A Remedial Case Against the ACC.

In case you are wondering if this blogpost is going to be about college football, the ACC in this instance refers to the General Assembly's Advisory Committee on the Constitution.

The Remedial Complaint, refers to the complaint that was just filed against the ACC by Cherokee Presbytery, three churches in Michigan, and one from Wisconsin.    The complaint is about this (all quotes in orange are from the remedial complaint itself):

That the ACC acted to instruct Assembly Committee 10 and then the plenary of the 221st General Assembly (2014) that the General Assembly had the authority to make an authoritative interpretation that effectively changes the plain and ordinary meaning the Directory of Worship and took other irregular actions after having previously instructed the General Assembly in writing that changes of that type cannot be done.  The outcome of the advice given by the ACC was that Assembly Committee 10 and General Assembly approved an authoritative interpretation that was and is in conflict with the provision of the Constitution being interpreted.

What that paragraph says is that the ACC reversed itself from the time it gave written guidance about the AI overture, to the time it was asked about the constitutionality of such a move at the Committee and at Plenary.

OK, so you're asking yourself why not just go after the AI if its felt to be unconstitutional.   Well, you see there's a slight problem.     There is no way to bring a remedial case against the General Assembly except by bringing one up to the NEXT General Assembly.    

That's right, there is no higher body to appeal to, unlike the US Government, where there's always the Supreme Court to go to in case the Legislative Branch overreaches when it writes a law.   In the Presbyterian System, the General Assembly is the final council/judiciary.     However, you may say, what about the GA Permanent Judicial Commission?    Ah yes .. what about it?      Note the very last work of the name of the GAPJC - Commission .    The GAPJC is, of itself, a commission of the General Assembly.    It, therefore, has no authority over the Assembly that created it.     It does have authority over the other commissions and committees that are created by the General Assembly, such as the Advisory Committee on the Constitution.

The complaint has a number of points, or irregularities, I'll cover two :

• The actions of the ACC, that included and/or resulted in, the giving certain oral advice mentioned (previously in the complaint) to the Assembly Committee and/or plenary of the 221st General Assembly (2014) on item 10-03 constitued an irregularity.    Actions of the ACC that are alleged to be erroneous are proper subject for judicial review -- See Exhibit C1 - PJC 2008, 303, 218-03, Session of Palos Park v. ACC ("the propriety of the ACC's actions ... if alleged to be erroneous, are subject to judicial review by this Commission.") Alleged irregularities in Constitutionally mandated process are also proper subjects for judicial review. Id.
  Basically says that any meetings that may have occurred after the issuance of the written advice on the overture to the GA and before the oral advice given at the GA are irregular.  
• The ACC committed irregularit(ies) when it acted to provide advice to the Assembly Committee and/or plenary of the 221st General Assembly (2014) on item 10-03 (and related items) that was contrary to existing Authoritative Interpretations and/or the sound and important principles of Church polity recited by the Report(s) of the Swearingen Commission (Exhibit A).  The ACC, for example, determined that the text of statements in the Constitution were "clear and unambiguous".  The ACC was also required by an existing AI to "exercise great care  to ensure that any interpretation remains true to the plain meaning and context of the provision interpreted."  See Exhibit I.  And, the ACC advised the Assembly Committee and plenary of the General Assembly that the Assembly may adopt an AI contrary to the "clear and unambiguous" meaning of the text.  Under such circumstances, the ACC's advice is a proper subject for judicial review.   To permit the ACC to act otherwise is tantamount to allowing the ACC to advocate for an amendment by indirection of the organic law of the Church.   Actions of the ACC that are alleged to be erroneous are proper subjects for judicial review. .... 
  
  What they're saying here is that the ACC violated an AI that required it to issue advice based on the existing text of the Constitution.  It also alleges that this also violated Presbyterian polity that had been in place for decades, and reiterated in the 1925 Swearingen Report.

There's a lot more to the complaint, and I can't include it all here.  Especially since its protected from standard cut and paste procedures.  I will be adding more information in later blog posts.    The full complaint text can be found here on ChurchandWorld.com.

Suffice it to say that this complaint covers what I was talking about here when I wrote my blog post about the voting on the AI at the General Assembly, and what the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of Detroit, Ed Koster, had to say about it here.

I'll continue this on the next rock.

... and so it goes!

Day 5 & 6 at the GA

It has been a very busy week, marked by long days and nights, and a profound sadness.

I left off the blog at Day 4, Tuesday, but without listing most of the details.     Suffice it to say that we were not able to sidetrack the Authoritative Interpretation, but were surprised at the gracious conscience clause that was added to the Book of Order amendment by someone who did not agree with our stance.   While it did not change our minds about the amendment, it may make it easier for some to stay in the PC(USA) a bit longer.

The work against the AI was based on the fact that:

1.   The AI is contrary to everything on marriage that is currently in the Book of Order, and
2.   As such, should have been ruled out of order under Robert's Rules by the Stated Clerk before it even reached the committee, then
3.  Since it did reach the committee, it should have been ruled out of order there. 

The fact is that Robert's Rules say that no motion is in order if that motion goes against the body's governing rules, constitution, etc.    If any such motion is not ruled out of order and is passed, the fact is, the motion is still against the rules, and as such is Null and Void!

The ACC representative to the committee kept trying to point to the fact that the 'body' needs to fix the tension, or in other words, the fact it contradicts the constitution, while the point of order was based on the ACC's own comments in the overture that the motion contradicts the constitution, and as such is, in of itself, out of order.

That point was conveniently glossed over.

Day 5 began with the continuation of the Plenary meetings.    Lots of business was not done, as we saw plenty of rah-rah videos and features that were obviously biased to how great we are as a denomination.    It appeared, at least to this  GA commissioner, that it was all playing to the Internet live-stream viewers.     We had started the day thinking that the Committee 10 business would be brought up on Friday morning.   At the beginning of the afternoon session (I believe) Bills and Overtures moved it to Thursday afternoon.

Didn't help those who were trying to craft a minority report, but they got it done for Thursday.  The rest of the day was spent on other committees, but some business was then postponed to Friday, as there wasn't enough time for commissioners to instruct themselves on some of the details brought before them.

Day 6 began with more of the same, a few more things were pushed to Friday evening, Friday afternoon would be the great divestiture debate.

I'm going to skip to the real meet of the day, the Marriage issues.     When the committee business was brought forward, the minority report was put out as an answer to the rest of the overtures.     The matter was discussed, back and forth, and a vote taken, based on that vote, I knew that the votes to defeat any marriage overture was not there.

There was no mushy middle any longer, or at least not at this GA.


When the AI overture was brought up, the same commissioner on cmte 10 who raised the point of order there, brought it up again hoping to get a better answer.   Unfortunately the same ACC resource person gave the same answer as in committee.     The commissioner pressed that this was not a point of order on the constitutionality of the overture, that the ACC had already pointed this out in its advice on the overture, but again, that was glossed over.   He asked for vote to overturn the ruling, soundly defeated.     The point of order tactic was done.

The same commissioner came back to the mic speaking against the motion on the AI, talking about how he joined the PC(USA) because of its bottom up approach to polity, and this was something new, a top down instruction that what it says in the BOO is not what it says it does.

The AI was overwhelmingly approved, probably due to the feeling of the commissioners who, as one YAAD said, felt we were sent here to do something.   

And here I thought we were sent here to listen, understand, consult Scripture, and listen for the Holy Spirit, not do something.     Doing nothing is doing something ...

After that there wasn't a reason to keep on bringing motions in opposition, the commissioner kept the session moving by calling the question on each of the others if and when necessary.   The votes weren't there, some people had drunk the Kool-Aid.  

The funny part of all this is after the AI passed, another commissioner stood up on Point of Order to make sure that the Moderator only calls on a commissioner once on a motion, saying that one commissioner had risen to speak three times on a motion. 

In reality the commissioner had risen once to raise the Point of Order, once to question the ruling and ask for a vote on overturning the ruling, then once to the actual motion.   

This was just one of many incidents that show that many commissioners did not understand how Robert's Rules actually works.

... and so it goes!!

Special Report from GA

On an article about the GA actions on the Marriage & Civil Union committee, the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of Detroit had this to say.


In both cases the Moderator asked for the opinion of the Stated Clerk, who referred the matter to the Advisory Committee on the Constitution. The ACC said that the General Assembly itself has the authority to determine what the Constitution says, and that therefore the point of order was not well taken. The Stated Clerk deferred to the opinion of ACC, and the Moderator declared the objection was overruled. On appeal, the Moderator’s decision was sustained by the Assembly.
This was a significant and momentous event. We have covenants that lay out how we shall govern ourselves. The Constitution gives authority of the General Assembly (by resolution or judicial decision) to interpret what our governing documents say. But that authority was predicated on the notion that an interpretation would be necessary because of an ambiguity. (A 2004 AI approved by the GA says: “The process of authoritative interpretation should be used sparingly, and for the purpose of defining potentially ambiguous words or phrases in the Book of Order, rather than for setting forth detailed procedures or advice as to how the provisions of our Constitution should be administered.) The ACC, Moderator, Stated Clerk, and the Assembly itself today declared that the General Assembly has the power to say that the plain words of our governing documents (Book of Order and Book of Confessions) can be “interpreted” to say things that they do not in fact say.
This action constitutes a significant shift away from the notion that we are a church governed according to the covenant we have adopted. In this covenant, the only rules that apply to the entire church are contained in the Book of Order. The GA has used its power to interpret to make a rule that is not in the Book of Order. And where trust in the authority structure of our denomination is a significant problem, this adds one more bit of evidence for those who claim the “GA” cannot be trusted to follow the rules.


You can read the entire comment here.

Day 4 at GA

We started off the day with Worship and Communion.  Mark Labberton preached a great Sermon, unlike the previous day's sermon which was reported in the daily GA paper as "Post Christendom is cool, says UCC pastor", or some such.

Had to be in committee by 9:30am, however, at 9:20am I was still at Worship, and had to leave as the TE leading the Communion liturgy was talking as if she was giving a eulogy.    Luckily,  by the time I reached the back of the hall, the servers were ready so I was able to partake.

The rest of the day was somewhat of a disappointment.   Over the years it appears that the conservatives do not do well in committee, but when they reach the plenary, things change.

I'll go give details tomorrow, but suffice it to say, there are a few minority reports from the orthodox side being brought forward.   On committee 10, we had our heads handed to us, but very respectfully.   Evidently at the 220th, there was some bad feelings at that committee, this year everyone understood that any change will cause pain, and potential loss.

However, right now I'm heading for bed, I'm fried and I need to get up at 6am to attend the PFR/Fellowship breakfast.

... and so it goes!

Day 3 at GA

Today began bright and sunny. Skipped worship as it was going to be led by a UCC minister, who turns out, preached about (tada) how the UCC handled when it went to approve same-sex marriage.  Surprise, surprise.     Luckily, Mark Labberton is preaching tomorrow so I'll be able to begin the day in Worship.     And trust me, as an evangelical at this GA, spiritual renewal is a requirement.

Today we started with Open Hearings, with most of the testimony being based on personal experiences, a lots of emotional tugs at the heartstrings.   One person, a PR executive, looks at this issue as the PC(USA) brand is being sullied because of the ban on SSM.  However, there was testimony from a young man who turned his life over to Christ, and that helped him work through his SS attraction, and who is now engaged to a very nice young woman.

Then came the Overture Advocates for amending the Book of Worship.  Again, many personal stories, no biblical support.  We even had one pastor claim that nothing in Scripture stood in the way of SSM.    Another claims that 40% of homeless youth are LGBQT with no supporting documentation.    The Advocates we heard after lunch for the AI, didn't have much more Scriptural support, only that Pastors are not able to be pastoral because they can't perform SSM.

After all the testimony, the Moderator asked to go around the room and have the commissioners give us an idea of where they are standing.       It was sad to hear some of the justifications given for where some of the RE commissioners stood.    I'm sure they are good people, and they are only using the information that they have been taught, but it was more eisegesis than exegesis.     Lots of the 'Jesus I know' type of theology.

One REC stood up and told how he came into the Presbyterian church, that he studied and learned about the doctrine of total depravity, about the Authority of Scripture, how the Book of Order & Book of Confessions both came second to what the Word said about sin.   

There were a few orthodox commissioners there besides this elder.   A TEC told of how we're forgetting the elephant in the room, the fact that an passing an AI would cause pain for many, many others.  He told of how the first church he pastored 30 or 40 years ago moved to the EPC.  How 7 churches left his Presbytery in the past 12 months.    That many more start the process if an AI or redefinition of marriage is passed.

Another TEC told of presbyteries he was in, having to merge as churches left to another, more conservative Reformed denomination.   And so it went down the line... there doesn't seem to be much chance that something will not be passed this time around.    

Tomorrow we start the deliberations.

... and so it goes!

Day 2 at GA

I was going to do this day by day, but the realities of GA have hit.    I'm not as young as I was, and by midnight on the 15th, I was totally beat.   Then I wake up at 6am today, the 16th.

Hopefully I'll catch up on this to add my thoughts.    One thing I will say, commissioners need to keep their wits about them.  We were never notified about a vote on a standing rule change for this GA.  It was brought up for a vote, half the commissioners were voting for it even though we had not gotten an electronic copy of the motion other than that which was displayed on the overhead screens for about 30 seconds or so.

By the time I awoke to what was going on, the vote was over, and all I could do was raise a Point of Order.   The answer was not to my liking, so I asked for a Division of the House, which will force a poll of the commissioners.    That said, research afterwards shows that this change is a debatable motion,  that should have had someone speaking to it and against it.     I have to say, the way this was brought up smells of smokey rooms, good ole boys, and back-room politics.

It may be too late to do anything about it unless I can find someone who voted for it, to request a Motion to Reconsider.    I'll add more about this rule change later, along with the rest of the day in a few hours, I hope.

.... and so it goes!

Day 1 at GA

Friday -  Jun 13th

After a 5 1/2 hour trip from Cannoli, PA, we arrived at Detroit.  The first issue was trying to figure out where you pull in to unload your car at the hotel.    Once that was discovered, we had to wait until 3PM as that was the scheduled check-in time.    OK, we got to the room, got the size bed we wanted, but then discovered if I wanted a tub or a larger shower, I should have asked for that too.

Oh yeah, one more thing.   To those who are interior designers/decorators ... it is NOT a good idea to put a clear glass window in the door to the bathroom.   I don't care if the glass is wavy or is extruded to look like glass piping, you can still see through it.     I have a thing about privacy when I'm, um, on the throne.   That said, the room was "OK", could have had more drawer space, and a fridge.  

Arrived at COBO Hall amidst the hustle and bustle of hundreds of Presbyterians.   There are people of all ages here, however most of those I've seen are a bit older.    One lady I met in the elevator at the hotel was overwhelmed with it all, and she hadn't even gone over to the COBO center to register yet, it was her first GA.    It appeared that it may have been her first trip anywhere without family.  

Got checked in at the registration table, and went to visit some friends.   Stopped by the Layman booth, along with the PFR, Presbyterians Pro-Life and One-by-One booths.   Saw people I know in person, and finally met in person some I know from online.

The interesting part is that across from these booths, are the CovNet, Voice of Justice, and other liberal groups.   Nice juxtaposition!     The good news is that there are people who, while disagreeing, are otherwise great friends on both sides of that aisle.

Yet I have heard from one person manning the PPL booth that not all reactions to their being there was sweetness and light.   

The first plenary meeting Saturday evening was devoted to orientation, and testing of the ethernet and WiFi internet connections.     Sad to say, it did not go well.   PC-Biz (the online repository of data for the commissioners) was down for a while, and both the wireless and wired networks were overwhelmed.    I could say more about this, but someone who is here as an observer tells it much better here.     As you can see on that page, technical issues abounded.   They should have called in Cisco Systems at the beginning.

After dinner, we came back to see about the next order of business, electing a moderator.    Again, I refer back to that previous link for more specifics.    As a geek, all I can do is shake my head.  Having been to conferences in my previous job position of computer programmer, I know that 1,000 people trying to use wire/wireless networks normally do not cause this type of problem.    Then again, these are geek conferences, and they know who to use to setup their infrastructure.    It could all boil down to the COBO Center not having the trunk capacity to handle this many.    Yet, that answer doesn't explain what happened in 2012 at Pittsburgh.     That said, the OGA staff had to go to plan B, the voting 'clicker'.    There were a few tests, and not everyone was satisfied that the votes were reliably taken.    It was determined to move on.

The three moderator candidates were brought up and asked questions by many commissioners for about 45 minutes.  FWIW ... this year there wasn't a conservative candidate, I'm guessing that anyone who was willing to serve, just didn't feel that  they'd have a chance.     Two of the candidates did not impress me at all,  both partisan on the left.  One candidate was, at one time, on the board of one of the left's coalitions, the other is the pastor at a More Light church.

Heath Rada, who won the election came across as someone who respects the opinions of those on the conservative side.  He may not agree, but he knows that conservatives are a needed voice at the table.   What was more interesting, was that the Young Advisory Delegates (YADs) voted 3/5s in favor of Mr. Rada.  I heard later that a friend asked one of the YADs about that, and that the YAD said that there seemed to be a consensus that having someone who is not so partisan was needed in that office.

Oh, forgot to mention.  The aforementioned vote had to be done on paper ballots.     Yep, even the clickers were not working as advertised.    The YADs had to hold up their cards to reflect their advice, and the commissioners had to write down the name of their choice on paper.   OY !!!

They have said it should be working by Wednesday !!

.... and so it goes!

2014 Overtures on marriage

This year the elephant in the room is so obvious that no one will be able to ignore it.     One overture requests  to change the Directory of Worship to remove presiding over a legal marriage but leaves the definition including man and woman:

OVT-011 On Amending W-4.9000 Concerning the Church’s Role in Legal Marriage and Services of Christian Covenant—From the Presbytery of Lehigh.

Another wants to change the same paragraph to replace man and woman and substitute two people: 

OVT-021 On Amending W-4.9000, Marriage—From the Presbytery of the Cascades.

Then you have one that will just change the paragraph to add that Sessions and Presbyteries can change their own definition of marriage as a civil contract according to the local state law:

OVT-033 On Amending W-4.9001, Christian Marriage—From the Presbytery of Midwest Hanmi.

My thoughts on these overtures are that while I may not agree with some of the rationale, I will respect the thoughts of those who are bringing them forward for possible referral to the presbyteries for approval.


However, the overtures that are calling for an Authoritative Interpretation (AI) to impose a total revision of what the church considers as marriage are outside of the normal polity of any Presbyterian church.     If its one thing that the Westminster Confession recognizes is that councils ERR.   This is why overtures passed at GA are sent to the lower councils for debate and approval/rejection.      An AI bypasses all these checks and balances, and imposes an interpretation of the Constitution on the denomination that would force many to rethink their affiliation, and result in the loss of many more members and congregations.

This one replaces the existing AIs on marriage, with one that says that a Teaching Elder can perform a marriage for any couple, not mentioning gender.

OVT-024 On Issuing an Authoritative Interpretation of W-4.9000 to Affirm Pastoral Discretion in Performing Marriage Ceremonies—From the Presbytery of Heartland.

This overture requests an AI that basically does the same as above, but in different language: 

OVT-027 On Issuing an Authoritative Interpretation of W-4.9000 to Affirm Pastoral Discretion in Performing Marriage Ceremonies—From the Presbytery of East Iowa.

This one just wants to remove the entire 1991 AI that currently exists on SSM:OVT-036 On Rescinding the 1991 Authoritative Interpretation Concerning Teaching Elders Performing Marriages for Same-Gender Couples and Sessions Permitting Such Ceremonies in their Facilities—From the Presbytery of New Castle.

The problem with the rationale in this overture is that is says this:

The United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Windsor, ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which allowed states where same-gender marriage was illegal to discriminate against such persons, was unconstitutional.

The reality is that the ruling held that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT  must recognize the validity of SSM performed in states where such marriages are legal, it does not state that other states must recognize those marriages.  The key part of the ruling is this:

Justice Kennedy noted that regulation of domestic relations is within states’ traditional authority, and that the sweeping nature of DOMA as applying to all federal laws had the purpose and necessary effect of treating differently a relationship that the state treated the same. This “demeans” the married couple that is treated differently. In concluding, the Court made it clear that “[t]his opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages” under state law.

Will this legal nitpick hold any sway when this overture is debated in committee, I seriously doubt it.

I don't believe I missed  any, but then again I may have.      This year there will be another concerted effort at electioneering during the GA.  Commissioners will be offered swag that will signal a preference towards a certain point of view, those who refuse such things may then be intimidated to go with the flow.

While I believe that any such indicators from any interest group should be banned from the hall, I don't see that happening as some may yell about free speech.     I see it as the elimination of any external influences from the prayerful consideration of the work of the GA from any group left or right.

My previous thoughts on this issue are a matter of record, I see this is going to be an issue that keeps coming back again and again until those who are convinced that the traditional definition of marriage is correct either capitulate or have left the denomination.

.... and so it goes!

Update 05/16/2014:

PLEASE NOTE:  these thoughts were written way before I knew where I would be serving at GA.

Long Time No Blog !!

OK .. I haven't posted in a LONG, LONG time.    Why ... good question.  Its not as if there hasn't been anything to blog about.    There have been many, many things occurring in today's culture that are forcing those who believe in the authority of Scripture into defensive postures.

• Can't affirm same-sex marriage?   You're a hater, bigot or homophobe * !!
• Don't want to take pictures or bake a cake for a SSM?  Be prepared to be brought before a Civil Rights Commission and/or be sued for pain and suffering
• Believe that if Jesus didn't talk about it in the New Testament, its only because He already said His piece in the Old Testament?   You're a bibliolater, one having excessive reverence for the letter of the Bible.
• Believe that the PC(USA) Constitution's two parts, the Book of Confessions and Book of Order, are equal in authority, and second only to Scripture?   You're wrong, we can change anything with an AI, and we will.

So, why haven't I been busy writing about it?   Well, part of the reason is that there are those with a better grasp of apologetics who can say it better than I can.    I can write, be sarcastic but that is not what is needed to refute those who play fast and loose with Scripture, those want to affirm behavior that is declared sin by God, as God given.  

However, its another General Assembly year, and the number of overtures sent to GA this year has been limited by the requirements to have two Presbyteries concur on the overture.    This new requirement may have reduced the workload of a few committees by half.  

Then again, there are about 7 or 8 different overtures to change the Book of Order's definition of marriage.  If the committee thinks it over correctly, they can combine overtures into one.      However, we also have a push to have the GA create an Authoritative Interpretation (AI) to change the definition of marriage  If this gains traction it could cause a major uproar in the denomination, and the PC(USA) would see more departures, both by individuals as well as entire congregations.  

Why ?   Because an AI would bypass the normal way to change the Constitution by eliminating the voting by the presbyteries.    This would force the will of a minority, a mere 340 or so commissioners, on the entire denomination of 1.8 million.    But, but, but .. the regressives in the denomination would point out that one of the basis of our polity is that the Holy Spirit works in our councils.   The problem is, the Westminster Confession (part of that pesky Constitution) also says that councils do ERR!!!

This is why an overture passed by the GA is sent to the presbyteries for approval, so that other councils can pray, think and say YEA or NAY on the overture.   It provides a second chance for the Spirit to work to confirm or correct the action of the GA.

Over the next few weeks, I'll be going over the most controversial of this years crop of overtures.

Now .... for something completely different.

A few years ago, after a blog post where I copied a friend's Alternate Universe News Report, a comment was left that said:

Why do you refer to yourself as a "reformed Catholic"? Why don't you just address yourself as a Presbyterian? As a Catholic, I find apostates like yourself hold on to the term "Catholic" as a means of currying favor with the world. It is always "recovering Catholic" or "lapsed Catholic", never a complete divorce from the Church. Is there any justification for the tag line "reformed Catholic"? Just be a Presbyterian, which is completely irreconcilable to Catholicism.

I answered with this 

Good question.

Why do I use the term, because, as many of the Reformers were, I was brought up Roman Catholic, and lost the faith.

I returned to Christianity as a whole, the church Catholic, when I started attending a Reformed church, a PC(USA)church.

I have no quarrel with Roman Catholicism, only with the man-made rules that were added after the period of the Church Fathers, starting around 900 AD.

In our basic beliefs, there is nothing that I believe that is different from the Roman Catholic. We both pray and believe in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, as do most of Christianity.

And as far as you calling me apostate, there are two definitions for that term:

Definition of APOSTASY
1: renunciation of a religious faith
2: abandonment of a previous loyalty : defection

I do not recognize the first definition as applying, as I have not abandoned my faith in the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There is only one way to the Father, and that is in Christ Jesus.

As far as the second definition, yes, I have abandoned my previous loyalty to the institution of the Roman Catholic Church, I'm not all that loyal to the PC(USA) for that matter.

There is only one loyalty I hold to, and that is my faith in my Savior.

Sola Scriptura
Sola Fide
Sola Gratia
Sola Christus
Soli Deo Gloria

And this is why I call myself the Reformed Catholic.

.... and so it goes!

Hyposcrisy !!!

Lets contrast the welcoming, inclusive & liberal More Light Presbyterian gathering being held in Rochester NY, with the evangelical Fellowship of Presbyterians gathering in Minneapolis.

Fellowship:

Access for all ?? - check!
All included in table conversations? - check!
Access to any and all seminars, breakouts? - check!


More Light:

Access for all? - no
All included in table conversations? - no
Access to any and all seminars, breakouts? - no


It seems that someone who was attending the Rochester meeting, an evangelical, was barred from workshops by the leadership of that "inclusive, affirming and tolerant" group. It appears that there are secret plans being developed for the next GA that they do not want publicized.

Contrast that with the openness that the Fellowship had in Minneapolis. No secret plans, nope everything that was being planned or talked about was out in the open, available for anyone to read, comment and publish.

And so it goes ...

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.

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 !!

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 ;)

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??

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.

Advisory Delegates

Again, as the time for GA comes near, we're going to see a lot of advocacy for and against some overtures and proposals coming up. Commissioners will be getting hit from all sides, and hopefully they will do more than just accept the advocacy at face value.

However, while one can avoid the advocacy by avoiding some breakfasts, lunches and dinners, voting commissioners cannot avoid the advocacy of the Advisory Delegates. Why? Because they get to give an advisory vote, which is announced just before the commissioners actually vote on an overture.

Someone may have thought this was a good idea, but in practice all it does is give some commissioners the idea that they're just following what the future leaders of the church want. The problem is the advice they're getting is often based less on biblical and historical data, and more on feelings.

The worst example of this was at the last GA, which I followed online via streaming media. During the debate on changing the Fidelity and Chastity amendment, one young adult delegate got up to speak in favor using the words I feel the Jesus I know ....

You really do not know Jesus or the Triune God without knowing what the Bible says. And you do not know what the Bible says unless you take the entire Bible and understand that what was in the Old Testament, unless specifically superseded in the New Testament is still in force today.

By ignoring the Old Testament, as many do in advocacy for a specific position, they are no better than Marcion (sp??) whose teaching that the God of the OT was not the God of the NT was denounced by the church as heresy.

Which brings me back to the YADs, of whom I would say 80% have not been fully versed in the teachings of the OT and the NT, the historical background behind many Presbyterian norms, and do not have the maturity to understand the consequences of many of their beliefs. Am I being harsh, perhaps, but I also remember what I was like at 18, and do not think that 18 year olds of today, are any different than I was back then.

I fully believe that the comments of the YADs are valuable, but they should be kept in the commissions that they have been appointed to. YADs should not be able to address the floor during specific votes, nor should there be an advisory vote taken and announced prior to those of the Elder Commissioners, who should be influenced by the movement of the Holy Spirit, not the vote of those who have not yet gained enough experience to differentiate between their feelings and true inspiration.

And so it goes ....

The Sniping Season has begun.

Normally in May, we think of new growth, trees turning green, flowers blooming, and the fullness of Spring appearing on the Earth.

However, to Presbyterians (at least since 1998 when I joined a PCUSA congregation) I've found that May in the years of a General Assembly (annually at the beginning, biannual now) we see the birth of Sniping Season.

The left snipes at the right, and the right snipes at the left. There are those who will agree to disagree amicably, but then there are those who will take pot shots at the beliefs of those they disagree with, then throw in an ad hominem attack.

This year it has started over the discussion of the Belhar Confession by Viola Larson at her blog. Instead of just disagreeing with Viola on her blog, this person had to send an email to Church & World (Presbyweb) to have it published to the world.

Now Viola doesn't need me to defend her, there are others who did it much better than I could here and here, but if you're going to disagree with someone, disagree with the content, not the person. As one person put it, it was a vitriolic response to her. Hardly something that we were taught to do as Christians.

Of course, the Belhar Confession won't be the only area of disagreement between those on the left and right, but already its being pushed as something that will be used by those on the left to push against the standards that are in place in our Constitution.

I'm taking my old 1950's training to heart, that is, I'm going to duck and cover because I hate being sniped at.

And so it goes ....

Perhaps it won't go ...

The nFOG that is.

Most of those who track Presbyterian polity and what comes out our the PCUSA GA's will know that the nFOG is the acronym for New Form Of Government. This is the revision of our current FOG that is supposedly going to make the PCUSA more missional and foster our connectivity, but will probably cause more dissension, lack of trust and member losses.

Most of the dislike of the nFOG by many moderates and conservatives in the PCUSA is due to the fact it does away with a lot of previously fought over procedures that have been put together over the years in order to govern the various levels of the PCUSA. There's a reason there's a book entitled Blood on Every Page which has a history of how the BOO was put together. The conservatives see it as another loosening of the biblical standards that the procedures were put in place to prevent. The moderates see it as something that will upset the status quo, and heaven knows we don't want that to happen.

However, in a link from Church and World (previously Presbyweb), there is a story from the Layman that talks about how three different GA Advisory Committees (and some of the most liberal) are upset because the nFOG does away with some procedures that they don't want to see removed. Its fine with them to do away with others, but not these.

I guess the nFOG is good until your ox gets gored. Its ok if THEIR ox is gored, but leave ours alone. However, with negative comments from all sides, will it get off the ground ??

Again, there's a reason why there's Blood on Every Page.


.... and so it goes !!