More comments

More conversation on "Who's manipulating the General Assembly?"

More on "Who's manipulating the General Assembly?"

[5-29-02]

We've received another response to Dr. Harold Franch's note regarding what he sees as manipulation of various Presbyterian bodies. Dr. Franch has responded to that, and your WebWeaver offers another little thought from his observations of the 2001 General Assembly.
Please add your thoughts to this conversation.
Just send a note!
~~~~~~~~~~~~

I read with interest Dr. Franch's bemoaning the ideological makeup of commissioners to GA, and by extension Presbyteries:

"I read with interest your article "What will be the issues at the 214^th General Assembly?" You spend some time (probably rightly) decrying the role of affinity group money in the GA process. But your statement, "That is why we oppose all attempts to manipulate and control the decision-making process," applies to other forms of manipulation and control. The presbytery staff and committee members who help the nominating committees seem to obtain GA commissioners that do not match the general presbytery membership. For example, the delegation to the general assembly from Greater Atlanta Presbytery has for the last 3 years has had a majority of individuals who support homosexual ordination, while the presbytery votes against homosexual ordination each time. How is this achieved? Careful selection of candidates nominated. "

I do not know the standing rules of other Presbyteries, but the Presbytery of Sante Fe's GA delegates are nominated from the floor subject to certain attendance rules. You are then asked to fill out a one page fact paper giving personal stats, and You must answer a question on why you want to be a commissioner and why you would be a good commissioner. Its all out in the open there is nothing to hide. It is just up to each presbyter to participate. You have to get involved in the wider Church. If you want to change the way your Presbytery is administered then get involved, attend the meetings as a Commissioner, speak your voice, vote for those you like, nominate someone from the floor. According to the Book of Order nominations from the floor are always welcome! It just really irks me when people complain about Presbytery but never have the guts or convictions to get involved in the process.

Joe Sayre

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dr. Franch responds:

Thank you for posting my note. I certainly don't want to discount the effect of money on a political process (look at our U.S. government). Politics is all about convincing a majority of the electorate of the rightness of your cause. Obviously money affects one's ability to get a message to the ordained members, but so does grass roots organization, the help of specific influential persons (the moderator or seminary faculty), and holding an administrative office in the our church.

I merely wanted to recount specific incidents of intentional or unintentional bias by members holding administrative office that negatively impacted the democratic process. As a Democrat in the secular world, I want to assure you that the target of my comments was not the progressive agenda (Indeed I read your website out of sympathy for many of your positions), but rather the integrity of the democratic process.

Harold A. Franch, M.D.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

And a little comment from your WebWeaver:

I observed the committee hearings at the 2001 General Assembly that eventuated in Overture 01-A, and knew a number of the participants in those hearings, I'd like to add a little perspective of my own. Dr. Franch is concerned about the time given to proponents of the various overtures that sought to return to presbyteries and sessions the responsibility for discerning who is called to and qualified for ordained office.

There were so many of those overtures that the overture advocates suggested consolidating their time to make one unified presentation; they thus were given one hour - about a third of what they would have been given for a long series of separate presentations for each overture.

There was just one advocate for an opposing overture, and he was given 10 minutes - twice what he would normally have been allotted.

Further, it was my clear impression the negotiations with the overture advocates were carried on by the committee leadership, and not by the national staff members whom Dr. Franch views as imposing their biases on the committee. In such an atmosphere of tension as had built up around the work of that committee, it's not surprising that many people on both "sides" of the issue felt unfairly treated. That, too, seems to be an inevitable part of the democratic process.

The hope of the Witherspoon Society is that by bringing more openness to that process, through more complete financial disclosure among other measures, we might reduce the sense of grievance and unfairness on all sides.

Doug King

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please join the conversation!

Just send a note -- including, please, your name and any other identifications you'd like noted.