For members of Presbyterian churches, particularly the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), it is a generally accepted reality that the news media usually has trouble with our polity. For constitutional amendments that must be approved by the presbyteries the media generally skims over, or ignores, the fact that action by the General Assembly is not the absolute word but the beginning of a process.
With that in mind I looked at some of the media coverage of the PC(USA) GA decision related to G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” section.
Presbyterian News Service
Probably the best coverage, but we would hope so. It states right at the very beginning that this is only a proposal to be voted on by the presbyteries. It also mentions the fact that the presbyteries have voted on changes to this section twice since it was added in 1996.
Associated Press
From the mass media this is my preferred story on the decision. While the headline still does not get it correct (“Presbyterian assembly votes to drop gay clergy ban”) I really like the fact that the article itself mentions in the third paragraph that it still requires presbytery approval and right off in the first paragraph it says it sets up a confrontation. It also mentions that changes have been rejected twice before. Well done.
Los Angeles Times
This, in its entirety, contains all the pieces but for too long in the article it sounds like this is a done deal. From the lead paragraphs you would think the constitution has been changed, and then about 1/3 through the article mentions presbytery approval. But the Times did a better job of reporting one fact, the vote, than the AP article. The Times reported the vote where the minority report was rejected. The AP story reported the final vote which had a higher yes vote. The Times also reports the two previous rejected attempts.
United Press International
Here is a news article that completely misses it. In this article it is a done deal. No mention of presbytery vote, no mention of previous failures of removing the constitutional language. As far as you would know from reading this “fidelity and chastity” is gone.
Just a quick survey. As I looked through roughly 150 articles most either picked up the AP or the LA Times article. I did not see the UPI story repeated in another publication.
Now, how many of us had to explain this several times over to people in our congregations this morning?
Please tell me how this is not ‘a done deal’?
The biblical definitions of sexual sin have been removed. Scrupling can now cover any area but property. Presbyteries are free to define the essentials of the faith as they prefer them to be.
Local Option has won the day.
How is this assessment not correct?
Toby-
In the general sense of the outcome of this meeting you are correct. The General Assembly, in the end, did everything they could to open up the ordination standards.
In this particular post I did have a very narrow focus about how the media reports on our process for changing the constitution. I wanted to discuss which media outlets portray it as GA having changed the constitution and which recognize the complexity of our process.
Having said that, I expect the presbyteries to defeat changes to G-6.0106b. This puts the PCUSA in a three-way ping-pong game between the wider base that says the status-quo of the constitution is fine, the General Assemblies who keep trying to change it and interpret it, and the GAPJC who keeps telling the GA that you can’t interpret your way around constitutional standards.
Hold on until later today when I’ll post another item I’m refining about all this and where we are headed
Hope that makes sense. This was more a media analysis piece than a polity analysis.
Thanks for your comments
Steve
“As far as you would know from reading this “fidelity and chastity” is gone.”
It isn’t? When any presbytery can “interpret”, in what way is it not gone?
ZZMike-
In a literal sense, “fidelity and chastity” is still there and requires a presbytery vote to remove.
From a practical perspective this is still important because the Interpretations are still going back and forth between the GA and PJC. While the adoption of the new AI may be the true end of “fidelity and chastity,” we won’t know for certain until the GAPJC has a test case.
Thanks for your level-headed blogging.
Unfortunately the Presbyterian Outlook blew it on Saturday morning with their online headline, “Divided Assembly Lifts Ban on Ordination of Gays and Lesbians”. Later in the day they corrected the headline in response to complaints. But you can still see how PresbyWeb (https://http://www.presbyweb.com/2008/Archive/0628.htm) posted (and still posts) the story’s title immediately with the reporter’s original inflammatory and misleading headline.