Friday, July 9, 2010
I like this priest !!
Once you get past the stuff about the flowers, it does get very interesting. See how an ecumenical advisory delegate perceives the PCUSA's GA deliberations.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
There is hope!!
At this weeks Christian Life Conference, the morning inspiration speaker talked about Lamentations, and how in Lamentations there was an underlying theme of hope. At that conference, there were prayers offered up for the commissioners at the GA, prayers that those attending would have the Holy Spirit move them to preserve the traditional teachings of the church.
Today, the GA voted on the overture to remove the fidelity and chastity provision of the PCUSA Book of Order. The vote was 53% to 47% for, 373 to 323 with 4 abstentions. This vote was far less than what was final at the 218th GA on the same question.
UPDATE: Later in the session, the GA approved a motion to include both the majority and the minority report on marriage in the study to be sent to churches. Then after a vote to disapprove three separate overtures that asked the GA to restate the traditional PCUSA view of marriage, a motion was made to use the approved minority and majority studies to answer the rest of the overtures under committee 12. Those overtures had been recommended for a floor vote as amended, and would have opened the door for authorized same-sex ceremonies.
The rational for using the action on the study to answer all remaining overtures was that the GA had just recommended this paper to the entire church with recommendations for its use, and to try to pass overtures which then affect the entire church and make the study moot, is illogical.
I suspect that there was rejoicing in some areas, and gnashing of teeth in others.
There is Hope !!
Today, the GA voted on the overture to remove the fidelity and chastity provision of the PCUSA Book of Order. The vote was 53% to 47% for, 373 to 323 with 4 abstentions. This vote was far less than what was final at the 218th GA on the same question.
UPDATE: Later in the session, the GA approved a motion to include both the majority and the minority report on marriage in the study to be sent to churches. Then after a vote to disapprove three separate overtures that asked the GA to restate the traditional PCUSA view of marriage, a motion was made to use the approved minority and majority studies to answer the rest of the overtures under committee 12. Those overtures had been recommended for a floor vote as amended, and would have opened the door for authorized same-sex ceremonies.
The rational for using the action on the study to answer all remaining overtures was that the GA had just recommended this paper to the entire church with recommendations for its use, and to try to pass overtures which then affect the entire church and make the study moot, is illogical.
I suspect that there was rejoicing in some areas, and gnashing of teeth in others.
There is Hope !!
Why do we have YAADs again ??
As to emphasize the point I made in two previous posts, as I was watching the video feed from the 219th GA tonight I saw something that should make every Christian who believes John 14:6, whether liberal, moderate or conservative weep.
As I watched the nFOG floor debate, one Teaching Elder who was speaking in opposition to the nFOG brought up that the Foundations part of the nFog does not clearly affirm the teaching of John 14:6, and smacks of universalism, that is, there are more than one path to God.
In favor of the nFOG, a YAAD spoke up, and was talking about her feelings as a "young adult", which wasn't a problem, but then she addressed the previous speaker's universalism comments.
To paraphrase:
I don't think that that is against scripture and our teachings
I rest my case !!
UPDATE: I'm surprised no one told me that I had TAAD instead of YAAD in my title. I guess everyone knew what I meant ;)
As I watched the nFOG floor debate, one Teaching Elder who was speaking in opposition to the nFOG brought up that the Foundations part of the nFog does not clearly affirm the teaching of John 14:6, and smacks of universalism, that is, there are more than one path to God.
In favor of the nFOG, a YAAD spoke up, and was talking about her feelings as a "young adult", which wasn't a problem, but then she addressed the previous speaker's universalism comments.
To paraphrase:
I don't think that that is against scripture and our teachings
I rest my case !!
UPDATE: I'm surprised no one told me that I had TAAD instead of YAAD in my title. I guess everyone knew what I meant ;)
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
180 degrees out-of-sync!
As I try to follow what is going on at the GA, while trying to enjoy a brief R&R away from home, I keep seeing what appears to be the major disconnect between what the average PCUSA member believes, and what the GA votes on.
What I find interesting is that while a majority of presbyteries defeated the last overture trying to amend the Fidelity and Chastity amendment, a majority of members in the committee voted to approve the latest attempt to remove it, sending it to the Plenary session with its concurrance.
Even if you remove the 17 TAAD votes (grrrrrr) it still would show a majority of around 5 to 6 yea votes over the 17 nay. Why is this happening ??
Aa I was riding in a car in the N.C. mountains with my father-in-law (a Presbyterian elder) and his wife, along with my wife, we were talking about this, and I postulated the following:
As we all know, most of the elders who attend presbytery meetings are those saints of the church who are usually retired and female. This is not being stereotypical, just stating a fact that I have seen for myself at a few Presbytery meetings at Plodding Presbytery. This, coupled with the fact that many meetings are scheduled for weekdays when most men and women have to work, results in the majority of those attending being those who are: 1. Retired and can get to the meetings, and 2. specialized clergy who don't have pastoral duties that tie them to a church.
So, the resulting makeup of the meeting are those with a liberal leaning agenda, elders who want to be 'kind' and not hurt anyone, or those who really do not have a good grasp of the biblical/theological underpinnings of much of the Book of Order.
Am I stereotyping the 'specialized' clergy, not really, a read of the Presbyterian Panel results on some issues show that most specialized clergy lean to the left on issues, and most pastors lean to the right. As far as my opinion of the elders that attend Presbytery, that is my opinion based on the meetings I attended in what is considered a conservative presbytery.
So how does that result in the commissioners we get at GA? Again, many times its done because the person is available to take a week off, not because they are the best person for the job or that they will represent the views of the majority in the presbytery. In many cases, the kindly saint who has attended every Presbytery meeting for the past 8 years is selected as a 'reward' for her faithful attendance or service.
And when they get to GA they vote because they believe that the committee who wrote the report put a lot of time into it, and it should be approved; or that they are swayed by the passionate view of one of the TAADs, who knows that the Jesus I know would not do that .. (see my previous post's rant about TAADs).
Then, how are people assigned to the different committees ?? Are the assignments done in order, that is, pick a name, fill a position on committee 1, then the next goes on committee 2, and so on; or is there a pick and choosing of who goes where??
A few posts ago, I talked about how I felt that that Presbyterians Today had injected itself into the controversy about the Belhar Confession when it printed a glowing review in the edition prior to the GA. I'm sure a free copy of the issue or a reprint made it into the hands of many commissioners.
At that time, I said I believed the 'fix was in'. Looking at how the many votes against Biblical faithfulness happening in the committees, can anyone show me where I'm wrong??
What I find interesting is that while a majority of presbyteries defeated the last overture trying to amend the Fidelity and Chastity amendment, a majority of members in the committee voted to approve the latest attempt to remove it, sending it to the Plenary session with its concurrance.
Even if you remove the 17 TAAD votes (grrrrrr) it still would show a majority of around 5 to 6 yea votes over the 17 nay. Why is this happening ??
Aa I was riding in a car in the N.C. mountains with my father-in-law (a Presbyterian elder) and his wife, along with my wife, we were talking about this, and I postulated the following:
As we all know, most of the elders who attend presbytery meetings are those saints of the church who are usually retired and female. This is not being stereotypical, just stating a fact that I have seen for myself at a few Presbytery meetings at Plodding Presbytery. This, coupled with the fact that many meetings are scheduled for weekdays when most men and women have to work, results in the majority of those attending being those who are: 1. Retired and can get to the meetings, and 2. specialized clergy who don't have pastoral duties that tie them to a church.
So, the resulting makeup of the meeting are those with a liberal leaning agenda, elders who want to be 'kind' and not hurt anyone, or those who really do not have a good grasp of the biblical/theological underpinnings of much of the Book of Order.
Am I stereotyping the 'specialized' clergy, not really, a read of the Presbyterian Panel results on some issues show that most specialized clergy lean to the left on issues, and most pastors lean to the right. As far as my opinion of the elders that attend Presbytery, that is my opinion based on the meetings I attended in what is considered a conservative presbytery.
So how does that result in the commissioners we get at GA? Again, many times its done because the person is available to take a week off, not because they are the best person for the job or that they will represent the views of the majority in the presbytery. In many cases, the kindly saint who has attended every Presbytery meeting for the past 8 years is selected as a 'reward' for her faithful attendance or service.
And when they get to GA they vote because they believe that the committee who wrote the report put a lot of time into it, and it should be approved; or that they are swayed by the passionate view of one of the TAADs, who knows that the Jesus I know would not do that .. (see my previous post's rant about TAADs).
Then, how are people assigned to the different committees ?? Are the assignments done in order, that is, pick a name, fill a position on committee 1, then the next goes on committee 2, and so on; or is there a pick and choosing of who goes where??
A few posts ago, I talked about how I felt that that Presbyterians Today had injected itself into the controversy about the Belhar Confession when it printed a glowing review in the edition prior to the GA. I'm sure a free copy of the issue or a reprint made it into the hands of many commissioners.
At that time, I said I believed the 'fix was in'. Looking at how the many votes against Biblical faithfulness happening in the committees, can anyone show me where I'm wrong??
Friday, July 2, 2010
General Assembly
The General Assembly will be starting tomorrow about 24 hours from when I finish this post. I'm not one to mince words, so I really don't think that much is going to surprise me as I also believe the fix is in.
[Rant Mode ON]
What's that, you say ?? Well, when you have as many overtures and issues being discussed as the PCUSA has presbyteries, you can't expect each and every commissioner to understand the reasoning, or the issues behind them. They will rely on staff notes which often means that they will get a biased view of whatever overture or report they're going to be looking at.
Eh ?? Biased ?? Of course!! Most of the specialized clergy and staff are liberal, so trying to get a balanced report from most of the PCUSA staff is near impossible. There are small pockets of moderates and conservatives, but they're kept out of the areas that really have power.
Then you have the advisory committees such as the one for women, who couldn't resist putting in their two cents on the Middle East report, or giving rational on overtures that have no basis in theology or reformed thinking.
Finally, you get to my favorite nitpik, the Young Adult Advisory Delegate. These advisors who have no real life experience, get to vote before most every vote at the plenary sessions. Most of these advisors barely have a working knowledge of the Bible, let alone the Book of Order, and vote based on their feelings. Yet, they can influence the votes of many at the GA simply based on the 'feeling' that these young people are the future of the Church and if that what they feel, it must be right.
This is a result of the PCUSA's drift from the basis of the Reformed Christian faith. We have become so progressive that anyone's feelings or beliefs have validity, even when those feelings and beliefs go against a few thousand years of tradition and faithfulness.
This is why a break is going to come, and the PCUSA had better decide whether it will be gracious in its view toward separating churches, or will be needing to find money to pay for lawyers.
Churches will leave, rest assured more members will leave, what will remain might as well merge with the UCC, as there won't be much difference.
[Rant Mode OFF]
Where will I be this weekend? I along with others will be at the Presbyterian Mecca, Montreat for the Christian Life Conference sponsored by Presbyterians for Renewal; where we'll pray for the Commissioners at the GA and the PCUSA in general.
I fully expect to see that there will be some interesting Presbytery meetings this coming year.
[Rant Mode ON]
What's that, you say ?? Well, when you have as many overtures and issues being discussed as the PCUSA has presbyteries, you can't expect each and every commissioner to understand the reasoning, or the issues behind them. They will rely on staff notes which often means that they will get a biased view of whatever overture or report they're going to be looking at.
Eh ?? Biased ?? Of course!! Most of the specialized clergy and staff are liberal, so trying to get a balanced report from most of the PCUSA staff is near impossible. There are small pockets of moderates and conservatives, but they're kept out of the areas that really have power.
Then you have the advisory committees such as the one for women, who couldn't resist putting in their two cents on the Middle East report, or giving rational on overtures that have no basis in theology or reformed thinking.
Finally, you get to my favorite nitpik, the Young Adult Advisory Delegate. These advisors who have no real life experience, get to vote before most every vote at the plenary sessions. Most of these advisors barely have a working knowledge of the Bible, let alone the Book of Order, and vote based on their feelings. Yet, they can influence the votes of many at the GA simply based on the 'feeling' that these young people are the future of the Church and if that what they feel, it must be right.
This is a result of the PCUSA's drift from the basis of the Reformed Christian faith. We have become so progressive that anyone's feelings or beliefs have validity, even when those feelings and beliefs go against a few thousand years of tradition and faithfulness.
This is why a break is going to come, and the PCUSA had better decide whether it will be gracious in its view toward separating churches, or will be needing to find money to pay for lawyers.
Churches will leave, rest assured more members will leave, what will remain might as well merge with the UCC, as there won't be much difference.
[Rant Mode OFF]
Where will I be this weekend? I along with others will be at the Presbyterian Mecca, Montreat for the Christian Life Conference sponsored by Presbyterians for Renewal; where we'll pray for the Commissioners at the GA and the PCUSA in general.
I fully expect to see that there will be some interesting Presbytery meetings this coming year.
Redecorating
Every so often I'll come over here and decide to change the look of the blog. Blogger has introduced a new 'template designer' feature, so I used it to select this template, and to do some tweaks.
It'll last about six months before I get tired of it again ... ;)
It'll last about six months before I get tired of it again ... ;)
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Lost all respect !!
The other day I received my copy of Presbyterians Today, the magazine of the PCUSA. I understand that the mag is designed to present information about the PCUSA in as best a light as possible. However, I always believed, based on previous articles that were not so flattering, that it was fairly independent.
I've lost all respect for that idea after this edition.
As many Presbyterians who take the effort to find out what's going on in the PCUSA know, one of the issues coming up in the General Assembly this year is the adoption of the Belhar Confession as one of the Confessions of the Church. Belhar was written at a very specific time in the South African church. It deals with a form of racism that really is not part of the PCUSA today. Adding it as part of the Constitution of the PCUSA, which the Book of Confessions is, is not necessary as the other part of the Constitution, the Book of Order, is very specific about the requirements for racial inclusion.
However, in many orthodox Presbyterian minds, that is not why its being brought forward for inclusion. Dr. Richard Mouw explains why here. Viola Larsen has been going over Belhar in a series of posts here. The inclusion of Belhar is not a done deal, so there has been advocacy done by those for and against. Frankly, I've seen more from the for group, than the against.
So, what does that have to do with my lack of respect for the editors of Presbyterians Today ??
After reading all my favorite areas of the magazine, especially Best of the Blogs by fellow Presbyterian blogger Quotidian Grace. I started to read the rest of the magazine. There as part of a 10 Part Series on the Confessions of the Church is an article on the Belhar Confession by a member of the Special Committee on the Belhar Confession.
In the article J.C. Austin gives the three questions that must be answered for any addition to the Book of Confessions. Then he answers them all in the affirmative. However, the questions he asks, are really not what the Book of Confessions itself says about adding a new confession:
The Assessment of Proposed Amendments, PCUSA Book of Confessions
Ok, so its a puff piece about Belhar, what does that have to do with my losing respect ??
Because there is NO rebuttal by an opposing voice, and neither can there be any that would be available to any GA Commissioner prior to the GA. All they see is a very affirmative piece, with no criticism of the reasoning behind the piece.
Considering that the Belhar is not even part of the Book of Confessions, including it in a 10 Part Series on the Confessions of the Church is being presumptive at best, since there are only 9 current Confessions in the BoC (which includes the Larger and Shorter Catechisms), and manipulative at worst.
Then there's the timing of the piece. I had missed the 2 previous pieces on the Confessions, but I'm assuming that if they were done in order, they would have been the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed. Even if they were only doing the actual Confessions, the Belhar would not have been the next in line.
No, this piece, was planned for this edition to appear right before the GA. In this action the editors of P.T. have shown that they are just as political as the rest of the GAMC in advancing an agenda that does not reflect the thoughts of the majority of Presbyterians in the pews.
I had just resubscribed to P.T., having accidentally let the subscription lapse, thinking that I would get some good information I could take with a grain of salt. Taking a teaspoon of salt would not make this article less palatable. I think I'll let my subscription lapse after this year.
And so it goes ....
I've lost all respect for that idea after this edition.
As many Presbyterians who take the effort to find out what's going on in the PCUSA know, one of the issues coming up in the General Assembly this year is the adoption of the Belhar Confession as one of the Confessions of the Church. Belhar was written at a very specific time in the South African church. It deals with a form of racism that really is not part of the PCUSA today. Adding it as part of the Constitution of the PCUSA, which the Book of Confessions is, is not necessary as the other part of the Constitution, the Book of Order, is very specific about the requirements for racial inclusion.
However, in many orthodox Presbyterian minds, that is not why its being brought forward for inclusion. Dr. Richard Mouw explains why here. Viola Larsen has been going over Belhar in a series of posts here. The inclusion of Belhar is not a done deal, so there has been advocacy done by those for and against. Frankly, I've seen more from the for group, than the against.
So, what does that have to do with my lack of respect for the editors of Presbyterians Today ??
After reading all my favorite areas of the magazine, especially Best of the Blogs by fellow Presbyterian blogger Quotidian Grace. I started to read the rest of the magazine. There as part of a 10 Part Series on the Confessions of the Church is an article on the Belhar Confession by a member of the Special Committee on the Belhar Confession.
In the article J.C. Austin gives the three questions that must be answered for any addition to the Book of Confessions. Then he answers them all in the affirmative. However, the questions he asks, are really not what the Book of Confessions itself says about adding a new confession:
When the proposed confession is a historic document, the church should understand
the original circumstances of formulation and reception. Additionally, the
contemporary need for the confession and the possibilities for reception should be
demonstrated. Then, the value of the historical confession should be tested by a
period of reception in the church. A confessional statement should prove itself
foundational to the church’s faith and life before it is proposed for inclusion in the church’s confessional standards.
The Assessment of Proposed Amendments, PCUSA Book of Confessions
Ok, so its a puff piece about Belhar, what does that have to do with my losing respect ??
Because there is NO rebuttal by an opposing voice, and neither can there be any that would be available to any GA Commissioner prior to the GA. All they see is a very affirmative piece, with no criticism of the reasoning behind the piece.
Considering that the Belhar is not even part of the Book of Confessions, including it in a 10 Part Series on the Confessions of the Church is being presumptive at best, since there are only 9 current Confessions in the BoC (which includes the Larger and Shorter Catechisms), and manipulative at worst.
Then there's the timing of the piece. I had missed the 2 previous pieces on the Confessions, but I'm assuming that if they were done in order, they would have been the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed. Even if they were only doing the actual Confessions, the Belhar would not have been the next in line.
No, this piece, was planned for this edition to appear right before the GA. In this action the editors of P.T. have shown that they are just as political as the rest of the GAMC in advancing an agenda that does not reflect the thoughts of the majority of Presbyterians in the pews.
I had just resubscribed to P.T., having accidentally let the subscription lapse, thinking that I would get some good information I could take with a grain of salt. Taking a teaspoon of salt would not make this article less palatable. I think I'll let my subscription lapse after this year.
And so it goes ....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)