Parker T. Williamson
editor-in-chief
Amendment 01-A is being crushed. By their votes, Presbyterians
are passing judgment, not only on the proposal, but the work of those
who spawned it. Presbytery referendums were designed by our forebears to
test whether a particular General Assembly truly represents the church’s
faith. In decisive numbers, Presbyterians across this country are
declaring that the Louisville General Assembly did not.
Why was the 2001General Assembly so out of touch with the people whom it
was called to represent? How is it that commissioners who came from the
very presbyteries that are now trouncing 01-A voted for it at the
General Assembly last June? This dissonance suggests something amiss in
the way we choose representatives to the General Assembly.
One culprit is entitlement, a secular notion that has found its way into
Presbyterian polity. Entitlement assumes that all members have a “right”
to be General Assembly commissioners. (Using similar logic, some whose
behavior violates our ordination standards say the standards should be
dumped because members possess a right to be ordained.)
Here’s how this entitlement mentality shows up: In many
presbyteries, ministers are awarded “points” for years of
service to a church in the presbytery. Similarly, elders are assigned “points”
for time spent serving on the presbytery’s committees. Some
presbyteries even require attendance at synod meetings before people can
be nominated as commissioners. Persons with the higher number of points
are nominated to represent the presbytery at General Assembly.
Presbyteries have found this procedure easy to administer and
heretofore uncontroversial. It asks none of the following questions: Is
the nominee wise, capable of theological and moral discernment regarding
matters that will come before the assembly? Is the nominee committed to
the essential tenets of Reformed faith and demonstrably faithful to the
constitution of this church? Will the nominee uphold the singular saving
Lordship of Jesus Christ, the authority of Scripture, and God’s
call to a holy life, including the sanctity of marriage between a man
and a woman?
How will we know where our nominees stand on these questions if we don’t
ask? The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that
characterizes many of our presbyteries deprives our people of the tools
they need to make qualitative judgments. It produces General Assembly
commissioners who often do not reflect the faith of those whom they
purport to serve.
Trotting out the principle that a governing body may not instruct its
representatives how to vote, some people will object to the idea that
nominees’ views should be publicly examined prior to election. That
objection is unfounded. Without predetermining one’s vote on a
specific issue, it is perfectly appropriate for presbyteries to satisfy
themselves that nominees’ views are compatible with those of the
body that they represent. General assemblies themselves go through this
procedure each year when they examine candidates for moderator.
Nearly 1,200 sessions representing more than 400,000 Presbyterians have
now identified three of the essential statements of faith and life on
which they stand. Many have announced that they will not ordain or
install into their leadership anyone who does not share those
convictions. Should this not also apply to electing representatives to
higher governing bodies?
Examining nominees before the presbytery might require more time, but
that is a small price to pay for preventing the turmoil we experience
when an unrepresentative General Assembly adopts policies that the
people cannot abide.
Parker T. Williamson is editor-in-chief of
The Layman.