Heartland Presbytery Proposes Playing Hardball
I just found out that the liberal Heartland Presbytery is proposing the formation of a free-standing, permanent hit-squad Administrative Commission to preemptively strike at any congregation that dares talk about leaving the denomination.
So much for 'inclusiveness' and 'dialogue'. I guess with some presbyteries, that's just more smokescreen for power games and manipulation. I hate being proven right, yet again...
Read it and weep:
Item #8 COM Additional Action
Posts
28 remonstrances:
This is unreal.
Not to be too hyperbolic - this is a bit like the SS, or the KGB. Forming an Administrative Commission with the ability to take over a session of a church without a presbytery vote is very dangerous.
Toby - you're right, but please stop generalizing across all progressives and/or liberals. This progressive finds this action distasteful.
Mark,
"...but please stop generalizing across all progressives and/or liberals. This progressive finds this action distasteful."
I know. I will.
Thanks for the reminder!
I have agreed with John McNeese and Mark Smith in the same day.
The end is truly near.
Please. Toby is not right.
I'm not sure what the objection is. Of the two churches specifically mentioned, FPC Paola, KS, has scheduled a congregational meeting for June 24 to seek dismissal from the PCUSA with property. The pastor is one of the new wineskins strategy report authors, and the vote is timed to coinside with the EPC general assembly. They've been acting outside the bounds of presbytery for a while now: for instance, they've "called" an "associate pastor" who is EPC clergy, without COM or presbytery approval, and will "install" that person June 17, without presbytery involvement, or for that matter an authorized APNC. If there is an example of a church that might be acting outside of the PCUSA constitution, this is it.
The other church, pastored by the spouse of the head of staff at FPC Paola, has signaled to presbytery similar intention to leave.
Presbytery must act to authorize this Admin. Commiss. before it comes into being. There's nothing untoward about it, its following strict process. The presbytery is acting according to both the book of order and to protect its interests, for the members of the local church and the whole presbytery.
The Paola church sued the presbytery (and won) to force it to cosign a loan several years ago, even though the church hasn't contributed to the mission or per capita budgets in years; just the financial matters alone lend the presbytery to be interested in the matter. But on a strictly mission and pastoral matter, the presbytery has an interest to attempt to minister to those members of these churches who want to remain part of the PCUSA. The clergy in question, and the sessions, have so far been uninterested in sharing the floor with presbytery representatives.
Likening it to the SS is just wrong. The only trigger for taking over the session is a positive vote to leave the church. At that time, such a move on behalf of presbytery is frankly required by our polity, since these particular churches aren't seeking to negotiate anything.
Hillsdale had informed Heartland who had representative speak at the congregational meeting of June 10th when Hillsdale voted [monitored by Heartland reps] seventy something to five or six to seek dismissal with property to the NWEPC.
Tob, I believe you have again jumped to conclusions. This is in the packets for the upcoming Heartland meeting, I'm pretty certain there is no Admin Comm yet.
The love and goodwill of faithful people on both sides gets flattened out in these disputes and their reportage.
Toby, I owe you an apology regarding conclusion jumping as to whether there is an Admin Comm, you didn't and I'm sorry.
Serves me right for conclusion jumping.
Kairos,
What concerns me most is the clause that allows this same Administrative Commission to take over ANY session based only on a vote of Presbytery Council OR the COM.
This creates an organization (the commission) that is only accountable to the leadership of the presbytery but not controlled by the entire presbytery. The organization has no defined end of life, and can only perpetuate itself by finding new problems in new sessions.
Aside from basic thuggery and killing, that definition matches the SS fairly well.
Hi Mark,
I can see your concern. The intent behind that provision is to allow for the Presbytery to act in a timely manner between meetings if and/or when another church surprises the Presbytery with an intent to leave. The third congregation mentioned in the rationale was in the process of amending its bylaws--much like Kirk of the Hills in OK--to remove any reference to the Presbytery. They've tabled that, but could resume that at any time, and Presbytery or Council would find it difficult to respond effectively, either through COM's particularly delegated powers or through some other agency. With Presbytery meeting every other month in Heartland, the need to find a way to give the Administrative Commission flexibility to add churches is important.
So, that's the intent. I think the concern you raise makes sense, and I'll be interested to see if there are ways to amend the resolution so as to provide approval after the fact at the next presbytery meeting, should a congregation be added through either COM or Council action, and a terminus clause defining the end of the AC as either an acceptable reconciliation of the church back into the presbytery or final and acceptable adjudication of the church's expressed vote and decision to leave, through the processing of the minister members of presbytery, the dismissal of individual members to another congregation, and the resolution of property matters, should there be any.
But, I'm sorry, likening this to the SS is just crazy. Administrative Commissions are the constitution's mechanism for creating a body of presbytery--with presbytery's authority and power--to deal with issues in a manner timely and effective when waiting two months (or whatever the period is in a particular presbytery) for the next presbytery meeting is unfeasible. Each commission is responsible to presbytery, which must review the activities of that AC and can change its authority, modify its members, overturn its decisions, dissolve it, etc.
The presbytery can either assign to an AC the conditions for its dissolution, or it can act at any future date to dissolve it.
For what its worth, I think the labeling of these actions as SSlike, or KGB like, or akin to the "evil empire" in star wars, is exactly the kind of hyperbolic rhetoric that makes it difficult for the presbytery to make an honest case for itself to some of these churches, when a pastor or a group of elders take a heartfelt and very real ideological/theological/social difference and decide that they must leave the PCUSA, and then hype up the differences with the denomination in such a way as to try to get the church to go along with them.
So it is that Heartland Presbytery is "Liberal." So it is that an add was placed in the KC Star last year saying that the denomination doesn't believe in the Divinity of Christ, or the authority of scripture. With Emperor Palpatine (I know, Mark, that's toby's line, not yours), you'd think Satan himself were the EP of Heartland Presbytery.
Instead, you've got some pastors and members who no longer want to stay in the communion that ordained them and supported them. Fair enough. The negotiation over what happens then can not be done, on the Presbytery's side, outside the bounds of its polity and theology. Those who want to leave might not like that, and might say all sorts of scary things about those Presbyters who are working to secure what they see as their responsibility to the other churches in the Presbytery. But the mechanisms that the Presbytery has for dealing with churches who step outside the bounds of the constitution is to deal with them first through COM and then if necessary an AC such as the one in question. Or, if a particular member renounces jurisdiction, to ensure an orderly transfer of membership to another body with whom the church is in correspondence, or to simply remove a member from the rolls.
Presbytery maintains authority over all of its ACs. Nothing this AC would do would ever keep Presbytery from acting to change/modify/etc the actions of the AC. It is not the SS.
Kairos,
A few more thoughts.
1. Doesn't each church that's considering leaving deserve the undivided attention of the AC members? Having one AC handle 2, 3, 10 churches stretches them a bit thin.
2. By creating an AC without a defined end, you've in essence created a Standing Committee with all of the powers of the Presbytery over a congregation and session. That's pretty dangerous - very few presbyteries will do that even with the COM. Most of the democratic protections built into our polity are lost in that structure. It's a lot like having a Privy Council in England with a very weak House of Commons, or having the Congress delegate their authority over the states to the President's cabinet. When you add the fact that the AC will only continue to exist if they find another church that might be hinting at leaving, you have created a group with lots of power that can only perpetuate the power by "finding" a new problem. This is playing with fire, organizationally.
3. I am on the liberal side. I want the church to be able to contain people of all stripes. I want the noisy congregations (and pastors) to fish or cut bait - leave or stop rocking the boat so hard that we might all fall out. However, this action is rather scary to me. It reeks of authoritarianism by the liberal side.
Hi again Mark,
Thanks for these further thoughts. Just my own views here:
1) I actually agree with this one, and from what I hear I think both Heartland's COM and council do too. Its my understanding that should the number of churches exceed a small handful, another similar AC would be requested. The two churches in question are logically tied together. They are pastored by a clergy couple. They are proposing leaving at the same time. The issues are similar, but not exactly so. It probably would, in my estimation, be better to have another AC should several other churches arise. From what I hear, there could be as many as six or seven, but I think the number is practically more around three, maybe four.
COM folk I know doubt an AC could handle a large responsibility, unless it itself were large.
2) The reason we do this with an AC and not another standing committee is manifold, but partially because it is by its very nature meant to be temporary, not standing or permanent, and because the powers granted are meant to exceed those delegated to a standing committee, so that the AC acts in presbytery's stead when presbytery itself (practically) cannot be there, and when an AC, as a committee, can be more effective than a plenary body. The process in place at both COM and Council is to work through COM and its Administrative Review process before any hint of looking at the AC.
Council and Presbytery meet often enough to ensure oversight of this AC, but not often enough to make the AC unnecessary. The notion that there isn't democratic protection here isn't borne out by the way that ACs work within a Presbytery, which will in this case have regular oversight and, as I mentioned, retain every power to modify/change/redirect/disassemble the AC should Presbytery see fit.
3)Yes, I know you're on the liberal side. I agree with your desire, too. But I'm wondering what else you think a presbytery should do, or could do, in this case. There is always concern when a session's authority is superseded, which I think is what the real concern is here.
The presbytery itself is reticent to take that power. Presbyteries have taken such power in the past, such as when a session refused to ordain women after the constitution required churches to do so. Or when there is continued malfunctioning that hinders the work of the church. Presbytery clearly has the authority to do so, but rarely exercises it.
But what do you do when you've got a congregation that is acting outside the bounds of our constitution? They're "installing" an associate pastor that wasn't authorized, examined, approved by any agency of Presbytery. They're holding a congregational meeting to dissolve ties with the church, even though they (within our structure) are a local expression of a larger body. They're seeking to take authority for themselves not authorized for them (such as the purchase or disposition of real property) without presbytery concurrence. And they are doing this without working with the agencies of the Presbytery who are trying to work with them: COM, in particular.
What ought the Presbytery do? The same churches that clammered on about the church upholding the constitution are now acting in open violation of it. They aren't seeking peaceful, meek, humble redress. They aren't trying to negotiate their way out.
On the other hand, the Presbytery has an obligation to be the presbytery, to exercise its activities in such a way as to uphold its responsibilities under the constitution and to faithfully try to adjudicate this mess. When a local church, whether its liberal or conservative, stops acting presbyterian, then the church needs to pastor that church into acting presbyterian. When they won't, then the presbytery might need to act in its stead.
I concur that these churches are probably going to leave. I'm all for making that process happen smoothly for all sides, and I will wish them well on their way out. But what you see as authoritarian is, from where I sit, the end result of a chastened process, the last straw if you will. I've seen excessive restraint on the part of the Presbytery. *shrug*
Kairos,
How about showing grace and being willing to be the wronged party?
What about showing mutual forebearance and turning the other cheek?
No, I guess punishment and confiscation works better to proclaim the love of Christ...at least in Heartland Presbytery.
Hi Toby,
Heartland Presbytery has and continues to show grace and a willingness to be the wronged party. The outcome of this will be another example of that, even as the Presbytery attempts to be faithful to all of the churches in its charge. Just because they don't roll over and permit *anything* under the sun doesn't mean that they have a vindictive, hardball spirit.
The spirit of punishment and confiscation doesn't rest with Heartland Presbytery in this case, but with those who are attempting to damage the presbytery as severely as they can as it makes their exit, even as they know the polity that they've agreed to from day one and now attempt to warp and bend and destroy it in the process...
Thank you for this forum to talk about it.
Kairos,
Sounds like you are a fair minded person. The word "earnest" comes to mind.
It is mine and Toby's experience that these commissions are not always such.
I know a number of presbyters that are bearing grudges from past debates lost to the "evil male evangelicals" and have every intention of getting a pound of flesh when able.
A roving Admin. Comm. does bear a striking similarity to tactics like the SS and would be easily used by those with longstanding running grudges.
As far as Toby's hyperbole - anyone reading a man who qoutes Star Wars so accurately and takes him at face value should be forced off of the internet. Obviously the point is meant to be taken with a grain of salt (or some Tony Chachere's).
The use of terms like SS tactics in our conversations about the church demeans the truly horrendous actions of the Nazis during World War II. Such words are bantered about much too easily and are no way applicable to the situations we find ourselves in the OCUSA. And for that matter: With an estimated 15,000,000 children in Africa orphaned by AIDS, with the genocide in Darfur, with the continuing violence and death in Iraq, do you really think God would looks kindly on our squabbling in this church. Do you really believe God cares about the New Wineskins or the old ones for that matter? Whether we get the doctrines right? I think God is going to say to us all “I don’t know you!”
On of the duties and powers of the commission is to "engage appropriate legal counsel".
Many people think this is an innocuos power. But, if you follow it through, the scriptural warning against using legal means to resolve disputes becomes very apparent.
What legal counsel is engaged for, is advice and the ability to involve the State in disputes. The state, from the Barmen Declaration, fulfills its function by means of the threat and exercise of force.
Taken to the extreme: If the Presbytery decides that it owns the church property, they are asking the state to use threats and force to remove anyone who contests this. If church members were to resist with force, the state would have the authority to use mortal force, if necessary, to accomplish the removal.
So with the small phrase "engage legal counsel" the Presbytery is saying it will seek to threaten or use whatever force necessary to achieve their goal. Even if the Presbytery is right, and this is justice would be served, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 6:7 declares, "Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?"
I seldom comment here but I really can't let the KGB and SS comments stand.
I teach world history and I spend my days with people whose entire families were murdered by the SS.
Using the terms KGB and SS to describe processes involving parties disputing property and membership in the contexts of the adjudicatory systems of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the United States of America is beyond repugnant and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of real evil.
Kairos: Next time you write, especially if you plan on listing info and passing it off as correct please do the following: 1. Check your facts. 2. Perhaps call the principles involved and seek understanding or at least verify your information –you certainly know how to contact us, 3. Be careful that you are not speaking from information obtained from either being at or hearing about confidential C.O.M or Council Meetings. 4. Sign your name so you are accountable.
Your information is incorrect in many instances.
Presbytery has been given the floor at a two hour meeting with our congregation and was present at 3 other congregation discussion meetings. They have also met with Session and have been received graciously on our end.
Paola did not sue to force the Presbytery to cosign a loan. Again –absolutely false. Our loan was in place. In fact, Heartland Presbytery forced a per capita policy on its members. When Paola warned the body at its next meeting that the policy was unconstitutional – the majority (60%) voted to rescind the policy. Only a decision to enforce a super majority rule kept it alive. A remedial complaint was filed - -Heartland Presbytery sent misinformation to its member churches and its assistant EP spoke falsely to the Presbyterian Outlook about Paola not giving to missions – after cancelled checks showed otherwise –no retraction or apology was offered from Presbytery. When Synod PJC ruled the policy unconstitutional the presbytery appealed. They ignored a pastoral letter from 21 pastors, they refused to hear the pleas from Presbyters to stop the appeal – and they refused to allow a vote. The appeal was on – When GAPJC ruled 9-0 that Heartland’s policy was unconstitutional the Presbytery refused to read the 1 page ruling and decision - instead placing it on a table and referring to the whole matter in one sentence. Against the cries of the assembly, the moderator ruled all attempts to read the policy out of order. No one heard the ruling that said the Presbytery had a leadership problem and failed to act pastorally.
Still, we invited Presbytery to our groundbreaking, to our Dedication and no one came. They never came to apologize for the policy, for the expense of defense, for the misrepresentation. In fact until we opened up the request for dismissal, no representative of presbytery has been to our church in 9 years.
You are quite wrong about our request. We are asking, according to the Book of Order, to be dismissed with property. We are not demanding anything. We have sought cooperation. Presbytery has not once, in any instance, contributed one dime to our 140 year old church and 100 year old sanctuary or our 4 year old addition.
You are wrong on other items as well - -and your level of information, however flawed, makes me wonder if you are not a leader of some sort in Heartland Presbytery. Why? Because their initial info was wrong and has not been distributed outside leadership in the detail you have. Your lack of consideration tells me the same. I have been impressed with the new Executive and the committee that has come to us. Once the E.P heard the truth, it seemed that even he thought the powers asked for are excessive. That is my impression. We will see Saturday- -
In the interest of Christian love and accountability, and in the hopes that you can see the rightness and fairness of our request, even if you disagree I invite your contact - – I will sign my name – and please do me the honor of getting things straight - -Kirk Johnston, Pastor, 15 years, First Presbyterian Church Paola.
Kirk--
I respect and appreciate your input to this thread.
On the loan:
I will not counter any description of your experience with Heartland Presbytery: I was not there nor do I have any reason to doubt your perception of how the presbytery treated you as you described. I was neither part of the proceedings nor present at the trial or the presbytery presentation of the ruling.
What I know is from reading the trial documents that are public record, from the facts on the ground today, and from hearing concerns from members of that presbytery about where things currently stand.
On the factual matter of the loan, I don't think there is any other way other than to say that your lawsuit forced the presbytery to co-sign your loan. Paola's argument, which I read from the proceedings and which carried the day, indeed had to do with a disagreement about per-capita and mission giving, and the Presbytery's losing position that churches who don't contribute per capita or substantive mission funding should be required to do such things as co-sign your loan.
Who I am is not of direct relevance; I appreciate those who blog with openness, and often I wish I did so more, but I don't have any desire to lose my pseudonymity here. I'm not anyone who has had direct dealing with your church, nor am I, so far as I know, sharing anything that is beyond public record. And everyone reading what I write will discount what I say to the degree that I am anonymous. Everyone should so discount it. You were certainly there. But a reading of the documents and the fact that Heartland is currently a cosigner on that note is indeed accurate.
On this intended vote:
I'm not directly involved here. I'm neither on COM nor a member of staff. I'm not in a position of any import or leadership in the presbytery, as you postulate. Its hard for me to know the degree to which the presbytery was welcomed at your church. I'm prayerful that they were indeed received gracefully. But I have been watching all of this with great interest. I have had good conversations with people on the ground who might differ from you with most of your key points here, but I'm not them and don't want to muddle things with what I'm not aware of.
And in the mutual interest of desiring to maintain my anonymity on this medium, and your petition for honest dialogue, I'll defer to your presentation here, and thank you for correcting me from your perspective. If my anonymity requires that I simply defer, then so be it.
I'm glad you have found the EP of the presbytery charitable, and I'm hopeful, for everyones sake, he can be helpful to you and to the presbytery in this process.
Would I be in a position to vote on this potential AC, I'd need more than what you offered here to vote against it. These specific matters of your clarification aside, there still is the matter of your pending vote to seek withdrawal with property--exactly the sort of vote that an AC is needed for, if, of course, the COM is unable to work with you. If the COM is able to work with you, I'd be interested in hearing them say so; if not, then an AC would be appropriate...
*shrug*
Thanks, and peace to you in Christ. May God grace you this weekend and beyond, in all of your ministry, whether part of the PCUSA or some other body...
Kairos and Kirk,
Thank you both for the exchange here. It is obvious that this current denominational climate is sick and in need of radical healing.
Let's pray that everyone involved will be led by the teachings of Christ, not of men--by the principles of the Kingdom and not of this dying world.
I see in all of this just one more sad example of the evil fruits of the Louisville Papers. Heartland seems to be using that playbook to the letter.
Kairos: Thank You for your response -but to be precise, in your original post, you said Paola sued to force the Presbytery to cosign - -we did not. Paola and I filed a complaint to stop an unconstitutional policy that presbytery passed with little concern for its legality. It would have taken a key power away from Session, namely the responsibility to determine the disbursements and mission giving of the local church. Again please, if you read the case you would have read our brief - this was clearly stated. Also, I don't get the need for anonymity - I think it does greatly diminish credibility. Why believe anything someone won't sign? -God Bless You - Kirk
Kirk:
The intermingling of that particular argument you made along with the loan guarantee is fairly clear, for instance, from the portion of the brief quoted by the layman here:
http://www.layman.org/layman/news/2004-news/brief-calls-heartland-percapita.htm
I understand the particular point you were making and which you claim above, as well as Presbytery's particular point about directing its own mission strategy and financial obligations. But it seems clear, at least to my reading, that these were directly intermingled with the loan guarantees in question.
All this is not particularly germane to the matter of your desire to transfer with property, unless somehow you transfer/leave without property, and the PCUSA is on the hook for any outstanding note. I'm not at all privy to whether this was a factor in Heartland desiring not to extend the guarantee in the first place (though it doesn't sound like it).
I have my reasons for desiring anonymity. I understand how it sacrifices some credibility, which I hope the honesty of my writing, the attempted humility of my tone, my openness to Christ and the logic of my arguments can attenuate somewhat. Its a decision based on this medium and past history, and something I only adopt online... But I'm not willing at the moment to sacrifice that in order to engage more fully what you wrote, in the few areas that I might have desire to do so, and further you have ample merit on many points, so I will defer to your characterization of the events.
Gannet Girl,
I struggled over a metaphor that would be meaningful. I tried to come up with an organization that is:
a) charged with finding and fixing "unacceptable behavior" through coercive means
b) beholden only to a small group of people for oversight
c) permanent or lacking in an end date or event
d) self-perpetuating only through finding more "unacceptable behavior"
e) Possessed of lots of power that is usually doled out in very specific circumstances
The next closest that I could come up with was the Catholic Inquisition.
Make no mistake - any "witch hunt" organization has the potential to turn to real evil.
I thought a bit more.
How about the House Un-American Activities Committee of the 1950's (the McCarthy committee) as a parallel?
Toby,
You may need to reinstate your policy of not allowing anonymous comments. Or you may want to add a disclaimer to the effect that anonymous commentators seem to be motivated to hide in the darkness.
The action by Heartland Presbytery is certainly not unexpected nor unusual for them.
There will likely be more instances of similar coercive actions by other presbyteries as the PCUSA withers away.
Well, Larry, I would certainly reject the claim that my motivation is to hide "in the darkness." You can take it or leave it, but there are others (in this very conversation) who are choosing to converse anonymously. I recognize how my choosing to do so challenges a key aspect of credibility, and I accept that.
Mark-- I certainly hear your concern, and while it sounds that people here have their own feelings about Heartland's motivation, I don't believe the presbytery will take any action lightly. Some who have an issue with the presbytery--either from an ideological difference, or from a personal history, or in solidarity with a church whose participation in this New Wineskins movement they support--might differ from my assessment there. But I'd disagree. The Brothers and Sisters I know in that presbytery aren't wrestling with this lightly...
You are particularly correct, Mark, that the delegation of power to a smaller committee does have the potential to be abused, and even all the way to be evil. The presumption that it will, however, is I think extreme.
Perhaps there will be constraints built in with a terminus of sorts. Or perhaps approval of additional groups has to occur by both COM and council, but, again, any such action would need be reported to Presbytery, which could act at any time on it. If I were to have the opportunity to perfect this motion, I'd support both. But, I wonder, would that alleviate your concerns about the nature of this AC, or is it the larger matter of a presbytery exercising its authority over a session that is a concern?
For what its worth, I reject likening this to the SS or the KGB or the evil empire or the house unamerican affairs committee. I think that ignores the real evil behind each of those agencies and imputes it to Heartland Presbytery and an AC--composed of ordained pastors and elders--that hasn't been formed yet and hasn't engaged in its work with these churches.
If the concern is the open-ended nature or the lack of an ending, those can be addressed and always challenged at presbytery. If the concern is the specific powers imputed to this AC, then that's a question of our polity and the responsibilities that the Presbytery has to further its mission, particularly when a church directly challenges that mission.
The presbytery has a moral obligation to act, both pastorally and effectively, in this situation on behalf of its member churches and fellow minister members, on behalf of individuals in these communities who wish to remain part of the PCUSA. But they also have an obligation to act humbly, Christ like, always also in accordance with the Truth and respecting the rights of all the members of the church. That includes the two churches named as well as the rest of presbytery.
According to the COM, who apparently is the body bringing this proposal to the floor of presbytery, they are unable to find reconciliation with the churches involved. According to the background, it sounds like the presumption is that these churches are leaving and that the AC will be charged with determining whether there is a group there that wants to remain in the PCUSA or how otherwise to send off the church with the property.
The dismissal of minister members is a fairly easy thing. The transfer of a church is more complicated, and one wonders if the EPC would qualify as a reformed body with whom the PCUSA is in correspondance, but it might be. Perhaps that'd be the most fair solution, assuming a super-duper-majority voted to leave, with some recompense to the presbytery for the loss.
(Yes, Toby, I know your position about this, and how you see churches who want to leave with property ought to be able to do so without any compensation).
My concerns about this AC have little to do with the possibility of taking over a session. Sometimes, taking over a session is the right thing to do - particularly when negotiation is impossible and the session is flouting the polity.
I would have the same concern about an AC that had other strong powers usually left to the presbytery - like pressing and prosecuting disciplinary charges or dissolving pastoral relationships. Any power that can substantially damage a person or group of people or cause a group to cease to exist should be held as tightly as possible by the body constitutionally dictated to hold it. Taking over a session is the equivalent of prison time or even a death sentence for that session - it can't function during that time.
When you include the fact that the AC as proposed can increase its power by "finding" other "rebellious" sessions, we are creating a great potential for power politics - which in my experience always devolve away from proper Christian behavior.
Thanks for clarifying that Mark. I think its a wise and helpful concern to raise.
Toby,
Your remonstrances are almost as entertaining and informative as your blog posts! The fact that you've attracted a fair number of PCUSA Loyalists, aka Liberals, makes it even better. Keep up the great work.
-Anonymous Coward
Post a Comment