On McCabe’s resignation and other General assembly Issues
Posted Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I am grateful for the opportunity to bring a bit more light to the claim by Dr. Robert Lowry that the General Assembly does indeed speak for our whole denomination when it makes its various social witness declarations to the world (Letter to the Editor, July 20, 2012).
He is quite adamant that I am mistaken in challenging his claim, and cites some general statements from our present Book of Order as an attempt to shore up his view.
Unfortunately, these general statements do not speak to this specific issue.
So in an attempt to clear up any further “alarming misunderstandings,” I appeal to the minutes of the 1989 GA in its response to Overture 89-91, section 1.c:
The General Assembly affirms that when advocating and helping the church to advocate General Assembly public policy concerns, goals, and recommendations with U.S. policy makers, the Washington Office speaks for the General Assembly alone. Each General
Assembly speaks for itself alone, not for the Presbyterian Church as a whole, certainly not for all Presbyterians. Similarly, the Washington Office speaks for the General Assembly. It does not speak for the church as a whole—certainly not for all its members. The Washington Office staff has never claimed to members of Congress that it speaks for all Presbyterians or that all Presbyterians support the stance of the General Assembly…
(italics mine).
I trust this will help resolve the issue for Dr. Lowry.
Regarding conversations on the resignation of the former vice-moderator, I must confess that I find it ironic to be pilloried for “casting accusations on motive” by one who is casting accusation on my motives.
Lowry declares that I am implying that McCabe was “trying to get away with something.” I have done no such thing. It’s true that I “accused” McCabe of “virtue” for stepping down after seeing that her election would not serve the peace, unity and purity of the church.
My issue was not with her resignation out of concern for the church but with her lack of consistency in this concern by not having the foresight to see what her election, given her prior actions, would elicit from many in our denomination.
Dr. Lowry shows further misunderstanding of our polity regarding the possibility of challenging McCabe’s election openly on the floor of GA. The Stated Clerk decided, based on Roberts Rules, that when her name was formally put into nomination, the GA must proceed immediately to vote. Challenge was not possible, though one commissioner tried.
Dr. Lowry is not the first to accuse a “few individuals” of creating “an environment that was intolerable” for McCabe. This, he believes, is the essence of “bullying.” I think he is correct on this, in one regard. It was McCabe’s friends on the left who accused her of insincerity or even being a traitor to the cause by allowing herself to “partner” with an admitted evangelical as moderator.
As I understand it, such suspicion and pressure from her “friends” was deeply distressing to her, and might truly be labeled bullying. On the other hand, those who questioned how she could stand with integrity for an office requiring her to support a constitution that she had knowingly violated were directing valid criticism her way. How that descends to the level of bullying is beyond me. If criticism equals bullying, then the apostle Paul must have had a lot to repent for in his letters to the churches.
Lastly, I will admit to the force of Dr. Lowry’s criticism (I don’t feel bullied at all…) of my characterization of GA commissioners as “self-acknowledged amateurs who have spent less than a week debating deeply complex and longstanding political, moral and social issues, and have come up with simplistic or gratuitously obvious pronouncements.”
Such a generalization is unwarranted. It was based on my personal observations and conversations with many commissioners over the last three Assemblies, as well as attendance at numerous Assembly committees conducting business prior to plenary sessions.
Obviously, I was wrong to imply that all commissioners fit this category. Some indeed are amateurs who fail to recognize this fact about themselves. Others, however, have given much time and thought over a long period to the matters they have been called upon to address. To them, I apologize for the mischaracterization.
However, I stand by my view that putting scores of strangers together to debate a dozen or more issues of serious moral complexity within a deadline of 48 hours is a recipe for disaster. In the end, on such issues the conclusions are typically “simplistic or gratuitously obvious pronouncements.” Anything more is usually highly divisive and anything but wise. My earlier letter was not meant to demean commissioners themselves, but to point out the inanity of the process to which they, and we by extension, are exposed to.
Mateen Elass, Senior Pastor First Presbyterian Church, Edmond, Okla.
Divestment would not ‘privilege Palestinian suffering over the suffering of Israelis’
Posted Wednesday, July 25, 2012
In the excellent coverage of the Presbyterian debate over divestment, an opponent is quoted as saying that divestment would “privilege Palestinian suffering over the suffering of Israelis…” (Divestment defeated narrowly,” July 6, 2012).
On the surface, this seems fair. Palestinian suffering should not count more heavily than Israeli suffering. As a rationale for voting against the specific divestment proposal before the Presbyterians, however, it does not survive scrutiny.
Take Caterpillar, for example, one of three companies recommended for divestment by the Church’s committee for socially responsible investment.
Caterpillar produces the bulldozers the Israeli army uses to demolish Palestinian houses and other structures in the West Bank, totaling 622 in 2011. During that same time period, the number of Israeli homes demolished by Palestinians was zero. How, then, would divestment from Caterpillar “privilege Palestinian suffering” when there is no comparable suffering by Israelis?
Ignored by divestment opponents is the fact that the Palestinians and Israelis are not two warring parties of roughly equal strength.
The relationship is rather one of an occupied people to a vastly stronger occupying power, backed by the US, the world’s military superpower. As the occupier, Israel can cause suffering to Palestinians in many ways that the Palestinians are incapable of reciprocating.
Both sides, of course, are capable of killing each other, and by doing so inflict comparable suffering. During 2011, Palestinians killed 11 Israelis, while Israelis killed 117 Palestinians. No Presbyterian pension funds, however, are invested in companies manufacturing the rockets and other Palestinian weapons used to kill Israelis. If they had been, one can be sure that Church would already have divested them.
Having lived in Pittsburgh and been a member of a Presbyterian church there, I await the day when the Church recognizes that what fairness requires is ending the Church’s complicity with the occupation.
Susan T. Nicholson Gloucester, Mass.
‘My family is going to eat more chicken’
Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2012
The “gay mafia,” as it has come to be known, is on the hunt to destroy Chick-fil-A for its love for the traditional family unit and its earnest desire to be a family-friendly company.
The so-called “gay mafia” probably doesn’t represent a majority of practicing homosexuals. Rather, it is a far-left bunch of angry people who hate anybody who has an opinion not sanctioned by the Democratic Party, nor the anti-family elite in business and culture.
They have a very loud voice in the modern United States of America, and they are a bunch of hypocrites, using “tolerance” as their excuse to urge that Christians or traditionalists be exempt from tolerance.
How any real American would seek to hurt Chick-fil-A or the Boy Scouts of America is puzzling. As for me and my house, well, we’re going to double up on our visits to Chick-fil-A, and give out gift cards for birthday presents.
We are outraged at the gay mafia’s vehemence against people who have a right to their opinion, who are helping millions and who are harming nobody.
Disagreement with the anti-Christian and anti-family agenda is not hatred. If you want to taste real hate, just hang with these creeps who are attacking traditionalists.
Most Americans try to be fair-minded about the decisions of individual adults. That does not need to ever be confused with taking a strong stand in favor of the reality that kids do better being raised by a mom and a dad. The gay mafia is not people who happen to simply want to be left alone in their personal choices.
This group of hateful people actually wants a society where their opinions are bullied on everyone by force. I reject the indulgence of bullies, whether they claim to be straight or otherwise.
Paul Richard Strange, Sr. Waxahachie, Texas
The PCUSA is in the ICU on life support
Posted Friday, July 20, 2012
My personal view of PCUSA is that about 30 or 40 years ago it became infected with a liberal virus. The doctors managing the case diagnosed a slowly progressive but fatal illness.
Now the PCUSA is in the ICU on life support. Its vital organs (i.e. Mission funds, pension funds, church properties) are being harvested prior to the declaration of death. The doctors in charge will convert these into cash and transplant the funds into liberal causes. Life support will be discontinued, and the corpse will be discarded.
The sturdy infant that John Calvin delivered and that John Knox nurtured almost five centuries ago will survive in its offspring but probably would be unrecognizable to the Presbyterians of a century ago.
You should be prepared to write the obituary.
Albert F. Nibbe, M.D. (ret.)
What does the country club have to do with the church?
Posted Friday, July 20, 2012
I see the statistics that say the PCUSA dropped 63,800 members in the past year. When the UPCUSA and the PCUS merged in 1983 to form today’s PCUSA, they had 3,121,000 members. Today it reports 1,952,000 members, a 36 percent drop in its first 29 years of existence. Actually, the numbers are almost certainly much worse, as churches purge membership rolls only with reluctance. What the stats did not mention is that the average age in the PCUSA is 61. I serve in Malawi; you go to a Presbyterian church here, and the church is predominantly young people. In America by contrast, I see one Presbyterian church after another where they had to turn the nursery room into something else for lack of children, and the worship service looks like chapel time at the retirement home.
Contributions declined by $20 million dollars. However, the denomination surely has enough annuities, trust funds, real estate and other assets to keep things going for some time to come. In the 300 years that Presbyterianism has existed in America, they went from poor Scottish and Irish immigrants to yuppies at the top of the socioeconomic pyramid.
The New York Times article by Ross Douthat asked the question, “Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?” He pointed out that Mainline Protestantism does not offer anything that cannot be obtained through secular organizations. Here one thinks of Greenpeace, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and the left wing of the Democratic Party. Then too, there are service organizations such as Kiwanis, Lion’s Club, etc. These organizations do not require one to roll out of bed on Sunday morning and then go listen to a sermon that could put a pot of coffee to sleep. It seems to me that Mainline Protestantism, Unitarian – Universalism, and the Democratic Party left are all doing and saying the same things, and this constitutes an unsustainable duplication.
We should point out that more conservative denominations such the Southern Baptist Convention, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, and the PCA are also beginning to drop in numbers. The only growth in American Christianity seems to be transfer growth. We are losing our young people. The stats tell us that 60 – 70 percent of the kids in a church youth group today will have dropped out by age 23. Why? Whereas Jesus advocated leaving the 99 and going after the lost sheep, youth pastors tend to focus on the cool kids. The cool kids tend to drop out because they’re cool and do not feel a need for church. The uncool kids drop out because they feel abandoned.
The church’s first line of defense is the traditional family, and the statistics for divorce among evangelicals are not encouraging. Sending Junior and Sis to a private Christian school is no substitute for parents training the children in the Christian faith and teaching by example at home. I read the Bible and pray with my 10-year-old at bedtime every night. I disable the TV. Watching the Disney Channel does not lead to godliness.
What religious groups in America are growing? The Amish, the Muslims, the Hasidic Jews – groups that have a higher than average birth rate and strong families. They have lifestyles that are clearly countercultural. Evangelicals need to recover that. We should remember that as Christians, we are practitioners of an Eastern religion (started in Palestine) that is based upon human sacrifice (well, just one, and he was also God). Tertullian once asked, “What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?” Maybe we need to ask, “What does the country club have to do with the church?”
Larry Brown African Bible College, Lilongwe, Malawi
The GA speaks on behalf of the PCUSA
Posted Friday, July 20, 2012
I thank Rev. Mateen Elass for his response to my letter of July 11. He raises a number of points that require response in an effort to forward this conversation.
To my assertion that Claude Lumpkin showed misunderstanding of our polity in his critique of GA actions vis statements against war with Iran, Elass claims that I too misunderstand our polity. He claims that though GA has the right to make statements on politics, etc., the GA “has no authority to represent itself as the voice of the PCUSA as a whole.” On this point, Elass is mistaken. The GA represents “the bond of union, community and mission among all its congregations and councils.” (G-3.0501a) Just as the session represents the whole congregation in matters under its authority, so the GA does for the church. The authority of the GA includes “discerning and presenting with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, matters of truth and vision that may inspire, challenge and educate both church and world.” (G-3.0501b) This authority is not negated because some may disagree with that witness. As I said in my original letter, our polity allows for us to have freedom of conscience to disagree with GA statements, but the right of GA to speak on behalf of the church is not negated.
On the matter of the issue of the vice-moderator’s resignation, I stand firm on my point that casting accusations on motive is both unwarranted and lacking in collegial care. Elass raises the “virtue” of the former vice-moderator as an issue. There is no evidence that I have seen to say that she did not expect critique or that she was unprepared to face consequences of her actions. There is no evidence that she was trying to get away with something as has been implied by Elass and others. The point here is that rather than challenge her election openly or challenger her alleged violations of the Book of Order through the available disciplinary process, a few individuals took it upon themselves to create an environment that was intolerable. That is the very definition of bullying. There was nothing decent, in order or remotely virtuous in the way she was treated following her election or now in the wake of her resignation.
Finally, I take issue with Elass’ characterization of the commissioners at the GA as “self-acknowledged amateurs who have spent less than a week debating deeply complex and longstanding political, moral and social issues, and have come up with simplistic or gratuitously obvious pronouncements.” Elass owes an apology to every one of the men and women who prayerfully gave of their time and energy to the work of the church. He may not agree with their decisions, but he has no right to demean them. It is beneath him and beneath his office in Christ’s church.
The Reverend Dr. Robert Wm Lowry, Transitional Pastor First Presbyterian Church, Clarksville, Harmony Presbyterian Church
Helping further ‘healthy conversation in the church’
Posted Monday, July 16, 2012
With a desire to help further “healthy conversation in the church,” I would like to respond to some inaccuracies in Dr. Lowry’s letter of July 11.
Lowry takes Claude Lumpkin to task for his “alarming misunderstanding of our polity by referring to the General Assembly as ‘they.'” Unfortunately, Lowry’s response perpetuates another misunderstanding. It is true that GA has every right to make pronouncements on political/military/social matters affecting our world, even if such statements are ill-informed and theologically weak. But it is incorrect to say that the GA speaks for the church as a whole. When it makes such pronouncements, it speaks for the General Assembly. It has no authority to represent itself as the voice of the PCUSA as a whole. On the other hand, it is fair and right to say that when the GA speaks concerning business of the PCUSA, it speak to the PCUSA as a whole. This is an important, if often overlooked, distinction.
For all its assumed self-importance, the General Assembly is a flea on the back of the proverbial elephant when it tries to bark its often silly course corrections to the world. Fortunately, the world takes little to no notice of decisions made by self-acknowledged amateurs who have spent less than a week debating deeply complex and longstanding political, moral and social issues, and have come up with simplistic or gratuitously obvious pronouncements.
On the question raised by Jeffrey Ebert on the former vice-moderator’s resignation, Jim Yearsley has already pointed out Lowry’s mischaracterization of Ebert’s comment. His was a speculation, not an accusation. But on the matter of evidence, I will offer this. McCabe in her resignation letter claimed that she was stepping down out of concern for peace and unity in the church. In that sense, she offered herself as a champion of virtue. Yet if these had been her concerns from the beginning, and assuming she had a modicum of common sense, she would never have stood for the office in the first place. Since she had intentionally and willfully violated the constitution of our church as an act of “ecclesiastical disobedience,” how could she put herself forward to become the second highest elected official in our denomination without expecting that her actions would elicit strong and negative repercussions by all who are interested at least in decency and order, if not Biblical integrity? After her resignation, the moderator repeatedly attempted to play the “sympathy card,” berating those who were not happy with her having been elected (though with only 60 percent of the vote). I don’t claim to know his agenda in all this, but there is ample reason to wonder at the obvious manipulation that took place at GA both before and after McCabe’s resignation.
Mateen Elass, pastor First Presbyterian Church, Edmond, Okla.
‘We all know that we don’t follow many of the dictates of the Bible’
Posted Monday, July 16, 2012
I was saddened to read in a reuters.com article a quote from the president of the Presbyterian Lay Committee: “Shall we follow the culture or shall we follow the Bible?” Interpretation of the Bible has evolved over the centuries. If it hadn’t, the president of this committee could never have been a woman, much less a woman with the power to voice her opinion. We all know that we don’t follow many of the dictates of the Bible. We no longer believe in slaves. We no longer stone our disobedient children at the city gates or condemn adulterers to death. None of these changes can be lightly dismissed as the dictates of pop culture. My family and I are not merely a cultural phenomenon.
I am certainly not alone in believing that following the Bible condemns gay people. A deeper reading of the Bible, while placing it within the contexts of its time, can certainly lead the believer to understanding that the love and compassion of Christ knows no boundaries.
Rem Cabrera Chicago
A golden Sophia, or the Holy Trinity?
Posted Friday, July 13, 2012
Hogwash! It was heresy 20 years ago and it is still heresy! After reading this article and noting that Sylvia Thornson-Smith had taught at Grinnell College I wasn’t a bit surprised. My husband was a 1960 graduate of Grinnell. His alma mater has turned into a hot bed of liberalism, not at all the same Congregational Church school that he attended. The Re-Imaging folks can make a golden Sophia to worship but think I’ll stick to the Holy Trinity. Elizabeth Meriwether
In what manner did GA 220 present any pretense of Reformed faith?
Posted Friday, July 13, 2012
Dr. Lowery’s letter (posted 7/11/12) also calls for some response.
If in fact there was some evidence of the commissioner’s “prayerfully seeking the way and will of God” I might concede his point on the Iran statement. However, I see scant evidence of any such seeking. Hundreds of person hours were lost to discussion and debate of social engineering, political posturing, accommodating a cultural sexual ethic and partisan lobbying.
What was done this past week that in fact promoted the historic Great Ends of the Church? Interfering in business decisions of corporate entities, thinly veiled antisemitic efforts, declaring that the confessions (Part I) now have no influence on the governance of the church — where is the concern over these things? In what manner did GA 220 present any pretense of Reformed faith? I am surprised we didn’t declare full communion with the Unitarian Universalists. On the upside, we did make sure that the conservative orthodox members of the church got the message to sit down and shut up about standards for ordination.
As to Ebert’s speculation about the resignation of the vice moderator; well, he was only one of many who wondered the same thing. It is less a case of evidence than of precedent and pattern well established by the MLP/TAMFS cohort who have a long and clear record of exploiting martyrs. To be clear, Ebert made a speculative query, he didn’t outright accuse. I have heard others who did. That this woman even presented herself (or was presented) as an acceptable nominee was and is offensive to a great many people. With a modicum of dignity and concern for the vaunted peace, unity and purity of the church (not to mention a sense of ethics) she would have never stood.
I struggle with the idea of collegiality with those who hold to an apostate and heretical ideology that is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture and our confessions.
Of course it can be denied that this GA accomplished a great deal.
Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla.
The theological and ecclesiastical lay of the land in the PCUSA is now crystal clear
Posted Wednesday, July 11, 2012
I am grateful that our General Assembly upheld the definition of marriage and did not divest from companies doing business with Israel. But I think that there is one issue that should be highlighted from this assembly: This assembly quietly refused to reinstate Biblical standards for ordination. By a 2/3rds vote, the committee voted down any attempt to reinstate the fidelity-chastity clause for church officers that had been removed. By a voice vote, the assembly without so much as a hiccup, agreed with the committee not to reinstate the fidelity-chastity clause for ordination requirements. The significance of this is profound.
I believe a number of churches who are considering whether or not to stay with the denomination were waiting to see if there might be a chance that this assembly would correct what the last assembly undid. Those churches that were waiting to see what would happen now have their confirmation that the PCUSA will go full speed ahead with gay and lesbian ordinations. We only have to look to see what is happening with the Episcopal church to see what is in store for us. The refusal to change the definition of marriage bought us breathing room. The change failed by only a small margin. Those churches that were waiting patiently for a possible correction now have their answer. Moreover, the assembly failed to giving any space to evangelicals in the form of non-geographic presbyteries. The theological and ecclesiastical lay of the land is now crystal clear. Greg Wiest Valencia, Pa.
‘The emperor has had no clothing for many years’
Posted Wednesday, July 11, 2012
In Parker Williamson’s article, one General Assembly official is quoted: “If you reverse the policy of the 2010 General Assembly, the dignity of the General Assembly is at stake.” Is there an alert reader who can explain when the General Assembly acquired said dignity and how or why this mythical dignity was not utterly dissolved with the 10-A proposal? Methinks the emperor has had no clothing for many years. Noel Anderson, pastor First Presbyterian Church, Upland, Calif.
This GA accomplished a great deal
Posted Wednesday, July 11, 2012
I read with interest today the many letters to the editor written in the wake of the General Assembly. I regularly read The Layman and always find the letters informative (if not always helpful to the furtherance of healthy conversation in the church). A couple or the post-GA letters, I feel, demand response.
Claude Lumpkin wrote that the church had “no authority” to issue a statement on potential conflict with Iran. A few things in Lumpkin’s letter bear response. 1) The PCUSA and every church have not only the authority but the obligation to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit and speak out on world events and matters of grave human concern. I too wish that we had taken a firmer stance during the uprisings in Iran a few years ago, but our failure to speak then does not restrict our speech now. 2) Lumpkin displays an alarming misunderstanding of our polity by referring to the General Assembly as “they.” This is not an us-them equation. The GA is the church writ small and when it gathers it speaks on behalf of the whole church. No, we do not all agree on everything it says. That is why we have freedom of conscience. Lumpkin may certainly disagree with the position taken by the GA, however, the GA is not an authoritarian body lording over the church. It is a body of duly elected commissioners together prayerfully seeking the way and will of God.
Jeffrey Ebert wrote about the resignation of our vice-moderator. Ebert queries whether this was a strategic move “to garner sympathy for the ‘cause’ of endorsing same-sex marriage.” By what evidence does he cast such a harsh allegation? This unsupported accusation is both offensive and unfounded. And with it, Ebert simply proves the point that was articulated at the GA. There are those in the church who, evidently lacking any coherent argument, simply cast ad hominem attacks in order to create an environment that is intolerable. Ebert makes an accusation in his letter and I ask him to support it with evidence beyond his own assumptions. When speaking about our colleagues it is important that we choose our words wisely because they do matter.
This General Assembly left many things to be desired in my eyes and I am sure that the same is true for many in the church. However, it cannot be denied that this GA also accomplished a great deal, dispatched much hard work with both grace and courage and bore witness to the importance of our ongoing discernment of the will of God. These are men and women (commissioners, staff and resource people alike) of faith and commitment and they deserve the profound thanks of the church for giving their time and wisdom to the ministry of Christ’s church.
Dr. Robert Wm Lowry Clarksville & Little Rock, AR
Re-imagine this
Posted Tuesday, July 10, 2012
“Voices of Sophia.” Isn’t praying to a feminist entity a violation of the First Commandment? It is truly remarkable … no, unbelievable … that a Christian denomination would put up with this. One wouldn’t. But then we are talking about the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Let’s re-imagine the PCUSA. Let’s reform it.
“Reformed and always reforming” is a mantra for those who want to keep evolving the PCUSA until it fits some progressive notion of what a denomination that accepts all beliefs and believes nothing definitively supplants what was once a Christian denomination. Let’s take a lesson from military as to exactly what it is to “reform.”
When the order is given to “reform your ranks” it means to go back to what you were. That which existed before the ranks got out of formation was the proper order for things. The order by which the institution exists and is able to operate effectively, in the case of the military that means getting the forces to the place of battle and fighting the battle effectively. If the forces are well-trained, well-led and the doctrine has been fulfilled, then coupled with an effective strategy, tactics take care of themselves due to training and leadership and victory follows the fight. Then it is time to “Re-from” ranks. That is, get back to the way we were that prepared us for the fight.
It does not mean that we reshape or remodel. That is restructuring, which is entirely different.
Military organizations, usually conforming to a current ideological imperative, restructure in the wrong way. The German military under the Nazis is a case in point. And disaster follows because proven doctrines were abandoned, learned and tested leaders were abandoned, and what replaced it focused on what was “politically correct” at the moment. That’s what the PCUSA has been doing for at least a half century. And hasn’t that been successful! We are now half as large as we were before. The PCUSA is anathema to Presbyterians in most other parts of the world.
The “More Lite” branch of this denomination claims the 220th General Assembly “missed an opportunity.” Well, if going across a bridge and not plunging off it to one’s self destruction is “missing an opportunity,” that may be so. Even so, it was a near miss. That the General Assembly urged the denomination to spend two years “discussing” and “prayerfully discerning” whether or not sodomy should be blessed and legitimized through Christian marriage is sickening. We might as well be “discerning” the merits of marital infidelity or watching pornography.
This GA was no victory for theological substance and doctrinal purity. It was another example of a sick and dying denomination incurably infected by the disease of moral relativism. The quicker this cadaver is buried, the better.
Earl Tilford First Presbyterian Church, Tuscaloosa, Ala.
A blatantly partisan hijack of sacred worship
Posted Tuesday, July 10, 2012
For shame!
Who is responsible for allowing the blatantly partisan hijack of sacred worship? To permit the inclusion of dancing girls with rainbow banners and ribbons, a rainbow drape on the communion table and some of the massed choir in rainbow stoles was disgraceful. Either the planners who included this ideological stage managing or the GAC functionary who permitted it should be sanctioned. At the least they own an apology to the body.
This was clearly nothing other than a somewhat successful attempt to sway and influence the tone an tenor of the rest of the assembly. I am appalled and extraordinarily glad that I chose not to attend this travesty of an assembly. I am embarrassed and ashamed. Had I decided to attend, I would have, in disgust, walked out of that spectacle pretending to be worship.
Rev. James C. Yearsley Tampa, Fla.