 Debate on biennial assemblies is a whimper compared to past By John H. Adams The Layman Online Thursday, June 20, 2002
Only 14 people spoke during a relatively brief debate – nothing like the kinds of passionate debates that have marked previous general assemblies when controversial issues were considered. The "ayes" and "nays" during the debate were about even. One commissioner, David Long of the Presbytery of Savannah, took a businesslike approach to the issue, using his father, a ruling elder and clerk of session for more than 30 years, as an example. Long said his father was president of Anderson Cotton Mills and, therefore, responsible for two groups of people: his stockholders and the people who worked for him. "Every day he faced his employees and once a year he faced his shareholders in what we know today as the bottom line," Long said. "Suppose at one of those meetings the bottom line was bad, workers were being laid off and my father's solution to the stockholders was to postpone the shareholders' meetings. I believe the shareholders through the board would have said to my father, 'The problem facing our company is not in our meeting each year, the problem is in our leadership. We expect you and your people to give us solutions, not problems. We will meet next year and we will expect to see signs of your leadership. Share with us your problems and let us help. That's our bottom line.'" Long also noted that the Presbyterian general assemblies have met annually since 1729 – including more trying economic times during wars and the Great Depression. Elder Katherine Dean of the Presbytery of the Peaks, said, "We have spent a great deal of time talking about dialogue with Muslims. If it's important there, then it's even more important that we spend more time in dialogue with fellow Presbyterians." Elder Noel Clark, moderator of the Presbytery of the Missouri Union, said the small congregations in his presbytery cannot afford annual meetings. "I feel it's time we get on with it," he said. "We are in danger of losing small churches by money being expended for General Assembly meetings." Clark said his presbytery included a number of yoked congregations – both Methodist and Presbyterian, for instance – that might not continue being Presbyterian if annual meetings continue. David Carver of the Presbytery of Pittsburgh called the annual meetings of the General Assembly "an extravagance. My friends ask me, 'Who will mind the store if the General Assembly meets only every other year?' In other words, it's a trust issue. This mistrust is absolutely a shame. Shame on us. Each commissioner represents an expenditure of about $10,000. The Lord has given the church tremendous resources of money, skill and time, so let's use them for mission, let's use them for growth." But David Bennett, a theological student advisory delegate in the Presbytery of Boston, said biennial meetings of the General Assembly would mean that each congregation in the presbytery would be able to send a commissioner only every 48 years. Doug Beltzer of the Presbytery of Donegal said he believes biennial meetings will "actually build trust at the grassroots level of the local church" and allow "time to digest proposed changes." The Rev. C. Kenneth Hall, a former moderator of the denomination, said he appreciated the advantage of having annual assemblies that provide "the opportunity to respond more quickly to crises in the church." He suggested – but not in the form of an amendment - that annual meetings of the General Assembly could consider less business and, therefore, meet fewer days by having half of the agencies and boards report every other year. Graham Redding, an ecumenical delegate from New Zealand, said Presbyterians in his country debated the same issue and decided to go to biennial sessions. "The advantages have far exceeded the disadvantages," he said. Kathy Smith, a youth advisory delegate from the Presbytery of Genesee Valley, opposed biennial assemblies and asked commissioners "to weigh the experiences here and our faith against the costs." Steve Van Kuiken, pastor of Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church in the Presbytery of Cincinnati – a congregation that has declared its defiance of the "fidelity/chastity" clause in the Book of Order – said he has changed his mind since he originally voted in favor of biennial meetings in the committee meeting. "But as I studied this more deeply, I considered that there are other ways to save money," Van Kuiken said. "We are a family broken and fractured. We need to acknowledge our deep divisions and deal with them honestly, openly and with regularity. I urge the assembly to find other ways to save money." Cliff Rust of the Presbytery of Great Rivers said the issue has cropped up repeatedly and that the predominant argument against biennial meetings seems to be "we've never tried this before." He said it was time to change. Richard Hannan of the Presbytery of Sheppards and Lapsey spoke in favor of biennial meetings. "This is my first time as a commissioner and I'm having a good time. The Witherspoon folks sure know how to throw a good party. But ultimately, it's a question of stewardship, not our time and our money, but the Lord's time and the Lord's money. We are a church that has always stood for change. We are reformed and reforming. |
||
Respond to this article |
||
| 2002
General Assembly news index Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
||