<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>The General Assembly is like Groundhog Day</title>
		<description>Comments for The General Assembly is like Groundhog Day at http://pres-outlook.com , comment 1 to 4 out of 4 comments</description>
		<link>http://pres-outlook.com</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:38:05 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://pres-outlook.com/reports-a-resources/presbyterian-heritage-articles/7388-the-general-assembly-is-like-groundhog-day.html#comment-3955</link>
			<description>While I agree that it would be wonderful for the GA to spend most of its time on issues relating to the future missional activity of the church, the revisiting of old issues is the price of democracy. In my first call to a small country church in NC almost every session meeting for 5 years had some component of discussion of the shrubbery around the church. Whether it should be pruned or replaced.... It was never settled, because there were two factions... At first it frustrated me, but later I realized it was the way these two points of view were able to live together... knowing always that they had the right to address the issue again... Welcome to the Ga; welcome to democracy. - Bill McSwegin</description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 12:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>retired pastor and former presbytery stated clerk</title>
			<link>http://pres-outlook.com/reports-a-resources/presbyterian-heritage-articles/7388-the-general-assembly-is-like-groundhog-day.html#comment-3956</link>
			<description>As I interpret what Clark Cowden said in his article, &quot;The General Assembly is Like Groundhog Day,&quot; I detect a thread of thought that also appears in the Presbytery of San Diego's recent &quot;Declaration&quot; (http://www.presbyterysd.org/WFWG/0803_Declaration.pdf) that it no longer considers itself to be primarily a governing body, but rather a relational group that seeks to become a mission agency.  The presbytery adopted this statement at its March 2008 meeting; at its May 2008 meeting it will hear a major presentation by leaders of the Presbyterian Global Fellowship, which has stated similar concerns (&quot;...the congregations who initiated PGF were responding to the crisis within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The PC(USA) has been mired in theological, moral and institutional crisis...&quot;)

The presbytery's statement is the end product of a task force that had been charged with seeking a way forward from a recent history of conflict reflecting a badly divided presbytery.  The conflict pitted some theological conservatives (whose mistrust of the denominational leadership led some of them to call for secession) against some persons of varied theological positions who were united on the issue of trust in the denominational leadership.  Seeing itself to be at a virtual impasse, the presbytery approved the task force's proposed &quot;Declaration&quot; that set a course of bypassing debate on issues of governance in the interest of getting on with an evangelistic mission effort.

As a relatively new member of San Diego Presbytery, which recently called Cowden to be its executive presbyter with the work of this task force fully in view, I have had some difficulty readjusting my understandings of Presbyterian polity to fit this presbytery's emerging self-definition.   Having emigrated here from the Upper Midwest, my perceptions of the denomination's health and the level of conflict there were quite different from the atmosphere I experienced upon arriving here.  Back where I came from, governance was seen as a strength of the Presbyterian system, and mission was enabled by governance, as specified in the Book of Order, Form of Government G-1.0000 and G-3.0000.

The question that now occurs to me is this:  is the self-professed dysfunctional state of San Diego Presbytery a true reflection of the state of the denomination (as the PGF statement avers), or is governance seen nationwide in a more positive light than it is by some folks here?
 - phil weiler</description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 12:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://pres-outlook.com/reports-a-resources/presbyterian-heritage-articles/7388-the-general-assembly-is-like-groundhog-day.html#comment-3953</link>
			<description>I've often thought that if we treated our presbyteries and denomination with the same care that we do our congregations... things would be very different.

I don't know of any session that would put a vote before a congregation that would be anything close to 50 plus one and then see that as a victory.

Grace &amp; Peace,
Renee - Renee Guth</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 12:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Minister member, Presbytery of Detroit</title>
			<link>http://pres-outlook.com/reports-a-resources/presbyterian-heritage-articles/7388-the-general-assembly-is-like-groundhog-day.html#comment-3952</link>
			<description>While I resonated with the metaphor Mr. Cowden used to describe the vortex that can be The General Assembly - I felt he was just a couple of months too soon.  I have been attending General Assemblies for over 8 years now- it's always more like one big long April Fool's Day for me.  We affirm the sovereignty of God- April Fool's!   We spend so much time trying to micromanage the Holy Spirit I often wonder if God has taken offense and will sit this year out.
 - Rev. Kathryn Van Brocklin</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 12:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
