Assembly Committee #4: Middle Governing Bodies

I am convinced Assembly Committee #4: Middle Governing Bodies is the most important and least known committee at the 219th General Assembly (2010).

This is the committee dealing with the COGA commission. More than any other business — marriage, ordination standards, Middle East, whatever — this business has the potential to have the greatest immediate impact on the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Now, that may seem like hyperbole, like your local teenager raving over the latest video game; but for those with eyes to see, the proposed COGA commission is a game-changer. If by the end of the article you do not agree, let me know.

The proposed COGA commission has not crossed many radars publicly. I have the feeling I am out here alone shouting about it. I have posted here, here, here, here and here (and maybe a few other times as well).

A Quick Survey

There are eight items for Assembly Committee #4: Middle Governing Bodies to handle. Most have to deal with the function of synods. According to the posted agenda (click the link, go to Committee 4, click on the “schedule” tab) you can see that the COGA commission (Item 04-06) is going to be the priority. It will be taken up before the Synod of the Southwest’s request for a special committee (contrasted to a commission), Beaver-Butler Presbytery’s overture to allow flexibility in presbytery membership, Santa Barbara Presbytery’s “new synod” proposal, and the overtures seeking to altogether eliminate synods as a middle governing body.

By taking it up early, the Middle Governing Bodies Committee is likely to approve some form of the COGA commission and lump everything else into it. “Lumping it in” means one of two things: a) using the action on 04-06 to “answer” the other items; or, more likely, b) including in the commissioning the charge to take specific actions regarding the issues identified in the other items and report back to the next Assembly.

So, what’s the big deal?

Here’s what the specific language of the commissioning proposal includes:

5. In response to actions of the 219th General Assembly (2010), or upon request of the presbytery and synod, the commission is authorized to act as the General Assembly according to

a. G-13.0103m: “to organize new synods and to divide, unite, or otherwise combine synods or portions of synods previously existing;”

b. G-13.0103n: “to approve the organization, division, uniting, or combining of presbyteries or portions of presbyteries by synods.”

I have been in correspondence with Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons about this commission and have been — dare I say it? — pestering him for an open conversation and more details about how this will work.

Me:

… [S]tarter question(s): how do you see this commission working procedurally? What kinds of requests would you encourage? What kinds of discernment processes would you hope they use?

Stated Clerk:

Here are some succinct answers to some of your questions.  I am not the chief resource. This is a COGA recommendation and Eileen Linder is the chief resource person for this. However I am willing to field questions from you.

Q&A

My hope is that the commission would spend its first year in consultation across the church and other communions and lift up some different healthy middle governing body models. In the second year they might engage more directly with middle governing bodies that are seeking transformation.

I think the commission would have to work out its own discernment process but I hope they are able to reach consensus on the marks of a healthy presbytery or synod.

When a request for permission to try some new proposal comes from a governing body I hope they will look for the widest acceptance within that governing body before they grant that permission.

They key here is that this is a permission granting commission not an initiator. It has no power to change any governing body that does not ask for that change.

Having read the Stated Clerk’s responses, I am not sure that the commission proposed is as limited in scope as he perceives. “Or” is a big word. Commissioning language needs to be specific — and this is the reason I have been jumping up and down about it. As proposed, this commission would not be limited to permission granting. “Or” means it does have the authority to initiate its own. The language is “in response to the actions of the 219th General Assembly or…” and it does not define the scope of actions of the 219th General Assembly to which the commission would be responding . That’s an open invitation to interpretation. Because there is no viable mechanism for review (aside from convening a special called General Assembly), the mandate can be as broad or narrow as a majority of the commission decides it to be.

Here’s my concern: the decisions of the commission would carry the authority of the General Assembly. Immediately. Proposed amendments need the vote of the presbyteries. Middle East policy will create headlines and uproar that will die away in weeks. Authoritative Interpretations will be disputed in remedial and disciplinary cases that take several years to work through. When the commission acts, it’s a done deal.

I have been chasing after this COGA commission for a couple of months now. It is a double-edged sword. On the upside, it is a dramatic opportunity to make some significant changes in a system where the status quo is imploding (or, in the words of the Stated Clerk, “devolving.”) The need to act differently is evident and urgent. Studying and waiting for another two years for another General Assembly to deliberate over politically charged recommendations means staying stuck in the same pattern.

On the down-side, there has been no substantial conversation about the details. The details are incredibly important. In the Outlook article, I detailed one scenario where the impact goes wide — way wide. I described how the commission could take the request of one presbytery and make changes that impact every presbytery in a synod. Even in a disputed situation, eleven people can move presbyteries and congregations to the new synod will have an impact on the synods and presbyteries from which they are taken. The broad scope of authority granted in this proposal puts the authority of the General Assembly in the hands of only a few non-elected (the commission is appointed) people. A second illustration is what would happen if the commission acted on its on initiative “in response to actions of the 219th General Assembly.” That same eleven people could make huge changes on their own.

Before I hop on board with the idea, I think it would be important to have some parameters and mechanisms for appeal and review. Simple suggestion: amend it to require any change to be approved by a minimum 2/3 majority consent/approval from all bodies involved (congregations, presbyteries, synods and the commission itself). The problem is, as soon as you start down the road of providing some protections via amendment, it gets beyond the scope of what commissioners and advisory delegates are going to be able to achieve in two days. So, the idea will either get scrapped or be incompletely developed. Neither is a satisfactory result.