My goal in this series of posts is to give a reflection on the things I will be watching coming out of the Assembly Committees; not to survey each and every item.
Assembly Committee #3: General Assembly Procedures is going to be one of the busier committees at the 219th General Assembly (2010). There are currently 28 items of business listed in their docket. Not all of it is headline-making business, but there are a number of issues that will take some time.
If you look at the schedule, you will see that this committee is going to handle the bulk of the issues assigned on Monday and Tuesday. Sunday has 4 fairly routine (not to say unimportant; rather to say, non-controversial) items. That means the backload of issues and any commissioners’ resolutions will be handled in two days. This committee could run late into Tuesday night — depending on how quickly they blast through decisions that have far-reaching consequences.
There are three categories of things I will be watching in this commitee: a) those with church-wide impact; b) those that will interest General Assembly insiders (people like me who watch to see how the General Assembly functions or dysfunctions); and c) the interesting and entertaining.
Church-wide interest
There are several items that are likely to make headlines throughout the larger church, but probably not far beyond that.
1. Item 03-16 proposes an amendment to the General Assembly Mission Council’s mandate for the Committee on Ecumenical Relations to make it the Council on Ecumenical and Interfaith relations. I’m not a fan. This is scheduled for the end of Session 5, Tuesday morning, which means that it will be somewhat later in the docket and not likely to receive much scrutiny because of the anxiety of getting things done.
Yes, in an environment where dollars are short, tasks are getting spread out wider and wider; however….however…it seems to me that the “interreligious” task is not identical to the Ecumenical task. Simply adding the words “and interreligious” is not a “while you are at it…” kind of addition. It adds an enormously complex responsibility without much theological reflection, like the amendment to “Select three religious traditions to be invited to send representatives to the General Assembly as interfaith representatives (see Standing Rule B.2.f.).” Standing Rule B.2.f is for Missionary Advisory Delegates. Approving this recommendation means giving voice and vote in committee, and voice on the plenary floor, to people who have not received Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Really? Voting rights at the General Assembly for non-Christians?
2. Per Capita is always a popular topic at the Assembly. Item 03-25 (recommendation #3) proposes a twenty cent ($.20) increase in 2011 and another twenty cent ($.20) increase for 2012. Grumbling will result, yes; but that’s not the big one. Item 03-28 is a recommended Authoritative Interpretation from the Advisory Committee on the Constitution, “A presbytery is required to remit to the General Assembly and the synod per capita funds remitted by the session of member churches for per capita, even if the presbytery lacks sufficient funds to pay its own expenses.”
Two quick hits:
1. This is an opportunity to point out how commissioners are not bound by the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) and why they should not blindly heed the ACC’s advice. Historically (and already in the comments to business to this Assembly), the ACC often exceeds its mandate to provide “advice” and enters into the range of “advocacy.” Caveat emptor.
2. Even proposing this Authoritative Interpretation is further evidence of the “devolution” of the denomination that the Stated Clerk described earlier this year. It is to take a position in favor of the institutional structure over the needs of the people. If you have scarce resources, do you preserve the institution or support the mission?
3. Three other items relate to the ongoing battles within the denomination: Item 03-01 proposes an amendment to G-13.0103r to add “No authoritative interpretation shall be issued by a General Assembly which amends or alters a clear mandate contained in any provision of the Book of Order.” Item 03-06 proposes an amendment to G-18.0301c to require a 2/3 majority vote of the General Assembly (up from simple majority) to send out proposed amendments to the Book of Order. Item 03-07 would amend the Standing Rules to require a 75% vote of commissioners to even consider — even consider! — an overture proposing an amendment that has been considered by last two Assemblies. I don’t think any of these are likely to get a recommendation from the committee. The point of raising them up to your attention is to demonstrate the level of frustration being expressed to the Assembly from the presbyteries about the ongoing perpetuation of disagreements and the inability of the Assembly to adequately come to resolution.
Insider GA Interest
1. Item 03-02 deals with the Standing Rules about the Stated Clerk election. I dealt with this in more detail here. As I mentioned there, I am not sure that the proposal here is the way to go; however, changes need to be made to this process to allow more — not less — time and opportunity for discernment.
2. Item 03-12 would drastically limit the rights and privileges of Overture Advocates while increasing the rights of institutional resource people. I’m not a fan of this proposal. Look, I have nothing against our paid staff; but I think it sends the wrong signal to say to the larger church, “We do not care what you have to say, we want commissioners to hear only from our own staff.” It is an expression of the larger disconnect between the denominational structures and the congregations, as if to communicate, “We’re the experts, do what we tell you to do.”
3. Item 03-09 would add language to the Standing Rules to discourage the creation of special committees and task forces. This is a good idea. Specifically, “Special committees and commissions should be appointed only in very rare and exceptional circumstances, i.e. national or denominational crisis.” In times where resources are not completely scarce, this is probably still a good rule. The reality is that commissioners and advisory delegates often perceive the creation of a special committee as a compromise, middle ground, non-committal way to deal with controversial issues — without any real assessment of the added cost (see above, #2, per capita.)
Interesting/Entertaining
1. Perhaps the most interesting idea is Item 03-08, which would amend the Standing Rules to require the Stated Clerk to establish the agenda so that the most time is allotted to items likely to be most controversial. I am not really sure how compliance would be measured or how a challenge could be effected. That said, it’s an interesting idea to have us spend the most time on the things that need the most time.
2. My favorite overture of the season — hands-down: Item 03-11. “All committee reports and votes upon committee motions shall be scheduled to be completed prior to the dinner recess on the days of plenary sessions of the assembly.” It will never happen, but what a great thought.
Tomorrow: Assembly Committee #4 Middle Governing Body Issues.
Thanks for the update, Bob. This will be my second GA, my first as a commissioner. This is the committee I will be serving. As a Myers-Briggs “J”. I thought “GA Procedures”?!? Sounds like a trip to Hades. But you are right, there are some interesting and important things on this docket. You have helped make some sense of the mountains of pages and bytes I have had to read so far. Keep up the great work.