218th Controversies

I saw the 218th GA as not having caused as much trouble as I thought they would.  In fact, I wrote to our Presbytery that the only troublesome issue was the overture to replace the fidelity and chastity clause with language that some saw as less restrictive.  Since there's been 3 previous attempts to eliminate the clause and all have been defeated in the Presbyteries by ever increasing margins, I thought that wasn't worth getting your shorts in a bundle about.

It looks like I was wrong.  The blogs are puffed up to the point of exploding and the church leaders have even felt like they needed to issue a calming statement. http://www.pcusa.org/pcnews/2008/08469.htm My own Presbytery has issued a statement and is scheduling meetings to discuss it.

What I misjudged is a little hazy to me.  I don't see how it could be the attempt to modify the clause since that's a biannual thing now.  If you look at the denomination's list of "what happened at GA" of the 12 items listed, that's the only real controversial thing that happened.  http://www.pcusa.org/ga218/ Depending on your point of view of course.

The leaders cite two AIs in their letter which tells me that they think this is where the pain is going to be.  They didn't even make the what happened list.  AIs are a bad idea.  They're just a way to circumvent the constitution and we get what we deserve when we use them.  I voted against the PUP report for that very reason. 

Anyhow the AIs appear to be an attempt to open another door to loosening the ordination standards.  But the door is already open thanks to the AI PUP report.  Pick which door you want to go through.  If your Presbytery won't ordain you through one door, they're not going to do it through another.  Some people need to get a life.