Sorry this is so late in posting, but General Synod ended around 4:30 PM ET on Thursday, and the missus and I spent the whole evening driving back to Louisville (not quite 7 hours). I will try to give a run down on the events, but most of the excitement happened in the morning. Just to give an indication, we did not get out of the first moderator’s committee report (on memorials) until after 12:30 PM.
After a powerful sermon on Isaiah 52:7 by RPCNA pastor and professor (and current Moderator) Dr. Dennis Prutow, business for the day soon began. Three memorials were considered by General Synod. The first (dealing with severing all relations with the PC(USA)) was not approved, since the heart and soul of that memorial had already been dealt with the day before (fraternal relations had been ended due to a recommendation in the Interchurch Relations report). A second memorial dealing with commemorating the 500th birthday of John Calvin was unanimously approved. Finally, the big item came up: forming a commission to investigate the practices at Erskine College and Seminary.
Much debate took place. Votes took place allowing a video by students to be shown and a petition by students to be read (see these here). Students were also allowed to speak (by a vote of the court). An attempt to take the teeth out of the memorial (changing “commission” to “committee”) was rejected. Two amendments that were attempts to strengthen the memorial and give the commission more power were voted down. The memorial for the commission, though, was approved (the vote was not close, though the votes on the amendments were very close). This is a victory for those who wish to see reformation take place at Erskine College. The battle is long from over, however — expect many more issues to be raised next year when the commission reports its findings and actions to the 2010 General Synod.
Just before lunch, a military chaplain stood and made a motion from the floor for a committee to explore other endorsing agencies for the ARPs military chaplains (they are currently endorsed by an agency that also endorses PC(USA) and Cumberland Presbyterian chaplains). After some debate, this motion was approved. I suspect this will be a touchy issue at the 2010 General Synod as well. Most of the chaplains (at least all of those who spoke) are in favor of switching agencies — not because of a lack of support by the current agency, but because of theological differences with other member churches. Many of the “older guys” are against it, and I do not know why. It is pure speculation on my part, but I perceive it to be a nostalgic ideal — we have been a part of this for so long and it has worked well in the past, so there’s no reason to change it. It is almost as if there a certain myopia (or willful blindness) that fails to recognize the creeping secularism in our denomational college and the rank liberalism and heresy in a former sister church. It is almost like a parent that refuses to see the wickedness in his or her own children, hoping that a pat on the head or wishful thinking will cause the wayward one to “shape up.” But we cannot play Eli to Hophni and Phinehas.
The decisions of the 2010 General Synod were victories, albeit minor ones. Things are improving, slowly but surely. But much work is left to be done. I am thrilled by the actions of my denomination, though more needs to happen. I have a few reflections that I may post at a later time, things I think must happen in the next 12 months in order for these positive changes to continue.
Minor victories? I would say significant victories, though, as you say, there is much work yet to be done. I like your comments that “It is almost a parent that refuses to see the wickedness in his or her own children.” That same thought occurred to me at Synod — we don’t want to discipline our child. With all the “love” passages being read on the floor, being placed in our chairs, etc., someone should have stood up and read this verse:
Hebrews 12:6 “For whom the LORD loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives.”
Amen to Hebrews 12:6! They do not love Erskine or the ARP if they are not willing to discipline her.
I simply cannot fathom how someone like the President of Erskine College and Seminary can make the statements he did on Wed evening and then almost nothing be said of it (aside for his agreement with the need for a commission, but then there were those who objected to that!) the next day. A major victory would have been the call for him to resign. A major victory would have been the suspension and/or firing of any teacher who supports Barthianism. I will give the President credit for calling Dr. Burnett into his office over his comments on the Erskine blog. But that was about the only thing I agreed with him on.
I’ve got a better comparison that the father/child one, but I’m saving it for a more opportune time.