Greetings,

   Well, the GA of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is off and
running.  I was still on vacation for the first day so my comments
on the election of the moderator are  purely from news reports and
commentary on other web sites.

From reading all the press reports I think that I am personally
comfortable with Joan Gray and her comments that she “doesn’t have all
the answers but trusts God to lead” and that she is “comfortable being
uncomfortable” with the current status of the ordination
standards.  Being a self-described “polity wonk” she should be
right in line with us “GA Junkies.”

I am not sure what to read into the tea leaves of the elections. 
From Deborah Block’s lead on the first ballot it is tempting to think
the assembly has a slightly liberal leaning.  Or, is there a
conservative leaning since the liberal votes seemed to be consistant
for Block and the centrist and conservatives moved around between the
other three.  However, based on my observations from past GA’s the
election of a moderator has some predictive status but not much. 
Taking a “theology neutral” view and looking at only the candidates’
experience seems to make sense in this case.  The three ballots
came out like this.  (First and third ballots from PC(USA) press
release.  Thanks to the Layman for the Second Ballot numbers)

From reading through the candidates’ materials it strikes me that while
all four are parish pastors (WHERE ARE THE ELDERS?!)  Block and
Gray have national experience and exposure.  Based on that alone I
can see them pulling votes from Halverson and Carson.  But only
Gray really draws, Block’s vote variation is minimal.  What
resonated with me, and what I would attribute to her being the eventual
sucessful candidate, is her honesty with her stance on the ordination
standards debate and her statement that she is “comfortable being
uncomfortable” with the denomination’s present position and seeking in
this controversy.  I’m probably wrong but she strikes me as being
more in line with the average person in the pew than any of the other
candidates.

Well, we will see how she does when the plenary begins tomorrow.  I’ll be watching.  Add your comments if you want.

Coming up, an analysis of the committee work.

Peace and blessings

Well, having concluded, it is interesting to look back at the GA and some reflection on specific issues.

From my observation and reading, the most significant debate was on the
topic of same-sex civil unions on Tuesday afternoon.  It was
probably the longest debate and most complex from a parliamentary
perspective.  The motion from the council was actually pretty
narrow, just protecting ministers from the fear of disciplinary action
if they were, or were not, to participate in a service marking a
same-sex civil union.  It was pointed out that this was
simply a legal and discipline issue to reflect the legal status in
Britain as a whole at the present time.  However, the strongly
held opinions were reflected in the success of the motion to send the
action to presbyteries for approval, and for the main vote where the
original motion carried by 322-314.

It should be noted that the debate was handled very well by
the moderator and the commissioners and all sides were heard and their
opinions respected.  It must also be noted that this was in
response to secular actions and that a report will be coming to next
year’s GA on the theological underpinnings.  It is impossible to
tell at this point how many commissioners, in their voting, were acting
on the issue as a whole, and how many were just concerned with the
narrow parameters of the motion as it was presented.

Another major issue was the concern over the reorganization of the
church.  The assembly on Monday agreed to an overture to evaluate
the new structure and particularly the new financial implications and
whether it takes away from local churches and presbyteries.  As is
always the case in the presbyterian system, since we are connectional
an adequate balance and tension must be observed between each of the
governing bodies.  I don’t know if it is codified in the Church of
Scotland, but in the PC(USA) the understanding is that power originates
from the presbyteries.

One of the items that I found most interesting was the discussion about
whether to recognize the Highlands Theological College in the Highlands
and Islands University Millenium Institute as a teaching college for
the ordained ministry of the church.  The debate was interesting
and wide ranging, sometimes straying from the specific issue at
hand.  Did the Kirk need another college in addition to the
existing four?  Was the University broad enough to provide the
instruction for ministers that John Calvin desired?  The college
has been described as a “Bible College” without the theological rigor
of the “Ancient Universities.”  (I am not familiar with Highlands
so this may not be relavant, but the largest trainer of presbyterian
ministers in the USA is not one of the denominational schools but
Fuller Theological Seminary, a school that started out with a “Bible
College” reputation.)  In the end
the new college was approved by a wide margin.

Another interesting item came up in a presbytery overture asking for a
review of the “voluntary additional payment scheme.”   This
allows congregations who can afford it to pay a minister up to 15% over
the Kirk’s base stipend.  A concern was raised that the scheme was
applied differently by different presbyteries.  There was a
counter motion to abolish the scheme which was carried by a vote of
225-135.  From watching the news wires this appears to be the
issue which got the most press coverage.  It is interesting to
note that the total vote here (360 votes) was noticeably less than the
total (636) for the civil-union’s action.

Thanks for your interest,
Feel free to leave your observations
Blessings
Steve

Greetings,
    The GA of the Church of Scotland concluded this
evening with the customary worship, recognitions, speeches and
ritual.  The closing worship included remembering the clergy who
have gone to be with the Lord this year.  In one of my favorite
moments, and one I found very moving, the assembly sang “How can I keep
from Singing” in the form that used the five verses and the
chorus.  The first four verses were sung beautifully by the female
soloist with the assembly joining on the chorus and the last
verse.  I set aside my work briefly and cranked the volumn on the
webcast.

    Following the speeches by the moderator and the lord
high commissioner the GA was dissolved to convene again in a year with
a blessing the moderator has used regularly throughout the assembly:

Love the Lord and serve the people
Serve the Lord and love the people

PS.  There is something ironic or coincidental that as I type this
the correct question for an answer on Jeopardy is “Who is John
Knox?”  I do believe that God has a sense of humor.

The Assembly has voted:

The Legal Questions motion should “go down under the barrier act.” carries
The counter motion by Mr. Kennedy should “go down under the barrier act” carries
(both votes taken by standing, first sounded close)

Final arguments by the makers of the motions
The maker of the counter motion thanked the assembly for the tone and integrity of the debate.
The maker of the main motion said she has taken the moderator’s advice from yesterday and invited Mr. Kennedy who made the counter motion out to lunch.

The votes will be taken electronically to help guide presbyteries in their deliberations.
Voting by standing, the moderator declared the main motion prevailed but was challanged.  The assembly is now voting electronically.  (If you are not familiar with their system they have to go to a voting station, insert an ID card, and then vote.)  The committee’s motion prevails by a vote of 322 to 314.
Now, it is a vote on the surviving motion:  The motion passes by 372 to 240.

The debate included a total of five speakers.  The makers of the two motions are presenting final arguments.  The Legal Questions convener points out that this is a legal not theological statement.  She mentions the process for writing the Westminster Confession.

The Assembly votes against the counter motion with voting by standing.  It gathered significant support but the vote against was large enough that the moderator did not have to think about it too long but the tone in his voice suggested that he thought he might be challenged.

On to the next counter measure in the name of Mr. Kennedy.  This one addresses when pastors may exercise their personal conscience within the church’s teaching, decisions, and discipline relative to this issue.

The debate has begun and the list of people to speak is so long it has overwhelmed the moderator’s computer screen listing speakers.  The moderator began to suggest that debate be limited to a few speakers and the clerk’s staff and others around him quickly advised him to let the debate run a while.

The moderator has now ended debate but an amendment has been made to send this to the presbyteries under the “Barrier Act.”  The Barrier Act is a part of the CofS church polity that keeps the GA from making major decisions at a GA without sending it to the presbyteries.  There is a Wikipedia
entry for it:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_Act

The principal and assistant clarks are providing clarification and guidance on the polity as well as the fact that an interim resolution can be passed to cover the year while the issue is sent to the presbyteries.

The asst. clark just outlined the order of the four votes on the issue.  The first question is if it goes under the barrier act, for both the main motion and the counter motion by Mr. Kennedy.

The just concluded speaker for the original motion made a comment that effectively said “Our fellow denominations have been dragging on studying this for years and it has only divided them and made the situation worse.”  I wonder if he had the PC(USA) specifically in mind?

The Church of Scotland GA is presently debating and questioning the convener of the Legal Questions Committee about a proposal to clarify the performance of civil unions by ministers.  It preserves the right of conscience of ministers to decline but would permit ministers to perform civil unions of same sex couples.