the Outlook Blog

Photo by Joseph Williams

It's been a long week here at GA; the plenary finally ended last night around 11.45pm and I think commissioners and advisory delegates were very ready to head back to their rooms. Yesterday was the day when we hit all the hot-button issues: gay ordination, same-sex marriage, the Iraq war, Israel-Palestine issues and abortion. While the assembly voted to keep the definition of marriage as it currently stands in the Directory for Worship, the assembly did in fact vote to recommend the deletion of G-6.0106b (though it must be ratified by a majority of the 173 presbyteries) - which, along with the new authoritative interpretation, would allow LGBT folk to be ordained in the PC(USA). For more information on those decisions, check out articles here and here.

Many will leave this GA happy with these decisions; they will feel as though this is a justice issue, and that this vote reflects the church's call to be prophetic and move forward on this issue. On the More Light Presbyterians website, the headline states: "Good news from San Jose! 218th GA votes 54% to 46% to end LGBT discrimination!"

However, many others will leave this GA saddened and confused by these decisions; they will feel as though the church has made just one more step away from orthodox Christianity, what the church has taught for centuries and Jesus commands in the Gospels. Shortly after the vote to recommend deletion of G-6.0106b was passed yesterday, a press release was passed out from the Presbyterian Renewal Network stating that the PC(USA) lies "gravely wounded by the hand of its own General Assembly" and that these decisions place the PC(USA) in "spiritual jeopardy" and "threaten to cut us off from God's ancient law."

Regardless of how people feel about the issues - churches and presbyteries are now going to have to deal with these questions and issues. Some churches and presbyteries were still discussing the PUP report from GA two years ago, but there are now many more complexities added to the discussion. It will be interesting to see how this affects churches and presbyteries - especially those who are more split along the conservative/liberal polarities. There is going to be a lot of energy put into conversations about sexuality; energy that churches might have been spending in other ways. And it's not going to be easy work - this will be hard work. Potentially, hard work for the next two years. But - regardless of where you stand on these issues - it is important work. These are important conversations, whether you think it's because we need full inclusion of LGBT folk or you believe we need to remain faithful to the current standards we have.

Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons addressed the commissioners and advisory delegates this morning during the final business meeting and worship, and he said that it's important to remember that "We came in together - we leave together." As we leave this General Assembly, let us put our trust in God that God was at work this year at GA, and pray that God will continue to help us discern God's will for the Presbyterian Church (USA).

More related news articles:

• Presbyterian Leaders OK gay clergy (LA Times)
• Presbyterian assembly votes to drop gay clergy ban (Associated Press)
• More General Assembly News
• Presbyterian Outlook General Assembly News

The following message is from Jack Haberer, the Presbyterian Outlook's Editor:

"General Assembly is winding down to an end, and now the task of interpreting the actions of it falls upon the shoulders of folks like you.  Friends will be hearing about it from newspaper reports (your email inbox may already be filling up).  I have just put the finishing touches on a bulletin insert that will be made available for purchase on our Web site TODAY by 1PM Pacific time, 4PM eastern time today.  You can purchase a pdf master on the site for $40 and then make two-sided copies and hand out with tomorrow’s bulletins.  In keeping with the Outlook’s reputation, you will find the summary to be succinct, accurate, in context, and at least somewhat reassuring to the folks in your congregation and presbytery.
 
Whether you’re a pastor, an elder, or simply a church member wanting to help keep folks informed and assured of Christ’s leadership in the church, I commend this tool to you for your use.
 
If you can think of any friends and/or colleagues who may appreciate this, please forward this note on to them."

Follow the following link to make the purchase:  http://www.pres-outlook.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7465

Just a quick comment on leaving comments on this website. It is an open forum and we do encourage you to leave comments. However, neither Charis (the other Outlook blogger) or myself have the capabilities to approve the comments. Those belong to the Webmasters of the site - and they are doing their best to get them approved.

I just wanted to make sure readers knew that we weren't censoring or purposely avoiding your comments.

Today is a big day. We'll be hearing a lot during the plenary business meetings today, and we'll be hearing from some of the most controversial committees - those that dealt with issues of ordination and Israel & Palestine. As I sat in these committees, and as I heard Overture Advocates, commissioners, advisory delegates and those in the open hearings all speak to these issues, I noticed one tactic being used that stood out over all others: a tactic of fear.

There is a general undercurrent of fear amidst some folks here at the assembly. This fear is often presented in the following way: "If we adopt _____, then people are going to leave the church." Or, you may have heard: "If I have to go back to my presbytery and tell them _____, I am positive that they will leave the denomination." This fear is a fear of dissent, of schism, of churches leaving the denomination over a decision that is made here in San Jose this week. I heard it from overture advocates, I heard it from YAADs, I heard it from TSADS and many others.

After hearing it so much, I can only guess that it is a tactic being used by folks from certain conservative affinity groups; by causing people to think that voting a certain way will cause the church to split, perhaps they can sway them in a different direction. After all, who wants to be the one to vote for the recommendation that will divide the church?

Over and over again, I heard it. During the Church Orders and Ministry Committee, one commissioner stated that "If this passes - we're going to bleed!" Later on, an Elder Commissioner from southern California said, "We're not going to bleed - we're going to divide. 22,000 in our presbytery will go to 4,000. San Diego will break off and make their own, Santa Barbara will make their own..."

This is a weak argument. According to numbers just recently released, the PC(USA) denomination lost 57,000 members this year - we're going to lose members regardless if we pass a recommendation to delete G-6.0106b or not. Furthermore, we're going to lose members if we DON'T pass a recommendation to delete G-6.0106b. It's not only those who are against the ordination of LGBT folk who may leave the church. There are those who are for it, those who are working for a just church, who may leave if they don't see the denomination change its ways.

When did the most important thing become the number of churches, or the number of congregants in each church? We're called to live in the way of Jesus, to seek to understand God's hopes and dreams for the world, and to live lives working for the kingdom of God. This "battle-cry" of fear, this attempt to make people think that a specific issue is going to be the one that will break apart the church, seems to be a tactic being used to create fear in the people here making decisions this week.

As we enter into this day, I'd encourage you to listen for this battle-cry. Listen to how many people try to tell us that if we recommend to remove G-6.0106b, if we take a critical stance against the State of Israel, if we do these things, our churches will be leaving in droves and they'll all want to take their property with them. As we approach these very important issues, I hope we'd listen to the wisdom of William Sloane Coffin. In his book "Letters to a Young Doubter," he has this great line that I want to share with you:

"It's always a good time to change your mind when to do so will widen your heart."

My prayer is that those in the Presbyterian Church (USA) would be known for having wide hearts.

Some folks have responded privately to me that I was misjudging folks with whom I disagree. A couple responses:

1. I'm not speaking for the Outlook on this matter; this is my own take on this issue.
2. A blog is an open forum - readers are invited to leave a comment. There is also some difference between straight news articles like you'll find in News and Analysis and blog posts.
3. I wasn't saying that everyone who is against the ordination of LGBT folk is motivated by fear. I was saying that there is a group of people here at GA, who I've observed, that I think are trying to use a tactic of fear in their arguments.

Last night, it seemed that plenary would never end (although, it did, finally, around 11pm). We seemed to continue to get caught in parliamentary circles: never-ending amending, motioning and calling for the question. Back at the press tables, we had to keep asking each other, "What in the world are we doing now?"

Apparently some of the YAADs were getting a little frustrated by some of the procedures as well, and some started putting together some haikus in honor of the General Assembly and our wonderful "process." Through the wonders of technology, the haikus slowly started to leak out to some of us, and I wanted to share with you a couple of my favorite YAAD Haikus:

The world is ending.
Presbyterians don't know.
Stuck in plenary.

Stop amending things,
please just trust the committee,
my soul is dying.

If anyone outside of the Presbyterian Church (USA) were to join us over the next couple days, they'd probably think we were a little bit obsessed with talking about sex. Certainly the "Fred Phelps"-type folks who were picketing outside the Convention Center last night think we are probably incredibly obsessed with and misguided about sexuality. Sexuality has been a part of many of the conversations over the past few days, and those conversations will probably be getting even more heated as we debate these issues on the floor of the Assembly today and tomorrow.

Much of the sexuality discussion is found in the questions concerning ordination of LGBT folk (the work of the Church Orders and Mission Committee), but there have been other places in which the discussion has surfaced, including a vote taken last night and one this morning. Last night there was a lot of debate concerning 12-08: On Directing the GAC to Produce Adolescent Human Development Resources. The recommendation was as follows:

"The Presbytery of Grace overtures the 218th General Assembly (2008) to direct the General Assembly Council to produce adolescent human development resources based upon Scripture and the Reformed theological tradition. These resources would explore all facets of adolescent development including human sexuality."

There were some that wanted more specific wording as to what issues related to sexuality would be covered, what position would be taken concerning homosexuality, and others wanted to specify that marriage was something that happened between a man and a woman. In the end, these and other amendments and proposals were rejected, and the original recommendation passed by a vote of 509 voting yes, 188 voting no and 5 abstaining. That means 73% voted in support of the recommendation.

This morning we had discussions concerning 13-06: On Correcting Translation Problems of the Heidelberg Catechism. The recommendation was to fix some translation errors and was sponsored by over 30 seminary professors from our Presbyterian theological seminarians. One of the reasons it was so controversial (it was the first recommendation to have produced a minority report) is that it asks that a reference to "homosexual perversion" be taken out, because it says that those people "will never come into the possession of the kingdom of God." The phrase, "homosexual perversion" was inserted into the catechism in the 1960s. Once again, after a lot of discussion about homosexuality and "backsliding progressives" and their agendas, the recommendation passed by a vote of 436 voting yes, 280 voting no and 11 abstaining. That means 60% voted in support of the recommendation (news article here).

What I, and others, are wondering is whether these two votes - which have dealt pretty explicitly with sexuality and homosexuality - be setting the tone for how the votes about the deletion of G-6.0106b will go tomorrow? On each of the previously mentioned recommendations, they've both been passed by a healthy majority. There are some who are guessing that we might actually vote yes for the recommendation to delete G-6.0106b, but that it will probably not pass when it goes to the presbyteries. It will be interesting to see how it all turns out tomorrow morning - but it does seem like the general feeling toward sexuality this year at General Assembly is one that might be leaning toward more inclusivity and openness.

In Erin Dunigan's article "Youth reach out to the church", you may have learned about a youth group from Central Presbyterian Church (Atlanta, GA) who wanted to help volunteer at GA but were told they were too young. The current age limit is 18 years old, and many of the students from Central were under 18. Together with their session, they created Commissioners' Resolution 17-01 which encourages the General Assembly "to celebrate youth and affirm their unique gifts and talents by welcoming and encouraging their full participation at each General Assembly, including service as volunteers."

This resolution was disapproved by the Youth Committee (49-1) and was presented last night to the General Assembly. I was shocked to see that it had been disapproved in the committee, and it didn't make much sense to me. Also, I felt bad for the students who came all the way here from Atlanta, just to get voted down by such a huge margin. Unfortunately, it didn't go over any better with the Assembly. It was also voted to be disapproved by a vote of 605 to 77. This didn't seem like a very good vote for a denomination that is trying to say that they're trying to get the youth more involved in the church.

When the committee was asked why it was disapproved, the only reason that was given to the assembly was that there were insurance, liability and legal reasons that inhibited such inclusion for youth under the age of 18. They didn't seem like very good reasons, but I'm guessing there is a lot more behind the scenes that is going on I don't know about.

The students were visibly upset about the vote last night; as I walked out of the plenary hall, I saw them all watching from the television outside. They didn't really understand why the vote went the way it did. 14 year old Wes wondered how his youth group is "able to travel to Mexico, build houses, put in water purification systems, and then they don't think we can volunteer here, and their main concerns are liability?" 12 year old Anna said, "I can handle it - pressing a button as people walk in."

One of their advisors, Andrew, said "before the vote came up, they talked about the importance of reaching youth...they thought they could do that through a DVD. But the reality is that the best way to find a way a way for youth to be involved is to let them do it in real life."

While it was disappointing for the youth from Central Presbyterian Church to have their resolution voted down, they have gotten the chance to volunteer, unofficially, in some capacities this week, and they have been enjoying the week. Olivia said, "Even though they disapproved our resolution - still, coming out here and trying to get it approved was a great experience for everyone. Maybe we can get them to support it some day - maybe a new generation will come in."

Shawn Coons, who blogs at I, Geekrev and runs the Decently and In Order (DAIO) News service as well as the podcast, had a chance to sit down with newly-elected Moderator of the 218th General Assembly, Bruce Reyes-Chow. It's a great interview, so if you get a chance to listen, check it out here.

After a long day of committee meetings yesterday, of becoming frustrated with parliamentary procedure and certain perspectives within the church, I needed some hope. I needed some hope that there was something in store for the Presbyterian Church (USA) other than needing to come back, year after year after year and rehash the same theological arguments and debates.

Speaking for myself (and not the Outlook), I was excited that the Church Orders and Ministry Committee voted to recommend a new authoritative interpretation (which would effectively overturn or set aside the Bush decision; article here) and voted in favor of recommending the deletion of G-6.0106b (41 in favor and 11 against; article here). If the recommendation to delete G-6.0106b is adopted by the General Assembly and ratified by the presbyteries, it would open the door for allowing gays, lesbians, transgendered and bisexual folk to be ordained and more fully participate in the life and ministry of the church. That gives me hope. But I know that it may not pass through the presbyteries, and if it does, we will be back here two years from now, having the same conversations all over again. It seems as though we're having a very hard time moving forward.

Which is why when I left all the committee meetings, and found myself at the presbymergent gathering, I felt more hopeful. Presbymergent put on a gathering last night, graciously paid for by the Office of Theology and Worship; it was a chance for people to come together and have conversation, network with other Presbyterians who are interested in the emergent church conversation, and get a chance to preview a rough-cut screening of the film "A Church Emerging" (you can watch a preview here). It is put together by Gravity Well Media, and produced by Caven Keith, who is an elder at First Presbyterian Church of Santa Cruz, which is the church that has been in the process of combining with Dan Kimball's church, Vintage Faith.

We had over 60 people show up for the evening, which was so encouraging for me. Many of these people were new to the presbymergent conversation, and I think that's a great sign. I think now that Bruce Reyes-Chow is our Moderator, there will be an increasing desire, interest in, and energy for new expressions of church in denomination, and I am hopeful that presbymergent can be a leading voice in that conversation. You can find more photos of the gathering here.

Speaking of Mr. Moderator, I also found more hope last night as Sarah and I made our way to a gathering for seminarians, hosted by Bruce Reyes-Chow. When we walked in, they were engaged in a spirited Q&A session with Bruce, and I think I have more and more hope for the Presbyterian Church (USA) the more I hear Bruce speak (which makes me think perhaps I should have applied to be his handler - who I did happen to get a photo with here). Bruce spoke about issues related to new churches, existing rural churches, the hope for young adults to become more involved in the church, his hopes for creating new spaces for conversation about controversial issues in our denomination and a lot more.

Bruce Reyes-Chow offers fresh visions for a denomination that could use some new energy and vision. And that is something that gave me hope last night.

Well, at least the New York Times does. Yesterday morning I was sitting in the Peacemaking and International Issues Committee, as they discussed and passed recommendations related to issues in Zimbabwe, Columbia, North Korea and Israel/Palestine. I was sitting between a reporter from the New York Sun (article here) and the New York Times. I'll have to admit, I was a little surprised to see a New York Times reporter covering a Presbyterian committee meeting. Perhaps that's just the part of me that wonders if anyone outside of the PC(USA) really cares what is going on here in San Jose this week. But it did remind me that there are folks, outside of the Presbyterian Church (USA), who are interested in what official statements come from the 218th General Assembly.

I have many friends who are even more cynical than I am concerning the significance of events like this, and seriously question the form of government and bureaucracy that exists in our denomination. I am equally as skeptical about our bureaucracy at times, and find it very frustrating as I sit through these committee meetings, hearing motions, amendments, substitute amendments and substitute motions made. But there is one thing I have found today: there is a host of people in our denomination who are passionate and committed to this church and care about a variety of issues within the church and in our world.

I sat in the Peacemaking committee and heard pastors, elders, activists and world leaders give impassioned pleas for voting for or against certain overtures related to Israel and Palestine. There were over 70 people who wanted to speak on the issue - both Presbyterians and others who came to lobby for their cause, including His Eminence Elias Chacour, Archbishop of the Melkite Catholic Church of Israel, and representatives from Jewish Voice for Peace, the Anti-Defamation League, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Committee to End Divestment Now and many other groups. If what the Presbyterian Church said about these important issues and policies meant nothing, why would people like this show up? Why would it even matter?

As much as I get frustrated by Robert's Rules, and the way in which committees have to make these decisions (and I haven't even gotten to the plenary discussions that start today...), there is also part of me that has to realize that to at least some degree, what we say, what we proclaim, does make a difference. And that is why events such as the 218th General Assembly matter. Because, at least some people do care what the PC(USA) thinks.