The 136th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada convenes in Sydney, Cape Breton at 7:30 pm this Sunday, 6 June 2010.  (Some preliminary meetings and activities will begin the day before.)  Here is what you need to know to follow along:

• The Assembly web page has linked sections for News and Reports.  There is also a section for Events and Other Documents
• Under Other Documents there is
  • Agenda
  • GA Practice and Procedure (standing rules)
• There is also a link to a study paper “One Covenant of Grace: A Contemporary Theology of Engagement with the Jewish People (document on Supersessionism)“
• Biographical sketch of the Rev. Dr. Herb Gale, nominee for Moderator of the 136th General Assembly
• For the polity wonks you will want to be aware of the archive of the Acts and Proceedings as well as the current Book of Forms 
• The Communications Office tweets as @PCConnect; Colin Carmichael, the Associate Secretary for Communications tweets as @ccarmichael; the Assembly will be using the hashtag #ga136 and so far I have seen one other attendee tweeting
• In addition to the news link we can probably expect articles posted at PCConnect-Daily during the Assembly

Business before the Assembly
As I look through the reports I have not seen anything that strikes me as a high-profile or “lightning rod” issue.  I could easily be wrong because I read it too fast or I am not familiar with the current concerns in the church.  (And I am sure that someone will let us know if I did miss something.)

There are a lot of interesting items coming to the Assembly.  One of those is the recommendation against having biennial assembly meetings.  Some of the committee reports weigh in on the question but one of the most interesting, at least to me, is the response from the Committee on History.  In their extended response they cast it in the historical perspective and legacy of the church and one of their sections says:

2. The legacy of church union has something to teach us about the unique situation of The Presbyterian Church in Canada. As Prof. Keith Clifford says in The Resistance to Church Union, 1904-1939 (p. 142), the Presbyterian Church Association worked around the courts of The pre-Union Presbyterian Church in Canada appealing to the membership directly and suggesting an inbred hostility to the clerical establishment which was regarded by many lay people opposed to Union as having predetermined Church Union. After 1925 there was an inbuilt suspicion of the centralization of authority resulting sometimes in an inchoate democratization (and laicization) of the power base of The Presbyterian Church in Canada. One can only imagine what the Presbyterian Church Association would say today about biennial Assemblies.

Another very interesting item is the revisions to the judicial process.  The judicial process chapter of the Book of Forms was modified in 2006 and will be reviewed in the future after there has been more experience with it.  However, the Clerks of Assembly are recommending (recommendation 17) an immediate addition that would permit an investigating committee to make the determination that insufficient evidence exists and they could unilaterally decide not to proceed with a disciplinary case.  The other interesting recommendation related to judicial process is that the Assembly Council is recommending (recommendation 7) the Clerks of Assembly be instructed to consider recommending to the Assembly appropriate legislation to establish a standing judicial commission.  I was disappointed to see that the Life and Mission: Communications unit is considering closing down the Being Presbyterian blog, but I do personally know the work involved in keeping multiple blogs active and can understand the concern.  And where the PC(USA) has developed a Social Media Policy for its GA, the Life and Mission Agency report contains a proposed (recommendation 4) General Assembly Digital Images Policy.  And in another parallel, I found an interesting response in the Clerks of Assembly report to Overture 14 (recommendation 16) asking for the elimination of synods:

The framers of Overture No. 14, 2010 suggest that the synods of our church have become ineffective, expensive in terms of both time and money, and a source of disenfranchisement for many elders and ministers.

The Clerks of Assembly remind the Assembly that across the country synods function in different ways. Some provide an important source of collegial community for ministers and elders who are serving in remote parts of the country; some provide strong governance oversight; and some play substantial roles in overseeing the work of thriving camping ministries and that of regional staff.

Synods, that would like to reduce the scope of meeting both in terms of the number of individuals attending and costs involved, now have the option of functioning as commissioned synods.

There are two items that particularly jumped out at me.  The first is interesting because of my being a polity wonk and the issue raises an interesting polity question at the intersection with the effort to be more flexible in how the church does things.  In the Clerks report there is a response to an item that began as an overture in 2008 requesting the option to commission lay missionaries to administer communion in hardship situations such as in remote and rural churches.  The Life and Work Agency returned a recommendation concurring with the overture and the 2009 Assembly then sent it on to the clerks to have the polity wording worked out.  The recommendation from the Ministry and Church Vocations unit in 2009 was against this course of action. (And the report notes that some presbyteries, based on the 2009 approval, had begun commissioning missionaries which the clerks quickly let them know that this has to be done decently and in order and it was only approved in concept and the Assembly had yet to approve the details.)

In their report the clerks note that they find themselves in a bit of a polity dilemma — while it was the will of the 2009 Assembly to move forward with this action this was in conflict with previous Assemblies, as recently as 2008, affirming as a theological doctrine of the denomination that only Ministers of Word and Sacraments celebrate the sacraments.  So here is their proposal:

While hearing the need articulated for an alternative method of providing the communion in areas where ministers of Word and Sacraments are not readily available, the Clerks believe it would be highly irregular to reverse this aspect of the church’s doctrine and practice by creating what could be deemed a new order of ministry without the usual theological reflection by the denomination. Normally, a document outlining a new position is sent to the church for study and report. The responses to the study and report are taken into account and the “new position” may be modified according to wisdom received by the process.

Therefore, while the Clerks have proposed legislation as requested, they, together with the Life and Mission Agency: Ministry and Church Vocations, offer a study paper that is designed to encourage the church to contemplate this important issue from a theological perspective. Before guidelines for education or other requirements are proposed, the Clerks would like to hear from the church through responses to this document.

The formal recommendation (recommendation 3) is that the study paper and proposed legislation be sent out to the church for study and comment and the clerks will return in 2011 with their recommendation, revised according to the responses.

The other item that caught my attention was the study paper reported by the Committee on Church Doctrine and posted as a separate document on the web site.  This sixty-page study paper titled “One Covenant of Grace: A Contemporary Theology of Engagement with the Jewish People,” is also being recommended for study and comment by the church in advance of formal adoption by the 137th Assembly in 2011.

It should be no surprise that this caught my attention because of all the publicity that the Report of the Middle East Study Committee to the 219th General Assembly of the PC(USA) is causing.  But, let me be clear that these are two very different documents in scope and purpose.  While the PC(USA) report would be characterized in the peacemaking and social witness focus, the PCC document is focused on doctrine, specifically the issue of supersessionism, that is, how Christians and Jews are related as God’s chosen people.  The PC(USA) report focuses on modern relationships between ethnic groups and biblical implications for the land.  The reports are related to the extent that they each have an extensive discussion of the biblical background of the Jewish nation and how the biblical narrative demonstrates their special relationship with God.  The two discussions provide nice compliments to each other in many ways.

The concluding doctrine statement in the PCC report, which will be studied this year and considered for adoption by the 2011 Assembly reads in part:

In stating our relationship with the Jewish people we reaffirm a central tenet of our Reformed faith expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, that there is one covenant of grace embracing Jews and Gentiles and therefore, not “two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations” (VII, 6).
Accordingly, we affirm that the Jewish people have a unique role in God’s economy of salvation and healing for our world. Jesus himself taught that “salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22) and the Apostle Paul stated: “to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen” (Romans 9:4-5). The Jewish people have a pre-eminent place in God’s covenant, John Calvin, finely said, for they are “the firstborn in God’s family.”

We affirm that God has graciously included Gentile Christians, rightly called “posthumous children of Abraham” (J. Calvin), by engrafting them into the one people of God established by God’s covenant with Abraham. This means that Jews have not been supplanted and replaced by Christians in the one covenant. As Paul teaches, God has not rejected or abandoned them: “I ask, then has God rejected his people? By no means!” (Romans 11:1).

Lots of interesting stuff here.  I look forward to the discussion of these and other topics at the Assembly.  Stay tuned.