Many will ponder the mood of the 218th General Assembly. There were no obvious clues that this would later be described as a radical assembly. Commissioners were as “Presbyterian” — i.e. as conservative, elderly and grey, like me — as usual. The atmosphere was exceptionally calm. A well organized COLA (Committee On Local Arrangements), superb facilities, and pleasant weather made this the most comfortable assembly I have attended in years.

Perhaps I have grown numb to the lobbying of the rainbow coalition, but even they seemed to fit in comfortably. There were no tearful confrontations, no aggressive button-holing. The only thing that drew a crowd was the rant-ing of a sole anti-gay demonstrator on the sidewalk. I was lulled into the comfortable pattern of reunions and networking that comprise the outer layer of activity at any GA.

Looking back, there were a couple clues. The election of Bruce Reyes-Chow might have been a clue, but my crowd didn’t see it that way. We thought Bruce was elected simply because he is bright and enthusiastic. A more subtle clue but possibly more predictive was the number of people wearing the rainbow stoles. These were so low key, so un-strident, frankly so tasteful, that I did not initially grasp their significance. The effect of these stoles was not like a voice crying in the wilderness, but more like the low murmur of approaching hoofbeats, the drumbeat of a thousand whispers.

Unseen forces may have been more important than anything visible. One such force is the changed chemistry within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). For many years Presbyterians have done their collective best to avoid conflict with that group who continually threatened to leave if the PC(USA) ordained homosexuals. Starting two years ago some of that group actually began to leave. Threats became actions, and these actions changed the underlying posture of many Presbyterian centrists from accommodation to confrontation. As one commissioner said at the microphone, “Here is my version of graceful separation: turn in the key and leave!”

Even more I think GA “tipped” because of the national political climate. For many years, and especially since 2001, a group that might be called centrist liberals has been very quiet. In the PC(USA) this group voted against liberalizing ordination policy in order to keep the peace. In national politics this same group was mostly silent, or more accurately, had no voice. The press was afraid to confront the more confident, and often belligerent, voices of the right. This all began to change with the Democratic primary season. For the first time in seven years, candidates began to directly challenge the Bush mystique. People were surprised that they survived: there was no counterattack from the right, no swift-boating, no scandal mongering. And for the last 12 months the previously silent left has become increasingly vocal.

Then, as the campaign sunk into the Hillary vs. Obama phase, people on the left discovered they could be as aggressive as they wanted and there was no blowback. Especially those who supported Hillary developed an attitude that could be described as, “Not gonna take it any more!” So this group came to the General Assembly in a different mood than any that has prevailed for many years. Not since 1968 has the liberal “base” been so energized, so confident, so determined.

In truth I think it might be said that the left has become as arrogant as the right, and that does not leave much room for grace. Those who have worked to hold the church together will face more challenges today than they did two years ago after the Peace, Unity, and Purity (PUP) report. Presbyteries may face the most difficult trial of all.

The problem is that presbyteries may be punished for the sins of the General Assembly. Most churches do not understand the way mission giving works. If churches stop supporting Basic Mission, presbyteries will be the big losers, not General Assembly. Up to 80% of Basic Mission giving presently supports the mission work of the middle governing bodies (especially presbyteries). If churches quit giving to Basic Mission, as Presbyterians For Renewal (PFR) says it will recommend, middle governing bodies will suffer the greatest loss. Mission administered by the agencies of the General Assembly do not depend on Basic Mission to the same extent. Two-thirds of GA’s income comes from endowments and another large amount comes through designated giving (i.e. Directed and Extra Commitment).

Consider the mathematics of this situation: If half of churches withhold Basic Mission Support and there is a 50% shortfall, total presbytery income could drop 40%, whereas General Assembly income would drop only 15%. If churches replace Basic Mission giving with designated (i.e. Special or Extra-Commitment) the consequence could be a transfer of up to $50 million from the mission of presbyteries to mission administered by a national agency. The accompanying chart is a conceptual model — the actual situation is far more detailed.

Presbyteries are in a bind. They tried to placate churches that were threatening to leave, but were frustrated when those congregations filed preemptive lawsuits — lawsuits that make anything resembling graceful separation impossible. Add legal fees to a reduction in mission support and you could create a perfect storm. Presbyteries may be forced to choose between the expense of legal defense, staff payroll, or mission budget. The most tempting solution is to lay off staff, but this comes with a price: without staff there will be a rash of program failures and financial mistakes. This could easily trigger a vicious cycle: financial failure precipitating administrative failure followed by another financial crisis. This would be an ironic and unintended consequence in a time when the mission of the PC(USA) ought to be shifting toward the presbytery.

This is not a happy picture of “Where we are now.” I hope I am wrong. I pray that congregations will take time to understand the complex picture of Basic Mission Support. I pray that sessions will take time to understand and embrace the mission of their presbytery. I pray that presbyteries will take time to respond with patience and deep mindfulness. Maybe if all these happen the PC(USA) will find a way to learn from this situation rather than continue its self-destructive cycle.

That is not where we are now, but it is where we could be.

David R. Carlson is general presbyter of the Snake River Mission Area, based in Meridian, Ida.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Pastor, Faith United Presbyterian Church, Monmouth, IL
written by William Myers, August 10, 2008

Or, perhaps, the winds of change are rising. Perhaps, there is a new voice, neither right, nor left, nor centrist, saying to those who have a vested interest in keeping the conflict alive, because of the symbiotic relationships they have with their opponents (as long as there is an "enemy", it is easier to raise funds for "the cause"), perhaps there is a new voice saying it's time for the conversation to change, it's time our baptismal covenants, rather than our political affiliations, to claim our lives. There is no more "gay" or "straight", right or left, liberal or conservative, pro-life or pro-choice, only sisters and brothers who are gay and straight, et al, and who have much to learn from one another about loving one another - in spite of and because of who they are.

Perhaps, particularly with regard to G-6.0106b and the respective authoritative interpretations, there was an attempt to clean the slate, to go back to a time before there was a paragraph targeting homosexuals, under the auspices of "purity." Perhaps, there was an attempt to start the conversation, anew.

If such a voice is rising, perhaps we will stop our posturing and placating and extorting - and listen. Perhaps, we'll try harder to speak - and hear - the truth in love. Perhaps, we will remember, we are sisters and brothers in Christ, first, and our giving to God, through the Presbyterian Church (USA), is for God's glory and not for the furthering of our partisan agendas. Perhaps, rather than caucusing against one another across the aisle, we will sit with one another at Christ's table.

The Holy Spirit was alive and well at this GA. Though there were countless signs of God's presence, I'll share one that won't make the news. When GA was all said and done, a gentleman, a man of faith, who voted opposite me on most, if not all, of the "important" issues, came to me and offered an embrace. Why? Because that's what Jesus would do.

If anything was different about GA, maybe it was a little less partisan and a little more Christ-like. If that is the case, then, we can thank many folks, on both sides of the aisle, and give the glory to God.