Last Night's Presbytery Meeting

This is my first post to this blog.

I normally attend meetings of the National Capital Presbytery, and this blog will contain my observations about the meetings I attend.

The Elders and Ministers of the NCP met last night (April 1, 2008). Here are some of my observations:

The Presbytery approved its Omnibus Motion. In the Omnibus motion, there was a motion concerning a the process for equalizing the elder-commissioners to resident ministers. As part of that process (and in accordance with the policy adopted by the NCP in January, 2001), it was moved that people with the following first names be elected to serve as voting members of the Presbytery: Margaret, Eleanor, Cynthia, Mark, Brenda, and Sheryl. It was also moved that people with the following first names (who are Certified Christian Educators) be elected to serve as voting elders: Priscilla, Carroll, Betsy, Elllie, Julia, Ann, Marilyn, Melissa, Betty, Karen, Jane, and Carolyn.

Not a single concern was raised about this motion.

Do you notice anything about all those first names? They are overwhelmingly the names of women.

I'm sure that all those women are capable, Godly women.

But I am also just as sure that if there had been a motion to include as voting Elders in the Presbytery a group of people who were overwhelmingly men, someone -- and more likely, several someones -- would have voiced outrage that a group were being recommended.

Several overtures to the General Assembly were presented to the Presbytery last night.

One overture would have requested the GA to entrust the report and recommendations of the Form of Government Task Force (FOG) to the church for a period of study of at least two years. My goodness, you would have thought that the Presbytery was being asked to disrespect one of its own members. Nevermind that the Bills and Overtures Committee had not been able to make a recommendation on this overture -- because it has not yet read the FOG report! Apparently, it is much more important to show solidarity with members of the Presbytery tha n it is to carefully read, discuss, and consider an entire re-write of the Denomination's Constitution.

Another overture dealt with gun violence. The Elder who presented this overture said that he was sure that God was in favor of gun control. It was a call to action!! I found the entire discussion -- what little of it there was -- to be fascinating.

Think for a minute about other social issues. Like obscenity and pornography, for instance. It could be argued that pornography and obscenity do serious damage to our society. It could also be argued that God is not in favor of obscenity and pornography. But we, as a Presbytery, seem oblivious to that evil, and want to focus instead on guns.

I imagine we don't want to attack pornography and obscenity because we don't want to be seen as "prudes" -- or worse, as being judgmental. In addition, when you start talking about pornography and obscenity, you soon start talking about the possibility of abridging the rights of people -- things like freedom of speech. No one wants to do that.

And yet, it's somehow OK to go after the rights people have under the Second Amendment.

The entire overture -- more than five pages -- had precious little to say about the roots of violence. It was all about guns. The overture did not say, for instance, that the church should do all it can to discern the root causes of violence and work to eliminate those. No, let's just go after guns. Because we are just certain that God is on our side.

Another overture dealt with collecting and disseminating best practices from around the Denomination on examining candidates for ordination. One minister objected, saying that when it came to PUP, there were "no good questions". I guess she meant that we should just let anyone who wants to become a minister in the PC(USA) do so -- without any questions.

Another minister said that he was "offended" by some of the questions people ask candidates for ordination. He said that he just thought it was terrible that people are asked about their sexuality.

I'm almost certain, though, that that same pastor who found some questions "offenisve" would not be offended at all if a candidate were to be asked why his or her Statement of Faith referred to God in masculine terms. Recently, one candidate for ordination did just that. The poor soul was questioned about that, and he was not approved for ordination until he had confessed his sin and had said he was sorry for referring to God as "he" and "him". It was "gotcha" at its best when the Elders of the NCP got that candidate for ordination on the floor of Presbytery.

Somehow, asking someone if he or she supports a particular provision in the Church's constitution -- one arrived at after lengthy debate througout the Demonination -- is offensive. But it is completely alright -- and not at all offensive -- to quibble over pronouns in a candidate's Statement of Faith. We have our standards, after all, and it is important to make sure that candidates for ordination use the proper pronouns!!

There was another overture that requested the GA to be a voice for victims of violence in both Israel and Palestine. It comdemned all acts of violence against innocent civilians. The overture passed, but there was some discussion. Someone suggested that we needed more time to consider this.