I had a wonderful day today. We drove up to Lake Michigan to see one of our best friends from college (she was in our wedding party) and her family at their vacation cottage on the beach; she and her husband were there, and their three kids (generally the same ages as ours), and her dad, whom I also enjoy a great deal. I haven’t seen her since her oldest was a newborn, and I haven’t seen her husband (or her father, for that matter) since their wedding, so it was definitely too long. We had a great time talking church and family and work and other things, while the kids enjoyed themselves immensely playing together (mostly, though not only, down on the beach). I managed to burn myself in a few places due to misapplication of sunscreen—next time, I’ll go back to using the lotion instead of the spray—but no big deal.And then I got home to read the news from the PC(USA)’s General Assembly (GA): they voted to approve overtures to remove the 1978 Authoritative Interpretation, remove the chastity and fidelity clause from the Book of Order, and approve a new Authoritative Interpretation (AI) to allow officers to declare scruples with respect to ordination standards (which is to say, to declare that they’re going to ignore them). And then I spent some time reading the reactions from a number of my fellow conservatives in the church: Presbyterians for Renewal essentially conceding defeat, the Rev. Jim Berkley calling it “a sad, sorry episode,” the Rev. Dr. Alan Trafford declaring that “a line has been crossed” and that his congregation will no longer use the denominational seal, and perhaps most painfully, the Rev. Toby Brown shuttering his blog in grief. Clearly, there’s the feeling on the part of many that the disaster has come; the sky has fallen in.At the risk of making it sound like I think these folks are Chicken Littles—I don’t, especially as I think Jim’s exactly right that these actions “will precipitate much rancor and division within churches and presbyteries”—I don’t think the sky is in fact falling. Not yet, at least. Yes, this was a liberal GA, as most GAs are, and yes, it did what liberal GAs do, as do most GAs; but the actual effect of their decisions should be slight. Though these three decisions felt like “three hammer blows to the head,” I don’t believe they’ll turn out that way. To take them in order:Voting to remove the 1978 Authoritative Interpretation that declared homosexual acts incompatible with the will of God was a real and significant blow. However, it was one that was inevitably going to happen, whenever the liberal wing of the denomination decided they actually wanted to do it; and as long as G-6.0106b, which mandates “fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness” for all officers of the church, is still in force, then this is still the meaning of our denominational constitution, whether there’s an AI to say so or not. Which leads to Voting to remove the “chastity and fidelity clause,” which would be a major change, if that clause were actually removed—but it won’t be. That’s an amendment to the Book of Order, which requires the support of over half the presbyteries, which isn’t going to happen. This one, for all the noise it’s stirring up, is merely sound and fury signifying nothing.Voting to declare that the constitution permits officers to ignore behavioral standards is potentially the significant change, since this doesn’t have to be approved by the presbyteries. However, I don’t believe this one will stand either, though it will take longer to see for sure. The roots of this one go back a ways. The last GA, in 2006, voted to approve an AI that said this; when candidates for ordination actually stood up and announced their intention to ignore behavioral standards, however, and governing bodies decided to ordain them anyway, that action was challenged in the denominational courts (Permanent Judicial Commissions, or PJCs), and the denomination’s highest court, the GA PJC, said, “You can’t do that.” On my read, their conclusion is that “‘shall’ actually means ‘shall,’ that if the church’s constitution says you can’t do something, then you actually aren’t allowed to do it,” and that “stealth amendments” that attempt to rewrite the constitution without needing the approval of the presbyteries (by simply declaring that the constitution doesn’t mean what it plainly says) are not allowed. As I wrote in a letter I sent to Presbyweb a few months ago, “GAPJC has laid down the law that the only way to amend the Constitution is by actually amending it, and that it is not possible to interpret it to say what it does not in fact mean. Stealth amendments such as this ‘Authoritative Interpretation, are in and of themselves unconstitutional.”I wrote on that occasion, and I still believe now, that we can and should expect GAPJC to say so, clearly, when they are given the opportunity to do so. If that happens, then the end result of these high-profile, high-angst votes will have been nothing of practical consequence. Should I prove wrong, then the disaster will indeed have come upon us, and it will be time for those of us who accept the authority of Scripture to pack our bags for final departure. I don’t expect that to happen, but one never can tell for certain with committees.At this point, however, I’m more concerned about the GA’s decision to rubber-stamp the Stated Clerk Nominating Committee and elect Dmitri Medvedev—excuse me, the Rev. Gradye Parsons—the new GA Stated Clerk. Apparently, they decided that the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick’s terms in office were so good that they should continue his administration by proxy. I cannot agree. I’m firmly convinced that one of this denomination’s greatest problems is that the playing field is deliberately tilted, the process skewed in favor of those whose positions are favored by denominational staff, such that violations of constitutional process which produce results the denominational hierarchy likes (such as those which result in practicing homosexuals in ministry positions) are winked at, while those which don’t (such as attempts by churches to leave the denomination with their property) are pursued to the fullest extent of the law. Those who hold liberal positions are given every hearing, while those who oppose those positions are squelched, silenced or overpowered by every means the hierarchy can use to do so. There is no attempt to make the process work equally for everybody, or to allow everyone’s voice to be heard equally. The root of this problem, I’m firmly convinced, has been the practice of favoritism (which is a sin) by our denomination’s highest administrative official, the GA Stated Clerk, the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick; I was hoping GA would have the integrity to elect someone who would have the integrity to change this. From what I can see, they didn’t. The defections will continue.

In my last post, I responded to my wife’s vision for the church; now, alas, I find myself commenting on a very different vision indeed, a vision in which the local church exists for the support and self-aggrandizement of the denominational hierarchy, as the property of that hierarchy. In that vision, if churches want to leave, the Powers that Be have the right to stop them by force; and if the presbytery refuses to go along with that, the synod can take them over, too. I don’t, in general, agree with those who decide to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA)—I think their actions help to bring about exactly that to which they object—but I believe they have the right to do so; they aren’t denominational property, and neither are their buildings, and for the denomination to put its own material wealth ahead of the spiritual health of its churches, even those which are seeking to leave, is little short of reprehensible. This is the sort of behavior that gives the church a bad name.

It also, incidentally, gives the lie to the argument (made by Greg Coulter of Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery in a letter to Presbyweb) that the Synod of the Sun, in establishing their administrative commission over the Presbytery of South Louisiana, had merely been “invited” into the situation “to partner with them in furthering the peace, unity, and purity of the labors of those serving Christ in South Louisiana.” Clearly, the skeptical among us were right: for the Synod, it’s property über alles—and then they have the gall to call it “one part of the church body helping another part.” For shame.