Why do organizations try to make 12+ hr work days work?

Day 2 ran well over twelve hours. Whether this is an insane idea or not is up to you to decide; but, it is well-research that such longevity does not produce thoughtful products nor processes. I recommend that GA go back to at least a four (4) day agenda and cut out the evening Sederunts. The morning can go from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.; the afternoons from 1:30 to 5:30 p.m. full stop…And throughout the day, design some more interactive, table-based learning moments so that people begin to really hear each other and attempt to respond (I’ll talk more about this later in the week).

While the Day started with a great sermon from Dale Woods of Presbyterian College, I fear that by the end of the day many had forgotten want he had said. In addition, as interesting as the historical vignettes were that the Moderator told, again by the end of the day, the sense of positive reform was waning.

The highlights:
#1)
The International Guest from Hungary who talked about the challenges with the refugee program when the government is not supportive. The one thing she said that bears repeating: “God’s face is reflected in the stranger’s face!”
#2)
Our theological training presence on the West Coast — St. Andrew’s Hall and Vancouver School of Theology (both at UBC) are dynamic, interesting places. And they have some profs that can actually teach new ministers to preach as well as pastor.

The not-so-highlights:
#1)
The human sexuality debates. I say debates because there was precious little effort made to have a real conversation. Recommendations were placed before the GA and then people spoke for or against. There was no time set aside for people at the tables to have mini-conversations themselves to try to work through what might be in the best interests of the church, the various congregations and the people. LGBTQI is the buzz word. It seems that HQ is hell-bent on getting the church to change its theology and open up church doctrine to “anything goes”. Now I know some will say I am being a little extravagant in my assertion; but there was little thoughtful reason to the recommendations. If all this were to have gone through, what is to stop a three-way relationship to request church blessing? What about those with partners suffering from dementia or fatal diseases and want a committed lover? What about…?

There was an impassioned plea to send out material with a request that the church apologize for its homophobic tendencies and repent, as well as asking for input from the LGBTQI community on where they have experienced pain and suffering. While this may be a noble gesture it didn’t make sense until someone got the GA to add a request than in spite of all this, could the LGBTQI community also tell about how they have experienced the Grace of God throughout their lives. Again, with no real opportunity to meet and discuss with people with differing opinions, people took to the microphones to either condemn or castigate. Some were impatient that this issue first came up at the 1994 GA and that inadequate progress has been made. Others stated that they were uncertain that this would really move the church forward in a Biblical way. There were signs that a new dogmatism was emerging. If the church doesn’t get on board, then it will be forced to get on board.

Finally it was agreed that the documents prepared by several different committees led by Church HQ should be sent down for study, reflection and then report back for action. It seemed like a good interim step. Those in favour of more traditional theological understandings were given an opportunity to return home and have a directed conversation within their own congregations and presbyteries as to how they really want the church to go forward. Those pushing a new theology of inclusion were given an opportunity to educate and convince congregations and presbyteries of the need to promulgate new doctrine. It was a truly Presbyterian solution. Let’s have a thoughtful conversation, but with deadlines.

I was content with this as it meant that the voices suggesting they might leave the church were somewhat quieted. Moreover, those pushing new doctrine had a real moment to put forth their ideas in more localized settings. At that point I felt the conversation had achieved as much as should have been expected. There were other recommendations pending that were more action oriented, but with the acknowledged need for more education and study at the local levels, it seemed only logical that these be pulled from the agenda.

But, oh no… the Justice Ministries people within the Life & Ministry Agency pushed ahead. They wanted approval of a recommendation which basically would allow same sex marriages to be blessed by the church and that gay and lesbian partners could be in full ministerial roles in the church. This then added naphtha gas to a burning firepit. There was a motion to defer (a logical step from my observation point since there had been agreement to send down the background material for study — this recommendation would, if nothing else, prejudice the study moments).

The floor became much more heated and more divided. The ethnic churches were much more reluctant to charge forward without more time for study and education. The young and those from major urban centres were eager for change NOW. Again, because it wasn’t one continuous conversation, the opportunity for continuous listening was lost. The idea of “grace” seemed expropriated by the action side; in fact one female minister was very rude towards the Korean church by claiming (erroneously) that they still hadn’t accepted female elders let alone female ministers. It seemed that God’s grace only was extended to the LGBTQI community, not to the more traditional viewpoints of sexuality and marriage.

From my vantage point as we approached the dinner break I could see conversational groups building. In particular ethnic and rural commissioners were getting uneasy and some were talking to each other. Finally in the evening the vote was held and by a narrow margin it was agreed to defer. Probably saved a schism for the moment anyway!! Later it was requested that another document be added to the material being sent down to congregations and presbyteries. This is a rather poorly written document which will need serious scrutiny (and some might even recommend some editing). The good thing is that more commissioners seem comfortable doing such research — in fact, at this GA I sensed that more research is being done by Commissioners than perhaps HQ realizes. Nevertheless there were enough occasions when many seemed to blindly follow HQ to not get my hopes totally fired up!! The vote to include this material was also very close but the “including side” won (it went to a counted voted, but no numbers were released so how close is anybody’s guess — my quick count did not gibe but I couldn’t be as sure because there were two clerks counting — each had a half the room to count, while I was trying to quickly summarize the entire hall!). In any event, it gave each side some solace.

I was disappointed that there was not more willingness of the action side to acknowledge the logical incoherence of passing a request for people to study intently an issue for the next six months and then simultaneously asking them to approval a major doctrinal shift.

There were other issues that came up and were pushed through that I will comment on in my final summary tomorrow. For the moment let me just say I was bemused by the fact that one minister claimed he had lost a couple of members because of our current doctrine on sexuality — he didn’t seem to recognize that a rapid, rammed-through new doctrine might cause the denomination to lose perhaps 100 congregations. By the way, the GA did approve the request to have the documents translated into Korean — something that should have been done a long time ago. We may move slowly, but when we do, we usually get it right.

Good night.

g.w.