Monthly Archives: May 2008

Some fun stuff from Yesterday

Leave a reply

Several fun things from yesterday, some of which is actually on-topic…

We spent the afternoon at a NASA viewing event for the Phoenix Mars Lander.  Having worked on the ill-fated Mars Polar Lander Mission, the older sibling of Phoenix, it was great to see this lander come alive upon landing.  Congratulations to the Phoenix team, especially my friends from MPL who now have a success.  The Phoenix did rise from the ashes of the MPL.

Family fun:  Going through the usual ritual on the way home from church…
Dad to middle: What did you learn about in class today.
Middle: [The youth director] talked about Calvinism.  TULIP and all that.
Youngest:  Why would you talk about eating other people?
After the laughter calmed down we explained the differences between cannibalism and Calvinism.

From the Media:  Fellow bloggers, if you don’t see the comic strip Bizarro in your news paper or news feed, check out Saturday’s cartoon on-line from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.  And if you like a nice turn of a religious phrase, Sunday’s is pretty good to.

And not only do I worry about the details in Presbyterian polity, but I try to cover the details elsewhere as well.  For this one day of the year I own a flag for my house which is not fixed on a pole but attached to a line so that I can observe today’s flag etiquette of “half-staff until noon.”  So, on this Memorial Day, we are keeping Scott’s and Cory’s families in our prayers along with the families of all the other’s who have given the ultimate sacrifice for our country.  God Bless!

General Assembly of the Church of Scotland — Wrap-up 1: General Thoughts and The British PM

4 Replies

The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland concluded their meeting today and while I had hoped to do some live-blogging during the sessions, life and work (pun intended) kept me busy with other things.  I will do a couple of wrap-up posts over the next few days since I will have the extended Memorial/Decoration Day holiday weekend to do some blogging.

My first reaction is that it was great to be watching a General Assembly, any GA, again.  While some terminology and issues may be unique to the Church of Scotland (CofS), there is much in their deliberations that overlaps with other branches.  In particular, the CofS is looking at a reorganization of their most basic constitutional document that has echoes of the PC(USA) Revised Form of Government debate (in structure and approach but not as much content).  There were also debates that involved interim ministry, pastoral searches, theological education, and the church in the 21st century.  I’ll talk about those debates in later posts, but the feel of the proceedings was very familiar to us GA Junkies.

One of the headline items of the General Assembly was an invited speech on Saturday by British Prime Minister the Right Honorable Gordon Brown MP.

Two items of background are helpful to know to appreciate the context of this speech.  The first is that Gordon Brown is a “son of the manse,” his father having been a Church of Scotland minister.  In his speech he looks back and comments on growing up and what he learned from his father including:

And all that I was taught then remains with me to this day. Like so
many here today, my father lived on a ministerial stipend. But he also
brought us up to study the great texts, to believe that the size of
your wealth mattered less than the strength of your character; that a
life of joy and fulfillment could be lived in the service of others; and
that to be tested by adversity is not a fate to be feared but a
challenge to be overcome.

The second piece of background is that this is the 20th anniversary of a speech given by then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to the General Assembly.  That speech is available from the web site of the Margaret Thatcher Foundation and is considered a key exposition of her moral and religious world view.  The Thatcher speech is known in Scotland as the “Sermon on the Mound,” a play on both the scriptural discourse of Jesus and the artificial hill where the Assembly Hall is located.  This is a name that the Thatcher Foundation frowns upon saying in the editorial comments with the speech text “Tastelessly, opponents nicknamed the speech ‘the Sermon on the Mound.'”  The speech caused an uproar for its proof-texting scripture, worship, and theology to justify her political theories.  The Wikipedia page on the speech describes the Moderator’s reply in presenting her with reports on housing and poverty “which was interpreted by the press as a polite rebuke.”

Mr. Brown’s speech politely walked a fine line between Church and State while never really doing much with either.  He does deal with the moral responsibility each person has for making the world a better place, the role that the church has for holding up issues and speaking truth to power, and he acknowledge the reports handed to the PM 20 years ago saying:

So just as twenty years ago this weekend the then Prime Minister was
presented with the Church and Nation Committees’ deliberations and
kindly invited to study a report entitled ‘Just Sharing’, I expect
nothing less than for you to ask me and the Scottish Parliament to
study in detail – and reflect upon – today’s report of the Church and
Society Council —- to reflect upon your demands, your priorities,
your call for action on homelessness, on child poverty, on the
shortfalls in the care of older people. And I agree also with what you
say about the misery caused by gambling and drug addiction, and the
scourge of alcohol abuse.

After talking about the human urge to work for justice he then spoke of the potential of cyberspace and its ability to bring together like-minded people even if they are on the opposite sides of the world.  His logical conclusion is:

And what I want to argue is that the joining of these two forces –
the information revolution and the human urge to co-operate for justice
– makes possible for the first time in history something we have only
dreamt about: the creation of a truly global society.

A global
society where people anywhere and everywhere can discover their shared
values, communicate with each other and do not need to meet or live
next door to each other to join together with people in other countries
in a single moral universe to bring about change.

As a true politician he did not embrace any distinctive theological issues but spoke of “universal truths” using Christian terms and references and talked of global issues in general terms.

Needless to say, a speech by an important politician received significant coverage in the media and the blogs.  There is coverage on the BBC Web Site with an article on the speech and a critical commentary in the Scotsman.  On the blogs there is plenty of commentary as well, but I would single out the comments by Alan in Belfast and Puffbox that highlight Brown’s comments about the value of the internet.  There is plenty more of both regular media and blogs if you do a web search on these.

OK, enough of the kids that have left home coming back to say “hi.”  Next, on to the meatier subjects of reorganization and the Articles Declaratory.

Synod PJC Lets Restoration To Ordained Ministry Stand

2 Replies

A few days ago the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of Lakes and Prairies dismissed the remedial complaint filed against the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area regarding their restoration of the Rev. Paul Capetz to the practice of ordained ministry.  The Rev. Capetz is on the faculty of United Theological Seminary, an independent theological institution with a UCC heritage.  He had asked to be released in 2000 because he could not agree with Book of Order section G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” standard.  With the passage of the PUP Report he asked to be restored while declaring a scruple.  The Presbytery agreed in January and restored Mr. Capetz.  The complaint was then filed with the Synod PJC.  I’ve held off a couple of days hoping to get official language, but I have not found it yet so I’ll discuss this decision based on what was first reported by the Witherspoon Society.

According to the Witherspoon Society piece, the Synod PJC ruled that the Book of Order and interpretations by previous General Assembly PJC decisions all deal with the ordination process and since Mr. Capetz was previously ordained there was no basis for complaint.  I would also note that the Authoritative Interpretation resulting from the PUP report also deals principally with the ordination process, and that another GAPJC decision deals only with a call to employment in a PC(USA) entity.  In light of this precedent and case law this is a reasonable decision by the SPJC, even if it seems counter-intuitive based on all these previous decisions.  To determine a new interpretation on this particular circumstance will require appeal to the GAPJC or action by the General Assembly.

If you are interested there are a whole series of GAPJC decisions on this which have carved the lines fairly precisely.  As I list these I will usually rely on the very brief description found in the Annotated Book of Order.   One series of decisions has dealt with the ordination process.  The decision in 205-4: Gary J. LeTourneau et al v. Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area in 1993 made clear that a “self-affirmed practicing homosexual” (SAPH) may not be certified ready for ordination.  The prohibition on ordination was reaffirmed in 206-3: Hope Church v. Central Church in 1994, and in 218-04: George R. Stewart v. Mission Presbytery in 2008.  However, the GAPJC also made clear that if you are celibate you may be ordained based on 212-12: John S. Sheldon, et al., v. the Presbytery of West Jersey. And then in a couple of decisions that bridge between the two extremes, 214-5: Ronald L. Wier v. Session, Second Presbyterian Church of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, and 215-8: Presbytery of San Joaquin v. The Presbytery of the Redwoods and Edgar T. Hart, Steve Nesheim, Larry Ballenger, Bill McDonald, Merle Wood, Rebecca Jordan-Irwin, and Kent A. Webber v. The Presbytery of the Redwoods, the GAPJC basically reaffirmed that orientation alone is not an impediment to ordination, but if there are reasonable grounds (not rumor) to believe the individual is a SAPH than the ordaining body is obligated to investigate this.

As far as ordination is concerned, these have all been related to the ordination process and the GAPJC has made it clear in 206-3: Hope Church v. Central Church in 1994, and reaffirmed in 211-2: Wier v. Session, Second Presbyterian Church of Fort Lauderdale, Florida that an ordination may not be annulled under these circumstances.  And the GAPJC did caution in 215-5: Daniel J. McKittrick v. The Session of the West End Presbyterian Church of Albany, New York not to rush the ordination or installation process to reach this end.

There is one other thread in the GAPJC decisions which is applicable here.  While an ordination may not be annulled in these cases, the GAPJC did say in 205-5: Ronald P. Sallade et al v. Presbytery of Genesee Valley in 1993, and reaffirmed in several of these other cases, that a SAPH, if ordained, may not be called to employment in a PC(USA) position that “presumes ordination.”  In the case of Mr. Capetz, he is employed by an independent theological institution and the presbytery validated that ministry.

As I skim through these previous decisions, it strikes me that there is no set precedent for restoration to ordained ministry.  (I’m sure you will let me know if I missed a paragraph somewhere.)  And while it does seem to go against the intent of many of these decisions, and of the recent 218-10: Randall Bush, Wayne Peck, and the Session of East Liberty Presbyterian Church v Presbytery of Pittsburgh, I see no reason under current decisions that the SPJC should not have dismissed it.  As I said before, the real test will be the GAPJC if it is appealed.  Time will tell.

Thoughts About Natural Disasters

1 Reply

In my day job I am an earthquake geologist working in an academic setting.  As part of my religious and spiritual life I obviously spend a lot of time thinking about Reformed theology.  So, in a week like this with a major deadly earthquake in China, how do the two halves of my life inform each other?

I have laid this all out, at least to my preliminary satisfaction, in a longer theological discourse that I have presented in multi-week adult education classes at churches.  Here is the executive summary:

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.  [Genesis 1:31]

At the beginning of the Bible we are presented with the situation that when God looked at “all that he had made” he found it to be “very good.”  So if we now have a “created order” that has the potential for natural disasters that can cause the loss of tens of thousands of human lives is that still “very good” or did something go wrong?  As Christians we believe that within human nature something did go wrong and that is the Fall in Genesis 3.  But when humans fell did the created order fall with it?  It seems clear to me that the created order was corrupted as well.  This is not in the sense that the creation is sinful the way humans are, but in the Fall and humans becoming sinful they had to leave the garden and the world we live in now is not the ideal that God originally created.  In the New Testament Paul writes in Romans 8:21 “that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay” and we see that release from bondage in Revelation 21 with a New Heaven and a New Earth, and the New Earth will be the dwelling place of humans with God.  Just as we have the image of humans being raised in a perfected form, this echoes the redemption of creation that Paul talks of with the earth being made new for the perfected humans to live in.  In a more controversial reading of the Greek, the argument could be made that John 3:16, “For God so loved the world…” could foreshadow this as well since for the word we translate “world” John uses the Greek word kosmos, which can mean the “created order,”  rather than using some term specific to human beings such as ethnos.

That is the first part, that the world we live in is corrupted just like us humans are.  So are earthquakes a curse in this corrupted world?  I’m not sure that they are.  While they have been viewed as God’s judgment or His hand upon the world at times through history, in the Bible they sometimes clearly are, and sometimes they are not, sometimes even being neutral phenomenon.  In this present world earthquakes are the mechanism by which mountains are built.  Mountains are important for providing new fertile soil in their erosion, for producing rain clouds, for renewing the surface of the earth, for providing many important mineral deposits.  The argument could probably be made that in a “perfect” world we don’t need mountains, or if we did need them that they could rise and fall aseismically without earthquakes.  But in this world it seems to me that we need mountains, and mountains and earthquakes are inseparably linked.

Therefore earthquakes as a class are not a curse or punishment from God, but a functioning part of a created order that was corrupted in the fall.  This means that when a large devastating earthquake happens, like the one that just hit southeast China, we are not looking for God’s punishment in it, or for a sign of the end times, but rather as a part of the renewing of the earth, the created order, that can have the unfortunate side effect of causing this destruction and loss of life because the created order is fallen and corrupt.

That is the approach from a natural history perspective.  This can also be considered from a human perspective which does more integration of the scriptures and a consideration of modern civilization.  That is for another time, but I would note that in times of devastation like this faith-based humanitarian organizations can have more access to otherwise controlled areas to bring in the Gospel, at least the Gospel enacted if not spoken.

I don’t know if this makes sense in an executive summary form.  When I do the six hour version people seem to follow me and it holds together.  As I said at the onset, this was a necessary formulation for me so that I would be able to understand my profession in the context of my faith.  Being in a field where I can work to reduce human suffering is important to me.  But at times like this my academic theological explanation only helps slightly when I see the death and destruction in the area of the earthquake and still ask God “why?” or “for how long?”  And I think that because of my professional ties to these events my heart aches a bit more for the victims of an earthquake than for any other natural disaster.

Upcoming PCA General Assembly — Role of Women in Ministry

A lot has happened in the last couple of days and my sincere thanks to Marshall for leaving the comments alerting us to the developments in the Presbyterian Church in America during that time.

These relate to the developing discussion over women as deacons, and more generally to the role of women in the church.  While I have mentioned this at various points in the past, I have particular posts in January and February that focus on this issue.  Up to this week, there were two overtures before the General Assembly asking for a study committee to clarify the scriptural, confessional, and polity basis of deaconesses.  The first is Overture 9 from Philadelphia Presbytery and the second is Overture 15 from Western Canada Presbytery.

In the last day four more overtures have been posted to the overtures page.  I will only mention that overtures 16 and 18 are matching procedural overtures from Piedmont Triad Presbytery and Western Carolina Presbytery to modify their shared presbytery boundary moving one church from Western Carolina to Piedmont Triad.  Overtures 17 and 19 deal with the question of women and ministry, the first to expand the charge of the study committee and the second asks the assembly to decline to establish the study committee.

In Overture 17, from Rocky Mountain Presbytery, the text cites the fact that this issue has not been addressed in this or a similar Presbyterian branch in 20 years.  It also notes that this issue has caused churches to leave the denomination, and while not naming names, a recent example is City Presbyterian Church of Denver which recently left (or is in the final stages of the process of leaving) that Presbytery and affiliated with the Reformed Church in America.  The overture concurs with overtures 9 and 15 and goes further to ask for clarification on the broader role of women in the church including what roles they may serve in as well as leading in worship and teaching when the group contains both men and women.

At the other end is Overture 19 from Central Georgia Presbytery.  Their overture, to paraphrase and summarize, says that 1) Scripture is clear and there is no dispute, 2) that “commissioning” in this case is a way to side-step the polity restrictions on ordination, 3) that titles must be scriptural, 4) that overtures 9 and 15 are challenges to the Westminster Standards and should be defeated, 5) that in the polity the status quo is appropriate, and 6) that sessions are free to appoint Godly men and women to assist the diaconate.

Well, the first two overtures that addressed the current understanding of the ordained offices were already looking to make the Assembly interesting.  Now with two more that stretch the discussion in both directions this should make this meeting one that will be talked about for a while, not to mention the Assembly where the Study Committee reports, if such a committee is established.

But it is not just the overtures that have appeared in the last few days.  Once again the Bayly Brothers have a blog entry addressing this issue and it also argues for the status quo and better Presbytery oversight and guidance because the church should never have gotten to this point in the first place.  As Tim concludes:

We’re repeating the endless error of American Presbyterians who trust
study committees to do nasty work that would better be handled by
loving, local, personal, compassionate, discerning, biblical church
discipline.

In a “variations on a theme” sense, this entry could be written about several of the Presbyterian branches that are debating ordination standards.  You could take this entry, fill in the PC(USA) for the church and practicing homosexuals for the group under discussion, and the entry would read like one side of the argument in that debate.  And while I can’t cite an example from the other side of the PCA debate right at the moment, the same could be done for that and with some word substitution it would cover the other side.  That is one of the reasons that I write this blog:  The issues that you see around the world in the church frequently take many variations on the same basic theme.  May God Bless Us.

What Language Do You Speak?

Leave a reply

In our presbytery Pentecost takes on additional meaning:  On any Sunday we have congregations worshiping in ten languages.  While not quite up to the list of fifteen enumerated in Acts 2, (and seventeen if you implicitly include Aramaic and Greek), our area is over half-way there.

But yesterday, as I was making my way on public transportation to a meeting at the synod offices, I began reflecting on the “other” languages.  Now this is Los Angeles, so while the local list might include several of the spoken languages mentioned in Acts, it was actually the “unspoken” languages that grabbed my attention.  What began this line of thought was a car that stopped in the second lane to let the subcompact that was trapped behind my stopped bus get out and around.  The gentleman in the fancy SUV behind the car that allowed the other in must have been in a hurry because this moment of grace on the first driver’s part elicited a honk on the car horn and a hand wave (not obscene) that said “what are you doing” or “get moving” from the driver of the SUV.  Communication in non-spoken language.

This triggered my asking the question: In this day and age, what does it mean to be empowered by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the Gospel to “every nation under heaven”?  Yes, foreign missions are important.  But with all the discussion over the last week about what it means to be “evangelical” (again) and whether there is a coherent concept of “emergent,” I began reflecting on speaking the “cultural” languages.

Do we, the institutional church, speak in a language that those who have never been to church will understand?  Do we, as the mainline church, speak in a language that my children will hear?  Do we, as a historic church, speak in a language that modern upwardly-mobile professionals will listen to?  Do we, as a traditional church, speak in a language that those throughout the theological spectrum can relate to?

Please be very clear:  In the Pentecost account Peter preached the Gospel message rooted in the scriptures of the Hebrew tradition.  I am not advocating changing the Gospel message for the audience.  I am asking whether we communicate it in a language, form or way that the different “nations” (think “people groups”) of our modern American society can understand. 

Now, I realize the argument can be made that there is not agreement on some of the fine points of the Gospel message.  That is not my point here.  Whatever nuances a church may put on the Gospel message, they may present the same consistent message in multiple ways to multiple groups. (traditional, blended, contemporary, modern, emergent, to use some of the buzz words)  The point is that a consistent message can be delivered faithfully in multiple cultural contexts.

Also, I realize that the Pentecost story in Acts is first and foremost about God taking the initiative in the sending of the Holy Spirit.  (Being in the Reformed traditions we believe that the initiative is always with God.)  So God acts and the apostles respond, to the end that the Gospel is preached and people come to believe in Jesus Christ.

So in this day and age, are we open to contemporary movements of the Holy Spirit empowering the church to proclaim the Gospel in faithful ways, yet in a different “tongue”?

Upcoming PC(USA) General Assembly — I Posted Too Soon

Leave a reply

In my post yesterday I said that I had no word of additional challengers for the position of Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA).  Well, this afternoon brings a Presbyterian News Service article that there are four candidates:

The search committee nominee, insider and heir apparent – Rev. Gradye Parsons

The initial challenger – Rev. Edward Koster

Newly announced – Rev. Winfield “Casey” Jones

Newly announced – Rev. William P. Tarbell

You can read about the Rev. Parsons all over the PC(USA) web site, such as his own GA page, as the official nominee, and there is the original Presbyterian News Service article and my initial comments.

While Rev. Parsons is currently featured on the Stated Clerk search web page, to be fair the page currently reprints part of today’s article and will soon have info on all the candidates now that the declaration deadline has passed.

I talked about the Rev. Koster when he first announced and he had a News Service article written about him as well.

The article says that both Rev. Jones and Rev. Tarbell filed their declarations at the deadline on Wednesday.  Also, both of these pastors challenged the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick for the job back in 2000. 

Rev. Jones is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Pearland, Texas, and the article says that his experience includes serving as a pastor in Texas in several congregations since 1979 and serving on Presbytery committees.

Rev. Tarbell has similar experience but his parish service has been much more traveled including South Dakota, Wyoming, Oregon, Missouri, and currently South Carolina serving as pastor of Saluda Presbyterian Church.

Now that all the candidates are know there will be a book with more information on each one published shortly.

GA 101: Doing the Business of GA — Decently and in Order

5 Replies

In the last post I discussed where the business for a General Assembly comes from.  We now turn to the question of once an Assembly convenes and has the docketed business in front of it, how does it go about dealing with the business.

The short answer is “Decently and In Order.”  There is a lot of business to get through, there are a lot of commissioners who want to discuss a few hot topics, and so the Assembly sets about systematically working their way through the business, typically using parliamentary procedure as specified and adapted by the standing rules.

How much work is there?  I think that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is probably the extreme example.  The picture above shows you what there was to deal with at the PC(USA) 212th General Assembly of 2000.  This is from “back in the day” when everything was on paper.  The PC(USA) has now gone all electronic, at least when the electronics work.  The behemoth in the lower left corner is the Reports to General Assembly.  This was a small-print document mailed out in sections ahead of time that contained all of the national committee reports and the reports from the national agencies.  The stack of papers on the left side of the orange notebook is the overtures to GA, the commissioner resolutions, and all the comments on them.  The other half of the orange notebook is the reports generated by each of the General Assembly Commissioner Committees that were than debated in plenary.  And in the upper left corner is that tote bag that they give you to carry it all in.  I will try to get an estimate of the number of megabytes of the material from this year’s GA.

In terms of volume of business, probably the number two branch is the Church of Scotland, or maybe the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand.  For 2008, the reports from 25 committees and other entities to the Church of Scotland GA are 1.2 MB in plain text format with a PDF of a statistical report the same size.  That is everything, including supplements and appendices.  If you want it in Word format you can roughly triple that file size.  The printed contents of this, plus the commissioner lists and standing orders (rules) comprise what is know in the church as the Blue Book, which in 2007 was 112 pages long.

Almost all Presbyterian General Assemblies are convened by the outgoing Moderator elected at the previous meeting of the Assembly.  And, in almost all cases, the first major item of business, after the opening prayer or worship, is electing a new Moderator to lead the current assembly.  I have covered the Moderator and the selection process in detail in a previous post in this series, but there are two general models.  If there is a single nominee selected by a process before the Assembly, there is usually a formal vote and the new moderator is installed.  If there is an open nomination process to elect one of the commissioners as Moderator, then candidates are nominated, there may be candidate statements, maybe a question and answer session, and a vote is taken.  And then the new Moderator is installed.  In almost all cases the election process happens very close to the convening of the Assembly; the PC(USA) is an exception with the election proceedings taking up the whole of the first evening.

Also at the beginning of the Assembly, in association with the whole “changing of the guard” thing around electing the new Moderator, the outgoing Moderator will present a report, or at least make some comments, about his/her term of office and the activities they were involved in.  And, for the Church of Scotland, the monarch, or their representative the Lord High Commissioner, will be honored and the statement from the crown will be delivered.

With the business of leadership done the Assembly now turns to the business of, well, business.

In almost all cases there is a period of time when the Assembly as a whole takes up the list of business and begins working through the business item by item.  But in many (most?) branches of American Presbyterianism, such as the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Presbyterian Church in America, and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Assembly commissioners are assigned to committees to work on the business in smaller groups first and report back to the plenary sessions.  With the large amount of business to be covered, this allows a group of commissioners to focus, or at least try to focus, on all the business related to a particular topic and work on that business only in detail.  They become the experts on it and in general the Assembly will then usually trust their judgment.

In those branches where commissioner committees are used the meetings of Assembly in plenary halts for a day or two so the committees can do their work.  In the PCA there are eleven commissioner committees that mirror the denominational structure.  Presbyteries get to elect which of their commissioners to GA will sit on each committee, observing proper balance between teaching and ruling elders.  In the PC(USA) every commissioner is assigned to a committee by random assignment.  The number of committees varies slightly from  one assembly to the next, but is usually around the 16 that there are for 2008.

It is now the responsibility of the committee to take all of the business assigned to it, fine tune it, and bring a report back to the full Assembly with their recommendations.  It is important to note that on the PC(USA) commissioner committees the delegates (youth, theological student, ecumenical, mission) have a vote as well as voice, just like the commissioners.  Sometimes, particularly in the case of the PC(USA), there are conflicting overtures about a controversial subject or an overture differs from a standing committee recommendation and it is the responsibility of the committees to listen to, in open hearings, the overture advocates and other members of the church who wish to speak on the subject.  The committee must then try to craft a compromise position, or failing that, recommend a position on the issue.  On a controversial issue there will almost always be a minority report.  In some cases the committee will hear reports from related agencies or denominational committees and may have the responsibility of reading minutes from lower governing bodies and entities, such as a theological seminary’s board of trustees like I had to do the year I was a commissioner.

Because of the volume of business, when an Assembly uses commissioner committees the Assembly trusts the committee to do the work and there will frequently be no objection to a committee report in full Assembly.  This makes the work of the committee and the quality of its leadership very important.  While a committee member can not put a new item of business on the table, they can have a significant impact on shaping the business that is assigned to the committee and so business shaped with particular viewpoints has been known to make its way through committee and assembly “under the radar.”

An interesting personal story:  As happens frequently at GA, commissioners can get lost in the parliamentary language and sometimes end up voting one way when they think they are voting another.  On my committee in 1997 one report was defeated and I was pretty sure that was not the way most of the members of the committee wanted it to go.  My approach, rather than raise a point of order and ask to clarify the vote just taken, was to ask to submit a minority report about the issue.  This was immediately acknowledged by the chair, but people started asking what happened and soon it was apparent that many were confused by the vote.  Of course, the vote was retaken and the minority report became unnecessary.

When the full Assembly meets it begins going through the reports in the order docketed.  Sometimes a controversial item, imp
ortant visitor, or special presentation will be docketed as an “order” or “order of the day” and so another report will be “arrested” before it is finished to meet the order.  In the same way, meals and worship can be the scheduled items that cause a report to be arrested.  Under good conditions an arrested report can resume following the special item.  If time is tight, not an unusual occurrence, the balance of the arrested report may be moved to the end of the docket which could be a day or two later.  In really difficult circumstances it can be referred to the next GA, such as the OPC Revision of the Directory for Worship.

Frequently with Church of Scotland or PC(USA) reports the item will also contain an educational or recognition moment connected back to the denominational committee or agency that relates to the report.  This can include the premier of a video related to that ministry, celebration of a milestone reached, or roll out of a new educational or stewardship campaign or material.  These provide an interesting window into the workings of the church and, if nothing else, give your brain a chance to recover between business reports.  Also, a good Moderator will recognize the need to take a mental break and may insert something into the docket like a chance to stretch, prayer, singing, hearing a story or joke, or something else to provide the needed mental break and transition between reports.  It may seem like it is taking extra time but my experience has been that a well placed break will help refocus the commissioners to more efficiently deal with the next item of business.

When the committee reports the committee chair or convener gives the report, sometimes calling on other committee members or staff to help with the presentations.  (Note that this is pretty much the same whether the “committee” reporting to the Assembly is the denominational committee like the Church of Scotland or the commissioner committee like the American Presbyterians.)  It will frequently begin with introductions, thank you’s, and an opening statement.  There may then be a time for questions about the report in general, questions usually answered by the denominational chair or staff member.  There may be a vote to receive the report.  The Assembly then begins walking through the action items in the report.  These may begin with consent items which are not debatable but can be removed from the consent agenda for debate.  (I asked for an item to be pulled from the consent agenda in 1997 and was later thanked by a YAD who also wanted to speak to it, which he could do if debated, but he did not have the standing to ask for the item to be removed from the consent agenda.)  The Assembly then moves on to the items docketed as debatable.

In the Church of Scotland this part is known as the “deliverance.”  While this term is also seen in American Presbyterianism, it is not a widely used in Scotland.  The Moderator walks the Assembly through the deliverance item by item.  They debate those that commissioners want to debate, amending the item, and then approving that item.  If no one jumps up at a particular item it is taken as approved by consensus and the next item is announced.  When every item in the deliverance has been walked through individually there is then one final vote to accept or reject the whole deliverance.

As Presbyterians our debate is decent and in order.  That does not mean that it is not passionate because we also balance ardor and order.  And being Presbyterians the parliamentary procedure can get complicated.  Interestingly, the Church of Scotland does not have minority reports, but in the PC(USA) a minority report is dealt with as a substitute motion which means that the first couple of times commissioners deal with it they are still trying to figure out the way it works.  And when the Moderator gets lost, or does something wrong, the Moderator can look over at the Clerk to help straighten things out.  And frequently the Principle Clerk or Deputy Clerk, or Stated Clerk can get on the microphone and either explain where they are parliamentary wise, or suggest a more efficient way for the Assembly or commissioner to accomplish whatever they just made that last confusing or out-of-order motion about.

At the larger Assemblies there can be several microphones and the Moderator has the duty of calling on speakers at the different stations.  While the Church of Scotland may still be using paper for its reports, it excels in being electronic at the microphones.  Each commissioner and delegate has an ID card they swipe at the microphone station and the Moderator has a video display that allows him/her to know not only if the individual is speaking for, against, or on procedural issues, but to also be able to address them by name and presbytery.  The PC(USA) has recently adopted a similar system with an assistant at the microphone entering the individuals ID number, but they still use colored cards that those intending to speak hold up to indicate the intent of the speaker to the rest of the body.  Smaller meetings may designate one microphone for, one against, and one for other items.

In many smaller branches voting is done by holding up a card when the vote is called for.  If a formal vote is necessary in the PC(USA) there are electronic key pads at each commissioner’s and delegate’s seat.  You use your own and don’t vote for your neighbor if they are not there.  The PC(USA) Moderator asks “Advisory delegates vote now.”  There are about 15 seconds to vote, the results display on the big screen and the Moderator continues “Commissioners you have been advised.  Commissioners vote now.”  For the Church of Scotland the commissioners get out of their seat and go to the voting station to swipe their card and enter their vote.

And with that the Assembly works its way through the business.  By the end of many of these Assemblies there have been some late nights to get everything done (except for that Revised Directory for Public Worship) and the commissioners and delegates are physically and mentally tired.  The last night of the PC(USA) GA it is not unheard of to adjourn at 2:00 AM.  In 1997 we passed an omnibus motion to push a bunch of minor stuff off on the 210th in 1998.  A wise Bills and Overtures committee will be sure controversial items are docketed while commissioners are still attentive.  I know that by the end of the 209th GA I was mentally burned out.  Those of you there as observers can help the commissioners by getting them out of the Assembly hall area for dinner late in the meeting so they can get their mind off the business, even if it is only for an hour or two.

Usually Assemblies conclude as they began with a day of formal reports and ceremonies and nothing that will result in debate pushing the Assembly past its docketed closing time.  The business of the Assembly is concluded, but there is still more.  In the next two posts in this series I will discuss the other stuff that goes on at an Assembly and what happens after the Assembly.  We will see if I can get them done by June 21, 2008.

Upcoming PC(USA) General Assembly — Early May Update

Leave a reply

Today, May 8, is an exciting day.  General Assembly is getting closer and I, an unrepentant GA Junkie, can hardly wait.  With only a week to go…  Only a week to go?  Yes folks, the General Assembly season begins one week from today in Edinburgh, Scotland, with the convening of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.  Did I say I can hardly wait?  (Yeah, I’m pretty hard core about Presbyterian General Assemblies.  But if you have not figured that out from this blog I’m not doing my job.)

I’ll do a preview of that GA in the next day or two, but first this is also an important day for the Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly.

Yesterday marked the 45 day deadline before the convening of GA and according to the Standing Rules there is lots of stuff that has to happen by that day.  First, while the usual cut-off for submitted business is 60 days before the start, under rule A.1.b the Stated Clerk has the discretion to include business submitted up to the 45 day point.  (Note, this is the postmark date so there could be business to still arrive in the next few days.)  Forty-five days is also the cut-off for overtures [A.3.c.(3)], but the deadlines for constitutional changes and those with financial implications has already passed.  In addition, nominees for Vice-moderator must be announced [H.1.c.(1)] and challengers for the Stated Clerk election must declare [H.2.b.(3).(k)].  And in general, most papers, communications, commissioner committee assignments, and a lot of other routine items needed to by done by yesterday.

Let me move on to the business.  Taking the easy one first, I have heard of no other applicants besides Edward Koster who have declared that they are challenging the nominating committee’s selection Gradye Parsons for the position of Stated Clerk.

As for the Vice-moderator nominees, thanks to Moderator candidate Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow we now know that the Rev. Diane Givens Moffett, pastor of St. James Presbyterian Church of Greensboro, NC, has been selected by the Rev. Carl Mazza as his Vice-moderator nominee.  I don’t see this announcement on his Moderator candidacy web site yet.  Rev. Moffett, according to the bio on her church web site, is a native of Oakland, CA, and her education was in the Bay Area as well with a degree from Berkeley and an MDiv and DMin from SFTS North.  She has been recognized for her preaching and if you Google her there are a lot of hits returned for her.  This rounds out the field of eight with seven clergy and one elder (way to go Roger!).  Now we wait for the election.

The committee leadership was formally announced earlier this week, but if you surfed around PC-biz, that has actually been posted there since my last update.  The committee leadership is very important, maybe the most important business aspect of GA.  Since all business is dealt with in committee first, and generally shaped there, how the committee functions is crucial.  In most cases the full assembly has neither the time nor the interest in doing anything more than fine-tuning a committee report.  In general, the committee report is adopted almost exactly as the committee presents it.  Pray for these people in leadership.

Well, that brings us to the business itself.  The total number of items in PC-biz is 283 and with 99 overtures last time the count now appears to be up to 109.  With numbers like that you can see why the Assembly must trust the committees.

I have been a bit connected to overtures 100, 101, and 102 which were submitted by my Synod and concern Hanmi Presbytery, a non-geographic Korean-language presbytery, and its churches.  Beginning with 102, which was assigned to Committee 3 – General Assembly Procedures, this overture asks for the continuation of Hanmi Presbytery on an indefinite basis.  The rational is interesting reading because it not only lays out the trials and tribulations Hanmi has been through, but it also describes the history of non-geographic presbyteries in the PC(USA).  Authorized in 1983 and established in 1984 Hanmi was to be a transitional presbytery (yes, the PC(USA) had transitional presbyteries, but that is another issue) with a ten year life time.  The status as a transitional presbytery was renewed for another 15 years, to expire in January 2009.  That was to be the last extension and instructions were given to develop a plan to transfer churches out.  In the mean time, non-geographic presbyteries were enshrined in the Book of Order by the church in 2001 by adding them to G-12.0102k so as to meet “mission needs.”  Now that non-geographic presbyteries are no longer a transitional structure, the request is for Hanmi to continue indefinitely.  But this is with the note that overtures 100 and 101 are requests to transfer churches out of Hanmi into Riverside and Pacific Presbyteries respectively.

It is interesting to note that the 217th GA in 2006 referred to the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly a request to study the feasibility of non-geographic synods, particularly Korean-American ones.  That referral is coming back as item 03-07 and recommends that when there are not enough congregations within the bounds of a synod for a non-geographic presbytery that congregations may join, with the permission of everyone in sight, a non-geographic presbytery in another synod.

Now, without financial implications or constitutional changes what is left?  Social witness policy of course.  Overture 103, from Pittsburgh Presbytery, is supporting single-payer universal health care.  Overture 105, from Santa Barbara Presbytery, asks that the PC(USA) becomes a non-partisan advocate for peace and would direct that the denominational offices not take sides.  And 106, also from Santa Barbara Presbytery, would have the 218th GA answer all overtures concerning Israel and Palestine with a single statement.  That statement says that the issues are complex and the PC(USA) will not take a position that favors one side or the other.  Furthermore, it calls on the church to pray for peace, render humanitarian aid, condemn terrorism, and advocate for a negotiated solution.

It is interesting that another group of overtures deal with disaster assistance in various ways.  Overture 104 from South Louisiana Presbytery asks the denomination to look into group wind and hail insurance policies.  Overture 107, from the Synod of the Sun, would thank Presbyterians throughout the country, and Presbyterian Disaster Assistance, for their help rebuilding the Gulf Coast communities.  And 108 addresses a current issue in the denomination, the incorporation of Presbyterian Disaster Assistance.  This overture, from Peace River Presbytery, instructs General Assembly Council to continue to move forward with the process of incorporating PDA.  At its meeting at the end of April the GAC voted unanimously not to incorporate PDA because they decided that things were good now and “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”  They did keep the task force in place until September 2009.  It is not evident if this overture pre-dates or post-dates that vote.

Finally, overture 109, from Heartland Presbytery, asks the Stated Clerk to gather resources and examples of ordination examination procedures and materials for use across the church.  This is of course related to the PUP report and we will see if it is affected by other action the GA may take on PUP issues.

That is it for now.  I’ll be focusing on the Church of Scotland GA for the next couple of weeks but will try to also update the PC(USA) business if anything arises.

The Theology of Dr. Who

3 Replies

As long as I’m tackling some of the less polity-oriented items today, I’ll go ahead and do this post on Doctor Who.

Actually, it begins with the actor who plays the title character, David Tennant.  Now, this would just be an interesting SciFi bit if it were not for the fact the Mr. Tennant’s father is the Very Rev. Alexander “Sandy” McDonald, a respected Church of Scotland minister and Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1997.  For more details you can check back to a post of mine about this in September 2006.  But as the tenth Doctor Who begins his third season the publicity has increased.

First, there was a very nice tribute piece that David did for his father excerpted on Irregular Bones.

Second, there has been a lot of buzz recently about the theological parallels to Christianity in the Doctor Who series.  It appears to have started with a Sunday Telegraph article about a Church of England conference that encouraged the use of the series in sermons and other church contexts as a tool to connect with youth in the church.  This has, of course, been picked up in the blogosphere including The Lead on the Episcopal Café, a long article at Heresy Corner, and at Sola Dei Gloria.  There are a host of other blogs as well.

Now, I was a fan of the show, particularly the Fourth Doctor, but I have not seen a lot to draw from any more than other forms of popular media.  A clip here, a quote there.  Just the usual.  Now popular media is a useful tool, but I find it interesting that there was a whole conference on this one series.