And Friday night, at the General Assembly, the commissioners were tired, the energy level was low, and the most controversial items had already been considered. So, first a few funny recollections from the week:

• The Stated Clerk, Gradye Parson, has a suave-looking John Calvin bobble-head on his desk. I covet.
• Moderator Cynthia Bolbach’s fun sense of humor kept the assembly in good spirits throughout the week. Perhaps her best crack cams during the moderator election when she, and elder said, “Ministers going on tangents…who knew?”
• The chairs in the assembly hall, when scooted back or forth, sound like vuvuzelas. It’s hilarious.

More seriously, my read of the assembly is that it was a perfectly fine one, one that wrestled with tough issues conscientiously and sought the Spirit in its work. Many hugely important changes are proposed to the PC(USA) constitution, including the addition of the Belhar Confession to our Book of Confessions.

But, as I prepare to go back home, I’m also struck with a questioning sense about whether this formal, costly, somewhat unwieldy church structure is the most faithful way of conducting business at a national level. At 27, I’m too young to be a hardened cynic, but many times this week I thought, after a beautiful policy statement or theological document passed the assembly, “How much did we spend per word to make that document? And, how many Presbyterians – let alone others – will ever read it?” When I closed my eyes and listened to debate on the plenary floor, I wondered how much —really, how little— the basic way we govern ourselves has changed in fifty years.

Several folks, on both sides of theological divides, pointed out that if the rate of membership decline in the PC(USA) continues as it has in recent years, the PC(USA) will cease to exist in roughly 40 years. Sophisticated statisticians would surely add some complexity to that model, but even a simpleton can see we have a huge problem. So, I leave confused and saddened that the report of the committee on church growth and evangelism flew by so quickly, and with so little discussion.

Another systemic issue to raise my hackles this week was the fact that, in so many floor debates, we spoke to the surface-level of issues before us rather than to a deeper level, often the reason the issues were so controversial in the first place. For instance, our debate on sex and sexuality directly connected to many more pieces of business than the headline grabbers—ordination standards, marriage, and pension policies. But when such issues came up, we tended to argue in polity wonk language rather than actually talk about what was behind the arguments (e.g. the main motion and substitution motion regarding the General Assembly, Permanent Judicial Commission, the Bush case, and all the complexity). I’m all for our polity, but I’m also for truth telling.

This kills me at presbytery often as well, so maybe it’s just a bad Presbyterian habit: we argue over surface-level questions rather than converse about the real foundational issues underlying them that make the surface-level questions tricky in the first place. We are struck in a dualistic way of doing things – vote yes or no – one that gets us a “conclusion” when a majority votes, but really doesn’t solve a thing.

Next, just an observation without too much analysis: the Young Adult Advisory Delegates totally impressed us all this week, as usual. Our young people are extremely talented and fantastic church leaders. Also noteworthy is the fact that, on the big sexuality questions, they consistently voted more liberal than the assembly by MANY percentage points. If we don’t scare these youth away with our bickering, their minds don’t change, and they are somewhat representative of the young adults in the larger church, it’s difficult to imagine the hot-button sexuality questions not eventually turning more progressive (for want of a better word) in a few years’ time.

But here’s the thing, whether that scares you or excites you, it can lead us away from the point. I played a game with friends last night in which, before the evening assembly, we each chose key words for which to listen in the evening plenary. Each time that certain word or words were spoken, we took note, promising to donate a certain amount of money per word to our seminary. One of my friends listened for the phrase, “Jesus Christ.” Let’s just say she won’t be writing a big check.

So we continue the conversation. We continue our prayers that the Spirit might guide the church so that we might be more faithful, conduct our business more wisely, and make us good stewards of our gifts. General assemblies are our human attempt to do just that. I’m grateful God showed up, so grateful, but also I’m praying God’s got something new in mind real soon.

image by Erin Dunigan

• – Wrap Up & Pack Up
• – A Fair Hearing? an explanation of the procedural questions on the definition of marriage at General Assembly.
• – The Questions Coming Sunday Morning
• – Contemplate This, a hodgepodge of opinion/analysis of Wednesday’s meeting.
• – Social Media at General Assembly
• – Committee Size Matters
• – Lunch with the Vice Mod
• – Reading the Tea Leaves of the Moderator Election
• – The Family Reunion: For Good or for Ill

I’ll put links to my work here. I also have a few other writing pieces that may come out next week to which I’ll link as well. So, apologies for the past week, but good things come to those who wait.  Also, for you non PC(USA) people, sorry for a week of very Presbyterian posts.  I’ll make it up to you at some point.

But if you are connected to or interested in the PC(USA) General Assembly: What would you like to see covered by the Presbyterian Outlook blogger?  What should I consider, discuss, debate, relate, rehash or refry?

Update: see my first (and pre-GA) post at the Outlook website here.

Yesterday, for the first time, I participated in a Webinar. Being who I am, it was a Webinar hosted by The Presbyterian Outlook on issues before our next Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly. (Full disclosure: I’ll be blogging the assembly for the Outlook.) I found the Webinar very helpful, partly because it presented two differing perspectives but also because it helped me to begin to think again in terms of General Assembly debate and policy.

Here’s how it went down: Jack Haberer, editor of The Presbyterian Outlook, introduced the two speakers. Ron Shive spoke on favor of the Israel Palestine report coming before the assembly, and John Wimberly spoke against. Each speaker than gave his position on the issue, using powerpoint that flowed smoothly on my screen.  There was no video of the speakers, but you could see their presentations clearly using the Webinar format.  During the presentations, Jack received questions from the audience via instant messaging. After the presentations Jack asked some of the questions from the audience.

The format, though it did feel more removed than an actual in-person meeting, was more than sufficient. Part of me wishes there were a way to live chat more easily (I ended up doing some of that via Twitter), but I also fear that would be too snarky and angry quite quickly.

The Outlook is hosting a webinar every Tuesday in June. For more information, go to their website. If you’re a commissioner to the assembly, you can participate for free! The cost, for others, isn’t bad at all. Future topics include:

And, for all your GA info needs, check out the main website, as well as a spiffy unoffical GA Help site run by Robert Austell.

My home congregation, First Presbyterian Church Tallahassee, undertook at Capital Campaign in 2007. In part, the campaign was to fix perennial but unexciting problems around the church such as drainage and water intrusion. Also, though, the campaign included installing some whopping-big solar panels on the education building (the official speak is “solar voltaic panels” and/or “11kW solar generator”, I think). Well, the campaign ain’t totally complete yet — keep giving folks — but the panels are up and running. I got to seem them in person last weekend: pretty darn awesome.

The word is that these are the second largest panels on a non-public building in Florida. And boy do they generate some electricity. Get this: on a sunny day the church can make more energy than it uses. We actually sell power back to the electric grid.

When the session announced the campaign it said,

“The phrase “Light from Light” is one of our core affirmations of faith every Sunday in the words of the Nicene Creed: “. . . God from God, light from light, true God from true God . . ..”  With the saints of all the ages, we affirm our faith in the Triune God with our good stewardship of the gifts of creation and the gifts of our forerunners in the faith. The Session of First Presbyterian Church is pleased to announce an opportunity in a new century for our congregation to remain faithful stewards of the light.

As my old internship supervisor would say, “They’ve got it in one” (meaning, “they hit the nail on the head” but in a Scottish accent.)

A few years ago, the PC(USA) General Assembly passed a resolution urging all congregations to go carbon neutral. The session at First Church Tallahassee is heeding that plea, and urging all members and friends of the congregation to do the same.

The PC(USA) website has the text to that resolution, and some helpful resources here.

As that guide says, “the Christian mandate to care for creation and the biblical promise of the restoration of right relationships between God, human beings, and the rest of creation impels and inspires us to act to reduce our energy usage.”

May we all be so impelled and inspired to honor God, the true light of the world.

So the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) just completed this morning in San Jose, California.  By most accounts, the assembly in all its big meetingness, Robert’s Rules, and sub-sub committee fun went well enough in terms of practicalities.  And there’s hundreds of fantastic and important steps the assembly took to forward Christ’s mission in the world.  I hope, in the future, to blog more.  But this post is simply to alert folks–in non churchy non Presbyterian language–of the PC(USA)’s move towards full inclusion of God’s gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and queer children.

Ok, so for as long as I can remember the PC(USA) has been fighting over whether or not glbtq folk in same sex relationships can be ordained as elders or ministers.  So we’re not alone there.  The Episcopal Church is having huge issues with itself at the moment over an American relationshiped gay bishop and what the means, and other mainline denominations as well.  Interestingly, while some denominations tend to approach glbtq questions first with an eye towards whether or not ministers can conduct weddings or civil union services, the PC(USA) has tended to focus on the question of ordination first (which is sort of backwards, I think, but oh well).  So while some US denoms, like the United Church of Christ are more open, the PC(USA) has been more conservative.  We’ve said, basically: you can be gay, you just can’t live our your relationship with a committed partner of the same sex.  (The constitution puts it, we require “fidelity within marriage or chastity within singleness” and since we don’t allow gay marriage, if you’re gay you either have to hide it from the church or not fully live out God’s intentions for you and your partner.)

So here’s what the 2008 assembly did….

 Effective immediately:

•  We changed the old case law that informs our courts so glbtq candidates can move forward

The PC(USA) has a church court system for dealing with church discipline, just like the state has a court system for enforcing state laws.  Presbyterian courts rely on the Bible, sure, but also our constitution and case histories from previous similar cases.  Well, cases regarding glbtq ordination used to be informed by an old ruling (1979, I think) which was has some pretty offensive language towards gays.  Then there’s more recent history (like a few months ago, which I won’t go into but it’s there).  One assembly can’t change the constitution, but it can change the “Authoritative Interpretation” of the constitution that courts use for guidance.  This assembly did so, effective immediately.  So a glbtq candidate for ordination may declare she’s cool with Jesus, Presbyterianism, and all that, but happens to be gay and living faithfully in a same-gender relationship and governing bodies, as of this new action, may allow candidates to be ordained.  (The official language is that they “scruple” with one specific aspect of the constitution–has been done since way back).  Whew.

Effective in one year, God willing:

• Passed first step towards the process of opening glbtq ordination

To change our presbyterian constitution you need (1) a majority vote of one national assembly, (2) a majority vote by the presbyteries (our regional governing bodies of which they’re 173)  (3) another majority vote of the national assembly. [Andy has corrected this statement in the comments.  My apologies.  Clearly I've been away too long:) ] This assembly voted by 54% to start that two step process.  You can read the Presbyterian Outlook article here.  

Noteworthy: they did not vote to change the definition of marriage from “a man and a women” to “two people”

So that’s what happened.  Conservatives are rather perturbed.  Liberals are cautiously optimistic.  We’re all a bit unsure about the future of the denomination, as some uber-conservative churches have or do threaten to leave.  The trick moving forward will be to discuss the proposed changes in presbyteries kindly, faithfully, and humbly.  Unity in the midst of our diversity is one of the denomination’s best qualities, but it ain’t easy.  

May God stay with us as we discern Spirit’s future guidance.  

image by  Lioness65

I didn’t wake up at 5am to watch the election from Scotland, but Bruce must have been darn convincing–the Spirit must have been working clearly–to be elected on only the second ballot, and to receive 48% on the first.

I’ll place links to news stories as I find them, but here’s a start:

• General Assembly News Story, “Reyes-Chow elected moderator of 218th GA“
• Adam Walker Cleaveland’s (actually at GA) blog here
• GA Junkie
• Jan Edmiston

…Random: on an unrelated note, but not worth its own post, I just made it in the Daily Kos, Faith and Politics blogroll. Cool stuff. You should definitely read the blog, by the way.  It’s hearty and hilarious.

BRUCE’S DISCLAIMER: These responses are done in a free-flow manner as if we were sitting at a cafe sharing a cup of coffee and are not edited or vetted in the same manner as with official publications.

1: In many circles within the PC(USA) there’s a deep antagonism towards all things denominational, but at my seminary there’s a vibrant hope for a vital future.  What gives?

Bruce: This does NOT surprise me at all.  If you remember, the Presbyterian Youth Connection was one of the strongest youth movements that we have seen in a while.  My hunch is that those who where impacted by that time in our history are “coming of age” now are are fully committed to the way they have experienced the denomination.  In many ways, I think that the youth and young adult program of the GA 10 years ago, was ahead of it’s time and we are now feeling the push from that constituency.

2. Folks have described you as the “young adult” candidate for moderator.  Do you consider yourself a young adult, and depending on that answer, how does this identity jive with your stand for moderator?

Bruce: Context, context context.  At the spry age of 39, in many clergy circles I am the youngest in the room, while at the church I serve I am constantly making cultural references that out me as an old guy.  What I do think I offer in my youthfulness is a worldview that has often been forced into a box of “young adult” so that the institution can dismiss it.  The postmodern worldview within which I live and serve may indeed have more younger people who embrace it, but by no means is it age-specific.  Still, it is easier to label me a Young Adult and that is a reality I must confront with grace.  How this connects to my stand for moderator is that even though I am perceived at the “youngster” I will not be defined by the negatives that folks may want to attach to that label.  Instead, I heartily claim my experience and savviness within the denominational structures while embracing all that is good and right about a youthful spirit.

3. You and I are active bloggers while most/many folks in my wife’s small rural older congregation have never read a blog, let alone considered blogging themselves.  How significant is this tech divide in our denomination, and what are its implications for ministry?

Bruce: I think that at some level we must be able to operate in a world that has this great divide.  This does not only exist in the church but in the world.  As technology and globalization advance – for better or worse – we must be able to walk with those for whom this way of being will never be the norm.  While I believe the church should embrace and adapt to many of the changes, i think it is unfair and almost cruel to force these cultural shifts upon folks for whom this is just not in sync with life experience, worldview, etc.  At the same time, I would gently nudge those in this demographic to be sure that they are open to “what may be” even if it is something that they themselves do not understand.

4. What’s the funniest thing you’ve been told since standing for moderator?

Bruce: Funny/Painful if not for my confidence of faith.   From a comment, “And I’m not sure a denomination will survive (nor maybe should it) having yet another unfaithful and unbiblical moderator.”  I am not sure who the previous ones were, but I couldn’t agree more.