 Getting back in touch  The Layman Volume 35, Number 1, Posted February 8, 2002
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. |
||
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
||
