It is axiomatic that the purpose of voting is to express not the will of the people but the will of the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless, we assume that the larger the jurisdiction of the governing body, the more likely it is to be correct in its decisions. G-1.0400. Because of this principle, there is a presumption that a decision of a General Assembly is more likely to be correct than the decision of a Session, Presbytery, or Synod, a sort of backward bow to the principles of representational democracy.
The effect is that actions of the General Assembly carry a lot of weight.
Governing bodies, particularly those above Session, conduct a major part of their business through committees or other subordinate groups, a practice enshrined in G-9.0901. (The expectation that the Holy Spirit can work through committees is God’s special dispensation for Presbyterians.) Committees are very powerful, for a motion or resolution proposed by a committee creates an overwhelming bias in favor of the proposal. Because committee proposals are so difficult to overturn, a reasonably well-crafted committee proposal will almost always pass without significant amendment; and when a committee proposal is defeated it is often an exception that proves the rule, for in most cases the defeat is itself the result of effective “committee” work in opposition.
One of the reasons it is so difficult to defeat a recommendation of a committee is that it is impossible to do complex work in large bodies –– subtleties are lost in large group debate, the numbers of people who wish to speak consume huge amounts of time, there is no opportunity to call experts or other advocates, and asking an entire governing body to absorb large amounts of data becomes impractical when there are many issues to consider. So we rely on committees and subordinate bodies to conduct detailed inquiry, to deliberate, and to debate fully the pros and cons of the matters placed before them. If this does not happen, the possibility is very high, unacceptably high, that the governing body will approve recommendations that are unwise or are simply wrong.
Over the years, the principle upon which our confidence rests––the assurance that motions placed before the body have been fully vetted and debated— has deteriorated. Issues are presented for approval that have not been well reasoned or examined, and the intrinsic power of committees has led to actions of governing bodies that are at best incomplete.
I believe the problem rests in the application of the principles of diversity, which we have properly made a foundational principle in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and have stated in G- 4.0403:
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall give full expression to the rich diversity within its membership and shall provide means which will assure a greater inclusiveness leading to wholeness in its emerging life. Persons of all racial ethnic groups, different ages, both sexes, various disabilities, diverse geographical areas, different theological positions consistent with the Reformed tradition, as well as different marital conditions (married, single, widowed, or divorced) shall be guaranteed full participation and access to representation in the decision making of the church.
We monitor diversity in governing bodies above session by requiring a Committee on Representation be elected to the duty of ensuring our dedication to diversity is carried out in practice. To that we add G-9.0501b, which requires that committees of higher governing bodies have at least as many elders as clergy.
The problem is that we do not well apply our proper dedication to diversity when it comes to the appointment of committees. While we pay a great deal of attention to race, gender, age, marital status, ethnic identity, etc., we rarely give much heed to theological or ideological diversity. Since these perspectives play a major part in the analysis of issues and the possible resolutions, the effect of a committee unbalanced in this way is to generate committee proposals that fall within narrow spectra. For it routinely happens that dedication to a particular issue translates into dedication to a particular resolution of that issue, with the effect that appointing those with similar perspectives is tantamount to selecting a particular resolution.
I once had an experience of this dynamic. Back in the days of the Cold War there was a great concern about nuclear proliferation, and my Presbytery established a committee on peace to address that concern. Since I had a significant interest in peace, and since my substantial experience in military affairs equipped me with knowledge and experience I thought valuable, I volunteered for the committee. I resigned from it after about three meetings after discovering that the committee was selected from folks who believed that unilateral nuclear disarmament was the only means to peace, and that the ideas I was proposing did not fall within that framework.
We have all seen something similar in the recent General Assembly action to get Israel to do certain things by threatening divestiture of financial holdings. That provision was buried in an overture from a Presbytery that proposed many actions to encourage peace between Israel and Palestinians. Several standing committees advised the GA committee on the matter, and the GA committee substantially accepted the suggestions of one of them and sent it to the floor of the GA, where there was notable but not significant opposition. It appears the potential consequences of the divestment action were not well examined; certainly the vigorous opposition to it was not expected.
Committees are very powerful things. We fund them, give them staff support, give them access to means of publication, give special heed to their recommendations, and give them standing to make motions, write reports, carry out mandates; their motions need no second. If a committee recommends a particular course of action, it will nearly always prevail. But if we select people for a committee who are already dedicated to something more than the cause, who are additionally dedicated to a particular class of solutions, then we lose the benefit of the critical examination a committee can and should provide, and the appointing body may be taking action on recommendations not well examined. I believe this was the case with the resolution on divestiture.
In some cases we seem to want no diversity of opinion, for some of the standing committees at the GA level are even labeled “advocacy” committees. And many other committees, even though they do not carry that label, are in effect advocacy committees, where, because of paucity of theological diversity, the full spectrum of potential solutions is not lifted up for examination, where advocacy for the cause has translated into advocacy for a particular solution.
A major exception is the Theological Task Force on Peace Unity and Purity, which was apparently selected with great attention to theological diversity. We do not know what they will recommend next year, but we can be assured that the Task Force will have examined in detail the issues before it, generating some level of trust. The Task Force may find that certain issues have no real resolution within the context of our church, but that is a better outcome than recommending solutions that can be supported only by one side of complex and divisive issues.
Lack of theological diversity in committees has had serious consequences for our church. Within our denomination there are many who believe some committee-generated actions of our General Assembly are simply wrong, defeating the hope that there is greater wisdom in actions of higher governing bodies. Disagreement is certainly to be expected, of course, in a church as diverse as ours, but if the system were working equitably, one would expect objections that reflect the broad diversity of our denomination. Such is not the case, for it appears that the major portion of objections arises from those of a more conservative persuasion. I, as an observer, believe the level of trust between the GA and the more theologically conservative in our denomination is so low that there is danger of fracture. I have come to believe the theological bias in standing committees has become a major source of this disconnect between a large segment of our church and the General Assembly.
If we are really serious about addressing the conflicts we face in a way that seeks reconciliation rather than “victory,” I believe we must begin by including in our standing committees, even our advocacy committees, and the theological diversity that we say is important to us.
EDWARD KOSTER is the stated clerk of the Presbytery of Detroit and a practicing attorney in Ann Arbor, Mich.
Send your comment on this report to The Outlook
Please include your full name, hometown and state.
