Category Archives: GA business

The PC(USA) General Assembly — More Comments on Monday Committee Meetings

Leave a reply

I moved around several committees today, seeing what was going on.  The first full day of committee meetings is usually a little slower as the committees tackle some of the less controversial issues to get their “sea legs” before tackling their controversial issues.  I even heard a report that one of the committees that would be using consensus instead of parliamentary procedure spent the morning trying to come to a consensus about how they were going to work by consensus.

Some of the meetings had interesting topics going.  Some of the committee meetings were getting bogged down in polity at times. (What else is new)  And I saw a couple of cases where the commissioner presiding seemed overwhelmed by the polity.  One such case was where a committee member made a motion to allow the committee members to ask questions of the speakers at the open hearings.  After some back and forth a vote was taken, then the front table huddled for a few minutes as Robert’s Rules was pulled out.  I suspect there was something else going on, but the ruling by the chair was that since the vote was tied the motion was defeated.  I would hope that an elder or minister in the PC(USA) would not need Robert’s Rules for that.  The irony of course is that in our quest to do thing decently and in order they probably used up more time than the questions to the speakers would have taken.

One of the interesting discussions was in Committee 3 – General Assembly Procedures.  I caught the committee debate on overture 102 dealing with the continuation of Hanmi Presbytery.  An interesting coincidences in this was that the YAD from Hanmi Presbytery was on the committee so she was able to provide some very moving testimony.  She was in favor of the overture and said that the Presbytery, while technically being transitional, is beloved by the second generation as well as the first.  Much discussion was spent on whether there should be a “sunset clause” or if the presbytery should be authorized indefinitely.  It was noted that of the four Korean language presbyteries two do not have sunset clauses.  In the case of Hanmi it is 25 years old and began with a 15 year life and that was extended by another 10 years which is about to expire, hence this overture.  It was also noted that past transitional presbyteries had lifetimes as long as 40 years.  The discussion was complicated by a motion to call the previous question that the committee moderator did not recognize the second to, and that caused some groans.  But the parliamentarian also noted that the original motion to call the question was out of order to begin with because the maker of the motion spoke to the issue first.  The next time that a motion was made to call the question there was a resounding chorus of “Second!” from a bunch of committee members.  After the motion with a sunset clause was defeated the committee passed the overture as delivered to them to let Hanmi continue indefinitely.

I then sat in on the end of the open hearings on Committee 6 – Form of Government Revision.  It should surprise no one that there were plenty of speakers to this and the ones that I heard at the end were almost all against it.  One even ripped off the current Form of Government section from his Book of Order to show that it was not any shorter.  (For my analysis of the size you can read my comments from January.)

There were a couple of comments that were sort of “neutral” in the sense that they presented some points that could be corrected now by amendment.  Among these were points made by a representative of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission.  These include the fact that the new FOG does not recognize GA PJC decisions as authoritative, that changes to G-9.0505b and G-9.0705 removing time limits to give more flexibility (something the rFOG does a lot of) could lead to the loss of due process, and that any wording change to a section in the Book of Order causes the loss of existing “Interpretation History” and that would need to be rebuilt through PJC decisions and GA Authoritative interpretations.  This is part of the loss of “institutional memory” that has concerned me.

A bunch of other comments as well.  One person wanted the Committee on Representation explicitly put back in as a mandated committee because it is a “foundational block” of our polity.  (Not sure exactly where foundational block defined and not sure I would agree if I knew.)  Another pointed out that this is the longest overture in the history of the PC(USA).  There were several comments about being missional:  Some saying churches are doing plenty of mission now with the current polity, others questioning the definition or “missional” premise behind the rFOG.  While the Task Force used one definition of “missional” it still means many things to many people.  And there was one speaker who mentioned the “elephant in the room” and questioned why synods were still included in the rFOG at all since they are only marginally useful and expensive pieces of our infrastructure.  I did a quick check back on the committee at the end of the evening and from the commissioner debate going on it sounded like an up-hill battle for passage by the committee majority.

So those are some of my business observations for the day.  I’m turning in now but I’ve got a lot more non-business observations to share if I ever get time to set them down.

The PC(USA) General Assembly — Monday Committee Meetings and Some Polity Musings

Leave a reply

I can’t remember if I said that I’ll resume live blogging when the plenary reconvenes on Wednesday afternoon.  Today, and probably tomorrow, I spent moving between committee meetings.  I did not see very much through from start to finish but did spend larger chunks of time in Committee 8 – Mission Coordination and Budget and Committee 5 – Church Orders.  I’ll talk about Committee 8, and a couple of others, in briefer detail in a following post, but let me make some comments on Church Orders here.

First, Church Orders is our polity wonk name that is mainly ordination standards so they are dealing with, among other things, PUP report issues and G-6.0106b “fidelity and chastity” issues.

I came in during the overture advocates presentations on 05-03 and 05-18 which were linked together.  Both of these deal with examinations under PUP, commending presbyteries for working on their examination procedures and asking the stated clerk to compile best practices.  And both overtures cite that acknowledgment of sexual orientation must be self acknowledged and the examining body must be consistent in questioning.  And interestingly, in the Standing Rules each overture gets three minutes to speak to the overture, but for 05-03 there were nine concurring presbyteries who also get time.  Lumped together that was eleven speakers total so they had 33 minutes.  The pooled their presentations, it was scripted, choreographed, and with a great PowerPoint presentation.  And it was loaded with scriptural and polity arguments.

Of those polity arguments, two struck me as “interesting.”

The first was their take on the GAPJC “Bush v. Pittsburgh Presbytery” decision last February.  Their claim was that in the Bush decision the GAPJC lifted “fidelity and chastity” to a higher standard since an exception could not be declared for it.

Specifically the Bush decision says:

The church has decided to single out this particular manner of life standard and require church wide conformity to it for all ordained church officers.

So in a technical sense the GAPJC did set this higher, but as they say it was not really themselves that set it higher, but rather “The church has decided…”, it is the whole church by including it in the constitution.  A little later they generalize this with:

Although G-1.0301 permits broad freedom of conscience for members of the church, “in becoming a candidate or officer of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) one chooses to exercise freedom of conscience within certain bounds” (G-6.0108b). G-6.0108a defines the limits of this freedom of conscience for ordained church officers.

One of the interesting arguments made by the overture advocates was that we don’t need to over legislate this but to trust the presbyteries and correct this in the review process inherent in our connectional system.  This is almost exactly the same argument made, and exhibited, at the Presbyterian Church in America General Assembly just concluded when they decided that they did not need a study committee to consider the ordination of women to the diaconate since changes to polity should come from the presbyteries and then later the same day in the review of presbytery records considered an “unsatisfactory exception” when a presbytery’s examination of a teaching elder for membership did not fully examine and classify his views in favor of women elders.  For more on this check out the comment by Scott to my discussion of the debate at the PCA GA.

The other polity item that struck me was the reference to the previous GAPJC decisions and the commissioners’ comments about not being able to ask but that the sexual orientation must be self-acknowledged.  For the most part that is correct, but I would like to clarify from the headnotes of Weir v. Second Presbyterian Church, case 214-5:

Self-acknowledgment: The plain language of the Constitution clearly states that disqualified persons must have self-acknowledged the proscribed sin. Self-acknowledgment may come in many forms. In whatever form it may take, self-acknowledgment must be plain, palpable, and obvious and details of this must be alleged in the complaint.

Examination of Candidates for Ordination and/or Installation: The ordaining and installing governing body is in the best position to determine whether self-acknowledgment is plain, palpable, and obvious, based on its knowledge of the life and character of the candidate. If the governing body has reasonable cause for inquiry based on its knowledge of the life and character of the candidate, it has the positive obligation to make due inquiry and uphold all the standards for ordination and installation.

While the self-acknowledgment need not be verbal, reasonable cause is necessary to investigate further.

As I noted, the overture advocates for these overtures received a significant amount of time due to the number of concurring presbyteries.  After a question from a commissioner, a short conversation with the Stated Clerk, and then praying about it over dinner, the chair of the committee agreed that in fairness the overture advocates for overtures recinding the PUP report should have additional time.

The nature of all these presentations up to this point, filled with scriptural and polity arguments, differed markedly from the presentations that followed regarding the removal or modification of G-6.0106b, the fidelity and chastity section.  These appealed to love, justice, fairness, gifts, call, and pain with very little discussion of scripture or polity.  Needless to say, the theme passage for the General Assembly, Micah 6:8, was regularly cited.

Well, that was the most polity intensive and nuanced discussion I heard today.  Not even the Revised form of Government comments were that good.  So that wraps up Church Orders.  Next I’ll prepare some discussion of the other committees I checked in on.

The PC(USA) General Assembly — Saturday Afternoon Reflections

Leave a reply

As the commissioners are being “oriented” this afternoon there is no business going on and I have been kicking back and chatting.

One big topic of conversation is the Moderator election this evening.  Having been in several conversations about this, at this point there seems to be a consensus that there is no consensus.  For the last 24 hours the candidates have been doing a “meet and greet” in the lobby during breaks and all four with their four Vice-moderator candidates have been doing a great job.



When I took these pictures this morning I somehow missed Roger and Peter.  Sorry, I’ll try to get you in here.  But what was missing from the other side of the table were the YADs who were still at breakfast.  Yesterday afternoon as people were milling about talking to the candidates there was a clear trend for the youth to be attracted to Bruce’s little space.  I apologize for the term Bruce, but you were a “YAD magnet.”

The attraction of the youth to Bruce may be attributed his high-gear Web 2.0 presence.  It could also be related to the fact that Bruce is the youngest of the candidates, or maybe even his ideas and positions.  We will have to see if that translates to excitement with the commissioners who actually make the decision.

The groups I have been in think the current favorites are Bill and Bruce, but almost everyone also agrees that many of the commissioners’ minds will probably be made up during the speeches and Q&A tonight.  And that is the working of the Holy Spirit in this process.

I would make one further comment about the afternoon session, and this is the pleasure we had of having the Very Rev. Sheilagh Kesting, immediate past Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, open the session in prayer at the invitation of our Moderator.  Thank you.

The PC(USA) General Assembly — Live Blogging Saturday Morning 1

Leave a reply

Greetings — I will be live blogging most sessions of the PC(USA) General Assembly.  I apologize to those with e-mail feeds or a feed reader since you will probably only get the first section of the post since I’ll be pushing update throughout the session.  Also, if you are reading this on a browser live you will also need to refresh the screen since I don’t have push technology on my blog.  It’s tough being Web 1.99999 in a Web 2.0 world.  Thanks for your patience.

Saturday Morning, June 21, 2008
The 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
10:00  — The commissioner chairs are filling up.  People are filing in.  The soothing background music is playing. (I could have done with great hymns of the faith) And camera operators are ready.

There has been some questions this morning about internet access.  It turns out that there is WiFi in the hall, but you can only get to PC-biz

10:01  The Assembly is called to order with the gavel and prayer by the Moderator of the 217th GA, the Rev. Joan Gray.  Including a long period, a couple of minutes, or silence.

10:04 — Cliff Kirkpatrick leads a litany followed by the Servant Song.    Interesting this was also used in opening by the Church of Scotland GA this year.  Except with stings instead of keyboard.

10:12 — Commissioners and delegates are asked and answer the questions of “commissioning”

Another prayer, litany, and hymn “Come O Spirit, Dwell Among Us” sung to Ebenezer.

10:20 — The General Assembly is now commissioned and we move on to formalities.
A quorum is declared, corresponding members seated, and welcome from COLA.

10:30 — Move on to promotional videos and official welcome and gift to Moderator and Vice-moderator:  hand-crafted wooden boxes.

10:41 — Robert Wilson assumes the gavel and Joan Gray gives the moderator’s report with her usual humor.

We then have the report of the Vice-moderator and we are not up to the GAC report

The GAC church growth segment highlights the Highlands Church in Paso Robles, California, which has recently become the “poster child” for church planting in this day and age.

11:20 — Move on to Nominating Committee and an overview of the nominations from the floor process for challenging committee nominees

11:25 — Finance overview and financial implications.  They are listing what is covered under per capita, but there are possible changes to what budget items can be covered by per capita before this GA.  But the possible change to the mission budget, to the tune of an increase of $13,000,000, that would be caused by the proposed shift is presented as either full disclosure, or maybe a threat.

11:35 — The morning agenda has been concluded.  The afternoon is orientation so I probably will not live blog that.  Maybe a post or two of other business, but live blogging will resume this evening for the Moderator election.

A Paperless GA? Not quite.

Leave a reply

This year I have had an inside view to the pre-GA ramp-up through my son the YAD.  (YAD= Youth Advisory Delegate – one youth from each presbytery who has an advisory vote. Except in committee where it is a full vote.)  I can tell you that GA has not gone completely “paperless.”  Yes, the paper for official functions and business might have been minimized, but for the last two months he has been the dominant recipient of mail in our household. 

The official mailings are not like they were “back in the day” when a three-inch binder was required to hold all the pre-meeting paper, but there is still some paper even here.  This includes some official paperwork that just can’t be done electronically.  There are also some pieces of business that get mailed out, notably a nice published copy of the Revised Form of Government (rFOG).  This came out in the same dimensions as the current Book of Order so you can see how it would look and how much less space it would take on your book shelf.  He has also gotten communication about arrangements and committee work via snail mail.

The first mailings by affinity groups were two books related to the current ordination standards debate that he received from progressive groups.  I will give them credit getting the information out early so the commissioners have plenty of time to look them over in advance.  However, for the YAD’s, or at least this one, it was not the best since it was the final stretch of the school year and preparing for the GA was not on the radar screen.  They got shelved but he has gotten back to skimming them in the last couple of weeks.

Probably the next piece of material to arrive was the item that interested him the most — the Presbyterian Outlook.  For those of you at the Outlook, good move and thank you.  He found it succinct, topical, interesting, and relevant.  The sort of thing a student can pick up and cover one article in a short sitting between other things in a busy life.  In my opinion, getting the Outlook for a few weeks did more to prepare him for GA than any other information he received in the mail this spring.

And then there have been the letters.  Many groups have sent him letters explaining their positions on issues.  Most have been from affinity groups advocating their positions on issues before GA.  A good portion of these, including the letter from six U.S. congressmen who happen to be Presbyterian, have been about the church’s stance on Israel/Palestine.  One day when I got home from work and asked him about that day’s mail he joked that one position letter that day began by saying it was “brief” but turned out to be almost as long as all the other position letters of the day combined.  In addition he also got a couple of letters from church sessions advocating for overtures that they had initiated and their presbyteries had sent on to GA.

As you can see, he has been reading his mail, especially since school got out.  But in talking with him the other day he seems most impressed and touched by the hand written cards and notes that say nothing more than “Thank you for serving at GA.  I/We/Our church will be praying for you.”  I think these have helped him capture the image of the church not as our individual congregation, or the local groups of churches that Dad keeps running off to work on committees with, but as a much, much larger group of churches and people across the country that will be working together next week to see where God is leading them.  To all of you, and especially Community Pres. in Pittsburg, California, thanks to you, and please keep praying.

The 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) — Foundation and Empire

Leave a reply

The upcoming 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) just got a little bit less interesting…

Don’t get me wrong, there will still be plenty of interesting things going on, but one of the more “interesting” Overtures has been withdrawn.  While I can’t definitively connect the dots, here are the dots as I understand them.

The Synod of the Southwest overtured the General Assembly to allow the General Assembly Council to invest money in places other than the Presbyterian Foundation as most other entities in the PC(USA) can.  I don’t think I would be exaggerating to say that this was a concern to the Foundation, maybe we could even call it a threat.  Furthermore, the Assembly Committee on the Constitution had an opinion that GAC could interpret donor intent making this a double threat.

Why do I think this was a threat?  Well, the foundation produced and distributed a roughly 45 minute video to all the commissioners and delegates.  My son the YAD got it in the mail yesterday.  The video directly addresses why the proposed change would be a bad idea because it circumvents checks and balances, is chasing increased returns, and ignores the built up talent and knowledge of the Foundation.  The video makes the case well but to be blunt it is a bunch of talking heads and not as “colorful” as some of the other Foundation videos.

Well, the Synod of the Southwest withdrew their Overture so it appears that it is no longer on the docket for Committee 8 – Mission Coordination and Budget.  One of the advantages of the old paper system was that there was a “paper trail.”  You will notice that with the withdrawal of Overture 85, the place holder on PC-biz is still there, but in electronic form it allows the system managers of PC-biz to remove the text so there is nothing substantial for us to look at any more.

However, the Synod of the Southwest issued a substantial press release about this decision.  The first thing that I would note is that apparently the Synod Moderator and Synod Executive/Synod State Clerk were empowered to withdraw that motion since on June 2 the Synod voted to “affirm the decision” by the officers.  (As an officer of the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii I will note that is not an unusual empowerment although for us it would take all five of the officers.)  The press release also makes it clear that the overture addressed only non-permanent funds.  The press release says:

Recent interpretation by the Foundation and others has sought to characterize the overture as addressing funds deposited with the Foundation by donors for specific mission purposes coordinated by the ministry of the General Assembly Council. The overture, however, addressed other funds, not those which are permanently endowed.

The officers gave five reasons for withdrawing the overture:  1)  It had served the purpose of getting the issue before GAC and the Foundation.  They could always bring it back in 2010. 2) Unknown to the Synod there were other issues that have now become public.  3) These and other matters have “subsumed” the issue of the overture and the overture issue has largely become overshadowed.  4) While the concern persists, pressing the issue at this time harms the “peace of the church.” 5) The Foundation will be asked for rate of return information and they are now “on notice” about being transparent with those facts.

The mailing to GA commissioners and delegates was made after this synod decision so there is a letter included with the DVD noting the withdrawal, but still expressing concern for the climate and the fact that the ACC recommendation (that GAC gets to interpret donor intent) remains on the table.

Commentary:  There is clear tension right now between GAC and the Foundation, something that everyone involved seems to acknowledge.  While I am not quite ready to read more into the Synod decision than they state in their press release, with the current climate in some quarters of the PC(USA) the withdrawal could be interpreted differently if you want to find a conspiracy between Louisville and synods.  (Example 1, Example 2, Example 3)  (And sorry if I overstated my position in the title but the reference to the Asimov book was too good to pass up.)

On the one hand, as a reformed Christian I recognize the sinful nature of human beings and having checks and balances in a covenant community is the way we do things.  On the other hand, I have been involved in some dealings with the Foundation and their less-flexible interpretations of donor intent have been way more restrictive than how we have understood it.

So, for GA in a week, I guess that this horse has been put back in the barn, but there is a bunch more that have gotten out and are still roaming and the work of the Foundation will be on the table in several different places.  Stay tuned.

UPDATE 6/17/08:  Michael Kruse, an insider to this discussion by virtue of his membership on GAC, has posted his personal observations and commentary on this controversy.

The 36th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America — But wait, there’s more

3 Replies

After the debate on the deaconesses concluded, a similar theological issue, with nuances, came up a report or two later.  This was in the review of presbytery records.

In particular, the minutes of Northern California Presbytery, in an examination of a TE, (I missed if this was for ordination or membership) the man being examined is recorded to have stated exceptions that “A woman may do anything in worship that a non-ordained man may do.”  This means not only reading scripture, but teaching on it by preaching, which would be against the Westminster Standards.  Based on this, and other comments, a closely divided commissioner committee led to a minority report that proposed having these records noted with not just exception, but with an exemption that needed to be answered by the presbytery.  The rational was that this would have opened the way for dialog with the Presbytery to further investigate the subtleties and specifics of the man’s comments.

The debate was marked by a number of interesting comments.  One from a TE from that Presbytery noted the man was no longer in the Presbytery.  This was answered by the observation that this was a procedural matter now, not a specific of this examination.  There was a comment from TE Tim Keller that many members of the PCA might share this exception relative to letting women preach.

The minority report was defeated and that item was referred, that is recommitted, back to the committee since it was such a close committee vote.  The remainder of the Presbytery minutes were approved outside of that item.

Part of the comments in the minutes indicated that the TE being examined would commission men and women as deacons rather than ordain only men.  It was noted in the latter part of the debate that while the decision on the deaconess overtures was to work it out at the presbytery level, in this case there was an unsatisfactory exception because the presbytery did work it out at the presbytery level.  There was an amendment proposed that the exemption be changed from “unsatisfactory” to “satisfactory” in light of this but the change was defeated. 

UPDATE 6/16/08:  Thanks to those who have helped me out where I missed, by omission or comission, the details of the debate here.  However, TE Lane Keister from the blog Green Baggins delivered the minority report on this one and he has now discussed this part of the GA in a post on his blog.  Thanks Lane and now after seeing you on the webcast I can put a face with the name.

The 36th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America — Debate and decision on Deaconesses

3 Replies

The PCA GA has begun debate on the issue of deaconesses and women in the diaconal ministry.  There is a commissioner committee report that basically says “the Book of Church Order is clear, a study committee is not needed.”  There is a minority report to create the study committee.

The presentation began with a motion to rule the minority report out of order since the BCO is clear on the subject.  The Moderator ruled that the minority report was in order, he was challenged on the ruling, and in a counted vote his ruling was sustained by the Assembly 518 to 369.

The committee majority argument is 1) that the BCO is clear about only men serving as officers of the church and 2) creation of a study committee would produce “two strong reports” and would polarize the church.  “Now is not the time to raise to a higher pitch another controversy in the PCA.”  There has been enough controversy over the last several years.  The minority argument is that there are plenty of people on both sides of the issue who want clarity on the subject.  Also, the minority report is restrictive that the study committee would be specific to the question of women serving in diaconal ministry and would be pastoral in its recommendations leaving changes to the BCO to presbytery overture.

The presenter of the minority report also complimented the chairman for his leadership of the committee, and commented on how after heated debate there were apologies made by commissioners to one another for conduct during debate.

It is interesting that the first speaker in the debate on the minority report invoked the blogosphere.  His point is that this is not about the issue, but how the issue is dealt with — not in e-mail or blogs going back and forth, but gathered together face-to-face.  (Strike against the Church Virtual.)  Other comments included the idea that just because women can not hold offices they should not be treated as second-class citizens (my phrase).  Also that division is sometimes necessary and that all they do is create study committees.  At the first extension of debate the Moderator polled those waiting to speak and found many more wanting to speak for the minority report than speaking against it. One of the irony’s of the second vote to extend debate is that it took about as long to count the votes as the time that would have been added to the debate.  The moderator did get a laugh when he was informed that he had made a parliamentary blunder and to try to get it correct he said “We’ll have to study that.”  Debate was closed by a vote of 420 to 467 and the Moderator acknowledged the time irony. 

The minority report failed — it was close enough that a division of the house was necessary, but a counted vote was not.  In the debate on the main motion there were a few comments about the future, including the statement that this issue will come back to GA in the future.  It was noted that some elders are not against the ordination of women as deacons, but do not practice it due to the prohibitions of the BCO.

The debate on the main motion was not extended and the main motion was quickly passed on a vote using the cards.

I’ll post this now, but there are three more overtures on this topic that will presumably be answered by this action.

Update:  Overture 19, to decline to erect a study committee, was answered with comment that BCO changes were not in order in this matter.

Ten-minutes with Bruce

2 Replies

The Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, one of the four candidates for Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) offered himself for interviews from bloggers.  This was his “10 Minutes with Bruce.”

Well, I came up with only one questions for him and he was gracious enough to reply.

My Question:

The last two moderators seem to me to present a contrast in styles when
it came to some of the conflicts between individual churches and higher
governing bodies in the PC(USA).  Rick seemed to get involved in some
of the individual controversies while Joan seems to “float above” the
ongoing disputes.

So, if you are elected moderator…
On a
range from “enforcer” being actively involved in particular disputes,
to “Glinda, Good Witch of the North” who sort of floats above all the
commotion, what do you see as your role as the Moderator of the General
Assembly in these matters?  Or, do you see the role of the Moderator as
something on a different continuum?

Bruce’s Response:

I guess it depends on which, if any, superpower I get as “enforcer” or “Glinda”
But
seriously folks . . . I am actually not sure where I would fit on
the continuum because I think those currently engaged in the battles
are missing the point and/or are missing important voices.   I would
much more hope to shake up the discourse by being part of a movement
whose voices are heard above and over the current
denominational conflicts.  While some entities in the church at all
levels will thrive only in a culture fed by adversarial relationships,
I think there are a whole lot of folks who could easily move beyond
some of the more divisive issues, find levels of appropriate
disagreement and get on with being the church in the world in as may
ways that may exist today.  Right now, these folks may be engaged in
local ministry, but see the larger church conflicts as distracting and
irrelevant.  So . . . to better answer the question, I think I would be
one who would help to flatten the hierarchy of the discussion so more
voices are part of the whatever decisions lay at the end.

Now do I get a superpower?

Thanks Bruce

Now, the link to the incident Rick was involved in is for context only and not necessarily an endorsement.  Also, I realize that some of this is a product of the times in which they serve and may not be representative of the two years ahead.

Finally, while Bruce issued the invitation, if any of the other three moderator candidates wish to have a go at it I’d be glad to also post “Ten Minutes with (Bill|Carl|Roger)”

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.