Assembly Committee #8 is the first of several committees that will face questions regarding Israel, the Middle East, and/or interfaith theological issues. Committee #13: Peacemaking and International Issues has an item regarding Christians in the Muslim World. Committee #14 is Middle East Peacemaking Issues.
All of which is to say the items in Committee #8 are going to be mixed and matched with those from other committees. There are two items generated by the General Assembly Mission Council (GAMC) that are going to be the lead headlines out of this committee: Item 08-03 seeking approval of the paper “Christians and Jews: People of God,” and Item 08-04 seeking approval of the paper “Toward an Understanding of Christian-Muslim Relations.” These two are countered by Item 08-09 from San Francisco Presbytery seeking to have these papers referred for further study and re-writing.
I have received more mail and advocacy pieces regarding Israel than any other topic thus far this Assembly. There have been position papers written in support and against all the different items. From my experience at previous Assemblies, I know that there are few topics — ordination included — that inspire the depth of passion that official statements about Israel will have.
This affords me the chance to highlight two process things that most commissioners realize too late or only after they have gotten home:
1. General Assemblies handle business. They do not solve problems. The temptation to try to issue the definitive statement or to say, “Well, we’re commissioners so let’s start from scratch and get it right.” If you hear someone else say that, do not get sucked into it. Focus on the business on which you will vote. General Assembly is not a think tank. There is no time to do reflective kinds of group process on an issue so historically complex that resolution has eluded generations. So, deal only with the business. Do the best you can with what is there recognizing that it will not be perfect, it will not be final, and it will not solve the problem.
2. You cannot be invested in every big issue that comes to the Assembly. I do not serve on any of the committees dealing with Israel or the Middle East or anything like that. It is not a topic about which I am most passionate, so that is not where my time is going to be spent. For other people, there are no issues at the Assembly except Israel — and I get that. They do not care about the COGA Commission, which is where my focus is going to be. I have read these documents, I will read what the committee recommends, I will listen to the speeches, and then I will vote. That’s going to be about it.
As I mentioned earlier, there is an overture from San Francisco Presbytery asking that the two GAMC produced papers be sent back for further review and re-writing. It is set on the docket for discussion after the consideration of the two papers; however, that does not mean that it will not be considered until after decisions regarding the papers are made. What is more likely is some motivated commissioner will move the substance of the referral overture as a substitute during the discussion of each of those papers — to be followed by a minority report to the plenary along those same lines. The down-side of referral — at least as it is requested by San Francisco Presbytery — is the creation of another special committee. Special committees cost money. There’s a formula for determining how much it will cost (number of people, number of meetings, travel requirements, etc.). For discussion purposes, it is probably wise to keep in mind a ballpark figure of $30,000 for each newly originated special committee. We do not have the money. If approved, the question will be asked of the General Assembly Mission Council, “Get out your red pens, what are you going to cut now?”
A second item of interest to me is Item 08-02, “On Removing the Confusing and Theologically Incompatible Call for Presbyterians to Engage Other Faiths.” It seeks to clarify and amend a statement made by the 218th General Assembly (2008). I remember this discussion during the plenary of the last Assembly. It was as if the clocks had stopped. It went on and on in circles without any real discernment and — as Yukon Presbytery points out — “the General Assembly has encouraged Presbyterians and Muslims to worship together. Such worship could only be accomplished by seriously compromising the Essential Tenets of Reformed Faith. It would require removing the centrality of our affirmation of the triune nature of God and the uniqueness and centrality of Jesus Christ as the only true Lord and Savior of humankind. Such worship would be contrary to our faith.” In the end, partly due to exasperation and partly due to confusion, my impression was the 218th General Assembly approved whatever was before it just to move on. This is a good illustration of point #1 above — they (we — because I was there, too) tried to solve a problem instead of just handling the business.
The final item to watch is Item 08-06 regarding our relationship with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC). I have not sensed this issue being as hot as it was going into the last Assembly, though the departure of congregations from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to the EPC continues. The Layman’s report of Southport Presbyterian Church (Whitewater Valley Presbytery) being dismissed broke my heart a little bit — my Committee on Preparation for Ministry liaison was a associate pastor serving that congregation. Understanding does not make division hurt any less.
This item regarding the relationship with the EPC is a good opportunity to make one final process point today: important things rarely stay unchanged throughout the course of a General Assembly. Everyone wants to have their say, have their input, to tweak things a little bit. My guess is that there will be some amending, adding, or clarifying done to this EPC report. It is why the reading period of Wednesday morning is vital: that’s the time commissioners have to adapt to the recommendations coming out of other committees as if they were reading the business for the very first time.
Bob,
You make a great point here. General Assemblies handle business. They do not solve problems. I think one of our difficulties is that we have people who look to the General Assembly to solve problems. it does not do that. It cannot do that. And the sooner people realize that, the better off we will be. We need to re-adjust our expectations about what an Assembly can and cannot do. Thanks.