The decision to save about a million sheets of paper — more than a few trees’ worth — by distributing General Assembly meeting reports electronically rather than in print epitomizes the best of intentions. But, we Presbyterians are blessing the forests at the cost of the work of the Assembly.
In past years, commissioners blocked out scores of hours to read through the six-inch thick, two-sided, fine-print reports delivered by the USPS. The mere discovery of such bundles screamed out, “Read me or else!”
Commissioners to the two most recent assemblies had to search online for their reports via hotlinks that arrived by e-mail: not exactly an arresting experience for the average Web surfer.
Judging by some of the discussions in committees, in plenary, and in the hallways, more than a few commissioners and advisory delegates had spent much less than a hundred hours mastering their subject.
No offense intended, but …
• Jokes circulated widely among the commissioners about their lack of preparation.
• One carefully studied commissioner told me that he easily commandeered much of his committee’s work because others there realized that he had actually read the material.
• Another commissioner, after admitting that she hadn’t read the reports, shrugged, “It’s just common sense.”
No doubt, some did do the reading. No doubt, others have neglected their reading in past years. But the situation has been exacerbated by the use of electronic reporting.
In the case of those who did take the time to read, their ability to grasp the content electronically was constrained. In “Is Google Making Us Stoopid?” a recent cover article in The Atlantic (July/Aug., 2008), writer Nicholas Carr suggests that on-line reading has developed a staccato quality, one that limits a person’s capacity for deep thought. He cites a recently published five-year study in which scholars studied on-line readers using two research sites. They found that the readers “exhibited ‘a form of skimming activity,’ hopping from one source to another and rarely returning to any source they’d already visited.” He adds, “They typically read no more than one or two pages of an article or book before they would ‘bounce’ out to another site” (p. 58).
Any educator could tell you that we grasp a subject better if we can underline turns of phrase, jot notes in the margins and dog-ear the pages.
Several commissioners told me that they printed out all their reports in order to help them grasp the content. Apparently, a tree or two still got axed.
The unread didn’t remain unspoken. They often shaped their debating points in such terms as, “I just feel that … ” or “The God I believe in would never … ” Michael Haggin, a GA commissioner from Los Ranchos Presbytery, expressed his dismay a few weeks ago in these pages (Aug. 11, p. 15):
• “Who ever told the commissioners that unrestrained self-expression was their first duty at the General Assembly?”
• “Why did they think that ignorance of the Form of Government and the Confessions was acceptable rather than disqualifying?” …
• “Where did they get the idea that the duty to prepare through study, to do the detailed work in San Jose, and to weigh costs and consequences belonged to anyone but them?”
Ironically, Ted Foote’s Benedictory column in the Aug. 4 edition of the Outlook sang the praises of Presbyterians as the scholarly Jesuits of American Protestantism (p. 27). We’ve worn that Jesuit label for years, but some of our top governing body’s discourse did not live up to it.
The blame needs to be owned by more than the commissioners themselves or, for that matter, by the computers. Are presbytery nominating committees telling would-be commissioners and delegates that they will be required to do at least 100 hours of reading plus attend a series of presbytery-sponsored training events in order to qualify for this all-expenses paid trip? Are presbytery executives facilitating such preparations, or, as one admitted to me, are they telling the commissioners to read their own committee’s reports and just scan the rest? What’s more, are presbyteries sending their best and brightest — whether new blood or old blood — or are they just following a rotation system? Are presbyteries seeking to send youth advisory delegates who have governing body experience? If not, why not?
As we begin to prepare for the 219th GA in Minneapolis (2010) let us match our good intentions with good preparation, serious study, and God-honoring actions — while still trying to save a few trees.
— JHH
