Click here for a wrap-up of news from GA 218.

Friday, June 27, 2008 

The 218^th General Assembly has worked through a very large agenda about many issues affecting the church and society. While much of the work of this agenda is very specific and narrowly focused concerning at time some arcane aspects of denominational life, there are also many other items of business that deal with some very controversial subjects and not just for the church. Over the next days and weeks there will be lots of discussion, news reports, and even rumors about what the Presbyterian Church (USA) has done or not done. At times the truth will be hard to discern, and these difficulties will certainly test our individual and collective mettle. But we need to be patient with ourselves, with each other, and with the church, and we need to seek God’s guidance and assurance for our patience. 

Beyond what any of us may hear and what any of us may fear, and even beyond whatever opinions we may take on any of these issues, we also need to understand and be assured that these decisions were undertaken by commissioners acting in the most serious of ways, with reverence for their task and clearly with mutual respect for each other. There have been no outbursts of applause, no gleeful demonstrations of “winning” – indeed, the opposite has been true. We need to take comfort in the comportment of the commissioners – women and men who even in their fervent disagreement with each other are also bound together by their sense of commitment to a church they love.  

All persons in the congregations of the Presbytery of the Miami Valley should be justifiably proud of our commissioners. They have approached their work with deliberateness, focus, grace, and humor. And the load of their work has been prodigious. Since the convening of the assembly each has spent at least 60 hours in committee and assembly meetings, plus each has attended numerous orientations and presentations and has also been responsible for reading tremendous amounts of material.  

Mark Barnes, Abigail DeVault, Ann Peters, Peter Wallace, Julia Wharff and Doris Arnett Whitaker have honored all of us, and even more impressively, have honored God’s church.

Thursday, June 26, 2008 

Ecclesiastical electioneering outside of the con- vention center.

It’s hard sometimes to move away from some of the practices which have been practiced so long that no longer is anyone aware that at one time everything was new. One of the practices at General Assembly is to restrict outside communication from the plenary floor where commissioners deliberate, speak and vote. The rationale is really quite sensible in many ways: commissioners are charged with voting their consciences as informed by the Holy Spirit while using their intellects and perspectives. So restricting information from the outside can allow for less influence, less pressure, and less lobbying on deliberative procedures. This is not too different from the restriction of campaigning or electioneering (a word that is pretty much never used anymore!) within a few hundred feet of a polling place.  

Realistically, however, there is lots of lobbying going on. Just not in the assembly hall itself.  All day, every day, there are folks outside handing out leaflets and flyers; making speeches (some of which are either inflammatory or outright mean-spirited); and just doing whatever is permissible under our laws to present a particular point of view – all of which is designed to sway opinion – all of which, in the context of the General Assembly, is meant to influence deliberations and votes. And do we really want this kind of lobbying to come any closer into the process than it already does? 

But perhaps we need to look at this a bit differently, in light of changing contexts, changing cultures, and changing communication.  

If we look for instance at the generations of persons born after 1973, we see a completely different way that these people deal with information. They are part of an informational culture that is “self-filtering.” That is to say that they make decisions based on an almost completely free enterprise of all types of information – some of it quite important and factual, and much of it anything but – by making judgments about value and veracity. This is self-filtering. 

GA Commissioners followed the discussion during the Thursday, June 26 business meeting. - PC(USA) photo by Joseph Johnson.

This GA is attempting to be as “paperless” as possible. All commissioners are following the process on laptop computers and are also voting electronically. There is a closed circuit web throughout the convention center (an intranet) that allows access to the procedures of nearly every aspect of GA. But as a closed circuit web, this intranet also does not allow internet access. This restriction is necessary to maintain the practice of controlling the flow of information to the plenary floor. It is necessary to prevent electioneering (there’s that word again). 

But there is a dilemma – how can we ask the generations of information self-filterers, many of whom are currently leaders in their professions, and all of whom will bear the mantle of leadership in nearly every aspect of life very soon, to consider information and make decisions in ways that are, for them, anachronistic? There are the persons in the generations that are most often least visible in the Presbyterian Church – the men and women to whom we are always referring when we talk about “who is not in church.”  

Will allowing the free flow of information allow lobbying and influence peddling to potentially “infect” our process of discernment and deliberation? Certainly. but the key word here is “potentially” – in every other aspect of life these men and women, these young leaders, are able to filter out what is unfair, unnecessary and unusable, and deliberate and discern, using their intellects, their perspectives, and if we encourage them, their faith.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Today the General Assembly reconvened in full, plenary session, the various committees having completed their work on the myriad overtures, reports and amendments. This is the time when the assembly commissioners vote on the committee recommendations – and depending on the vote and the particular issue at hand, it is also the time when the process for constitutional changes begins for individual presbyteries.  

But the path for a particular piece of business from the committee recommendation to the actual vote up or down by the assembly, can be fraught with much discussion, parsing, and delay. Even though the members of a committee have spent the more than two days looking at every facet of each amendment, overture and report – an examination that deals with both the precision of language and nuance of theology – when the item comes before the assembly for vote the process is once again opened up for further examination by all of the commissioners. 

General Assembly Commissioners debated a committee report on Wednesday, June 25. -PC(USA) photo by Joseph Williams.

This can be very frustrating for many committee members who sometimes feel as though the work that they have done is not viewed as meaningful by the full assembly, but frustrating or not, it is still part of the process, and its inclusion can allow for an occasional moment of clarity and grace. A moment that may come from a voice not heard before – a metaphorical “voice in the wilderness” – and moment that is borne by the work of the Holy Spirit. 

But this is not what happens much of the time. Sometimes the floor debate in the full assembly has nothing whatsoever to do with new voices, grace and clarity. Sometimes the floor debate is really a rehash of the previous debate in the committee – a rehash brought up by committee members seeking the assembly’s “redress” of a previous action and vote by the committee, a process brought forth by those who perhaps might be at times best termed “parliamentary sore losers.”  

And all of this ratchets up everyone’s level of frustration.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Today was the day that the General Assembly committees wrapped up their work. This was, by any means, no small task. First of all the committees have somewhere in the neighborhood of sixty members, counting advisory delegates (those are the persons with the navy badges, who have voice in the committee work but no vote in the plenary sessions). Now, no matter how one looks at it, sixty persons doing anything at all, will probably do it pretty slowly. And there is lots of work for each of the committees to do. But ultimately, they all got their work done, and tomorrow the full assembly meets to begin to consider the proposals that will come from the committees. Assuming that the assembly passes a particular piece of business, an item that represents a change to the church’s constitution must then be ratified by a majority of the presbyteries. While this might seem a cumbersome process, the very intentionality assures that constitutional changes are deliberate and thoughtful. 

What was striking about all of this was the seriousness in which the commissioners and advisory delegates took their responsibilities. There was open and honest disagreement at times, support at other times, and thoughtful commentary at all times. This thoughtful deliberateness, framed in respect and graciousness, lies at the very heart of the strength of our connectional system. Think about this for a moment – here are persons from all over the country, whose common ground is their faith in God through Jesus Christ and their particular respect for a complex and sometimes odd system called Presbyterianism – coming together on their own time to discern the direction in which the denomination might move. And to do this, these persons are asked at times to immerse themselves in seemingly minute and even arcane matters of theology and polity. 

A Youth Advisory Delegate spoke before the Committee on Church Orders and Ministry on Tuesday afternoon, June 24. -PC(USA) photo by Joseph Williams.

Now since commissioners are either elders or ministers, it is somewhat expected that their preparation and knowledge of the business at hand might indeed be appropriately formidable. But astoundingly, as I sat in on many of the committee meetings, it was apparent that the Youth Advisory Delegates were equally prepared. Often these YADs posed interesting and provocative questions and provided insightful commentary.  All of which leads me to propose that our churches consider the following. 

There is nothing in the Book of Order that prevents a church from creating a shorter term for a member of session, in addition to the typical three year term that the current session members serve. A church could create, for instance a one year term on session to be served by a young person, perhaps even younger than eighteen, who could serve without the inevitable attendance conflict that would arise with entering college. These persons would be Elders in every way, with all the responsibilities and duties of ordained office. What this would allow is for these young men and women to then serve as commissioners to General Assembly, with full voice and full vote. 

Imagine what this might say to these young men and women about our faith in their ability to shape the church’s future. Imagine what this might say to a world that perceives mainline denominations as anachronistic and old. Imagine what this might say about our faith that we indeed believe the Holy Spirit works through all of us, as God wills, not as we might wish. Imagine.

Monday, June 23, 2008 

Today began the first full “business” day of the assembly – this is the time when the various General Assembly Committees spend most of their day (and evening) actually parsing through the various reports, recommendations, overtures and resolutions, ultimately voting on their recommendation for full assembly action. It is a long process in which individuals who advocate for particular positions may speak before these committees. It is not until Wednesday that the full assembly meets to consider the recommendations by the various committees. 

Committee members are the commissioners and advisory delegates elected by the presbytery. Commissioners are the only persons who have a vote that counts in shaping the denomination for the next two years, votes by advisory delegates are precisely that – advisory – meant to inform commissioners how issues might resonate with a particular demographic or affinity group – seminary students, youth delegates, ecumenical partners, etc. 

The black badge: Low on the access scale.

While the assembly is an open meeting – that is open to observers, there are specific designations about access and location, corresponding to the color of badges are worn around the neck.  There are nine colors: blue (commissioners), navy (advisory delegates), Red (staff of the General Assembly and other denominational entities), grey (elected members of the Office of General Assembly, GA Council, and other denominational entities), black (presbytery and synod staff and stated clerks, along other representatives and guests), orange (local host volunteers), brown vinyl (observers), orange vinyl (exhibitors), and green vinyl (press).  

Because I wear a black badge, which is somewhat low on the access scale, I am not permitted to the floor area in which the commissioners are seated. The black badge contingent has its own area where our seats and desks are assigned. I am seated at location X-61, between the presbytery executives of Maumee Valley, and Mid-Kentucky. What I haven’t figured out yet is how in all of the planning of this no one bothered to notice that the Row X in this section somehow comes after Row Y and before Row Z! 

Maybe there’s a resolution coming out of a committee re-ordering the alphabet in ecclesiastical functions.

Sunday, June 22, 2008 

Sunday’s schedule at GA is pretty light – the committees begin their work this evening, but other than a brief business meeting at the end of the afternoon, it is pretty much a free day for commissioners and all others to either explore San Jose or take part in many peripheral denominational activities. 

But as would be expected, the centerpiece of the day was worship. Worship was held simultaneously in two different and remote locations – the Events Center at San Jose University and at the San Jose Civic Center. Two locations, but clearly one service of worship. What was amazing about it was worshipers at each location used the same bulletin, sang the same hymns, heard choirs singing the same anthems, listened and responded to God’s word at the same time in ways that were both separate and connected. Joan Gray, the Moderator of the 217^th GA, preached at the Events Center which was simulcast in the Civic Center. Later in the service, at the Civic Center, Joan Gray arrived unnoticed and then presided over the celebration of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. While this might seem to be possibly contrived and complicated, there was nothing about any of it that felt anything other than quite natural and authentic for everyone attending. It certainly gives much food for thought about some of our ideas about how we feel worship “has to be.” 

Even more interesting was the melding of worship in a “non-traditional” worship setting. Our entire delegation attended together at the Civic Center, which is a Mission Style building built in 1936, and is used for sporting events, concerts, and meetings, with a capacity of about 3,000. It is really quite simple and plain on the inside with a raised steep gallery ringing three sides of the auditorium. There is really nothing ecclesiastical about it. In fact, right in the middle of the ceiling is and old fashioned four sided scoreboard. Yet, none of this seemed to make any difference at all – the place was full, with a massed choir of perhaps two hundred on the stage, an orchestra immediately in front of them, and a long platform set up even further in front, on which sat the worship leaders. All of this – the beautiful music, the enthusiastic and inspiring congregational singing, the liturgy – everything with about as much pomp and ceremony as Presbyterians can muster – transformed the space from “just a civic center” to a glorious House of Worship. Yet it was the staging and theatrics that brought it about – it was the overwhelming sense that we were there to praise God, be renewed by our worship, and truly be in community with each other. And this sense of community was not limited to those around us – those to whom we passed the elements of communion; we were clearly in community with those miles away at San Jose University – such is the power and grace of the Holy Spirit.

Saturday, June 21, 2008 

There seems to be no reason for me to report to you about the proceedings and work going on at General Assembly. It is pretty much an electronic assembly – although this morning there are myriad technology problems throughout the parts of the convention center – and others will be providing detailed, accurate and even “up-to-the-minute” reportage. So I have decided instead to share odd thoughts and impressions. 

While I am sure that many folks came to San Jose on direct flights, I suspect most of us came on connecting flights. I flew from Dayton to Dallas, and after about an hour layover, boarded my flight for California. Over the years I have flown quite a bit, both for business and pleasure, and have often been an “outsider” on flight of “insiders” – folks traveling to a destination for a particular purpose – sort of like being the one flying to Orlando for business on an airplane full of families going to Disney World on winter break. Well this time I was part of group – one of the “insiders.” 

What was pretty funny to me was that the idea that there might be lots of others on the flight who might be heading to GA along with me never really occurred to me until I was settled in my seat by the window and glanced up at the steady stream of passengers passing by me in the aisle, and realized, “look at all these Presbyterians!” 

Now I am not going to get into what specifically makes for a “Presbyterian Look,” – leaving it up to each of you will both be more fun, and frankly, more politic, for me – but rest assured these folks were not difficult to identify. I made a bit of small talk to the very elegant older woman sitting beside me as we awaited take off, asking about her GA connection (she was leafing through lots of preparation material); she told me that she was coming as part of a presentation from an ongoing GA Task Force and that she was from Charlotte NC. After a bit of more of this conversation she turned to me and asked, “And why are you going to San Jose, business or pleasure?”  

I guess to her I didn’t have the “look.” Hard to tell what I felt more: flattery or disappointment. 

Within minutes of landing, I experienced one of the really nice things about coming here, and one of the things about coming here that I was most eagerly anticipated: an old friend whom I had not seen in quite some time came up to me at the baggage claim. This was repeated again and again beginning within minutes of arriving at the convention center, where there was lots of housekeeping and registration stuff to do, as I ran into not only all our teammates from PoMV, but another two or three dozen folks from lots of other places – most of whom I have not seen in more than a year. Certainly this was not an experience limited to a few but was much more the rule. It was like there were simultaneous reunions being held in all directions. Even a couple of million people scattered around a country as big as ours can be a rather small group because of connections that have been made and shared in the name of Jesus Christ.