e-mail Pastor Gale Watkins
Dear friends,

With your support and encouragement, I was able to attend the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in Minneapolis, Minnesota, July 3-10. Though I was an “observer,” I had plenty of opportunities to interact with others, including many of the voting commissioners. I spoke briefly at two open hearings on particular matters before the Assembly. I believe that I was able to make a contribution, mostly through a ministry of encouragement.
Upon my return from General Assembly, I gave a summary to our class on Sunday, July 11. Below, you will see my notes. I hope that you’re able to follow along with some understanding. If you want to look at the actual proposals and reports, you can check with me, or you can access the information online at pcusa.org.
Our congregation has suffered a couple of recent losses. Gwen Cochran, on her way to New Jersey where she was planning to live with her son, died on June 30. Westminster hosted a memorial service for Gwen on July 24. Then Jack Boynton died on Sunday, July 18. We will have a memorial service for Jack on Monday, July 26, at 7:00 PM.
We have had a difficult season of saying goodbye to people who have meant a great deal to our congregation. I want to address the whole matter of corporate grief and the uncertainty of life with a sermon based on Psalm 90. This will be presented on Sunday, August 1. I hope that we can hear afresh the biblical affirmation of God’s eternity and the value of our lives, and thus receive an infusion of hope.

God’s blessings on you.




Gale Watkins, Pastor 

Gale Watkins’ comments on 2010 General Assembly

What is General Assembly?
The highest governing body of the church.
The expression of the church’s unity.
712 voting commissioners from 173 presbyteries, half elders and half ministers.
Why is General Assembly important to us?
We are one church, not independent congregations.
We are all governed by the same Constitution.


Why is General Assembly not too important to us?
On many matters, the General Assembly speaks to the church, not for the church.
The General Assembly speaks for itself.
Our conscience is not bound by General Assembly pronouncements.


What does General Assembly deal with?
Anything pertaining to the life and mission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)


Where does General Assembly business come from?
General Assembly entities
Previous General Assemblies
Overtures from presbyteries and synods
New business in the form of commissioners’ resolutions


My focus this time was on a proposed new Form of Government that would replace our current Form of Government with something that is more concise and more flexible. Going in, I had a number of concerns with the proposal, enough that I didn’t think it was wise to adopt it. However, the committee that worked through this proposal did a thorough job of improving it. They adopted some thirty amendments that make it a better document. The General Assembly voted to approve the proposal. This means that each presbytery will now vote on it. If a majority of them approve, this new Form of Government will become “the law of the land.”
Another matter of great interest to us is a resolution that deals specifically with Arizona and with other states that may adopt laws similar to SB 1070. It was entitled “Regarding a Call to Stand with Immigrant Presbyterians in Their Hour of Need.” It calls for the Presbyterian Office of Immigration to develop educational resources. But the disputed part of the resolution was the section that calls for the Presbyterian Church to “refrain from holding national meetings at hotels in those states where travel by immigrant Presbyterians or Presbyterians of color or Hispanic ancestry might subject them to harassment due to legislation similar to Arizona Law SB 1070.” A commissioner from Tucson presented a minority report that would have changed the approach from boycotting Arizona to engagement and accompaniment. However, the minority report received only 42% of the votes. Thus, the resolution goes into effect.
Going into the General Assembly, “Breaking Down the Walls,” the report of the Middle East Study Committee, generated a good bit of controversy. The reason is that it appeared to favor Palestinians, blaming Israel for all of the trouble in the Middle East. This matter had the potential of giving the Presbyterian Church a great deal of negative publicity, such as being called anti-Semitic. However, something amazing happened. The General Assembly committee that dealt with this report of some 175 pages, managed to make some important changes in it that produced unanimous agreement. The full Assembly approved it with 82% voting in favor. Everyone came away with the sense that our church has a fair and balanced position on these difficult matters.
Once more, the General Assembly decided to send a proposed constitutional amendment of our ordination standards to the presbyteries. This would replace the current language that requires all ministers, elders, and deacons to live in fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness. With 53% of the vote, the General Assembly once more proposed a change. Every time this has happened, the presbyteries have declined to make this shift in our standard, though the last vote was the closest yet. Our Presbytery will probably be voting on this matter next March.
Perhaps the more far reaching topic before this year’s General Assembly was marriage. A special committee on marriage and civil unions produced both a middle-of-the road majority report and a more traditional minority report that strongly upheld our belief that marriage is between one man and one women, and is the only appropriate setting for sexual intimacy. Making matters more complicated were a number of other proposals. Some called for a reaffirmation of the church’s historic position. Others called for a constitutional amendment, changing our definition of marriage from “one man and one woman” to “two people.” Additional business would have given pastors and church discretion in participating in same-sex marriage ceremonies. The committee that handled this matter proposed a radical change in our understanding of marriage. But the General Assembly did not approve it. Rather, the Assembly decided to send both majority and minority reports out to every church for study and discussion, and not call for constitutional amendment. Were such a matter sent out to the presbyteries, asking us to say in our Directory of Worship that marriage is between two people, there would be, I suspect, a massive negative reaction. This General Assembly stepped up to the edge of the cliff, as it were, looked down, and decided not to jump.
However, they did something else that may turn out to be quite controversial.
Ordinarily, matters pertaining to our Board of Pensions are routine. But not this time. With 55% voting in favor, the General Assembly voted to urge the Board of Pensions to amend the Benefits Plan to extend eligibility for spousal and dependent benefits to “same-gender domestic partners, and the children of same-gender domestic partners.” In order to provide this benefit, the General Assembly authorized an increase in dues of up to 1% (of effective salary) for every participant in the Benefits Plan. Finally, they urged the Board to provide relief of conscience “for those congregations for whom these actions cause a moral dilemma.” As you can imagine, there was a long and heated debate on this question. Some people expect that this matter, more than any other, will be a cause of controversy in the church.
In several important matters, most people would say that the General Assembly exercised great wisdom. Significant improvements were made these areas, and received widespread support. However, our continuing difference of opinion, which you might call a chasm, repeatedly showed itself. I think that it was an Assembly that sought to change the standards of the church. But on the most volatile change, our understanding of marriage, the Assembly chose not to press forward. And I am glad