Saturday, July 10, 2010

General Assembly Update - Friday

Rather than a separate blog on each issue, I'm going to recap all of what I think were the most significant issues addressed today in one post.  Ready?  Here goes!

Some were administrative; the one that is probably of most interest to congregations is one about church articles of incorporation. A question was asked about whether a session is supposed to provide the presbytery with a copy of its articles of incorporation.  In short, the answer was yes.  At the very least they need to be entered into the minutes of the church, and any amendments to them would be reflected in the minute books.  The Advisory Committee on the Constitution further advised that "A congregation therefore lacks the power to adopt changes to its articles of incorporation, regulations, bylaws, or standing rules that are contrary to the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)  This is part of a new authoritative interpretation issued by the General Assembly today in response to the question asked of the Advisory Committee.

Another overture was defeated that is especially relevant to presbyteries like ours which use commissioned lay pastors to serve small churches or are commissioned to serve the Lord's Supper in a geographical region for a specified period of time.  The proposed overture would have provided for a new classification of commissioned lay pastor, CLP-at-large, to serve at the discretion of the presbytery;  allowed the CLP-at-large to provide services, while not commissioned to a particular congregation, including officiating at the Sacraments; and would have allowed the CLP-at-large to to serve in his/her own church should even though it may have pastoral leadership, somewhat similar to a parish associate.   This overture was defeated.

A significant overture in terms of the focus of our denomination was one that instructed the General Assembly Mission Council to make mission support a priority for 2011-12, and invites each presbytery to share the cost of one mission co-worker during 2011-12.

A major decision was to reestablish an Office of Collegiate Ministries in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) as a vital and integral part of the ministry and mission of the church and to direct that office to prepare a strategy for mission in higher education in concert with middle governing bodies, congregations, and, where possible, ecumenical partners, to be presented to the 220th General Assembly (2012).  We struggle with college ministry, and this decision places a higher emphasis on it than we have had in recent years.

Probably one of the most controversial decisions of the day relates to pension and medical benefits for church workers and their same-gender spouses, domestic partners, and their children.  The exact wording of the action adopted is:  That the 219th General Assembly (2010): 1. Urge the Board of Pensions to adopt amendments to the Benefits Plan to extend eligibility for spousal and dependent benefits under the Plan to Benefits Plan members, their same-gender domestic partners, and the children of their same-gender domestic partners, on the same basis as, and equivalent to, benefits made available to Benefits Plan members, their spouses, and the children of their spouses. 2. Approve an increase in dues for the Benefits Plan of up to 1 percent, effective January 1, 2012, to be allocated among the plans of the Board of Pensions, including but not limited to the Pension Plan, as the Board, in its sole discretion, deems necessary to fund the cost of the additional benefits. Should the Board not implement these benefits for any reason, approval of the increase in dues is rescinded. Comment: That the Board of Pensions be highly urged to provide relief of conscience, to be implemented simultaneously with these actions, for those congregations for whom these actions cause a moral dilemma.  This passed with a vote of 366 yes, 287 no, and 9 abstaining.  It should be noted that for those who are not aware of it, many church workers, such as musicians, secretaries, and christian educators, just to name a few, are participants in the Board of Pensions medical and pension plan.

Another resolution related to the Board of Pensions was adopted that "urges the Board of Pensions to develop a plan to ensure that funds from any Relief of Conscience churches do not go to fund abortions through any avenue."

An issue that has been ongoing has been our denomination's relationship to Caterpillar.  General Assembly voted (Affirmative: 418 Negative: 210 Abstaining: 9) to denounce Caterpillar for “profit-making from non-peaceful uses” of some of its equipment in Palestine/Israel and adopted a policy statement to guide our continued engagement with this company.

And finally, with a vote of 558 for, 119 against, and 7 abstaining, the General Assembly voted to approve the Middle East study report, Breaking Down Walls, with some modifications from the original report.  They replaced part of the report with voices from “authentically Palestinian perspectives” and “authentically Israeli perspectives” to address the concern expressed by some that there were some perspectives missing from the report.

There were many more actions taken by the General Assembly, some of which would be of interest to you, others, probably not.  If  you want to see all the actions, you can go to pc-biz.org and check out the business items under each committee.

In the weeks and months to come, you will be hearing more about these, as we engage them as a presbytery.  Meanwhile, if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask!

Sue Coller
     Rooted in God
     Open to Grace
     Filled with Joy

6 comments:

DennisS said...

I assume you mean "Caterpillar". I do not understand this action at all. We blame Caterpillar for selling bulldozers to knock down Palestinian settlements? Will John Deere and other makers of bulldozers not step in to sell equipment if Caterpillar refuses? The equipment itself is neutral.

WHAT WAS REALLY NEEDED WAS A CONDEMNATION OF ISRAEL FOR USING BULLDOZERS TO DESTROY BUSINESSES AND HOMES THAT HAD BEEN IN FAMILIES FOR DOZENS OF GENERATIONS! For building up walls on the Palestinian side of the border and knocking down anything in their path...for creating "settlements" which is a nice word for taking land that isn't theirs...for never ever compensating for any of the land they have taken, nor compensating for any lives they have destroyed with bulldozers.

To condemn Caterpillar is akin to condemning Smith and Wesson for making "guns that kill people". Yet the gun (or bulldozer) is value-neutral. It is the buyer and operator of the equipment that pull the trigger (or knock things down).

I'm fairly new to the PCUSA (joined last month). What in the world is a "Relief of Conscience church"???? (Maybe this is explained elsewhere and I missed it - but this is the first I have heard of the term.) Why would the Board of Pensions be funding any abortions?

DennisS said...

Oops. Forgot to click on getting email for any follow-up posts - which I am doing with this post. Thanks!

Sue Coller said...

Late night when I did the post - thanks for catching my spelling error.

The argument you pose is one that has also been a part of the debate for the last six years. One of the strengths of the Presbyterian Church, as well as one of the reasons we debate a lot, is that we have people who feel strongly on all sides of this issue. One of the balancing positions is there is a segment in the church that does not want to do or say anything that will appear to be negative towards Israel. There are those who feel that denouncing Caterpillar was really a slam at Israel, especially in the Jewish community, so that is also a part of the complex issue of justice, relationships, and covenant that we try to balance in the church.

In answer to your other two questions:
Re abortion - our church position is that in an ideal world, we wouldn't even need to have this conversation, for every pregnancy would be wanted, healthy, perfect, etc. But unfortunately we don't live in that world. Our denominational policy is that we would hope that no one would choose abortion, but we also respect a woman's right to make that choice. Basically our official position is don't do it, but if you feel you must because of rape, incest, or extreme medical danger to the mother or fetus, the earlier the better, preferably in the first trimester. You can read the full policy on the pcusa.org website. http://oga.pcusa.org/publications.htm will take you to the list of publications. Scroll down until you see the paper titled "problem pregnancies and abortion".

Relief of Conscience is something set up through the Board of Pensions for churches who register as objecting to use of any of the medical dues they pay for abortions of any kind. A portion of their dues, equal to what is spent on abortions during the year, is set aside and used to may medical costs for adopted newborn dependents. I think it was reported last week that $11,000 was spent on paying for abortions last year.

Welcome to the Presbyterian Church! One of the strengths of our church is that we do have differences of opinions, and I believe we are stronger for that, but that's too long to go into depth about that here .. maybe in a future blog.

Sue Coller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Adam Copeland said...

FYI, there's a great CLP discussion/debate in the most recent Christian Century. I find that I agree most with Barbara Wheeler's assessment, though I'm always reforming ;)

DennisS said...

Adam - I went to the online version and couldn't find the discussion/debate. Can you link to it, or state the name of the article? Maybe it's not in the online version, or the online version is a newer one than what you recently read? www.christiancentury.org