Amendment F criticism ‘an incomplete reflection’
By Doug BairdResponse to, The Layman Online, December 9, 1999
As a member of the Assembly Committee on General Assembly Procedures that recommended the organizational changes which includes Amendment F, I find the report of the action of the Presbyterian Renewal Network reported under the heading, “Renewal Network opposes PCUSA’s Amendment F” in the The Presbyterian Layman in November to be an incomplete reflection of the actions of the General Assembly relative to the recommendations of “The Special Committee for Review of the General Assembly” (RGA 36.001-081).
The Assembly Committee had to struggle long and hard to discern what the recommendations of the Special Committee would mean to the PC(USA). It is understandable that looking only at the proposed changes to the Book of Order makes it difficult to understand those changes.
In presenting the Assembly Committee’s report, Phil Barnes used two graphics to illustrate the nature of the changes. These were reproduced in the “General Assembly News” for June 26, 1999. They showed the delegation of judicial, ecclesiastic, and programmatic and corporate function. The following shows the current assignment of function.
Currently, the ecclesiastic functions are divided between the stated clerk, the Committee of the Office of the General Assembly (COGA) and the General Assembly Council (GAC). The proposed Council of the Assembly (COA) subsumes the functions of the COGA and incorporates the ecclesiastic function relinquished by the GAC as its name is changed to Mission Agency (MA) affirming the centrality of mission as determined by the General Assembly and assigned to the MA.
The following diagram illustrates the parity of the various agencies carrying out their assigned responsibilities. The COA is not “another layer of government.”
RGA 36.024-36.031 is specific on the point that the members of the COA are persons elected by the General Assembly. Membership in the COA is an added responsibility for the moderators. The General Assembly Nominating Committee is directed to annually nominate three persons to serve on the COA and, of course, additional nominations can be made from the floor. RGA 36.029 provides that the remaining “nine elected persons appointed by and from the boards of the agencies of the General Assembly …” completes the membership of the COA.
I see the importance of the inclusion of representatives of synods and presbyteries in the Mission Agency Board (MAB). This provides a mechanism for coordinating the mission activities of all elements of the denomination above the local congregation. On the other hand, the ecclesiastical responsibilities of the COA requires representation from the various agencies of the General Assembly so that they may function as one church.
Proposed G-13.0201.h requires that the COA consult with middle governing bodies. As I see it, experience will dictate whether the level of interaction between the COA and the middle governing bodies justifies the dedication of human and financial resources of the middle governing bodies that would be required by the inclusion of their representatives as members of the COA.
The recommendations of the special committee represented the conclusion of a series of actions that started with the Quadrennial Review presented to GA208 (1996). The responsibilities for dispute resolution in proposed G-13.0101.l corrects a significant deficiency noted in the “Anderson Report” chartered by GA208. RGA 36.064-36.071 details procedures to be followed. RGA 36.072 refers an assignment from GA209 (1997) to the COA to “design and recommend a process to produce and communicate a compelling and unified vision statement for the Presbyterian Church (USA).”
The July 12, 1999 issue of The Presbyterian Outlook contains a report of the action of both the Assembly Committee and the General Assembly on the recommendations of the Special Committee. The General Assembly approved the proposed changes by a vote of 444-67.
The writer is from Arden, North Carolina.