Related articles and links |  1 of 4

Presbyterian special Assembly called off
The headline of the Associated Press story says, "Presbyterians Won't Debate Gay Clergy Ban," but don't you believe it. If anything, yesterday's announcement that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) won't hold its first-ever special meeting has only inflamed the debate within the denomination.

The denomination's moderator, Fahed Abu-Akel, says the petition to call the special Assembly no longer has enough signatures now that 13 of the 57 original signers withdrew their names from it. Abu-Akel had earlier complained that the session would be too expensive and would fall too close to the denomination's next General Assembly, which meets in Denver on May 24.

"It was not an easy decision to make," he said in a letter to the the 554 attendees of last year's General Assembly. "There are no winners in this situation. … It has become even more obvious through this that there are people who are in great pain in our denomination, and for that I have great concern and compassion."

Meanwhile, those behind the call for the special Assembly, which was intended to enforce the denomination's ban on ordaining practicing homosexuals, say Abu-Akel had no right to ask the petitioners to reconsider their signatures.

"It's blatant manipulation of these poor people's lives," Alex Metherell, who presented the petition, told the Associated Press. "It took real bravery for these people to sign this petition in the first place, and we can see here why that is so."

In an interview with The Layman, a conservative denominational publication, Metherell was more technical. "There's no provision [in the denomination's Book of Order] for people to withdraw their names," he said. "I believe the office of the stated clerk has acted completely contrary to the constitution and that this demonstrates a very sophisticated form of defiance on the part of the clerk. They are reading what they want the constitution to say, not what it actually says."

The fight for the special Assembly continues. Earlier, a Canton, Ohio, church filed a complaint against Abu-Akel and the denomination's stated clerk, claiming that their refusal to convene the special Assembly constitutes a failure to perform their duties.

Don't expect the debate to go into hiding until May. For those really interested, keep an eye on the Presbyterian weblog Presbyweb.

Baptist missions board "counsels" missionaries who haven't signed statement
Christianity Today has earlier reported the debate among Southern Baptist foreign missionaries about requirements that they sign the denomination's latest statement of faith. Most missionaries supported by the denomination's International Missions Board were appointed before the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message was adopted, and several disagree with the changes. For the last year or so, whether missionaries should be forced to sign has been a matter of frequent debate in the denomination.

Now the hammer has dropped. But there's some serious spin going on in the reports.

Baptist Press, the official news service of the Southern Baptist Convention (which issues press releases, news stories, and articles that are a mixture of the two), puts it this way:

Just as new missionaries are not sent overseas until they have affirmed that they will work in accord with the faith statement, Willis is telling workers on stateside assignment they will not be returned to overseas assignments unless they have done so as well, said Clyde Meador, associate vice president of overseas operations. Missionaries preparing to come back to the United States for stateside assignment are being told they must make their decisions before coming back.

next page... |  1 of 4

January (Web-only) 2003, Vol. 47