The Salaam Assembly
An Evangelical Analysis of the 214th General Assembly
By Jack Haberer

Peace. Pax. Shalom. Different languages. Same meaning. Same longing. Same calling. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." Of all the many subjects anticipated for the 214th General Assembly, which gathered in Columbus, OH, June 15-22, one not expected was that of learning yet another word—based in another language—that bespeaks the same hope. Salaam. It comes from the Arabic language, the language spoken most in the Middle East, and the language of a particular people within the Middle East, namely, the Palestinians. Salaam became a theme for the 214th General Assembly for two reasons: we needed peace and we needed a peacemaker. We got both.

Who would have thought that, amid the high profile conflicts and muscle-flexing encircling the PC(USA), the 214th General Assembly would have chosen an unknown moderator—and would have found the way to settle one of the hottest theological controversies in recent years? That’s exactly what happened as this part of the body of Christ deliberated together in the home of the Ohio State Buckeyes.

Five hundred and fifty-three minister and elder commissioners, 165 youth advisory delegates, 25 theological advisory delegates, eight missionary advisory delegates and ten ecumenical advisory delegates flew and trekked their way to Columbus. They all arrived feeling an ominous threat hanging over the church: talk of schism had reached an unprecedented level. Fueling that concern was the burgeoning Confessing Church Movement, which now claimed over 10% of the churches in the denomination. Fueling that movement was the nagging perception that the church’s commitment to Jesus Christ as the "singular saving Lord" was in dispute, especially among denominational leaders. Also, the failure in some regions to enforce the church’s policy prohibiting the ordination of sexually active gay and lesbian persons seemed to be leading to a constitutional crisis.

A Hope-filled Beginning
As in past seasons of conflict, commissioners and other leaders descended upon this city ready to roll up their sleeves and work vigilantly for peace and reconciliation. The theme, "Ambassadors for Christ"—chosen by the local arrangements committee—reminded all of these words from II Corinthians: "…in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. So we are ambassadors for Christ…" (5:19-20a).

On a similar theme, Stated Clerk Cliff Kirkpatrick told of another time of conflict when a church divided by the Old School-New School conflict and the Civil War sent its commissioners to Columbus, Ohio. The 1862 General Assembly established a "covenant to cherish fraternal greetings, to cultivate Christian dialogue, to worship God, to promote the cause of Christ, and to avoid all needless controversies and competitions adapted to perpetuate division and strife." He invited this year’s commissioners to "leave a legacy to inspire Presbyterians to be truly ambassadors for Christ."

The defining moment of the 2002 GA came on the first evening. Three men stood before the commissioners, having offered themselves as candidates for the office of moderator. Laird Stuart, the former co-moderator of the Covenant Network, was the self-described liberal bridge-builder. Jerry Tankersley, who was identified with the Presbyterian Coalition, was calling the church back to the cross—and theological clarity. But it was Fahed Abu-Akel, the Palestinian immigrant from Israel and director of a ministry to international students, who won the hearts of the commissioners. His goals for the year would be "spiritual renewal, a renewed commitment to mission, and the cultivation of unity in diversity." He elaborated, "In the midst of our diversity, God in Jesus Christ wants us to love one another, learn to forgive one another and most importantly, to be united in our witness to the world about his love to each of us."

Sure enough, he taught the commissioners to greet one another with the word "peace" and the word "shalom" …and the word of his Palestinian roots, "salaam."

Within hours of their defeat in the moderatorial election, Jerry and Laird co-sponsored a commissioners’ resolution to renew the 1862 covenant, this time urging "the 214th General Assembly (2002) [to] renew the promise made by the 1862 General Assembly in Columbus, Ohio, to adopt a new covenant: ‘to cherish fraternal greetings, to cultivate Christian dialogue, to worship God, to promote the cause of Christ, and to avoid all needless controversies and competitions adapted to perpetuate division and strife." They were gladly joining in calling for salaam.

Salaam Y’All!
The tone of a general assembly often is set outside the actual plenary hall deliberations. Much of the tone this year was set and expressed by invited speakers presenting at banquet meetings sponsored by leading organizations of the left and the right.

The Covenant Network banquet featured Jon Walton, pastor of First Church in New York City—who preached his first sermon there on September 9, 2001. On the one hand he chided his opponents: "We have reduced the polity of the church to an endgame of judicial cannibalism that pits presbyteries against their own churches, and sessions against their own congregants, in matters of conscience and non-essential theological disagreements". On the other hand, he also scolded his allies for their sometimes hateful and dismissive treatment of the conservatives: "God has put us together on both sides of this issue for some inscrutable reason that only God understands. I have come to believe that God will not let us off the hook until we settle this in a way that we will all understand and welcome."

They both called for salaam.

Christology
Salaam was not going to be found in the church if the leadership could not refocus its understanding of the Prince of Peace. At issue was the still-nagging failure of the denominational leadership to adequately answer the rhetorical question asked by Dirk Ficca at the 2000 Peacemaking Conference, "What’s the big deal about Jesus?" His address—set in the context of building better relationships with persons of differing religious traditions—clearly deviated from the reformed understanding of Jesus as God’s instrument of salvation. What’s more, the General Assembly Council and, subsequently, the 2001 General Assembly had issued responses to the ensuing controversy that seemed only to patronize and dismiss the legitimate concerns of the critics.

In fact, it was the GAC’s failure that triggered the launch of the Confessing Church Movement, which then expanded exponentially for months.

Fortunately, while speaking somewhat timidly, the previous year’s GA did direct the Office of Theology, Worship and Discipleship to develop a more complete response to the christological concerns. Three months later, they issued a six-page report that was embraced broadly across the theological spectrum. Several overtures to the 2002 GA called upon the commissioners to affirm this document. After hearing lots of testimony, the commissioner committee studying the christological concerns took that very action by a unanimous vote. When sent to plenary, it was adopted by a 97% vote.

Others wanted the GA to go further. Some urged the Assembly to adopt an authoritative interpretation on the first ordination question ("Do you acknowledge Jesus to be …."), which would require ministers, elders and deacons to affirm a few clarifying statements on their belief in Jesus as Savior and Lord. The Assembly committee did not take this action, for many reasons. From this evangelical’s perspective, this attempt to strengthen the church’s commitment to Jesus Christ was fraught with potentially unintended consequences; simply put, it would be easy for a future GA or PJC to overturn such an authoritative interpretation, and in the process leave the church with a terribly weakened commitment to biblical truth.

One nagging concern remained. Some commissioners—especially those concerned to respond positively and boldly to the issues raised by the Confessing Church Movement—wanted the Assembly to affirm succinctly its confident faith in Christ. "Not many of our people are going to read the ‘Our Hope’ paper. We need an affirmation that fits on a t-shirt," they said. Conversations ensued among some of the commissioners. Finally, one commissioner proposed drawing out of the "Our Hope" paper an 8-sentence statement from the pivotal paragraph of the paper, to be a comment attached to one of the disapproved overtures. It reads:

"The PC (USA) is neither confused nor hesitant about its faith. …Jesus Christ is the only Savior and Lord, and all people everywhere are called to place their faith, hope and love in him. NO one is saved by virtue of inherent goodness or admirable living, ‘for by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God’ (Eph. 2:8). No one is saved apart from God’s gracious redemption in Jesus Christ. Yet we do not presume to limit the sovereign freedom of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (I Tim. 2:3-4). Thus, we neither restrict the grace of God to those who profess explicit faith in Christ nor assume that all people are saved regardless of faith. Grace, love and communion belong to God, and are not ours to determine."

Once offered, the first commissioner to support this proposal was Jerry Tankersley. The second to speak—in enthusiastic support—was Laird Stuart. After a series of mostly affirming statements, the Assembly adopted this "t-shirt" affirmation by 94%.

The commissioners then read a liturgy and sang the Doxology.

Surely, the most critical, denomination-wide theological debate since the Re-Imagining controversy (1994-95) had led to a bold affirmation of our evangelical faith.

Salaam was breaking out all over.

Shenango vs. Shalom?
One of the most carefully watched issues for evangelicals these days is that of constitutional enforcement. What’s the point of amending the Constitution if that Constitution is not going to be enforced? The ease with which a few congregations around the PC(USA) have declared their unwillingness to abide by the fidelity-chastity requirements for ordination, and the corresponding unwillingness of their presbyteries to require conformity to those requirements, have led many a conservative to despair. Are we a constitutional church at all?

These questions all came into focus at this GA around overture 02-59, better known as the Shenango Overture (named for its sponsoring presbytery). This relatively small, conservative presbytery in western Pennsylvania sent an overture to the GA urging the Assembly to redress a non-compliant session in another relatively small, albeit liberal, presbytery, the Presbytery of Northern New England. In 1998, 70-member Christ Church in Burlington, VT, had filed a declaration of dissent, expressing their unwillingness to comply with the fidelity-chastity ordination standard. The presbytery took no action, so Londonderry Church filed a complaint against the presbytery, which wound itself through the church courts to the GA-PJC. They ruled that governing bodies do not have a right to disregard or defy the church constitution. They also directed the presbytery to pastorally counsel the Session toward compliance with the rules. As of this spring, the church had not reversed its position, so Shenango stepped in, calling upon the GA to direct the synod of the Northeast to direct the PNNE to require compliance in Christ Church.

Then, without warning, on June 2, the Session of Christ Church voted to set aside their declaration of dissent.

So you’re a commissioner to the 214th General Assembly. What do you do with the Shenango overture? After hearing extensive testimony, the commissioner committee disapproved the overture by a vote of 42-7. A minority report called for the assembly-in-plenary to take specific action. Then, realizing that that report sounded too critical—maybe even cynical—some conservatives amended it on the floor. Nevertheless, it still failed, and the Shenango overture was disapproved (for an in-depth analysis, see "License for Libertines? Or the Wrong Map to the Right Destination? A Shenango Retrospective", published by Presbyterians for Renewal - see link below).

Conservatives had invested enormous energy for the past six months in the hope of pressing the Stated Clerk to lead the process of enforcement and, failing in that effort, to use the legislative process to accomplish that. However, issues of due process and lines of authority have returned the matter of enforcement to the judicial commissions of presbyteries, synods, and the GA. All eyes will be fixed this year upon the case filed against the Mt. Auburn Church in Cincinnati (properly pursued) and the scatter gun filing of cases by an individual conservative lawyer whose efforts have been disavowed by his pastor, John Huffman, and his home church, St. Andrews in Newport Beach, CA. Also to be watched will be the dozen or so churches who, having declared their own unwillingness to comply, may follow the urgings of the Covenant Network. While committed to changing the church’s ordination standards, the CovNet has urged its allies to avoid anti-constitutional proclamations and behavior.

Did the GA bring more salaam to Shenango? They did help avoid a new call to arms—which surely would have resulted from anything sounding punitive—but the real outcome remains to be seen.

Late term abortions
Every general assembly since 1983 has taken up the matter of abortion. Rightly so. The PC(USA)’s policy on abortion was exceedingly liberal for many years. The revised "limited pro-choice" policy of 1992 moderated such a position—though insufficiently so for most evangelicals. While it has not caused the level of convulsing in the denomination that homosexuality has for the past decade, it took center stage this year. The commissioners were asked to adopt a policy regarding late term abortions, written by two entities, the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy and the Presbyterian Church Advisory Committee on Litigation. While directed to compile and interpret previous statements on abortion, this report would be breaking some new ground. Just a couple of years ago a General Assembly had expressed "grave concerns" regarding the practice of aborting viable pre-born children.

One positive to be seen in the proposed policy paper was the call to all ministers of word and sacrament to provide wise counsel for those contemplating abortions—a break from the past calls simply to respect the right of the expectant woman to decide for herself.

Nevertheless, this paper outlined a policy that does open the door to legitimizing late-term, post-viability abortions. Conservatives within the committee tried to stop the momentum behind the paper, then succeeded in forwarding some amendments. On the floor of the assembly, the paper was approved. The key paragraph reads:

"The ending of a pregnancy after the point of fetal viability is a matter of grave moral concern to us all, and may be undertaken only in the rarest of circumstances and after prayer and/or pastoral care and when necessary to save the life of the woman, to preserve the woman’s health in circumstances of a serious risk to the woman’s health, to avoid fetal suffering as a result of untreatable, life-threatening medical anomalies, or in cases of incest or rape."

As in the case of the policy adopted in 1992, this reflects a denominational ambivalence, that also seems to reflect a complexity of life-and-death ethics, which—on the one hand—urge the support of human life, including the protection of pre-natal life—and on the other hand wants to leave in the hands of the expectant mother—not in the lawmakers or physicians—the final decision regarding carrying a pre-born child to term.

Did the assembly promote Salaam in this case? Surely they tried to affirm the best points and concerns of their brothers and sisters promoting both the right of women to choose and the right of pre-born children to be protected. But feelings of disappointment here are certainly to be expected.

On Biennial Assemblies
The first truly radical change in the governance practices since reunion took place at this year’s General Assembly. Upon the recommendation of the Committee on the General Assembly and the General Assembly Council, the commissioners voted to alter our pattern of meeting annually in favor of biennial assemblies. Our first year off will come in 2005. One refreshing aspect of this debate was that it crossed typical party lines. Many ecclesiasts, some liberals and a smattering of conservatives supported the proposal either for stewardship reasons (millions to be saved) or as a way to slow the pace of conflict. Many ecclesiasts, liberals and conservatives opposed the proposal, either because it turns too much power over to the GAC and staff, or because it allows too much time for conflicts to fester.

Two additional factors complicate the issue. On the positive side, the biennial assemblies will see an increase of elected ordained officers, to a level around 1000 commissioners (actual number to be proposed at next year’s GA, by which time COGA will have formed proposed changes in the Standing Rules to effect the implementation of the action). At the same time the representation of advisory delegates will not change, so the primary voices and votes in committees will be by those who have been elected and ordained.

On the negative side, the road ahead for elected moderators will be much more complicated by the prospect of serving for two years.

Did the commissioners deliver Salaam to the church? At least in the off years!

Per Capita
An overture from San Joaquin Presbytery, another small, conservative presbytery, urged the assembly to adopt an authoritative interpretation of the constitution that would have freed presbyteries from needing to make up per capita payments being withheld from any of their member congregations. At present congregations are free not to send the per capita payments—an act done usually as a form of protest against national church policies. But their respective presbyteries are required to make up the shortfall, thereby nullifying the effect of such protests.

The commissioners disapproved the overture. Fortunately, they resisted the urging of some to deny the local churches’ the right to withhold. Unfortunately, they would not free the presbyteries from the obligation. But they did issue a directive to all parties.

Therefore be it resolved, that presbyteries are urged (1) to partner with those churches who struggle financially to pay per capita and (2) to work pastorally with those sessions who choose to withhold their per capita.

And they added:

We call on the General Assembly agencies and presbyteries to work to alleviate the problems that lead to withholding so that the church may proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ to the whole world. We believe that at such a time as this, it is not wise or prudent to change the current understanding of the way per capita is collected and transmitted. Nevertheless, presbyteries are encouraged to raise per capita payments from churches through voluntary payments in the spirit of 2 Corinthians 9:7: 'Each of you much give as you have made up your mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. (NRSV)'

Clark Cowden, the executive presbyter and overture advocate for San Joaquin, was very grateful for the result.

This surely was a step in the direction of salaam.

Other Business
Other matters taken up by the General Assembly:

Salaam Beyond Us
Finally, in two other actions that hearken back to the conflicts among us, the GA voted to call upon the whole church, in the light of its recent conflicts, to "pray for those with whom we disagree." And they adopted unanimously that commissioners' resolution presented by Laird Stuart and Jerry Tankersley:

Far and away, the single most significant act of this General Assembly was one that was essentially disregarded by the religious press. The 214th GA elected as its moderator the figurehead leader of one of the USA’s most powerful Christian denominations, a Palestinian-American Christian. In a time when Arab Christians around the world believe that all Americans see them as our rank enemies—a race of terrorists—the commissioners recognized Fahed Abu-Akel not only to be the person "for such a time as this" here in the PC(USA), but also to be a statesperson for our relations with the outside world. And let’s face it: our internecine conflicts pale in comparison to the horrors being suffered on many other fields of battle—especially that of Palestine-Israel. In our vote for moderator, and our subsequent commissioning of Fahed to speak for us around the world, we shouted, "Jesus loves you, too!" to brothers and sisters who really have needed to hear that simple expression far more than any of us can comprehend.

And so, while particular actions of this GA will get some mixed reviews, let there be no doubt that, above all the din, these commissioners extended to the world "peace …pax …shalom …salaam."

Jack Haberer is senior pastor of Clear Lake Presbyterian Church in Houston, Texas, former moderator of the Presbyterian Coalition, and a member of the Theological Taskforce