General Assembly Reflections

I. THE SPIRIT OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY

During my time at GA, I sensed a spiritual struggle, or a number of different spiritual struggles. As with any struggle, different powers had the upper hand at various points during the week.

The Struggle Between Faith and Fear: Will we have faith that God is at work and do our best to cooperate with Him? Or will we allow our fears of the unknown (other people, the future) to dominate our actions and decisions?

The Struggle Between Humble Discernment and Strident Advocacy: As we prepared to make decisions as a group that had many differences, I was overwhelmed by the commitment of many commissioners and delegates to seek humbly and prayerfully to discern God’s challenge and guidance as we worked together. On the other hand, I was dismayed by the stridency with which some people sought to convince others to agree with their agenda. Even when I agreed with the position of some people, their forcefulness troubled me.

The Struggle Between “Justice” and “Truth:” Many of our decisions appeared to be a struggle between “justice,” as some people understand it, and “truth,” as others understand it. I found it unfortunate that these two qualities, which God intends to exist together, were sometimes held up as opposites to each other.

II. THE PEOPLE OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY

One of the highlights of GA was the opportunity to meet such a wide variety of people who are serving God so well in such a variety of settings. Some were old acquaintances that I hadn’t seen for a long time, and others were new to me. I was inspired and excited to learn about the many ways in which people serve God faithfully in our denomination.

III. WORSHIP AT GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Without a doubt, worship experiences were the highlight of GA and literally moved me to tears. Each of the seven worship services were excellent and offered a different style of music and liturgy. Six of the seven sermons were insightful and motivating.

IV. COMMITTEE WORK

The first part of the General Assembly’s work was done by 17 committees, which then reported and made recommendations to the whole assembly. I was assigned to the Committee to Review the Permanent Committees: the ultimate bureaucratic creation! Specifically, we reviewed three of the permanent committees and commissions which do the work of our denomination. Each committee had engaged in three-year self study, and reported their findings to us. Our task was to determine how well they had performed their assigned duties.

PCCE, or the Presbyteries’ Cooperative Committee on Examinations, is responsible for the ordination exams which candidates take as part of the process to become ministers. They did a self-study for the right reasons: to learn how they could do their job better. They had identified four weaknesses in their current process and are already working on ways to address them.

ACREC, or the Advocacy Committee for Racial Ethnic Concerns, is responsible for identifying and dealing with ethnic and cultural issues in our church and society. Apart from what one may think of their purpose (which wasn’t a topic for our committee’s consideration), I have to admit that I wasn’t impressed with the way they organize and conduct their business. They engaged in the process of self-study, but didn’t seem to have learned anything from it.

GAPJC, or the GA Permanent Judicial Commission, makes final rulings on cases that come to them on appeal from presbyteries and synods. We were impressed not only with their meticulous concern to follow proper protocol, but by the spiritual atmosphere in which they do so. It was obvious that they conduct their work in an attitude of worship and prayer, seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit, aware of their role in the Body of Christ. They are earnest servants of our church and seek above all to glorify Christ and to serve his people.

V. PLENARY SESSION

After the committees complete their work, we gathered together into a 100,000 square foot room to receive their reports and to act on their recommendations. As you may expect, this was a lengthy, tedious, and sometimes contentious time.

In addition to the difficulties you might expect when 1,000 commissioners and advisory delegates with different opinions try to deal with the work of seventeen committees, several additional factors prevented us from dealing with issues as well as I would have liked.

• First, ongoing technology issues interfered with the smooth flow of information. The network, which was designed to allow us to view business at hand on our laptops, was overwhelmed. The delays and frequent system crashes slowed us down and caused confusion at various points. How ironic, since we were meeting in the Silicon Valley!
• Second, our deliberative process was handled in such a way that discussion was frequently cut short, even on significant issues. My sense is that this came from a desire to move quickly through a heavy docket, and that many commissioners were willing to vote to end debate prematurely in order to do so. I would have preferred for some presentations and formalities to have been shortened or eliminated in order to allow for more people to speak before votes.

I was pleased with the assembly’s actions on most issues, including several that had the potential to be problematic. Two in particular that seemed to be particularly well handled.

1. An overture calling for “tolerance and peaceful relations between the Christian and Muslim communities” asked the assembly to “state that the PC(USA) affirms that Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship a common God.” Instead, our final action was to “state that though we hold differing understandings of how God has been revealed to humankind, the PC(USA) affirms that, as children of this loving God, we share the commandments of love for God and neighbor, the requirement to care for the poor.”
2. In response to a wide variety of overtures regarding Palestine and Israel, the assembly’s primary action on this subject was a call for “a projected ‘two-state’ solution, a shared Jerusalem, and the human rights of refugees and occupied peoples, and a call to resist extremism and push for reconciliation.”

Additionally, the assembly addressed the issue of civil litigation which has arisen between presbyteries and congregations seeking to leave the denomination. Something like 44 presbyteries are currently involved in lawsuits over this issue; nearly all of which were initiated not by the presbyteries but by the congregations seeking to leave. The assembly voted to provide funds to share the cost of these legal fees. It is projected that this will cost about $2 million, or about a one dollar per member increase in per capita. In order to reduce the potential per capita increase, the assembly will ask for donations to this fund.

Finally, there were two very significant actions by the General Assembly which troubled me deeply, and whose consequences threaten to overshadow the good which came from the assembly. Both of these actions related to the issue of ordination standards, particularly as they are applied to practicing homosexuals. I registered my dissent on both.

1. The assembly voted and has asked presbyteries to approve a change to the Book of Order which would replace G-6.0106b (the “fidelity and chastity” clause) with the vaguer and weaker statement: “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.”
2. The assembly removed all previous authoritative interpretations “concerning ordained service of homosexual church members,” and put in place a new authoritative interpretation which reads, in part: “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).”

The first action needs the ratification of a majority of presbyteries; my hope is that past history repeats itself and they don’t. The second, however, is already in place, although future assemblies could change it. The problem with the new authoritative interpretation runs deeper than the debate about gay ordination. (This is the particular issue which gets the attention. But what about a candidate who doesn’t accept the ordination of women? Or any of a variety of theological differences?) This new interpretation means that each session and presbytery is free to set its own standards for ordination, and that there are no longer any shared principles to unite ordination practices across our denomination. There is no guarantee that a minister’s ordination by one presbytery will be accepted in another presbytery. There is no assurance that an elder who is ordained in one church will be recognized as an elder if he or she moves to a different congregation. The process of “credentialing” ministers as they move from one call to another has become impossibly complex, now that there is no “glue” that holds us together.

I suggest that one rather complex and messy but potentially helpful remedy to this dilemma may be the formation of systems similar to “reciprocal agreements” made between colleges and universities regarding the transfer of course work. In higher education, for example, University A may accept particular credits earned at University B for students transferring from one to another. (These reciprocal agreements are particularly important for students who begin at a community college and plan to transfer to a four-year institution.) Perhaps the potential confusion which could come from the new AI would be mitigated by agreements between certain presbyteries and sessions to accept each other’s ordination standards