What Did It All Mean?: GA Wrapup and Reflections

The 221^st General Assembly was not pretty, but it was historic. Low budgets (GA222 will be even lower) meant less pageantry and condensed schedules. The internet-based voting system didn’t work at all, and the wireless backup was at times unreliable. We elected a fine team as moderator and vice-moderator, but the management of the debate was halting and sometimes frustrating. And, it seems at times that the commissioners were not only lost in the issues, but also poorly grounded in our polity and ethos.

But when looked at as a whole, the actions of the Assembly were historic, and signaled a watershed moment in the history of the church. With no organized evangelical voice at the Assembly, there was little resistance on such issues as marriage equality and gun violence. The once-controversial Belhar Confession will likely be approved by presbyteries in a cakewalk. While Middle East issues do not conform as neatly to an ideological paradigm, the right wing is more strongly pro-Israel, and their diminution was enough to provide the 2% difference from 2012 to approve divestment.

The theme of this assembly was “Abound in Hope,” and it would appear that as the denomination settles into a post amendment 10-A landscape, with the departure, however painful, of many of our largest and most strident evangelical churches, a new identity is emerging, and with it, a clearer, stronger voice, and – dare I say it – hope.

The new PC(USA) is less contentious, less obsessed with 20^th century culture wars, more attuned to the issues and needs of Gen-Xers and Millennials, more multicultural, and, of course, more theologically and socially progressive. That poses new challenges as well as new opportunities. We are still an aging church, and will continue to lose members simply due to the demographic realities. It is unclear how quickly and to what extent power will shift to newer, younger leaders. Financial support will continue to decline. The organizational system is entrenched in models that reflect a 1970s context, while trying to function with a fraction of the human and financial resources it once had.

Nevertheless, there is a sense of relief – perhaps on both sides – that the Thirty Years’ War in the church over sexuality and culture seems to have run its course, at least at the national level. But if the hope that has been generated is to be translated into new vitality, it will require stronger leadership than we have seen in recent years, a clearer denominational purpose and vision, and a church-wide adaptive strategy, beginning with the six-headed beast at the top.

Kudos are due to the Committee on Local Arrangements and the City of Detroit for their gracious hospitality and smooth operation. Any who didn't attend out of concern for the site missed out on a great city with a vibrant and safe downtown convention area. I did not hear of a single incident that would have validated any concerns about the location.

So, now we look to GA222 in Portland, Oregon, meeting June 18-25, 2016. One thing is certain: it will be a different PC(USA) that meets there, and a different one that emerges.

My thanks to you who have followed this blog. So far, it has received 50% more page views with fewer than 2/3 the number of posts than my last GA blog. God willing, I will be back in two years with An Insider’s Guide to the 222^nd General Assembly.

The Holy Sausage Factory: GA Day 7

[Note - too late and tired to hunt for images. Will add some more tomorrow.]

There is an old adage that "those who like the law and sausages should not watch either being made." An outsider viewing the PC(USA) General Assembly might have the same initial repulsion. It is messy. It is tedious. It is sometimes foul. And yet we still value the final product - at least most of the time.

As many expected, the General Assembly of the PC(USA) narrowly approved an overture to divest from three American companies who have profited from the military occupation of Palestine, and despite years of effort to persuade them, have failed to conform their business strategies to uphold basic human rights of Palestinians. Heavily amended to clarify and nuance the action, the motion passed by the narrowest margin of any item of business: 310-303, a margin of just over 1%.

The secular press has largely ignored the nuances, which sought to clarify that the denomination is divesting from the three companies – Hewlett-Packard, Motorola Solutions, and Caterpillar – and not from Israel. Amendments also restated our affirmation of Israel’s right to exist, our support of a two-state solution, that this action is not in support of the international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, and that the PC(USA) is decidedly not anti-Semitic. 

A fairly accurate, if gently critical news piece was posted by the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/21/us/presbyterians-debating-israeli-occupation-vote-to-divest-holdings.html

The long day began with the report of the more ecclesiastical Mid Council Issues committee, which recommended approval of an amended report by the second two-year commission addressing the future of synods (disclosure: I am co-leader of the Synod of the Sun). The amended recommendation, calling for a reduction from the current 16 synods to no more than 12 by 2016, was roundly opposed by synod executives like myself, who believe it would derail progress towards the transformation of synods that is currently underway, and that making larger synods would only diminish their mission effectiveness in helping local presbyteries and their congregations.

A bizarre minority report from the committee calling for a single synod frustrated the commissioners because it required going through the tedious process of a substitute motion for little apparent reason (minority reports are always handled first). That seemed to make it more difficult for a more exciting substitute motion that followed to be received.

The motion, offered by commissioner Jennifer Burns Lewis of Chicago Presbytery, and initiated by presbytery executives, was the victim of platform glitches, moderator oversights, and an uncharacteristic lack of assistance from the Stated Clerk, leading some to wonder if the item was being “railroaded.” (It took several minutes to put the motion up on the video screen, requiring that it be read aloud; and a premature motion to end debate was approved by voice vote even though it requires a 2/3 approval – which it clearly did not achieve.)

The motion had called for collaboration and mutual accountability between synods and their presbyteries in setting and achieving mission goals (monitored by a standing committee of the General Assembly); for a consultation process with synods and presbyteries to develop structural and constitutional changes to make synods more focused on mission than governance; and an annual convocation of synods and presbyteries to assess mission strengths, needs, and opportunities for mutual support and collaboration across synod lines. With little opportunity to consider the proposal, the Assembly went with the committee recommendation 63%-37%.  So instead of real change, we are realigning boundaries. 

I mourn the loss of what might have been a truly exciting and responsive change. If it was derailed intentionally just in order to push through the Commission recommendation, then the PC(USA) leadership is farther out of touch than I imagined. From the point of view of synod leaders, the results were still a partial victory – a consolidation to a maximum of 12 synods is less disruptive than a consolidation to no more than 8 – but the process will still redirect money, time, and energy inward rather than outward, and interrupt positive changes already underway.

Before the Assembly recessed at the stroke of midnight, the commissioners were frayed and confused, trying to sort out the nuances of technical points of polity. In desperation, they approved three items in a single motion without debate just to get to adjournment.

This has been a largely pedestrian, sometimes clueless, and occasionally reckless Assembly, despite their historic votes. Moderator Rada has tried, perhaps, to be too gentle with the Assembly, and at times seemed to flounder in the parliamentary process. Still, somehow, the Spirit moves, and we manage despite ourselves.

I did not witness a “crying YAAD” (there is still time), but I was informed of a “crying commissioner.” I am still trying to hunt down details. Perhaps I will have to rephrase my biennial landmark as the “crying speaker.”

Saturday consists of budget approval and “closing ceremonies,” which I will have to miss. I will have one more wrap-up blog post before I close it down until #GA222 in Portland in 2016.

History: GA Day 6

History was made this afternoon when the General Assembly approved two items that will permit pastors to perform same-sex marriages as soon as Saturday noon. The first to be adopted was an authoritative interpretation (“AI”) of the PC(USA) Constitution’s statement on marriage (W-4.9001) which affirmed the freedom of conscience of pastors to exercise their own discretion in deciding to perform marriages that are legal in their civil jurisdiction. It also permits pastors and sessions to refuse to perform (or to allow) such marriages.  The second was a proposed constitutional amendment that would amend the language of W-4.9001 to describe marriage as between “two people – traditionally a man and a woman.” This will require the ratification of a majority of the presbyteries before it could take effect one year from Saturday. But no matter, the AI is sufficient unto itself, and word has it that couples are preparing wedding cakes for Saturday afternoon.

The two items passed with overwhelming majorities: 61% to 39% on the first, and 71%-29% on the second.

Moderator Heath Rada was disciplined and pastoral in the management of the hall. The votes were followed immediately by prayer for those whose conscience is wounded by these actions. And the backlash was immediate. The Presbyterian Layman – the press organ of the schismatic right wing – has encouraged members to financially boycott even their own congregations if they do not publicly repudiate the actions. Global Mission director Hunter Farrell indicated that some 17 global mission partners – primarily in Central America and Africa – are likely to sever formal ties with the denomination. It is also expected that many conservative congregations will now move to seek dismissal from the denomination.

While I would have preferred an action that would have given space for pastoral discretion without addressing marriage directly, the Assembly should be lauded for its courage to take a stand that they know will be unpopular with many in order to extend the blessing of the church to all its members.

They were not helped by the Stated Clerk and the ACC, which gave confusing and contradictory advice on the constitutional impact of the two principal overtures. Let me do what they did not, and explain what this means for Presbyterians.  First, pastors may perform weddings for gay couples on church grounds with the permission of the session, or outside the church grounds at their own discretion, provided such weddings are legal where they are conducted. Second, no pastor or session may be compelled to conduct or approve a wedding against their conscience. The authoritative interpretation reverses a 1991 authoritative interpretation on the same topic which prohibited such services. It did so by appealing to the Presbyterian principle of freedom of conscience of the believer. In so doing, it implicitly (but not explicitly) revised its 1991 ruling which gave definitional (and therefore prescriptive) force to the formulation of “a man and a woman” in W-4.9001. The implicit interpretation now is that the language is merely descriptive and therefore not binding. The latter is actually a more honest interpretation of the passage. If it were intended to be prescriptive, it should have included mandatory words like “shall” or “shall not.”

Now that gay marriage will become a reality in the PC(USA) it has had an immediate effect on gay and lesbian pastors. As one told me, “Well, now I no longer have an excuse [not to marry]. I guess I’ll be having a conversation with my partner when I get home.”

The morning session consisted primarily of small group conversations and prayer among commissioners as they shared perspectives on the afternoon topic of marriage, and tomorrow afternoon’s topic of divestment. 

In the evening, numerous committees with less controversial business held the floor. There was a moving tribute to former moderator Cynthia Bolbach, who died of cancer in December 2012. The evening concluded with a rousing celebration of 248 new worshiping communities to date in the 1001 New Worshiping Communities initiative. To celebrate, 248 Pentecost-red beach balls were set loose on the Assembly while Pharrell Williams’ “Happy” played on the sound system.

Tomorrow will bring to the floor two more hot-button issues: Synods and the Middle East. While no one has waged war over synods, the debate over the amended recommendations of the Mid Council Commission being brought to the floor is heating up. One counterproposal is said to have genuine potential to upset the committee recommendations. That will take place in the morning; in the afternoon we expect that there will be a full house for the much awaited vote on divesting from companies directly profiting from the military occupation of Palestine.

Perhaps at that time we may encounter our first “crying YAAD.” A biennial feature of this blog is the wait for the Crying YAAD (young adult advisory delegate) to appear. By Friday night, the stress of long work hours, little sleep, and emotional issues wears on the nerves of young and old alike. Invariably at least one YAAD will break down and sob while making an impassioned speech. “The Assembly ain’t over until the YAAD cries,” the saying goes.

All business other than budget must be completed before recessing tomorrow night. In years past, that has required working until as late as 2 a.m.  I expect recess will come earlier due to the lighter work load and the use of the consent calendar to process over 130 items in one vote. I am predicting a relatively early 11:15 p.m. recess. We shall see if the Crying YAAD appears. 

Drinking from the Fire Hose: GA Days 4 & 5

As the standing committees completed their work, and the plenary body took its first actions on their recommendations, the volume of business to track is enormous. (Tracking it is the responsibility of the tracking team in OGA, headed for the umpteenth year in a row by veteran Jim Collie of Santa Fe Presbytery, right.)

As the recommendations on high-profile items came forth on Tuesday, the profile of this Assembly took shape. This is an Assembly dominated by progressives – I would say about a 2:1 ratio, which is easily the largest differential since reunion. By contrast, the 2010 Assembly, which put forth Amendment 10-A and the new Form of Government was about 54-46 on the progressive side. It is apparent that not only did the evangelical wing of the church not mount an organization, they did not bother to put forth candidates for commissioners.

On Tuesday, the Marriage Issues committee recommended adoption of both items being touted by the progressive Covenant Network: Item 10-3, an authoritative interpretation of W-4.9001 which would give pastors discretion to perform same-sex marriages (or not to perform them) according to the dictates of their conscience, under the laws of their jurisdiction; and item 10-2, a proposed amendment to W-4.9001 that would reframe the explanation of marriage to a covenant between two persons (rather than “a man and a woman.”) They passed the committee by votes of 51-18 and 49-18, respectively. (Committee votes on these issues tend to skew more progressive than plenaries, in part because the committees listen to the stories of those most deeply affected during the open hearings. Many times, a committee has put forth a more progressive recommendation only to have the minority report prevail on the plenary floor.) One commissioner on that committee told me that one reason they adopted both items was to communicate to the church that they were not trying to make an “end run” of the presbyteries, which have to vote on amendments, but not authoritative interpretations. 

If approved by the full Assembly, the authoritative interpretation would take effect immediately on the adjournment of the Assembly, and would not be affected by a negative vote of the presbyteries on the proposed amendment.  That comes up for action Thursday afternoon.

The standing committee on Middle East issues, by a 45-20 voted to recommend divestment from the three targeted companies (HP, Caterpiller, Motorola Solutions) that are profiting from supporting the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territory. They did so by recommending approval of the more modest proposal of New Covenant Presbytery (item 04-04) with a clarifying amendment saying, “This action on divestment does not mean an alignment with the overall strategy of the global BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanctions) movement.” Personally, I think that is too nuanced to change the headline in the secular media, if the Assembly concurs. A more radical statement offered by Grace Presbytery (04-02) that would have labeled the Israeli occupation and sanctions “apartheid” failed in committee by a single vote (33-32), but will still have to be voted on by the full Assembly.

In the committee I resourced, on Mid Council Issues, the recommendations of the Mid Council Commission were passed on to the Assembly with overwhelming approval following an amendment increasing the maximum number of synods to 12 from the eight originally proposed (there are 16 now). In a separate action, the standing committee rejected appeals by the Commission and recommended that the Synod of Puerto Rico be exempted from consolidation given its unique cultural identity. A bizarre proposal to form a single synod with regional offices dedicated to various functions is being put forth as a minority report. If approved, the amended Commission recommendations would still require the synods to make a proposal by 2016 or that Assembly would be expected to appoint an Administrative Commission to recommend boundary realignment to the 2018 Assembly.

While the amendment increasing the number of synods alleviates some of the anxiety regarding wholesale upheaval of the synod transformations currently underway, it still is merely a technical fix on an adaptive challenge facing the church. By continuing to push the threat of an Administrative Commission to force consolidation, it subordinates mission to structure, instead of supporting a more organic structure that emerges from the evolving mission needs of presbyteries. It remains to be demonstrated how larger, more distant synods enhance the mission of presbyteries and congregations.  But, as I noted in my preview blogs, the inertia behind a second two-year commission’s recommendations is hard to overcome.

More personally, the Mid Council Commission demonstrated disrespect and contempt of synods and their leaders, offering thinly veiled accusations in the form of pastoral palliatives like “we know that change is hard to embrace and synod executives are fearful of losing their jobs.” That completely disregards both the major transformations in synods over the last four years, as well as the public commitments of persons such as myself to transitional (i.e., temporary) employment to facilitate change. They owe the synods and us an apology.

On Wednesday, following a morning set aside for reading reports, the Assembly convened in plenary session to begin consideration of committee recommendations.  The first item of business was the “division of the house” on the controversial vote to permit the moderator to poll presbytery executives as an advisory group. The persistent rumor – reported in Monday’s blog – that this was an effort to influence the Middle East issues has been denied by the executives promoting the motion. (That blog post was picked up by the Presbyterian Outlook and linked on their Facebook page, increasing page views tenfold.) Equipped with electronic voting devices, the division of the house taken this afternoon rejected the motion by a 52%-48% margin, rendering moot the concerns as to whether a 2/3 majority was necessary.

Then, employing a change in the standing rules adopted last Assembly, the plenary body disposed of 131 items of business via a “consent calendar” – which approves non-controversial items in an omnibus motion. About 15 items were removed from the motion for debate during their respective committee reports.

But the biggest news today was the Assembly’s approval – for the second time in four years – of a recommendation to add the Belhar Confession to our Book of Confessions. It will now be sent to the presbyteries for their votes, and if 2/3 approve, it will be added to our confessions at the next Assembly.  That is much more likely this time (it was disapproved in 2011) since the major resistance came from fears it would mandate gay and lesbian ordination. Post 10-A, the wind has been taken out of the sails of that argument.

Of note to my friends in the Synod of the Sun, Grace Presbytery commissioner Dan Klein offered a memorial minute Wednesday night for Sara B. Moseley, former moderator of the General Assembly, synod icon, and a truly gracious individual.

Thursday will be a big day of business, including action on the same-sex marriage recommendations.  We will see if the crying YAAD appears (more on this tomorrow).

The Real Business of the Assembly: Day 3

When the moderator’s entourage came to Committee 5 (Mid Council Issues) today, and Assembly vice moderator Larissa Kwong Abazia addressed the committee, she told them to hang tough: “It’s like a marathon. There’s a lot of Assembly left to go, and it’s still only Tuesday. No, Monday. Wait, what day is today?” Larissa can certainly be forgiven for losing track of time here. It is a nearly non-stop ride of business, worship, events, and fellowship (often of the libational variety). And it’s still only…Monday.

Monday is the day when Assembly standing committees get into full swing. After the committees convene with worship, they begin the process of working through the particular items of business assigned to them. Each committee is free to set their agenda a little differently, but the same general pattern holds: first, hold “open hearings” to receive input from Assembly attenders who have signed up to speak to a particular topic; then presentations from overture advocates representing the sponsoring presbyteries, and responses, if called for, from General Assembly entities. The committee can also invite corresponding and advisory members to speak to a topic (as I will speak on the Mid Councils Commission recommendations tomorrow).  They may have a period of less structured discussion as a “committee of the whole” in order to determine if there is a consensus to approve, disapprove, refer, or answer with a different item. At some point, they return to formal process, a motion is made, and they proceed using Gen. Robert’s famous rules.

Because of the volume of business to be covered in a short amount of time, assemblies give great deference to the recommendations that emerge from standing committees. It’s a simple division of labor, and since committees are large enough to be representative of the whole assembly (typically between 50 and 70 members), it is likely the committee will reflect the will of the Assembly. That is why veteran strategists know that the “real business” of the Assembly happens in the committees. The outcome in committee will almost always be the decision of the Assembly (99% on routine items, 90-95% on debated items).

I spent most of my time today in Committee 5, the Mid Council Issues standing committee, getting a feel for how well the committee and its leaders function in handling business. This is a committee which works together well. They listen to each other, speak respectfully, and share the conversation.  They generally came to sound decisions on the items before them today.  The big issue today was the future of Hanmi Presbytery in the Synod of Southern California & Hawaii (see my previous blog on “sleeper” issues). After several hours of testimony and deliberation, they ultimately decided to recommend approval of the overture from the Synod seeking to dissolve the presbytery – which was founded in 1984 as the first Korean-language presbytery in the denomination.

But another items was unexpectedly interesting. It involved a Commissioner’s Resolution to establish a requirement of full disclosure of the legal history of ministers who are the topic of executive background checks. A commissioner’s resolution originates at the request of three or more commissioners at an Assembly. It is an item of business with no previous history. What made this one noteworthy was the gross overreach of jurisdiction by the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly (COGA), which requested the item be referred to them (and which the committee innocently obliged). COGA is charged with the review of the work done by the Stated Clerk and the various departments of ecclesiastical service (as opposed to mission) under his direction.

Speaking for COGA, member Jim Wilson (a former moderator of the ACC) informed the committee that it should be referred to them rather than the Office of Vocations or the Office of the Stated Clerk “because they are an elected body and the Stated Clerk reports to them.” This disregards the fact that Executive Presbyters are accountable to their presbyteries, not the General Assembly, and that COGA’s prescribed role is “to carry out the assembly’s oversight of the Stated Clerk and the Office of the General Assembly; to assure the accountability of the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly during the interim between sessions of the assembly.” Nothing there about handling referrals on issues of ethics. The appropriate GA entity to deal with this should have been the Office of Vocations, with input from the Office of Constitutional Interpretation - as suggested by one commissioner before it was seized by COGA.

Some have suggested that a power vortex is forming in what is designed as a review committee – “The Presbyterian Curia” as someone (not me) put it. I have previously written about their move to occupy a third of the seats on the second Mid Council Commission. It has even been suggested that the particular form of the Commission’s recommendations (to be acted on tomorrow) will lead either by design or default to COGA determining the boundaries of synods and presbyteries should the proposed consolidation process end up being referred to an MCC3 commission in 2016. I am not attributing this to malice -- COGA is comprised of good, conscientious Presbyterians. I would suggest it is very possibly the systemic response to the weakening of the office of Stated Clerk in the denomination since the end of the "imperial" Stated Clerk. 

There was business in other committees, of course – but no recommendations on the “hot button” issues have been adopted yet. That will happen tomorrow.

On Maneuvers: Day 2

Sunday of General Assembly is generally a Sabbatical from business. It begins with worship in local congregations, which helps the commissioners and observers get a larger picture for the host community. I attended First Presbyterian Church of Farmington Hills – the home church of my seminary field education mentor Sue Ellis Melrose (who is also vice-moderator of the Committee on Local Arrangements). Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons was the preacher, and the occasion was also the 60^th anniversary of the church’s chartering – believed to be the only such chartering to have been conducted by a General Assembly during the Assembly (which met in Detroit in 1954). It was an uplifting service and we were warmly welcomed. Other Assembly-goers reported equally positive experiences among the forty or so host congregations.

Then it was back to the COBO center for an afternoon of light business. This included the installation of the Assembly vice-moderator, Larissa Kwong Abazia of the Presbytery of New York City. After last night’s stunning first ballot win for new moderator Heath Rada, many attributed the surprise victory to his savvy choice of a vice-moderator candidate.

But the brief afternoon session also included the first genuine procedural maneuver of the Assembly. Commissioners from New Covenant Presbytery (disclosure: in my synod) proposed a motion that the Assembly be permitted to poll Executive Presbyters as an advisory group (similar to YAADs,TSADs, MADs, and EADs). The motion was before the Assembly with no warning, it was rushed to a vote by the new moderator, and was adopted by a show of hands (well, voting cards). This has major significance for a number of reasons, and is likely to be challenged. The significance is that it is the first time such advisory powers have been given to a group with established power in the church. Advisory votes are designed to empower those on the margins, or those with whom we have important mission relationships. An advisory vote given to those already with power in the church has the appearance of a power grab.

It is also significant because the two sources of this motion are leaders in the presbyteries of New Covenant and National Capital – the two most outspoken supporters of the Israeli side in the hot-button divestment issue. This has given rise to the speculation in some quarters that there may be a hidden agenda to this maneuver. True or not, it casts suspicion on the motion. It did not help that the inexperienced moderator made remarks in calling for the vote that could have been heard as advocacy for the motion (a moderatorial no-no).

But it appears that major procedural mistakes were made. Advisory delegates and their voting rights are specified in the Standing Rules of the Assembly (B.2.b-c), so that extending advisory privileges to others constitutes a suspension of the rules. Standing Rule L.3 (on suspension of the rules) provides (1) that the motion must first be submitted to the Committee on the General Assembly for review (it was not clear that such a review was made, and I, at least, did not hear them report); and (2) that adoption requires a 2/3 majority vote. The 2/3 majority requirement was not indicated prior to the vote, and from where I sat, the ayes appeared to be less than a 2/3 majority.  I understand that a division has been called for by a commissioner, and that it will be revisited when the Assembly reconvenes in plenary on Wednesday.

If there is any consolation to be found here, granting advisory status to EPs could backfire big-time. Commissioners typically disdain advice rendered by synod executives at the Assembly (who, as corresponding members have voice but not vote). I don't expect EPs will get any warmer reception.

Was this just a procedural snafu, or are there other agendas afoot? We shall see. But the maneuvers have commenced. 

Technopocalypse and a First Ballot Stunner: Day 1

The 221^st General Assembly convened today in Detroit to the sound of a pipe and drum regiment that circled the Assembly hall. The legend of the pipes is that they would sound the anthem of the clan to summon the people to battle. So, perhaps bagpipes were not the best choice with which to open a General Assembly. Nevertheless, the opening worship was typically splendid, even if the pageantry seemed lost in the cavernous plenary hall.

But the main event of Day 1 takes place in the evening, and it is the election of the moderator. By now, most readers will have learned that our newly elected GA Moderator is Ruling Elder Heath Rada from Western Carolina Presbytery (specifically Montreat, the holy shrine of southern Presbyterians). Heath is well known to the church as the former president of the Presbyterian School of Christian Education (which has since been merged with Union Seminary in Virginia). But he may be better known to my Colorado blog readers as the father of Mary Talmage Rada a ruling elder at St. Andrew Presbyterian Church in Boulder. Rada was elected over veteran churchman John Wilkinson of New York and relative newcomer Kelly Allen of San Antonio.

Rada’s election was a first ballot stunner – the unofficial numbers were Rada 331, Wilkinson 157, and Allen 143. Most “GA junkies” I know had pegged Wilkinson as the favorite, if not a lock. The stunner was not only because Wilkinson had the unofficial backing of most of the Covenant Network – which has a strong following at this Assembly, but also because, at least to veteran observers, the often-determinative Q & A was pretty much a draw among all three candidates, which would suggest at least a two- to three-ballot contest.

Rada’s victory might be attributable to his long years of service to the church at PSCE, which builds not only loyalty but also trust across ideological lines.  Given Wilkinson’s strong Northern progressive credentials, and Allen’s lack of name recognition, many of the traditionally conservative southern commissioners could have just voted for the candidate they knew they could trust, even if they did not agree with all his positions. It also might be due to Rada’s genuinely warm and likeable personality.

It was a good thing the voting was a single-ballot affair because voting had to be conducted by written ballot. The highly touted state-of-the art wireless remote voting system seemed undermatched for Presbyterians.  When, on an advisory vote it returned results from 2012, outgoing moderator Neal Presa joked that while it might be flattering, he had no plans for a second term. Termed “technopocalypse” by cyberwag Landon Whitsitt, the meltdown forced the Assembly to go to a Plan C of ballots distributed and collected by an army of 30 or so executives and clerks. Who knows if the ease of spelling “R-A-D-A” contributed to the victory?

There was a very calm and civil spirit to the proceedings, and outgoing moderator Presa earned points for his sense of humor in the midst of crisis. There were other conflicts brewing at the Assembly, however. Most notably, the Mid Council Commission has launched a counter-offensive in defense of their recommendations to consolidate synods, in light of the critique offered by 14 of 16 synod leaders. The defense, published in the Outlook (www.pres-outlook.com) tries to portray the synods as out of touch with the rest of the church and engaged in a self-serving crusade. At the early-morning “Riverside Conversation” on mid councils I attended, the committee leadership seemed challenged by a number of questions from commissioners in the audience. This may prove to be the hot-button issue I predicted it could be.

Technopocalypse notwithstanding, the 221^st GA has gotten off to a smooth start. The host Presbytery of Detroit, their Committee on Local Arrangements (COLA), and the 1600 volunteers they enrolled have done a wonderful job so far.

Day 2 begins with worship in local churches, and includes a brief afternoon plenary to hear from Task Forces and Commissions (including MCC2), followed by the moderator’s reception and, in the evening, the opening standing committee sessions. So far, so good.

A False Consensus for Moderator?

The office and role of moderator can have a significant effect not only on this Assembly, but also on the future of the church. The moderator not only presides over the business of the Assembly, but then has two years of office in which she or he can put a “stamp” on the denomination. Neal Presa has used his two years to promote Belhar and to highlight changing ecclesiology. Our departed friend Cindy Bolbach put the full weight of her office behind adoption of the new Form of Government. The moderator is an official ambassador for the denomination around the world. And, the moderator makes appointments to various task forces of the church between assemblies, and selects the committee leadership for the next assembly. It is a powerful and prestigious office.

Which is why the extensive discussion, voting, and pageantry associated with the election of a moderator is important. The moderator becomes a living symbol of the unity of the church. However, the (lack of) range of candidates for this year's Assembly may mean that the election will generate a false consensus, the appearance of unity without the substance that is generated through the give and take of different points of view.

Selection of the moderator is often one of the most difficult actions to predict. Commissioners weigh two different factors – first, how well the candidate corresponds to their vision of and for the church, and second, whether the person has a personality and presence that will bear up under long meetings and the stress of late night plenary debates. Veteran Assembly wonks always say the decision depends most heavily on the question-and-answer period just prior to the vote. This is the commissioners’ opportunity not only to hear the candidates, but to “try them on for size” regarding their personality and presence.

Kelly Allen

The “race” for moderator this year is more like a friendly “amble.” There are three candidates who are “standing” (we don’t say “running” – it sounds too ambitious) for the office, and there is little to distinguish them from one another theologically.

Kelly Allen, from Mission Presbytery, is pastor of University Presbyterian Church in San Antonio, and is a teaching elder. Her website is www.kellyformoderator.com.

Heath Rada

Heath Rada, from Western Carolina Presbytery, is the former president of the Presbyterian School of Christian Education, and most recently CEO of the Richmond chapter of the American Red Cross.  He is the only ruling elder among the candidates. His website is www.heathrada.org.

John Wilkinson

John Wilkinson of Genesee Valley Presbytery, is pastor of Third Presbyterian Church, Rochester, NY, and a teaching elder. His website is www.johnwilkinsonpcusa.com.

(The official handbook on all candidates can be downloaded here: https://www.pcusa.org/resource/2014-moderatorial-cadidates-handbook/ )

All three of these candidates would be categorized on the moderate-to-progressive side of the theological spectrum. This is the first Assembly in memory without a clear conservative choice.  Of the three, Wilkinson – a co-founder of the Covenant Network – has the most progressive credentials. Allen and Rada are in the moderate-to-progressive category.

If there is one notable distinction among the candidates, it may be in the choice of their vice-moderator candidates. Rada is the only one to tab a racial-ethnic candidate, Larissa Kwong-Abazia of New York City. Wilkinson nabbed MaryAnn McKibben Dana, a rising star among the NextChurch crowd. Allen’s choice, Leslie King of Austin would appear to offer less name recognition or balance – but you can only glean so much on paper. I have met and respect all three moderatorial candidates and think we would be well-served by any of them. I am closest, personally, to Heath Rada, whom I have known for 24 years. I would be pleased if he were elected, but I can’t say I would be displeased with any of the candidates.

This one will come down to the Q&A. Your guess is as good as mine. Should be an interesting vote.

Trojan Horses

This last pre-assembly post on issues deals with "Trojan horse" items of business. A “Trojan horse” issue is a seemingly innocuous (or non-controversial) item that carries a big threat that might not otherwise be recognized. The Trojan horses are sometimes intentional, sometimes inadvertent, and sometimes just due to unforeseen consequences. Here are some business items with the potential to be Trojan horses. I apologize for the more technical analysis contained in this post, but spotting Trojan horses requires a forensic approach.

New Directory for Worship (Item 13-02). This is not up for adoption this year (it is being submitted for circulation to the church for study and comment in anticipation of a 2016 action), but it is not too early to point out a Trojan horse lurking inside this draft, which I hope can be remedied before its circulation. This proposed new Directory has been touted as a redaction, not a revision, that merely consolidates existing material. But there are interpretive (and therefore substantive) choices in any redaction, as any first year seminarian can tell you. The most egregious change, in my opinion, is the removal of the constitutional questions for office from the Constitution. Proposed W-4.0403 (“Order of Worship” for “Ordination, Installation, and Commissioning”) no longer lists the text of the questions, but merely states that the moderator shall ask the constitutional questions “using the forms provided in the Book of Order.” But the forms appended to the Book of Order are not part of the Constitution; they can be amended by action of the Assembly (or even by OGA staff) without the concurrence of the presbyteries. I'm not saying this would happen, only that matters this significant should be ensconced in the Constitution, not relegated to a non-constitutional appendix.

"Obedience to Scripture" and "Identifying Essential Tenets" (Items 06-01, 06-09). These items, independently submitted, seek to provide greater theological constraints on the examination of candidates for ordered ministry. 06-01 seeks to change the language of G-2.0104b ("Amendment 10-A") to say that councils shall be "obedient to Scripture" in their examinations.  06-09 would ask the Assembly to approve a proposed constitutional amendment to identify what constitutes “essential tenets” for the purpose of examining candidates for ordered ministry. While undoubtedly born of a frustration with the lack of direction in the current constitution, these propose a major change in the foundational polity of the church. Since 1729, with brief exception (most notably 1910-1925 and 1997-2011) the determination of what constitutes a scriptural mandate or an essential tenet has been left exclusively to the examining body and on a case-by-case basis.  To do otherwise would not only subordinate the Confessions to the Book of Order, but would undermine the balance between national standards and local examination that is part of the genius of our polity. In my opinion, every elder (teaching and ruling) as part of their training for office should be required to read the reports of the Special Commission of 1925 (the “Swearingen Commission”) which articulate these principles quite eloquently.

Constitutional Interpretation of G-3.0403c (Item 06-14). Inexplicably, this item - which proposes an amendment of the Constitution through authoritative interpretation (the cardinal sin of any General Assembly) - was proposed by the Advisory Committee on the Constitution. The proposal really has two separate elements, and the problem is in the first, which would permit racial-ethnic congregations to be transferred to non-geographic presbyteries in an adjoining synod should their synod of jurisdiction lack such a presbytery. Evidently, it is intended to be an interpretation of the provision which gives synods the power to take “other such actions as may be deemed necessary in order to meet the mission needs of racial ethnic or immigrant congregations.” However, such a transfer would violate the final sentence of G-3.0403c, which requires that such a non-geographic presbytery conform to G-3.0301 – which, among other things, notes that a presbytery has a “certain district” (in this case, the district is the synod). Such transfers were rejected by the 2012 Assembly as a matter of polity, but then late in the Assembly, the body nevertheless granted permission for two racial-ethnic congregations to join a non-geographic presbytery in a different synod. That was an irregular action, and the action of the dismissing and receiving presbyteries might have been challenged on grounds of constitutionality despite the Assembly’s approval. 

The Interreligious Stance of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (Item 07-02). The ordinarily placid Standing Committee on Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations may find a surprising push-back to this item which promotes a dialogical approach to our interaction with other religions. Let me be clear that I favor this document, and the approach described. However, it is only fair to note that there is a large segment of the church which holds to persuasive evangelism as the preferred, if not only, model for interaction with other faiths. “Dialog” to many gives a legitimacy to other religions that promotes theological relativism and diminishes the urgency of salvation. I have not seen any push-back from the Evangelical wing of the church on this document – another illustration of their disengagement leading up to this assembly.

"Sleeper" Issues

Lots of energy and attention are paid to the “hot button” issues at each General Assembly. This sometimes allows other very important and even potentially controversial proposals to slip through without the attention or debate they deserve.[i] These are “sleeper” issues, and I will identify five of them coming before this Assembly.

Belhar Revisited – There has been surprisingly little conversation around the recommendation of the Special Committee on the Belhar Confession that the Assembly approve the Apartheid-era South African declaration on the incompatibility of racism and Christian faith. Belhar was originally proposed for confessional status in 2008 and approved by the 2010 Assembly, but failed to obtain the required 2/3 approval from the presbyteries the following year. In 2012, the process began all over again with the formation of a new Special Committee. The objections in 2010-11 came from the conservative wing of the church who feared that Belhar might provide confessional support for mandating inclusion of gays and lesbians in the ordered ministries of the church. It is possible with the passage of four years and the departure of some of our most strident conservative churches that this particular objection might have receded. Nevertheless, there are other important conversations that the church should have before its incorporation into our Book of Confessions, most notably how the confessions function authoritatively within the church.

Hanmi Presbytery – The Synod of Southern California & Hawaii has requested permission from the General Assembly to dissolve Hanmi Presbytery, the first Korean-language presbytery to be formed (in 1984). This comes after fifteen years of Administrative Commissions have sought to resolve issues in the presbytery. The presbytery has submitted an overture opposing the synod’s request. That alone would guarantee sparks will fly, but this has the potential to be a battle for the future of all non-geographic presbyteries. Historically the tension between “mainstreaming” such churches and empowering them in language-based presbyteries has been a guarantee for high-voltage debate. It will take a great movement of the Spirit to maintain civility and community regardless of the outcome. This will be addressed in Committee 5, which also is dealing with the future of synods. They will have a full docket.

Changes to General Assembly procedures – The Committee on the Review of Biennial Assemblies, formed in 2010 and continued for another biennium in 2012, is proposing numerous changes regarding the conduct of future General Assemblies. Among their more provocative proposals: shifting the deadline for electing commissioners to 180 days from 120 days; limiting the number of advisory delegates; allowing former commissioners to serve as committee moderators in up to 1/3 of committees; and permitting the election of co-moderators. Some of these have the potential to spark some heated debate.

Fossil fuels – An overture from Boston Presbytery (with 11 concurrences) asks the Assembly and its entities to divest from fossil fuel companies on moral grounds related to climate change. The Assembly has policies restricting investment in certain types of companies that pose ethical concerns (e.g., gambling enterprises, gun manufacturers, tobacco companies). This seeks to add fossil fuel companies to the list. A less radical overture from Seattle Presbytery asks for a study of the impact of coal exports on human health. These may be the first overtures to target greenhouse gas producers on moral grounds, but they will most certainly not be the last. Look for resistance from presbyteries in oil-producing states, for whom a divestment resolution would create a public relations, financial, and political crisis.

“Defecting” Pastors – One overture addresses issues that stem from the increasing number of pastors who have left the PC(USA) as part of schismatic congregations. Item 12-02 from Tropical Florida Presbytery would require the Board of Pensions to “cash out” the pensions of all church leaders who affiliate with another denomination. The overture is too broadly written, but it is likely to stimulate fervent discussion on why those who are loyal to the PC(USA) should be granting pension increases to those who have led churches out of the denomination.

[Correction 6/10: The Committee on Review of Biennial Assemblies is recommending the deadline for commissioner election be moved to 180 days. I had incorrectly said it was for overtures.]

---

[i] . I have met some who are convinced former UPCUSA Stated Clerk Bill Thompson let the Angela Davis controversy foment in 1971 in order to drain all the Assembly’s energy from the proposed denominational restructure being considered that same year. The restructure – creating large regional synods and consolidating presbyteries – passed without significant floor debate, I am told.

Hot-button Issue #3: Synods

Ed. note:  It is my hope that this blog brings wisdom and insight into the business before the Assembly. My desire to report fairly does not mean that I do not have opinions on the matters presented, or that the posts are opinion-free. In the matter of synods, I have a greater investment than most: I am employed by a synod, I served as constitutional adviser to the first Mid Councils Commission, and I helped draft the response of synod executives to the report of the second Commission.

Okay, so maybe changes in synods are not likely to raise the hackles of most Presbyterians, but as someone who has been significantly engaged in the mission of synods my entire ministry, the future of synods is for me at least a “hot-button issue.”  And, how it is addressed will have an impact on every Presbyterian.

As the least understood of all the councils of the church, synods become an easy target for organizational anxiety.  With increasingly tight budgets, people look at the annual per capita assessment – typically around $2 to $5 (the Synod of the Sun is the only synod without a per capita) – and wonder if having synods is necessary or wise.

In 2010, the General Assembly approved overtures from the Synod of the Southwest and the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly (COGA) seeking the formation of an administrative commission with the charge to consult with the church, review the mission and function of middle governing bodies (as presbyteries and synods were then known), and to report “new models” they might recommend. All other related overtures to the assembly (including one from New Hope Presbytery to eliminate synods) were answered with this response. 

In the course of its work, the commission (known as Mid Councils Commission I, or MCC1) was sidetracked by the anxiety among Evangelicals over the adoption of Amendment 10-A, permitting the ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians. The Evangelicals sought structures such as non-geographic presbyteries and synods in which they could associate only with like-minded Presbyterians. The Commission also brought back a recommendation to eliminate synods as “ecclesial bodies” and to “repurpose” them as “missional partnerships.”

The 2012 Assembly rejected all of the major recommendations of MCC1 recognizing (at least as I saw it) the necessity of synods as intermediate administrative councils of the church. Urged by COGA, it nevertheless reconstituted the Commission with a specific charge to look at the future of synods. (Perhaps not surprisingly, COGA managed to secure one-third of the seats on this commission.) This commission – MCC2 – has recommended that synods be reduced in number from the current 16 to no more than eight and that a plan to do so be developed by the synods themselves and submitted to the 2016 Assembly. If such a plan is not forthcoming, or is not approved, the 2016 Assembly would create a commission to recommend a plan to the 2018 Assembly.

There is great power in inertia, and it will be difficult for the Assembly to reject the recommendations of a second commission. Nevertheless, the executives of fourteen (of sixteen) synods represented at a recent meeting (including me) unanimously approved a response to the MCC2 report asking the Assembly to disapprove the recommendation. The response notes:

• Creative change is already happening within and among synods across the denomination         
• It is not clear how consolidating synods advances the mission of the church
• Consolidation would divert untold dollars and energy working out legal and relational issues
• The unique characteristics of each synod pose challenges for consolidation
• Consolidation creates problems of scale that impede relationships, accountability, responsiveness, and contextuality.
• The process for consolidation is too vague and lacks clear information on financial implications.

Should the Commission’s recommendations be adopted, however, do not look for change to come quickly. Without a process or funding in place, the sixteen synods will be hard-pressed to produce a plan in time for the 2016 Assembly (one synod only meets every two years). Any consolidation imposed by the Assembly in 2018 would likely take years to complete, given the possibility of civil lawsuits over the disposition of synod assets in one or more jurisdictions.

Hot-button Issue #2: Israel-Palestine

Ed. note: As we lead up to the General Assembly meeting in Detroit June 14-21, I will provide overviews and insights into some of the major issues coming before the Assembly. Rather than counting down the top ten as I have done in previous years, I have divided the issues into three categories: hot button issues, sleeper issues, and Trojan horses.  Each "hot button" issue will get its own post; the others will be presented in groups.

When the secular press reports on the 221^st Assembly, the lead story will not be the nuances of our definition of marriage or the future of synods.  It will be whatever the Assembly decides to do regarding Israel and Palestine. If history is any guide, what will be lacking in that coverage will be any appreciation for why this is an important issue to Presbyterians. It is not that Presbyterians feel compelled to weigh in on any controversial topic.  It is because American Presbyterians have been engaged in mission in Palestine for 195 years – almost 130 years longer than the modern nation of Israel has existed. Over that time, Presbyterians have helped build schools, hospitals, universities and seminaries, and developed many ties with the Palestinian people, especially the shrinking Palestinian Christian communities. This has led many in our denomination to look past the rhetoric of “terrorism” (critics would say naively) to view the Israeli domination of the Palestinian people as unjust and oppressive.

A strong PC(USA) mission network, the Israel-Palestine Mission Network (IPMN) – which does not speak for the denomination – has been vocal in its defense of the Palestinian people against Israeli economic and national security policies that they have compared to South African Apartheid. An IPMN study guide published earlier this year titled Zionism Unsettled has increased the level of stridency in the policy debate. The ever-vigilant pro-Israel lobby and its media supporters have been quick to condemn the study (example: “Presbyterians Declare War on the Jews”).

Throw into the mix the Evangelical commitment to the modern state of Israel as a test of biblical faithfulness, the deep interfaith connections with Jewish communities in many parts of our church, and the fact that the Assembly is meeting near one of the largest Arab-American communities in the nation, and you have an explosive combination.

All of this history will come to bear on Committee 4: Middle East Issues at this year’s Assembly. The main event in this bout will be the consideration of the report of the Mission Responsibility through Investment (MRTI) committee (item 04-08) which is recommending divestment of PC(USA) funds from three companies that have directly supported Israeli military occupation of Palestinian lands.  Acting under the direction of previous Assemblies, MRTI has tried to be in conversation with the three companies – Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard, and Motorola Solutions – over the better part of a decade to express concerns and seek changes in their business strategies. The recommendation for divestment is the end of a long, arduous, and carefully prescribed process. The symbolic force of such a declaration is far greater than the actual financial impact on the corporations.

The PC(USA) has been deeply divided on this issue in the past: the 2012 Assembly rejected divestment in favor of "positive investment in Palestine" by a vote of 333-331. Look for similarly close votes this year.

In addition to the MRTI report, there are several other related overtures before the Assembly.  San Francisco and New Covenant Presbyteries have submitted competing overtures about reconsideration (SF) or continued endorsement (NC) of the “two-state solution” in Palestine. Grace Presbytery (in whose bounds I live) has submitted an overture in support of Palestinian Human Rights that calls for the PC(USA) to lobby the UN to invoke the label of “Apartheid” on the Israeli policies. Item 04-05 from New Brunswick Presbytery calls for the church to go beyond divestment and urge a boycott of Hewlett-Packard products.

Of all the overtures and recommendations, only item 04-04 (from New Covenant) can by any stretch be deemed supportive of Israel. That will perhaps make the probability of a strongly pro-Palestinian action more likely. If so, it will provide more fodder for the pro-Israel conservative churches to use in pushing for dismissal from the denomination without having to rely on sexuality issues as their sole rationale.

Hot-button Issue #1: Marriage

Ed. note: As we lead up to the General Assembly meeting in Detroit June 14-21, I will provide overviews and insights into some of the major issues coming before the Assembly. Rather than counting down the top ten as I have done in previous years, I have divided the issues into three categories: hot button issues, sleeper issues, and Trojan horses.  We are going to start right at the top of list.  Each "hot button" issue will get its own post; the others will be presented in groups.

This is the issue and the assembly that people have been anticipating (or dreading) since the adoption of Amendment 10-A. Given all the anticipation and the changes happening so quickly in American society, it is almost a foregone conclusion that this Assembly will do something about whether pastors should be permitted to perform same-sex weddings. Meanwhile, scores - perhaps hundreds - of congregations are poised to bolt from the denomination should the PCUSA deviate from their perception of what constitutes "biblical" marriage. (I have previously commented on this elsewhere.) 

There are seven different overtures coming before Committee 10 - Marriage Issues, on which they will make recommendations to the plenary body. 

10-01 (Presbytery of Lehigh) The most radical proposal of the lot, it invokes the historic separation of church and state to amend W-4.9001 to prohibit teaching elders and CREs from presiding over a legal civil marriage, and to separate the civil act of marriage from the blessing of a Christian covenant that would take place separately.

10-02 (Cascades, with 16 concurrences) would replace the text of the current W-4.9001 with a new text that addresses the practice of marriage in the church, with reference to “two people” and “the couple” rather than “a man and a woman.”

10-03 (Heartland, with 19 concurrences) follows the route of authoritative interpretation rather than constitutional amendment.  It provides for pastors to exercise freedom of conscience and pastoral discretion in deciding whether to marry any couple who may be legally wed. 

10-04 (East Iowa with 3 concurrences) also seeks to follow the authoritative interpretation route, grounding it more directly in pastoral discretion, with a provision that no teaching elder may be required to perform a marriage contrary to their conscience.

10-05 (Midwest Hanmi) This would propose an amendment to the Constitution that would add the following to the current language of W-4.9001: “For the purpose of God’s mission, presbyteries and sessions may define marriage as a civil contract between two persons within the boundary of the state law.” This is the least radical proposal that permits same-sex marriages, as it leaves the current “definitional” language of “a man and a woman” untouched.

10-06 (New Castle) would ask to rescind the 1991 authoritative interpretation that establishes the language of W-4.9001 as definitional, prescriptive, and exclusive. It is unclear as to whether it would succeed on its own in accomplishing the purpose of permitting same-sex weddings (in the absence of a replacement interpretation). However, it would be a clarifying addition to 10-03 and 10-04 should one of them be adopted.

10-07 (Eastern Korean) would establish a GA Task Force to bring recommendations to the 222^nd GA (2018). It would defer consideration of amendments and direct councils not to take action on same-gender marriage until the Assembly has received and acted on the Task Force recommendations.

Observations: More than any other issue, how the Assembly addresses same-sex marriage is likely to have the biggest impact on the peace and unity of the church. What is most surprising is the absence of any clearly conservative overture – one that would reaffirm our present definition of marriage. The abdication of legislative options by the right wing – not just on this issue, but several others too – is troubling and dangerous for the church. First, the church is best served when all perspectives are given fair consideration, and absent a conservative voice, there is the danger that the Assembly will not be truly deliberative or reflect the discernment of the whole church (F-3.0203 – cf. also footnote 6 which it paraphrases: “appeals may be carried from lower to higher governing bodies [councils], till they be finally decided by the collected wisdom and united voice of the whole Church.”)

Of all the proposed overtures, 10-05 (Midwest Hanmi) comes closest to my own recommendations as to how to address the issue. My own preference would have been to resolve the matter by proposing a constitutional amendment regarding pastoral conscience and discretion regarding the whole Directory for Worship. There are many provisions that are routinely disregarded in the worship life of particular communities.  Perhaps this can be addressed in the consideration of the proposed revision of the Directory for Worship (one of my “Trojan horse” issues). Any attempt to “open the door” to same-gender weddings in the church through authoritative interpretation will be regarded by a large portion of the church as an end run overreach by a rogue Assembly. While the definitional and binding nature of the words “a man and a woman” was established by authoritative interpretation (see 10-06), the issue is of such magnitude in the life of the church that it demands that it be discussed throughout the church. There are those who believe doing so would create unnecessary conflicts in presbyteries and sessions. I disagree. Presbyterians are at their best when they practice mutual discernment at all levels of the church.