January 2012

Presbyterians, especially those who have been tracking General Assembly with interest the last few years, are generally acquainted with a particular method of decision-making. This method relies on orderly process according to Robert’s Rules of Order so that everybody can follow along and know when their opportunities for input and commitment arrive.  Robert’s Rules offer a helpful framework for discussion, consideration of alternative ideas, and are especially known for giving voice to those with a minority viewpoint. Until the final vote, folks have the opportunity to offer amendments, substitute motions, or points of information that help the body thoroughly explore

General Assembly may be coming up before we know it, as I intimated yesterday, but the chartering convention of the Fellowship of Presbyterians (F.O.P.) in Orlando is imminent (next week). An interesting question came up today that I would like to address very briefly. It had to do with the intentions of the F.O.P. to form the sort of Reformed Body that can receive member churches seeking dismissal from the PCUSA.  It is safe to say that the polity framework for the F.O.P. is still “wet cement,” but given the polity document now available, do potential members have enough information

As anticipation mounts for the “Orlando Meeting” of the Fellowship of Presbyterians, some interesting pressure points are turning up. A remark made by a ministry colleague got me thinking about how “institutionalist” Presbyterians may try to undermine Orlando’s agenda. What sort of strategy might be employed to derail the efforts to establish either a New Reformed Body or some back-porch waiting room for those who need to differentiate from their presbyteries? Here are some scenarios, some based on “deep background” information, others purely speculative. If I were a person committed to preserving the structure and institution of the PCUSA: 1.