There are several Presbyterian items that I need to get caught up on, but being a GA Junkie, I will turn first to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland which began in Belfast on Monday and continues through tomorrow.

There are several high-profile items of business, but as with many Presbyterian denominations, same-sex issues top the list.  These come under the report of the Board of Social Witness.  While the report deals with many of the ministries of the church to society, the report also contains a section (starting on page 21 of 31) titled “Pastoral Guidelines — Homosexuality.”  This section was written in response to action at last year’s GA requesting “guidelines to help our Church to develop more sensitive and effective pastoral care.”  The writers of the report, to avoid labeling someone as “homosexual” and thereby defining who they are by that title chose to refer in the report to “people who have same sex attraction.”  In addition, this report was not setting the PCI position, that is still the report of 1979, but rather provides guidelines.  The report begins with some stories from individuals and families to illustrate the need for pastoral care and then states:

We are all fallen human beings and for each one the fall has affected our sexuality as it has all aspects of our being.
    However, as with all areas of sexual attraction, what we do about it as individuals is a matter of choice for which we are morally responsible. This is the sentiment behind the Assembly’s comment on the Report of 1979.
    When we condemn homosexual practice in isolation or single it out as somehow worse than other sexual practices outside of heterosexual marriage then we demonstrate homophobic attitudes.

I am particularly impressed with the footnote that goes with these paragraphs which begins:

4 Despite all attempts in the media to push the idea that same sex attraction is purely genetic the jury is still out and may remain so. While there are studies that point towards biological factors there are other studies that lean strongly towards the nurture side of the debate.

In the section that followed this I was struck by the balance the writers use and the insight into our culture, both religious and popular.  It is extended but I quote in its entirety:

    5.4 When a church states that it cannot agree with practicing same sex relationships it is most often taken as rejection of the person because of their perceived identity – ie ‘I am a homosexual!’ However, as a church, we believe our identity should be defined primarily in terms of our humanity before God and not in terms of sexual orientation. It would be helpful in dialogue if we focused more on the whole person before God and did not make sexuality the focus of our understanding.
    5.5 Exploring this point of perceived identity would also promote greater understanding of those within the Presbyterian Church who wish to exercise genuine pastoral care yet maintain Biblical integrity regarding marriage as being solely between a man and a woman and sexual practice as being for that relationship alone.
    5.6 There is the need for the church to understand that a consistent approach is needed. Compassion begins in the pulpit and works out from there. Condemnation from the pulpit closes the door to compassionate care outside the pulpit. Pastoral care is built on proclamation.
    5.7 The ‘rights’ dominated culture so aggressively surrounding ‘gay’ issues sends a message to the church that it is not acceptance as people that is being sought but rather endorsement of a way of life. The problem for many within the church is that while they would want to accept people in the name of Jesus Christ they cannot, in all integrity of conscience, endorse a way of life that they see as contrary to God’s Word.

The report then goes on to discuss pastoral care for these individuals.  Some of this is the usual counseling practice about confidentiality and avoiding labels.  Some is the call for the church to be loving, open and understanding to the individuals.  And some is wise counsel that immediately preaching their sinfulness and need of repentance and forgiveness will probably turn them away from the church where they could hear it later after relationship has been developed.

The Assembly took up the report and the reports (official PCI, Belfast Telegraph) indicate that the debate was lively, as I would expect.  It was said multiple times that for some this report goes too far and for others not far enough.  There was an amendment to send the report down to the presbyteries which lost 163 to 168.  The pastoral care report was approved 159 to 120 but the report of the Board of Social Witness was arrested due to the time and it will resume later in the week.

In other actions, Dr. John Finlay was elected and installed as the Moderator of the Assembly.  In his speech he encouraged the church to “practice what it preaches” so they could convince the secular world about the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  In a related action, the Assembly voted down a Business Board proposal to install the Moderator at the end of the Assembly to work for the coming year and run the following year’s assembly.

Today’s business included guidelines from the Doctrine Committee about participation in inter-faith events.  The guiding principles the committee brought were that the “integrity of the Gospel is not compromised” and that acts of worship are “separate and distinctive.”

What is probably the second highest profile decision in front of the Assembly was the sale of the PCI main offices.  This was approved by the 2004 GA but last year’s Assembly voted to rescind the action and the action to rescind must be agreed to by this year’s Assembly under church law.  From the quotes in the daily summary it must have been a very lively debate with arguments for and against the historic nature of the building, cost of upkeep and refurbishment, location in central Belfast, and the relevance, or lack of, to modern culture.  In the end, the motion to rescind was affirmed by a vote of 332 to 234 and the business items related to refurbishment put off due to the hour.

A couple of thing that strike me:  One is the amount of business which has lapsed due to arrested reports.  The Assembly appears to have a busy time ahead of them at some point.  The second is the vote tallies.  Roughly the same number of members voted in favor of rescinding as voted in total for the same-sex pastoral care report.  Where were those extra 234 for those votes?