Today was surgery for my wife, Jennifer. According to the surgeons, everything went as expected and without complications. The sentinel lymph node was negative. We will wait for pathology on the remaining nodes that were removed; that will be the indication for what course of treatment she follows from here out. She does not feel particularly good tonight, but all the news was very good. Her prognosis is exceptional.

I am relieved. And thankful. And tired.

This is one of those days I am grateful for being a Presbyterian. At 5:30 this morning as we were checking into the hospital, I was greeted by Tom Theriault, an associate pastor at Solana Beach Presbyterian. He was actually there to visit a member of that congregation and happened upon me, but it was incredibly encouraging to be ministered to by a brother in Christ at that moment. Throughout the day, I received e-mail, notes and texts of prayers and blessing from all over the country. I cannot begin to express my thanks for the love, care and support we have received. Please know that we cherish this experience of being the recipients of grace.

I am resisting the temptation to try to have this experience “put the GA in proper perspective.” To do so would be unfair to both experiences; the only commonality is that God meets us in the midst.

So, on behalf of my family: thank you all. May God grant us eyes to see every day the blessings he has given us in each other.

For me, the change comes before the Assembly itself.

I will not be coming to Minneapolis for the 219th General Assembly.

There is bad news and then good. Two weeks ago, we received a call that a biopsy done on my wife during ultrasound — following up on an annual mammogram — revealed “infiltrating ductal carcinoma.” That’s breast cancer. That’s the bad news. We have spent most of the last two weeks going back and forth from medical appointments; back and forth about whether I would be able to come to Minneapolis. We did not have any solid answers until today (Thursday) when all the test results came back. Now we do.

The good news is that it looks like it was caught early. (Let me use this opportunity to highlight the importance of regular screening — she has been getting mammograms since age 35. It was spotted as a change to prior films.) Today we were informed that the cancer appears to be of the slow growing variety. There was a second site discovered during testing that was not cancer, but was a radial scar susceptible to becoming cancerous. We have a surgery date for July 20 and another several medical appointments during the weeks between. We held out hope until today that I would still be able to come, but the scope of the illness combined with the additional appointments made it impossible. Please know how much I wanted to be with you all, but it really was not a close call.

So, may God bless your work. Know you will be in my prayers. I thank you for all of yours. We are surrounded here by friends and a church family who are very supportive and encouraging.

Your brother in Christ,

Bob Davis

There are six – SIX! – items for our consideration. I’m not really sure how we’re going to have time to handle it all. Let’s take a look:

19-01 – On Designating May 1 Every Year as a Day of Prayer for Healing.

Hmmm… prepare for an extended debate on whether May 1 is the optimum time to pray for healing.

19-02 – On Encouraging all Presbyterians to Know Their HIV Status.

OK,  I did not see this one coming. ACSWP is recommending disapproval.

While testing of any person who falls in an at-risk category is warranted, the demographics of Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) officers do not represent the demographic at behavioral risk of infection, and thus universal testing of church officers is not warranted and would not represent good stewardship of medical resources.

ACSWP is concerned about stewardship?! Pot, meet kettle.

19-03 – On Making a Statement Regarding Violence Against Pregnant Women.

I am not really sure how this qualifies as a “health issue” per se (as opposed to social justice?); however, there it is.

ACSWP is weighing in against this one, too. (Committee 17 listening, anyone?) They have recommended complete elimination of the language of the overture and have provided their own substitute affirming “women’s moral right and moral capacity to responsibly determine their reproductive lives.”

I find it really disheartening to see a denominational entity — exemplified here by ACSWP — so completely distrusts the people of the church that it cannot abide with language condemning violence against pregnant women. It is no wonder the denomination’s budget is plummeting; who wants to be treated this way?  ACSWP is to Boise Presbytery as Kanye West is to Taylor Swift.

19-04 – The Presbytery of Prospect Hill overtures the 219th General Assembly (2010) of the PC(USA) to declare that we stand with all women against the injustice of any forced or coerced abortions. (That’s the whole thing.)

Simple enough, right?

ACSWP – “Answer with our response to 19-03.” Apparently, the people of Prospect Hill Presbytery are so naive and so out of touch and so irresponsible that they need ACSWP to nuance a straight-forward declaration against injustice, forced or coerced abortions. We can’t just be against injustice. (And the Advocacy Committee on Women’s Concerns agrees with ACSWP.)

19-05 – Becoming an HIV and AIDS Competent Church: Prophetic Witness and Compassionate Action.

From where? ACSWP.

That couldn’t be the same ACSWP that opposed encouraging all Presbyterians to know their HIV status, could it? Why, yes, it is.

This action item is seeking money. ACSWP wants $10,000 to develop

(1) denominational standards defining the marks of HIV and AIDS competent congregations and ministries, in accordance with PC(USA) policies and in collaboration with ecumenical partners in HIV and AIDS ministries; and

(2) a study guide that provides pastors, church educators, elders, deacons, mission workers, youth and young adults, and lay persons with practical examples of how to discuss and thoughtfully examine, with cultural proficiency and sensitivity, HIV and AIDS issues, including the role of social structures examined in this report, as well as the role of responsible sexual behaviors, through Bible studies, worship, liturgy, preaching, pastoral care, and social justice advocacy.

They also want $163,374 in 2011, $8,235 in 2012 (and, no, that’s not a typo), for the

Mission Responsibility Through Investment (MRTI) to critically assess the profit margins of drug companies that develop drugs for treating HIV and AIDS and include in its report to the General Assembly Mission Council (GAMC) a recommendation on appropriate percent margins the church may want to consider when investing its resources with companies that profit from drugs designed to treat HIV and AIDS.

In other words, ACSWP wants the GA to approve new spending of more than $170,000 of  mission money of the Presbyterian Church for MRTI to critically assess profit margins of drug companies? Remember: ACSWP is all about stewardship. From the rationale:

Our foundational values compel us to make the HIV and AIDS pandemic one of our highest priorities as a denomination. In our recommendations, not only do we lift up and ask to continue the excellent work that has been carried out in our existing PC(USA) social witness policy, but we prophetically also extend it to take much more seriously the social, institutional, and economic factors that come more fully under the ethical scrutiny of the gospel. This includes more rigorously pursuing the underlying issues of poverty. We must continue to advocate that discrimination on the bases of gender, race, class, and/or sexual orientation be highlighted as antithetical to the gospel witness and that programs that challenge these discriminatory forces be well-funded, especially in the context of HIV and AIDS education. We cannot ignore the structural problems that exacerbate HIV and AIDS among the underreported and those who are incarcerated. It means evaluating drug company profits as they affect access to treatment for persons living with HIV and AIDS.

That must be a new paraphrase of Matthew 28.

Item 19-06 - On Full Access to HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment Services in U.S. Correctional Facilities.

At this point, why not? It has a $36,000 price tag. It asks for a letter to the President, a letter to the governors of all the states, and some money for the Washington Office to hold a conference.

That’s it. I’m done. That’s the last of the committees. I hope this has been helpful.

Extending Benefits

First, the hot issue. It is important to remember: simply because a presbytery (or two) overtures to have the General Assembly do something, it is not bound to do it if it would disrupt the peace, unity and purity of the church. Extending Board of Pension benefits to same-gender “spouses” and domestic partners would disrupt the peace, disrupt the unity, and disrupt the purity of the church.

It would disrupt the peace because it would require every congregation in the denomination to participate — without relief of conscience — in financially underwriting behavior contrary to Scripture. There are no provisions for congregations and/or presbyteries to opt out. This is different than even abortion, which does have a relief of conscience opportunity.

It would disrupt the unity because it would hasten the “devolution” described by the Stated Clerk. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is declining precisely because it does not have integrity to the very process it claims to uphold. As noted in the Board of Pension comment, G-6.0106b is the constitutional standard for officers of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

With this constitutional mandate in mind, and absent contradictory direction from the General Assembly, the Board would exclude all ministers of the Word and Sacrament from eligibility to enroll a same-gender spouse or same-gender domestic partner.

Three quick notes about that BoP comment:

1. I would suggest that the Board of Pensions does not even state it strongly enough: the General Assembly does not have the unilateral authority to vacate a mandate of the Constitution. The “contradictory direction” would have to come as the result of a constitutional amendment approved by an affirmative vote of a majority of the presbyteries.
2. Even assuming, arguendo, the General Assembly could direct BoP to the contrary, extending such benefits would open the door to disciplinary action against every officer who applied for benefits. It would be Exhibit A that the officer was engaging in prohibited behavior and, if unwilling to cease, be cause for he governing body to determine that the officer had renounced the jurisdiction of the church.
3. Even assuming further, arguendo, that the General Assembly could direct BoP to the contrary AND assuming that it would not be evidence for disciplinary cases, the BoP request for a 1% increase to cover the costs would be low because it did not anticipate including the individuals who would be considered eligible under the officers’ policies. Thus, it would be MORE than 1% additional.

Approving this overture would disrupt the purity of the church. The church is not the world. The church has standards set by God, revealed in Scripture, with guidance provided in the Book of Confessions, framed out for application in our context in the Book of Order. Has the potter no right over the clay? Who indeed are we, human beings, to argue with God? How can we argue that our desire for insurance trumps the moral imperatives of God’s sovereignty revealed in Scripture?

Approving this overture would be a bad idea for so many reasons.

• It would financially underwrite behavior contrary to Scripture.
• It would financially underwrite behavior contrary to the Book of Confessions.
• It would financially underwrite behavior contrary to the standards set in the Book of Order.
• It is contrary to the conscience of a majority of Presbyterians who have consistently upheld the Biblical view that homosexual behavior is contrary to God’s purpose and design for humankind.
• It makes it at least 1% more difficult for small churches to be able to afford a pastor. Given that we have so many congregations without pastoral leadership, doesn’t it make more sense to try to alleviate the financial burden rather than add to it?)
• It fails to provide any kind of valid definition or limits, requiring BoP to come up with something or be subject to unlimited liability. (Seriously, does a napkin agreement after a week count as a “covenant long-term relationship”? Right now, it does.)

The Board of Pensions has proposed a substitute motion that is intended to provide more precise language, but it is careful to note that their proposal is NOT an endorsement of the idea.

Frankly, this is one of the “actions of the 219th General Assembly” that would make middle governing bodies request the COGA commission authorize a split.

Restricted Funds Resolution Committee

In contrast to the hot button issue, it gives me great pleasure to note that the Restricted Funds Resolution Committee is a non-issue. Because it is interesting to no one but me is an indication that it was a success.

As a commissioner to the 218th General Assembly, I was assigned to Mission Coordination and Budgets. There was tension between two of the General Assembly entities: specifically, the General Assembly Mission Council and the Foundation. The RFRC was a mechanism designed by commissioners on the fly to allow room and space for the disagreements to be resolved. Without having to resort to using this tool, its existence has facilitated better communication and an environment of trust.

(I am writing on Tuesday morning. pc-biz is generating a page that says:

Bad Request (Invalid Hostname)

The 219th GA begins Saturday. Hmmm…..)

Fortunately, there was not much to review in Assembly Committee #17: Review of GA Permanent Committees. On May 17, when I started making notes about this committee, there were only 8 items displayed (from my handwritten personal notes): 4 info items, 4 self studies.

(Update: now that pc-biz is up, some of the later additions of business to this committee are available. One that deserves reading — though not asking for any specific action from this Assembly — is the 17-Res Raising Leaders from the Joint Committee on Leadership Needs. It is a helpful look at developing leaders for the new context in which the denomination finds itself.

The other report is compilation of the responses (statistics and quotes received by Research Services regarding the GA Permanent Committees )

Ultimately, the possible import of the self-studies required by the 218th General Assembly was gutted by isolating the reports here. With nothing else to do, these commissioners and advisory delegates are going to hear extended discourses lauding the virtues and importance of these agencies. How many first-time commissioners are going to have a critical capacity to evaluate ACSWP, GANC, Ecumenical Relations, and COTE — particularly if they have to look up what the acronyms mean?

So, I have no expectation that there will be any kind of substantial recommendation for change coming out of this committee.

That’s pretty quick analysis, eh?

So what’s the deal with pc-biz?

I am glad it is only Tuesday and there is time to work out the bugs. However, it reminds me of the difficulties we had at the beginning of the 218th General Assembly (2008) because the technical folks had not anticipated that crush that would be caused by the volume of simultaneous use. In other words, when several thousand people hit “refresh” at the same time, the servers crashed. The problems were worked out later in the week.

Two years later, I suspect the same technical issues exist. It is tough to beta-test a situation where there is an intentional stress on a site that rivals denial of service attacks.

We may not be quite ready for the purely paperless Assembly.

It sounds like an infield, doesn’t it? “Ground ball to Baptism, flips to Belhar and over to Heidelberg for the double-play.” Ok, maybe not.

Looking at the schedule, it seems like the possibility of including the Belhar Confession in our Book of Confessions is the big item of business. We’ll get to that in a moment.

Heidelberg

The Heidelberg Catechism is the first big item for this committee. It had the potential of being a hot-button issue this year. However, it appears that it has been put on the back-burner for now. The request is to appoint the Special Committee to work with a larger re-translation effort with other denominations and report back to the next Assembly. If so, this Assembly will avoid the argument about the proper translation from German to English (as the original action proposed to amend):

Amend the answer to 4.087 as follows:

“A. (Remove: 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 slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God.’) Add: Certainly not; for as Scripture says no unchaste person, idolater, adulterer, thief, greedy person, drunkard, slanderer, robber, or anyone like that shall inherit the kingdom of god.”

Assuming the proposal to join with other denominations in working a much more comprehensive translation is approved, it means:

1. The earliest a revised version would be presented to the General Assembly would be 2012 (the 220th GA);
2. It would need 2/3 of the presbyteries to vote in favor after a GA approval; and then,
3. The revised version’s ultimate inclusion would be voted by the 221st GA in 2014.

Unless something changes — Heidelberg is off the table for this Assembly.

Belhar

The discussion about the Belhar Confession is slotted to begin Monday afternoon. I don’t have any strong feelings about Belhar. I can take it or leave it, but am more inclined to leave it for these reasons:

• I have not been persuaded that there is something so compelling theologically about this Confession that it must be included in our Book of Confessions.
  
• I have not heard rumblings around the denomination crying out for a new or another confession to be added to those we already do not read or use.
• There have been study materials have been available since before the 218th General Assembly (2008) and I am unaware of any grass roots movement or momentum to dig into it and make it our own collectively.
• I have not seen where it has served as a rallying point of unity for those in our denomination who previously disagreed about things. I understand it is designed to be aspirational as opposed to definitional — that is, it describes who we would like to be contrasted with proclaiming who we are.
• The article I mentioned in my previous post, about Assembly Committee 15, written by Jack Marcum suggests there is very little about which we collectively agree or care. “The major finding is the lack of consensus on the most important mission activities.” Even more problematic is the lack of trust we have for one another; and the notion that Allan Boesak, one of the writers of this confession, sees it as a justification of full inclusion of GLBT persons in the church throws the debate into a whole new controversial ballpark that is more likely to divide than unite.

I am not saying I cannot be persuaded; I am saying that I have not been persuaded. Right now, however, I am not sure what it would take to get me over the bar into the “yes” column. That said, I am not on this committee and my participation will be to the extent of casting my vote when this comes to plenary — most likely on Thursday.

Baptism

There are two items here. One is Item 16-06 the GAMC’s response to a request of the 217th General Assembly (2006) to have the Office of Theology and Worship look into the requirement that persons be baptized in order to participate in the Lord’s Supper.

With gratitude to God for this season of sacramental renewal in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and on the basis of the findings of this fertile time of dialogue and discernment, the Office of Theology and Worship recommends that practice of extending the invitation to the Lord’s Supper to “all the baptized faithful” (W-2.4006; see W-2.4011) be maintained.

I am not sure how much energy there is behind the “open table” approach, but it could be an interesting discussion. This is one of those things where it is helpful to look beyond “we’ve always done it this way” to figure out why we have always done it this way.

The other item is Item 16-03 to add language to the Directory for Worship regarding Baptism. I am not a big fan of trying to clarify theology by adding language to the Book of Order. I get the point that the overture is making, but am not sure the Book of Order is really the place to make it. The Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) has advised against this overture — I have been tough on the ACC elsewhere, but found this to be a helpful comment.

Those are the big items from Committee 16.

A third of their action items are related to establishing union congregations or transferring a congregation to a different presbytery. Important? Yes. Those are functions for the GA; just not anything I am going to track.

Then there are elections to confirm, the covenants to approve, the task forces to be created (each costing money), and the GAMC’s request to renew the commitment to “Help Grow Christ’s Church Deep and Wide.” (Item 15-03). Important? Sure. They are functions for the GA; just not anything I am going to track.

Well, let me back up on that for a moment. The GAMC’s request to renew the commitment to help Grow Christ’s Church Deep and Wide is a followup to the action taken by the 218th General Assembly. This was considered a major accomplishment of the last Assembly. It is a broadly worded call to action. It reminded me of an article I saw in the May edition of Presbyterians Today. Jack Marcum, coordinator of Research Services, described the results of a survey asking Presbyterians how the GAMC should focus its energy. Two statements in that article stood out to me:

• The major finding is the lack of consensus on the most important mission activities. In no group did as many as 35 percent rate any one of the 14 listed activities as most important.
• Whatever the GAMC decides, the reaction or lack thereof will be interesting to watch. Apathy might be easier to handle in the short run, but a general “ho-hum” now might be more troublesome for the GAMC in the long run.

That is precisely correct. The problem is not the broad language of the “Grow Christ’s Church Deep and Wide”; the problem is that a significant part of the denomination has no interest in following the lead of the GAMC. That is the much more troublesome reality for the GAMC — and not just in the long run, but right now.

Now, regarding the additional money to create the task forces? Start with the premise: there is no new money to spend. That said, my expectation is that these will get approved; although it does seem somewhat redundant to have two different task forces looking at “racial ethnic and new immigrant church growth” AND “addressing Hispanic/Latino/a participation at all levels of the church.”

Commissioners and advisory delegates serving this committee should prepare themselves for extended periods of orientation and presentation on things that can be handled in less time than it takes to read this note.

This is a hot-button. There are a number of related items, but certainly the biggest is Item 14-08, “Breaking Down The Walls” report. I previously wrote about this here.

The reality is that the votes on this report are going to be up/down kinds of votes. Either the report and recommendations are will be approved as is (or with some really slight modifications) or it gets voted down. This is a case-in-point illustration of how Assemblies “handle business” rather than “solve problems.” No matter what this General Assembly does, it will only “handle the business” and not “solve the problem.”

Why?

There is no practical way to deal with the whole substance of it. There is not time, expertise, or facility to allow for a comprehensive debate. Even taking the recommendations serially (one at a time) would take more time than a committee has — and this is its only topic. It will get even less time during plenary.

It is worth noting that there are still no page numbers on this report. Even the “printer friendly” version is 135 pages; six pages of which are recommendations. How the Assembly is supposed to deal substantively with a hundred-plus-page report without any uniform mechanism for making quick reference for specific portions is beyond me.

Perhaps that is the point.

From my previous post, here’s what you need to know about how this report will be handled:

1. There is no substitute for reading. It is long. It is complicated. It is a situation with theological, physical, political, and emotional dimensions. Know that it is going to take more than one sitting. Read it so you know what is in it.

2. Go back and look at Part II, Recommendation VIII (p. 51/172).  Do not shortcut and just read the recommendations; however, after you have done the reading, come to this recommendation

a. The Assembly is being asked to approve the introduction and the letters; presumably so the letters will be sent.

b. The Assembly is being asked to receive Part III, the study materials and commend them to the church for study.

c. The Assembly is being asked to authorize the creation of a study guide.

3. Then, look at the other recommendations. There are a number of things the Assembly is being asked to approve, express, affirm, call for, urge, and so forth. One that will draw a lot of attention and (you might as well know it now) media coverage is Recommendation III C. “Strongly denounce Caterpillar’s continued profit-making from non-peaceful uses of its products and presses Caterpillar to review carefully its involvement in obstacles to a just and lasting peace in Israel-Palestine and to take affirmative steps to end its complicity in the violation of human rights.”

… [T]he committee will meet for the first time on Sunday, July 4 (fireworks, anyone?). Then, it will have Monday and Tuesday to have public hearings and complete deliberations on this report and everything else it is assigned. It will make recommendations, which recommendations will be deliberated and any minority report or amendments will be considered by the whole Assembly for about an hour or two — most likely on Thursday. That’s it.

Here’s my point: if you like the report, you will love the process. If you have questions or would like to make a change to any part — the action, recommendations, or language in the report — you have to know when and how to act in order to not simply get run over.

For example, when I read the “Letter to Our American Muslim Friends,” (p. 7/172), I was somewhat taken aback by the sentence, “We are aware that American Muslims have come under more scrutiny, pressure, and, indeed, racism since the tragedies of September 11th.” Now,  I get the point they are making – but am irked by the notion of our classifying terrorism as “tragedies.” Because I am not on the committee, if I want to work to make this change, I would either have to persuade the committee to make the amendment or propose the amendment on the plenary floor.

And, as you think about that, ponder this: How long and how many of those kinds of corrections do you expect will be debated before the commissioners groan?

So that’s Assembly Committee #14.

On the one hand, I do not want to suggest that the war in Afghanistan is not important, or issues of peacemaking in Colombia or Sudan are irrelevant.

On the other hand, I do want to suggest that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is not the entity I would seek out for resources, opinion, or analysis of those situations. What does it actually mean for the General Assembly to approve a statement regarding these topics? Are there offices in the Pentagon anxiously awaiting word of how these overtures are going to make it through committee? Are there legislators who are waiting to make policy decisions until commissioners to this year’s General Assembly vote?

Four of the eleven items (Items 13-01, 13-02, 13-03, and 13-09) deal directly with the “war in Afghanistan.” They all include this exact request:

direct the General Assembly Mission Council, through its Peacemaking Program and the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP), to convene a seminary- and college-wide review of peace studies, including peacemaking opportunities appropriate to the need to demilitarize U.S. international relations, and to report the results of this study to the 221st General Assembly (2014);

Item 13-11 has the same exact request, but is a little more broad in asking the Assembly to create (and fund) a nine person task force.

This is ACSWP’s pitch for money from the GAMC budget. They want to add to the library. I urge you: click the link, look at the library. If the goal is to make us feel better about ourselves because we (the General Assembly) have said something, at what point will we be satisfied and how much do we need to spend to continue saying it? If the goal is to have an effective witness in the world, what evidence is there that this is the way?

It is a tough thing for commissioners to say “no.” It is particularly tough when they see these really serious folks talking passionately about these important issues. They are the experts, you know. Compound that with the reality that these are the issues assigned to this committee — the committee they are being asked to serve on, the only committee many of them will ever serve on — and commissioners want to accomplish something. So, let’s study. So, let’s pronounce. So, let’s have the home office convene something.

To which I respond: the library. If what has already been said did not do the trick, saying it again, louder, and spending more money to say it isn’t going to change things. Insanity is…well, it’s now cliche.

Let me make sure I am clear. I encourage congregations, individuals and presbyteries to pursue as God leads the call to peacemaking efforts. That’s not the problem; the problem is General Assembly presuming to have any standing or capacity to do anything other than create more unread statements.

What can a General Assembly do? Item 13-04.  Look at the action items:

• support intercessory prayer and advocacy by the churches…;
• Support the formation of new covenant-based partnerships by PC(USA) presbyteries with presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church of Sudan (PCOS) or the Sudan Presbyterian Evangelical Church (SPEC); and,
• Designate, after consultation with other interested denominations, a period of several weeks in 2010 as an ecumenical “Season of Prayer for Peace in Sudan,” urging the churches to include prayers for peace in Sudan in regular worship services, culminating in a “National Day of Prayer for Peace in Sudan,” including the celebration of partnering relationships by PC(USA) presbyteries with PCOS and SPEC for the purpose of the exhibition of the Kingdom of Heaven to the world.”

The attitude of this item is to encourage the people of the church to do the work of the church; not to wait for the experts to do it for them. This kind of connecting and encouragement is precisely what the denomination can do.

That’s Assembly Committee 13.

The business is pretty limited: do we uphold the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman based upon the authority of Scripture, or do we allow for a variety of interpretations based upon an “emerging” understanding of how the gospel is to be applied within our cultural context?

You see, the actions of Committee 12 may be the most explicit manifestation of the battle between “emerging” church versus the “re-traditioning” church at the 219th General Assembly (2010). It is an illustration of the tension described in Phyllis Tickle’s “The Great Emergence.” There are two strands evident in the recommendations coming back from the Special Committee: the majority report represents the more “emerging” while the minority report represents the more “traditional.”

The majority report seems to follow the line of limiting the authority of Scripture to its persuasive appeal. This is consistent with the observation Tickle makes about how the Reformed understanding of “sola scriptura” is fading:

Now, some five hundred years later, even many of the most die-hard Protestants among us have grown suspicious of “Scripture and Scripture only.” We question what the words mean — literally? Metaphorically? Actually? We even question which words do and do not belong in Scripture and the purity of the editorial line of descent of those that do. We begin to refer to Luther’s principle of “sola scriptura, scriptural sola” as having been little more than the creation of a paper pope in place of a flesh and blood one. And even as we speak, the authority that has been in place for five hundred years withers away in our hands. “Where now is the authority?” circles overhead like a dark angel goading us toward disestablishment. Where indeed? (p. 46-47)

So, while not recommending any change in the definition of marriage, the majority report does make two proposals that would have a practical impact on the traditional understanding of marriage:

A. Recommendations 3. a. and 3.b. encourage presbyteries

to provide resources consonant with the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) regarding use of church facilities administered by said governing bodies for marriages and blessing ceremonies; and

b.  encourage all presbyteries to provide resources consonant with the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) regarding clergy participation in marriages and/or same-sex union ceremonies. Such resources should include guidance on fulfilling the requirements for solemnizing of marriages within the civil jurisdiction or jurisdictions within which the presbytery is located.

B. Recommendation 5 seeks the General Assembly to

a.  encourage all sessions to engage in study of issues of biblical interpretation using the General Assembly papers, “Presbyterian Understanding and Use of Holy Scripture” and “Biblical Authority and Interpretation”;

b.  direct the General Assembly Mission Council, through its Office of Theology Worship and Education, to develop and distribute a study guide for use with the General Assembly papers, “Presbyterian Understanding and Use of Holy Scripture” and “Biblical Authority and Interpretation” that will help sessions engage in issues of civil unions and Christian marriage in light of the principles contained within those papers; and

c.  commend to sessions the use of additional resources related to biblical interpretation, specifically the video segment Biblical Authority and Interpretation, with its accompanying study guide, that was developed by the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

The recommendations in #3 are an invitation to local option regarding the definition and practice of marriage. Conflicting definitions and practices would have to be resolved in multiple remedial cases. The recommendations in #5 are an invitation to re-visit the question of the authority of Scripture; essentially giving General Assembly backing Tickle’s question, “Where now is the authority?”

In the circles I run, the attempt to re-define marriage is experienced as an attack seeking to cut us loose from the anchor of Scripture; subjecting us to being “tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, and by their craftiness in deceitful scheming.” In Tickle’s analysis, this puts me (and the Minority Report) square in the camp of the “re-traditionalists,” which she suggests puts me on the losing side.

To approach any of the arguments and questions surrounding homosexuality in the closing years of the twentieth century and the opening ones of the twenty-first is to approach a battle to the death. When it is all resolved — and it most surely will be — the Reformation’s understanding of Scripture as it had been taught by Protestantism for almost five centuries will be dead. That is not to say that Scripture as the base of authority is dead. Rather it is to say that what the Protestant tradition has taught about the nature of that authority will be either dead  or in mortal need of reconfiguration. (p. 101)

I am not so sure about that. Although the “emerging” ethos has political clout at the General Assembly level, I do not believe it has prevailing clout beyond. There is an old axiom that comes to mind: “we do not go to Scripture to correct it; we go to Scripture to correct us.” I believe we are on shaky ground when we try to nuance ourselves around the meaning of,

And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.” Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.

And, Jesus’ words,

But from the beginning of creation, “God made them male and female.” “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

My point is this: the disagreement about this issue reflects a disagreement about the authority of Scripture — a disagreement that is tearing at the very fabric of the nature of who “we” (whatever that “we” is any more) are called to be.

That’s what is at stake in Assembly Committee 12.