First day of committee work

Yesterday was our first full day in committee. I'm on number 13, Theological Institutions and Issues. We have one major report to deal with, on the Trinity, but the first day was supposed to be a much milder affair.
After a time spent getting to know one another, we began with open hearings, where advocates for various causes bent our ears. They only got two minutes each, which was strictly enforced, so our ears didn't get terribly bent. Then we moved into the business of the day. Quite a few items were dispensed with quickly under the consent motion, earth-shattering things like allowing the seminaries to celebrate communion at certain times. We were supposed to approved some minutes, from the committee that oversees theological institutions, and from the Presbyterian Publishiung Corporation, but we were told that the minutes were not available to everyone, and that they had been read by a couple of people, and that on their say-so we should approve them. I questioned the rationale, and was told that it was like a presbytery approving the minutes of local congregations, which is delegated to sub-teams. Of course the parallel doesn't hold at all, since committees of presbytery regularly peruse minutes when they have special responsibility, for example if they are looking into holding an adminstrative commission. However, the vice chair had read the theological institutions minutes and, not wanting to get off on a bad foot with him, we smilingly approved, without any idea what they contained. The minutes from the Presbyterian Publishing House were not approved immediately, and the person who had read them had several suggestions for improvement (none of which involved content, only form). We debated for a while (much to the annoyance of the PPC) but time was pressing so we approved them, again without any idea of what they contained. The person who had read them, Peter, wasn't allowed to move that the minute taking needed to be improved in certain ways, since the deadline for new business had passed. All in all, this was a completely fruitless exercise. It gave us an indication, however, of the levels of secrecy some agencies require. We had been told that the minutes would be available at the Assembly. They were, but only to two people.
Later in the day we were asked to approved Bill Carl as the new president of Pittsburgh Seminary, which we duly did. Bill has done a good job at First in Dallas. I was surprised at the lack of theological questioning involved in his approval. When, a little later, Auburn Seminary, seeking an extension of a special relationship with the PC(USA), also brought changes to some documents, we were a little more awake, and questioned why "denominations" had been changed to "faith communities" and 'interfaith" had become "multifaith." I don't think we were popular, but we were told that Auburn has two tracks, one of which is strictly church based, and another that involves people from other religions. We asked whether the changes were indicative of a slide from a commitment to the uniqueness of Christ, but on the basis of their response, we were assured not, so the thing passed with most commissioners looking like they had no clue what we were talking about.
Later, we were asked to appoint Davis Perkins as the publisher and president of the Presbyterian Publishing House. A lot of back-slapping went on, until a couple of us pointed out that this was the Davis Perkins who, in an introduction to a booklet had described the Confessing Church movement as a right wing group using the confessions as a sledgehammer to bludgeon the church and keep some people out of leadership. After some rather mild questioning, he expresed regret for his statement (but did not retract the sentiment). Again, most commissioners seemed to have no idea what was going on. The juggernaut of officialdom seemed annoyed that we were not just rubber-stamping motions. Perkins was confirmed, but a few brave souls did vote against.
Then we got to talk about hymnals. The PPC would like to produce a new hymnal (because they will make money on it) and they produced some statistics to show why they should. Generally speaking, the statistics (from a very small sampling) showed that fewer than 50% of people were interested in having a new hymnal. Nevertheless, the results were manipulated to put them in a good light. We were told that the vast amjority of churches use the blue hymn book (we don't in Lake Jackson) but we later found out that the number is nearer to 50% of churches. A businessman I was sitting near pointed out that, as a business plan, it stank. Apparently it will cost $5 million to research and develop a new hymnal, but when we pressed we found out that they expect to make $25 million in sales. The words "yeah" and "right" come to mind.
Anyway, we debated and debated and the PPC huffed and puffed and then we voted, and, metaphorically, told them where they could put their hymnal (politely, of course). I did, in passing, mention that one of the reasons for the lack of buy-in to the current hymnal might be its bias, theologically, and its use of inclusive language for God. That went down like a lead balloon.
Sadly, that wasn't the end of the affair. A couple of people had brought an overture on behalf of two presbyteries that wanted to produce an e-hymnal. Some other denominationa have already done this. Hymns and choruses, together with music versions, are available on line. When one is chosen for worship, you just download an original from the internet (even messing with the key if you like) and either print it in your bulletin or project it on a screen, or both! Good idea. We liked it. We approved it by a wide margin. Then we found out that no money had been allocated since it had been assumed that it would be produced by PPC along with their new hymnal. Incidentally, the makers of the motion didn't seemto really want PPC to be involved, because then PPC would have editorial control. So, we ended up reconsidering the original motion to produce a new hymnal, and approving it in order that the church will have the funds to develop an e-hymnal. It passed. The word blackmail comes to mind. PPC etains editorial control, and wouldn't even commit to develop an e-hymnal earlier than about 8 years.
This is a good example, both of the arrogance of the insiders, who clearly expected hat we would just do what we were told, and the way in which commissioners are hamstrung by financial constraints. Time and again, an agency of the church told us that what they wanted to do would not cost anything because it was already budgetted (that doesn't mean it doesn't cost anything, of course), and when we wanted to do something different, we were not allowed to do so because no money had been allocated. So why do we have a General Assembly? Why do we bother showing up to vote?
Fortunately, there are some really good people in some of the offices, particularly in Theology and Worship, otherwise the abuse would be far more widespread. Whenever we talked to them, I felt we were being heard, but some of the other groups just wanted to give their report and have us say "Oh, well done!"
I'm a day behind, and I have yet to report on the second day of committee work. I'll get back as soon as I can, but I'm currently surviving on about 5 hours of sleep!
Presbuteros