The debate in the United States Senate over the “nuclear option” and the filibuster rule, whose centerfold is a Presbyterian from Nashville, Tenn., reminds me of the destructive experience of majoritarian rule that bedevils the amendment process for the Book of Order. One of the benevolent consequences of biennial assemblies is that we will be required to vote on those tedious changes less frequently.
Some of us remember when it took two-thirds of the presbyteries to change the constitution. The amendments that came forward for action had much greater depth and substance. Now we have a book that, except for the theological principles of governance, deserves (and I suspect receives) little respect. That is why in officer training we spend most of our time on the basics, especially Chapters I — VII, X, and only those parts of XIV that apply to the election, examination, and ordination of officers.
When various lobbying groups and people who have nothing better to do can make changes with a majority vote — the constitution is in trouble. Some say that it takes several employees to fulfill the requirements of Chapter XIV alone, thus feeding the notion among faithful laity and elders that presbyteries are simply ministerial unions. Our own congregation has been graced with more that its share of inquirer/candidates for the Ministry of Word and Sacrament, yet I groan inwardly over their tortured experiences with presbytery, as well as over the jockeying for control of the Committee on Preparation for Ministry by one side or the other.
That serves as an example of the dilemma we find ourselves in when a majority vote controls the rules. Who is invested in the way things are? Is it only those who have the time and money to pay attention to a plethora of details that have little to do with the preaching of the Word, the administration of the sacraments, and the energizing of the mission, outreach, and evangelism of the presbytery or the congregation? My experience of the Form of Government is that it’s a burden; one made heavier by the fact that it prevents a lot and protects a lot, but enables little. For a denomination in serious numerical decline, it is a tragedy that we have done nothing about change. This is indicative of what the Hebrew prophets observed — that when Israel was being punished for its idolatry — God gave them more rope to ‘hang’ themselves. They kept on doing that which was disabling to the faith and spirit of Israel.
The current process does not encourage effective spiritual leadership, else commitment to change would have already emerged. Is it time to try again for a moderator’s committee that would actively seek reform? A General Assembly committee some years back met for two years and spent thousands of dollars and got nowhere. Maybe there is a new commitment emerging to lead the church out of the wilderness of its own rules. The letter killeth but the Spirit gives life.
Unfortunately, we Presbyterians know all there is to know about the politicizing of constitutional processes. In the end, minorities are not protected, and majorities cut neither the opposition nor the minority any slack at all. We need a new way of constitutional reform. Perhaps Senator Bill Frist could learn a thing or two from our mistakes.
