A questionable commission An analysis by Robert P. Mills The Layman Online Wednesday, June 6, 2001 In the May/June 2001 issue of The Presbyterian Layman, outgoing General Assembly moderator Syngman Rhee suggests it may be time for the upcoming General Assembly "to establish a 'commission' to help us in seeking this more excellent way, a way guided by the Spirit of Christ seeking mutual understanding and enabling us to speak the truth in love." A similar proposal is already before the Louisville assembly in the form of Overture 01-33 from John Calvin Presbytery. While the sentiment behind such proposals is admirable, as the cliché aptly notes, the devil is in the details. At least three pertinent questions need to be carefully considered prior to the appointment of any such commission. What? First, what would the proposed commission be mandated to accomplish? In Presbyterian parlance, a commission has the power to act. Exactly what matters would this commission be "empowered to consider and conclude" (G-9.0502)? Would it be given the authority to decide that "local option" is the "more excellent way" implicit in the moderator's call? That scenario would seem appealing to the denomination's liberal leadership, who have seen presbyteries place G-6.0106b in the constitution over their objections then refuse to water it down or take it out. Conceivably, a commission could bypass the presbyteries and determine that ordination standards were not denominational essentials but merely matters of local opinion. It could unilaterally declare that each presbytery and congregation may decide for itself whether to ordain ministers and elders who deny the lordship of Christ, the authority of Scripture and the need to live in obedience to God's commandments. Whether or not the commission did so would depend almost entirely on its membership. Who? This raises a second crucial question: Who would appoint such a commission? Rhee, his successor, past moderators, this assembly? One (or a combination of) those options seems likely. None bodes well. It is almost too obvious for comment that the composition of the committee will determine its conclusion. The most noteworthy recent example is the committee that brought the infamous Human Sexuality Report to the 1991 assembly. The two evangelicals originally appointed quickly realized that their presence would have no impact on the committee's conclusions, and they resigned. The few evangelicals added to replace them confirmed their suspicions. To no one's surprise, the majority report of the committee advocated endorsing homosexual behavior, adultery and fornication. An overwhelming majority of the assembly voted not to adopt the report, but it is still offered as an official denominational resource. If whoever appoints the proposed commission follows this precedent, it seems likely that most Presbyterians would question the commission's legitimacy. Thus compromised from the outset, the commission's inevitable conclusions equally would be seen as illegitimate. And should those privileged to appoint the commission pick a handful of its favorite "house evangelicals" in an attempt to forestall this criticism, the PCUSA's broad evangelical community would see through this transparency and, quite likely, be incensed by such arrogance. Why? Third, and perhaps most important, why propose a commission, a very small body with delegated authority, to address issues that are of fundamental concern to all Presbyterians? Why should an assembly sidestep the responsibility it has been given as the denomination's highest governing body? One possible answer is that the assembly's leadership is looking to accomplish its ends by circumventing normal means. A commission empowered by the assembly to act on its behalf would bypass the presbyteries. In the place of commissioners from every congregation gathering to discuss and decide the issue in open forums, there would be a small band annointed by the elite to decide for the rest of us. Technically, the assembly may well have the authority to authorize such a commission. But practically and pastorally, the decision to do so would raise deeply troubling questions about methods and motives, not to mention predetermined conclusions. And it would exacerbate the deep divide that already exists within our denomination. What if …? What if the assembly appoints a committee, which does not have the power to act, instead of a commission? The questions What?, Who? And Why? would remain valid. The only reason to create such a committee would be so that a subsequent assembly would feel morally obligated to enact anything it recommends. The same end would be achieved as with appointing a commission, albeit by slightly different means. The desire for a commission is obvious. The smokescreen of a committee would fool few. Early reaction to the commission/committee proposal has been telling. Presbyterians from across the theological spectrum have publicly opposed the idea. When the Witherspoon Society, the Presbyterian Outlook and the Presbyterian Forum all oppose a proposal, its advocates could rightly question who might support it and why. And while an unbalanced commission or committee with a questionable mandate that bypasses the presbyteries is likely to outrage fair-minded Presbyterians from the left, right and center, one almost certainly unintended consequence of approving this proposal would be to add substantial momentum to the Confessing Church Movement. The rapid growth of that movement, from one congregation to more than 300 in just a few months, is powerful evidence of the instinctive Presbyterian desires to remain faithful to Scripture and connected to each other. Appointing a commission that would frustrate those desires could not possibly enhance the peace, purity or unity of the PCUSA.

Respond to this article

News From the PCUSA Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links