the Outlook Blog

The new proposed language for G-6.0106b calls for us to joyfully submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life.  But how do we decide which Jesus to follow, in a day when we have wildly different concepts of “What Would Jesus Do?  The answer is in our second ordination vow: we “accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the church universal, and God’s word to [us].”

            What the Bible says about Jesus trumps any other claim on the market, according to what we have vowed.  It trumps the Quran, the Gnostic gospels, Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, and the voice of the “spirit” within us.  Our vow to accept the canonical Jesus as our authority also does not permit us to play the game of claiming that parts of our picture of Jesus were invented by the early church.  The early church was in a far better position than we are to know what Jesus really said and did.

            If we claim obedience to a Jesus who is a contradiction to the total witness of the Old and New Testaments, then we are not following the real Jesus.

Which picture of Jesus is correct?  The Great Rulebreaker — who came to get rid of dos and don’ts, who came to replace a religion of law with a religion of love? Or the One who had standards for his followers to live by?  The problem with Jesus is that it is too easy to make him into the great Fill-in-the-Blank who looks and thinks like us, a “Stepford Savior” who loves us and never contradicts us, a product of our own wishful imagination, an idol (if you will).  Look out whenever your Jesus begins to sound and look too much like you: Democrat or Republican, rich or poor, light or dark, permissive or Puritan.  If my Jesus makes me too comfortable, if he doesn’t shove me into my discomfort zone at times, it’s not the real Jesus.

To avoid distortions, it is important for us to accept the entire picture of Jesus we find in Scripture, not just the parts we like. We need to embrace both the loving Jesus, and the no-nonsense Jesus who did not tolerate hypocrisy or playing games with God. We need to embrace both the radically inclusive Jesus who welcomed outcasts who were not welcomed by the Pharisees or Qumran, and the One who let the Rich Young Ruler walk away; the One who loved both the woman at the well and Zacchaeus too much to leave them in unrepentant sin. We need to embrace both the One who shows us God’s love more than anyone else in Scripture, and the One who talked about hell more than anyone else in Scripture; the One who gives us a morality too high to reach, and the One who can save the most wretched of sinners.  We need to embrace both the Jesus who broke rules that were based solely on human tradition, and the One who beefed up laws where people had gotten lax.

 If we settle for anything less than the full Jesus of Scripture, we settle for a distortion.

So what does Jesus say in his teaching on sexuality?  The centerpiece of his teaching on this subject is where he cites a quote from the Torah that is also reaffirmed by the apostle Paul: “the two [man and woman] shall become one flesh” (Matt 19:5 = Mark 10:8). Jesus, the Torah, and Paul all teach that sex was created to form a lifelong inseparable bond between a man and a woman. Any other use of sex, whether it be fornication, prostitution, homosexual intercourse, or a marriage that is less than lifelong, is a violation of this thrice-repeated central teaching of Scripture on sexuality. Jesus names both porneia (fornication) and aselgeia (a veiled reference to homosexual behavior and similar offenses) on his sin list in Mark 7:21-23.

Jesus’ strict puritanical approach to sex may be seen in his teaching that even lust in the heart is a form of adultery (Matt 5:28), and in his teaching against divorce, where his point is that no one can erase a sexual relationship. There is no intellectually honest way to stretch this Jesus into a Jesus who is permissive toward sexual immorality. If we were serious about following Jesus, we wouldn’t be having this debate about sex.

Jesus has a whole lot more to teach us, by his words and by his life.  As we seek to follow Jesus, let’s settle for following no less than the complete Jesus to whom the Scriptures bear unique and authoritative witness.

 

TOM HOBSON of Belleville, Ill., a PC(USA) pastor for 27 years, has degrees from Gordon-Conwell (M.Div.) and Concordia (Ph.D.), and is currently seeking a call.

Do you support the building of an Islamic community center at Ground Zero? I wouldn't be surprised to hear this question or a similar one asked during a 2012 presidential debate.

 

The effort to build a mosque near Ground Zero has recently become something of a national issue thanks to a Tweet by Sarah Palin. Of course, Palin is far from being alone, which prompted defenders of the proposal. Among the best of these is Robert Wright’s A Mosque Maligned. Wright takes on several critics of the community center and makes them look, well un-American. He accomplishes this in two easy steps (or at least he makes them look easy). The first is simply to examine their reasoning, which turns out to be little more than guilt by association — and very loose association at that. This, Wright reminds us, is in the same style as the infamous witch hunts of Joseph McCarthy. Wright's second move is to base his support for the mosque on our war with Al Qaeda.

"Bin Laden would love to be able to say that in America you can build a church or synagogue anywhere you want, but not a mosque. That fits perfectly with his recruiting pitch — that America has declared war on Islam. And bin Laden would thrill to the claim that a mosque near ground zero dishonors the victims of 9/11, because the unspoken premise is that the attacks really were, as he claims, a valid expression of Islam" (emphasis added).

This is the war of ideas: Bin Laden's intolerance vs. the U.S's freedom of religion. Al Qaeda targets adherents of other religions, we respect the rights of all adherents. An open and shut case. I really like it. It reminds us of the first principles of our social contract that binds us together in this huge dysfunctional family we call the United States.

I like it and yet I can't help but notice that the positive basis of Wright's argument is war. What motivates this simple act of fairness? War. This seems terribly ironic when one considers that the debate (at least on the surface) is about the location of a community center that has the stated purpose of promoting tolerance and reconciliation. Aren't reconciliation and compassion the reasons that many people of faith would give in support of the mosque? Wouldn't most Americans agree that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us? One might argue that Wright comes close to this with his appeal to the First Amendment and its standard of equal respect.

Still, why not begin with an appeal to reconciliation? The community center is intended to be a symbol of our refusal to be alienated from one another by terror, hate, and fear. Why then, allow ourselves to be divided by our deepest and most sacred beliefs? Indeed, wherever we Americans find meaning and purpose, don't many of us believe in the path of reconciliation and peace? What could be more American?

Perhaps Wright assumed that if he began with an appeal to reconciliation, he'd be written off as dangerously naive. I suspect that many of my fellow Christians would oppose Wright's position but also that they would be even more resistant to it if he had grounded it on reconciliation. Wright, ironically, offers a more humane position based on war than that of many Christians, whose entire lives are supposedly based on peace.

Similarly, some on the Left would likely judge my question (What could be more American?) to be hopelessly naive. America, they insist, is an Empire dedicated to perpetual war. My question, however, is intended less as a descriptive statement than an aspirational one. If it sounds naive, consider a President who governed a nation at war with itself and still managed to speak of "charity for all.” If it continues to sounds naive, consider an African-American minister who after being stabbed, beaten, and wrongly jailed, still spoke of black children and white children living in peace together. If it still sounds naive, consider the imam and his vision of a welcoming community center around the corner from a place where madness consumed the hopes of thousands. What could be more American?

DAVID TRUE is associate professor of religion at Wilson College, Chambersburg, Pa.

[...]

Now that the 219th GA has mercifully ended and the dust on all of the policy decisions is finally settling, what conclusions can be drawn?
 

            Permit me to offer the following analogy. In days gone by when an elderly relative died at home, those present at the time of passing anxiously awaited the arrival of the coroner, or doctor who would “pronounce” the departed legally dead.  To that point, however, the departed family member was, in fact dead, just not legally declared to be so.


            Is this where our beloved denomination is right now? We’re gathered around the bedside of the recently departed, saddened and shocked at what has happened (at the 219th GA), anxiously awaiting the dreaded “pronouncement” that our friend is in-fact legally dead. For the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), I believe, the “official” death will actually be declared when a majority of presbyteries vote to allow homosexual ordination – a very likely scenario given the support it received in Minneapolis last month. And that will be that. Moreover, unlike a departed family member, this death will bring about no wake, no funeral, no burial because — truthfully — this has already happened.
 

            To prove the foregoing, one needs look no further than what has already taken place in the Episcopal Church USA, (ECUSA) and most recently the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Both were once proud flagships in the American Armada of Protestantism. Both are now floundering in the surf, their “Great Commission Engines” having already failed, so if the rocks don’t get them first, then the beach certainly will. For these denominations the death certificate has already been issued. “Finis!” 
 

            Some of us in the PC(USA) are in local congregations that still adhere faithfully to the central tenet of our Reformed Faith: Sola Scriptura. To use another analogy, these churches are lifeboats secured to their davits on the flagship PC(USA).  As soon as the LGBT lifestyle is no longer a barrier to ordination, however, the question becomes: Will there be time for these already full lifeboats to get away from the ship before it sinks, or will all of us perish with the ship?


Jon Spinnanger

Williamsburg, Va.

I came a day late to the Assembly. My nephew, raised a Presbyterian, was being married in the Catholic Church. “We are one in Christ,” said the priest. “There is no sign that says ‘Catholics only’ in this church.” When it came time for communion the Presbyterian side of the family was asked to come forward for a blessing, hands crossed on our hearts.

I got to Minneapolis on Sunday afternoon, in time to sign up to testify on item 16-06: “Baptism a Requirement for Participation in Lord’s Supper.” I know the Directory for Worship speaks of an invitation to the “baptized faithful.” But no one I know ever checks; no one I know ever turns anyone away from the Lord’s Table. This has long been a stumbling block for me.

The Book of Common Worship (1993) offers Biblical invitations with no reference to baptism:

“This is the Lord's table.

Our Savior invites those who trust him

to share the feast which he has prepared.”


Or Jesus’ comforting words:


“Come unto me all who are weary and carrying heavy burdens and I will give you rest … .”


And so, on Monday morning, I gave my testimony. I knew that this item came to the Assembly through the Office of Theology and Worship as a conclusion to the work of the Sacraments group that produced the report, “Invitation to Christ.” My congregation is one of 500 who have adopted the five sacramental practices in that report. I had been part of the online discussions of font and table, of welcome and identity. Still I stumble on this: if we welcome everyone to the table and would not turn anyone away, why the emphasis on inviting only the baptized? If God’s grace is absolutely free and unearned, why would there be any prerequisite for the Lord’s table, even baptism? I spoke from my heart about something I feel is central to the faith of the church: the Lord’s table is a welcoming table; it is a table of hospitality, of sheer, boundless grace and mercy.


A member of committee 16 said, “I want to amend that.” I sent him an e-mail with some suggested tweaks. I let it go, trusting the Spirit.


On Tuesday, I went on a field trip to St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville. I saw 20 amazing pages from the St. John’s Bible, a handwritten, contemporary, North American Book of Kells. We attended midday prayer in the abbey church. At the entry to the church is a stunning baptistery. Steps go in and out, down and up for the dying and rising that is enacted in baptism. A huge pool of living water, a great paschal candle, a striking statue of John the Baptist, light from above. From the font, I looked inside, toward the table at the center of the church. At midday worship, from the choir stalls behind the table, I looked back and saw the font bathed in light. As I sat in view of both font and table, I prayed for Committee 16, for their work, for our church and for the church universal.


When I got back, I logged onto PC-biz and saw that Item 16-06 had been transformed. It had a new title. The order had been rearranged. The exclusive invitation had been played down. Welcome and hospitality had been played up. I had been heard. The Spirit had moved. There were others who cared about this subtle but real disconnect between invitation and inclusion.


I observed the plenary as Committee 16 made their report. I was pleased to see both Belhar and Heidelberg move forward. Item 16-06 with its new title “On Baptism and the Lord’s Supper” was presented by the committee moderator. I watched in wonder. It was approved as pastoral advice by acclamation. This pleased me. I had made a small difference, a tiny shift toward welcome and inclusion and hospitality.


As I observed the work of the Assembly through the week, I became convinced that this seemingly insignificant, largely unnoticed action was at the center of all we do. Whether it is the Middle East, or the FOG report, or GANC nominations, or Belhar, or marriage, or ordination, at the center is this question: Is everyone welcome at the table? Are all voices heard? Everything that happens at the Assembly happens because someone cares about it enough to speak and to let the Spirit move. Word and Spirit work together. I am comforted by this and by Jesus’ words:


“Come unto me all you who are weary and carrying heavy burdens
and I will give you rest.”


REBECCA BUTTON PRICHARD is pastor of Tustin Church and adjunct faculty in Reformed worship, San Francisco Theological Seminary, Southern California.

And Friday night, at the General Assembly, the commissioners were tired, the energy level was low, and the most controversial items had already been considered.  So, first a few funny recollections from the week:

--The Stated Clerk, Gradye Parson, has a suave-looking John Calvin bobble-head on his desk.  I covet.

--Moderator Cynthia Bolbach’s fun sense of humor kept the assembly in good spirits throughout the week.  Perhaps her best crack cams during the moderator election when she, and elder said, “Ministers going on tangents…who knew?”

--The chairs in the assembly hall, when scooted back or forth, sound like vuvuzelas. It’s hilarious.

 

More seriously, my read of the assembly is that it was a perfectly fine one, one that wrestled with tough issues conscientiously and sought the Spirit in its work.  Many hugely important changes are proposed to the PC(USA) constitution, including the addition of the Belhar Confession to our Book of Confessions.

But, as I prepare to go back home, I’m also struck with a questioning sense about whether this formal, costly, somewhat unwieldy church structure is the most faithful way of conducting business at a national level.  At 27, I’m too young to be a hardened cynic, but many times this week I thought, after a beautiful policy statement or theological document passed the assembly, “How much did we spend per word to make that document?  And, how many Presbyterians – let alone others – will ever read it?”  When I closed my eyes and listened to debate on the plenary floor, I wondered how much —really, how little— the basic way we govern ourselves has changed in fifty years.

Several folks, on both sides of theological divides, pointed out that if the rate of membership decline in the PC(USA) continues as it has in recent years, the PC(USA) will cease to exist in roughly 40 years.  Sophisticated statisticians would surely add some complexity to that model, but even a simpleton can see we have a huge problem.  So, I leave confused and saddened that the report of the committee on church growth and evangelism flew by so quickly, and with so little discussion.

Another systemic issue to raise my hackles this week was the fact that, in so many floor debates, we spoke to the surface-level of issues before us rather than to a deeper level, often the reason the issues were so controversial in the first place.  For instance, our debate on sex and sexuality directly connected to many more pieces of business than the headline grabbers—ordination standards, marriage, and pension policies.  But when such issues came up, we tended to argue in polity wonk language rather than actually talk about what was behind the arguments (e.g. the main motion and substitution motion regarding the General Assembly, Permanent Judicial Commission, the Bush case, and all the complexity).  I’m all for our polity, but I’m also for truth telling.


This kills me at presbytery often as well, so maybe it’s just a bad Presbyterian habit: we argue over surface-level questions rather than converse about the real foundational issues underlying them that make the surface-level questions tricky in the first place.  We are struck in a dualistic way of doing things – vote yes or no – one that gets us a “conclusion” when a majority votes, but really doesn’t solve a thing.


Next, just an observation without too much analysis: the Young Adult Advisory Delegates totally impressed us all this week, as usual.  Our young people are extremely talented and fantastic church leaders.  Also noteworthy is the fact that, on the big sexuality questions, they consistently voted more liberal than the assembly by MANY percentage points.  If we don’t scare these youth away with our bickering, their minds don’t change, and they are somewhat representative of the young adults in the larger church, it’s difficult to imagine the hot-button sexuality questions not eventually turning more progressive (for want of a better word) in a few years’ time.


But here’s the thing, whether that scares you or excites you, it can lead us away from the point.  I played a game with friends last night in which, before the evening assembly, we each chose key words for which to listen in the evening plenary.  Each time that certain word or words were spoken, we took note, promising to donate a certain amount of money per word to our seminary.  One of my friends listened for the phrase, “Jesus Christ.”  Let’s just say she won’t be writing a big check.


So we continue the conversation.  We continue our prayers that the Spirit might guide the church so that we might be more faithful, conduct our business more wisely, and make us good stewards of our gifts.  General assemblies are our human attempt to do just that.  I’m grateful God showed up, so grateful, but also I’m praying God’s got something new in mind real soon.

 

--Adam Copeland, Outlook blogger

http://adamjcopeland.com

 

image by Erin Dunigan

[...]

Way too early, Friday Morning at GA in Minneapolis….

I’m seeing lots of questions and concerns on Twitter about what happened last night at General Assembly. Folks might be confused some complex parliamentary procedure things went down, and it’s especially difficult to follow new motions when watching the live feed of GA online.
A quite accurate 140-character summary that caught on last night reads:
PCUSA marriage debate wrap-up: We don’t really feel like hashing this out right now, so meet back here in two years? YES.
In fact, I think that quick summary is a valid analysis, but for a few more than 140 characters, read on. I’m too exhausted to write in paragraphs, so I’ll just interrogate myself:

 

Q: Was that fair?

 A: Yes. There’s no doubt in my mind the assembly acted in accordance to correct Robert’s Rules of Order.

 

Q: So why are some so angry?

 A: Because folks were prepared to speak to the motion of the General Assembly Civil Union and Marriage Issues Committee to change the definition of marriage on our Book of Order to read between “to people” instead of “a man and a woman.” This change passed the committee by a vote of 34 to 18. People were prepared to speak to this particular motion of the committee, however the motion never came up.

 

Q: What do you mean, “it didn’t come up?” I thought you’ve posted before on the importance of “minority voice” within Robert’s Rules?

 A: Indeed, but the assembly voted (348-324), in essence, not to go there – and rather to answer all pending items before the committee by affirming a tradition definition of marriage.

 

Q: Huh? Say that in another way.

 A: The assembly never had a motion on the floor to change the definition of marriage. Instead, the question before the assembly essentially was, “should we have the discussion on changing the definition of marriage tonight or not?” I think this is what threw some people for a loop. They were all excited to get to speak for or against defining marriage “between two people” and instead they had to speak about whether to speak about it or not.

 

Q: Could the assembly vote today to reconsider and have the discussion?

 A: Only if somebody changed the vote and called to reconsider. (My analysis: said person would have to be really organized and eloquent, and have some backup ready at several microphones because assemblies very rarely want to make more work for themselves.)

 

Q: So what do you think? Was what went down appropriate?

 A: Technically yes. Perfectly. The rules were followed completely. But, I do think it’s unfortunate some feel like they didn’t have an opportunity to speak to what was on their heart – the not-quite-yet-proposed change in the definition of marriage. My guess is that such a debate would not have changed the assembly’s mind – I don’t think this assembly would have voted to change the definition of marriage even if they argued about it all night – but, they might have acted on a more moderate proposal they didn’t discuss which would have given an Authoritative Interpretation on our current constitution which would read:
Since several states have recognized that marriage is a fundamental right for all persons, and since the definition of marriage in the Directory for Worship can be interpreted as descriptive and therefore does not mandate that a marriage contract must be only between a man and a woman, the 219th General Assembly (2010) declares that in the states which authorize same-gender marriage, pastors may officiate at such marriages in the context of Christian worship.
The action of the assembly to answer “all pending items” with the traditional definition also meant they didn’t address this overture directly either.

 

Q: Wow. This all sounds so political and confusing. What’s up with that?

 A: Well, yes, it is. I think of Winston Churchill who is said to have said, “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.” So I say: the way we do things ain’t always pretty, but it’s what we got.

 

[...]

“How was General Assembly?” my parishioners will ask me on Sunday morning.  “Oh, it was great,” I’ll say, “I saw lots of friends, put up plenty of posts, and geeked-out with thousands of Presbyterians who love the church.”

 

“Yeah, but, you know, what did they do about….you know, um….homosexuality questions and all that?”

For better or for worse – ok, for worse – general assemblies, for years, have been largely defined by their actions on matters regarding ordination standards for LGBTQ church officers, or their votes on marriage and civil unions for same-gender couples.  I serve a moderate congregation of mixed opinions on such matters in a town of 1100 people.  Also in town sits a Lutheran (ELCA) congregation deeply divided over the decision of an ELCA national assembly to open ordination to LGBTQ pastors in same-sex relationships.  As if such conversations were not difficult enough my congregational context brings particular community anxiety over a possible church split in town and the painful division this brings.

 
As Leslie Scanlon’s article, “Ordination standards to be debated, voted again throughout PC(USA)”on the Outlook main webpage explains, the 219th General Assembly of the PC(USA) voted to replace the requirement in the constitution that requires candidates for ordination to live in fidelity within marriage or chastity if they are single.  The old standards are not simply deleted, but replaced with new standards.  That new standard, if approved by a majority of presbyteries in the coming year and upheld in the church courts, would allow for the possibility of LGBTQ candidates in relationships to be ordained.


(The newly approved ordination standards may be found here: http://www.pc-biz.org/IOBView.aspx?m=ro&id=2309 )

 
Later, the assembly affirmed a traditional definition of marriage and approved the study of a paper by a special committee Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage.


So, how will I answer my parishioners on Sunday?  It depends where they are at the moment, but I’d likely point out the following:


1)   The church, clearly, is divided over the question of LGBTQ ordination and, as much as some might want to hope otherwise, the division is not going away magically.  It was the hot button question when I was a youth advisory delegate to the 2000 assembly, and the question continues to confound us.  As a church, we will wake up tomorrow and continue to wrestle over such questions.  They aren’t going anywhere, so…


2)   Let’s talk about it.  At one point today, the assembly defeated a motion to end debate even after many (I’m guessing, around two dozen) folk spoke to the question.  The assembly voted to continue the discussion.  It did so for another twenty minutes or so, listening to others on both sides of the committee’s recommendation.  Call me “emergent” call me “naïve” I don’t care, just be open to conversing with me about it.  We’re not going to live together in a divided church without speaking with one another – and that’s true on every level of the church, especially the congregational level.


3)   Don’t forget this is an ongoing process.  No matter whether you support the assembly’s action or not, our presbyteries will vote on the actions of the assembly and our constitution will only change if a majority of presbyteries vote in favor of the change in ordination standards.  Even if you think the sky would fall if the constitution changes, it’s not falling yet.


4)   Be honest with yourself and one another.  Be in prayer, individually and together.  Be open to the Holy Spirit, looking and listening for God working among us even now.

 

-Adam Copeland, Outlook blogger

http://adamjcopeland.com

 

photo by Erin Dunigan

[...]

The assembly hummed along Wednesday at a nice clip, meeting in plenary sessions and working its way through several committee reports decently and in order. This post is somewhat decent and not particularly orderly, much like the state of my foggy mind. So, contemplate this:

--As Presbyterians we debate – whether it be heated or not – in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order. When the temperature heats up, I’m reminded of what a wise stated clerk taught me years ago. Essential to the way we conduct ourselves is the principal of minority voice and majority rule. So even if the debate drags on and the outcome of the question before us seems clear in one’s mind, it’s important to assure that everyone has an opportunity to speak one’s mind. Even and especially those who are in the minority need an opportunity to argue their position. At the end of the day, the majority rules, but the beauty of the process is that everyone, no matter the popularity of their position, has ample opportunity in which to speak. It makes me think of the line in A Brief Statement of Faith that claims the Spirit gives us courage to, among other things, “hear the voices of people long silenced.”

--The Exhibit Hall permanently closed this evening and exhibitors packed up. The closing occurs earlier in the week than at some previous assemblies, but it’s perhaps more humane to those poor folks who spend their waking hours staffing 8x8 booths in the enormous windowless climate-controlled new-carpet-smell hall. Thousands enjoyed learning about our denomination and related entities by stopping by booths over the past few days – ample time to enjoy the hall if one tried.

--The proposed new Form of Government passed the assembly by about a 2-1 margin. This FOG is a hugely important proposed revision to the PC(USA) constitution (for more information, see the main page of the Outlook website). Several observations strike me.

1. Though the GA Form of Government Committee made around thirty amendments to the FOG as submitted by the Form of Government Task Force, few of those amendments were discussed on the floor.

2. The assembly did not approve any additional amendments to the version of the FOG that came out of the Form of Government Committee.

3. Both point 1 and 2 show a HUGE trust by the assembly for the work of the committee, hard work over the past few days – yes – but work by a relatively small number of commissioners and advisory delegates nonetheless. Yes it’s difficult, from the floor of the assembly, to amend a 40+ page document. But, on the other hand, assemblies do it all the time. Perhaps this indicates that this assembly will show a high degree of trust for the committee work as it moves forward.

4. A number of commissioners noted that they first arrived at GA skeptical of the new FOG and, once they contemplated it more carefully, came to understand the FOG as a positive change for the church. So the question for the church becomes: how do presbyteries that will now vote on the new FOG contemplate it fully?


--Exhibit Hall workers gave out hundreds of fun freebies. Some even held drawings for larger prizes such as books, T-shirts, curriculum, regulation ultimate Frisbees (a pretty awesome prize from Union Presbyterian Seminary), and even an iPod touch (won by yours truly, in fact, through a random drawing by (http://pokayokedesign.net). I do wonder, however, about faithful stewardship and the preponderance of cheap mass-produced trinkets often given away by exhibitors.


--The assembly also passed a recommendation to add The Belhar Confession to our Book of Confessions. Commissioners argued many points for and against this decision, but nobody said what I’ve wondered for the past few years: we’re adding confessions in the 20th and 21st centuries at a fast rate which, if we continue, will lead us to a Book of Confessions several inches thick. What about the trees, people?!


--Watching the Twitter feed of the proceedings proved quite enjoyable. While @edunny had an amusing plea for help in her real-time “plenary bingo” game, the award for tonight’s most interesting/amusing observation goes to @brc_live who tweeted while Landon Whitsitt was moderating: “How do you know an ‘emergent’ is moderating? When they ask, ‘Is there any conversation?’”


by Adam Copeland, Outlook Blogger

http://adamjcopeland.com

[...]

In the last hour, I’ve receive multiple text messages about General Assembly, commented on a friend’s Facebook wall, and watched many people – most of whom I don’t know – weigh-in on General Assembly by way of Twitter.  And so I asked the world in a Twitter message: “What are your impressions of social media at General Assembly?”  Within minutes, I had some responses.

-“I've found twitter to be excellent at helping the folks back home follow the business and feel a part of GA” notes Mark Smith, a deacon at the Presbyterian Church of Lawrenceville, NJ.

-Leon Bloder, pastor of First Church in Eustis Florida scrunched, “It was amazing 2 have the perspective in real time of ppl who r actually thr in cmtee meetings. it widened the debate.”  (and he should be commended for some fantastically creative spelling to come under Twitter’s 140 character limit.)

-Dana Ridgway Slavin tweets, “Although I'm six hours away in a small town in Missouri, I feel as if I'm involved in [real time] in GA because of [Facebook] and Twitter.”

Indeed, both commissioners working in committees and observers in the galleries have been using Twitter and social media in significant ways.  Those will only broaden as the assembly meets as in plenary session as the week continues.

On June 11th, a guide entitled, “Using Social Media at the General Assembly” was posted on the general assembly website.  The same guide appears in the printed official Program Book of the assembly.  In my humble opinion, the guide is beautifully written as it carefully notes how some of the basic values we hold as Presbyterians connect (or not) with social media.  It emphasizes the importance of being together in embodied ways without just saying, “NO” or “shall not” about the use of social media by commissioners and delegates.  In fact, I believe, social media is becoming integral to the assembly and should be approached as a gift from God.

              So, what do the guidelines on social media suggest?  (By the way, by “social media” I’m referring to email, texting, Twitter, Facebook, etc.)  The statement which appears here [http://ga219.pcusa.org/news/2010/6/11/using-social-media-general-assembly/] begins by claiming that social media “has become a normal and integral part of our lives as a society.”  If anyone has big issues with that opening foray, they can send a Facebook message to several of the older members of my congregation who use the platform – if they don’t respond immediately, you might try texting them.  Indeed, social media has and is a normal function in our corporate life today.

              So if it’s so normal, why did we need a statement in the program book?  Well, to put it theologically: because we’re sinners.  Or, to put it another way: we can get carried away.

              As the statement says, “the guiding principle for using social media at a General Assembly is to be attentive and present to the community gathered immediately around us and to the mysterious and wondrous movement of the Spirit of Christ in this place.”  Social media should not take commissioners and advisory delegates away from their calling to be present, to be attentive to the Spirit in their physical location and not just online.

              On the other hand, the guidelines also notes the gift and fact that the proceedings of the assembly are being streamed to the world – through GA-hosted video feeds, Twitter, and Facebook.  (Think of it as our normal paper reporting structure of 15 years ago, just 100 times faster.)  The guidelines don’t say “don’t tweet” but rather point to our polity principles noting one should not be a voting proxy for someone outside the assembly.  It also calls for social media users to identify themselves accurately in their profiles, and reminds us all that anything one posts online can be copied and distributed – indeed, all Twitter posts are archived in the Library of Congress.

As I read the guidelines, they aren’t about saying “don’t you ever tweet in a meeting” but rather more like “remember that your tweets aren’t the goal and you should always be present with your colleagues in the flesh, and present to the Spirit in this place.”

              All that said, I find it curious that there is no open Internet access in the assembly hall or most committee meeting rooms.  Commissioners can access the web-based GA sites and materials, but not the broader Internet, Facebook, or Twitter.  I don’t know the full reasons for this decision, but its quite frustrating for this blogger, and surely for some committee members as well.  Of course, I also realize Facebook can be an enormous time-suck and attention-grabber rivaling even Robert’s Rules of Order so maybe it’s best commissioners aren’t tempted.

              It’s difficult to reflect upon all the effects of social media use at General Assembly in the moment, but it’s safe to say that this and future assemblies are enormously impacted.  As social media becomes even more integral to the lives of many of us, the church will need to continue wrestling with how our values connect with those of social media.  The social media statement for this assembly is a helpful beginning of the conversation, one which I look forward to continuing (in person or online).

              As Michael Gyura, a Princeton Seminary student tweets, “[social media] it's necessary for the Church to survive. The way our world is communicating has drastically changed. We can fight or embrace it.”


              What are your impressions of social media at this general assembly?  What are your fears, concerns, joys, or thanksgivings?

 

-Adam Copeland, Outlook Blogger

[...]