|
“Discussion Starter”
Introduction
When conversations a
year or so ago began to consider all options for the future for orthodox
believers in the PC(USA), reform (expressed as “Stay, Fight, Win”) was one of
the options. At the Coalition Gathering VI, in the Fall of 2001, the reform
option garnered better than 50% of the votes of participants showing that
evangelicals continue to have a heart for the reform and restoration of the
PC(USA).
Reform efforts have
been successful in many areas of our denomination’s life. As Louisiana pastor
Russ Stevenson put it in Denver in August of 2001, this denomination is more
evangelical today than it has been in his forty-some years of pastoring. Many
examples could be given to support his assertion, even in light of the setbacks.
Yet, no one argues
that continued reform is needed. No one argues that reform efforts are easily
and quickly accomplished. They often feel like one step forward and two steps
back. In light of the difficulties in accomplishing the needed reforms,
therefore, can we seek to improve the odds, so to speak, by agreeing (uniting)
on priorities? Can we be focused in planning and persistent in seeking those
reforms we regard as essential to the health and restoration of this church
until they are accomplished? Can we be steadfast and always thankful for the
presence of our Lord in our midst? We believe focus on consciously-set
priorities that are pursued with persistence by evangelicals in common agreement
is essential to reaching godly goals for reform.
We suggest the
following criteria for setting priorities for reform:
1.
What is most needful for a
restored church?
2.
What are the crisis issues
that currently give us opportunity and momentum for reform?
3.
What items and actions are
most likely to give us the maximum results with reasonable resources and effort
in the quickest timeframe?
Polity serves theology
Polity serves
theology. Most of us recognize the inversion of that understanding that has
taken place. We focus in this proposal on restoring proper process to enable
matters of theology and pastoral care ministry to reassume their proper place in
the church. That means that though polity and process get a lot of attention,
our goal is restoration of orthodox Christian faith and a mission based on
orthodoxy through proper exercise by Presbyterians of their own polity.
We should seek the
preservation and restoration of the best of our system of government set forth
in our constitution. We ought to examine the way our General Assembly and its
related parts operate, and work for reforms that restore the relationships that
glorify God and serve all the various parts of the body and its mission to the
world.
If we can be focused,
persistent and united, we believe that we can see significant change in our
denomination that will honor our Savior.
Second Round
We suggest specific
goals, and we have started a list of questions and suggested actions that we
believe will move us toward the needed reforms. The first draft of this proposal
was submitted to a group of renewal-minded people, including members of the
Presbyterian Renewal Network and leaders of the Presbyterian Coalition, in
February of 2001. That group identified priorities as a result of a sustained
discussion over twenty-four hours, and individuals present even took assigned
tasks for themselves as individuals or on behalf of renewal organizations. As a
result, a number of initiatives have been enacted.
One important example
is the steps taken to bring the issue of compliance with the constitution before
the 214th General Assembly. That became a team effort involving a
number of renewal people. The result was that: the Coalition website carried a
series of articles intended to educate Presbyterians; the Coalition board
authorized a letter and other media use to raise the issues and explain them;
people worked together to frame an overture for G.A.; Shenango Presbytery picked
up the overture in time for G.A.; and renewal partners worked together in a
variety of ways intended to achieve the result of furthering the holding
together of our constitutional form of government.
We are now offering a
second version of the proposal, updated to account for the first discussion and
actions taken, and for the recent General Assembly. We hope the Coalition board
will find this an adequate device for discussion and the formulation of a plan
for the way ahead.
The premises for our
proposal are as follows:
·
There must be an assurance of fitness for
leadership at every level of church government (prior to
ordination/installation). Those who govern—clergy and elders—must know and
accept God’s Word as revealed in Scripture. They must know and accept the
doctrines of the church as expressed in the Confessions. They must know our
polity as expressed in the Book of Order.
·
Lower governing bodies must have free and open
access to higher governing bodies to hold them accountable, to redress wrongs,
and to facilitate changes to advance the mission of the Gospel.
·
Higher governing bodies must hold lower
governing bodies accountable to the Gospel, which is given expression in our
Constitution. Teaching must be sound and practice must conform to teaching.
This includes the use of discipline.
We have arranged objectives and tasks for
reform by governing body level for simplicity’s sake only. In addition, we have
added as subject headings the Exercise of Church Discipline and the concerns
about our Seminaries.
I.
Reforms needed at the
SESSION level of the denomination
A.
Examination of Elders
Some of our
sessions are ordaining and installing elders without adequate examination of
their theology and their knowledge and application of the Constitution. These
are the leaders of our church. It is from this group that we elect half our
commissioners to presbytery and General Assembly. Yet, many of them have
little knowledge of Scripture; they have had no instruction in the
Constitution and know only the rudiments of Reformed faith.
What steps can we
take, or urge be taken, to better choose and equip our leaders to fulfill
their calling at the local level of our churches?
B.
Instruction in Reformed faith.
We need to raise
the level of instruction in Scripture and its application to personal and
corporate life. What steps can be taken to instruct all Presbyterians in our
common faith? This should be the task of the church, not just for leaders but
for all church members.
C.
Exploration of Ways to Fill the Gap Between
Requirements and Expectations for Church Membership and Those For Ordained
Leadership
If we are to fill
the gap, we will need to building up members systematically in their knowledge
of Scripture and the basic beliefs of Christian faith. In addition, we
especially need teaching in our churches on the meaning of the vows, and the
role and responsibilities of elders as set forth in our constitution. We need
courses of instruction in the confessions and in church polity and process.
D.
Instruction and Pastoral Care Ministry in the
Christian Moral Life
Our political
battles, on sexuality in particular, have been to the neglect of those
affected by the church’s seeming confusion over sexual standards. Instruction
and pastoral care ministry of the church, particularly in the area of
sexuality has been inadequate. This not only affects every Christian, but
also carries over into the qualifications of leadership. What steps ought we
to take to help congregations minister more effectively to those caught in the
cultural moral confusion of our age?
II.
Reforms needed at the
PRESBYTERY level of the denomination
A.
Participation in presbytery and service in key positions, such as COM, COPM,
Nominating Committee
B. Provide
opportunities for the encouragement of like-minded members of presbytery, and
for the development of strategies for raising the level of orthodoxy in
presbyteries where orthodoxy is challenged
Learning the rules
by which presbyteries operate and using the rules and process to effect a
level playing field and good decisions. And capitalizing on the strengths of
presbyteries where orthodoxy prevails: ensuring that leadership reflects the
theology and standards of the majority; sending up overtures to G.A.; electing
faithful commissioners whose views reflect the majority.
C.
Examination of Clergy
Presbyteries are
the entry points for ordained clergy into the pulpits and specialized ministry
positions of our denomination. There is less and less attention to proper
examination of their theology and acceptance of constitutional standards (some
presbyteries delegate this important responsibility to sub-groups). These are
the teaching elders in our denomination and the shaping of the Presbyterian
ethos is done in the acceptance of clergy into our presbyteries. A major
contribution to or neglect of reform takes place at this point.
How can we help
commissioners improve the examination process for clergy in our presbyteries?
What can we do to encourage rejection of clergy candidates who do not accept
the constitution or evidence an inadequate understanding of Reformed faith?
What helps us draw the constitutional lines? How can we help presbytery
Committees on Ministry, Examinations and Preparation for Ministry prepare
candidates for ministry?
D. Specialized
and retired clergy
This group of
clergy often has significant influence at presbytery meetings, yet does not
represent sessions and is not accountable to sessions. We need to set a course
that will result in proper representation at the presbytery level. This is a
high priority item.(Item for overture development—BOO change.)
E.
Election of G.A. Commissioners
Some presbyteries
that vote on amendments in support of the constitution send commissioners to
G.A. who do not support the constitution. What steps or strategies will help
reform the presbytery election process so that members are confident that the
commissioners they elect to G.A. support the constitution?
III. Reforms
needed at the GENERAL ASSEMBLY level of the church
A.
The Election Process
This General
Assembly Nominating Committee process is one that a few of us have
concentrated on for several years. We have worked at reforms of the process
and been successful with each objective we have set, though not necessarily
the first time around at G.A.
The G.A. Nominating Committee (GANC)
process allows—until, and unless a G.A. action takes effect next year--de
facto appointment of people to the GA-PJC and more than 500 other
positions in the church on the national level. The G.A. moderator appoints
members of the GANC; they are not elected. This concentration of power is then
compounded when the GANC presents a slate of more than 180 names to G.A.
commissioners with little biographical data and with no ability by G.A.
commissioners to question nominees. The G.A. voted to propose a Book of
Order change that will make the GANC a body elected by the G.A. This can
be one of the most positive actions of the 2002 G.A. if renewal groups and
commissioners take advantage of the opportunity by encouraging a positive vote
in presbyteries and then proposing candidates from the floor at G.A.
1.
Election in
presbytery
A more effective
reform of the election process would be to elect as many members of national
bodies as close to home as possible. For example, presbyteries should be
electing their own representatives to the GAC. (Item for overture
development—BOO change)
2.
Full disclosure of
candidates
Little
information is available on each of the GANC nominations (usually 180 at
each G.A.) so that the commissioners can exercise an informed decision when
electing people to office. Although some biographical information is now
available on the internet 45 days before the opening of the G.A., vital
information--such as qualifications for the office, past experience that
applies, and the person’s support of the constitution--still is not
available and there is no forum for the G.A. commissioners to raise
questions of the nominees. This is especially pertinent for nominees to the
GA-PJC and GAC.
The current
provision of biographical data is a recent internal GANC response to an
overture that was before the G.A. two years ago. However, the current
voluntary process is inadequate to properly inform commissioners before they
vote. We propose calling for at least an hour of docketed time to be set
aside for the nominees of the commissioners’ choice to be questioned on the
floor of plenary. Booths for candidates could be provided as they are for
moderator candidates, where GANC nominees can be available for questions
from commissioners and observers (but should not be understood as a
substitute for commissioners to hear answers to questions as a body).
(Item for overture development—Rules change)
To make the
constitutional and rule changes effective for reform efforts, we need a GANC
task force to develop a pool of available floor candidates or even folks who
are willing to serve. We need to shepherd prospects through the process.
We need to
develop a pool of available, qualified leaders as floor nominees, especially
for GA-PJC nominations. Since any floor nomination for the GA-PJC must be
the same gender, and the clergy/elder status must match the GANC nominee
(information we don’t have until 45 days before the G.A.), it is crucial we
have a pool of people from the various categories who are willing to serve.
This is a high priority. The G.A. will elect a new class of the GA-PJC at
the next Assembly.
B. Effect
of commissioners on G.A. outcomes (See presbytery section for election
of commissioners)
1. Moderator Candidates
We need continual vigilance in
developing a pool of electable candidates and providing a grooming and support
process.
2. Advisory Delegates
At the G.A., advisory delegates--TSADs,
YADs, ecumenical delegates, and missionary delegates—constitute nearly 40% of
delegates to G.A. They are not chosen to represent our congregations as
commissioners are by BOO requirement, and they are not assigned to committees
by the regular “random” commissioner selection process, but they have vote in
committee. Thus, for example, Amendment A passed the committee because of the
advisory delegate votes. Advisory delegates are not required to be elders and
some are not even Presbyterian. Since the G.A. tends to accept the
recommendations of their committees, the influence of advisory delegates on
decisions by the G.A. is significant.
We need to
eliminate the vote of advisory delegates altogether. The OGA considered a
referral to grant Advisory delegates vote in plenary and came back in 2002
with counsel to the commissioners to retain the status quo, which the G.A.
adopted. The arguments they used for not granting vote in plenary are exactly
the arguments for why advisory delegates should not vote at all.
(Item for
overture development [have one]—rules change.)
3. Random
selection of commissioners to committee
The
Book of Order requires the random selection of commissioners to committee
at G.A. The Standing Rules describe the process. However, Louisville offices
have never been able to verify the randomness of the process and we know that
nearly 40% of voting committee membership is not necessarily included in the
so-called random process.
It is quite routine
to see a committee with non-controversial business loaded with evangelicals
(Evangelism, for example), and committees dealing with sexuality or other
moral or theological issues, exceptionally short on evangelicals. The
commitment to representation fails in this process. Since commissioners tend
to accept the recommendations of their committees, it is quite crucial that we
address the randomness of the assignment process. We need assurance that it is
truly random, as required. (This can only be accomplished through the
overture process.)
Note:
Corresponding members.
A related concern is the freedom with which unelected corresponding members
enter the debate at G.A. They are recognized along with commissioners an
advisory delegate. They should be recognized only by motion and vote of those
duly elected. They only serve to clog and prolong the process.
C. Effect of Rules and Process on Outcomes
1. G.A. is Clogged With Business From
the Top
G.A. entities (such
as CMD, NMD, WMD, and ACSWP, ACWC, and other groups numbering as few as six to
twelve members) submit the vast majority of business that reaches the G.A.
each year—700-800 items of business. We need to elevate the importance of
business from lower governing bodies and eliminate the generation of new
business by G.A. entities whose job is to carry out actions of the G.A..
Currently, it is unclear how much of G.A. business is in the form of reporting
back on initiatives from lower governing bodies and how much is new program
initiated by G.A. entities (the new curriculum, “We Believe,” is an example).
We need some analysis of the business for the purpose of developing strategies
that will return proper emphasis to mission and return more decision making to
lower governing body levels.
Should we work
toward a process whereby G.A. entities must send their business down to a
least one presbytery for approval before going to the G.A.? One suggestion
is that when the G.A. entity is responding to a referral from the G.A., the
entity should send the response to the presbytery(s) that originally sent the
business to the G.A.. That presbytery(s)’ approval would be required in order
for the business to go to G.A.. In cases where only one presbytery sent the
original business, the rule might also require OG.A. to invite comment from
other presbyteries.
The problem of the
magnitude of business generated by G.A. entities requires a thorough look at
the GAC structure to see how much of it is superfluous to the congregations’
mission and theology—and a plan to refocus the work of the church downward
toward the lower governing bodies.
2.
Rules versus
constitutional faithfulness
Presbyterians are
governed not only by a constitution but also by policies and rules pertaining
to process. Presbyteries, synods, the General Assembly and the General
Assembly Council are required to adopt manuals of operations. Many of the
national church entities also have such manuals. The manual of the General
Assembly contains the Standing Rules by which the Assembly conducts its
business. The rules are in constant flux. Proposed changes are most often
offered by the Office of the General Assembly (the G.A. adopts its rules each
time it meets), but the rules also have been changed through overtures and
commissioner resolutions. The rules are exceedingly important but receive too
little attention from us. There appears to be uncertainty among Presbyterians
regarding the authority of the rules, as demonstrated by the recent G.A. on
the subject of compliance with the constitution.
We need to educate
on the function and usefulness of the rules and on the need to be active in
the development of rules that favor a. a level playing field, and b.
decision-making at the lower governing body levels of the church: sessions and
presbyteries. We ought to have a team examine the rules to identify those that
inhibit the power of local bodies and to write overtures generating changes in
the rules.
Presbyterians are
at a distinct disadvantage when proposed rules changes are presented only
shortly prior to a G.A. We ought to have months, rather than days, to
contemplate the implications of the proposed changes.
3. Constraints on Business from Lower
Governing Bodies
Presbyteries are
required by a new rule to consult with G.A. entities before submitting
overtures. The rule serves as an additional hurdle for the desire of lower
governing bodies to be heard at G.A.. An overture last year to rescind this
rule was considered by G.A. OGA asked the Assembly to allow them to correct
and improve the rule and the G.A. yielded. The rule now reads,
Presbyteries or synods submitting
overtures with a recommendations(s) that affects the work or budget of a
General Assembly entity(ies) shall submit evidence that the affected
entity(ies) has (have) been consulted. If such evidence is not submitted, the
Stated Clerk shall recommend that the overture be received and referred to a
future session of the General Assembly so that consultation may take place.”
In addition, the
G.A. in 2002 amended an overture from Baltimore Presbytery that instructs the
Stated Clerk to recommend referring any commissioner resolutions that have
bearing on policy to the following General Assembly. That action leaves open a
subjective interpretation of “policy,” and will have the effect of virtually
eliminating commissioner resolutions since commissioners are now required to
return to the next Assembly to advocate for their resolution.
These rules put
business from representatives of lower governing bodies at a disadvantage and
should be rescinded. (Items for overture development--we have one on
consultation)
4.
Policy development versus constitutional faithfulness
There are several
forms of policies operating in our denomination. There is a Mission Policy
Handbook that lists the decisions of General Assemblies along with the status
of the implementation of each decision. There is Social Policy Compilation
that lists decisions of General Assemblies in various categories of a wide
range of social policy throughout the years. There is a policy for forming
social policy. There is an open meeting policy. There are employment policies.
There is confusion about the meaning and application of policy and there is
little effort to ensure that policies developed and adopted by G.A.s are
consistent with the principles set forth in our constitution. And, as Alan
Wisdom points out, G.A. offices often advocate for causes on which we have no
policy or on which denominational policy is contrary to the advocacy.
Some of the
smallest entities are given the power to generate social policy
recommendations. We do know that the Advisory Committee on Social Witness
Policy (ACSWP), the Advocacy Committee on Women’s Concerns (ACWC) and the
Advocacy Committee on Racial/Ethnic Concerns (ACREC) all have written into
their approved job descriptions a charge to propose social policies to G.A..
While other entities have their recommendations approved by the GAC, these are
among the bodies that send their business directly to the G.A.. That means
that while an overture must be approved by a session and then a whole
presbytery, the business from these entities ordinarily is approved only by a
very few people.
5. Resource People
Resource people for
both General Assembly and General Assembly Council usually are staff or
members of standing committees. They exert undue influence on the G.A.
committees, and on the working of G.A. entities. They typically overwhelm the
elected members of committees in numbers and influence. (Item for
overture development [we have one])
In addition, the
rules now allow for a vast array of “corresponding members” of G.A., all of
whom have the privilege of the floor both in committee and plenary (see p. 5,
Standing Rules, 2001-02). The naming of corresponding members needs to be
contained and they should speak only when requested by the Assembly by vote.
Commissioners who
are well informed on the issues and the unique aspects—including the
pitfalls--of G.A. process are their own best defense against being
manipulated. The pre-Assembly meeting is a crucial time for this instruction,
but generally renewal groups need to help with more explanation of how the
process works and how to work the process.
6.
“Official” Comment
Currently, G.A.
entities (e.g. ACSWP, ACWC) have the privilege of making “Comment” on any item
of business coming to G.A.. This information is attached to the official
business in the reports, often referred to by G.A. committee chairpeople and
often treated as official documents by the G.A. committee. If the item of
business is referred, the comment is referred along with it. The rules entitle
GAC entities to advise on business from presbyteries (overtures), but
presbyteries and sessions do not have the same privilege to advise on
entities’ recommendations through “Comment” attached to the reports.
It is often
difficult to find out when denominational entities hold meetings. There
should be a public notice of meetings of all G.A. entities, including task
forces, that fall under the open meeting policy, 60 days prior to the
scheduled meeting on an easy-to-find website and in the PNS News Briefs
publication. (Item for overture development)
IV. The Right
Exercise of Church Discipline: A Mark of the Church
Our Constitution reminds us of the purpose of
church discipline:
The
power that Jesus Christ has vested in his Church, a power manifested in the
exercise of church discipline, is one for building up the body of Christ, not
for destroying it, for redeeming, not for punishing. It should be exercised as
a dispensation of mercy and not of wrath so that the great ends of the Church
may be achieved, that all children of God may be presented faultless in the day
of Christ.
The integrity of the constitution and the
honoring of the vows that officers take to uphold the constitution are vital to
the health and future of this denomination. There needs to be a commitment to
teach church officers the purpose and process of church discipline as set forth
in our constitution, and a further commitment to take the steps necessary to see
that the constitution is preserved, defended and obeyed.
A. Making G6-0106b stick
We are not in a period of controversy. We
resolved the controversy long ago. We are in a period when there are churches
that find it difficult or impossible to accept the decision the church has made.
It is the role of the church in this situation not to encourage further debate,
but to work pastorally with churches to help them find ways to accept the
decision and live with it. The historic principles outline ways to do that by
1. Working for change, 2. Expressing dissent (but not disobedience), 3.
Passively concurring, 4. actively concurring, and 5. peaceful withdrawal. We
cannot cut off any of those avenues open to Presbyterians, but we can encourage
some more than others now and we need strategies to do that.
B.
Role and Responsibility of
the Chief Constitutional Officer
The responsibility of
the Stated Clerk, acting as an agent of the G.A., is to “support and defend the
Constitution” when there is direct violation of the Constitution by clergy,
sessions, presbyteries, and synods. Currently there
is evidence of defiance of the constitution in some presbyteries and synods and
a failure by the chief constitutional officer to hold these entities accountable
to the constitution. What are the avenues
we can take to press for action to ensure that the constitution remains viable
and able to hold us in unity as a Presbyterian body?
Sessions often are
unwilling to bring disciplinary charges due to concerns such as fear of court
costs and lack of expertise. Sessions are often unaware of violations of the
constitution in their own presbyteries and additionally unprepared to respond to
violations. They are slow to recognize the extent of their responsibility for
discipline. This is a matter both of educating and informing sessions, and of
preparing Presbyterian lawyers in particular to give assistance in disciplinary
cases where needed.
We need a
well-coordinated network and a plan for carefully preparing and equipping
lawyers and others well-versed in our polity to assist in disciplinary cases, a
sort of legal quick response team. The Coalition’s disciplinary task force seems
to have the head start on this. The ground has shifted from legislation to a
need for pastoral and administrative action. This is a high priority need.
V.
Seminaries
It has been said that
rather than seminaries teaching pastors the faith, they are academic
institutions teaching the latest fads in theology. One evidence of this is the
number of professors at some seminaries who signed onto the Covenant Network
statement. One analysis shows that 55% of Bible professors at all Presbyterian
Seminaries signed the Covenant Network letter. At some seminaries like Union, VA
and Columbia, signers were 100% of the Bible faculty. Additionally, of a recent
graduating class of 88 at Columbia seminary, 25 went into the pastorate, and
only two into solo pastorates.
We need to explore
how to help seminaries return to their primary role of instructing pastors. The
G.A. votes to accept Trustees elected by seminaries. Involvement in that process
may be one way to affect seminaries.
Summary of actions recommended at
the General Assembly level (including preservation of the constitution and
concerns regarding our seminaries)
- Continue the use of the overture process
to reform the system to get
1.
people serving at the
national level elected as close to home as possible
2.
full disclosure of
candidates
B. Work to approve proposed amendment on
the GANC from the 214th G.A.
- We need a group of people who concentrate
on a “people search” for candidates for Moderator, GAC, and GA-PJC and
organize the floor nomination process at G.A.
- The G.A. will elect a new class of the
GA-PJC at the 2003 G.A.. We will need suitable nominees from the floor
2.
Commissioners
A. Election of commissioners (see
presbytery, page 4
- Attention to grooming and support for
Moderator candidate and preparation for the election
- Elimination of vote of advisory delegates
- Ensure that selection of commissioners to
committee is truly random
- Eliminate automatic privilege of voice in
plenary by corresponding members
3.
Rules and Process
- Reduce the surfeit of business at each
Assembly
1.
Explore ways to reduce
proliferation of business from national entities and to make that business more
accountable to the lower governing bodies
2.
Encourage business at the
Assembly from the lower governing bodies
- Attend to the rules by which the Assembly
operates
1.
Use our media to educate on
the effect of the rules
2.
Be assertive in protecting
good rules and use the overture process to institute rules that benefit the
church
a.
Example: protect the rule
giving G.A. opportunity to enforce PJC decisions and specifically Londonderry
b.
Example: overtures to
rescind consultation requirement on overtures, and referral forward of any
commissioner resolutions
- Change the way policy is developed to
give more power of policy-setting to lower governing bodies
1.
Policies are like the
budget: we don’t really understand where they come from or what they do except
in a few cases. We need to get a handle broadly on the policy development
process
2.
End the kingdom of official
leftist policy development groups: ACSWP, ACWC, ACREC
3.
Create a process by which
policies are proposed by all governing body levels of the church, but must be
approved by a vote of a majority of presbyteries (overture)
- Restrain resource people from making
puppets of commissioners
1.
Reduce the numbers and
privileges of staff, corresponding members, and other non-elected members of any
body, including the G.A., (overture)
2.
Counter the effects of
resource people by providing resources of our own
a.
a written series for the web
and hard copy of Presbyterian polity 101 that is dynamic--sensitive to the
situation as it currently exists and has the capability of adapting as the
situation changes
b.
continue to prepare
commissioners in a variety of ways, including networking by email, regional
meetings, and the preAssembly conference, as well as continued coaching and
support during the General Assembly meeting
c.
concentrate on building a
network of likeminded commissioners each year, using the Don Elliott model
- Neutralize (or eliminate) “official”
comment on business before the G.A.
1.
Use the overture process to
stop the elitism of only certain privileged positions having the right to
comment on business for commissioners’ information, since those who vote are
best served by hearing ALL the arguments, pro and con.
2.
Issue our own “Comments” on
business before the Assembly, even if it is not treated as “official”
- End de facto closed meetings by
using the overture process to direct that all meetings of national bodies be
posted on the web and published in the News Briefs
Exercise of Church
Discipline
A.
Pursue those in violation of
the constitution and the decision of the GA-PJC in Londonderry with
special energy and focus, given the potential this of the constitution has for
leading to schism
B.
Give careful attention to
the responsibilities and limits of responsibility of the Stated Clerk in
enforcing the constitution, asking him to fulfill, but not to exceed, his role
C.
Prepare sessions of our
congregations in practical ways to meet the obligations of their office in
guarding and protecting the constitution. Provide training and equipping
opportunities
D.
Continue to build a retinue
of well-prepared legal and polity experts
E.
Prepare a future Stated
Clerk
Seminaries
Establish a task
force of pastors and elders to undertake study of the status of pastor
preparation in our denomination and seek creative solutions, and report their
progress regularly to the Coalition Board
·
Set an objective of
increasing significantly the number of orthodox pastors filling the pulpits of
our churches
·
Consider scholarships
directed specifically at students committed to the pastorate
·
Establish models for
mentoring seminary students
·
Develop grants for good
internship experiences
Additional recommendations from our
first round with this plan
A.
Develop a series of white
papers constituting Presbyterian Polity 101:
1.
The process by which
legislative actions of the G.A. and decisions by the GA-PJC are carried out to
compliance by our governing bodies: explain the pastoral and administrative
process as opposed to the legislative or judicial process (See 3.d.a.)
2.
How Presbyterians become
part of the national bodies that make decisions for the church in our various
entities, how to enter it, and how to affect that process
3.
The Presbyterian Church as a
representative form of government and the practical implications in the make up
of our sessions, presbyteries, synods, and the G.A. What is not working well
currently, what needs to be changed or reformed, and how to do it
4.
The role of the G.A.
commissioner: rights and responsibilities; resources available; how the process
works and doesn’t work; the role of the commissioner before the Assembly; the
role of the commissioner after the Assembly
5.
The role of the session in
effecting reforms in the church
6.
Resources for PNCs, CPMs and
COMs
7.
Who’s Who in national church
leadership: What are the entities, what do they do, and what is their make up
and how is that decided?
8.
How to use the overture
process, from start to finish
9.
How to use the judicial
process provided in our form of government
10.
How to exercise the
leadership charged to elders in the Presbyterian form of government
11.
How to effect change in your
presbytery
12.
Workshops for officer
training, including videos
B. Recommendations for promoting
spiritual growth
1.
Promote ways and
opportunities to catechize our children and youth
2.
Provide good, easy resources
on Bible study: emphasize suitable existing materials
3.
Develop resource
center/clearing house for evaluation and recommendation of generic teaching
materials and those produced by renewal organizations
C.
Promote and support evangelical mission and evangelism
1.
Hold a national gathering
each year
2.
Develop regional anchor
churches as resources in these areas to other churches in the region
Additional recommendations or matters of concern as a result
of the 2002 General Assembly (focusing especially on those issues identified by
renewal leaders as “common table” issues, meaning that we both agreed on their
importance to the church and on the desired outcomes)
A.
Compliance with the
constitution (already addressed)
The fronts
here are educational and informational; the PJC elections; clarity about the
difference between judicial and administrative actions and the role of the
governing bodies including General Assembly; the vulnerability of additional
court cases;
strategies for churches and presbyteries;
and, to some extent, the role of the Clerk
B.
Jesus Christ
(the theological state of the church and its effect on the mission of the
church) [See Spiritual Growth section]
C.
Biennial Assemblies
There is no doubt that biennial assemblies
will deliver significantly more power into the hands of Louisville and the GAC.
The benefits of biennials are all illusions. We ought to have an educational
campaign and an overture campaign to reverse that decision
D.
Rewrite the constitution
The 214th G.A. referred rewrites and
direction for rewrites to OGA (Chapter 14 in particular). We will be getting
this back in the future.
E.
Christian Educators
A series of amendments to the constitution
will be sent to the presbyteries this year on the ordination of Christian
Educators. We need to study those carefully for potential harm to the church and
make public comment and recommendations.
F.
Life Issues
The issue of partial birth and other late
term abortions will be back before Congress and probably in the courts as well.
The 214th G.A. gave the Washington Office and the Stated Clerk carte
blanche to support late term abortion in lobbying and submission of amicus
briefs. We will need to attempt to restore the G.A.’s opposition to the
abortion of babies who can live if they are delivered instead of aborted
G.
Budget, priorities and mission funding
1.
We should continue the
provision of opportunity for mission theologians and experts to meet and we
should hear periodic updates of their agenda and their discussion
2.
We should press for mission
funding (and budget cuts) based on priorities set by the churches who provide
the mission funds
3.
We should pursue the
creation of an Accounting Team to study and follow the budget development of the
PC(USA) and help us interpret and respond to it. This is a high priority. Jim
Cahalan was extremely helpful to us in preparation for the 214th G.A.,
but worked largely alone. Bill Stewart, who served on the GAC review committee
under the leadership of Jay Poppinga, and did the numbers work for that
committee, is willing to help. Parker Williamson has a great deal of knowledge
about where the money goes and should also be drafted. And we should look for
one or two others who will make this a matter of personal priority
H.
Curriculum
Decisions by the 214th G.A. on
both matters of curriculum were wrong. We should not allow more investment in
failed curriculum in order to keep our publishers in business, and we should put
an end to the sexuality curriculum produced by the G.A. offices. This requires
the overture route and the education of Presbyterians
I.
Rules changes (already addressed; see page 6)
|
