Return from OZ

Part 1

For the past ten days (followed by one day dealing with a nasty computer virus ack! ack! ptooey!), I've been living in that earthly otherworld known as General Assembly. It was as though we'd walked through the door of a huge anechoic chamber and the only outside 'noise' was what we brought inside with us. In the silence, after a few minutes, we could hear our heartbeat. Friends, the PC(USA) has an arrhythmia.

As you know, most of us have some kind of arrhythmia. Some are harmful, some aren't. I'm not sure of the status of this one. Truth is, when I came back to the 'real' world, I experienced a major cognitive dissonance and am trying to sort through it. So this will probably be a real ramble, and if you aren't into Presbyterian politics, my feelings won't be hurt one bit if you decide to wander away about now.

Some of my disconnect may be the result of a combination of concurrent happenstances: our first biennial meeting (which means there was a huge amount of business to process, since we hadn't met for two years), implementation of a 'paperless' meeting (with an intranet computer system that wasn't functioning anywhere near reliably), and the presentation of the Peace, Unity, and Purity (PUP) report which has been five years in the making. This last one was the flashpoint of a controversy which has been brewing in the PC(USA) for years, and, while it is truly about many important and deep theological issues, was reduced in the minds of many to "shall the PC(USA) approve in any way, shape, or form the ordination of homosexuals?"

For some, the ordination of homosexuals is an abomination and the turning point of whether they and their congregation will stay within the denomination. They rattle their sabers and proclaim, "If you adopt this, we'll be forced to take our marbles and run elsewhere!" For others, the ordination of homosexuals is too long coming into being. They have been forced to remain second-class members of the denomination, welcomed as members, but without the privilege and responsibility of serving as ordained leaders in any capacity. They rattle their sabers and proclaim, "If you don't adopt this, we'll be forced to take our marbles and run elsewhere!" *sigh*

Actually, if one reads the portion of our Book of Order which is used to forbid the ordination of homosexuals (and singles who are sexually active and unrepentant spouse-abusers and alcoholics and ..... well, the list of things the Book of Confessions calls sin is a rather long one), as long as one is celibate (on the homosexuality thing), one may be ordained. I can't remember when this particular piece of the Book of Order was adopted, but it was sometime in the early 90's, so it's been around for a while.

The PUP report was developed through the work of dedicated Christians (who happen to be Presbyterians) of all theological stripes. It passed unanimously! Not a single person who worked on the task force was against the position taken by the report. They found a way to remain in community AND STILL HOLD SIGNIFICANT THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES!

The GA voted in favor of adopting the report 57% - 43%. Some of those in the 43% were commissioners who felt that, with the controversy bubbling around the report, we should either refer it to a later GA or send it back to the task force for more work. When the referral didn't pass, they voted disapproval. Others were deeply wounded and grieved by the acceptance of the report.

It was rumored that the original plan was to walk out of the Assembly if the PUP report was adopted. Don't know if it were true, but would not have been surprised if it had happened. God had to have been in the midst of this Assembly, because I heard that the walkout plans were changed due to the election of Joan Gray as Moderator - the more conservative members of the Assembly did not want to besmirch her tenure as Moderator, since her stated position is of being against the ordination of homosexuals.

Presbys believe that, when we gather to make decisions, we are to come together and listen to all perspectives, then through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, discern God's direction. What group of people ever listens perfectly? And who's to say that my position is actually the right one? (I had no vote, but fully believe that the 57% were hearing Christ's call to be inclusive.) That's why we seem so darned divisive and at each other's throats so much of the time. We allow for the diversity which brings us to keep plugging away at issues until we become certain 'the way be clear'. So, of course at our next GA, we'll be wrestling with this issue ... and the next ... and the next ... and the next ... (I kinda figure we won't get this one sorted out until after I'm long dead.)

So, now we wait and see what comes next. I'm figuring it won't be pretty, but hope that the Spirit which infused the Assembly gets carried over to the people in the pews.

I've a couple of other things which have been niggling at me; however, I have a Session meeting to moderate and must shift gears. Therefore, I'm going to post this part and deal with the other things when I get back. Later!

--------------------------

Part 2

On to the next thing I want to think about: we have now taken a huge step backward in our policy on late-term abortion. The language has shifted toward the punitive and condemnatory. A rather conservative presbytery sent an overture to GA that completely negates the caring and pastoral work of the 2002 and 2003 GAs on this issue. I'll admit I'm missing a piece of what was finally adopted because someone managed to amend it to include a chunk of the 2003 GAs work which was more pastoral in nature, and the only persons to have the full text of that in front of them were the commissioners. It's not yet been sculpted into LES (the abysmally insufficient computer program).

This is the piece which really hit me hard. Part of the argument given was along the lines of 'well, you've had at least six months to take care of it, so if you didn't do it by then, then tough luck, sister!' OK - they didn't use precisely that language, but that was the way it came across. There is no softening language for those who might be victims of rape, or incest, or who must deal with the tragically difficult decision to abort a child with extremely severe birth defects. There is no sense of understanding how such a decision might not be able to be made earlier in a pregnancy. Sure, some of the wording includes "surround with a community of care". The basic purpose of the policy is along the lines of 'no matter what, the church is to affirm that that baby should be delivered alive'.

I know. That last sentence seems to say that I want death for the child. That's not truly where I'm going. Adoption would be the best option, I can't deny that. But I'm also not the woman who is in that situation, and I don't know what particular hell any particular woman faced with that decision is going through. All I know is that I'd want my pastor to be there with me, supportive of the situation, giving me all of the options, and walking with me through that choice without a hint of condemnation in the midst of it.

I've a friend who has a son who is about 35 now, who functions at the level of about a 6-9 month old. When he was born, the doctors gave him about six months. His parents are full-time caregivers and love him deeply. Their biggest fear is that this son should outlive both of them and be placed in institutional care. My friend has said that if the technology had existed to let them know what they would be facing, they would have made the difficult decision to abort this beloved child.

Why would anyone want to add an additional layer of pain to an already difficult situation? How can we, as church, be so quick to assume that this is a throw-away decision? I just don't understand it. Why are there those who want to exhibit some level of control over women, and assume that women are not able to make the 'right' decisions without their help, ... and then insist that the church endorse their definition of 'right? And, why, oh why, did we buy it and follow without examining the entire package more carefully? (well, I kind of know why - this was up for decision very late on the last night of decision-making, and came at the end of three hard-hitting days of huge decisions. There is an incredible amount of material to process at one of these things - I've been a commissioner before - and toward the end it becomes a fog as to what is actually being discussed and voted on. So, I'm not completely faulting the commissioners, but more the methods used to get this through.)

This one will be exceedingly difficult to recover from. I went back to my room that night and cried. This is one decision which I truly don't understand. Maybe it was a back-handed sop to the conservatives whose feelings were so hurt by the vote on the PUP report. I just don't know. Can you tell that I am wounded by this? What is it about sexuality and issues related to birth that seem to tie us so completely up in knots? Perhaps I'm just being dense. If so, would somebody enlighten me?

--------------------------

Part 3

This is the last one, I promise.

It's hard to calculate how much time was spent on items related to the previous two posts, and other items of a similar nature. We've argued and nattered about feminine language for the Holy Trinity, where to store our historical documents and artifacts, whether or not to have non-geographic synods and presbyteries, who owns church property, where will we fund this and that project/proposal/idea, and other topics big and small.

I wonder what Jesus would have to say about us. True, we glancingly addressed some social justice issues, even spent time delving into the social witness of investment of the church's finances. There are some wonderful documents researched, prepared, and presented on things like usury, the imbalance of wealth, HIV/AIDS, peacemaking, living wages for migrant farm workers (specifically the Immokolees - we participated in a boycott of Taco Bell for about 3 years and, finally, growers have agreed to raise the price they pay their workers to something approaching a liveable wage), mining, and renewable resources. There were others, I just didn't spend time to go and dig their names up.

I truly don't want to give the impression that nothing good came from GA. That would be inaccurate. However, the things we gave the most weight to were probably NOT the things Jesus would have had us focus on. As I read scripture, Jesus would have been far more pissed about the way we treat each other than over whether we included an outsider in the inner circle. *sigh*

I think it would be an incredible experience to sit down at a GA and truly focus on a plan to address, say, poverty for five days (the amount of time spent in committee and then plenary). Just think of the good which could be accomplished if our 2.3 million member denomination decided to forgo the arguments over what kind of sinner could be ordained (we're all sinners after all) and narrowed in on ways to address the subsets which contribute to povery and commit to helping those living in poverty to overcome the obstacles they face. If you think about it, we Presbys are not a bunch of slackers when it comes to the income department. We've a fairly hefty percentage of our members who are not living anywhere near the poverty level.

Or what if we committed our human and financial resources to peacemaking? Do you think that 2.3 million Christians living out Jesus' call to "turn the other cheek", in whatever form would be best suited to a particular place and time, might have some significant impact in our increasingly violent and separatist world? What if God is calling us to be role-models on how to live according to Jesus' prayer that we might be one, as he and God are one (different in many ways, but together in unity). Whoa! Tough task! But, oh! how I pray that we might be able to accomplish it!

Somehow, with our position papers and policies, we miss out on the actual living out of our faith. I think that was the thing I came away with from this GA. We've got the i-dotting and t-crossing down pat. But Jesus wasn't an i-dotter or t-crosser! He told the rich young ruler (depending on translation) to sell all he had and give it to those who had not. He told his disciples (and I mean all of his followers by this term) that they had to give up their life to gain it, which at least partially means putting aside one's pride and plans to follow Jesus' plans as discerned through the work of the Holy Spirit. I don't think Jesus meant for us to spend all of our time writing position papers! It's the doing that was high on his agenda!

Now all I've gotta do is figure out what doing I'm called to be about. Oh! I'm not totally ignorant about that, and am going about it as best I am able. Guess I'm just a bit tired right now, and being impatient about the whole thing. I'd truly like it laid out in front of me step by step, so I can see the final destination RIGHT NOW! Blast it all! Sometimes I wish this faith business didn't depend so much on faith! *chuckle* In the grand scheme of things, I really do trust it will all work out, even the knotty spots. Just give me some time to take it all in and I'll be back to my positive (mostly) self again!