About 11:00 a.m. on Saturday, June 28, in San Jose, California, Moderator Bruce Reyes-Chow’s gavel fell for the final time to adjourn the 218^th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). A supersized measure of fatigue and overload makes it hard to write anything particularly incisive about this Assembly, other than that for good for all, all that will be done by this General Assembly has been done.

For good

Same-sex marriage. Even with same-sex marriage grabbing California headlines, the agents of moral revision did not succeed in changing the definition of marriage for Presbyterians. For the time being, at least, our Directory for Worship still considers Christian marriage to be something only for one man and one woman. In an Assembly with a pronounced tilt to the left, and with vote after vote with only 30% to 40% on our side of issues, the conservative/evangelical commissioners managed to wrest a sizable victory on retaining a biblical definition of marriage.

Israel-Palestine.The committee that handled this issue was entirely different than the similar committee two years ago at the Birmingham General Assembly. This committee seemed to want to approve some item to make any given camp happy. Thus it could approve a wise and restrained resolution that pledged the Assembly to “avoid taking broad stands that simplify a very complex situation into a caricature of reality, where one side clearly is at fault and the other side is clearly the victim,” and then turn around and do exactly what it pledged not to do, by adopting another resolution filled with one-sided advocacy. On the whole, however, we did not lose ground on the Israel-Palestine fairness issue.

New Form of Government. The proposed rewrite of the Form of Government will be studied for two years before a revised version comes to General Assembly in 2010.

For ill

Social Creed: While we would have liked to see it discarded or studied further, the Social Creed for the 21^st Century was approved.

Ordination standards: This issue went south. In this one meeting, amendments to the Book of Order and the Book of Confessions were begun, which would take away the “fidelity and chastity” requirement for ordination. The Assembly also removed the Authoritative Interpretation from 1978 that set as policy that homosexual practice is sin, and this removal does not require presbytery ratification. This will precipitate much rancor and division within churches and presbyteries and was a sad, sorry episode in this General Assembly,

Ecumenical funding:We tried hard, but the massive forces of bureaucracy and institutional momentum combined to cause efforts to remove large grants to the National and World Councils of Churches from the per capita budget.

Got to catch a train now. More is coming over the next weeks.

--Jim Berkley

Just a quick word on breaking news. Late this morning the General Assembly here in San Jose took three actions that will do grave damage to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). (1) It voted immediately to remove the 1978-79 "authoritative interpretation" of the PCUSA constitution that declares homosexual practice to be contrary to God's will. (2) It voted to send out for presbytery ratification an amendment that would delete the "fidelity and chastity" standard for church officers. In the absence of that standard, there really would be no standard of sexual behavior. (3) It voted to adopt another authoritative interpretation to ensure that the church is unable to enforce any really binding standards of behavior in any area of life.

The effect on conservative or evangelical Presbyterians was like three hammer blows to the head, one after the other. (And there could be a fourth later today, if same-sex marriage is approved.) We know this fight isn't over--the presbyteries will have to weigh in, and we have a lot more votes there--but it still feels as if we've gone down for the count and the other side is already strutting around the ring like that famous photo of Muhammad Ali glaring down at the fallen Sonny Liston.

The same-sex advocates weep copiously when they lose votes, and expect to receive (and do receive) the sympathy of the assembly. But our side is not getting--and frankly not asking for--much sympathy today. We're kind of walking around in a silent daze, shocked that everything could go so bad so quickly. We know our hope is in the Lord, and we pray that He will give us wisdom and strength for what comes next after we gather ourselves together.

The crucial votes on all these questions were in the neighborhood of 55-45 percent. The result was not surprising for those of us here in San Jose, as we had gotten the sense that we just did not have the votes to uphold the church's historic standards on sexuality. What was surprising (and truly dismaying) was the way in which the debates were conducted. My overall impression was that the majority commissioners knew they had the votes, were determined to do their will, and really did not care to have much of a debate.

This was by far the shortest debate I have ever seen on the  big sexuality issues. The main debate on Item 05-09, the measure that contained both (1) and (2) above, had no more than five or six speeches on each side. The whole substantive debate lasted less than 20 minutes. And the speeches were not terribly passionate on the whole. It was as if people were just going through the motions before an inevitable vote. I doubt that any of the speeches changed anybody's mind, and they certainly did not even respond to one another.

I was a bit bothered that the orthodox side of the debate stuck almost entirely to pragmatic arguments: that deleting fidelity and chastity would cause discord in the church, that we should study this more, etc. There was only one speaker who actually argued that the biblical sexuality standard was a good thing, and that we would harm people if we backed away from it. Nobody quoted any Scripture, as best as I can remember.

My impression is that this approach was a deliberate tactical choice. I have been told that our opponents sneered at biblical arguments during the earlier debate in the Church Orders Committee. They seemed totally unmoved by the Word of God. But I still must say that's no excuse for us to censor ourselves and silence the Scriptures in this debate. Of course, we need to be wise and sensitive in how we use Bible verses. But it is the only Word of the Lord that we have, and if we don't use the Bible, all we've got is our own opinions and pragmatic judgments, which are a mighty weak reed to lean on.

So on the one side you had the pro-homosexual advocates arguing for justice. And on the other side you had evangelicals saying let's not be divisive and upset people. It was an uneven debate. Whenever heartfelt principles of justice go up against short-term expediency, a lot of good-hearted moderates are going to go for the people who seem to be operating on the basis of principle. We were on the wrong (and losing) side of that debate.

I wish more people could have spoken winsomely about how God's good commands really flow out of his love for us, and we damage ourselves when we ignore them. That's what we were saying in oral testimony before the committees earlier this week. It would have been a principled argument that came from our hearts. It probably still would have lost, because there's  been a serious hardening of the heart among those who are determined to bless homosexuality in the church. But at least we could have been prouder years from now to see the videotapes of our champions standing up for biblical truth on a dark day in San Jose.

Tonight (Thursday) General Assembly made me genuinely furious. The combination of callous power and disposable integrity evidenced by those intent on getting what they want at whatever cost finally just got to me. I’m livid.

Callous power

A commissioners’ resolution asked the General Assembly to “[p]rovide funds to the Office of General Assembly for the purpose of sharing the cost of legal fees defending our Constitution against the New Wineskins Non-geographic Presbytery of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and a group which has joined that denomination.”

Okay, everyone: Bring in your gold. The king is going to war and needs a full war chest!

But wait! The offense  gets worse. When the financial implications were revealed, the amount needed was a whopping $2 million for 2009! That was figured at $50,000 for 40 presbyteries. $2 million to sue the socks off of churches that dare to seek to escape from exactly such ham-fisted tyranny! $2 million for onerous lawsuits slapped on congregations that simply want to affiliate with another Reformed denomination within the ecumenical family of Christ. $2 million in order to grasp and hoard the coveted assets of living congregations, whose ministries would be crippled by a lawsuit.

And whose $2 million would it be? Well, the commissioners were informed that the additional $2 of expenses could push the General Assembly per capita rate up nearly a dollar a person. That’s right. You would get to pay 92 cents per person in your church to help the denomination pursue aggressive and punitive lawsuits against faithful Christians who decide that the outrage has become unbearable. What’s more, that sum would be extracted from your church’s purse as a per capita apportionment, which we are told in no uncertain terms is a moral obligation to pay.

Who would get the money? We weren’t told, but it would go first to the Office of the General Assembly (OGA). Oddly enough, OGA didn’t want the funds. “The Committee on the Office of the General Assembly does not concur in the relief requested by this resolution,” it wrote in counsel to the General Assembly.

Is the church on the verge of crisis? General Assembly must think so, since it voted to approve a forty-fold increase in its litigation funds! It estimated that nearly a quarter of its presbyteries would get embroiled in costly litigation over departing congregations.

Would it still be worthwhile to shake down departing churches at such a horrible expense? You bet it could! Think of the juicy assets that could be confiscated and then liquidated. If the PCUSA isn’t afraid to destroy a good, strong congregation in order to liquidate its assets, this could be quite a lucrative enterprise. Kill a healthy congregation, strip it of its assets, and fill the denominational pot. What a deal! And besides, there is little downside for the denomination, because the churches themselves are footing the entire $2 million of start-up costs that enable the denomination to become their predator.

As the resolution was debated, commissioner Robert Austell gravely warned of the “immeasurable cost to what this motion proposes,” and he was not talking dollars but integrity and reputation burned.

Right back at him came a commissioner from Denver, who intoned how important it is “to help the presbyteries find ways to litigate, hopefully in ways that are graceful, but if not….” Yes, that's right. He said it’s important for General Assembly to help its presbyteries find ways to litigate. Not to evangelize. Not to feed the poor. Not to strengthen discipleship. No, the General Assembly apparently exists to litigate.

“I will not vote in favor of spending two million dollars to take my brothers and sisters to court!” declared commissioner Daniel Moore, with fire and emotion in his voice.

But commissioner Ingrid Cyros certainly would. She who co-authored the resolution warned commissioners darkly that “We are challenged by the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.” Then she slipped from fear into slander, saying that “They have a very coordinated effort”—something denied by both the EPC and the churches that have joined this sister denomination.

The final person to speak before the vote was an earnest youth advisory delegate whose logical compass must be haywire. “If we cannot help our brothers and sisters in this connectional church,” he asked, “then what can we do?” Plenty. We can love and bless disconsolate churches that transfer out. We can let them go in peace. We can be gracious and kind. We don’t need to be in the business of suing the tar out of our fellow Christians with money confiscated from the very congregations now made vulnerable to legal extortion, courtesy of the General Assembly.

Apparently 57 percent of the General Assembly commissioners wouldn’t agree with me, the 57 percent who approved the resolution.

Ah, but there remains yet one ray of hope in this major mistake. An amendment got attached to the original resolution. It authorizes setting up a special designated offering (an Extra Commitment Offering) and stipulates that the fund “will be the source of this support.”

In other words, if people want to donate to a new denominational litigation fund, they can. That money and that money alone would go to presbyteries for their lawsuits. The clever amendment limits expenditures to only the money that some mixed-up soul would want to donate in order to set legal jackals loose on errant congregations.

Somehow, I wouldn’t expect such a solicitation to compete very successfully with feeding the hungry or spreading the Word! 

Disposable integrity

It wasn’t bad enough simply to “tax” the churches in order to plunder stray congregations. The use of hypocrisy to argue the cause was the final straw.

Just moments after the Assembly voted to raise the $2 million war chest to sue churches that had the audacity to try to affiliate with an ecumenical partner church, I nearly fell out of my seat when I heard the chair of the committee invoke our sacred ecumenical bonds to convince commissioners not to switch ecumenical grants of nearly $2 million into a mission budget expense from per capita.

The day before, Michael Kinnemon, general secretary of the National Council of Churches, had reminded the General Assembly about essential oneness with other Christians in the ecumenical community. “You are not Presbyterians,” he said. “You are Presbyterian Christians.”

He was right, and the Assembly just oozed ecumenical goodwill as it received greetings from Kinnemon. Tonight the committee chair gladly invoked memory of that statement.

His timing, however, was horrible. A denomination that requisitions millions of dollars to sue fellow Christians over property cannot be serious about ecumenism! A logically consistent church just would not stoop to such disposable integrity. Nor would one use ecumenical nonsense to win favor for ecumenical funding just moments after blasting transfers that are ecumenical in fact.

Never mind, however. The say-anything ruse worked. The vote tonight indicated that 77 percent of the commissioners chose to keep ecumenical grants mandatory church spending, rather than discretionary. The overtures Presbyterian Action recommended to return per capita to its original intent failed. It was much easier to handle the losing vote than it was to countenance the callous power and disposable integrity that got General Assembly to that point.

--Jim Berkley

Thursday morning at General Assembly, various elected positions were filled for entities such as the Permanent Judicial Commission and the board of the Presbyterian Foundation. Each position had a nominee proposed by the General Assembly Nominating Committee (GANC).

For some positions, there was also a nominee made from the floor, and for those positions, each nominee (both the floor nominee and the GANC nominee) was presented in a three-minute speech by a person familiar with the candidate.

One person describing a nominee chosen by the GANC said that the nominee liked to describe himself as "an evangelical with a conscience." Undoubtedly this was meant to be seen by the voting audience as a positive quality, but it is in fact a slur, though veiled, against evangelicals.

I am a linguist. Linguists know that some terms in language are "unmarked,” and others are "marked." The unmarked terms, the ones without anything overt added to them, are considered basic and normal and definitional. The marked terms are considered unusual and remarkable.

For example, "president" is an unmarked term, and "lady president" is marked, because the word "lady" has been added to it. Therefore, due to the linguistic structure in "lady president,” it is implied that the normal, basic president is a man, but it is unusual to find a president that is a woman. This is why the women's movement has worked so hard to remove from our language the type of distinction such as "president" versus "lady president.”

Similarly, the term "evangelical" alone is unmarked. Therefore a phrase such as "evangelical with a conscience" is marked, because the phrase "with a conscience" has been added to it. By finding the marked term "evangelical with a conscience" a significant way to describe the candidate, the speaker was implying that the normal, basic, definitional evangelical is one without a conscience, because the unusual type of evangelical is an evangelical with a conscience.

I don't know if many people picked this up or not. Probably the speaker didn't even realize that evangelicals had just been insulted. If so, this may be because the speaker's prejudice against evangelicals is so ingrained that the speaker unconsciously assumed that everyone agrees that there is a lack of conscience in evangelicals.

The conscience that the speaker implied that evangelicals lack is most likely a social-witness conscience. In fact, however, a recent study has shown that evangelical churches give more money and participate in more actual social-witness programs (as opposed to doing social-witness political lobbying) than progressive churches do. The idea of a lack of conscience for evangelicals is not only insulting and prejudiced, it is based on incorrect information. Sadly, this shows up in everyday conversations and news stories all too often, and, as I saw Thursday morning, even in our church assemblies.

--Debbie Berkley

The proposed Form of Government was not approved by this General Assembly.

It will be two more years before an Assembly once again needs to decide if replacing our present Form of Government (FOG) is a good idea. In the coming months, sessions, presbyteries, and synods will be able to offer their suggestions and concerns to a reformulated FOG Committee. Then, a new proposed Form of Government will be made available by January 15, 2010, for the 219^th General Assembly to consider in the summer of 2010.

A couple of quick thoughts come to mind:

First, the revised FOG Task Force will be constituted in a yet unknown way, depending on which present FOG Task Force members decide to remain and thus how many new members will be needed. The interesting thing is that the General Assembly Form of Government Revision Committee wrote itself into a key role in the continuing new FOG Task Force. In fact, any new member of the FOG Task Force will be chosen only from members of the GA committee.

No other GA commissioners and no other Presbyterian--no matter how qualified--can even be considered for service on the reorganized FOG Task Force. Only those who sat on the GA committee that made up these rules get a shot at playing on the new team. What's more, the committee moderator and vice-moderator help choose which of their committee members are tapped for the new task force.

Second, the time line for a final draft seems ill-advised to me. January 15 is far too late for governing bodies to: (1) study the proposed draft, (2) evaluate the draft, (3) determine appropriate responses to the draft in the form of an overture, (4) notify the presbytery of the proposed overture, providing enough time for a first reading at one presbytery meeting and decision-making at a second meeting, (5) meet as a presbytery to approve the overture, and (6) transmit the approved overture to the Office of the General Assembly prior to the 120-day deadline. That deadline will be March 5, 2010, for overtures about the proposed FOG to the 2010 General Assembly.

If input on the proposed FOG is truly desired, if presbyteries are expected to play a role by overture in shaping the next FOG proposal, a January 15, 2010, date for unveiling the proposed draft is simply too late.

The 218^th General Assembly has judiciously kicked the can down the street to the 219^th General Assembly. The only better outcome from this General Assembly would have been to cause the new FOG to dissipate for good.

--Jim Berkley

The vote on whether the Heidelberg Catechism should be amended has just finished: 60% to change the wording and 39% to leave it as it is. That means that presbyteries will all be debating this change in our Book of Confessions.

What would be changed in the wording of the Heidelberg Catechism, which has been confessed by Presbyterians for more than four decades, is the removal of the phrase “homosexual perversion” from a list of actions of those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

The debate included consideration of a minority report, which faithfully declared that “The current translation of the Heidelberg Catechism, as adopted in The Book of Confessions, faithfully and clearly declares to the members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and to the world who and what we are, what we believe, and what we resolve to do (G-2.0100a).” That minority report was defeated by a 38%-61% vote. Then, after spirited debate, the original overture to amend the catechism was approved with a 60 percent vote.

Two observations about the consideration:

1)      When a commissioner asked that Jack Rogers be brought in to speak as an “expert,” he was allowed to argue in favor of eliminating the “homosexual perversion” phrase. Later, when another commissioner asked that Pittsburgh Theological Seminary professor Robert Gagnon—the preeminent scholarly expert on the Bible and homosexuality—likewise be able to address the Assembly, Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick suddenly became concerned about bringing into debate voices other than those of commissioners and advisory delegates, and the matter was dropped cold. Rogers, a former moderator of General Assembly; got to speak to one side, but Gagnon, a commissioner only two years ago, was snubbed.

2)      It was amazing to witness how a whole side of the church that has downplayed and greatly ignored our confessions of faith for years has suddenly gained great reverence for the exact, literal text of the Heidelberg Catechism. It was a wonder to behold to hear their veneration for the original German and their deep concern for linguistic analysis of words.

They who can discard and denigrate biblical texts at the drop of a hat must have discovered textual literalism of the highest degree—for the original German text of a catechism, a text that itself is an incomplete quotation of Scripture. They who can without batting an eye twist the obvious meaning of our Form of Government or contend that Scripture says what it obviously does not say—these people now assume a grand reverence for the “integrity” of original wording, rather than the actual catechism thrice affirmed as one of our confessions in the form in which we now have it.

There is the term “crocodile tears” for feigned sadness. I think we need a new term: owl brows for the furrowed brows of feigned concern.

--Jim Berkley

The Church Polity Committee narrowly defeated the Baltimore overture (Item 04-08) to change the definition of marriage (from “the man and the woman” to “two persons”) in the Directory for Worship. It was a close call. Commissioners seeking to reaffirm our traditional understanding of marriage offered a substitute motion to disapprove the overture with a comment noting various biblical and confessional sources for our teaching on marriage. But the substitute was defeated on a 30-28 vote. At that point it looked as if Baltimore might win—a shocking turn of events for all sides. I think even many of the pro-same sex marriage folks believed that victory for their cause in the PCUSA was still a couple years away.

But then a motion to approve Baltimore lost on a 26-34 vote. Apparently, there were a couple committee members who could not bring themselves to vote for same-sex marriage, but who also could not bring themselves to state any reasons for denying same-sex marriage. That left the committee in a quandary, looking for some action in response to Baltimore that would command a majority.

Eventually, the result was to disapprove the overture, but with a comment that undercut the disapproval. That comment was: “Whereas the Committee on Policy deeply debated with honor, the justice and legacy of the definition of marriage, this committee recommends a motion to disapprove the overture at this time, while trusting that the PC(USA) will continue to seek ways and means to seek God’s blessing for alternative forms of covenant between two people.”

Note the last phrase, which is virtually a battle cry (A luta continua!) for the same-sex marriage cause that was ostensibly being disapproved. Note also the qualifier “at this time,” suggesting that same-sex marriage would be acceptable at some other time. One commissioner told his colleagues: “What this comment really says is that we didn’t have the guts to pass it [same-sex marriage] at this time, but we hope somebody else will do it.”

The committee also adopted an overture (Item 04-13) that would initiate a study of the place of same-sex couples in the church and society. The study is framed in language that assumes any difference in treatment between marriage and same-sex relationships is necessarily an unjust distinction. In passing this overture, the committee seemed to be throwing a sop to the same-sex advocates. Having just suffered a bitter defeat on 04-08, they were now given a consolation prize with the new study. Of course, the new study virtually guarantees that the effort to recognize and bless same-sex relationships will return to the 2010 assembly. And next time it will have the institutional imprimatur of a special GA committee, staffed by GAC and OGA personnel.

I was struck by how the debate unfolded before these votes. The oral testimony was unremarkable—the usual arguments that failed to connect with one another. Proponents of same-sex marriage told stories of how their relationships had been disrespected. Opponents told a few stories (of turning away from homosexual behavior, by God’s grace), but mostly talked about God’s design for marriage in the Bible.

There were several arguments put forward by same-sex opponents that failed to sway people, or even backfired:

First, there is the argument that homosexual relationships were morally analogous to incest or pedophilia or polygyny, and that if the former could be justified and treated as marriage, so could the latter. There is logic to this argument, particularly when stated carefully (as was frequently not the case in this committee) and the analogy is narrowed to incest between adults (as Robert Gagnon uses the analogy). Then you have “two persons who love one another” and fully consent to the relationship. It ought to be a marriage, according to the same line of thinking that justifies same-sex marriage. The only reason not to grant that status to incestuous relationships between adults is if there is a structural requirement that marriage must unite unlikes. And if there is such a requirement, then same-sex relationships likewise could be excluded.

The pedophilia analogy, however, does not work as well, because informed consent is lacking on the part of the younger partner. And since consent is a central element in progressive moral reasoning, progressives rightly feel misrepresented by the pedophilia analogy. They take vehement offense, as they also do against the incest and polygyny analogies, and they shut down the discussion with their outrage. They feel they are being accused of advocating pedophilia (or incest or polygyny)—a thought that has never entered their minds. Their motives have been misconstrued. And therefore they cannot see the point about where their logic would take them, whether that is their conscious intention or not. Thus, in the Church Polity Committee, the use of the pedophilia analogy in particular added to the heat, but not to the light, in the room.

A second argument that failed was the warning that people would leave the church if we recognized same-sex marriage. It seemed a manipulative argument: give me my way, or I will walk away. It seemed an unprincipled argument: anybody could make the same threat in the service of any cause, if the threat were plausible, and it would say nothing about the justice of the cause. And the other side could always respond, as it did on the Church Polity Committee, that any losses from people leaving in protest over same-sex marriage would be compensated by membership gains from LGBTs and others who were favorably impressed with our new openness. I think this latter prediction is wishful thinking (very few people go to a church just because it’s “open” and tells them they are “welcome”; they go to church because it offers them a hope that they find nowhere else in the world and summons them to a changed and better life than what they have known), but the point is that committee members had no way of knowing how the membership gains and losses would wash out. So they discounted the argument. I hope that we do not hear this argument, or the pedophilia analogy, in the plenary GA session.

What I do hope we continue to hear is the rich biblical and confessional language expressing our understanding of God’s gift of marriage. We need to say a positive word about marriage, much more than a negative word about homosexuality. But even that positive word is not always heard. Committee member Barbara D’Andrea said of the substitute motion for 04-08: “I find it too narrow, too mean-spirited, basically trying to box people up and tell them to shut up.” It’s hard to see what’s “mean-spirited” about Genesis 2, but that’s how she felt.

At a certain point, the same-sex proponents on the committee grew impatient with the references to Scripture. “We’ve heard a lot about how this [marriage] is a biblical standard, and I’d like to get away from comments about the Bible,” moderator Chandlee Gill remarked. Another commissioner said, “I’ve found the comments on believing the Bible to be verging on insulting. This is not about whether some of us believe in the Bible…. I would appreciate getting away from believing the Bible as it is.”

Several of the same-sex proponents, such as Carl Mazza, claimed that the disagreement was over different interpretations of what the Bible said about marriage. But they never explained their biblical interpretations that supposedly justified same-sex marriage. If they did not believe that Genesis 2, Matthew 19, and Ephesians 5 portrayed marriage as the one-flesh union of the two sexes, how did they interpret those passages? Or did they know some other passages that taught that marriage was really between any "two people who love each other"? They never said. In effect, they used the claim of “different interpretations”—which should have opened a discussion of those interpretations to see which was more faithful to the text in context—as a way to shut down the discussion and turn it away from the Bible.

Afterwards, one of the supporters of traditional marriage told me she wondered whether we shouldn’t drop the biblical arguments altogether, since the same-sex marriage proponents seemed unable to hear them. I must disagree. We believe that the Word of God, by the Holy Spirit, has power to pierce the heart in ways that our own purely human words and pragmatic arguments cannot. It is the Word that the Lord has given us, and it is the Word that we must speak. But we have to understand that hearts will not always be grateful to be pierced. There will be a reaction against the disobedience and guilt that is exposed.

And that reaction is, I believe, some of what we saw in the Church Polity Committee. Same-sex marriage proponents did not like to be reminded that they were turning away from God’s Word to follow their own preferences and imaginings about marriage. If they were truly confident in their own reinterpretation of marriage, they would not have been so upset to hear a few Bible verses. But their lack of confidence—their unspoken awareness that they really did not have a plausible alternative interpretation of Genesis 2, Matthew 19, and Ephesians 5—goaded them to anger against their colleagues who affirmed the scriptural teaching.

This is a reaction that we must be prepared to face, no matter how positive and loving we try to be in our affirmations of marriage. We must trust that, even as some hearts pierced by God’s Word are merely wounded with a festering sense of offense against us, there will be at least some other hearts that are pierced and repaired in their understanding and sewn back together and healed in God’s grace. May it  be so, Lord Jesus.

--Alan Wisdom

The General Assembly Procedures Committee disapproved three overtures (Items 03-08, 10, and 11) that would have shifted grants to ecumenical bodies from the per capita budget to the mission budget. The margins of defeat were not close, ranging from 36-9 to 37-4. It was a result that I (Alan Wisdom) had expected. Those of us who supported the overtures were simply outgunned by the PCUSA/ecumenical establishment.

I gave a two-minute oral testimony and published two briefing sheets explaining the reasons why the ecumenical grants should not be extracted from churches via the moral obligation of paying per capita. Two overture advocates had a total of eight minutes.

Meanwhile, look at who we were up against: a parade of bigwigs told the commissioners how it was absolutely essential to maintaining our Presbyterian identity that we pay $1 million annually in per capita funds to the National and World Councils of Churches and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. There was the current NCC general secretary, Michael Kinnamon. There were two former NCC presidents, Syngman Rhee (also a former PCUSA moderator) and Michael Livingston. There were several presbytery executives. And finally Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick took 25 minutes to make his own personal pitch. We didn’t have a chance.

The surprising thing is that a few brave commissioners weren’t buying the company line. They asked some tough questions. Was it really true that PCUSA contributions to the ecumenical bodies were “membership dues,” as some of their defenders had implied? Finally, the NCC’s Kinnamon noted quietly, “The council does not have membership dues.” Our large PCUSA grants from per capita are unrestricted grants that go into the general revenue stream of these ecumenical bodies.

One youth advisory delegate read some excerpts from inflammatory NCC political pronouncements that had been quoted in one of my briefing papers. You could see the other commissioners cringe. They didn’t want to have to face the flaming partisan stuff that their per capita money was supporting. They preferred to believe what they had been told by all those distinguished speakers: that the ecumenical councils were just wonderful places where church leaders got together and enjoyed fellowship in Christ. That was the ecumenism that they voted to keep funding. But the real NCC, WCC, and WARC will be glad to have the money.

ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACEMAKING

This is the first of three posts that I (Alan Wisdom) will make reflecting on committee actions on various issues of interest to Presbyterian Action. The second will cover the use of per capita funds for grants to ecumenical organizations, and the third will deal with the debate over the definition of marriage.

The Peacemaking and International Issues Committee approved several items that are somewhat in tension with one another. It adopted two pleas for even-handedness—Item 11-06 from National Capital Presbytery (by a 47-15 vote) and Item 11-26 from Santa Barbara (by 32-24). The latter calls on church agencies to “defer from taking actions or making statements that align the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) with unilateral support for any of the specific parties involved in the struggle.”

 Yet a third resolution passed (by a 47-17 vote), a response to Item 11-01, clearly leaned toward the Palestinians and against Israel. It affirmed the “Amman Call” issued from a 2007 World Council of Churches consultation. That Amman document repeatedly condemns “[t]he illegal [Israeli] occupation [that] has stolen two generations of lives in this tortured place, and threatens the next with hopelessness and rage. “ Israeli settlements and the separation barrier are also denounced, while there are no specific criticisms of any policies of the Palestinian Authority or the neighboring Arab states. The Amman Call pledges solidarity with Palestinians, but not with Israelis.

This unbalanced resolution was based upon a text suggested by the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP), one of those PCUSA bodies that Item 11-26 had asked “to defer from positions or policy statements that appear to favor either side in the conflict.” Clearly, the pro-Palestinian element on the Peacemaking Committee understands the contradiction between 11-26 and the response to 11-01. It has submitted a minority report that would answer 11-26 with the action on 11-01, thus suppressing the plea for balance in 11-26. There will be a floor fight when these items come up in the plenary session of the General Assembly, probably on Friday evening.

The good news out of the Peacemaking Committee was that hostile actions (as opposed to words) against Israel were rejected. Overtures that would have re-energized the divestment process targeted at companies doing business with Israel, and that would have urged the suspension of U.S. military aid to Israel, were disapproved. But the vote margins were not large (e.g., 27-35 to disapprove Item 11-07). There is still a determined minority that seems intent upon punishing Israel.

Wednesday morning I (Debbie Berkley) had the chance to listen to a short talk by the Bible scholar Robert Gagnon, who is the foremost authority on the Bible and homosexuality. He reiterated some important points in the ongoing debate.

Often people will say that since Jesus hung out with prostitutes, who are we to judge anyone? Jesus didn't condemn them, so neither should we. They use this argument by extension to say that Jesus did not condemn homosexual activity.

Dr. Gagnon pointed out, however, that the reason that Jesus hung out with these people was not that sexual sin was so inconsequential; it was rather that their sin was so serious that they needed his personal attention in order to be rescued from it. So he hung out with them, but not merely to say to them, "You're fine just as you are." Instead, he said, "Repent, and sin no more." He said this because he loved them so much. He loved them so much that he wanted them to live, and it was only through their repentance, their turning from sin, that they could find life. 

One important way that we love our neighbors as Jesus did is by pointing them away from their sin--from what is injurious to them--and towards life. But Dr. Gagnon said that if we don't know what is injurious to them, we can't know how to love them. In fact, we may actually act in a way that is in truth hateful towards them, if we don't know what is injurious to them. So we need to know what the Bible tells us: that sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman is sin, and that sin is injurious to us. 

In Ezekiel 13:19b it says "By telling my people lies they wish to hear, you bring death to those who should not die." This is something that we need to remember. Love isn't just saying, "I love you. You're special. You're fine the way you are. Do what feels right to you." People do want to hear that; they don't want to hear that their behavior is wrong. But hearing these "lies they wish to hear," and believing them, brings them death, and they should not die. So telling them lies is not love; it is hate. Instead, love is reaching out and bringing our neighbors back from the brink of the pit. 

Dr. Gagnon said that if we speak this truth in order to extend this love, we will doubtless be abused by those who disagree with us. But, as he said, behind us lies the cross; before us is the Lamb who was slain. We must go ahead and bear the abuse for the sake of our neighbors and our Lord.

--Debbie Berkley

There was a long debate Wednesday afternoon and evening about a motion concerning the God of the Christians--or, at least, of the Presbyterians of the PC(USA)--and the god of the Muslims. This motion stated in part that we worship a God that the Muslims also worship, an idea that is hardly without controversy and is in fact, I believe, heretical.

At one point in the debate, a commissioner spoke about her sister, who had lived in Saudi Arabia for forty-some years. Her sister's family members are in fact all Saudi Muslims. This commissioner said that her Saudi Muslim nieces and nephews, their spouses, their children, and all her other Saudi Muslim family, would be able to affirm much of what was in the motion, such as that Presbyterians and Muslims all share a concern for the poor.

However, she said, they would be distressed and affronted by the notion that the PC(USA) would presume to state anything about what Muslims believe, and most certainly by the notion that the PC(USA) would presume to state that Muslims and Presbyterians believe in the same god. 

This commissioner stated all this with great emotion. It was a powerful testimony as to why this motion should not be passed. However, before she had even finished speaking, the moderator of the ecumenical committee was already speaking, interrupting her. The committee moderator suggested to Bruce Reyes-Chow, moderator of the General Assembly, that it would be useful to have the representative of the Islamic Society of North America (I believe that's the correct name) speak to the assembly, and this was allowed. 

No one pointed out that it was out of order for the committee moderator to introduce into the discussion someone not formally granted the privilege of the floor, and for that person who had not been granted voice to address the Assembly. So, the Islamic representative got up and spoke calmly about how Islamic beliefs were diverse, and that there was no way to summarize them. At one point he even referred to the Islamic god as "him or her".

The Islamic Society member's speech worked well to neutralize the effect of the commissioner's stirring testimony. And the distressing thing about it is that I doubt it was representative of the average Muslim. I would be very surprised to find out that there are many Muslims who refer to Allah as "her." 

Fortunately the motion was amended, but the language is not perfect. And judging by the speeches made by commissioners during the debate, there is much misunderstanding out there about both our God and the Muslim god. 

Many of those who spoke seem to think that since the Muslims believe in one god, and since we believe in one God, we must therefore believe in the same god. This is faulty logic, but that does not deter people from coming to this conclusion. 

There is a will among some Presbyterians to reach peace and understanding with Muslims by declaring that we worship the same god. I do not believe that this will make Muslims happy, but since some key Presbyterians do believe that it will, this issue may come back to haunt us in the future.

--Debbie Berkley

Consideration of a serious issue—our care of the environment—took a humorous turn in the General Assembly Committee on Social Justice Issues Tuesday (June 24). A major policy paper on energy policy and global warming was under consideration, and an amendment had turned the committee’s attention to the paper’s recommendation to “[r]educe consumption of meat, because the production of grain fed to most livestock is fossil fuel-intensive and their waste emits methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas.”

The subject of methane gas emissions was a rather delicate topic for proper company, but the paper’s chief writer was forced to tackle it when a youth advisory delegate asked, “Wouldn’t eating cows actually cut down on methane emissions?”

Good question. An eaten cow doesn’t emit anything anymore. But the consultant pointed out, of course, that if people reduce their consumption of meat, fewer cattle will be raised and thus, less methane will be emitted from their waste.

A Midwest commissioner felt duty bound to amend the paper by striking the section on reducing meat consumption. He knows many ranchers who would be affected by a slide in meat consumption. The committee, however, voted to retain the section—apparently, among other reasons, to reduce cow emissions.

Presbyterian Action advises commissioners to view the energy paper with caution. The committee, however, commended it to the full assembly following minimal discussion. What was not discussed is telling:

• No discussion about the disputed reality of global warming or its possible reversal. Catastrophic warming was simply assumed.
• No discussion about whether humans and our carbon footprint are the major cause for possible warming. Humans were assumed to be the culprit.
• No discussion about the effectiveness of the proposed drastic remedies to reverse warming—how the remedies would produce negligible good.
• No discussion about the harsh economic impact that would cripple economies and price food and energy beyond the means of the poor.

But ACSWP Coordinator Chris Iosso did let it slip that approving this paper on the environment could help reopen a General Assembly Council office on the environment in Louisville, a project that had previously died because of shrinking funds and interest. At the least, this policy would guide the work of an environmental office.

Committee approval of the paper had a 66-4 vote split. One cannot help but wonder just how much of the complexities of this paper the commissioners had mastered in only a few minutes.

--Jim Berkley

The Social Justice Issues Committee today (Tuesday) put a lot of energy and time into considering a resolution titled “A Social Creed for the 21^st Century.” This “creed” is a one-page listing of social-action goals for churches to seek, including items such as “employment for all, at a family-sustaining living wage” and “high-quality public education for all and universal, affordable, and accessible healthcare.”

Presbyterian Action has recommended not approving the Social Creed this year.

After much consideration, the committee faced a choice: approve the social creed immediately, on the one hand, or, on the other hand, receive and commend it “to the entire church for study and a holy conversation” and submit it again to General Assembly for possible ratification in 2010. When the vote was carefully counted, it ended up 36 to approve, 36 to disapprove, and 2 abstaining—a tie, with personal judgment split right down the middle.

After a brief consultation, the chair ruled that because of the tie, the committee would need to vote again. In the second vote, 41 wanted to approve the social creed, 34 wanted to defer it, and 1 abstained. Thus, with an evenly split house, the social creed will go on to the full General Assembly with the recommendation that it be approved—hardly a ringing endorsement!

It is interesting that part of the original resolution directed entities “to publicize and interpret this ‘Social Creed’ as a concise consensus statement of existing policy…” [emphasis added]. The committee voted to amend the “consensus statement” part in order to refer to the creed as “a synopsis statement.” Calling it a consensus would have been humorous. The committee was split down the middle on that statement, which is the exact antithesis of consensus!

What’s more, the church as a whole knows next to nothing about this laundry list of social causes—for good or for bad. The Social Creed has not bubbled up from a consensus within the church; it was manufactured by an activist committee. The idea originated in the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy, went off to the National Council of Churches, and now comes back to Presbyterians by way of the ACSWP again. Since it is a joint statement, it cannot be reworked to fit particular Presbyterian needs. It can be only approved or disapproved.

In testimony before the committee in an open hearing Tuesday morning, IRD vice-president Alan Wisdom voiced concerns about the Social Creed’s origin and the lack of consensus in reality, despite the claim of consensus. Alan suggested sending it to the church for two years and then considering whether the creed is truly considered by the rank and file of the church as “a concise consensus statement of existing policy.”

Later, in listening to the discussion of the Social Creed by the committee, I kept hearing echoes of Alan’s two-minute presentation in the open hearing. His counsel that the church needs more time to know and understand the Social Creed found realization in the substitute motion that came one vote short of being the committee’s recommendation.

That almost-approved motion will now be a minority report that accompanies the committee’s recommendation for consideration in plenary. General Assembly as a whole will thus be able to give the entire church the opportunity to be in actual consensus about “A Social Creed for the 21^st Century”—or not.

--Jim Berkley

In fifteen different venues today (Monday), items of business cascaded across the General Assembly commissioners. The commissioners and advisory delegates are now divided into the committees in which business is first aired. And these committees are the bodies most likely to give the greatest attention to any given item.

The same items will be considered again by all the commissioners in plenary session later this week. However, the heaviest legislative work is usually done in committees, and commissioners in the plenary often seem content simply to rubberstamp the recommendations of the committee.

In the two committees I observed today, the commissioners and advisory delegates were busy hearing brief testimonies in open hearings and listening to overture advocates tout their wares. They were voicing their opinions, making amendments, and voting. Patiently, they were working their way through the business directed to their committees.

Days such as Monday and Tuesday in any General Assembly are typically tedious and demand patience and tenacity. So much depends on the skills of the committee moderator and other officers. Wise and judicious committee leaders can help business flow smoothly and nearly painlessly. Incompetent or unfair leaders, however, can make committee work nearly unbearable.

Having endured my share of the latter kind of moderator over the years, it was a delight this year to spend most of my day in a committee with a highly competent and congenial leadership team. The chair understood the task, kept the process well in his grasp, offered useful suggestions, kept the pace brisk and cheerful, and remained kind and diplomatic in his dealing with others. The whole committee soon reflected the chair’s style.

The day was long, and yet it was not onerous. What a gift to a committee is competent and fair leadership!

--Jim Berkley

There are a lot of people all over the USA who believe a lot of untrue things about the IRD.  Without speculating about who started these rumors or why, I (Debbie Berkley) will just say that the gist of it is that the IRD is supposedly just masquerading as a Christian renewal group, but in reality is a conservative political group whose aim is to silence or sabotage the liberal social witness of the mainline denominations, or, failing that, break up those denominations.  Supposedly the IRD has deep pockets and takes orders, according to some of these rumors, from the Bush White House itself.
 
Of course this is all nonsense, but it's surprising how many people believe these things.
 
I found this out in person Saturday here at GA when another volunteer and I were manning the Presbyterian Action (IRD) booth in the exhibition hall.  A woman started to walk by, and then stopped and said that we had no right to be there.  I said that we were Presbyterians, and she said, no, we were not.  I replied that I had been a Presbyterian for 34 years, and she still insisted that we were not really Presbyterians.  She started to talk about all the evil that she "knew" about that the IRD had done to the PCUSA, and I started to tell her that those things were all myths, but as her voice became more and more raised, I realized that conversation would not be fruitful.  So I told her that we would pray for her.  She angrily replied that she would pray for us, and then she left.
 
My fellow volunteer, who had been unware of the anti-IRD rumors, was stunned, as were the people in the neighboring booths, and even I was left a little shaky.
 
Later that day, walking along the sidewalk outside, I passed the same woman, and we eyed each other uneasily and exchanged wary smiles.
 
The next day, Sunday, which was yesterday, committee meetings began, and, to my surprise, I discovered that the same woman is a commissioner member of the committee that I am observing.  I started wondering if God was placing her deliberately in my path, and began wanting to reach out to her.
 
That evening, I prayed about the situation, asking God that if he was putting this woman and me together, that he would make it clear, and that he would help me know what to say.
 
This morning, Monday, I sat in on her committee meeting again.  During a break, I was washing my hands in the restroom, when I looked to the right, and there she was, at the very next sink.  It could hardly have been more clear that God was putting her and me together!  So I said hi, and she said hi, too.  We ended up telling each other our names and having a conversation right there.
 
We did not convince each other of anything in that conversation.  She still believes that the IRD has no right to be at GA, and that the IRD is harming the PCUSA.  But she knows my name, and she knows that I love Jesus.  She knows I'm a linguist, not some IRD automaton.  I know her name, and that she has been a presbytery moderator.  We told each other a little bit about our views.  We named each other sisters in Christ.  We even hugged.  I hope that in her mind, I am not the enemy; she is certainly not the enemy to me.
 
I saw her again across the balcony this evening at the worship service held across the street in the civic auditorium.  I'm interested to see what God is going to do with this.  Or maybe I'll never know, but whatever it is, it should be good.

--Debbie Berkley

At any worship service associated with General Assembly, however, a discerning congregant has to remain vigilant to avoid saying or singing words one does not believe. Excellent forms of worship, with massed voices and stirring instruments and rich pageantry, oftimes become diminished by portions of liturgy or lyrics of hymns that offend rather than uplift.

I regularly find myself needing to scan ahead in a responsive prayer or a hymn to decide if the words are really words I can repeat with integrity. In worship, we might end up “confessing” the sins of others or confessing “sins” we would not consider sins. In songs we may find phrases or whole stanzas that simply are not sound theology or that reword classic hymns with more politically correct fluff. Responsive readings may contain lines we wouldn’t feel right voicing and thoughts more conducive to politicking than to holy worship. So one must scan ahead to avoid being a hypocrit.

The ambiguity of one hymn’s lyrics left me wondering just whose “policies deceive” and which “leaders bypass justice.” Are we talking church or national policies and leaders? Or both? I could sure make a case for how the lyrics would describe our denominational situation, and others could likewise assume the hymn is referring to the U.S. government. One can’t tell from the ambiguous writing. When the hymn talks of being “amidst those now derided,” who are the derided? One could take it many ways.

The gathering prayer ripped off words associated with Saint Francis of Assisi. But then the liturgy writer added a line for worshippers to use in response that read that “it is through kindness, justice, and humility that we are brought into unity with God’s abiding Spirit.”

No it is not!

It is only through the prevenient grace of God made possible by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is by grace alone--offered to those with no merit in their own kindness, justice, and humility--that we become children of God and citizens of his kingdom! Here in a supposedly Reformed church, we were supposed to mouth in worship a version of works righteousness. Not this worshipper!

During an otherwise touching part of the service in which mission personnel were commissioned, we worshippers were supposed to respond to a question about our own commitment with a rejoinder that talked about “Christ’s reign of peace, justice, and love….” Yes, it is such a reign, but if we are talking about the Kingdom of God, why not speak as well about Christ’s reign of power and righteousness? This is no tame God, to echo C. S. Lewis! Why soften the edges of the Lord of Lords?

It seems to me that frequently Presbyterian worship leaders fall all over themselves to make God palatable and sweet, politically correct and congenial. It seems to me that even Santa Claus has more edge than the sweet little god made in the image of the hour.

Much of the worship service was great. Outgoing moderator Joan Gray preached well. Most of the music wastirring. Liturgists did their parts with polish and decorum. But I just wish the whole liturgy focused on God, however, and not on the current causes of whoever composed the service. Or perhaps I was just feeling a theological curmudgeon this Lord’s Day at General Assembly.

--Jim Berkley

Reyes-Chow has a broad appeal due to his youthfulness and engaging manner. He injected an air of freshness and humor into his remarks. Much of this, besides his positions on theology and issues, undoubtedly went into his election. However, as I listened to his five-minute statement, and to his answers to questions posed by commissioners and advisory delegates, one remark struck me and caused me to ponder its meaning.

Reyes-Chow said he wants the PC(USA) to be a church that "cares more about being faithful than about being right."

I understood this to mean that he hoped Presbyterians would care more about being faithful than about being doctrinally correct--care more about being faithful than about what they are faithful to. Later my husband said that he thought Reyes-Chow meant that he hoped that Presbyterians would care more about being faithful than about being the right one in a dispute--care more about being faithful than about winning an argument.

Let me discuss this second view first.

If Reyes-Chow meant that he hoped that Presbyterians would come to care more about being faithful than about winning arguments, this implies that he believes that now there are at least some Presbyterians who do care more about winning arguments than they care about faithfulness. No matter who he might have in mind, this is a patronizing attitude to take towards any group of people, let alone fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. If this is indeed his meaning, it implies that there are some Presbyterians that he has not gotten to know well enough to understand their motives. It is also disappointing to think that a candidate for Moderator--who now actually is our Moderator--would have such an uncharitable attitude towards any group. One always hopes that anyone would attribute the best possible motive to anyone until there is concrete evidence of a worse motive.

If this was indeed Reyes-Chow's meaning, let us hope that, as he grows into his role as Moderator, he will get to know all groups in the PC(USA) well enough that he will understand their motives and support them as fellow Presbyterians, even if he disagrees with them. I think he has expressed such intentions at least, and, since Reyes-Chow in the past has shown kindness to our family, I do not think that he intends a putdown to anyone. Perhaps the full implication of his words--if this was his meaning--have not occurred to him.

I thought, however, that what Reyes-Chow meant was that he was looking forward to Presbyterians caring more about being faithful than about being right or wrong in their beliefs. And after he said it, it struck me that--if that was his meaning--I didn't know how that could actually be possible in a meaningful way. How can anyone be faithful to anything if they don't know whether or not they're right about it? Or, at least, how can their faithfulness be meaningful in such a situation?

Faithfulness needs to be faithfulness to something. It's wonderful to care about faithfulness. But if we don't know whether or not we're right about what we're faithful to, then no matter how much we care about our faithfulness to it, we may actually be doing harm in the world rather than good, if we are wrong about what we're being faithful to. For example, white supremacists may be very faithful to their cause. But, as I'm sure Reyes-Chow and most people reading this blog would agree, the white supremacist cause is both wrong and harmful. Faithfulness alone, without being right, is not sufficient.

Rightness, and truth, matter if we want to love the world with God's love, rather than blunder through it willy-nilly, even while being faithful. When we care about being right, we don't care about it for the sake of winning arguments, or for the sake of pride in the correctness of our doctrine, but rather we care about it so that we can serve God in the way that God knows best, to his glory, the furtherance of his reign, and the better love and care of all his people.

It sounds very friendly and inclusive to hope that Presbyterians will care more about being faithful than about being right, but it is actually careless and dismissive. I hope to hear better things in the future from our new Moderator.

--Debbie Berkley

The General Assembly has elected a youthful blogger for moderator from among four candidates. The Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow won the election on the second ballot, with 55 percent of the vote. The Rev. Bill Teng, a good friend of Presbyterian Action, ran second, with 36 percent.

From the start, Reyes-Chow, a San Francisco pastor in a recently planted church, positioned himself as a middle-of-the-road, funky, new-style dude who is hip to a tuned-in, on-line way of hanging out together in ministry, particularly with electronic means such as Facebook, a blog, and e-mail—or something like that. His “moderate” credentials may be a little strained, however, as he believes “gays and lesbians ought to be ordained,” for instance. However, he made it clear that he will follow the Book of Order until he can get it changed. Apparently, the commissioners are okay with that.

The nominating speech for Reyes-Chow focused on his youth and his “capacity to help us feel less anxious and resistant to change.” Of the four candidates, Reyes-Chow was the only one with an earring but without a necktie. He did, however, don a coat for the occasion.

“I’ve said to myself, ‘What are you thinking?’” Reyes-Chow confided in his speech to the Assembly. “Here I am, 39 years old.  Why should I stand for moderator? This is ridiculous!” Not to 55 percent of the commissioners. They apparently liked the fact that Reyes-Chow is what the vast majority of commissioners aren’t: young.

Also in his speech, Reyes-Chow talked of “stepping out in faith, rather than clinging to survival.” He wants us to be “a church family that cares more about being faithful than about being right,” which is a little hard to figure out but, come to think of it, sounds just a little bit worrisome.

In the question-and-answer time, Reyes-Chow mentioned that he typically preaches at his church for about five minutes and then opens the floor to comments, which, he pointed out rather slyly, “some might say is to moderate.“ He says that in his type of congregation, he finds himself practicing “online [pastoral] care.” Reyes-Chow definitely is not your father’s moderator!

Bill Teng, a Washington, D.C.-area pastor and recent president of Presbyterians For Renewal, framed a clear, compassionate, positive, and powerful message of gratitude and hope. His presentation was flawless and his words compelling, but the votes simply weren’t there to be found. 

Teng’s strong second-place showing placed him in excellent company among outstanding evangelical leaders who conduct superb campaigns but can’t seem to garner enough commissioner votes—high-caliber folks such as Nancy Maffet, Harold Kurtz, and David McKechnie.

For some reason, commissioners so very regularly elect a moderator who is in basic opposition to our constitution on ordination standards and to the Bible on moral standards. That probably shouldn’t amaze me, but it does every single time it happens. What are those commissioners thinking?

--Jim Berkley

In the opening plenary presentations, several of the top program heads spoke briefly about exciting activities happening within their areas of responsibility. It was an uplifting set of presentations, and I just couldn’t help but notice a refreshing new spirit alive within the Louisville offices. These leaders were talking about sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ, of churches growing, of ministries central to the life of a Christian congregation.

Several particular congregations were singled out as examples of excellence:

·        First Presbyterian Church of Honolulu, Hawaii, and Dan Chun, its pastor. This church bought a golf club and is filling the clubhouse with its overflowing worship, while continuing to allow the golf income to pay some of the bills.

·        Solana Beach Presbyterian Church, near San Diego. It combined mission funding for an African hospital with its own capital campaign.

·        A new church development by pastor Graham Baird in Paso Robles, California, that has exploded into life and has almost instantaneously become far larger than the vast majority of existing Presbyterian congregations.

What do these churches have in common? A rich, faithful heritage of evangelical leadership.

These are churches in which the Bible is honored and an orthodox message is preached. Congregations such as these that are the future of the PCUSA--just as congregations such as these have been the strength that brought us a glorious heritage of belief.

One further item: Rhashell Hunter, program director for Racial Ethnic & Women’s Ministries, highlighted a military chaplain, who served in Iraq. A brief video segment told a gripping story of her ministering to a grievously wounded soldier. It was moving to hear of this chaplain touching a life so effectively. And it is all the more striking that in past General Assemblies, Presbyterian involvement in military chaplaincies was nearly severed. Now, we have a chaplain being honored for such meritorious duty.

From the opening plenary, this General Assembly begins with the feeling that it is a new day for the PCUSA.

The Presbyterian Action booth is in a prominent location in the Exhibition Hall, and all kinds of friends and new friends are stopping by. Several commissioners and observers just came by to say they read our articles and blogs, and they wanted to thank us. That’s always gratifying!

At this most vital point of engagement, we’ve had more than our share of breakdowns. My wife and I had two planes break at the gate in Seattle before we finally left on a third plane two and a half hours late. Alan Wisdom missed his flight on Thursday, due to a frustrating security back-up in Baltimore. Our booth materials came up missing on their way from Washington, D.C. and only showed up late Friday. Then my phone/PDA--let’s say my brains--decided to lock up and quit, stranding me without information and communication.

Yet, in the midst of all that frustration, I had the experience of dealing with the nicest and most conscientious printer, who was running off some fliers for us. The man couldn’t have been more patient, understanding, and helpful. I think he must have been an angel that God slipped into a mishap-prone day out of sheer kindness.

There are so many great people in the PCUSA, too. General Assembly is part family reunion, and I was enjoying having my wife, Debbie, with me at G.A. for the first time. I got to introduce her to some fine folks who care deeply about this church. The day for me was filled with mad dashes from one place to another, but every frantic task was graced with slow-down conversations with dear people. I couldn’t take five steps without running into an old friend, former colleague, denominational leader, or fellow team member and then stopping to chat.

The day became people-focused, and the tasks, well, they could just get done in God’s timing. Eventually, it all worked out--right up to 12:30 at night, when my computer quit (because I had left its power cord in our exhibition hall booth). That sent me to bed at a more decent hour, which, again, I think was God’s way of saying, “This can wait.”

So I am finishing this blog on Saturday morning during the opening plenary session. Today at 7:00 a.m., the whole renewal community gathered at the Presbyterians For Renewal pre-assembly briefing. The large hall was overflowing with evangelical commissioners and advisory delegates! It is a wonderful sign when you see load after load of extra chairs being brought in to accommodate the faithful commissioners who will be voting over the next week.

Those involved in the work of each committee sat together, and it was common for there to be six to a dozen or more commissioners praying and planning together as a team. Soon after the conclusion of that meeting, the first plenary of General Assembly was called to order. Your General Assembly is now in session.

--Jim Berkley

General Assembly begins on Saturday morning. Those who will be attending as commissioners, advisory delegates, and observers are bearing down on preparations. I wonder how any of us will be ready, but we will. And better yet, God is always ready.

Our team member Gary Green has returned from Minnesota, where he and his family put to rest his beloved mother. She is with the Lord now, a saint who has run the race and completed it. Gary and the rest of us are still doing our best to finish our parts. We are pleased that Gary can still be with us in San Jose.

We thank you for your prayers for him and for all of us. Please continue to pray for our preparation, our travel, and our witness in San Jose.

We are excited about the Monday noontime event Presbyterian Action is sponsoring. From 12:30 to 1:20, using up most of a lunch break from committee meetings, we are hosting a Presbyterian Action Live Briefing at the Fairmont Hotel's Club Regent. We will have Ambassador Dennis Ross adderssing our particular situation at General Assembly--by way of video presentation from Washington, D.C.

Ambassador Ross was point man in Middle East negotiations for Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, so he knows the situation in the Middle East as few others do. He will be speaking to us about the complexity of the situation on the ground, the necessity for fairness as a peace broker, and the best ways that Presbyterians can contribute to true peace and justice.

Everyone is invited to this free event. If you will be in San Jose, be sure to attend, and bring others with you. Both a written transcript and a video presentation of the address will also be available on the web following the address. (Lunch will not be served, so I suggest grabbing a quick bite to eat between noon and 12:30.)

--Jim Berkley

Nine members of the Presbyterian Action General Assembly Team will soon be headed for San Jose. As I write, these faithful volunteers are scheduled to attend:

• Gary Green, an elder from Arizona who moderates the Presbyterian Action Steering Committee.
• Rebecca and John McElroy, elders from Missouri. Rebecca is a Steering Committee member and has been Vice-Moderator of the General Assembly.
• Ken and Jean Robbins, who are from California, where Ken is an elder, and he also serves as a Steering Committee member.
• Debbie Berkley, a deacon from Washington, who is my wife and a blogger on Christian matters.

All of these good folks are volunteers, who are not only giving up nine days to serve at General Assembly, but are paying their own expenses, besides!

From the Institute on Religion and Democracy staff come:

• Alan Wisdom, IRD Vice President and former Director of Presbyterian Action, who brings from Washington, D.C., a couple of decades of GA experience and savvy.
• Jim Tonkowich, IRD President, who will lend his hand for a few days in San Jose, flying in from Washington, D.C.
• Jim Berkley, Director of Presbyterian Action, who happens to be me! I live in the other Washington--the state.

Originally we were to have ten members on the team, but Steering Committee member Timothy Smith from New Mexico ended up in the hospital and will not be able to join us, although he would dearly love to be on hand as an overture advocate and experienced commissioner. He is doing better now and will be in our prayers.

Another team member's elderly mother is not doing well, which could affect his ability to attend. Thus, we ask that you would pray for Timothy Smith, Gary Green, Gary's mother, and indeed our whole team. Please pray for healing, for strength, for protection.

Thank you!

--Jim Berkley