218th

GENERAL
ASSEMBLY
12 ISSUES

June 21-28, 2008

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

12 Issues facing the G.A.

A Little Perspective 2 Non-Geographic 12
Renewal Opportunities 3 Governing Bodies
Christian-Muslim Relations 4-5 Per Capita Reform 12
Ordination Standards 6-7 Prayer for the GA 13
Definition of Marriage 8 Schedules
Abortion Policy 9


PFR Events & Team 12
Form of Gov’t Proposal 10


All Renewal Groups 14
Heidelberg Catechism 11


GA Docket 15
Presbyterians For Renewal
 12 issues
218th General Assembly
Can the
General Assembly
be
GETTING A LITTLE PERSPECTIVE
“PFR believes our need for spiritual renewal is just beneath the surface of every aspect of the life of the
Presbyterian Church (USA), including the General Assembly.”
Spiritual renewal is at the heart
of PFR’s mission. Rarely is the
phrase “General Assembly” found
associated with “spiritual renewal.”
Words like “controversy” more
often appear in proximity to “GA.”
But PFR believes our need for
spiritual renewal is just beneath the
surface of every aspect of the life
of the PC(USA), including the GA.
Before launching into analyses of
“issues,” we want to pause and be
clear that the “issues” matter
because they can have a positive
or negative impact on the spiritual
health of the denomination.
facing the
Help the church be truly progressive.
Many of the issues before this
coming GA are matters of “polity,”
and as such they reflect and
facilitate our life as a denomination.
Maintaining good polity and
ensuring our denomination adheres
to that polity will most assuredly
aid our life in Christ, but it will not
renew the church. Renewal comes
by faith and repentance, gifts the
Holy Spirit makes real in the life of
our congregations. Good
governance of the denomination
can facilitate that renewal. Bad
governance can hamper it. This
[2]
Presbyterians For Renewal
Not following the culture,
but leading it.
Check out the schedule of
PFR Events on p. 12 and of all
the renewal groups on p. 14
conviction shapes PFR’s approach
to all the issues before the GA.
In addition, if you are here in
San Jose, we pledge to provide
opportunities for you to be renewed
in Christ while you are here. Our GA
Team is here to help commissioners
as they seek to make godly choices.
Where the Holy Spirit has not yet
brought consensus, we pledge to
speak the truth in love.
RENEWAL
OPPORTUNITIES
An Invitation
to Expanding Partnership in God’s Mission
In January of this year, the General Assembly
Moderator called together representatives from
various PC(USA) entities to discern a more faithful
path for Presbyterian collaboration in God’s mission.
Together, they forged a common vision which they
have invited the whole denomination to embrace.
“The Good News of Jesus Christ is to be
shared with the whole world. As disciples of
Jesus Christ, each of us in the Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.) is sent into the world to join
God’s mission....Our mission is centered in
the triune God. Our mission is God-called,
Christ-centered, and Spirit-led. Our mission
is both proclamation and service; it is the
reason the church exists.…
PFR believes the vision for collaboration presented
in this invitation charts a positive way forward for
Presbyterian engagement in God’s mission in the
world.
We urge the General Assembly to approve item
08-20, which asks the GA “to invite the sessions,
middle governing bodies, seminaries, General
Assembly Council ministries areas, and all PC
(USA)-related mission organizations to affirm
and adopt” the invitation.
[3]
“Return to me
with all your
heart”
A Call for Solemn Assemblies
Item 16-02 is brief, but it may be one of the most
important items coming before the 2008 Assembly: it
gives shape to the call for spiritual renewal.
If growth in grace, not polity, is our denomination’s
primary problem, we must be able to create
opportunities for intentional spiritual renewal. This
overture calls for meeting in “solemn assemblies,”
uniting in prayer and spiritual conversation. Such
meetings will bring us to the foot of the cross and to
greater humility. This can and will bring our
denomination new insight and new appreciation for the
reality that the Holy Spirit is indeed still at work among
us.
PFR urges the GA to approve item 16-02, calling for
congregations and presbyteries to gather in solemn
assemblies.
 Christian-Muslim Relations
The PC(USA) and Christian-Muslim Relations
Three overtures dealing with Christian-Muslim
relations have been sent to the GA this year. Each
overture raises complex issues of inter-faith dialogue.
At least six previous General Assemblies have spoken
about Christian-Muslim relations (1987, 1993, 1999, 2002,
2004 and 2006). As recently as 2006 the GA was asked to
state that Muslims and Christians “worship the same
God” (similar to this year’s item 07-01). The GA declined
to make this assertion, in part because the GA has already
spoken sufficiently about the basis for Christian-Muslim
dialogue. The offices of the General Assembly Council,
which are on the front lines of official Presbyterian inter-
faith dialogue, submitted the following comment to the GA
in 2006:
In addition to GA statements on inter-faith relations,
the PC(USA) has also developed numerous resources to
help Presbyterians better understand Islam and to
encourage Presbyterians to befriend Muslims.
While we certainly want to make further progress in
Christian-Muslim relations, the kind of progress that will
truly bear fruit is born of patience and sensitivity. In this
light, each of the three overtures before this year’s GA
presents significant problems.
07-01
Common God, Common Worship?
07-01 asks the GA to assert that "Jews, Christians
and Muslims worship a common God, though each
understands that God differently.” It goes on to ask the
GA to encourage Presbyterians to set aside days to
worship with Muslims, such as on religious holidays, and
to "celebrate diversity." It also asks the GA to direct the
General Assembly Council to develop a new study paper
on Christian-Muslim relations.
Perhaps the best way to reflect on these overtures is
to say that they oversimplify numerous issues that are
complex and controversial for both Christians and
Muslims. For instance, regarding the proposal that we
state that we “worship a common God,” it is just not
possible for one-sentence, controversial statements to
[4]
The Dome of the Rock, a Muslim Mosque, built on the site
where Solomon’s Temple once stood in Jerusalem.
provide “a common theological basis for inter-faith
dialogue,” as the rationale for 07-01 is hoping.
The statement that we “worship a common God”
but understand that God differently can be understood
in several different ways. Regarding God’s identity, is it
saying the God of Muhammad is really the Father of
Jesus? This intent would reflect a serious Christian
imposition onto Muslim understanding. Or, very
differently, is it saying that the Qur’an’s depiction of God
and the New Testament’s teaching are both incomplete
understandings of a God who is ultimately something
different from the teachings of either? This second option
reflects a view from outside of both faiths: it begins with
an ambiguous monotheism (“there is only one God”) and
then sees each monotheistic faith as various human
attempts to understand and approach that God.
Whether we were to understand the statement in the
first or second manner, it would express a very different
view of Christian-Muslim relations than either mainstream
Islam or mainstream Christianity would find appropriate.
In the context of this overture, the statement seems to
have the second meaning — trying to state a commonality
between the two faiths from a perspective outside either
faith. The idea is that, since there is only one God, each
monotheistic faith must worship the same God, and the
differences between these faiths are the result of human
convention. Since those differences are of a secondary
status — including their understanding of God’s character,
the means of salvation and their ways of worshiping —
then Muslims and Christians are encouraged to set aside
their distinctiveness and worship together on occasion for
the sake of unity, and to “celebrate diversity” evident in
their respective conventional understandings and forms of
worship.
 Of course, such a view does not actually respect
diversity, since it assumes that one can stand outside
of each faith and reduce the core of each faith to
those things they appear to have in common, such as
belief in one God.
Yet the foundations of Christianity and Islam,
respectively, do not reside in a generic belief that
there is one God. The foundation of Christian faith is
the revelation of God in the incarnation of his eternal
Son, in the person of Jesus Christ. Our fellowship
with God and our worship are formed by our
participation in the perfect life, death and resurrection
of Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus,
at the core of the Christian life is our confession of
Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and our worship of
the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
While these beliefs are the foundation of
Christianity, they also violate central tenets of Islam. It
is only honest to admit that a significant portion of the
Qur’an is devoted to rejecting these Christian beliefs
as a violation of true worship of God. This teaching of
the Qur’an is reflected in the core beliefs of
mainstream Islam, which are the absolute unity of
God and the primacy of Muhammad as God’s
prophet.
We would not suggest that Christian-Muslim
dialogue begin with these differences, but nor should
we, as Christians, seek to set them aside in order to
be able to engage in Christian-Muslim dialogue.
In terms of a common theological foundation for
Christian-Muslim relations, Christianity and Islam
share certain very important principles — that we are
to love only one God, and that we are to love our
neighbor. Stated in this very general way, these
commandments cannot be said to form “the
foundation” of either faith, but they can certainly be
foundational for Christian-Muslim dialogue. These
shared principles form a basis on which we can work
together toward a more just and peaceful world.
Asserting common worship of a common God,
however, would only produce greater
misunderstanding.
PFR’s Advice
“Common Worship, Common God?”
PFR urges the GA to continue the
Presbyterian heritage of respectful and
sensitive inter-faith dialogue by
disapproving items 07-01 and 07-07.
[5]
“A Common Word Between Us and You”
How Should We Respond?
Item 07-02 asks the GA to "support" the recent
statement by 138 Muslim scholars, "A Common Word
Between Us and You" (ACW).
Christian scholars have read ACW in two very
different ways. On the one hand, it can be read as an
affirmation by Muslims that they share with Christians
the common principles we mentioned above: love for
one God and love for neighbor. On this reading, ACW
simply invites Christians to join in dialogue that will build
on the foundation provided by these common principles.
On the other hand, some believe ACW is a Muslim
invitation for Christians to become Muslims. The
passage from the Qur’an that provides the title and
opening paragraph of the document is a famous
invitation for Christians not to worship Jesus and
instead to embrace the teaching of Muhammad, which
would be their “common word” with Muslims. Almost all
citations from the Qur’an in ACW are taken from
sections of the Qur’an that distinguish true worship from
what Muhammad believed were the distortions of the
Old and New Testaments. ACW closes its invitation with
a passage of the Qur’an that asserts the supremacy of
Muhammad’s teaching over the Jewish and Christian
Scriptures and promises judgment for those who do not
embrace the way of Islam. On this reading, ACW offers
the teachings of Islam as a foundation for Muslim-
Christian dialogue.
Which way should we should we understand ACW?
We should probably read it both ways. Rarely can 138
scholars say anything together and all agree on the
meaning of what they have said. There was likely a
variety of intentions behind ACW. It does read as a
document carefully crafted to be read in more than one
way. This is not a criticism. We can appreciate the intent
of both ways of reading ACW. But it does mean we
should be careful about the words we use to respond to
it.
Saying that we “support” ACW, which overture 07-02
requests, is probably not the most appropriate way to
respond. Even if we receive ACW only as an invitation to
dialogue on neutral terms, the document still clearly
asserts the primacy of the Qur’an and Muhammad as
God’s Prophet, which is not something we, as
Christians, want to say we “support.”
The best approach for responding to ACW is found
in the letter issued by Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick,
who expresses gratitude for ACW, highlights the need
for Muslims and Christians to work together for peace,
and looks forward to more inter-faith dialogue.
PFR’s Advice on “ACW”
PFR recommends that the GA respond to
“A Common Word Between Us and You” by
affirming the letter written by the GA Stated
Clerk. This letter, dated October 15, 2007,
is linked at GA2008.COM.
 Ordination Standards: Part I
G-6.0106b and the 1993 Authoritative Interpretation

Five Overtures
Five overtures (05-06, 05-08, 05-09, 05-11, 05-13) seek
to overturn our Book of Order requirement that ordained
officers (deacons, elders and ministers) must “live either in “For this reason a
fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a
woman, or chastity in singleness.” (G-6.0106b). These
man will leave his father
overtures call for the “fidelity/chastity” standard to be and mother and be united to
deleted, and also for the 1993 Authoritative Interpretation his wife, and they will become
(a.k.a. 1978 “Definitive Guidance”) on unrepentant
homosexual practice to have no further force or effect. one flesh.”

How We Got Here (Genesis 2:24)

It will be helpful to understand how we got here. Our
standard of fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness was
placed in our Book of Order as G-6.0106b by action of the
1996 General Assembly and subsequent vote of the
presbyteries. Attempts to change this standard were
rejected by the presbyteries in 1997 and 2001, each time by
a greater margin. But the standard of fidelity in marriage or
chastity in singleness was not newly minted in 1996! It is the
clear teaching of the Bible and our Confessions, and it is held
by the vast majority of Christians throughout history and
throughout the world today, including our mission partners in Both G-6.0106b and the 1993 AI are important for
the Majority World. maintaining our standards. Because G-6.0106b does not
mention homosexuality explicitly, some have maintained it
For most of our history there was no need to make this actually does not prohibit homosexual sex acts. For this
standard explicit because it was universally accepted. Then reason it is important for the church to maintain both the
in the 1970s, a vocal minority and associated special interest Book of Order standard and the A.I.
groups began to insist that the church condone and bless
sexual relations outside the marriage of a man and woman, We encourage commissioners and all Presbyterians to
and especially that the church condone and bless read the 1993 A.I. You can find the text at www.ga2008.com.
homosexual practice. It remains a biblically faithful and compassionate affirmation
of God’s good plan for human sexual conduct. It is as timely
In 1978, the GA of one of our predecessor today as when it was first adopted by thoughtful
denominations (the “northern” U.P.C.U.S.A.) gave “Definitive Presbyterians in 1978.
Guidance” that “homosexual practice does not accord with
the requirements for ordination set forth in the Form of
Government.” This standard was adopted by the “southern”
P.C.U.S. in 1979. In 1993 it was reaffirmed by the G.A. of
today’s Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) as an “Authoritative
Interpretation,” meaning that it has constitutional force and is PFR’s Advice
binding on presbyteries and sessions.
PFR urges the GA to disapprove
all efforts to change our biblical and
Where We Are Now historic standards of sexual conduct
As an A.I., the 1993 standard could be removed by a for church leaders.
single vote of General Assembly, without presbyteries having
a voice. This is why the church found it wise in 1996 to spell We urge the assembly to retain
out the standard of fidelity/chastity in our Book of Order as G-6.0106b without amendment,
G-6.0106b. The Book of Order can only be amended by a and to retain the 1993 A.I.
positive vote of both General Assembly and a majority of the
presbyteries.

[6]
 Ordination Standards: Part II
Items related to the 217th GA’s Action on the “PUP Report”
History
In 2006 the 217th General Assembly received and
adopted a report from the Theological Task Force on
Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church (commonly called
the PUP Task Force and the PUP Report). Many
Presbyterians believe the first four sections contain helpful
elements. There is much to commend in the theological
Prologue to the PUP Report.
Section five of the PUP Report, however, contained
several “recommendations” that many have found
disturbing and confusing. In particular, “Recommendation
5” of this section proposed a new “Authoritative
Interpretation” (AI) of the PC(USA) Constitution that has
proven to be a deeply divisive and confusing action. The
new AI sought to shift the way in which the PC(USA)’s
ordination policies function.
Implications
“Recommendation 5” proposed a new
Authoritative Interpretation (AI) of section G-6.0108 of
the Book of Order. This section is about the need for
ministers “to exercise freedom of conscience within
certain bounds.” According to the PUP Task Force’s
rationale, the new AI intended to broaden the exercise of
liberty of conscience to make it possible for candidates to
be ordained even when they clearly state that they do not
and do not intend to abide by certain ordination standards
in the Book of Order. The PUP Task Force specifically
cited the standards for sexual practice in G-6.0106b as an
example of the type of standard that a candidate might
choose not to abide by. The AI intended to give ordaining
bodies (sessions and presbyteries) the flexibility to go
ahead and ordain such a candidate despite their
departure from the PC(USA) Constitution.
The General Assembly approved an amended form
of “Recommendation 5” when it approved the full PUP
Report in 2006. This action has caused grave concern
across the theological spectrum of our denomination.
Theological conservatives feared this action would unlock
the door to the wholesale redefinition of ordination
standards. Theological liberals felt this action did not go
far enough to open that door. Presbyterians on both sides
of the “ordination debate” wondered whether this new AI
had effectively changed the Constitution by changing its
meaning. (Changing the Constitution is an action reserved
for the constitutional amendment process, which requires
any amendment to be ratified by the presbyteries; see
Book of Order, ch. XVIII).
[7]
When this new AI of G-6.0108 was passed by the
General Assembly, a constitutional dilemma naturally
emerged: could this AI have effectively changed the
Constitution? Is that possible? Nobody was sure what the
action of the 217th General Assembly really meant.
Response
Six presbyteries have sent overtures to this year’s
General Assembly seeking to have this new “PUP AI”
on G-6.0108 altered or rescinded.
Since the time these overtures were sent to GA, in
February of this year, the General Assembly’s Permanent
Judicial Commission (GAPJC), the highest “court” in the
PC(USA), ruled that constitutional standards such as
G-6.0106b remain binding on all candidates and officers
of the church, despite the PUP AI on G-6.0108. In the
“Bush Decision” in particular, the GAPJC makes it clear
that a candidate for ordination may disagree with our
denomination’s standards, but they must abide by them
nevertheless. “Under our polity, violations of behavioral
standards are to be addressed through repentance and
reconciliation, not by exception or exemption” (Remedial
Case, 218-10). The GAPJC further clarified that
constitutional standards can only be altered through
amendments to the Constitution – not through new
interpretations of the Constitution passed only by the
General Assembly.
We are heartened by the Bush Decision of the
GAPJC. While it would appear that this decision renders
moot the overtures seeking to rescind the PUP AI, future
GAPJC meetings could understand the PUP AI differently.
Further, we mourn the confusion over this AI and the fact
that numerous congregations have left the PC(USA) over
its passage by the 217th General Assembly.
PFR’s Advice
PFR urges the General Assembly
to rescind the PUP AI. The most
focused means of rescinding the PUP
AI is to approve item 05-01.
PFR also urges the Assembly to
disapprove any effort to restore the
original intention of the PUP AI, such
as item 05-12.
 Should the PC(USA) Re-define Marriage?
“Marriage is a Gift of God for the Well-Being of the Entire Human Family”

Marriage is a Gift of God! and be united to his wife, and the two will become
one flesh.'” (Mark 10:6; see also Genesis 2:24)
Item 04-08 proposes to amend the PC(USA)’s
Constitution to change the church’s understanding
of marriage in order to include marriage between
persons of the same gender. The Rationale for this
overture concludes by saying, “For the good of
loving, monogamous, same-gender couples in our
church and for the community and for the greater
ministry of our clergy, sessions, and churches we
propose these changes to the Directory for
Worship.”
In many ways, such a plea is very compelling, as
it comes from the hearts of individuals involved in a
profound and painful struggle. Yet after decades of
prayerful thought the PC(USA) has remained
convinced that “Marriage is a gift God has given to
all humankind for the well-being of the entire human
family…For Christians marriage is a covenant A Ministry of Compassion
through which a man and a woman are called to live
out together before God their lives of The PC(USA)’s debate over the “definition” of
discipleship” (PCUSA Directory for Worship, marriage is one significant way in which we are
W-4.9001). experiencing the broader tensions within American
culture. It is tempting in this situation to have a
“debate” about marriage on the culture’s terms,
using the language of “rights” and secular “justice.”
And yet the church is called to be an alternative
community. We are called to be a compassionate
witness to our culture, proclaiming God’s good
intentions for humanity by modeling it in the
practices of our own church. Maintaining a biblical
understanding of human sexuality is one of the
most important ways the PC(USA) can be an agent
of grace in contemporary society.

The Nature of Marriage PFR’s Advice

We recognize that the nature of marriage is We believe the most
given by God and cannot be altered by any action compassionate response in this era of
of the General Assembly or amendment to the Book turmoil within our society is to
of Order. We learn from the Scriptures that marriage
recommit ourselves to the teaching of
originates in the love of God and is given to us in a
particular form. Complementary genders are part of Scripture and the historic, pastoral
God’s loving plan. As Jesus said, “at the beginning understanding of the church.
of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For
this reason a man will leave his father and mother We urge the GA to disapprove any
effort to re-define marriage.

[8]
 The PC(USA) Policy on Abortion
Seeing Equity and Adherence to the Policy

Our policy recognizes Presbyterian

disagreement. Our actual practices
should, too.
The abortion policy approved by GA in 1992
acknowledges that Presbyterians are split over the
issue of abortion: some are “pro-life;” some are “pro-
choice.” While this is painful to many who are pro-life, it
is at least honest. However, funding and advocacy
around abortion issues have not reflected the balance
of the 1992 policy. The only official PC(USA) entities
that now receive funding or produce materials on
abortion are exclusively pro-choice.
Overture 10-03 would bring the denomination into
compliance with our own policy by requiring the
funding and materials of PC(USA) entities to reflect
balance and equality in advocating both sides of the
abortion issue. A similar, concurring (10-04) overture
directs that, if this cannot be accomplished, funding PFR also supports overture 15-02, which would
should cease for both sides. PFR supports these direct the Board of Pensions to provide an annual
overtures because they call for fairness and the report on the Relief of Conscience Plan and would
overdue implementation of the 1992 Abortion Policy. require the Board to confirm annually the participation
of congregations in the plan. The Relief of Conscience
“Clearly there is both agreement and Plan allows congregations to designate their payments
disagreement in our use and interpretation to the required benefits plan not be used to pay for
abortions.
of Scripture. There is also agreement and
disagreement on the basic issue of abortion.
The committee agreed that there are no
biblical texts that speak expressly to the PFR’s Advice
topic of abortion, but that taken in their PFR urges the General Assembly to
totality the Holy Scriptures are filled with establish that PC(USA) funding and
materials will reflect the diversity of
messages that advocate respect for the views recognized in the 1992 abortion
woman and child before and after birth. policy, or to cease funding on the issue
Therefore, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) of abortion altogether.
encourages an atmosphere of open debate In addition, we urge the GA to direct the
and mutual respect for a variety of opinions Board of Pensions to provide an annual
concerning the issues related to problem report on the Relief of Conscience Plan.
pregnancies and abortion.”
Report of the Special Committee on Problem Pregnancies and
Abortion, adopted by the 204th General Assembly (1992).

[9]
 Should the PC(USA) Adopt a New Form of Government?
Weighing the F.O.G. Task Force Proposal
The Form of Government (FOG) Task Force
Since the last General Assembly (2006), a task
force has been attempting to streamline the entire
Government (G) section of the Book of Order. The
stated goal is to make our polity more missional—that
is, more outwardly focused, freeing God’s people for
the work of ministry. This is a laudable goal. However,
there are several substantial hurdles that must be
overcome:
Hurdle 1: Confusion
If passed, this proposal would replace a large section
of the Book of Order. The current Form of
Government” (FOG) is complex in what it
includes, while this proposal from the
FOG Task Force is complex in what it
leaves out. We have talked to very
few who feel they have been able to
weigh the benefit of trading one set of
complexities for another. Many have
expressed their confusion about what it
would mean for whole sections of our
current polity to be deleted, and about the reasons
why this or that wording was changed.
Are we all clear on what would be changed and
why? Have we been able to weigh what would be left
out? Added? What would be the consequences,
intended or unintended? Can we really answer these
questions well enough to vote “yes”?
Hurdle 2: Trust
When a task is this large and complex,
communities with relationships of mutual trust might
be willing to turn the job over to a select few hard-
working, well-intentioned people and quickly accept
the product of their efforts on faith. Unfortunately, the
PC(USA) is not rich in mutual trust right now.
Rebuilding trust will be a long-term project, and we are
not there yet.
[10]
Hurdle 3: Timing
The PUP Report (2006) took most presbyteries
well over a year to understand, analyze, and debate,
and the PUP Report did not even require a vote of
ratification. It does not seem reasonable to expect
presbyteries to digest this complex proposal
immediately in order to ratify or dismiss it.
Hurdle 4: Questionable Effectiveness
It is hard to process the details of the new FOG
proposal beyond the overall assertion that these
changes are more “missional.” Interest in missional
thinking is a biblically faithful breath of fresh air. But
polity alone cannot bring about a missional mindset.
Pushing through the FOG proposal might even
create a greater inward focus for the PC(USA) instead
of sparking an outward focus on the world that God
loves. For instance, most of the sections that would
be deleted from the current Form of Government
would need to be replaced on a presbytery-by-
presbytery basis. That could mean each of the 173
presbyteries would be plunged into a years-long
process of determining how they would replace those
sections on their own.
There is a better approach to developing a more
missional polity. Let’s work on being missional at all
levels of the church until congregations and
presbyteries are crying out for missional polity.
Working side by side in the mission of God may
address that hardest hurdle—trust—so that we can
come back to the matter of foundational polity in
harmony.
PFR’s Advice
PFR recommends a time of prayer and
study on the F.O.G. report, dismissing
the current Task Force with thanks.
 Should We Amend the Heidelberg Catechism?
A Resurrected Initiative
This will be the third General Assembly asked to approve a
process for revising the Heidelberg Catechism for the sake of
removing a reference to homosexuality in the catechism’s
Answer to Question 87. The GA disapproved similar efforts in
1998 and 1999. Likewise, there is no compelling reason to
approve such a process for revision at this General Assembly.
Three overtures ask for revisions of the Heidelberg
Catechism (13-04, 13-05, 13-06) by substituting all or parts of it
with a new translation.
One item’s request is definitely unconstitutional, as the
Advisory Committee on the Constitution notes (13-05), because
it attempts to substitute a new translation of the catechism
without using the constitutional amendment process. The other
two overtures ask the GA to initiate the amendment process that
would either provide a completely new translation of the
catechism (13-04) or a revision of five questions in the catechism
(13-06).
Historical Relics or Contemporary Faith?
Each of these overtures presents itself as motivated by a
concern for historical accuracy. The idea is that our Heidelberg
Catechism, at a few points, is not a literal word-for-word
translation of the original German and Latin translations, and
therefore it needs to be revised or replaced.
The first thing to note about such a rationale for amending
our Book of Confessions is that it rests on a mistaken
assumption about the nature of the confessions themselves. As
the General Assembly Council has noted in its comment to this
General Assembly on these items:
The confessions, rooted in particular historical
contexts, declare our contemporary church’s identity,
belief, and action. Thus the confessions are more than
historical documents. While they grow out of particular
contexts and speak to them, they have been adopted
into The Book of Confessions because the Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.) recognizes that they are authoritative
for the church’s current faith and life.
The confessions are not static documents, but living
witnesses to our theological tradition. Therefore, the
constitutional form of each confession is that which is
printed in The Book of Confessions, not the texts in
their original forms and in their original languages.
- General Assembly Council
Pointing out a few minor dissimilarities between the PC
(USA)’s Heidelberg Catechism in English and the 16th Century
German and Latin editions does not constitute a convincing
basis to amend our confessional standards. The overtures do
not argue for amending the Heidelberg Catechism for any other
[11]
In 1963 the 400th anniversary of the
Heidelberg Catechism was
celebrated. The English translation
that is the PC(USA)’s Heidelberg
Catechism was developed as part
of the anniversary celebration.
reason. Therefore, these overtures do present any Presbyterian
grounds for amending the Book of Confessions.
What are the Overtures Really Requesting?
A close examination of the passages these overtures cite as
worthy of amendment reveal that the appeal to the original 16th-
century editions of the Heidelberg Catechism may be a matter of
convenience. That is, there is something more going on than a
fervent desire to conform our confessions to the 16th century.
The overtures cite five places where they believe the PC
(USA)’s Heidelberg Catechism departs from the 16th-century
original. Each of the five proposed corrections are minor, with
the possible exception of one proposed change that seems to
be driving all the others: Q&A 87 of the PC(USA)’s Catechism
provides a full quotation of the biblical passage referenced in the
original, which is 1 Corinthians 6:9. This passage contains a
phrase that refers to homosexual acts, which is translated in our
Book of Confessions as “homosexual perversion.”
The overtures appeal to historical accuracy, wanting the
original intentions of the catechism’s authors to shine through.
From this vantage point, it is worth noting that Zacharias
Ursinus, the primary author and defender of the catechism in the
16th century, wrote an important commentary on the catechism.
In his exposition of Q&A 87, Ursinus likewise provides a full
quotation of 1 Cor. 6:9, using language that clearly
communicates the meaning as expressed in our current English
version of the catechism.
Thus, even if it were appropriate to make decisions about
amendments to our Book of Confessions based on the original
intentions of 16th-century authors, one could easily make the
case that our version communicates the intentions of the original
authors of the Heidelberg Catechism at least as well other
English translations.
The question before the General Assembly, therefore, is
whether or not it wishes to remove from our Book of
Confessions a direct quotation of Scripture.
PFR’s Advice
PFR urges the GA to disapprove the
efforts to amend the the PC(USA)’s
Heidelberg Catechism.
 Non-geographic gridlock of sexuality debates and
paralyzing theological disagreements.
Presbyteries and Synods
Governing bodies brought
Item 03-05, the “Elink” overture, together by shared conviction and
proposes changes to the Book of vision would be free to engage in
Order that would give congregations God’s mission together in a way that
June 20th, 2008 8pm – 10:30pm the freedom to choose presbytery is often frustrated in gatherings bound
Fairmont Hotel - Atherton Rm. affiliation “based on geographic, together by geography.
Free. theological, missional, or other This overture offers a way for
considerations of importance to those Presbyterians to stay together while
congregations.” Forming a new allowing new structures that would be
June 21st, 2008 7am – 9am presbytery would require a minimum free to focus on the church’s
SJCC Room B of twelve congregations, and a missional calling.
No charge for commissioners. minimum of three presbyteries would
$5 everyone else at the door.
in turn be free to form a synod.
Of course, no restructuring
solution to our present PFR’s Advice
June 25th, 2008 6:30am – 8:30am denominational difficulties would be We recommend that this
Fairmont Hotel – Regency 2 perfect. Having non-geographic creative option for a new
$21 per person. presbyteries and synods would way of being Presbyterian
Tickets avail. @ GA Ticket Booth. together be given thoughtful
institutionalize our divisions, and for
and open-minded
some congregations voting on
consideration by the
presbytery affiliation could be divisive. Assembly.
On the upside, however, non-
Monday, June 23
through
geographic presbyteries and synods
Friday, June 27 may be a way to move beyond the
During Lunch Break
SJCC Plaza 1, A&B
$15 per person at the door.*
*Lunch is free for commissioners Per Capita Reform Given the controversial nature of
on Thursday June 26. some of these projects, and given
A number of overtures (03-08, the rising cost of per capita, some
03-10, 03-11) seek to clarify how per congregations wrestle with whether
capita funds are to be used and limit they can pay per capita in good
PFR GA TEAM their use to the purposes for which conscience. By restoring trust that
Rebecca Johnson Buckley the per capita system exists.
Jim Cahalan the larger church is using per capita
Specifically they state per capita gifts as described in the Book of
Marnie Crumpler
funds be used only for expenses Order, these overtures may actually
Rachel Grassley
Henry Greene
directly related to the work of the increase per capita giving.
Jim Gunn governing body, and not for mission
James Harper outside that body. The per capita
Anne Hilborn system was designed specifically for
Dorothy Hill these expenses, though it has
Keith Hill unfortunately been used for various PFR’s Advice
Nancy Maffett other purposes.
Phil Moran In current practice, expenses that We recommend that the
Mary Naegeli are more truthfully related to mission GA approve the transfer of the
Al Sandalow and ministry sometimes are charged funding of ecumenical
Brian Stewart relationships from the
to the administrative and operating
Tracie Stewart per capita budget to the
Michael Walker
budget, and therefore paid by per
capita. An example would be mission budget.
Gale Watkins
Dave Wilkinson contributions to ecumenical
organizations.

[12]
A Prayer for the Assembly
From John Calvin, based on Micah 6:8, the theme verse for the 218th G.A.
Presbyterians
Grant, Almighty God, that as you have made your Law
known to us, and have also added your Gospel, in which
for Renewal
you call us to your service, and also invite us with all
kindness to partake of your grace, O grant, that we may PFR Ministries
not be deaf, either to your command or to the promises of • Small Congregations
your mercy, but render ourselves in both instances • Officer Training
submissive to you and so learn to devote all of ourselves • Christian Life Conference
to you, that we may in truth confess that a rule of a holy • Network of Presbyterian
and devout life has been delivered to us in your law, and Women in Leadership
• Seminary and Campus Ministry
that we may also firmly adhere to your promises, lest
• Issues
through any of the allurements of the world, or through the
• Media
flatteries and crafts of Satan you should suffer our minds • Referral Service (pfreferral.org)
to be drawn away from that love which you have once • Curriculum
manifested to us in your only-begotten Son and in which (kidconnectiononline.org)
you daily confirm us by the teaching of the Gospel, until
we at length shall come to the full enjoyment of this love Strategic Partnerships
in that celestial inheritance, which has been purchased for • OneByOne
us by the blood of your only Son. • Youth Conference Ministries
(ymchome.org)
-John Calvin • Faith Alive
(faithaliveresources.org)
With this prayer, Calvin closed his lecture
on Micah 6:8, the theme verse of the
218th General Assembly.
VISIT PFRENEWAL.ORG AND LEARN
ABOUT OUR UPCOMING EVENTS.

our mission
...is to mobilize leaders
of congregations within the
Adoration of the Magi, by Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
Rembrandt van Rijn. The
Prophet Micah prophesied to be biblically faithful
that Jesus would be born in and missionally minded
Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). When
the magi came from the east, in their service to Jesus Christ.
King Herod inquired where the
Christ was to be born. “They
told him, ‘In Bethlehem, in
Judea, for so it is written by
the prophet.’” (Matthew 2:5)

[13]
 Schedule of Renewal Group Events at GA
Event Sponsor Location
Friday, June 20
8:00 – 10:30 p.m.    PFR Welcome Reception      PFR    Fairmont, Atherton

Saturday, June 21
7:00 – 9:00 a.m.    GA Overview          PFR    SJCC, Room B

Sunday, June 22
12:30 – 2:30 p.m.    Coalition Lunch (w/ Mark Labberton)  Coalition  Fairmont, Regency 1

Monday, June 23
12:00-1:15 p.m.


YAD/TSAD Pizza Luncheon





PPL



Fairmont, Piedmont
Lunch Break



Lunchtime Briefing







PFR



SJCC, Plaza 1, A&B





















(Parkside of complex, across street from main center bldg.)

Lunch Break    “The Naked Truth About Sex”     OBO    Bella Mia (nearby restaurant)
12:30-1:20 p.m.


Presbyterian Action-Ambassador Dennis Ross
PA




Fairmont, Club Regent

Tuesday, June 24
Lunch Break



Lunchtime Briefing







PFR



SJCC, Plaza 1, A&B
Lunch Break    “Godly Sex”          OBO    Bella Mia (nearby restaurant)

Wednesday, June 25
6:30-8:30 a.m.



PFR Breakfast (w/Mark Roberts)



PFR



Fairmont, Regency 2









w/ Bell-MacKay Prize
Lunch Break



Lunchtime Briefing







PFR



SJCC, Plaza 1, A&B

Thursday, June 26
Lunch Break



Lunchtime Briefing







PFR



SJCC, Plaza 1, A&B

Friday, June 27
Lunch Break



Lunchtime Briefing







PFR



SJCC, Plaza 1, A&B

Voices of Orthodox Women (VOW)

Renewal

Presbyterians for Renewal (PFR)

Network

OneByOne (OBO) Presbyterian Reformed Ministries Int’l (PRMI)

Presbyterians Pro-Life (PPL) Presbyterian Frontier Fellowship (PFF)
Presbyterian Coalition Presbyterian Elders in Prayer (PEP)
Presbyterian Forum Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry (PFFM)
Presbyterian Action (PA) Knox Fellowship
Evangelical Pastors Network Literacy & Evangelism International (LEI)
Presbyterian Lay Committee (PLC)
New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC)
[14]
SJCC = San Jose Convention Center
Assembly Docket
The docket is subject to change; it may change
frequently once the assembly is underway. Also see
the day-by-day assembly schedule.
(Note that San Jose is in the Pacific Time Zone.)
Friday, June 20
10 a.m. Youth Advisory Delegate (YAD) Orientation (with lunch)
9:30 a.m. - 7:30 p.m. Exhibit Hall open
12:30 - 2:30 p.m. Theological Student Advisory Delegate
(TSAD) and Missionary Advisory Delegate (MAD) Orientation
3 - 6 p.m. Introduction to Anti-Racism Training (for
Commissioners and Advisory Delegates)
6 - 8 p.m. Meet the Moderator Candidates
7 - 8:30 p.m. Overture Advocate Training
7:30 p.m. Form of Government (FOG) Task Force Presentation
Monday, June 23
7 a.m. GA Breakfast with morning prayer (group meal)
9:30 a.m. - Noon Committee Meetings II
9:30 a.m. -7:30 p.m. Exhibit Hall open
Noon Lunch on your own
1:30 - 5:30 p.m. Committee Meetings III
5:30 - 6:30 p.m. Group Dinner
6:45 - 7:30 p.m. Evening Worship, Civic Auditorium
8 - 9:30 p.m. Committee Meetings IV
Tuesday, June 24
8:30 - 9:15 a.m. Morning Worship, Civic Auditorium
9:30 a.m. - Noon Committee Meetings V
9:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Exhibit Hall open
Noon Lunch on your own
1:30 - 5:30 p.m. Committee Meetings VI
Free Evening: Committees meet as needed
Wednesday, June 25
8:30 - 9:15 a.m. Ecumenical Worship Service, Civic Auditorium

Saturday, June 21 9:30 a.m. Report reading time

8:30 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. Meet the Moderator Candidates 10 a.m. - Noon Meet & Greet with Stated Clerk candidates
9:30 a.m. - 7:30 p.m. Exhibit Hall Open 9:30 a.m. - 7:30 p.m. Exhibit Hall open (closes this evening)
10 a.m. - Noon Business Meeting 1 Noon Seminary lunches
* Worship 2:30 - 6 p.m. Business Meeting 5
* Commissioning 6 p.m. Dinner on own (subsistence meal)
* Moderator’s report
7:30 - 9:30 p.m. Business Meeting 6
* Committee on Local Arrangements (COLA) report
Noon - 1:30 p.m. Group meal
Thursday, June 26
1:30 - 5 p.m. Business Meeting 2
* Orientations 9 a.m. - Noon Business Meeting 7
* General Assembly Nomination Committee (GANC) Noon - 1:30 p.m. Group Lunch
* Business Referral 1:30 - 2:15 p.m. Worship (in plenary)
7 - 9:30 p.m. Business Meeting 3 2:30 - 6 p.m. Business Meeting 8
Election of the Moderator of the 218th G.A. (2008)
6 p.m. Dinner on own
7:30 - 9:30 p.m. Business Meeting 9
Sunday, June 22
10 a.m. - Noon Opening Worship Service and Communion Friday, June 27
10 a.m. New Business Deadline 9 a.m. - Noon Business Meeting 10

Noon Lunch on your own Stated Clerk Election

1 - 7:30 p.m. Exhibit Hall open Noon Lunch on own

1:30 - 3:30 p.m. Moderator’s Reception 1:30 - 2:15 p.m. Worship (in plenary)

2 p.m. Bills & Overtures committee 2:30 - 6 p.m. Business Meeting 11

3:30 p.m. OA & CR Advocate Training; Form of Government 6 - 7:30 p.m. Group Dinner
(FOG) Task Force Presentation 7:30 - 9:30 p.m. Business Meeting 12
5 - 6 p.m. Business Meeting 4
* Stated Clerk Nomination Saturday, June 28
* Committee Report
8:30 -9:15 a.m. Morning Worship (in plenary)
6 - 7:30 p.m. Group Dinner
9:30 a.m. - Noon Business Meeting 13
7:30 - 9:30 p.m. Committee Meetings I

[15]
VISIT

GA2008.COM
subscribe: RSS feed and/or email
real-time updates
daily wrap-up

Presbyterians for Renewal Contact the PFR GA Team

8134 New LaGrange Rd. Suite 227 During the 218th General Assembly,
Louisville, KY 40222 commissioners can contact the PFR GA
p. 502.425.4630 Team in two ways:
f. 502.423.8329 through GA2008.COM
toll free 888.PFR.GA08 (4208)

[16]