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wrong, there will still be plenty of interesting things going on, but one of the more “interesting” Overtures has been withdrawn.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.