The Internet age gives you a tool of immense reach and power: “viral marketing.”

Many will ponder the mood of the 218th General Assembly. There were no obvious clues that this would later be described as a radical assembly. Commissioners were as “Presbyterian” — i.e. as conservative, elderly and grey, like me — as usual. The atmosphere was exceptionally calm. A well organized COLA (Committee On Local Arrangements), superb facilities, and pleasant weather made this the most comfortable assembly I have attended in years.

This year’s General Assembly was returned again and again over the course of the week to its scriptural theme drawn from Micah 6:8: “To do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with God.” I admit that I don’t know the processes whereby themes are chosen, but I can think of no better theme for a denomination as fractured as ours — stress fractures rather than clean breaks, but fractures nonetheless.

Our brokenness is a spiritual reality. The ideological and theological divisions among good people of faith in the church are a reflection of this brokenness. Can we as brothers and sisters in Christ overcome the divides within our neighborhoods and our faith communities? Is there any common ground? Do we have the courage to engage in the conversations that might lead us to change our positions on controversial issues? 

Recent actions by the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) regarding G-6.0106b and G-6.0108 in the Book of Order (Advisory Opinion #22) are raising questions in sessions and presbyteries about the effect of those actions on the work of these ordaining bodies. This is a synopsis of some of those actions and their effects.

“If you want to completely shatter the denomination, then vote for this substitute motion. But if you want to give (the issue) the time it needs for us to learn from each other, listen to each other, then, please God, vote no.” Truly these words of a former moderator of our General Assembly, Marj Carpenter, were as influential as they were powerful in the opening moments of our denomination’s discussion of Item No. 408, regarding the definition of marriage. Influential enough that I voted against my own motion.

As part of the General Assembly’s deliberations on the John Knox Overture, we presented the following reflections, at the invitation of the Church Orders Committee, explaining why we, as former members of the Theological Task Force, continue to believe that the procedures outlined in Recommendation 5 are faithful expressions of our calling as a Reformed church body. We share them here with readers of The Presbyterian Outlook.

Almost three quarters of a century ago,  more than 1,000 Presbyterian ministers got so angry at the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church that they signed a document called the “Auburn Affirmation” and circulated it throughout the church. The main issue at hand was the question, “Can the General Assembly amend the Constitution without the vote of the presbyteries?” Several times over the decades before, the GA had passed statements of summaries of doctrine that they wanted to be required of every candidate for ordination. These are summed up in what were called the “Fundamentals.”

At the beginning of General Assembly week Jack Haberer asked me to write “some words” about the General Assembly. By mid-week it was clear where this assembly was going and so I offered to Jack:

As a veteran of a dozen General Assemblies, I found myself fascinated by much of what happened in San Jose. There was a spirit and a Spirit about this bi-annual family gathering that felt distinctly different to me. It was not the most energetic assembly I have attended — much of the floor debate was sluggish. It was not the most adversarial gathering, either. On most issues these commissioners made careful, conciliatory, and centrist decisions. But it was truly Presbyterian, because what the body did as a whole was wiser and stronger than any individual agenda. 

Like all buzz words, transparency can be overused. I understand why a colleague said recently, “I am so tired of the word ‘transparency.’”

Church musicians walk a delicate line. Many are classically trained. Their tastes might be broad, but at some level, many believe that “serious music” is better than “popular music,” and it is their job to defend musical excellence.