Presbyterian Assembly 2012, Reflections

The 2012 PCANZ General Assembly in Rotorua is done and dusted. The highlight for me was catching up with old friends and making new ones. While the Assembly had its challenges, it is networking and relationships that count. I enjoyed the worship, Malcolm Gordon is very gifted and he and his team led us well. The moderator, Ray Coster did a commendable job leading with grace and respect. The business committee were tireless in their efforts, it is far from easy to run an Assembly with our polity! The tone of the business was positive, especially considering the sensitivities around the debates. The hosts were brilliant, the food was especially great! My friend and former colleague at Laidlaw College Tim Keel was sensational and challenging. I love his fresh contemporary missional perspective. That said, I think it was an almost impossible task for him to speak in the midst of intense debate. I would have loved time to gather in groups to consider the implications of what he said for the church today rather than get into the minutae of endless debate. Still, all in all, it was a great experience.

On the other hand, we continue to be tied up as a church on the matter of ordination and homosexuality. We had three motions seeking to overturn previous legislation to block practising homosexuals and those in de facto relationships from ordained ministry. One was based on liberty in non-fundamental matters, arguing that the issue is not of the essence of the faith, and so should not be legislated. The second argued that where 2/3 of a congregation wanted a particular minister whatever their sexuality, they should be free to do so whether gay or not. The third proposed that the PCANZ remove all discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Although many agree with liberty on non-essentials and utterly repudiate discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, each was rejected by about 65 to 35%.

The first of these likely failed because the majority of the Assembly believed marriage and sexuality are fundamental issues to human life and existence, and to Christian faith. I would think this is right with heterosexual marriage essential to image bearing and creation, the Mosaic law, Jesus' teaching and Paul's teaching. The second based on a 2/3 majority I found somewhat ironical. On the one hand, those supporting homosexual ordination believe that 1/3 of the whole church wanting gay ordination should cause the whole church to drop the legislation. Yet at a local church level where 1/3 oppose an ordination, it is not seen as sufficient to stop the ordination.

It is a hard debate because it cuts so deep, especially for those of homosexual orientation. I don't think anyone enjoys the debates. We are victims of our own polity in all this. On the one hand it is great that we can debate these issues, and people have the "right" to continue to challenge. On the other hand, when will it end? I have to say, even though I disagree with their position, I greatly admire the courage and commitment of those working for the ordination of homosexuals. Although the debate was difficult and there were some comments which were a little marginal, I also commend us all for the way we discussed the issue.

The tragedy of the Assembly is the amount of time that continues to be spent on this issue. I ponder whether there is a third way. The difficulty is that if any concession is made, this is seen as a loss to evangelicals and human rights exemption will lapse meaing the church has to ordain homosexuals. As such, it seems to be an all or nothing debate. This means that the stand-off will likely go on and future assemblies will continue to be hamstrung by this issue. That is unless we agree to some sort of truce for a given period, but that is hardly likely with so much passion in the debate. For many too, it is a justice issue, and I respect that.

What puzzles me is why those who are so strongly in favour of the ordination of gays, lesbians and people in de facto relationships don't move to set up their own church -- as some conservatives have done in recent imes. Were I one of those advocating in this way, I would far rather be a part of a fresh movement rather than bash my head decade after decade trying to change the mind of the PCANZ Assembly -- especially with the need to get a 60% majority to reverse previous legislation. This may be decades away if at all. After all, we have been at it for 25 years now! Separate presbyteries or synods within the church is not likely to work. I ponder whether it is time for an amicable divorce, and what that might look like. Property becomes the touch stone issue at this point. But I still ask, is there a way? Can we work this out? The only way both "sides" will be free to "be" will be some kind of separation. This idea is somewhat ironical though, when we are talking about marriage, fidelity etc!

I admit to being more than a little stunned by the stand made against same sex marriage by the Assembly. In our polity, a motion must get 60% to be passed, and I expected them to be very close, even to be lost. Yet, the votes endorsing Christian marriage, rejecting same-sex marriage and that the PCANZ would speak as one voice to Parliament were all passed by between 70-77%. With my theology which sees marriage as central to God's vision of humanity, I admit to being encouraged by this outcome and that the PCANZ will now speak to Parliament on this matter. I am surprised that this has not featured in the mainstream media since the Assembly. I am not sure why?

There were other things that delighted my soul. Particularly encouraging were the statement to support vulnerable children and to work from the bottom up for a living wage. What a great idea. Awesome work here from the Wellington Presbytery. As one who grew up in the Pacific Islands, I think it is great that the Pacific Island Synod was set up, giving PI Presbyterians a place to stand and be heard. A motion was passed in support of the climate change refugees in the Pacific. I admit to not really having realised how critical their situation was. I hope future Assemblies reflect even greater concern for social justice. I hope evangelicals will get more involved in initiating these in the future and reflect an understanding of a broader gospel. I also love our bi-culturalism, and the way we take it really seriously.

I yearn for more focus on other areas of mission at General Assembly. There was one speech, rather late in the evening and so lost in tiredness, on evangelism. We need to reframe evangelism for this context, yet we speak little of it. Many missional moves in the area of money and missional leadership from the Council of Assembly were held in great suspicion and sent back for more discussion. The delay disappointed me, but it will come back better I am sure. I long for the day when we gather and discuss how we are going to share Jesus to the world, rather than being embroiled in ethical debate. Not that the two are disconnected of course, but there must be a way to deal with these things more quickly and get to matters of the proclamation of the gospel in word and deed at a local church level. I like the idea of an Assembly week with more time on worship, inspiration and equipping. I hope we can find ways to sharpen our business, and not retrace the same old debates endlessly.

Finally, with all the negatives, it is great to be part of a church that will discuss hard issues, a church where people can question things. The funniest moment of the Assembly was Martin Stewart's motion that we have annual assemblies. The moderator put the motion, and there was total silence from the 270 commissioners! The "nos" were resounding in contrast! Has there ever been a motion completely rejected in this way? Martin took it brilliantly! Well done.