Quick Links
Categories
My iTunes
My Flickr
My Blogroll
Archives and Links
Browse archives by date
My Old Blog
My Homepage
100 Things About Me
My Book List
My Husband
My Church
MoreLight Presbyterians
The Presbyterian Church USA
The Monkey Sphere
Mark Morford, SF Gate
Miss Manners
My Old Blog
My Homepage
100 Things About Me
My Book List
My Husband
My Church
MoreLight Presbyterians
The Presbyterian Church USA
The Monkey Sphere
Mark Morford, SF Gate
Miss Manners
XML/RSS Feed
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 07, 2009 10:27 AM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 07, 2009 10:27 AM
PCUSA General Assembly, Summary
There were many issues discussed and these will
only be a few. These are only my interpretations of what happened, along with
some editorial comments. Your mileage may vary. If you have questions
about any of this, feel free to ask and I'll try to find the
answers.
1. An agreement between the PCUSA and the Episcopal Church was approved. This is an important agreement for my church because we are in the second longest PCUSA/Episcopal Church relationship in the country. I believe this new bilateral agreement means that we recognize each other's communions. From a practical standpoint, at our church, on the rare occasions that our Pastor has been away during a combined worship, have gotten a Presbyterian pulpit supply to con-celebrate communion with the Episcopalian Rector. I believe this is no longer necessary, though we may still do so if we wish. This agreement still needs to be ratified by a majority of the presbyteries, and they have a year to do so, so we'll have time to figure out what all this means by the time it takes effect. (I'm assuming it will pass the presbyteries, as it was not controversial and passed by voice vote on the floor of GA.)
2. The sexuality stuff:
a) The 1978 Authoritative Interpretation of Scripture and our Book of Order (the PCUSA Constitution) was rescinded. This statement said, "homosexual practice does not accord with the requirements for ordination set forth in Form of Government." This document was originally called a "Definitive Guidance" document, but in 1993 it was reaffirmed and changed to an Authoritative Interpretation. The 1993 Authoritative Interpretation that declared that the 1978 Authoritative Interpretation was indeed an Authoritative Interpretation and not just Definitive Guidance (is your head spinning yet?) was also rescinded. These actions go into effect immediately and do not need to be ratified by the presbyteries. This is a big frakin' deal.
b) A new authoritative interpretation was approved that reaffirms a practice we call "scrupling". Declaring a "scruple" (ie. a disagreement) with Presbyterian theology or polity has been a historical way of honoring the notion that "God alone is Lord of the conscience!" during examination for ordination as minister, elder, or deacon. For example, let's say a minister was being examined for ordination, but did not believe in the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. He or she could declare a "scruple" and the ordaining body could decide whether or not that was a serious enough deviation from Reformed theology to prohibit that person from being ordained. This is, as I mentioned, a historical practice in the Presbyterian Church and it was reaffirmed two years ago at the last General Assembly. Since that time, however, a case came before our highest church court, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, regarding ordination of LGBT folks. In this decision, the GA-PJC ruled that one cannot declare a scruple regarding our ban on ordaining LGBT people. In essence, the court ruled that one could declare a scruple about anything else (eg, the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Resurrection, the ordination of women, adult baptism, etc.) but NOT our ban on LGBT ordination. The new authoritative interpretation passed this week declares that the process of scrupling is not limited by that GA-PJC decision, and effectively rescinds the implications of that decision. This action goes into effect immediately and does not need to be ratified by the presbyteries.
c) The Heidelberg Catechism. We Presbyterians fight so much about our Book of Order that sometimes folks forget there is another half to our constitution, the Book of Confessions. Among the confessions contained in that book is the Heidelberg Catechism, a very important and useful teaching document that's been around since the 1600s. It is currently a confessional document for a great many Reformed denominations. The translation currently in our Book of Confessions was prepared in the 1960s and has several clear and obvious errors. For example, question and answer 87 reads:
Question 87 of the catechism: “Can those who do not turn to God from their ungrateful, impenitent life be saved?”
The current text of the answer reads: “Certainly not! Scripture says, ‘Surely you know that the unjust will never come into possession of the kingdom of God. Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers or drunkards or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God."
The problem here is that the phrase "homosexual perversion" isn't original. They just made it up in the 1960s translation. That also happens to be the only reference to homosexuality anywhere in our confessions (that will be an important point to keep in mind later.) There were other similar errors as well. None of our brothers and sisters in other Reformed denominations use our incorrect version of this Catechism. Even far more conservative Reformed denominations don't use it, including my former denominational home, the Christian Reformed Church (hence the reason I have a particular fondness for this Catechism.) That put the conservatives in our denomination in the uncomfortable position of defending an incorrect translation because they liked the inclusion of the phrase "homosexual perversion"! Frankly, I think this, more than any other action, shows what the so-called conservatives are really made of.
The revisions were approved by the General Assembly. However changing a confession is very difficult. The changes will now be studied by a committee that will report back to GA in 2010. If the changes are approved again at that GA, they will go to the presbyteries which will require ratification by 2/3 majority. If the presbyteries approve the changes, it will go back to GA in 2012 and will have to be approved there again. Then, and only then, will we get a more accurate translation.
d) An overture that would have changed our Book of Order to allow for same-sex marriage was defeated. However, this is the first time it was brought before the GA and I'm sure folks will try again.
e) The Big Enchilada, the section of our Constitution called G-6.0106b, which reads:
"Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament."
So, that "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness" is a fancy way of saying "No non-celibate LGBT folks can be ordained" without actually saying so. Notice also that phrase, "which the confessions call sin", and remember that there was only one reference to homosexuality in the confessions, our bad translation of the Heidelberg Catechism. This Amendment B, as it's called, was added to our Book of Order in 1997 and we've attempted to get it deleted 3 times before. The GA approved its substitution with the following language:
"Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards."
So this will go to the presbyteries for their approval by a simple majority vote.
3. Approved an interfaith statement calling for tolerance and peaceful relations between Christian and Muslim communities. This statement was significantly altered before approval. Initially it said that Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship a common God, though we understand that God differently. All references to "common God" stuff were deleted.
4. An agreement was approved for the mutual recognition of Baptism between the Catholic Church and the PCUSA. This must be approved by the presbyteries.
5. Issued a number of calls for peace: Between Israel and Palestine, in Zimbabwe, in Columbia. The resolution calling for the withdrawal of all troops and contractors from Iraq was edited to eliminate that call and replace it with a call for "developing a peaceful solution, and responsibly bringing the troops home." Pretty milquetoast.
6. Issued a resolution against preemptive war against Iran. How sad is it that something like this is necessary?
7. Affirmed the "Declaration of Principles for a Presidential Executive Order on Prisoner Treatment, Torture and Cruelty", as developed by The National Religious Campaign Against Torture, The Center for Victims of Torture, and Evangelicals for Human Rights.
8. Approved a resolution "to develop and fully fund a comprehensive study on HIV and AIDS for the PC(USA), recommending compassionate action and giving prophetic witness regarding issues related to people living with HIV and AIDS in the U.S.A. and around the world, and report [that policy] to the 219th General Assembly (2010)."
Those are just the highlights, of course. Plenty of other work was done. Again, if you have questions, I'll do my best to find the answers.
1. An agreement between the PCUSA and the Episcopal Church was approved. This is an important agreement for my church because we are in the second longest PCUSA/Episcopal Church relationship in the country. I believe this new bilateral agreement means that we recognize each other's communions. From a practical standpoint, at our church, on the rare occasions that our Pastor has been away during a combined worship, have gotten a Presbyterian pulpit supply to con-celebrate communion with the Episcopalian Rector. I believe this is no longer necessary, though we may still do so if we wish. This agreement still needs to be ratified by a majority of the presbyteries, and they have a year to do so, so we'll have time to figure out what all this means by the time it takes effect. (I'm assuming it will pass the presbyteries, as it was not controversial and passed by voice vote on the floor of GA.)
2. The sexuality stuff:
a) The 1978 Authoritative Interpretation of Scripture and our Book of Order (the PCUSA Constitution) was rescinded. This statement said, "homosexual practice does not accord with the requirements for ordination set forth in Form of Government." This document was originally called a "Definitive Guidance" document, but in 1993 it was reaffirmed and changed to an Authoritative Interpretation. The 1993 Authoritative Interpretation that declared that the 1978 Authoritative Interpretation was indeed an Authoritative Interpretation and not just Definitive Guidance (is your head spinning yet?) was also rescinded. These actions go into effect immediately and do not need to be ratified by the presbyteries. This is a big frakin' deal.
b) A new authoritative interpretation was approved that reaffirms a practice we call "scrupling". Declaring a "scruple" (ie. a disagreement) with Presbyterian theology or polity has been a historical way of honoring the notion that "God alone is Lord of the conscience!" during examination for ordination as minister, elder, or deacon. For example, let's say a minister was being examined for ordination, but did not believe in the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. He or she could declare a "scruple" and the ordaining body could decide whether or not that was a serious enough deviation from Reformed theology to prohibit that person from being ordained. This is, as I mentioned, a historical practice in the Presbyterian Church and it was reaffirmed two years ago at the last General Assembly. Since that time, however, a case came before our highest church court, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, regarding ordination of LGBT folks. In this decision, the GA-PJC ruled that one cannot declare a scruple regarding our ban on ordaining LGBT people. In essence, the court ruled that one could declare a scruple about anything else (eg, the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Resurrection, the ordination of women, adult baptism, etc.) but NOT our ban on LGBT ordination. The new authoritative interpretation passed this week declares that the process of scrupling is not limited by that GA-PJC decision, and effectively rescinds the implications of that decision. This action goes into effect immediately and does not need to be ratified by the presbyteries.
c) The Heidelberg Catechism. We Presbyterians fight so much about our Book of Order that sometimes folks forget there is another half to our constitution, the Book of Confessions. Among the confessions contained in that book is the Heidelberg Catechism, a very important and useful teaching document that's been around since the 1600s. It is currently a confessional document for a great many Reformed denominations. The translation currently in our Book of Confessions was prepared in the 1960s and has several clear and obvious errors. For example, question and answer 87 reads:
Question 87 of the catechism: “Can those who do not turn to God from their ungrateful, impenitent life be saved?”
The current text of the answer reads: “Certainly not! Scripture says, ‘Surely you know that the unjust will never come into possession of the kingdom of God. Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers or drunkards or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God."
The problem here is that the phrase "homosexual perversion" isn't original. They just made it up in the 1960s translation. That also happens to be the only reference to homosexuality anywhere in our confessions (that will be an important point to keep in mind later.) There were other similar errors as well. None of our brothers and sisters in other Reformed denominations use our incorrect version of this Catechism. Even far more conservative Reformed denominations don't use it, including my former denominational home, the Christian Reformed Church (hence the reason I have a particular fondness for this Catechism.) That put the conservatives in our denomination in the uncomfortable position of defending an incorrect translation because they liked the inclusion of the phrase "homosexual perversion"! Frankly, I think this, more than any other action, shows what the so-called conservatives are really made of.
The revisions were approved by the General Assembly. However changing a confession is very difficult. The changes will now be studied by a committee that will report back to GA in 2010. If the changes are approved again at that GA, they will go to the presbyteries which will require ratification by 2/3 majority. If the presbyteries approve the changes, it will go back to GA in 2012 and will have to be approved there again. Then, and only then, will we get a more accurate translation.
d) An overture that would have changed our Book of Order to allow for same-sex marriage was defeated. However, this is the first time it was brought before the GA and I'm sure folks will try again.
e) The Big Enchilada, the section of our Constitution called G-6.0106b, which reads:
"Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament."
So, that "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness" is a fancy way of saying "No non-celibate LGBT folks can be ordained" without actually saying so. Notice also that phrase, "which the confessions call sin", and remember that there was only one reference to homosexuality in the confessions, our bad translation of the Heidelberg Catechism. This Amendment B, as it's called, was added to our Book of Order in 1997 and we've attempted to get it deleted 3 times before. The GA approved its substitution with the following language:
"Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards."
So this will go to the presbyteries for their approval by a simple majority vote.
3. Approved an interfaith statement calling for tolerance and peaceful relations between Christian and Muslim communities. This statement was significantly altered before approval. Initially it said that Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship a common God, though we understand that God differently. All references to "common God" stuff were deleted.
4. An agreement was approved for the mutual recognition of Baptism between the Catholic Church and the PCUSA. This must be approved by the presbyteries.
5. Issued a number of calls for peace: Between Israel and Palestine, in Zimbabwe, in Columbia. The resolution calling for the withdrawal of all troops and contractors from Iraq was edited to eliminate that call and replace it with a call for "developing a peaceful solution, and responsibly bringing the troops home." Pretty milquetoast.
6. Issued a resolution against preemptive war against Iran. How sad is it that something like this is necessary?
7. Affirmed the "Declaration of Principles for a Presidential Executive Order on Prisoner Treatment, Torture and Cruelty", as developed by The National Religious Campaign Against Torture, The Center for Victims of Torture, and Evangelicals for Human Rights.
8. Approved a resolution "to develop and fully fund a comprehensive study on HIV and AIDS for the PC(USA), recommending compassionate action and giving prophetic witness regarding issues related to people living with HIV and AIDS in the U.S.A. and around the world, and report [that policy] to the 219th General Assembly (2010)."
Those are just the highlights, of course. Plenty of other work was done. Again, if you have questions, I'll do my best to find the answers.
Posted: Sun - June 29, 2008 at 07:37 PM