Day 1: Gauging the Tone

The 220th General Assembly formally convened at 1:30 on Saturday with our opening sevice of worship.  This was the first time in many assemblies that worship was the first item of business, and it seems to have helped set the tone of this assembly as one that is civil, if lacking in energy.

There appears to be less stridency on both the right and the left at this Assembly.  The only demonstration I have witnessed today is one outside the convention center by the “Israel Palestine Mission Network” – one of the more extreme pro-Palestinian advocacy groups.  The tone of commissioners asking questions of the four moderatorial candidates was less anxious and less confrontational than has  previously been the case.  Similarly, the moderatorial candidates were uniformly pastoral and conciliatory.

The relatively subdued -- perhaps even somber -- tone of the first day might be due to any number of reasons:  a battle-weariness across the church, the near-daily stories of dismissed congregations, the frail (and rumored failing) health of outgoing moderator Cynthia Bolbach, who moderated from a wheelchair sporting a fedora to cover the loss of her hair due to advancing cancer.

The big item of business, of course was the election of the moderator.  Neil D. Presa, Pastor of Middlesex Presbyterian Church in Middlesex New Jersey was elected on the fourth ballot in what proved to be a somewhat lackluster election.  None of the candidates knocked it out of the park in the speeches or Q & A before the assembly, and none really defined themselves in a way that made them stand out.  Each candidate’s base support was largely stable, resulting in the need for four ballots to reach a majority.  Presa’s candidacy was successful despite the recent controversy surrounding his Vice Moderator, Tara Spuhler McCabe, a teaching elder who recently officiated a same-sex wedding in Washington, D.C.  She won’t be the first controversial Vice Moderator we have elected.

Presa, pastor of Middlesex Presbyterian Church in Middlesex, New Jersey, was the most poised of the candidates in the Q & A round.  He answered a question about handling conflict by a story of (literally) herding cats in the church parking lot that was unique and engaging.  Even so, the response in the hall to his election was warm but not enthusiastic.

The blooper reel today was provided by our often controversial but never dull outgoing Vice Moderator Landon Whitsitt.   While moderating the training of commissioners on the electronic voting system, he misspoke (accidentally, I think), twice.  First, when he asked the commissioners to vote for categories of gender and ordination status, he asked them to declare their “gender and orientation.”  Next, when one missionary advisory delegate obviously had entered a mistaken vote, he commented, “How can we trust missionaries with the gospel (if they can’t handle the voting pad)?”   Before the words were out of his mouth, his brain engaged and he immediately reframed the remark, but the damage was done, and I expect the Layman will run the headline, “Vice Moderator says missionaries can’t be trusted with the gospel.”

Cuteness prize:  Moderator Presa’s prayer of installation was offered by his young sons.  They prayed for their father, the church, the Assembly, and “the people of Colorado and those fighting the fires there.”  Amen, young man, amen.

How to Watch a General Assembly, Part 2

Serious "GA junkies" follow the business of the Assembly closer than a bookie follows the ponies. They have identified those items they want to follow, scoped out the best seats in the gallery, and customized their "home page" on pc-biz. Pray you don't become one of them.

Seriously, the constitutionally essential function of the General Assembly is its consideration of the various reports, overtures, requests, and referrals that come before it. The Stated Clerk will undoubtedly announce the number at some point, but typically it can reach 400 distinct items of business. That's a lot to process in five and a half days.

The sheer volume of business places a great responsibility on the standing committees that make recommendations to the plenary assembly on each item of business. There are 20 such committees this Assembly, with an average size of 45 commissioners and advisory delegates in each. The assignment of commissioners to committees is determined by computer, and although it is not entirely random it is not biased.

The schedule of each committee is posted on pc-biz and is typically the same: introductory matters on Sunday evening, open forums Monday morning, and then the tasks of deliberating and making recommendations on each item before them, wrapping up before dinner Tuesday. (It is not uncommon for some committees to work into Tuesday night.) Committee leadership will typically organize the agenda to begin with relatively non-controversial matters to assist the group in building confidence and community. Assembly goers should plan to sit in on two or at most three committees. Otherwise, you lose the ability to follow the dynamics of each committee.

This year, commissioners will be seated by committee, not presbytery, in the plenary assembly. There is no clear rationale for why this is so. In my opinion, it only makes the work of presbytery staff trying to support their commissioners much more difficult, and makes it more difficult for each presbytery's commissioners to develop as a community.  [UPDATE: The Assembly organizers have heard the concerns about this arrangement and have returned to seating commissioners by presbytery.]

Plenary convenes after lunch on Wednesday and will process every business item except for final budgets by Friday night. A good moderator makes a tremendous difference in how smoothly and civilly the plenary sessions are. At the last Assembly, the moderator was so efficient that items of business were processed faster than the Assembly could keep up, resulting in a record number of votes for reconsideration.

The sheer size of the assembly hall can make it difficult as a visitor to track the proceedings. There are television monitors around the convention hall where it is often easier to see and hear the proceedings. The chairs are often more comfortable too.

After attending 12 assemblies, I have noticed there are some "stock characters" that show up at each meeting: the chastising EAD, the angry elder, the rainbow liberal, the ambitious TSAD, the crying YAAD. They will all be there this year too -- all part of the gloriously diverse community that makes a General Assembly. I am one of those people too - the "polity wonk." During the committee time, I will be serving as the Advisory Committee on the Constitution resource to assembly committee 5 (Mid Councils Review). During the plenary I can be found directly behind the commissioners near the corresponding members microphone, where the ACC is seated. Feel free to stop by during breaks and say hi. I will keep my daily journal of reflections on the Assembly and its business as the drama unfolds. I hope you will keep reading.

How to Watch a General Assembly, Part 1

The first GA I attended was the reunion Assembly in 1983, the year I graduated seminary. I drove the 800 miles from Princeton to Atlanta with two classmates.  We had no idea what to expect at the Assembly, and no map by which to navigate the GA experience.  In the end, it was still a worthwhile excursion (it led to my first call in Boise, Idaho), but when I hear stories from others about that momentous occasion, they remind me of how much I missed due to my lack of awareness and preparation.

So I offer this post as something of a map for other GA newcomers.

To begin, when we say the General Assembly is a three-ring circus, it is not just a metaphor.  There are actually three different assemblies happening simultaneously.  In the first ring of the Assembly is the Family Reunion.  This is the focus of the first two days, and is by far the most fun part of the Assembly.  It is not only the best opportunity for veteran Assembly-goers to reconnect with friends from across the denomination, it is also the time when people are most open to making new connections.  The only major item of business is the election of the new moderator.  There are plenty of worship and fellowship events going on.  If you are coming to the Assembly to witness the diversity of the church, this is the best time to come.  Don't miss the opening worship celebration or the election and installation of the new moderator.

The second ring of our circus is the Mission Fair.  This takes place principally but not exclusively in the Exhibit Hall, where every ministry, mission, and interest group of the church has its booth, and representatives to help you understand their work.  I encourage visitors not only to browse the exhibits, but to use them as a chance to get a true education in the work of the church. The representatives are eager to answer even the most basic inquiries.  What does PILP do?  Why do we have an Office of Immigration Issues?  What are the concerns facing military chaplains?  Veteran assembly goers know that they can pick up a year's supply of post-it notes, pens, and other take-aways with a single tour of the hall, not to mention all the candy you can stomach.  You will want to stop in at the bookstore and the SERVV international craft shop. Whether or not you want to spend much time in "Advocacy Alley" -- where the various advocacy groups in the church promote their agendas for the church -- may depend on your tolerance level for political conversation.  The Exhibit Hall closes early -- on Wednesday -- so don't wait until the last minute to check it out.

Related to these first two "rings" are the many ticketed events and open houses that are listed in your Assembly schedule.  Open houses are a good opportunity to find food and drink on a limited budget.  The price of the hors-d'oeuvres is at least feigning an interest in whatever group is hosting the event, but I have usually found them worthwhile.  Most ticketed events require advance purchase, but if you don't have a ticket, or can't afford convention center event rates, don't despair.  Keep an eye out for extra tickets that may appear on the bulletin boards by persons who "overbooked" or changed plans.  If there is an event or speaker you absolutely must see, don't hesitate to ask at the door if you can just "sit in" for the speaker.  Sometimes, they might even invite you to enjoy the meal as well.  Be sure to offer at least a token gift in return, if you can.

I will leave the third "ring" of the Assembly -- the business ring -- for my next post.

Top Ten Issues before the Assembly, Part 10

Disclaimer: The opinions contained herein are my own and are not intended to represent those of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution or any other person or entity.


Number 1: Same-sex Marriage


At last we come to the most important / volatile / newsworthy issue facing the 220th General Assembly:  same-sex marriage.  The magnitude of this issue can't be overstated.  Apart from the social and theological significance of redefining a fundamental social institution, the impact of this decision for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) could be felt for generations.

First, let's review the business before Assembly Committee 13 (an ominous number, not that Calvinists believe in bad luck). The fourteen overtures and requests before the Civil Union and Marriage Issues committee fall into three categories, with minor variations among overtures in each category:

1. Those that seek to amend W-4.9001 to change the definition of marriage from a covenant between "a man and a woman" to one between "two people."
2. Those that seek to obtain an authoritative interpretation of W-4.9000 (the whole section on marriage) that would allow pastoral discretion to perform a marriage when requested by two persons who have obtained a civil marriage license.
3. Those that seek to reaffirm or reinforce the present definitions and restrictions on marriage.

Like most highly conflicted issues, this one is not nearly as clear-cut as it may appear, and the nuances are likely to be lost in the politicized rhetoric of the extreme factions of the church.  On one hand is the traditionalist stream who point out that the Confessions and the Bible prescribe a single understanding of marriage (between one man and one woman), which shall be definitive for the church.  On another hand is the experientialist stream of the church which argues that changing social situations require adapting our pastoral care to meet the changing needs of church members.

In response to the traditionalists, it should be pointed out that the "biblical" definition of marriage as between "one man and one woman" is pretty slippery.  Not only was polygamy tolerated (Solomon had 700 wives and was uniquely favored by God), it was in some cases required (e.g., Levirate marriage). Moreover, the biblical context of marriage was a culture in which women were regarded as property, biological influences on sexual orientation were unknown, and the economics of lineage and inheritance mandated strict control of marriage, sex, and procreation. Social historians point out that our modern image of marriage and family is more the product of the Victorian era than the Bible.

Pastorally, Presbyterians have usually accommodated changes in society, choosing to defer to pastoral judgment regarding spiritual counsel and pastoral care.  This has been true of changing attitudes towards divorce, contraception, abortion, single parenthood, and premarital sex, just to name a few.  The contexts from which have arisen the requests for change are ones in which pastors are caught in the bind of telling faithful members of congregations that while the state may recognize and bless their relationships, the church which has been so central to their life and faith will not.

Constitutionally, there is an argument to be made that the language of W-4.9001 is descriptive, not prescriptive, and that even if it is regarded as mandatory, there are many mandatory provisions of the Directory for Worship that are widely ignored or flouted with little or no objection or consequence (e.g., the restriction of Holy Communion to baptized persons only).

But in response to the experientialists, it may be pointed out that (1) the church has not yet come to consensus about whether or not homosexuality is a sin, much less about whether or not it can be blessed by God through marriage; (2) arguments based on legalized same-sex marriages or changing social mores are not incumbent upon the church, which exists in prophetic tension with secular society; and (3) the biblical debate about homosexuality notwithstanding, there is no direct biblical evidence to support same-sex marriage.

But perhaps the most compelling arguments against permitting same-sex marriage (either by amendment or authoritative interpretation) are ecclesiastical and ecumenical. Without a doubt, the ecclesiastical consequences of changing the definition of marriage will be devastating -- far greater than changing ordination standards.  Those members and congregations which are struggling to remain loyal to a denomination which they believe has betrayed them on ordination will leave, quickly and en masse. I have been advised in my own presbytery, which has managed with difficulty to stay together after the adoption of Amendment 10-A in 2011, changing marriage will result in the loss of churches constituting at least 40-50% of our membership. It is also likely that the trickle of ecumenical partners who have broken fellowship with us over permitting the ordination (in individual circumstances) of "unrepentant" homosexuals will become a flood if we redefine marriage.

The Advisory Committee on the Constitution has advised that if the Assembly wishes to address the issue of same-sex marriage by changing our current practice, it should do so by constitutional amendment rather than authoritative interpretation.  You may read the ACC rationale in its advice; but from a purely ecclesiastical perspective, this issue is so volatile that any change made unilaterally by the Assembly without the consent of the church through the vote of the presbyteries will have the effect of permanently affecting the credibility and trust of our polity in the eyes of a large segment of our members and leaders.

I don't know if the committee dealing with marriage issues was assigned the number 13 by coincidence or design, but even for us Calvinists, it is an ironic if not foreboding sign of an issue which appears to have no win-win outcome for the church.  Your prayers are invited for the committee, the Assembly, and the whole church.

Top Ten Issues before the Assembly, Part 9 (Revised)

Disclaimer: The opinions contained herein are my own and are not intended to represent those of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution or any other person or entity.


[Ed. note:  Sorry for the delay and problems reposting.]

Number 2: Mission Affinity and "Porous" Presbyteries

This is the second issue from the Mid Councils Commission to make the top ten list.  In addition to the elimination of synods (number 4 on my list), the Commission is recommending a "season of experimentation" with creative models of presbytery formation and mission. Recommendation 6a of the Commission Report proposes temporary changes to our Constitution that would allow ten or more congregations within an existing synod and sharing a common mission purpose to be formed into a new presbytery.  Recommendation 6b proposes temporary changes that would permit individual congregations in a presbytery to be transferred to another presbytery in the same or an adjoining synod with the consent of both presbyteries and the affected synods.  The former might be called "mission affinity presbyteries" and the latter "porous presbyteries."

I have had the privilege of serving as a constitutional resource to the Commission, and will serve as an ACC liaison to the Assembly Committee considering the report.  It is not my intention in this post to advocate for or against the recommendations, but rather to discuss their significance for the church and let the Assembly make its own determination about the merits of the recommendations.

Recommendation 6 is the most provocative recommendation of the Commission to fulfill its charge “[to] develop models that reflect the roles of middle governing bodies in our polity and the changing context of our witness in the United States and their relationships with other governing bodies.”  Previously, non-geographic presbyteries have been permitted only for the purpose of addressing the needs of racial ethnic communities.  Recommendation 6 would create the possibility of more flexible and fluid presbyteries organized around mission, and would allow individual congregations to be transferred to another presbytery for any reason deemed sufficient by the affected presbyteries and synods. 

I have heard concerns around the church that mission affinity and porous presbyteries will really be an opportunity to realign congregations into ideologically homogeneous presbyteries, where each can apply their own interpretations of Scripture and the confessions regarding sexual behavior in matters of membership, ordination, and discipline.  While this was NOT the intention of the Commission as I observed its work, the attraction of this recommendation as a possible remedy to the division within our existing geographic presbyteries is palpable, and the concerns are real.  I know this to be true from conversations within my own very polarized presbytery.  If Recommendation 6 is implemented merely as a means of maintaining the larger unity of the church through what amounts to “schism-in-place,” then neither the aims of the report nor the witness of the church to Christ’s reconciling work will be served.

As a precaution against abuse, the season of experimentation incorporates some protections, most notably the requirement that the petitioning congregations present an acceptable mission plan, and that the presbytery of origin must concur in any decision of the experimental presbytery to divide, dissolve, or dismiss the congregation, or to sell, lease, or transfer real property.  (This is intended to protect against so-called "wormhole" presbyteries to which a congregation might seek a transfer merely to be dismissed from the denomination on more favorable terms.)

Nevertheless, the creation of such presbyteries would have significant potential to affect our practice of governance.  As Reformed Christians, we believe that the human tendency to sin and self-interest distorts our perception of the divine will.  For that reason we need the perspectives of those who are different from us in order to correct our biases. The model of increasingly diverse councils in regular gradation assures us that we more reliably discern the divine will as we appeal to more inclusive (higher) councils.  When those higher councils are formed not on the basis of increasing diversity but on affinity, the ability to correct our false perceptions is truncated, and we may even compound our misperceptions.  Indeed, the more we rely on affinity models in governance, the more likely we are to create divisions, not only of theology or ideology, but of race, ethnicity, wealth, and power also.  By contrast, racial ethnic non-geographic presbyteries were designed as temporary measures to enhance, not marginalize, the voice of minority communities in the larger church.

I for one wish that we could consider the mission possibilities of the overtures in a different denominational context than the one we currently have.  Then we could honestly assess the merits of the proposals.  Unfortunately, to many, the proposals currently have the ring of a "quick fix" to our chronically anxious denominational family system.  Whether that drives the consideration of the Commission’s proposal remains to be seen.

Next:  Number one! (No surprise there, I assure you.)

Top Ten Issues before the Assembly, Part 8

Disclaimer: The opinions contained herein are my own and are not intended to represent those of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution or any other person or entity.

Number 3:  Israel, Palestine, and Divestment

It is the perfect storm for controversy:  religion, politics, money, and power.  The issue of selective divestment from companies profiting from "non-peaceful pursuits" in Israeli-occupied Palestine is an explosive mixture of all four.

At the center of the controversy is a report from the Mission Responsibility through Investment (MRTI) Committee of the General Assembly Mission Council.  This is a report of work-in-progress on directives made by the 216th General Assembly (2004) to undertake a process of corporate engagement to support the church's response to reported military and civilian injustices by Israel in Palestinian territories.  The injustices are long-standing and well-documented actions of Israel engaging in military occupation, destruction of Palestinian communities, expanded seizure and Israeli civilian settlement of Palestinian territory, and various forms of control, harassment, and oppression of Palestinians within their own territory.  The MRTI report carefully documents its engagement through dialogue, shareholder resolutions, and formal communications with several American manufacturers it believes have been engaged in profiting from such non-peaceful pursuits.  The directives do not distinguish between non-peaceful pursuits on behalf of Israel or Palestine.

The report to this Assembly recommends divesting from three companies following a determination that the corporate engagement process has been unsuccessful in changing corporate policy.  Those companies are Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard, and Motorola Solutions.  It also reports on progress with other corporations which have ceased the offending practices or fall under another category of consideration.  It should be noted that "divestment" is the last step of a long process of investigation, communication, and evaluation of corporate responsiveness, activity, and progress.  It  typically is a phased process of liquidating and redirecting church-held corporate securities.  The General Assembly has some invested funds which are obligated to follow the directives of the Assembly.  Much larger holdings of the Presbyterian Foundation and the Board of Pensions are merely advised by the Assembly, but generally adhere to MRTI directives with some allowances.

Like an ocean liner coming into harbor, the MRTI report is accompanied by a flurry of presbytery-initiated overtures endorsing, amending, or opposing the report.  One of these calls for a determination that Israel is engaging in "apartheid" -- a term I was surprised to learn has an international standard of application.  Others, principally from presbyteries that have ongoing interfaith engagement with Jewish faith communities, call for more moderate measures, or for abandoning the MRTI process altogether.

Taken collectively, the Presbyterian portfolios can constitute significant holdings in some companies.  (One anti-corporate shareholder resolution endorsed by the PCUSA and the United Methodist Church represented almost 10% of shareholder proxies.)  However, the impact of this report goes beyond Wall Street.  The very powerful pro-Israel lobbies are already mounting public relations campaigns to discredit the PCUSA and its reports.  I was first introduced to the power of these lobbies in 2004 when the original directives were adopted, and members of my own extended family wanted to know why Presbyterians "were anti-Semitic."  The position of these lobbies is that any criticism of the state of Israel or of the theology of Zionism constitutes Antisemitism, a racist ideology against Jews.  There is also a huge concern about the application of the "apartheid" label against Israel as this could not only change geo-political sentiments (as was the case with South Africa) but could also trigger a snowball effect of economic divestment and actually enforcing the international sanctions against Israel that already exist.

Opponents of the divestment process sometimes accuse the PCUSA of being duped by Palestinian public relations, and for discounting the security risks posed to Israel by Palestine and its allies in the Middle East.  The MRTI report does not deal with the military or security issues; it is merely reporting on progress made on directives by an earlier Assembly.  Persons wanting to debate those issues most likely will find the Assembly committee resistant to moving into business not on the agenda.

If previous Assemblies are any indication, any actions that might emerge that are supportive of divestment or critical of the state of Israel will make national news.  Apparently, there are still some people who care about the public influence of the PCUSA.

Next:  Missional Affinity and "Porous" Presbyteries?

Top Ten Issues before the Assembly: Part 7

Disclaimer:  The opinions contained herein are my own and are not intended to represent those of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution or any other person or entity.

Number 4:  The Elimination of Synods?

One of the most anticipated items before the Assembly is the report of the Mid Councils Commission (formerly the Middle Governing Bodies Commission).  It is an extensive -- in some ways, monumental -- report with multiple recommendations.  The recommendations of concern in this post are numbers 1-4, which propose the elimination of synods as "ecclesiastical councils of the church."

First, some background on the Commission. The commission was formed as a response to an overture from the Synod of the Southwest, and a parallel request from the Office of the General Assembly in 2010.  Its charge included consulting church-wide on the mission and function of mid councils (presbyteries and synods) and "develop[ing] models that reflect the roles of middle governing bodies in our polity and the changing context of our witness...." It consists of 21 persons, with at least one representative per synod.  I served as constitutional resource to the Commission on behalf of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (see disclaimer above!!!). 

The originating overture was concerned with the financial viability of some synods and sought to find creative ways of doing the business of synods.  However, another overture in 2010 sought to eliminate synods altogether, and was "answered by" the action forming the commission.

The Commission report recommends (1) that the Book of Order chapter on synods be struck in its entirety, to take effect at the end of the 222nd General Assembly (2016); (2) that certain ecclesiastical functions of synods be assigned to five regional administrative commissions of the General Assembly; (3) that the judicial functions of Synods be assigned to an unspecified number of regional judicial commissions; and (4) that the Office of the General Assembly send to the 221st General Assembly (2014) the necessary editorial and enabling amendments to accomplish the first three recommendations.  The report envisions that synods could continue to exist as "multi-presbytery partnerships" to perform missional and fiduciary functions.

The elimination of synods would constitute a major change in our polity. There is nothing in our polity that requires synods, per se.  Nevertheless synods have performed important functions for nearly 300 years (if approved, they would be dissolved on the 300th anniversary of the formation of the first colonial synod).  Some synods have extraordinarily large foundations and trusts; others have been engaging in vital mission.  Synods have historically performed an important function in monitoring and enforcing our commitment to racial-ethnic inclusiveness.  I am told this is the sixth attempt since reunion in 1983 to eliminate synods.  Synods have survived for a reason.

The Commission seeks to advance a polity that is more "flat, flexible, and faithful."  It may well be time to reconsider the role of synods, which for the typical pew-sitter are the least comprehensible councils in the church.  However, the Commission's recommendations are flawed in some key points:

• The "Pig in a Poke":  The Assembly (and potentially, the presbyteries) are asked to vote on a plan to eliminate synods without seeing the specific plans for what would succeed them.  Without seeing how regional administrative and judicial commissions would be structured, how they would be composed, and what specific powers they would be given, there is a lot of trust being expected from the church at a time when distrust is at a peak.
• Timeline:  Transition plans from existing synods would need to be submitted to the 221st General Assembly (2014), only one year after the vote to eliminate them might be decided.  The plans would have to be implemented by the 222nd General Assembly (2016).  If there are problems or controversies surrounding these plans, or if the enabling amendments are defeated, or implementation of transition plans hit a snag in the civil arena, it is entirely possible that there could be multiple situations where ecclesiastical or civil jurisdiction could be in question or even non-existent come July 2016.
• K.I.S.S.:  not the 80's rock band, but the acronym for "keep it simple, stupid!"  Is it really simplifying our polity to eliminate synods in favor of two separate commission structures of the General Assembly and numerous "multi-presbytery partnerships"?  An alternative proposal from the Presbytery of St. Andrew would commit to reducing the number of synods from 16 to as few as six.  That might be a more elegant solution.
• Experimental Presbyteries:  Another recommendation in the report calls for a season of experimentation with presbytery structure, allowing for certain non-geographic and "porous" presbyteries to be established.  The merits of this proposal will be discussed in a future blog post, but for our current discussion, let me point out that if the presbytery recommendations are adopted, it would increase the need for strong synod structures to oversee the new presbyteries and address issues that may arise.

Will this be the time when synods are finally eliminated?  Perhaps, but don't bet on it.  My personal assessment of the church tells me that the Assembly (or, perhaps the presbyteries) will vote between the choices of eliminating synods or adopting non-geographic presbytery models.  But even if the decision to eliminate synods fails, it is a better-than-even bet that the St. Andrew overture, reducing the number (and possibly function) of synods will be adopted.

The Commission has nevertheless done extraordinary work, and has challenged the church to rethink our ecclesiastical structures.  The above issues may be worked out in committee, or some form of compromise accommodation may emerge.  Or, the Assembly may move forward anyway, issues notwithstanding.  What is clear to me, however, is that the church is indeed headed toward a more flat, flexible, and faithful governance, even if the timing and stops on our journey may not be set at this time.

Next:  Israel, Palestine, and Divestment

Top Ten Issues before the Assembly, Part 6

Disclaimer:  The opinions contained herein are my own and are not intended to represent those of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution or any other person or entity.


We continue our countdown with number 5:  The Funding Crisis, Budgets, and Offerings

Fourteen years ago, Loren B. Mead of the Alban Institute published the book Financial Meltdown in the Mainline? in which he looked at giving trends and the denominational organizational structures and spending patterns and drew the inevitable conclusion.  I think few would disagree that Mead's warning has come to pass.

On the whole, giving patterns have taken on a more consumerist orientation.  Denominational mission support has shifted from 90% undesignated to 90% designated gifts.  Mission is increasingly coordinated at a congregational level.  Support for historic special denominational offerings has waned.

The General Assembly Mission Council, which oversees the mission program of the General Assembly, has had to adjust to the new realities with multiple staff and program cuts, the adoption of targeted mission priorities, and increasing direct-to-donor funds development.

Among the most controversial adjustments has been the assessment of an administrative fee on designated gifts, made necessary by insufficient undesignated gifts to cover the costs of mission administration.  This began as an across-the-board 5% assessment a few years ago, but with this year's mission budget, the assessment has been gauged on a program-by-program basis, resulting in fees as high as 19% on some programs (such as theological education).

Likewise, the special offerings of the church are poised to be an area of considerable debate.  The GAMC has proposed shifting from funding programs (read: Presbyterian Hunger Program, Self-development of People, Presbyterian Disaster Assistance, etc.) to funding priorities, with the distribution of receipts determined in-house based on a review of particular ministry effectiveness.  In addition, the fall Peacemaking Offering is slated to be replaced by a Global Mission Offering.

It is not uncommon for an Assembly to have a dark horse issue which comes from out of nowhere and explodes at the Assembly.  Depending on how well the leadership at GAMC has soothed the ruffled feathers of those whose ox is being gored by the administrative fees, the usually ho-hum Mission Coordination Committee could be the surprise battleground for slices of an ever-shrinking denominational mission pie.

Next:  The Elimination of Synods?

Top Ten Issues before the Assembly, Part 5

Disclaimer:  The opinions contained herein are my own and are not intended to represent those of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution or any other person or entity.


Number 6:  Biennial Assembly Review Report

Assembly Committee 4 will be considering the report of the Biennial Assembly Review Committee, a work ten years in the making.  When biennial assemblies were introduced at the 214th General Assembly (2002), the enabling overture called for a review to be conducted after the 219th Assembly (2010) and reported to the 220th Assembly (2012).  This is the report of that committee.

The report has eight recommendations, some of which are relatively non-controversial (e.g., giving plenary time to prayer, bible study, and community-building) while others could change the work of the Assembly in major ways.

Of greatest import is Recommendation 3 ("Regarding Concurrences for Overtures and Commissioner's Resolutions").  This would require that any overture originating in a presbytery obtain the concurrence of 10% of the presbyteries before it could be considered by the Assembly.  A similar proportion of synods would have to concur with synod-generated overtures, and commissioner's resolutions would have to be signed by commissioners representing 10% of the presbyteries.

This has wide-ranging implications for our polity.  The sheer number of concurrences (currently 18 presbyteries, all of which must be filed within the existing time deadlines) would have the practical effect of:

• pushing back the effective date of originating overtures, making them less timely and responsive to emerging needs
• placing unreasonable requirements on business affecting only one or a few presbyteries (e.g., transfer of congregations or formation of union churches)
• increasing the partisan impulse by encouraging networks of presbyteries to endorse controversial items.

But of even greater significance is the subversion of the right to appeal to (petition) higher councils that is central to our polity.  Historically, this has meant that a single presbytery or synod could seek clarification or amendment of the Book of Order.  Creating high thresholds of appeal undermines this essential function of our polity, limits the ability to hear minority voices, and enshrines the status quo.

The mechanism of concurrence doesn't make sense either.  There is no apparent correlation between the quality of overtures and the number of concurrences they receive.  In matters of business originating in synods, the timing of synod assemblies could create a major impediment for matters such as the formation of new presbyteries.

The rationale of the recommendation claims there is broad support for "focusing" the business of the Assembly, but less business also means fewer (and larger) committees.  This could well have the result of frustrating commissioners, increasing the relative influence of GA resource persons, and, if only for good stewardship, starting a push for quadrennial assemblies.

Another problematic recommendation is Recommendation 5, which calls for the election of two "Young Adult Commissioners" from each synod.  Technically, they are rotated among presbyteries within a synod based on a synod-approved process.  Nevertheless, since the representational formula is based on synods, they are more properly called synod commissioners.  These are commissioners with full voice and vote.  Not only does this change the composition of assemblies as consisting of representatives of presbyteries, it raises the question, Why limit such commissioners to young adults only?  Why not include other underrepresented voices, such as racial ethnic minorities?  It also duplicates in part the purpose of YAADs, and will undoubtedly resurrect attempts to give YAADs commissioner status.

Other recommendations include suggested themes for upcoming assemblies, changes to moderatorial elections, new consent agenda processes, and the continuation of the Committee for another two years.

Next:  The Funding Crisis, Budgets, and Offerings

Top Ten Issues before the Assembly, Part 4

Disclaimer:  The opinions in this post, as with all posts on this blog, represent the author's opinion only, and are not intended to represent the opinion of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution or any other person or entity.

Number 7: Ordination Standards and Freedom of Conscience

It just wouldn't be a General Assembly without an ordination standards controversy.  The adoption of amendment 10-A in 2011 lifted the categorical exclusion from ordered ministry of those who did not meet the "fidelity and chastity" standard of former G-6.0106b.  10-A restored the church to the same standards of ordination that were in effect for over 250 years -- the consideration of a candidate's manner of life on an individual basis under scripture and the confessions.  In the polarized PCUSA, however, its effects have been magnified by both sides.  Many on both the left and the right regard it as open season for the ordination of gay and lesbian candidates. Others regard it as merely a transitional step on the way to the mandatory inclusion of gays and lesbians.

Which brings us to this year's Assembly.  Historically, the Assembly after a groundbreaking Assembly such as GA 219 is often a "backlash" Assembly.  The "losing" side marshals its forces, pushes for the election of like-minded commissioners and lobbies for a repeal of the offending amendment or policy. This year, however, it appears that the right wing of the church is uncharacteristically in disarray.  Some see the passage of 10-A as a Waterloo moment, and have adopted alternative strategies -- dismissal, realignment, or a freedom-of-conscience firewall.  Others have adopted a stay-fight-win "never say die" attitude.  Yet others have simply surrendered.

The overtures coming to Assembly Committee 7 on Church Orders and Ministry reflect this diversity.  On the right wing, some seek simply to restore the former fidelity and chastity standard in various forms (Stockton, Central Florida, Washington); others seek to finesse the Constitution into requiring or allowing the adoption of specific ordination standards (South Alabama, Foothills); yet others seek to secure and protect the "freedom of conscience" of examining bodies (Stockton II, Santa Barbara).  The last of these are particularly troublesome as they seek to establish a "right of conscience" for councils of the church potentially to act contrary to the Constitution without being subject to review or remediation.  Such a right does not exist in our polity.  Freedom of conscience within limits exists for individuals (G-2.0105), but even then, the ultimate remedy for an unassuaged conscience on a matter deemed essential to faith or polity is voluntary departure from the church, a power that does not apply to councils.

On the left, two overtures (Genesee Valley, Albany) seek to restrict questions posed candidates being examined.  This is an unfortunate attempt to undermine the spirit of 10-A which restored freedom to examining bodies to establish and evaluate candidates on an individual basis.  What is odd is that it tries to appropriate the principle of individual examination to categorically restrict certain kinds of questions, which in my opinion, at least, seems self-contradictory.

And, of course, there are the "Rodney King" overtures asking "Can't we all just get along?"  My guess is that, in the end, these will prevail.  There isn't enough unity and passion on the right to reverse 10-A, and the swing votes in the middle are generally reluctant to reverse an action before it has had a chance to be tested.

Next:  Biennial Assembly Review Report

Top Ten Issues before the Assembly, Part 3

Disclaimer:  As with all posts on this blog, the opinions contained herein are my own and are not intended to represent those of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution or any other person or entity.

Number 8:  Judicial Authority and Compliance

When Bart Simpson was asked which animal he would like to become, he mischievously fantasized becoming a butterfly.  As he put it, "Nobody ever suspects the butterfly!"

There is a butterfly at this year's Assembly.

One of the routine items of General Assembly business is the matter of reviewing compliance with decisions and orders of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission.  This consists of receiving the reports filed with the Office of the Stated Clerk from the stated clerks of presbyteries and synods that the orders contained in GAPJC decisions have been fulfilled.  Often the order is simply to read the decision and enter a summary in the minutes of the particular council.  Sometimes it requires fulfillment of a directive -- reinstating back pay to a wrongfully terminated employee, or completing the order of a lower council that had been stayed by appeal against a defendant who has lost the appeal.

When the GAPJC issues an order, it is a directive that must be followed by the lower church body.  The order is final and binding.  There is no further court of appeal.  Our principles of church government make this authority clear.  F-3.0206 states, "A higher council shall have the right of review and control over a lower one and shall have power to determine matters of controversy upon reference, complaint, or appeal."  (See the footnote to F-3.02 for a more eloquent statement of this principle.)

But what happens when a lower council of the church refuses to obey the order of a higher council through its judicial commission?

That's reportedly what has happened in disciplinary case 220-08, Spahr v. Redwoods, in which the GAPJC upheld the decision of the judicial commission of the Presbytery of the Redwoods that the Rev. Jane Adams Spahr had committed an offense by conducting same-sex marriages.  The order of the presbytery commission was to rebuke Spahr, the lowest level of censure in the church.  Even so, the decision was appealed, ultimately to the GAPJC, which also affirmed the order of the presbytery PJC.

When the time came to report the decision to the presbytery, and to pronounce the rebuke originally ordered by the presbytery's own PJC, the presbytery reportedly adopted a motion opposing the order and refused to allow the order to be carried out.

There are constitutional avenues by which those who disagreed with the decision might have expressed their disagreement:  filing dissents, or even adopting a resolution that expressed their disagreement without obstructing the order.  Instead (again, reportedly) they prevented the order from being executed.

The report of compliance is presented to the General Assembly through assembly committee 6 (Church Polity) as "information."  The report simply states, "This decision was reported at the stated meeting of the Presbytery of Redwoods on May 12, 2012."  This has the appearance of fulfilling the order of the GAPJC.  However, it fails to report whether the order of the presbytery PJC -- i.e., the rebuke -- affirmed in the GAPJC order has also been fulfilled.  To be fair, there may be other compliance mechanisms of which I am not aware that will address the issue of the rebuke.  Absent a clear statement that the rebuke has been pronounced as required, however, an ordinarily routine action of the Assembly in this case is likely to generate considerable interest and controversy.

The issue is greater than merely the ability of the Assembly to enforce compliance with the decisions of its judicial commission. It doesn't even matter if the Assembly believes the definition of marriage should be changed, effectively siding with Spahr's supporters. That isn't the issue either. What is at issue is the connectional and hierarchical nature of our denomination.  If the General Assembly cannot or will not require compliance with a duly ordered directive of the courts of the church, then we no longer have a constitutional government.

It is not clear what power the Assembly has to address this matter of "information."  I expect that there will be one or more commissioner's resolutions addressing the matter.  Even if it is not within the scope of the Assembly's work to address it, this is an issue that will percolate throughout the Assembly, and throughout the church.  Failure to address it will further unravel our constitutional unity.

Sometimes routine items of business contain significant matters of controversy.  Nobody ever suspects the butterfly!

Next:  #7 Ordination Standards and Freedom of Conscience

Top Ten Issues before the Assembly, Part 2

Number 9:  Changes to the Confessions?


This is something of a carry-over from 2008 and 2010.  In 2008, the Assembly approved special committees to make recommendations regarding amending the Heidelberg Catechism (due to mistranslations in the now-famous question 87) and the possible adoption of the Belhar Confession from South Africa.  In 2010, the Assembly approved the recommendation of the Heidelberg committee to work with our partners in the Reformed churches who were already engaged in a retranslation effort.  The Assembly also adopted the recommendation of the Belhar committee to send the confession to the presbyteries for their affirmative or negative votes.  The vote of the presbyteries did not provide the required 2/3 approval to adopt Belhar as a confession of the church.

So at this Assembly, the commissioners are being asked to approve the re-translation of Heidelberg to be sent to the presbyteries for their affirmative or negative votes (with 2/3 necessary for adoption, plus approval of the 2014 Assembly).  I am not a student of 16th century German, so I can't comment on the accuracy of the translation.  There are some interesting changes, at least on a cursory review.  Regarding the aforementioned Question 87, the re-translation removes the unsubstantiated inclusion of "homosexual perversion" as a practice that prevents someone from inheriting the kingdom of God.  The new translation conforms to the original 1563 German version of the catechism. In its report, the committee (which includes Sylvia Dooling of our presbytery) states it was their aim to present a translation as faithful to the 1563 original as possible.  This also led the committee to incorporate the original 1563 scripture citations with the new translation, which neither the CRCNA or the RCA (our Reformed partners) have done.  This is something of a compromise on the translation issue, since the original cites 1 Cor. 6:9-10, which is frequently (mis?)translated as declaring that those who practice homosexuality shall not inherit the kingdom.  So, as far as being "instructed and led" by the confessions, the debate on the meaning of question 87 remains unresolved.

I have to admit I am disappointed that the translators broke up the eloquent first sentence of question 1 into three sentences.  I recognize that people don't write as they did in the 16th century, but if the idea is to present an historically accurate translation, shouldn't the sentence structure reflect that of the original too?  (A similar debate between faithfulness to style and readability also exists in Bible translation.)  I haven't had the opportunity to examine it question by question (why isn't a side-by-side comparison available?), but I look forward to discovering new meanings and translation nuances.

The Assembly has also been asked once again to consider adopting Belhar.  If the Assembly chooses to do so, it will need to restart the adoption process, including appointment of a new special committee to report in 2014, and a vote of the presbyteries by 2015 (and a second approval at the 2016 Assembly).  The vote of the presbyteries in 2010-2011 fell 8 votes shy of the 2/3 necessary for adoption (Plains and Peaks voted no).  The debate last time broke mostly along ideological lines, with moderates and progressives mostly in favor, and conservatives opposed.  Underlying that division are differing assumptions about the role, function, interpretation, and authority of the confessions.  Since the adoption of a "book" of confessions in 1967, the issue of the authority of the confessions has been a sore point in the church.  Conservatives find the authority of the Book a slippery eel that blurs doctrinal standards; Progressives seem happy to regard the confessions as historical relics, with little current authority.  Until we resolve with some clarity and consensus how the confessions function authoritatively in the church, adding more confessions to the mix seems only to increase division and confusion.

Next:  Judicial Authority and Compliance

Top Ten Issues before the Assembly, Part 1

Following the lead of David Letterman, former Stated Clerk Cliff Kirkpatrick used to publish a list of the "top ten" issues before each meeting of the General Assembly.  The issues in 2012 are largely the same ones we have seen in years past, but with some new twists.  I will count down my list of the ten most important / volatile / newsworthy issues over the next few posts.

Number 10: Elections


Ordinarily, the elections of the moderator and (every four years) a stated clerk would rank higher on the list. This year, however, there is little if any energy focused on the elections.  The election for Stated Clerk is a foregone conclusion:  nobody challenged the incumbent clerk, The Rev. Gradye Parsons, who is standing for election to a second four-year term.  My reading of the church tells me this should not be interpreted as a ringing endorsement of Parsons' performance, which has been a mixed bag at best.  On the positive side, his affable, low-key manner has been soothing in times of crisis, and he has kept open lines of communication with the whole church.  On the negative side, he has at times appeared disconnected and indifferent to emerging issues in the church, and failed to provide clear, consistent, and timely messages as the chief executive of our government.  The lack of opposition to his election is more likely a function of timing (who wants to step into the middle of a denominational crisis?) and electoral rules changes that heavily favor incumbency.


Of considerably less long-term institutional significance is the election of the moderator.  The moderator exercises relatively little influence on the course of the church; the principal power of the office lies in the appointment of persons to task forces and commissions between meetings, and to leadership roles at the next assembly.  The election of the moderator this year was made less volatile by the unfortunate withdrawal of the "far left" candidate, Janet Edwards of Pittsburgh Presbytery, due to her husband's serious health issues.  This leaves four  candidates, none of whom have had "celebrity" status in the church.  From right to left (theologically and politically) here are the candidates:


The Rev. Robert Austell, Jr. (Charlotte Presbytery). A teaching elder, Austell describes himself, "I am unashamedly conservative and evangelical in theology, and find the freedom and invitation to be so as I listen and learn from friends of all perspectives inside and outside the church."  In his mid-forties, he portrays himself as a generation-bridger and a reconciler. In practice, he is likely to promote the kind of "gracious witness" policy he produced for the 2010 Assembly that in his own words has morphed into a "gracious dismissal" policy.

The Rev. Randy Branson (Palo Duro Presbytery).  After reading materials on-line and listening to his sermons and reading his blog, I am still puzzled as to what exactly Rev. Branson brings to the position of moderator.  His candidacy can best be described as "conventional" and "pastoral."  He will certainly bring 40 years of ministry experience if elected, and a grandfatherly manner.  His theology is conventional and somewhat pietistic, reflecting his Bible-belt roots in Oklahoma, but there is no edge, either to the right or the left, in his written or preached offerings.  At least his sermons are short.

The Rev. Neil Presa (Elizabeth Presbytery). An institutional/academic candidate from New Jersey, Rev. Presa chaired the special committee on the Heidelberg Catechism, is a former Vice-Moderator of the General Assembly Council, and has served on various ecumenical boards and in theological institutions in addition to his parish ministry.  A former Roman Catholic of Filipino descent, he brings global and ecumenical perspective to his now-Reformed faith. Based on the work of the Catechism committee, he promises to bring the ability to work consensus from a broad range of perspectives.

The Rev. Susan Davis Krummel (Great Rivers Presbytery).  Sue Krummel is one of two "institutional" candidates in the race, having served as the Executive and Stated Clerk of her presbytery and as past moderator of the General Assembly Nominating Committee.  She is also the only candidate I know personally. She is a very capable administrator who understands how the denomination works.  She is a theological moderate, with perhaps some (institutionally) left-leaning tendencies. Above all, she is a churchwoman who leads from the middle.

(It should be noted, however, that neither Krummel nor Presa are ideological progressives in the same vein as Edwards.  They both have endorsements from across the spectrum of the church.  They are "left" more in the sense of their comfort with the institutional status quo than in the sense of ideological liberalism.)

The election of the moderator is notoriously hard to predict.  The performance during the floor examination is crucial, and can make or break candidates (Cynthia Bolbach is an example of the former).  Nevertheless, if I had to guess, I would predict it will come down to a choice between Presa and Austell, who have the strongest credentials on each wing of the church.  Austell may well lead after the first ballot, given that Krummel and Presa may split the early moderate-progressive vote.  If Austell doesn't have a majority on the first ballot, I don't see him picking up many more votes on subsequent ballots, however.  Branson does not seem to be a factor as far as I can tell.  But my opinion and $5 might get you a cup of Starbucks.

Next:  Changes to the Book of Confessions?

Welcome!

Welcome to the third biennial installment of the Insider's Guide to the General Assembly.  The purpose of this blog is not just to report what the Assembly does in Pittsburgh, but to reflect on how it happened and what it means for the church.  If you want to get a sense of how this works, I invite you to take a look at my two previous Insider's Guide blogs, ga218insider.blogspot.com and ga219insider.blogspot.com.

Let me introduce myself.  I am the Executive Presbyter of the Presbytery of Plains and Peaks, located in Colorado and Nebraska.  The presbytery is something of a microcosm of the church, with well-developed evangelical and progressive wings, and a small, beleaguered middle.  Since most of my followers have some connection to the presbytery, the posts may be geared to the issues with which we are dealing, although they will be of general interest as well.

I am also what people call a "polity wonk."  I am completing my six year term on the Advisory Committee on the Constitution at this assembly.  Previously, I served on the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, and am one of a select group to have served on both bodies.  For the past two years I have also served as the ACC liaison to the Mid Councils Commission, and will be resourcing the Mid Council Review standing committee at the Assembly.  You can find a more complete curriculum vitae at my personal website, dansaperstein.blogspot.com.  

Look for pre-assembly blog posts in the coming weeks dealing with how to make the most of a visit to the Assembly, and my annual list of top issues.  Then, during the Assembly, I will post daily updates of Assembly highlights, lowlights, and sidelights.

Hold on tight, this Assembly promises to be one wild ride!!