The Presbytery of Sheppards and Lapsley will meet at Shades Valley Presbyterian Church this Thursday, May 7.  Lena Prewitt and I will be there.

At this meeting, a motion will be made that presbytery rescind its vote on Amendment 08-B.  This motion is coming from the sessions of Selma First and Oakmont.

This amendment has been defeated churchwide, even though it passed in Sheppards and Lapsley, and I fear that revisiting this discussion at Thursday's meeting 1) sets an unhealthy precedent; and (2) is potentially divisive to the body of Christ.

You may recall that one of the comments that I made repeatedly following presbytery's vote was how civil the discourse was (and yes, I was thinking this before I knew the results of the vote).  Now I feel that this progress is being jeapordized by action that would be both after-the-fact and beside-the-point. 

This presbytery has acted, and so has the PC(USA).  Do we really want to set a precedent for voting and re-voting (and re-voting and re-voting and re-voting...)?  How does this behavoir advance Christ's cause or the work of the church in the world?

For me, the question is, "How does presbytery say 'no' to this proposal?"  In truth, I'd rather no action be taken (or "postpone indefinitelty") and the message be sent that this subject has been discussed and action has been taken as recently as the last meeting. 

If it comes to a vote (and thus a discussion), I do not know if the conversation will be as civil, much less as loving, as the one before, because this motion is clear indication that some in our midst do not trust the process, and if we do not trust the process, it may be that we do not trust one another.  

For the Book of Order to work effectively, there has to be "trust and love."  For this, I am praying.  For this, I will strive.

I whole-heartedly agree with you, Ron. Do we need to make some kind of overture from UPC to the contrary? I don't know the book of order well enough to know how this can be better handled. Maybe John Whitehead has some ideas!