Open letter Archives of letters to the editor

Open letter: How institutional bias prevents reform in the PCUSA By John Foreman, pastor Adventure of Faith Church Port Orchard, Wash. Wednesday, October 11, 2006 More and more conservative and evangelical Presbyterians continue to become increasingly estranged members of the PCUSA as our denomination continues to drift from its Scriptural and confessional heritage. For decades, many of us have worked for reform within the denomination. The hierarchy of our denomination has generally opposed these reforms, and has been both open and biased in its encouragement of more "progressive" perspectives. Now it appears that the minority has finally succeeded in hijacking the PCUSA, taken over the controls, and will steer it in whatever direction it seems appropriate, while the majority has no option but to bail out. How did this happen? Reflecting on this question has led me to see the incredible institutional bias that has crept into our church and has resulted in shielding the Louisville hierarchy from accountability for its failed leadership – preventing the majority in our denomination from achieving the reforms it desires. I offer five examples: Example 1 – The majority has been disenfranchised because congregations in the PCUSA and their members are not equally and proportionally represented at meetings of presbytery. G-11.0101a institutionalizes the under-representation of larger congregations at meetings of every presbytery in the PCUSA. Congregations that are 10 times the size of others may have less than twice the number of elder commissioners at presbytery meetings. Unless we are to assume that a member of a "big church" should only have, let's say, one-fifth the representation as a member of a "small church," this situation is intolerable. The easy fix is to amend the Book Order to allow for one elder per church and an additional elder for every 250 active members, or any other formula that would provide for equal and proportionate representation. Example 2 – The majority has been disenfranchised because there are few, if any, free elections for commissioners to General Assembly. In my presbytery, clergy commissioners are drawn by lot from three pools: Pastors ordained for 10 or more years, pastors ordained for less than 10 years and pastors who are racial minorities or are people with disabilities. These people are not elected. They are "presented for approval." When I pleaded with the presbytery to allow free and open elections based upon the positions held by the candidates on the major issues facing the General Assembly, a colleague argued: "If we did that, no minority would ever get elected." (That was the only time in my 24 years in this presbytery that I ever felt personally insulted. I wish I had the opportunity to reply that I would vote for two minorities and a disabled person who hold to the Scriptural and confessional heritage of our church over three white male progressives any day. Forgive me, I digress). If we are to be a denomination where the majority governs (G-4.0301e), then open elections of those who make governing decisions must be mandated. Example 3 – The hierarchy has shielded itself from accountability by requiring presbyteries to pay full G.A. per capita whether received or not. One of the ways a session should have at its disposal to express its dissent is through its refusal to monetarily support those institutions and systems with which it conscientiously disagrees. (By the way, this right has been upheld by the PJC). The General Assembly has very cleverly insulated itself from the consequences of many of its actions by requiring presbyteries to pay the full G.A. per capita on behalf of their constituent sessions, whether or not the presbytery receives the money from the sessions, as long as funds are available. Therefore, when a session withholds G.A. per capita as a protest, the G.A. is not affected. Only the mission of the local presbytery, which must make up the shortfall and with whom the session may not have an issue, is detrimentally affected. The remedy here is for presbyteries to determine that the "funds available" to forward to G.A. are exactly 100 percent of the funds received from sessions and designated for G.A. Example 4 – The hierarchy has shielded itself from accountability by establishing and maintaining a tyrannical property trust clause in the constitution. The property trust clause shields the PCUSA from accountability to its constituents. If a session and a congregation request a transfer to another denomination, the PCUSA can (and usually does) insist that the property remain with the remnant (often very small) and the majority must leave what they have paid for behind. There are some who argue that if the property trust clause was removed, there would be a mass exodus of congregations from the denomination. (If the property trust is all that is holding the PCUSA together, it reveals just how far the PCUSA has strayed from its constituency.) I believe that if the property trust clause is removed, rather than result in a mass exodus of congregations, it could bring about instead massive change within the denominational hierarchy and bureaucracy, which would have to become more sensitive and accountable to the "grass roots" in order to encourage their free association with the PCUSA. The clause could be removed, with a three-year moratorium on churches leaving the denomination to give the PCUSA time to get back in line with the majority of its members and congregations. Example 5 – The minority has overturned the plain meaning of the constitution through the use of an authoritative interpretation without going through the normal process of amending the constitution with the approval of two-thirds of the presbyteries. Many of us are grieved by both the potential result of the AI, and by the means through which the AI was used to change the plain intent of the constitution without the consent of the presbyteries. While we disagree with the intent of the action, which is obviously to open the door to the ordination of individuals who do not meet our constitutional standards for ordination, we even more vehemently disagree with the process used to undo the action of the presbyteries in ratifying those constitutional standards (three times). This action of the General Assembly constitutes, to many of us, a breach of trust. These examples of institutional bias are a barrier to addressing the much deeper theological, Scriptural and political questions that must be addressed if we are to remain at home in the PCUSA. The bias must be removed before there is even the hope of reform.

Recent letters Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links