Paul Moore, the Organizing Pastor for Chain of Lakes New Church Development in Lino Lakes, MN shared his thoughts on the recent Stated Meeting as well his attempts to get prayer partners. Here’s a sample:
This past Saturday I attended our Presbytery meeting at Faith Presbyterian Church in Minnetonka. I arrived early at the meeting as one of my main intentions was to sign people up as prayer partners for our Chain of Lakes new church. One of my goals for our new church is to have the Presbytery invested in our success. I can see this happening by having people in our churches praying daily for the ministry and mission of our New Church Development. John Ivers came up with a brochure about our ministry and a pledge card for people to indicate their interest in being a prayer partner.
So I felt like a carnival barker exhorting people who walked by our table to sign a pledge card. The folks who stopped to talk were willing to do this, some did view us with a bit of suspicion, and most gave us the benefit of the doubt. We came away with about 25 pledge cards signed.
The meeting was packed. I came into the sanctuary late because of my work at the table and could hardly find a seat. I mentioned that I was a bit surprised by the size of the crowd to a colleague. I asked if the large number had to do with the Amendments to the Book of Order we would be voting on. My colleague rolled his eyes and said, “you think.”
Soon we got into the business of the day. The Amendments that attracted most attention were the ones to change to vows of membership (amending Book of Order item G-5.0200) and replacing G-6.0106b, commonly known as Amendment B.
But the show of the day was the debate to replace Amendment B. Jin Kim (pastor of Church of All Nations Presbyterian Church in Columbia Heights) started out the debate by making a motion to record the Presbytery as abstaining. This made sense to me. He remarked that there wasn’t even a microphone set up to let people voice their desire for a no action vote. The problem with Jin’s argument was a no action vote would really be a “no” vote. For this Amendment to pass a certain number of Presbyteries have to vote “yes.” To take “no action” wouldn’t add to the “yes” column thus making our action the same as a “no” vote.
I liked the spirit of Jin’s suggestion. I’m tired of these debates on human sexuality in the church. They have consumed much of our time, energy, and passion the past 15 years. I can hardly remember a time following a General Assembly where some action by the Presbyterys on an issue of human sexuality wasn’t required.
I am against Amendment B. My reasoning does not come out of my views on human sexuality. I don’t like that the Amendment makes obedience to Scripture and conformity to the confessional standards as our highest aim of living the Christian life. Even though the attempt is to legalize in a sense what it means to follow Jesus, I don’t think anything can take precedence over our following of Jesus. Though I have some problems with the wording that would replace Amendment B, I do like the intent. In the new Amendment officers of the church assent to the constitutional questions pledging themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confession. I like that order of priority—first Jesus, then the Scriptures, then the Confessions.
The Presbytery ultimately voted not to record a “no action” vote. Not surprisingly the Presbytery voted for the change to Amendment “B.”
The process was tiresome. People lined up to talk at separate “yes” and “no” microphones. I felt like I knew what each person would say before the person talked. I doubt if any person’s mind was changed in the process.
You can read the whole blog entry by going here.
Also, Paul has some thoughts to share on the recent outrage over bonuses awarded to executives. You can read that entry by going here.
