Ordination standards. G-6.0106b.
Yes, there are a couple of other items going to this committee, but G-6.0106b is the only thing anyone is going to know about Church Orders and Ministry.
I could probably end the survey of the business here.
I am not going to spend much time advocating for the support of G-6.0106b — which I do — because I have published plenty over the years. I worked hard to pass Amendment B (as it came out of the 208th General Assembly (1996)), worked just as hard to see the defeats of Amendment A (as it came out of the 209th General Assembly (1997) and Amendment 01-A (as it came out of the 211th General Assembly (2001)). At this point, my contribution would be repeating prior writings and would serve only to add heat, not light, to the discussion.
An overview
There are several different approaches in the business items in this round of ordination standard debate.
- Amend: 06-06, 06-09, 06-11, 06-13, 06-15, 06-16
- Replace: 06-08, 06-10, 06-12, 06-14, 06-17 (delete and replace)
- Delete: 06-07
- Interpret: 06-04, 06-05, 06-18
- Leave it alone for awhile: 06-02, 06-03, 06-20
To approve any of the amend or replace options would be to send an amendment to the presbyteries to change the language of G-6.0106b (and some other related sections in some of the overtures). To approve the delete option would be to send — again — the same as 01-A in 2001. To issue an interpretation requires only the vote of the General Assembly. Leaving it alone? Well, the Assembly can vote to ask, but it cannot bind later Assemblies by its own action.
It is worth noting that several of these overtures have multiple concurrences. For example, 06-04 has at least a dozen concurrences, meaning that other presbyteries agreed with and want to express their support for the action requested by the initiating presbytery (in this case, restoration of the AI’s requested by San Diego Presbytery). Thus, it is a deceiving impression to see the business and think that the vast majority want to see change. Two overtures (06-11 and 06-18), in fact, seek to strengthen G-6.0106b.
Further, it is worth noting that the Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC) is not impartial. It is overtly advocating. Again, using the illustration of San Diego’s overture, the ACC’s advice avoids the point. 06-04 would re-instate everything that was voided by the 218th General Assembly. Inasmuch as the amendment justifying the change in AI’s was defeated, it only makes sense to restore the AI’s that interpret what is in the Book of Order. The ACC is advocating for a different result — the “living document” constitution they are pitching in their proposed AI regarding AI’s, “that by the act of interpretation we mold the meaning of our Constitution to fit the ever-changing landscape of the church’s life and witness.” This is the justification for the AI coming out of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity, and the same justification for the test cases of Paul Capetz, Scott Anderson, and Lisa Largess — arguing that “shall’ can mean “may” if someone wants to “scruple” the ordination standard. Clarity = bad; ambiguity = good.
The Process
So, what is going to happen here? The push is towards change. Look at the process.
a. YAAD’s (Young Adult Advisory Delegates; still pronounced “yad”) have voice and vote in committee. Historically, YAD’s have trended towards changing ordination standards, enhanced by the official program and counsel provided them during the course of the week.
b. The agenda is weighted towards change.
On Sunday the only item for consideration is the adoption of the docket.
On Monday, there are 90 minutes of open hearings, one other item of business, and then lunch. After lunch, the overture advocates for “leave it alone for awhile” speak, resource people speak, and then small group discussions (note, no action). Then, after the 3:00 afternoon break, the overture advocates for amend, replace, delete and interpret have an opportunity to speak. Then the resource persons (read Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC)) get to speak and then dinner (note, no action). After dinner, “small group discussions” will take place.
On Tuesday, there will be an hour-long “period of discernment” on all the ordination-related items. Then, when the pressure is high and the time is short, the committee will finally begin to take some action and make some decisions. It looks like a “committee of the whole” process. In a nutshell, the “committee of the whole” is a time when there is a discussion of all the items together without having the process of a motion. It is a “consensus-building” vehicle. The nature of Assemblies is to want “to do something”; thus, simply saying, “no” is not a likely outcome of consensus building.
By the way, under the Resources tab on pc-biz is a document entitled Parliamentary Procedures in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). It is provided by the denomination to help Assemblies understand the what and why’s of how things happen. Take some time to read through this pamphlet. Here’s how Marianne Wolfe, the author, cautions against the very process being proposed in the agenda for Church Orders and Ministry:
Majority rule is not a mystical or arbitrary concept. It is highly pragmatic, reflecting the reality that the whole church, as it acts, can do only that which most of the church is willing to do. Hence, the majority vote is a func- tion of unity. Decisions taken by majority vote do not reflect “truth” but, rather, the search for “truth.” Majority rule in this understanding need not be thought of as a “win/lose” situation.
Recent moves to adopt consensus decision-making are antithetical to this principle and also to the basic rights of the individual as listed above and should never be used except in the most routine of parliamentary transactions. At its worst, consensus decision-making is manipulative and overpowering to the rights of the minority because it compels the minority to “break the unity of the body” in order to disagree. Most church members will choose to suppress their disagreement rather than risk this, and, if forced into this dilemma very often, will begin to harbor resentment toward the body. This latter is far more destructive to unity than open disagreement and the freedom of the right to disagree.
Because consensus building, small groups, discernment time takes up the majority of the time, the pressure will be extremely heavy to recommend something — anything…anything other than status quo, that is — to the plenary.
What does all the pressure do? It flattens people. It is that simple.
Most commissioners come to the Assembly prepared with one speech. This is the speech they have been waiting to give at the Assembly for months, if not years. It is the speech that is going to make all the difference, the “aha!” moment of clarity for the denomination. But then, by the time they get a chance to give that speech — if they ever get it at all — they are so beaten down by the weight of everything else that has happened they think “what’s the point?” They find they do not like any of the options available and besides, their speech doesn’t really fit the debate about those motions. They end up voting for what they think will be the least objectionable. They still can go home and say, “I voted the right way. It was the rest of the Assembly that was off.”
So, coming out of committee, there is likely to be some sort of action recommended. And, there is likely to be a minority report. When it gets to plenary, it comes down to a head-count. How many votes does each side have?
That’s Assembly Committee #6: Church Orders and Ministry.
Your comments about the use of committee as a whole and consensus building are very astute. These automatically produce a pressure in one direction. If handled by moderators who know what their doing, they become extremely coercive vehicles.
Yet, on paper, they sound good.
It is ironic that this procedure is the exact opposite of true governance via consensus. In the latter case, if even one person disagreed, the default was to take no action. This is, of course, not the Presbyterian process – but it has a certain moral argument. Consensus building decision making techniques, on the other hand, use ostracism and peer pressure to force a particular outcome.
Worse, there is another effect you don’t mention. People put through the wringer of this process … small group discussion … weighted presentation … quasi committee of the whole … – when they finally come to a solution, usually will defend that solution because of the ordeal of reaching it. This is an internalized pressure: that they got through it – that they came up with something – creates an automatic buy in.