Looking at the Amendments – Part 3

Presbyteries will be voting on the “Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)” in the coming months. We need to look at the issues that our General Assembly had to deal with. These amendments, along with the PUP report and worship services are what our several million dollars of GA meeting expenditures got us. Let’s continue to look at the “bang-for-the-buck” that we received from this past General Assembly.

Monday I looked at amendments 06-B.1, 06-B.2 and 06-B.3. Yesterday I looked at 06-C.

Amendment 06-D

Commissioned Lay Pastors (CLP) are going to play an increasingly important role in the PCUSA for years to come. There are MANY smaller congregations that cannot afford to call a fulltime ordained pastor as Minister of the Word and Sacrament. These churches will be turning to Stated Supply pastors and commissioned lay pastors. This amendment “officially” gives CLPs access to the Committee on Ministry (COM) of the presbytery. Presbyteries have already been doing this for years! Eleven years ago I was the moderator of the Presbytery of Alaska’s COM. The COM dealt with our CLPs in the manner described in this amendment. Leadership with an ounce of common sense has already made this change. Yet, there are some within our denomination who will not make the change until it is in the Book of Order (BOO). Should we adopt this amendment? Yes. Is it a shame that this type of change has to be put in the BOO? Yes. We cannot legislate every single action with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). My vote: a qualified YES.

Amendment 06-E

This amendment gives each synod the authority to add additional delegates beyond those sent by the member presbyteries. I must tell a quick story before speaking directly about this amendment. When I arrive at Evergreen there was a certain member of the church that was VERY active at presbytery and synod. But get this, he never attended our church—well almost never (he attended one Christmas Eve service). After about four years of non-attendance our session began the process of moving him to the inactive roll of the church. He immediately transferred his members to a very small Presbyterian church on the Washington coast. He had some friends at that church. That church was more than a two hour drive from his residence. Once again, he would be a member of a church that he didn’t attend. Why would he do this? He did it because to be elected to presbytery and synod committees he had to be an “active member” of a Presbyterian church! I informed our presbytery’s state clerk and she said that her hands were tied as long as that little church called him an “active member.” This brings me back to the amendment at hand. It is too easy for special interest groups or individuals to become commissioners to synod even though they have not been elected to that position by their presbytery. A synod assembly can give a non-commissioner the privilege of the floor if it deems there is compelling reason. Our elected commissioners should be the only ones who can have voice and vote at a synod meeting. My vote: NO.

Amendment 06-F

This is an amendment that should be unnecessary. Does a church’s pastor have to report suspected child abuse? Yes. Does an elder have to report suspected child abuse? Yes. Does a deacon have to report suspected child abuse? Yes. So, now let’s use some common sense. Would you think that a church’s youth director would have to report suspected child abuse if the church’s pastor, elders and deacons would have to report that suspected child abuse? Yes. Would you think that a church’s nursery worker would have to report suspected child abuse if that church’s pastor, elders and deacons would have to report that suspected child abuse? Yes. Would you think that the church’s children’s choir director would have to report suspected child abuse if that church’s pastor, elders and deacons would have to report that suspected child abuse? Yes. Common sense says that any church officer, staff or volunteer would report suspected child abuse. The same would apply to the abuse of an adult who lacks the mental capacity to protect themselves. I would see to it that a staff person was disciplined or fired if they suspected that a child had been abused and not report it to ecclesiastical and civil authorities. Maybe the next General Assembly will vote to apply a similar amendment to church janitors. The correct amendment would be that any church officer, staff person, or volunteer, paid or volunteer that suspects that a child has been abused shall report that suspicion to church and civil authorities. Period! My vote: a qualified YES.