The 218th General Assembly of the PC(USA) — Committee Institutional Recommendations

Leave a reply

In addition to those major polity recommendations several committees will be bringing reports with major changes to the PC(USA) structure.  Probably chief among these is Committee 8 – Mission Coordination and Budget, where practically their whole agenda dealt with these types of issues.

The really big issue was the disagreement, to put it politely, between the General Assembly Council and one of their divisions, the Presbyterian Foundation.  I have already commented on the pro-active campaign that the Foundation has waged to fend off their supervisor the Council, and there are comments by Council Member Michael Kruse as well.  And I heard one story from a speaker at the open hearing who was chased down by a Foundation executive concerning their comments.

Maybe the best account of this is the one by Michael since he was there and had a horse in the race.  I just had a YAD at the table but I’ve not had a chance to debrief him on this one but in the midst of it at a break he was pumping me for a quick refresher on some of what I know.

Anyway, the committee basically told the GAC and Foundation to work it out before the committee finished work or they would come up with a solution which might not be favorable to either of them.  Everyone finally worked out a dispute resolution system and this will be in place, pending GA approval, for two years while a formal review of all of GAC’s functions is undertaken.

Committee 8 also will be recommending A Season of Mission Interpretation and a Mission Season Offering.  They also recommended reinstating the Office of Environmental Justice and authorized direct appeals for mission funding.  In addition a host of documents related to GAC, including a name change to the General Assembly Mission Council, were approved by the committee.

Over at Committee 3 – General Assembly Procedures, they are recommending disapproval of flexible presbytery membership, but recommending in favor of flexibility in non-geographic presbyteries membership so churches in another synod could join across synod boundaries.  They disapproved all the requests to change the per-capita system.  They approved a commissioner resolution to provide funds to the presbyteries to cover legal expenses related to fighting the departure of churches, specifically to the EPC and New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery.

In a related item, Committee 7 – Ecumenical Relations, refereed the request to investigate the actions of the EPC in recruiting churches to the GA Committee on Ecumenical Relations.

Well, that is some of the stuff.  I would also note that Committee 3 will be bringing a recommendation to change the standing rules so that it takes a 2/3 vote of the standing rules to suspend or change the rules.  While I understand the intent, that undoes a protection of the minority that is inherent in Roberts Rules of Order and I am not in favor of that one.

Anyway, off to the meeting and the live blog.  We’ll try to get everything there.

The 218th General Assembly of the PC(USA) — Committee Polity Recommendations

1 Reply

There is a lot that came out of committees yesterday and I will try to highlight a few items today before the full Assembly begins meeting this afternoon.

For organizational purposes I will break these into a couple of different posts.  Let me begin with Polity.

Ordination Standards
Committee 5 – Church Orders and Ministry had to deal with the ordination standards.  One item is the Authoritative Interpretation from the 217th General Assembly.  This has become a ping-pong game between the General Assembly and the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission.  Since neither inherently over rules the other, the most recent to speak has the upper hand.  The 217th General Assembly passed the Authoritative Interpretation proposed by the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity about declaring exceptions to non-essentials.  Last February the GAPCJ in the Bush decision said that candidates could declare exceptions, but that Presbyteries could not waive rules.

There were proposals before the committee to rescind the 217th AI, and proposals for a new AI as the return volley in the polity ping-pong match.  The committee, by a vote of 43 to 15, chose to answer all the items in this category with item 05-12 where the committee crafted a new AI:

The 218th General Assembly (2008) affirms the authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 approved by the 217th General Assembly (2006). Further, the 218th General Assembly (2008), pursuant to G-13.0112,
interprets the requirements of G-6.0108 to apply equally to all
ordination standards of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Section
G-6.0108 requires examining bodies to give prayerful and careful
consideration, on an individual, case-by-case basis, to any departure
from an ordination standard in matters of belief or practice that a
candidate may declare during examination. However, the examining body
is not required to accept a departure from standards, and cannot excuse
a candidate’s inability to perform the constitutional functions unique
to his or her office (such as administration of the sacraments).

Note the wording to answer the GAPJC decision:  The reference “apply equally to all ordination standards” since the GAPJC cited that G-6.0106b was lifted up as a particular standard, and the reference to “departure…in matters of belief and practice” since the GAPJC said belief could be scrupled but practice could not be waived.

If this is adopted we will see what the return volley looks like.

The other item is the removal/modification of G-6.0106b.  The committee by a 41/11/0 vote chose a “middle road” here and has answered all those overtures with item 05-09.  This item would rewrite that paragraph.

Current G-6.0106b Proposed G-6.0106b
b.Those
who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience
to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards
of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either
in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman
(W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of
any self acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not
be ordained and/or installed as deacons elders, or ministers of the
Word and Sacrament.		 b. Those
who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to
the constitutional questions for ordination and installation
(W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ
the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the
witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the
instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their
fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged
with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and
G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to
these standards.

Many of the headlines circulating around are declaring the removal of G-6.0106b but this is only partially correct.  They are correct that 1) if adopted by the GA, and 2) if adopted by the presbyteries, the current language would be gone.  But in a strict sense it is being replaced by more flexible wording.  This will be a long and drawn out issue, both on the floor, and there is a minority report, and again in the presbyteries.  I should note however that the committee added a comment to say “Presbyteries are strongly encouraged to consider this overture using a process of listening and discernment.”

I should also note that this item would also add to chapter 14 of the Book of Order language that those being ordained must declare their readiness to assert to the constitutional questions.

Ordination Vows
The Committee on Church Polity, in item 04-02, crafted new language that requires new members of the church do answer the same questions as confirmands in front of the congregation.  This language includes the questions by reference where the original overture listed out the questions.

Definition of Marriage
The Committee on Church Polity, in their longest and most heated issue, also debated changing the Book of Order language to make marriage between two people, not just between a man and a woman (item 04-08).  By a vote of 38/20/2 they voted to deny the request with comment that includes the wording “while
trusting that the Church (PCUSA) will continue to seek ways and means
to seek God’s blessing for alternative forms of covenant between two
people.”  At the present time I see no minority report posted for this one.

Form of Government Revision
From pretty close to the beginning it was becoming probable that the nFOG would be recommended out to the Presbyteries for study, reflection, and comment.  The committee than decided, by a 45/20/1 vote that the comments would then go back to an “enhanced” FOG Task Force.  This would be composed of a core of the original task force supplemented by others from around the church, including representatives from this committee.  The report also contains an “unedited” list of comments on the nFOG.

Those are the major items.  There are a bunch of other recommended changes to the Book of Order but these are the high-profile issues.

The PC(USA) General Assembly — Tuesday Afternoon Update

Leave a reply

A quick update on where some committee items stand at this moment

The nFOG committee has decided that the substitute motion will be the main motion.  While the recommendation is not finalized, and there are some interesting polity issues embedded in it, as pointed out by the ACC representative, the committee wants the PC(USA) to send to churches and presbyteries the nFOG report and form a new task force to consider the responses and revise the FOG revision for the 219th GA.

The Mission Coordination and Budget Committee spent much of the day on item 08-21 about allowing the GAC to have some control over designated funds at the Foundation.  It is not resolved yet, but the sense of the committee is that they will recommend a proposal to have GAC and Foundation work out their differences.  It has gone back to the writing committee and they will consider a new/final version at the end of their docket.

Finally, last I checked PC-biz, the Committee on Polity was debating 04-08, the Baltimore overture to change the definition of marriage from between a man and a woman to between two people.  There is a substitute motion to comment and keep the current wording.  Results as they become available.

The PC(USA) General Assembly — Tuesday Noon Update

2 Replies

At noon on Tuesday the numerous committees are in a variety of places.  Asking around it looks like Christian Education will finish up early this afternoon.  Health Issues has a few items to finish up and then it will get to its last item, single-payer health care.  Like that is going to be finished any time soon.  Mission Coordination and Budget is moving along and will probably finish at a reasonable time. But that has got to be ground-zero for the PC(USA) institution since almost all the top professional and elected members of the GAC are sitting in there.  And church polity before lunch had just finished their open hearings on the definition of marriage and were beginning on the two items on equal rights for the families of same-gendered partners.  Get the caffeine ready there as well.

I’m currently sitting in Form of Government revision, they are calling it nFOG in the committee, where they are SLOOOOOWLY moving to referring it back to the whole church for study and comment.  There is a substitute motion that they have yet to perfect so I don’t know what that is about at the moment.  The question they are laboring through at the moment, with an amendment to the amendment to the main motion, is trying to decide who will deal with the comments.  It is of course whether it will be the original task force or if a new body who will figure out who the new body’s members will be.  The amendment is in bold on the screen and the amendment is in red.  They spent the morning deciding on how they were going to decide how to move forward.

The amendment just failed but another amendment to the amendment is now being moved.  If there could be an amendment to the amendment to the amendment this committee would have it.

One of the YADs opened his question with “I haven’t seen the substitute motion in a very, very long time.”

More later as they dig themselves out of this.

The PC(USA) General Assembly — What are they thinking?

9 Replies

Committee 13 – Theological Issues and Institutions voted yesterday on the overtures to change the Heidelberg Catechism.  There were three overtures to consider with three different approaches.  The committee chose the simplest, but, as far as I can tell, an unconstitutional approach.

Just for reference the Book of Order has this to say about changing the Book of Confessions:
G-18.0200

2. Confessional Documents
a . Amendments to the confessional documents of this church may be made only in the following manner:
(1) The approval of the proposed amendment by the General Assembly and its recommendation to the presbyteries;
(2) The approval in writing of two thirds of the presbyteries;
(3) The approval and enactment by the next ensuing General Assembly.
b . Before such amendments to the confessional documents shall be transmitted to the presbyteries, the General Assembly shall appoint a committee of elders and ministers, numbering not less than fifteen, to consider the proposal, of whom not more than two shall be from any one synod. This committee shall consult with the committee or governing body (or in the latter case an agent thereof) in which the amendment originated, and report its recommendation to the next ensuing General Assembly.

The committee recommendation is that item 13-06 be approved and answer items 13-04 and 13-05.  This overture basically says, just make a few specific changes in five of the questions in the Catechism.  The others were two versions within the system required by G-18.0200.  The Presbyterian News Service article on this is not helpful on this polity nuance.

There was disagreement because 13-06 was approved 33/26/2.  The vote to have the other two overtures answered by this one was 40/6/12.

In the adopted recommendation there is no mention of the amendment process, no mention of even sending it to the Presbyteries.

I would love to have been there because I figured that 13-06, being contrary to the Book of Order as I understand it, would be quickly defeated.  I would like to hear what discussion the committee had.  What advice did they get?  What is their reasoning that this is decent and in order?

I’m sure all of this will come out in the committee report to the full Assembly and I can’t wait to hear the polity logic on this one.

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.

PC(USA) membership statistics for 2007

3 Replies

In conjunction with the convening of the General Assembly the Office of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has released the membership statistics for 2007.  While it is tempting to say “same old, same old” and move on, there are a couple of numbers in there to be looked at.

The first item, and one that has bugged me in the past, is that while the number of members and the number of churches has been declining the number of ministers and candidates for minister keeps increasing.  Now, the increase in ministers is pretty small this year, only 8 which would be 0.04%. But with more ministers for fewer people and churches will this stretch the resources?  Is there a significant number of these ministers going into non-parish ministry?

The second observation is that while there is an increase in the loss rate of members and churches, it is not a spike like some were expecting.  Now, that higher rate can be expected to continue for at least this year, but it is only a bit higher than last year.  The PC(USA) lost 46,544 members in 2006 and 57,572 members in 2007.  That corresponds to a 2.0% versus a 2.5% loss.

But in reflecting on these numbers I began to wonder how some of the churches that are departing are being accounted for.  If there is a “true church” remnant that stays PC(USA) I would expect that the number of churches would remain the same and only the loss of members included.  What if a church “disaffiliates?”  It was not dismissed so if there is no “true church” I would expect that it would fall into the category of “dissolved” which rose from 56 in 2006 to 71 in 2008.

The OGA has issued a press release talking about the numbers.  The first thing that jumped out at me was the statement:

Of those congregations that submitted their annual numbers, the total loss in membership was just over one percent from 2006.

Sorry, I’m having trouble with this statement;  I can’t make the membership loss numbers come out to 1%.  As I say above, the total membership drop is 2.5%. 

In the statement PC(USA) Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick expresses “disappointment” at the loss of members, but he is “encouraged” that giving is up.  Let’s look at that.

Contributions for 2006 were $2.133 billion and for 2007 were $2.162 billion, an increase of $29 million.  Fair enough.  That equates to a contribution increase of 1.4%.  But the CPI change for 2006 was 4.1% so inflation adjusted giving was down 2.7%.  Things look a little better if you consider giving per church, which increased 2.1% and giving per member which increased 4.0%, almost at the rate of inflation.

Interestingly, the Presbyterian Church in America just released their membership statistics at their GA earlier this month.  (Please remember, I use the PCA numbers because in general PC(USA) churches that depart do not go there.)

In 2007 the PCA grew from 1648 to 1666 churches, an increase of 1.1%.  Similarly, membership grew from 338,873 to 342041, an increase of 0.9%.  (2006 Statistics, 2007 Numbers in the clerks report)

I’ll tackle some of these implications another time, but for now the decline in the PC(USA) continues unabated.

The 218th General Assembly of the PC(USA) — Reflections on the Moderator Election

Leave a reply

The election of the Moderator of the General Assembly is the highest in “high-drama” that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has.  The room was comfortably full.  A row of seats near me held the past Moderators in attendance. And the webcast was followed by people around the country, in spite of the time differences.

First, my sincere thanks to all four candidates for standing for Moderator.  This is an awkward position in our polity: campaigning for an office when the office is supposed to seek the candidate.  But all did it well, respectfully, and decently and in order.  There is an important value in having choices because in the discussion, debate, and thought about the selection we not only chose who will lead us, we air the topics that are on our hearts and help focus our thinking about these issues.  In this respect alone these four men have done a profound service to the denomination.

Second, my highest respect for Elder Roger Shoemaker and his stand for Moderator.  As the only elder in the group, including the Vice-moderator candidates, he made an important statement by being willing to take the time and commit himself to being willing to be elected to the office.  As I now see our biennial GA’s play out I am becoming more concerned that with a two year term of office we are pricing elders out of the market.  The first question that was asked last night was very profound.  The question, as reframed, was about how each candidate would balance the role of Moderator with their other professional and family responsibilities.  Bill and Bruce pretty much said that their churches have the depth that they could take time away from them for the term.  Carl had an interesting twist that in his specialized ministry his role as Moderator could actually enhance that ministry to allow him to work on it at a higher level.  Roger flatly replied “I don’t have a church.”  This reveals two things: the bias of our thoughts about Moderators being ministers, and the near necessity of elders needing to be retired to take on the position.  (Note: I am not saying that there was this bias in the question since the question was actually asked of Bruce and is very legitimate considering his church and family circumstances.  However, the question needed to be reframed because all candidate get to answer each question.)

What concerns me is that while this is a major commitment for any servant of the church to take on, as Bill and Bruce demonstrate, it is easier for a minister to go to their session and figure out a way to make it happen.  If I were to go to my employer and try to work something out it would have to involve a big chunk of vacation time.  I’m pushing the boundaries enough right now as Vice-moderator of a synod.  For most elders, serving as Moderator of the General Assembly is something that can only be reasonably considered in retirement, especially with a two year term.

And during the Q&A each candidate showed their style.  Bill was the master at answering questions and addressing it back to the person asking the question.  Carl was ever ready with one of his profound and moving experiences.  Roger was true to his straightforward and “down home” approach.  And Bruce was lively and humerous when appropriate and serious and profound when he needed to be.

The other thing that struck me last night was that Carl’s late wife Marsha was mentioned only once, briefly in his nominating speech.  I do owe everyone an apology because in retrospect I should have mentioned her passing last month in this blog but I never got to it.  While I was not expecting any significant mention to be made, none the less I was both impressed and intreagued that so little was said.  I will leave it at that, but belated condolances to you Carl, you have been in my prayers.

When last we met…
I signed off last night just after the election results were announced and Bruce declared the new Moderator.  Following that Bruce and all the members of his family were escorted on stage for the installation service.  One of the moving parts of the service was the prayer of installation that was lead by Bruce’s mother and his oldest daughter.  The cross and stole were passed and Bruce began following the script. (Yes folks, for all these formal occasions, and in fact any thing that can be scripted, there is a script.)  Then the outgoing Moderator and Vice-moderator were thanked and all the former Moderators in attendance came on stage to be recognized.

The one additional comment that I would make is that when Bruce came back into the room and at one other point the stage crew turned on all these wild disco or light show lights.  While the event should be celebrated, Bruce was installed in a worship service, I guess I feel the light show trivializes it, or at least makes it more like the person is seeking the office.  That’s my $0.02.

And in closing on this topic, Bruce has cited me as “painfully fair.”  Don’t expect that to change brother.



Now, on to some analysis.
In a previous post when I referred to Bruce as a “YAD magnet” I was half joking.  I did not realize how prophetic that was.  On the first vote Bruce got 61% of the YAD vote (107 out of 163 votes) with the remainder somewhat evenly spread across the other three candidates.  I did not get the exact numbers from the second ballot, but they were pretty much the same.  Yes, once again the YAD’s called it on the first ballot.

Talking with my son this was no surprise to him.  He said that the buzz among the YAD’s had been so much about Bruce that this outcome with them was totally expected.  Get ready for Moderator 2.0.

But the commissioners are what really count.  On the first ballot it was Mazza 102, Reyes-Chow 341, Shoemaker 14, and Teng 250.

One the second ballot it was Mazza 52, Reyes-Chow 390, Shoemaker 7, and Teng 255.

While I usually think that these things are complex, in this case I am fairly comfortable figuring the very similar numbers do reflect the actual shifts:  Mazza lost 50, Reyes-Chow gained 49; Shoemaker lost 7, Teng gained 5.  In the Q&A, particularly the questions on inclusivity, we saw that Mazza and Reyes-Chow favor ordination and Teng and Shoemaker do not.  Shifts between these candidates in these positions would be logical.

But does this mean we have 262 conservatives and 442 liberals with us this week?  No, there are so many factors in play here that I don’t think we can make that call.  I know that among the YADs there were multiple evangelicals who were comfortable enough with Bruce to vote for him.  I would expect the same among the commissioners.  Bruce brought a freshness, vitality, and humor to the Q&A, as well as an honestness, that I think there were many “slightly right” commissioners who were led to him.  And please don’t read this as a purely political statement.  I do believe that the Holy Spirit was working in the Assembly last night and Bruce is the man for this time.

Having just denied purely political thinking I will take the risk and look ahead to the Stated Clerk election.  From what I saw last night I’m thinking Gradye Parsons will be the sucessful candidate.  While I do know Gradye the best of the four, he does strike me as the one with the most freshness and vitality like Bruce showed.  If the same dynamic plays out that would favor Gradye on top of his experience in the system.  But I’ve been wrong before.  Stay tuned.

The PC(USA) General Assembly — Live Blogging Moderator Election

4 Replies

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 updates 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 Evening, June 21, 2008
The 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
7:00 
— The commissioner chairs are filling up.  People are filing in.  The observer section is about half full.

The session begins with greetings from the Reformed churches in Europe given by the representative of the Swiss Reformed church.

There were some problems this afternoon with PC-biz so one or two items from the Committee on Bill and Overtures were postponed until this evening so that all the commissioners could have the items in from of them.  Talking to my son it looked to him like server overload.  The refresh button would work for a while and then the system got slower and slower until he got an “unavailable” message.  Then the cycle would start all over again.  We will see what it does this evening but bringing new servers on-line is not something they will be able to do over dinner.  We will see.

They just announced that network changes have been made so only the commissioners and delegates have PC-biz access.  But when asked it the commissioners could get it the answer is a resounding “no.”  It looks like few of the commissioners can see it.  The item is abandoned for today.

Election of the Moderator
The Moderator election will get underway shortly.  The Moderator candidates each had four minutes to speak at the Outlook Dinner.  Bruce Reyes-Chow went first and told a funny story on himself as part of his presentation.  Entertaining and on target about the need to understand each other.  Roger Shoemaker went second and told a funny joke but not a personal relevance.  His speech, while interesting and heartfelt was probably the weakest of the four.  Carl Mazza followed him and was right on message as seen in his answers in the information booklet.  He began with, and interwove, a personal experience from his homeless ministry into his remarks.  If he keeps this pattern tonight he will touch a lot of commissioners.  Bill Teng finished the remarks and began with a hat tip to the Outlook and then well delivered remarks about the focus of the church.

The nominations begin:
(Note, I will be covering both the nominating speech and the candidate speech in the same section although all four nominating speeches are given before the candidates speech.


The nominating speech is emphasizing his connection to youth and the younger face of the church.  But they also talk about his service to the denomination, but with few specifics.  He respects the Reformed tradition but encourages dialog between diverse people.

In Bruce’s comments he begins with his Presbyterian roots and how previous generations, and Abraham, did not know the future but stepped out into it.  Is there anything too hard and too wondrous for God?  He concentrates his whole speech on the “new realities” and the future of the church.  Strong, well delivered, and tightly focused speech.  Shows a lot of passion for this.  (Wild applause from his fan base in the observer section.  He is local after all.)


The nominating speech is talking about Carl’s heart and “mission in action.”  His hands-on experience and his presence with the people.  “Leadership that lives and breaths the Gospel.”

Carl begins with two principles:  Commitment to Jesus Christ and to the mission in the world.  He was the result of mission, a Presbyterian church led him to Jesus Christ.  Tries to return the gift of honest conversation and relationship.  Then he gets into a mission story, the same one about a 14 year old girl that prayed at one of the shelters.  That leads into his big finish about being loved by God.  (His speech was a bit shaky in the middle, but once he launched into the story he spoke boldly, clearly, and passionately.)


The speech is being given by Tamara Letts, Bill’s Vice-moderator candidate.  She emphasizes his commitment to the denomination, service to the church, and love of church and commitment to its unity.  Also, his Presbyterian heritage and his multicultural background.

Bill opened with his theme of “In gratitude and hope.”  It is gratitude for what God has done that sends us out to share the love and hope of Jesus.  He repeats his theme that, if elected, he will spend the two years traveling about telling the stories of what Presbyterians have done in the past.  He too shares stories, these about the people touched by missionaries to China, including his own grandfather.  His big finish is the closing lines from the Brief Confession of Faith.


Begins with the parable of the fig tree and the tree as a symbol of Roger’s candidacy.  The church’s roots need to be nurtured and sometimes need to be thinned out.  The church needs to be cultivated and pruned, and he rattles off what Roger has done for the church.  (Hate to say it but this speech did not connect with me.  Too much time on trees in Nebraska and not enough on Roger himself.)  But the big finish was a nice connection to the healing trees in Revelation.

Roger begins with a declaration that he will be guided by the Book of Order and Book of Confessions.  He then talks about how we must live as the body of Christ to exhibit Christ to those who enter our midst.  Our witness is both financial and our presence with people.  Wants to be in conversation to find ways to grow our church.  Do we work together to save the tree or stand by and watch the tree slowly die. (Trims speech because of time but still ran way over.  Should have left it at the “work together to save the tree.”)

Questions and Answers (one hour)
1)  The question is addressed at Bruce but is reworded to be generic:  If elected Moderator how will your current ministry be covered.
Bruce:  Talks about his church, but does not answer question about ministry too directly.  The church is excited and the church style allows his absence
Carl:  Meeting Ground might enjoy some relief from him after 26 years.   But the ministry is about bringing churches together so it does not take away from his ministry but actually enhances it.
Bill:  His session has agreed to having him away 2 Sundays a month and Associates and Pulpit Supply are available.
Roger:  “I don’t have a church”  He as at a place where he can do this.

2)  How would you describe a “missional orientation?”
Carl:  The members of the church are interested in doing mission.  We need to find new ways of doing mission.
Bill: God is the God of the mission.  We do not originate but are sent in partnership with Jesus.
Roger:  The church has become a group that is willing to take a risk and love the unlovable.  Need to find ways to do it.
Bruce:  This means an institutional shift.  One thing to say, another to do.  The revised FOG moves us from prohibiting to empowering because the presbytery and people know the context.

3)  Question from a YAD about inclusivity and especially ordination.
Bill:  We as a church need to be inclusive.  Ordination involves a call to be affirmed by a wider group so it is not “inclusivity” but “fitness to serve.”
Roger:  Tough question made tougher by the narrow focus on the GLBT community.  Need to work with Book of Order and Confessions.  To make progress we first need to take down other walls.
Bruce:
  “No elephants in the room.”  Personally believes it should be extended to all people, but accepts that is now where the church is.
Carl:  Difficult and hurtful issue.  To move forward with this there must be unity.  His mission gives him a “broad understanding of humanity.”  Unflinchingly in favor of full inclusion because he has seen the hurt that denial of ordination has caused.  If mission is the goal we can get past this and with a fuller understanding of who God is we will agree on inclusion.

4) What is the Gospel
Roger:  The good news of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  (That was all he said)
Bruce:  The good news of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus
Carl:  Similar to Bruce but adds that we become a new creation.
Bill:  Includes much of the above, but adds transformation because of the sacrifice of Jesus.

5) With our ordination standards a particular person feels like “Jesus is being taken away from me.”  Given that, how do we grow the church
Bruce:  “Does anyone else want to go first?”   Can we really agree to disagree on this issue?  We can make Jesus real when we deal with issues like this with transparency.  People outside of the church can tell when we are not being real.  In being real we can grow the church.
Carl:  In doing mission together we are transformed.  The church must be a place of safety to come together and risk.
Bill:  The Gospel is for all people and is transformational.  God has a whole-person claim on all of us.  In this case, need to work with the person about what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ.
Roger:  Jesus calls us all and no person or body can take Him away.  But we need to work together to find answers.

Editorial notes:
The observer section is now full.
There are definite trends in answers: Bill giving a diplomatic opening to his answers, Bruce using humor to break the tension, Carl going back to his mission experience and its role in transformation, and Roger having a brief and sometimes weak or indirect answers.

6)  What do we say to members in small declining churches, particularly in small communities.
Carl:  Small churches are important.  Need talented and visionary leaders to work with them.
Bill:  Viability is not an issue of size but about the impact the church has in the community.
Roger:  Any of you also every preach to a congregation of 5?  Need to work at partnering small churches in small communities.  (Having just commented about weak answers he came up with an interesting one.)
Bruce:  Need to ask tough questions and be honest.  Is a church living in the past?  Need to ask hard questions about if a church is doing the mission of God in their context.

7)  What does the global church have to teach us?
Bill:  Has experience overseas and in developing countries the church today, like the early church, is counter-cultural.  We should not be too comfortable where we are.  Need to get out and share our faith.
Roger:  We need to meet the basic needs of our international friends and understand how they see us.  Maybe we can learn something from them.
Bruce:  We need to hear the world view of others, different ways of being.  Helps us understand the “fullness of life.”
Carl:  The strength of faith and simplicity of worship in undeveloped countries has a lot to teach us.  They also have a lot to teach us about peacemaking from their experience as the victims and marginalized.

8)  The church seems to be moving from personal righteousness to social and global issues.  What is the balance and what are the implications.
Roger:  Personal relationship comes in building blocks that are also tied to what we do in the world.
Bruce:  The two issues are not mutually exclusive.  Personal connection to God can be manifest in many ways including social causes and discipleship.  We can push each other in these different areas.
Carl:  Through many different experiences has grown in his spirituality.  By relating to a hurting brother we enhance both of our personal relationships with God.
Bill:  I am a hypocrit if I can’t love my neighbor but work for peace globally.

Time up, we move to the vote:

First ballot:
Advisory:  YADS: Bruce Reyes-Chow by a wide margin, 107 votes with 23 for Carl, 10 for Roger, and 23 for Bill.

Commissioners:  No majority.  Bruce 341, Bill 250, Carl 102, Roger 14.  Bruce got 48% and Bill got 35%.

The system is being reset for the second ballot.  Prediction:  Carl’s votes go to Bruce, Roger’s votes go to Bill.  Bruce wins in the next ballot or two.

Second ballot:
Advisory:  About the same.  I did not write fast enough.
Commissioners:  Bruce Reyes-Chow is the Moderator of the 218th General Assembly
Bruce 390, Bill 255, Carl 52, Roger 7

We now proceed to the installation.
I’ll finish the live blogging here and post pictures and a reading of the tea leaves in the next 12 hours.