Reflecting on GA

I've been asked by several for a recap on the GA, now a week past.  Here is what I've written and sent:

I'm writing this from Belfast ...
GA was very discouraging. I went as a delegate because the church I am a part of (First Pres Yakima) and members of the Presbytery I belong to (Central Washington Presbytery) have talked and talked about our growing displeasure with actions of previous GAs. If we are going to complain it seemed only reasonable and consistent to do the hard work and get directly involved. 

I found myself on the losing end of the vote most times. A quick personal perspective on the three greatest sadnesses: 1) At the GA level there is increased talk but no real commitment to the denomination being focused on the local church (I sensed very clearly that power is focused at the top and pronouncements and directives come from above (the Stated Clerk nomination was a good demonstration of this) or from those above directing the GA delegates in a short intense period of time), 2) Very little desire to face the reality of the continuing decline in membership, attendance, and trust (response when this question was raised was that some committee had passed something to address that and that local churches should send along more overtures (but most overtures with the potential to help transform the denomination were all sidelined or defeated)), 3) the greatest of the greatest sadnesses ... it seems to me that the Bible can no longer be used as a source of authority for discussions and deliberations at the GA level. The division on what authority the Bible has and on how to interpret the Bible has grown quite vast (case in point was the book sent to each GA commissioner prior to the GA with chapters written by many of the most distinquished professors of PCUSA seminaries (another question is asked, why are churches reluctant to support the seminaries? I could often tell how I should vote by looking at the results of the Theological Students advisory vote and doing the opposite!) completely dismissing the standard interpretation of passages related to sexual activity and offering a justification why those passages say nothing about sexual boundaries but actually the Bible affirms most all sexual inclinations which are obviously God-given). On another occasion as sexual boundaries were being discussed on the floor of the GA Jack Rogers was asked by a commissioner to speak as an expert Bible scholar on the subject (I wonder if he had a particular agenda?), following that Professor Robert Gagnon was asked by a commissioner to speak from the other perspective and the Stated Clerk ruled that out of order (technically the Stated Clerk was correct in his ruling since Jack Rogers as a former moderator always has voice at GA while Professor Gagnon does not, but it was not correct or healthy in any other sense of the process). In the course of the GA the Bible was mentioned possibly 6-8 times and I had the sense that if it was quoted in a more evangelical manner it would be dismissed by the whole and viewed as a divisive and manipulative maneuver. We are post-Biblical at the denominational conversation level. Discussions were based on emotions and experiences more tan on any Biblical foundation. Instead of a few random statements that what God wants is for us to love everyone (who can disagree with that) as support that God wants us to remove any meaningful boundary standards for ordination why wouldn't we have the best of both sides of the debate walk the assembly through a 15-30 minute Bible study on the topic under debate, with respectful Q&A after, ask for prayer, and then proceed to floor debate and vote. Instead each subcommittee is put into a time-pressured discussion process (where it seems from an answer to a question I asked from the floor that the authority voices and experts each sub committee hears from is unbalanced and clearly biased in the direction already intended by those guiding the voting delegates). We are then asked to trust the subcommittees who have done all of the hard work and listened to more expert testimony. I see it all as a rather unhealthy process but I haven't yet sorted out what can be done to improve the process.
Sadly at this GA (again from my perspective ... many others believe it was an exciting and wonderful gathering), we detached further from the powerful, historic, evangelistic, connectional, Biblical foundations many have treasured through the centuries.
I would recommend the PFR blog and website, both very good in describing the GA. My GA blog (which you are now reading) ... is a bit unorganized and unfinished but hopefully provides some insights ... http://cwpga2008.blogspot.com
In Christ,
Curt