Underlying that principle is the notion that the Holy Spirit can sway the conscience so that a decision by vote is a reflection of the will of God. That the Holy Spirit can indeed work through a committee, and by vote no less, is difficult to swallow, one of the hardest of all Presbyterian assertions. Even though it is a miracle right up there with the crossing of the Red Sea, it is a critical miracle to pray for, because only this miracle distinguishes our use of democracy from the way it is used in the American political system.
What I fear is that we are losing the miracle of the movement of the Holy Spirit, and have begun reflecting modern culture.
The term frequently used to describe the peril I identify here is the “special interest group.” I believe an additional refinement is necessary, since that is a term of such nebulous and uncertain definition that its use diminishes the seriousness of the matter. I have come to use the term “caucus” to define what I am seeing.
I define a caucus as an organization that is formed because of some special interest for the purpose of advocating it. From what I have observed in recent times, a caucus frequently follows predictable patterns. Regularly after much study, prayer, debate, discussion, a caucus will decide what solution it seeks for the cause it advocates, and the agenda of the caucus will begin to focus on how to get the solution implemented. Though I have sometimes heard a caucus state that its sole agenda is to “raise consciousness,” it rarely seems to stop there.
More frequently, a caucus will adopt an agenda and develop some kind of programmatic, organizational or legislative solution to accomplish that agenda.Then some subtle but very real shifts seem regularly to emerge, the first being the identification of the solution with the cause. Having identified a solution, a caucus sometimes begins to assume that the solution proposed is the only proper resolution. It is a small step to identify anyone who opposes the solution as one who opposes the cause. The caucus finds it difficult to believe that someone disagreeing with their solution might agree with their cause.
And this all too frequently leads to a next step, “labeling.” This “labeling” is not a small concern. Many, many people have told me they have been reluctant to speak up at a meeting of a governing body to oppose a particular proposal for fear of being labeled a person in opposition to the interest of the caucus. And some labels can kill a career. It is frightening. Where people fear being labeled in such a manner, there is little meaningful debate, and no opportunity for the Spirit to persuade. What ought to be debate and disagreement about what are the right solutions to a problem are translated into judgments about who is or who is not in favor of solving the problem.
I believe these caucuses have an additional detrimental effect. When caucuses set an agenda, they organize, they study and they regularly make motions in governing bodies. When the time comes to place the matter on the floor for debate, the members of the caucus have already determined what their vote will be. Frequently they will have lined up advocates who will speak passionately in favor of their motion or against the opposition. No amount of debate will lead the member of the caucus to accept the possibility that the solution advocated is a wrong solution.
It becomes a vote by “party line,” and no tongue of flame will suffice to persuade. In short, caucuses have these tendencies: the identification of solution with cause, the labeling of those who oppose the chosen solution as those who oppose the cause, and a pre-determined vote. These are the same kinds of forces that drive American political parties. The issues become cast not as ideas but ideologies.
The special interests that precipitate the formation of these causes seem equally divided between those to the “right” and those to the “left.” Wherever these caucuses land on the theological/ecclesiastical/political spectrum, all seem to be convinced that they are promoting God’s agenda for the whole church.
These caucuses are driving the agenda of the church. They have been around for a very long time, and they are not in themselves detrimental, I suppose. But in a reflection of American culture, many caucuses in our church propose radical solutions and use our governing principles to force agendas and solutions on the whole church.
The church cannot easily escape because a fundamental rule in our governance allows little room to evade: every member has the right to make motions, debate them and vote on them. Consider this: When Jesus was asked a question designed to force him into one camp or another, which he frequently was, he often responded by reframing the question and turning it back on the questioner.
The governing system we hold, where people use parliamentary freedoms to push a caucus agenda, does not allow that kind of response. A motion is made: A vote is taken: And God speaks through the votes cast. Each member can only vote yes, or no, or not at all. The outcome is yes or no or (rarely) a tie. Even with the power to amend, delay, refer, the outcome must come down to the very kind of answer that Jesus frequently avoided: yes or no.
The result has been the balkanization of our church. And I am afraid. We are increasingly using strategies borrowed from modern politics to push agendas and solutions that may or may not be correct. The fear of being labeled substantially dampens debate, so that the body cannot properly test the wisdom of the actions proposed.
Coming to the debate with a pre-made decision is a sham. And the guidance of the Holy Spirit cannot be distinguished from the clamor of all of those who are very sure that their solution to the interest they advocate is exactly what God wants for the churchI fear for the church I love. I believe I am a person somewhere in the middle, and whenever I sally into one of these matters, I feel like a member of the Light Brigade in Tennyson’s poem:
Cannon to right of them, Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them Volley’d and thundered.
Storm’d at with shot and shell, Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death, Into the mouth of hell
Rode the six hundred.
EDWARD H. KOSTER, an attorney and Presbyterian minister in Ann Arbor, Mich., is stated clerk for Detroit Presbytery.l
