Today, a practical application of the potential power of the COGA Commission (Recommendation-042).
Recommendation 73-01 requests an administrative commission with the power to:
B. Middle Governing Body Restructure—Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the Commonwealth)
1. The 219th General Assembly (2010) authorizes the administrative commission to dissolve the Synod of Boriquén and the Presbyteries of San Juan, the Northwest, and the Southwest (the Synod), if after further study, and before the next General Assembly, it determines such action to be appropriate.
2. The 219th General Assembly (2010) authorizes the administrative commission to create a new governing body structure in the Commonwealth under the jurisdiction of a synod on the mainland of the United States of America, should the commission determine that the dissolution of the current governing body structure is no longer tenable or unable to effectively move into the future.
Now, right up front: I have no idea what is the situation in Puerto Rico, I have no knowledge about whether this is a good or bad idea or what are the conditions that makes this recommendation the option chosen by the Special Committee on Administrative Review. It is a situation cited in the supporting material for the COGA Commission. However, this post is not about Puerto Rico; rather, I came across the quoted language and it is an illustration of the authority that would be granted the COGA Commission — if approved as proposed.
The Broader Application
Apply this to a different situation. Let me use my own. Imagine the Assembly approves the COGA Commission, as is. Then imagine a majority (say, 81 yes:79 no) of San Diego Presbytery requests the COGA Commission to:
- Dissolve the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii (our synod);
- Create two new synods: an “emergent” synod and a “traditional” synod (don’t read into the names or the politics, just go with the idea for a moment);
- Split the assets of the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii among the two new synods;
- Create parallel presbyteries in the synods (i.e., San Diego Emergent, San Diego Traditional); and,
- Require every congregation within the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii to determine — by vote — their affiliation to presbytery and synod.
Now, imagine you are in Los Ranchos or Riverside Presbytery (the two presbyteries immediately north of San Diego) and you do not want this result. You would be required to engage in some sort of undetermined campaign to get the COGA Commission to deny the request or to propose an alternative solution. How would you feel about putting into the hands of 21 unfamiliar people the possibility of being required to re-constitute and to re-affiliate? How would you feel about the potential of San Diego Presbytery doing something that would seriously harm your fellowship with other congregations in your presbytery?
My point is not to advocate for this result; rather, I am trying to work out the implications of approving a 21 person commission with broad authority. As I read the proposal, this is a result consistent with the authority granted. I am not saying this would happen, I am saying it could happen.
What would be the impact to your congregation?
To misquote Gordon Gecko, “Gridlock is good.” The concentration of power IS more efficient, but not more desirable for those on the other end of the stick.
Didn’t Jinny Geddis throw a stool and shout, “We’ll have no popery here!” or something to that effect, back in the day? Now THAT would make for an interesting GA!
I share your concerns with the potential of COGA, but I am not at all surprised that such a proposal is on the table. This is what an institution does in the face of the challenge to decentralize.
Ours is an anti clerical, anti institutional tradition. We rejected bishops and the “apostolic succession” fiction that justified that centralization of power. That served us very well during the Westward expansion; we were able to plant new churches while staying flexible to meet various challenges on the frontier.
However, starting with the Modernist/ Fundamentalist controversies of the last century, when local issues were seen to have national import, we increasingly sought to settle at the General Assembly level matters best left to lower judicatories. The unintended result was increasing focus on building institution. This put us on a direct collision course with our anti institutional DNA. The result has been GA after GA failing to articulate a vision that most of our congregations could buy into; ever further cementing the notion that the denomination is irrelevant to the life of the congregation. Can anyone blame our congregations for being de-facto Congregationalists?
The answer of course does not lay in further concentrating administrative power. COGA is a step in the wrong direction. We need to reinvent the PCUSA, focusing on expanding and empowering the ministry of the congregations. Our congregations are already there, we need to catch up.
Dave,
I believe it was “Ye nay say the mass in me ear” !! It was in response to the Church of England trying to episcopize (is that a word ?) the Church of Scotland.