Home

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

Feminism

Viewpoints

Quote of the Month

Quarterly Newsletter

On-Line Discussion Forum

Letters to the Editor

Mission

The Persecuted Church

Ecumenical Connections

How You Can Help

The VOW Budget

Contact VOW
 

It always takes some time before I can think clearly and analytically about General Assembly.   Part of the reason is that I come home tired from nine days of pretty intensive work.  Part of the reason is the time change between Mountain Time and the east coast – it’s not terribly far, but my brain still gets fuzzy. But, bottom line, I’m not “a quick read.”  Lest I jump too quickly to conclusions, I need to put some emotional and intellectual distance between myself and the Assembly’s hectic schedule, its politically charged atmosphere, and its discordant voices. 

So, after almost a week of reflection, let me tell you what I think about the 2l6th General Assembly.  And, let me do it in two parts. 

First part – from Saturday morning through Wednesday evening, I spent almost all of my time in the Assembly’s Exhibit Hall where Voices of Orthodox Women had a booth.  Second part – from Wednesday at 6:00 pm until late morning on Saturday, I sat in the Assembly’s plenary and closely followed its business. 

In the exhibit booth, I was encouraged as I listened to large number of our visitors tell us that they are familiar with the work of the VOW network, and that they support our efforts to reform women’s ministries in our church. Others told us that they had heard about us, and that they wanted to know more.  Sill others needed to be introduced to our work.  They left the booth with a VOW brochure, a recent newsletter, and our encouragement to spend time reading our materials.  Many returned to ask to have their name added to our mailing list. 

But something else took place this year that was a wonderful surprise!  Folks came to the booth, and made their way inside to sit and share with us and with others. Seminary students, pastors, elders, deacons, women and men, young and old – they all saw the VOW booth as a friendly place to rest and to fellowship.  As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t get any better than that.  I’d turn to watch some in prayer, some with tears running down their cheeks as they shared their joys and sorrows – and always there was lots of laughter!

The VOW booth was in what someone humorously characterized as “the evangelical ghetto” – both sides of a long aisle that ran two-thirds the length of the hall. There the booths of all the other “renewal” organizations surrounded us.  And, their exhibits were also busy most of the time – lots of people gathering information, chatting, and getting educated about the wider ministry of our denomination.   If this “ghetto” were all that a visitor saw, s/he would have to go away from the experience with the impression that the Presbyterian Church is alive and well.

There was also a “ghetto” for the more liberal special interest groups.  They were set up in a similar manner on the aisle directly behind us.  And, quite honestly, it is a arrangement that  tends to disappoint me – that those responsible for the exhibit hall have for the last couple of years decided to keep the more liberal advocacy groups apart from the more conservative ones.  In my opinion, that only builds more walls between us.  At one time, we were all mixed in together.  We were able to spend time talking, and some good relationships were built.  We greeted each other every morning, talked with each other, learned about one another, and ate each other’s candy.  If it’s good for the Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity to be diverse, and to talk with one another, it’s good for the rest of us, too.  We are part of a church where, on the one hand, it would be unwise merely to “wink” at our theological differences.  But, on the other hand, we must not ignore our Lord’s commandment “to love one another,” either.  So, it is my hope that during the next two years of preparation, the Assembly’s organizers will give consideration to moving us back together. We can handle this! 

Enough about the exhibit hall – on to the plenary. 

Sometime on Thursday or Friday, a reporter slipped into the seat behind my husband, and asked him to characterize the Assembly.  He just shook his head and shrugged his shoulders.  He couldn’t come up with a simple, descriptive “tag line” because this Assembly was consistently inconsistent.
 

It began its work by electing a Moderator whom most of the “pundits” thought would finish in third place.  He is one of the youngest, if not the youngest Moderator ever.  He is charming and funny.  He is both proud of his evangelical roots in Campus Crusade, and right “up front” about his desire to see the Constitution changed to allow the ordination to church office of practicing gays.  And, he is engaged in an “activist” ministry to migrants on the Mexican-American border.  To say the least, he was an “interesting” choice.

But, there were also some other “interesting” decisions made by this Assembly:

• The recommendation that we strengthen our policy relative to late-term abortions lost by a mere four votes;
• The vote to retain the 1978 Authoritative Interpretation regarding ordination standards passed by a mere four votes;
• Civil rights for same sex unions was upheld, but so was our Book of Order’s definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman; 
• A Christian Declaration of Marriage – an ecumenical document – did not receive the endorsement of this Assembly.  But, at the same time, our Washington Office was sent a strong warning not to attempt to speak for the church relative to the Federal Marriage Amendment;
• "Transforming Families” – the policy paper that was at the center of so much controversy last year – was adopted with but one amendment.  (As an aside, and in my opinion, “Transforming Families” is a marked improvement over last year’s effort); and
• And, while the commissioners voted to retain Cliff Kirkpatrick as Stated Clerk, they also expressed their dissatisfaction with his participation in some manipulative behavior during the election.

What I am inclined to think is that too many commissioners (maybe too many Presbyterians in general) lack the kind of solid, biblical and theological foundation that would allow them to think more critically (i.e. analytically), and to vote in a more logically consistent way.  By saying that, of course, I will make some people unhappy.  But, it is a conclusion that I have drawn after monitoring more than fifteen Assemblies. 

So where are we following the close of the 216th General Assembly? 

In my opinion, we are still a people under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  The Spirit is moving among our congregations, and lives are being transformed. 

But, at the same time, it appears that the institution is crumbling.  The picture that comes to mind as I think about our denomination is that of the fiery, smoky, churning, disintegrating Twin Towers.  The collapse appears to be near as we continue to suffer through a series of cuts in programs and personnel, as undesignated giving shrinks, and as a general distrust and anti-institutional mood continues to grow among the people in the pews.

What can one conclude from all of this? 

Some are suggesting that it’s time for a divorce.  Others think that we are in the midst of a major sociological and cultural shift in which Presbyterians are creating new and different kinds of networks in which to do mission.

Frankly, I have no crystal ball. I don’t know what the future holds.  But, it is my personal conviction that as this situation works its way out, we are to remain faithful and obedient disciples of Jesus Christ in the place where he has put us.  For us to “cut and run” would be both cowardly and fruitless – cowardly because God has told us “to stand;” fruitless, because we would have to take ourselves with us when we leave.

The future is in God’s hands, not ours.  And for that, I give genuine thanks.