by bob davis presbybob@cox.net

 

 

June 4, 2008

DAY 15 ON nFoG WATCH: Nothing new to report.

Committee Survey: Committee 14, Review of GA Permanent Committees.

This should be simple. There is one item of business. One. That's it.

It is not even a particularly interesting item of business. Item 14-01 looks to amend some wording regarding the timing and description of ordination exams. This committee could wrap up business on Sunday night (the first night they meet) if anyone puts any effort into it.

Then, what to do....what to do...what to do....?

This has nothing to do with the business already assigned to Committee 14, but it has everything to do with the business that could be assigned to Committee 14. Remember a few weeks ago when I went on (and on and on and on...) about the Stated Clerk election process? Wouldn't it make sense to use this already existing committee -- that has virtually nothing to do -- and use it as the Stated Clerk Nominating Review Committee or some other such title?

It seems incredible to me that we would be choosing the denomination's most influential officer who has the broadest range of authority using the most restrictive and limited election process possible. Why not suspend the Standing Rules (or amend them -- whichever would allow the change to be made on time) to have this committee review, interview, and make recommendation as to the individual they discern God is calling to serve as Stated Clerk? Where is the down side?

• We would not be taking them away from other business;
  
  
• We would not be causing other committees to do anything different;
  
  
• We would be allowing the candidates the opportunity to share their vision, experience, and expertise with the Assembly; and,
  
  
• We would be exercising the responsibility and function of the Assembly, not delegating that discerning function to a nominating committee.

Where is the down side? I do not see one. Changing the election process does not undermine the integrity of the Standing Rules -- there is already a recommendation to suspend the Standing Rules coming to allow "late" business. It is not like the rules are being applied, anyway. The "non-communication" or "non-campaign" rule seems to have gone out the window:

• Gradye Parsons published an article in Horizons entitled "Presbyterian Politics In Action: The Stated Clerk and the General Assembly", and he did not object to his picture being the front-cover for the Presbyterian Outlook;
• On Presbyweb, Ed Koster announced his decision to stand for election, written at least one analytical piece, and has not publicly objected to letters of support;
• Winfield (Casey) Jones announced his decision to stand for election, written at least one analytical piece, and has not publicly objected to letters of support; and,
• Bill Tarbell's announcement of his decision in the Outlook included an endorsement from the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina.

By the way, I think all these posts and publications sare appropriate. However, they are in technical violation of the Standing Rule H.2.b.4 (m) and (n)...(a problem for Stated Clerk candidates looking to be elected to a job with the responsibility of upholding the rules) -- unless the Stated Clerk Nominating Committee (which is the sole determiner of what constitutes compliance with the rules) is picking and choosing which rules to apply and how and to whom.

What could the committee ask these candidates? Here are some questions that should be asked -- but won't, because there is no time:

• If the current system of middle governing bodies is not sustainable financially in the short or long term, would you recommend moving to larger, less powerful presbyteries or smaller, more powerful presbyteries? And why? Or would you recommend moving to a confessionally-based, non-geographic presbytery model? What would be the benefits of making such a move and what would we lose? What would be the steps you would recommend if the decision were made to pursue non-geographic, affiliation-based presbyteries?
  
  
• What would be the impact of eliminating per capita? How would you advise presbyteries to interpret the nFoG's 3.0107's "are"? Does it mean "shall" (a grant of taxing authority to the General Assembly and synods) or "may" (trusting presbyteries to remit requested funds without any ability to mandate it)?
  
  
• How do you view the Stated Clerk's role in ecumenical organizations like the NCC, WCC, and WARC?
  
  
• Are there other ecumenical organizations with which you would like to see the PC(USA) affiliate and join?
  
  
• How would you advise congregations and presbyteries to understand the Spahr decision? Are those who perform same gender "weddings" subject to disciplinary action under the current wording of the Constitution?
  
  
• What would be the practical steps towards moving towards a more "missional" polity? Is the nFoG the best first step or would you recommend any other alternative options?

These would be conversation starters. Good heavens, we have an entire committee devoted to being a think tank regarding youth; would it not be good stewardship to do some thinking about the direction the denomination is going to go between now and the time they will be in leadership positions?