GA: Wednesday Morning Plenary

Confusing the Plain Meaning of Words

AI on G-6.106b
Overture 04-02 from Presbytery of Mississippi was disapprove (by a close margin) in committee, however a minority report has this proposed authoritative interpretation:

"The 217th General Assembly (2006) of the PC(USA) hereby confirms that the requirement for fidelity and/or chastity as set forth in Section G-6.0106b of the Book of Order plainly prohibits practicing[, unrepentant] homosexuals, adulterers, or anyone engaged in [sexually immoral conduct] [unrepentant sexual relations outside the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman] from being ordained and/or installed to church office whether as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament."

The main argument for this interpretation that it makes it evidently clear what many already thought was evidently clear the meaning of fidelity and chastity clause. The argument against was that recommendation 6 of the PUP report which was approved (although be a split vote) is that we strongly encourage not to make any additional authoritative interpretations to G-6.106b. The ACC stated that this AI still didn’t sufficiently address "self-acknowledge practice". Bizarre, suddenly sin requires self-awareness or agreement that actions are sin. So the bottom-line is that the ACC is saying if you don’t agree with God than it is okay. Sin is sin whether you acknowledge it, agree with it or not.

Jack Rogers, former moderator of the GA, and author of an unbelievably poor scholarly work on homosexuality and the bible (see http://www.robgagnon.net)/) claim that we are in a period of discernment in regards to this issue and shouldn’t vote to change our standards. Period of discernment?! What! The church historical has been crystal clear on this issue, and the church recently has spoke loudly in increasing numbers in this issue. We have discerned and studied. Furthermore Jesus has spoken on this issue.

Not surprising the minority report was defeated. The assembly is in fatigue on this issue–sort of like my YAD Fatigue Syndrome.

Further PUP Reflections
As I read more and more the amendment recommendation 5, I am convinced that this strengthens the position that the church (and governing bodies) cannot ordain/install anyone who does not comply G-6.106b, because any standard in the form of government must be complied with in accordance with paragraph D.

The problem that is embedded in PUP recommendation 5 is it inherently confusing and contradictory even among itself. Paragraph C.2 says that governing body can decide if someone has departed from the essentials of reformed faith and polity. But paragraph D now saws governing bodies must comply with the constitution in its decisions and examinations. So the question that is before the church and eventually the GAPJC is: Does complying with the constitution standards an essential of reformed polity (and faith)? Reformed polity being based on connectionalism, living in a covenant community and agreed upon constitution, it would seem complying with the constitution is an obvious essential. Particularly a standard that is expressly stated and pointed out in G-6.106b. In other words will governing bodies be allowed to ignore "Shall" (mandatory) language in the constitution?

My brothers and sisters in the renewal movement believe this open the doors for ordination of people outside the context of fidelity in marriage and singleness. I agree that it has the potential to do that, however, I take the stance (a more optimistic I realize) that nothing has change, although the perception is that it has change. Nothing has changed until the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Counsel decides it and this AI is tested. So hold onto your horses people the disunity of the church will be turned up a notch. So much for Peace, Unity and Purity.

One of problem with this denomination is that people twist words to mean what they want them to mean instead of their obvious plain meaning. So unless GAPJC twists plain meaning of words (a possibility)–nothing has changed (hopefully).

My (our) role (mission) is to continue to proclaim the Gospel and Truth of Jesus Christ loudly to this denomination and for the World. God’s way is the way of proclamation of the Good News of Jesus in word and deed.

Restricted Giving Administrative Fee
The assembly just approved to get rid of an 5% administrative fee on all restricted mission giving. The administrative fee was to funding staff positions and other costs. This is a good thing, because most people assume you give restricted monies for a particular mission that the GAC is not going to skim from the top.