We Presbyterians have long prided ourselves on our church government. We have rejected rule by powerful individuals (bishops) set apart to make the important decisions that affect the many.

And we have rejected the idea that the church can be and do whatever a group of members in one time and place wish to be and do (the congregational way). Presbyterians choose from among themselves people of evident piety and exemplary discipleship. We require them to improve and prove their qualifications through study and public examination. In this way we get a body of decision-makers (ministers and elders) with no hierarchy among them. They commit themselves to study the Scriptures and the confessions and to discuss matters among themselves in a search for a shared sense of the will of God.

I’ve been one of these “presbyters” for nearly thirty years, but I had a sobering experience recently.

It was my privilege/burden/calling to serve as a commissioner to the 218th General Assembly in San Jose. I served on the assembly committee considering two documents prepared as replacements for the existing Form of Government. In the months before the General Assembly, a lot of fears and opinions flew about the Presbyterian blogosphere and print suggesting that the evil forces seeking to dominate or subvert the Presbyterian Church had promoted this initiative. I had thought the plan was a poorly-timed one when it was initiated in 2006. Nevertheless a group of earnest and serious people had spent time drafting documents they thought would address many felt needs in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). And I was sympathetic to the goal of discarding many specific rules in order to rely more heavily on the judgment of presbyters. I was ready enough to give it a fair hearing.

Half of the commissioners in our committee were ministers, each of whom had taken a seminary course in Presbyterian polity and passed a denominational written polity exam.  Most of them had been moderators of sessions, usually the “polity experts” in the congregation. The other commissioners were elders who also have a responsibility to be familiar with the Book of Order. Each of us had received printed copies of the proposed documents, and each of us had received thick bundles of photocopied sheets showing the existing and proposed polity provisions in two forms — one matching the current provisions (in order) with the proposed provisions (wherever they might appear in the new documents), and one matching the proposed provisions in order with the corresponding existing provisions. We had every opportunity to be well-prepared for our task.

After hearing visitors give about six hours of expert explanation, passionate advocacy, and earnest advice, the majority of the committee members simply laid their task down and chose to send it somewhere — anywhere — for a “study process” that would make it someone else’s problem. The kind-heartedness and goodwill of the committee members was repeatedly evident. But it was also clear that many of them had no real idea of what was in the current Form of Government — or what changes were being proposed in the new documents. They didn’t understand the currently-experienced difficulties addressed by the changes. They seemed to act and speak as if they had been invited to give their opinions to some authorities who would bear the responsibility to make things right. They could have been answering questions posed by an after-dinner telephone pollster or giving their opinions at a taste test in a supermarket.

Other committees must have found the same attitude. At the plenary sessions, a lot of commissioners were anxious to speak their opinions as forms of self-expression. Again and again, the majority tired of the discussions before the choices and likely consequences had been fairly identified and weighed. I heard commissioners seated near me positively exultant that the hoped-for “victory” of their side would upset the people voting differently.

After my experience with the Committee on Form of Government Revision and with the General Assembly plenary sessions, I left San Jose with a head full of questions. 

•           Who ever told the commissioners that unrestrained self-expression was their first duty at the General Assembly? 

•           Why did they think that ignorance of the Form of Government and the Confessions was acceptable rather than disqualifying? 

•           When did they begin to see “the enemy” in their brothers and sisters? 

•           How did they come to believe that the Body of Christ could benefit from the wounding of any of its organs? 

•           Whom did they think had the duty or authority to bind up the wounds of the Church after its presbyters had inflicted them? 

•           Where did they get the idea that the duty to prepare through study, to do the detailed work in San Jose, and to weigh costs and consequences belonged to anyone but them?

Before judging any particular decision of the 218th General Assembly, I wonder if the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is willing or able to discern the will of God in a communal and sibling-respecting way. Can the ministers and elders of today’s church accept the burden of responsible decision-making and consequence-acceptance? If we don’t, we won’t be the first Chosen People to ask that “this cup pass from us”: The people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel; they said, “No! but we are determined to have a king over us, so that we also may be like the other nations, and that our king may govern us and go out before us and fight our battles” 1 Sam 8.19-20.

Michael Haggin is a member-at-large of the Presbytery of Los Ranchos (Anaheim, Calif.). He has spent his ministry in pastorates and in mission funding

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed