PVJ's Secretary/Communicator, has created a Facebook page where Witherspoon members and others can gather to exchange news and views. Mitch and a few others have posted bits of news, both personal and organizational. But there’s room for more!

Voices of Sophia blog

Heather Reichgott, who has created this new blog for Voices of Sophia, introduces it:

John Harris’ Summit to Shore blogspot

John Shuck’s Shuck and Jive

Got more blogs to recommend?