Since Jesus is also called the "Prince of Peace," I believe it’s only right that we become peacemakers ourselves. However, I don’t believe in the concept of "peace at any cost" or "cheap peace" – since in order to have true peace, justice must first prevail!

While the General Assembly can do some positive things in encouraging peacemaking, the primary significance should be at the congregational level. If our congregations cannot turn our minds and hearts toward working for the full extent of God’s shalom, then everything becomes only empty-speak. The General Assembly should embrace fully-informed and well-balanced position papers to help guide the lives of our congregations.

Again, this must first be realized at the congregational level – it’s only when we actually "do" justice at that level that we’ve earned the right to speak to the rest of the world.

I believe the PC(USA) must say we’re called to "do" justice in this secular world as we’re chosen to live life as if God’s love and justice were the order of the day. We need to ask questions when things don’t seem right, advocate for people whose voices are not heard in the halls of power – we are chosen to make every decision based on our faith commitment to God!

I don’t believe it’s the intent of the GAPJC rulings to keep anyone away from the call to ministry but to hold all Presbyterians accountable for living into the call of ministry – beginning with the realization that God’s claim on our life is a whole-life claim, which supersedes any claim we may have on our own desires, habits or lifestyles.

I believe the GAPJC decisions have simply clarified for the church that if standards are to be changed, it would need to be done through the constitutional amendment process. Though we don’t all agree on these standards, the amendment process reflects the deep wisdom of our tradition: it allows the church, collectively, to discern what boundaries God intends for us to live within. I support our denomination’s discernment on the matter of sexual relationships for elders and pastors, and at our better moments these standards are applied with grace and integrity.

After a valiant four-year struggle with cancer, Marsha Mazza, wife of fellow moderatorial candidate, Carl Mazza, died on May 12.  She was only 55 years old. A service “Bearing Witness to the Hope of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and to the Memory of the Life of Marsha Darlene Young Mazza” was held at the First Presbyterian Church of Chesapeake City, Maryland, on Saturday, May 17.

My wife, Karen, and I had the privilege of attending this service, remembering and celebrating Marsha’s life.  Carl, Marsha, and I were all in school together.  The sanctuary was standing room only. During a time for “Words of Remembrance and Hope,” a stream of people shared their fond and loving memories of how Marsha had profoundly touched their lives.  Marsha and Carl co-founded Meeting Ground, a homeless ministry in Elkton, MD, in 1981. True to its mission, worship ended with a message on hope, salvation and transformation that we can have through Jesus Christ.

Even though I did not plan to speak at the service, I was moved to offer encouragement to Carl and those gathered with remarks that included the following words:

....and the final installment of my answers to those questions posed by the Office of the General Assemlby: 

Question Posed: The Form of Government Task Force was created by the 217th General Assembly (2006) to propose a revised polity that would be more flexible, more foundational, and more appropriate for a missional Reformed Church in the 21st century.  What do you think about these proposals?

First of all, the Form of Government Task Force must be commended in their selfless commitment and dedication in the last 1½ years to the tedious but important work of revising our Book of Order. They had been given an almost impossible task to produce a new form of government in a relatively short time, and they have done so admirably!

There are some very excellent ideas in the proposed polity revision. For example, I like the idea that the first four chapters of our current Book of Order be separated out to form altogether a new section entitled, “Foundations of Presbyterian Polity.” I also like the idea of going back to using the terms of “ruling elder” and “teaching elder” to delineate clearly the distinct role and function of each office.

I especially like the idea of using the term “council” in place of the current “governing body,” when referring to the various entities that oversee and make decision about the life of the church. The proposed change to replace the current terms of “office” and “officer” with “ordered ministry” and “ordered minister” also has a nice ecclesiastical tone to it!

However, after saying that, I also have some reservation and concern about many of the proposed changes. For example, while the current Book of Order begins appropriately with Jesus Christ as “the Head of the Church,” the opening paragraph of the new “Foundations of Presbyterian Polity” seems to have a misplaced emphasis on “God’s Mission” instead of the “Missioning God.”

Also, in an attempt to make the new form of government more flexible and foundational, the lack of specificity and clarity in many details that our current polity has seems to make us less “connectional” and lead to more confusion which, in turn, would lead to more disunity and mistrust.

My one major concern about this new proposal is in its timing — I don’t believe there is enough time for most commissioners to be able to read and digest this large amount of important information in such a short time. To approve such a vital document in a rush would not serve the best interest of our church well. I believe the best way forward is to postpone final consideration of this document until the 219th General Assembly in 2010, so that more time could be devoted to soliciting feedback from the whole church!