Coming out of retirement just for this one post:
Without having read the report, but looking at it from the outside, I see both a positive and a negative in this action by the OPC. I still need to read the report, the official one. So I'll wait until it is published before I comment on it directly, if I do at all.
But I think that it is important to us that the denomination has at least discussed it. We have to be careful that it doesn't turn into a sort of class-action suit against a certain party, whether they are actually named specifically or indirectly pointed to. If this is a heresy, then we have to actually have trials of persons for the doctrines they are propounding, not just for the views they are holding personally. Because this was an "issue" report, so to speak, I think the OPC did all it could really do. Because the views under question may change somewhat in definition according to the individual, it is most difficult to define a doctrine that is actually out there, as opposed to a generalization or a composite of the doctrine. What may be defined in the report may actually be, by definition, what none of the proponents actually hold to individually. So I think it was wise not to turn this into a theological class-action type of thing, and just deal with actual charges if they come up in light of the clarifications intended by the GA by this report.
On the other hand, there are assertions of Biblical interpretation that are being propagated. And the Church is the stage being used for it. That is serious, I think. So I see this as a matter of the use of the ordained office to do something that is actually outside the office calling. And if this is suggested at all by the GA, then they had an obligation to that as well, not just to the report. Well, that's how I understand the Book of Order, anyways. I don't think that they are necessarily confined from making a proactive decision, if they have sufficient evidence for it. As I understand the BOCO, if they know something with sufficient evidence, then they are responsible for it, and cannot cite objections of propriety or procedure in order to escape that responsibility. And the way this has come about, it forced the GA to walk a very thin line that way. The wording of the report itself may have obviated some sorts of actions, but it may also have made it very difficult to walk that line for them, from a BOCO and responsibility perspective. And it seems to me that is why the provisos are included in the charge to publish it to the Presbyteries.
In sum, the GA can't take action against individuals or even movements unless the charges are specific, as opposed to composites or generalized versions of the doctrine involved. This was a report of two separate things: the issue itself; and what is happening in the churches by it. They did the best they could with it under the circumstances, it seems.
But that is just looking at it from the outside, in a way, from a perspective of looking at the thing generally: and not knowing the specifics of the report or the Committee's recommendations, but having read much of the material that was presented here on the PB about it. (This, then, assumes that the PB is a reliable source.)
Anyways, for what its worth, that's my take on it so far.
