 Proposal seeks to restore annual general assemblies By Craig M. Kibler The Layman Online Friday, October 4, 2002 ORLANDO, Fla. – A session has approved a proposed overture that seeks to restore annual general assemblies to the Presbyterian Church (USA). The 214th General Assembly, meeting in Columbus, Ohio, in June, voted 344-167 to approve the recommendation of the Committee on General Assembly Meetings calling for biennial assemblies starting in 2006. That action means that 2004 will be the last annual general assembly of the denomination. The Rev. Sue Cyre, in a workshop on suggested overtures to the 215th General Assembly attended by participants at Gathering VII on Oct. 3, said that the session of her church, Dublin Presbyterian Church in Dublin, Va., had approved a proposed overture that seeks to "restore annual General Assemblies beginning with 2005." She emphasized, however, that the resolution still had not been presented to the Presbytery of the Peaks for consideration. In addition to biennial general assemblies, the 214th General Assembly directed:
A substitute motion by Commissioner Brian Janssen of Prospect Hill Presbytery, "that the General Assembly continue its heritage of annual meetings and request the Office of the General Assembly to find cost-effective ways to conduct these meetings, including shortening the length of the General Assembly by one day," was defeated. In speaking to his motion, Janssen said the assembly was considering making a "historic change. In the 214-year history, the pattern and practice has been annual assemblies. … This action would not have the safeguard of asking the presbyteries their opinion first - like changing the Book of Order. This is it." In a resource book discussed during the workshop in Orlando, the rationale for the suggested overture reads: "The General Assembly is the national body that most closely represents the lower governing bodies in our church because its membership is elected directly by presbyteries. No other national entity is elected so close to home. "Biennial General Assemblies result in less representation by the grass-roots in decision-making for the whole church. Greater power of decision-making will fall to the General Assembly Council, a body that is nominated by a sixteen-member General Assembly Nominating Committee and elected by the General Assembly. Biennial General Assemblies reduce by half the accountability of General Assembly staff to the General Assembly, a body directly elected by our presbyteries. The result will be more decision-making power vested in bodies less representative of the grass-roots – the congregations – of our denomination. "The annual General Assembly is an opportunity for the elders from local congregations to give vision and direction to the church. This is when the elders in the pews are able to participate in determining the direction of the church to fulfill its mission. While it does take significant staff time and financial resources, it is time well spent. No presbytery or session would hold annual meetings because those bodies are ruling bodies that are responsible for setting the direction and clarifying the objectives of the body. "The PCUSA is a connectional church. The General Assembly meeting is our connectionalism in action. We are concerned about building trust in our denomination between local churches and the General Assembly. Annual assemblies allow us to come together, to meet the people in denominational leadership and to communicate the work of the church back to our presbyteries and congregations. "The amount of material a General Assembly commissioner must be familiar with and prepared to vote on can be in excess of 700 items of business. On the first day of the last GA (2002), fewer than 20% of the commissioners had read all the pages. The majority of those items of business come from the offices of the GA. Those entities like the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy, General Assembly Council, Committee on the Office of GA, meet at least three times per year, generating business that eventually must come before a GA. Without first finding a way to decrease the business before the GA, the commissioners will be forced o delegate more business to staff, refer it to another GA, or vote without adequate knowledge of the issues. "There is no obvious cost savings with biennial assemblies. The cost of the planned increase in the number of commissioners, increasing the volume of reports (likely extending the length of the GA), and creating another major meeting in the alternative year will mean that there is no obvious cost savings by going to biennial assemblies." |
|
Respond to this article |
|
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
|