the Outlook Blog

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

[...]

I’m writing from the back of General Assembly Committee 6, Church Orders and Ministry, which just completed a time of meeting in small discussion groups around circular tables. When I was a Youth Advisory Delegate back at the 2000 general assembly, I don’t recall many committees (if any) meeting in small groups. While every committee manages group process challenges differently, the challenges are great, in part, because of the number of people on each committee.

A congregation I served once in the Church of Scotland had a church session of over 100 elders. The session of the congregation I serve now consists of nine elders. The smaller session of nine is much easier with which to work, dare I say, much easier with which to discern the Spirit that with 100+ elders.

When the PC(USA) moved, a few years ago, from annual assemblies to biennial meetings, we increased the number of commissioners sent to each assembly. In turn, this has made committees larger and their work more challenging.

To address this concern, the number of committees has also increased over the years so that there might be fewer people on each committee. But, depending on your perspective, the committees still remain quite large. Numbers on each committee at this assembly differ slightly, but the lists I counted through had 53, 42, 52, and 55 members. That’s a lot of committee members.

It’s very difficult, in a committee of fifty people or more, to get to know one another, feel connected to one another, and work as close colleagues in the very tight time constraints of a general assembly. Even how the set up of the chairs in the room differs in important ways with a committee of fifty persons as compared to thirty. With a large committee, tables are set in multiple rows so that some members are sitting in front of others. That way, it’s difficult to see the faces and body language around the whole room.

Now I understand the argument for larger assemblies accompanied by larger committees – presbyteries send more commissioners than they would otherwise, and more people get to experience and participate in the national church. Attending GA can be a life-changing experience for many, and often those who attend are energized for good work in their presbyteries after the assembly adjourns.

But, on the other hand, my practical-group-process-teacher-side says that committees of fifty people are just too large to work effectively. I’m all for spreading the joy that is GA as widely as possible, but it’s painful to watch how larger committees get stuck in parliamentary process that might otherwise be avoided were the committee smaller and the members closer to one another.

Yesterday, the General Assembly Procedures Committee voted down Overture 03-04 from the Presbytery of San Diego by a 3 to 2 margin. The overture sought to decrease the number of commissioners sent to GA, citing financial implications as a leading rationale. Opponents of the overture pointed out that decreasing the number of commissioners would unduly increase the influence of advisory delegates.

I don’t quite disagree with the committee’s action, and I wasn’t present for the debate, but I wonder if they discussed how the overture would affect the size of committees at future assemblies. If so or if not, the size of that committee surely influenced the discussion.

So, what do you think? Are the committees at General Assembly too large, too small, or just right? In your experience, what ways of working prove most effective for committees of fifty or more?

 

 

-Adam J. Copeland, Outlook Blogger

-Photo by Erin Dunigan

[...]

Landon Whitsitt, the 33-year-old pastor of First  Church in Liberty, Mo., near Kansas City and I had lunch today.  Just two pastors sitting down at the pub for a friendly lunch – with my recorder.  Landon is Moderator Cindy Bolbach’s pick for Vice Moderator, so the assembly will almost certainly confirm him as Vice Moderator in a vote later this week.

I’ve known Landon in a web way for a while, as he has been active in conversations with Presbymergent, tweets in Presbyterian Twitter circles, and produces The God Complex internet radio show.  Finally, though, I met Landon in the flesh (and took in his famed PC(USA) tattoo).

Before getting to the nitty-gritty of PC(USA) policy, we cleared up a few bona fides of another variety.

Q:  iPhone or Android?

Whitsitt:  Android, specifically the new myTouch 3G slide with plans to root it ASAP

Q:  Mac or PC?

Whitsitt:  I own an iMac but am awaiting shipment of a Linux computer with Ubuntu
Adam:  That’s acceptable.

Q:  Do you tweet what you had for breakfast?

Whitsitt:  No.  Even I find that boring.

Q:  So, you were rocking the jeans on Saturday night?

Whitsitt:  Yeah.  I know when to dress up but I rarely need to….I will wear a tie when I speak to the assembly before they vote on me.  If the context requires a tie, I will totally wear one.

(I was going to ask “Keen”  or “Converse” but he was wearing old-school Chuck Taylor Converse All Stars so I didn’t need to.)

      Our wide-ranging and engaging conversation about social media, technology, and the church kept noting the many ways Moderator Bruce Reyes-Chow and Vice Moderator Byron Wade conducted themselves during and after the 218th General Assembly.  Landon and I agreed that Bruce and Byron opened many helpful social-media doors that will make the life of the current Moderator and Vice Moderator much easier.  Already, however, Landon is finding himself self-censoring his tweets in a way he did not prior to the election Saturday night.  Such is the life of an office-holder in the national church.

      “It’s no longer a sprint, but a marathon” Landon said, referring to the two years facing him and Cindy Bolbach.  They plan to host a regular podcast for conversations with the church, and uphold a high standard for transparency in their duties.  Both the moderator and vice moderator’s Facebook friend requests have grown exponentially in the past few days.  Their walls are plastered with supportive comments.

      Since he’s a busy young pastor with four kids, I asked Landon the obvious question of his decision to stand for Vice Moderator: “Are you crazy?”  He laughed, paused a moment and said, “Define crazy.”

      Landon comes from a long line of pastors, and though the pastors in his family and he don’t always agree – they aren’t Presbyterian, but more fundamentalist – he feels supported and affirmed by his family.  Landon pointed to his time as a Theological Student Advisory Delegate at the 2003 General Assembly held in Denver as an important factor in his pastoral development.  “General Assembly is where I learned how to love my church,” he said.  “You show up at a meeting like this, where people passionately disagree but passionately love the church, and you see that the Holy Spirit does what is promised and shows up…and [the Spirit] makes us do things we never thought we would do, and empowers us to do things we always hoped we might do.”

      Before we parted ways, I asked Landon for a few blog recommendations which included PC(USA)-related blogs, broader church-related blogs, and non-church sites.  A smattering:

      -GA Junkie by Steve Salyards, http://blog.gajunkie.com/

      -Pomomusing by Adam Walker-Cleaveland http://pomomusings.com/

      -A Wee Blether by yours truly (I’m just reporting what he said) http://adamjcopeland.com

      -the blogs of Bruce Reyes-Chow and Byron Wade, http://www.reyes-chow.com/ and http://presbyterian.typepad.com/vicemodblog/

      -The Church Geek, by Jim Bonewald, http://www.thechurchgeek.com/

      -Tribal Church by Carol Howard Merrit, http://tribalchurch.org/

      -Seth Godin’s site, http://sethgodin.typepad.com/

      -and a number of modern design and architecture sites

      Landon remarked that the new PC(USA) website is “very pretty” and a huge improvement over the previous interface.  Though he, and I agree there could be some tweaks to help easy navigation and we both are pining for RSS feeds of GA News

      A graduate of Louisville Seminary, Landon has served the larger church on the Committee on Theological Education.  He is currently working on a book tentatively entitled, “Open Source Church.”   For sample chapters, see his blog at http://landonwhitsitt.com/ and follow him on Twitter @landonw.

 

by Adam Copeland, Outlook Blogger

Image by Erin Dunigan

[...]

It’s dangerous too draw many conclusions from scant evidence. But, I’m a blogger – we live to break (or at least push) the rules – so here I go.

Last night at Cynthia Bolbach, an elder and lawyer from National Capital Presbytery, was elected Moderator of the 219th General Assembly. The election took several hours, and was the first significant decision by the commissioners (I am not counting, for example, some test questions posed to the assembly such as “Did you eat supper?”).

Bolbach was elected from a crowed pool of six candidates. How did she do it? And, if I were to speculate (seriously or in jest) what might her election say about this assembly?

    * In Bolbach’s five-minute speech she drew heavily from scripture, discussing the gospel story of the friends who helped their paralyzed friend to see Jesus by cutting a hole in the roof. She analogized that the commissioners at this general assembly are the friends who can help our paralyzed denomination to see Jesus. Several other candidates drew from scripture, but Bolbach’s use of the story seemed particularly strong. Does her election mean this assembly might have a particular interest in scripture to guide their decisions?
    * Bolbach showed a quick wit several times, including responding to a minister candidate who noted that ministers sometimes go off on tangents by saying, in a room full of pastors, “Ministers going off on tangents? Who knew!” She also sarcastically quipped in response to a question about what was at stake if each candidate were not elected, that if she was not elected there would be: “Total chaos.” She immediately smiled and said, “I am of course kidding.” Bolbach’s election could point to the assembly’s appreciation of a good laugh even in the midst of tough work. Look for more disarming Bolbach humor later in the week.
    * Cynthia Bolbach was the lone elder among the six candidates standing for moderator. She joked – but made a constitutional point by saying “Elders rule.” Perhaps her election points to this assembly’s particular appreciation of elders, or even further, that some commissioners may want to emphasize the role of elder in the church. Look for more discussion of the role of elders in the new Form of Government debate including the proposed move to the titles “Teacher Elder” and “Ruling Elder” for the office of Minister of Word and Sacrament and Elder respectively.
    * Compared to what I remember from previous assemblies, the lines of commissioners and advisory delegates standing at the microphones to ask questions to the candidates were much shorter. In fact, at a few mics, there were no lines at all. This could mean a few things: perhaps, many at the assembly were already aware the election would take a long time and were simply reticent to draw it out longer by asking many questions. On the other hand, maybe the commissioners are just holding their cards close to the chest and planning on saving their speeches at the mic time for later in the week.
    * Did you notice what color Bolbach was wearing? Green. This clearly means she’s either (1) a secret part of BP’s public relations campaign for the gulf oil spill, (2) an extreme pro-environmental activist, or (3) just looks good in green. The jury is still out on this one.
    * When asked a question on same sex marriage and civil unions, Bolbach indicated her support for moves towards allowing same sex marriage or civil unions, and said the denomination should give more guidance to pastors on the matter. She did so, however, in a direct and simple way by asking the assembly who they thought threatened the institution of marriage more – Larry King and his seven or eight marriages or faithful gay partners of over sixty years. So, does her election signal a willingness of the assembly to broaden the PC(USA) definition of marriage, or at least clearly address the quandary of some pastors in states with legal same sex marriage?
    * Finally, the election was delayed after questions about the accuracy of the electronic voting system. In fact, after the election, Bolbach quipped she hoped her middle name would not become “Florida” (do not fear, there were no pregnant chads in the hall). Overall, it seemed like the commissioners dealt calmly with the technical issues, but if the malfunctions resurface, how might a failure in voting technology affect the commissioner’s trust in our Presbyterian process?


For some of these questions and observations, more time as an assembly will bring more clarity. For others, we must simply speculate. But, now it’s your turn. What do you think about any of these observations or your own? How did you perceive the elections last night, and what might that say about the Spirit working this week?


--Adam J. Copeland, Outlook Blogger