Violate early, violate often
Commentary by James D. Berkley, The Layman, June 1, 2010
In Minneapolis in July, probably the most egregious fixing of the outcome for key contentious issues will happen first thing Saturday morning in the innocuously named “Riverside Conversations.” These 90-minute “conversations” provide one side a strategic opportunity to tout favored positions in what amounts to pre-assembly propaganda sessions.
Related Article
The Committee on the Office of the General Assembly (COGA) sets up the General Assembly meeting arrangements. Built into the schedule at assemblies has been a morning-of-the-first-day series of elective workshops. Until recently, COGA judiciously chose not to use them to kick-start debate on hot Assembly topics. Any fair body seeking to avoid even the appearance of influencing the vote would so refrain.
However, a few years back, apparently someone saw the tantalizing opportunity to monopolize commissioner attention at an influential time. Who could resist seizing the stage to tell commissioners what one wants them to hear, so that they will eventually vote the way one wants them to vote?
Apparently COGA couldn’t. Thus, in past years, commissioners got to hear one-sided rallies for the Theological Task Force’s report, or for the proposed new Form of Government. The stated clerk and COGA had shepherded these items through a process. They had the commissioners’ time. Thus, they structured sessions in which their official viewpoints alone would be heard. And it was tough luck for anyone with an opposing viewpoint.
The unfairness continues
Again this year, most Riverside Conversations on July 3 are bound to be unbalanced and thus unfair. Consider who is leading these “conversations.” In several cases, the presentations are controlled by the hardly disinterested parties that have their proposals up for approval: the New Form of Government Task Force, the Middle East Study Committee, the Special Committee on Civil Union and Christian Marriage, and the Belhar and Heidelberg special committees. They and they alone get to give their side of the matters. Is that fair, given that there are other legitimate viewpoints that will be blocked?
For instance, suppose you oppose altering the Heidelberg Catechism. You care about it strongly enough that you pay your way to Minneapolis, and you hope that your expertise can be helpful. Let’s say you are a scholar and expert on the subject. With all the commissioners trying to decide what to vote, how will they benefit from only the special committee’s presentations? You, as an observer, will be allowed only to listen in. You might even hear some misinformation that you could helpfully clarify, but you can’t say a word in a “conversation” one side is privileged to control.
So it will be for the many who think the new Form of Government is not advisable. So it will be for those with reasons to oppose adoption of the Belhar Confession. So it will be for those seeking a more truthful and evenhanded handling of the Middle East conundrum.
Commissioners will lose the benefit of an opposing viewpoint. They will be indoctrinated, not informed.
A better way
On a better note, the conversation about civil union and Christian marriage will benefit from presentations by signers of both the majority and the minority committee reports. “My intention is for both reports to be presented in the time allowed,” wrote committee chair Jim Szeyller, “and then, for the question-and-answer period, to allow all of the present team members to be a panel addressing whatever concerns might be raised.”
This method – possible because the committee itself delivered a split report – is to be commended. In this conversation, participants will benefit from more than a single, controlled point of view.
It is not too late for the other conversation conveners to build into their 90 minutes an opportunity for a counter message to be presented. Certainly each convener could find responsible, knowledgeable and faithful representatives of legitimate opposition. This would provide commissioners a truly helpful forum of ideas, rather than an indoctrination, plain and simple.