The Stewardship of Selecting General Assembly Commissioners

Declining memberships, decreasing budgets, defiance of the Constitution, and threats of separation—all of these are common topics of conversation within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

What they all represent—simplistically—is that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has lost its sense of collective purpose. There is a sense that the denomination is struggling to survive. It has lost its identity. The image is one of a drowning man. On the extremes, the man is gasping and his limbs are thrashing about, trying to hold onto anything. In the center, the man is not moving, lamenting that he is sinking and the extremes won’t get along to preserve his life.1

Ironically, a life preserver is within reach.

The life preserver is this: the people of the church being good stewards of the covenant they have entered. We have covenanted to “Be active in government and discipline, serving in governing bodies of the church” (G-14.0405b(9)). We have taken on the stewardship responsibility for our covenant life together. A big part of that stewardship involves men and women in local congregations and presbyteries picking those who represent us in our higher governing bodies; that is, where our covenant life together is worked out. Unfortunately, we have abandoned our responsibilities to each other. Then, we wonder why someone else, somewhere else, is doing something that really bothers us.

Stewardship of Picking Leaders

Scripture, the Book of Confessions and the Book of Order all speak to the need for careful selection of leaders. The principles involved are applicable beyond the walls of the local congregation and beyond the boundaries of a presbytery.

A. Scripture

I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 both include the need for discernment of the community within the characteristics of those seeking the calls to church office. Consider what the qualities of leaders are to be and then ask how are the decisions regarding the selection of leaders to be made?

The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of overseer desires a noble task. Now an overseer must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way—for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil.2

I left you behind in Crete for this reason, so that you should put in order what remained to be done, and should appoint overseers in every town, as I directed you: someone who is blameless, married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or addicted to wine or violent or greedy for gain; but he must be hospitable, a lover of goodness, prudent, upright, devout, and self-controlled. He must have a firm grasp of the word that is trustworthy in accordance with the teaching, so that he may be able to preach with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.3

Certainly, the standards for leadership did not begin in the Pauline epistles. Consider the counsel of Jethro to Moses:

[Jethro] said, “What is this that you are doing for the people? Why do you sit alone, while all the people stand around you from morning until evening?” Moses said to his father-in-law, “Because the people come to me to inquire of God. When they have a dispute, they come to me and I decide between one person and another, and I make known to them the statutes and instructions of God.” Moses’ father-in-law said to him, “What you are doing is not good. You will surely wear yourself out, both you and these people with you. For the task is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone. Now listen to me. I will give you counsel, and God be with you! You should represent the people before God, and you should bring their cases before God; teach them the statutes and instructions and make known to them the way they are to go and the things they are to do. You should also look for able men among all the people, men who fear God, are trustworthy, and hate dishonest gain; set such men over them as officers over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. Let them sit as judges for the people at all times; let them bring every important case to you, but decide every minor case themselves. So it will be easier for you, and they will bear the burden with you. If you do this, and God so commands you, then you will be able to endure, and all these people will go to their home in peace.”4

The point is this: men and women who are called to be overseers are not chosen by a random process or simple longevity. Not everyone is equally gifted. Different gifts are needed for “judges of tens” than for “judges of thousands.” These qualities must be contemplated. An evaluation needs to be done. A sense of calling needs to be discerned.

B. Book of Confessions

The Book of Confessions is consistent with this scriptural exhortation. Most on point comes from the Second Helvetic Confession:

MINISTERS ARE TO BE CALLED AND ELECTED. Furthermore, no man ought to usurp the honor of the ecclesiastical ministry; that is, to seize it for himself by bribery or any deceits, or by his own free choice. But let the ministers of the Church be called and chosen by lawful and ecclesiastical election; that is to say, let them be carefully chosen by the Church or by those delegated from the Church for that purpose in a proper order without any uproar, dissension and rivalry. Not any one may be elected, but capable men distinguished by sufficient consecrated learning, pious eloquence, simple wisdom, lastly, by moderation and an honorable reputation, according to that apostolic rule which is compiled by the apostle in I Tim., ch. 3, and Titus, ch. 1.5

Related are the “notes” or “marks” of the true Kirk from the Scots Confession:

The notes of the true Kirk, therefore, we believe, confess, and avow to be: first, the true preaching of the Word of God, in which God has revealed himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles declare; secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, with which must be associated the Word and promise of God to seal and confirm them in our hearts; and lastly, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly ministered, as God’s Word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished.6

That last line, “whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished,” includes an understanding that ecclesiastical discipline is not a blind process. Discipline is not always reactive; in fact, in its most positive manifestation, it is creative and active. “Virtue is nourished” by the exercise of good stewardship before problems arise.

C. Book of Order

The Book of Order stands in conformity with Scripture and the Book of Confessions on this issue. There is an extensive process for ordaining and installing officers in the church. A listing of church officers appears right after the section regarding membership, in the Form of Government, G-6.000 ff. The process of ordination, certification, and commissioning of men and women as officers is in G-14.000 ff.7 Included among these processes are times of preparation, evaluation, and examination. Other specific citations will be noted below.

Abandoned and Failed Stewardship

When we look at the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and wonder why it is in decline—and by all objective measuring standards, it is in decline—a part of the responsibility has to be set at our own feet in the way we select men and women to serve as commissioners to the General Assembly.

Why can I say that? The General Assembly is comprised of commissioners from 173 presbyteries. Every year there is a time of orientation during their first session together. Commissioners are instructed on how the electronic voting will take place. Part of that orientation includes asking some questions in order that commissioners can practice using the voting pads.

Every year in recent memory the results have been similar:

• 70-80% are first-time GA commissioners.
• More than half have read less than half the papers sent to them.

These two things—by themselves—almost guarantee that the status quo will not be altered. The vast majority are not prepared to exercise leadership. Instead, they need to be told what to do. And that is exactly what happens.

Unfortunately, when a more complete picture is drawn, it becomes clear that the current system cannot effect the kinds of reform necessary to alter the downward spiral. Indeed, it functions to prevent systemic oversight and reform. How so?

• Most commissioners have limited exposure, knowledge, or experience in dealing with the matters they are asked to decide. Most have not spent time working with, reviewing, analyzing, and/or being engaged in the programs and work of the national denomination which they are asked to oversee. Most are not aware of what previous General Assemblies have done with respect to the issues they are being asked to evaluate. Thus, they are asked to make decisions about things with which they have no personal experience or historical perspective.
• Most commissioners have limited exposure, knowledge, and/or experience in the city in which they are serving as a commissioner. It takes time to figure out where they are and where they are supposed to be. It is disconcerting to be in an unfamiliar place with brand new responsibilities, a lot of pressure, and a short period of time to make it all work.
• Most commissioners have limited exposure, knowledge, and/or experience in the process followed in, and energy required for, an eight-day meeting. It takes commissioners time and energy to find their committee. It takes time and energy to figure out who is on their committee. It takes time and energy to become familiar with the issues that are to be discussed on their committee. It takes time and energy to figure out how to speak to issues that will be handled by their committee. It takes time and energy to figure out how to vote. It takes time to figure out what to do if they disagree with the vote of their committee. By the time the committee process is over on Tuesday, many commissioners are already exhausted. Thus, during the floor process Wednesday through Saturday, they are struggling to keep up, to keep focused, and to stay awake.

Why does this keep happening?

The overwhelming majority of presbyteries have processes for selecting commissioners that guarantee that the most inexperienced commissioners possible are sent each year. Some do this by “seniority” systems, where those who have been in the presbytery the longest without ever serving as a commissioner have priority in being elected. Some do this by a rotational system where the nomination involves picking someone from a different region within the presbytery each time. Some presbyteries have point systems, where individuals become eligible by attending more meetings and serving on more committees. Some presbyteries have a combination of systems that make the NFL playoff system look linear. Even those presbyteries where open elections are the norm, one of the factors against a candidate is whether that person has recently served as a commissioner. As a result, all of the elements are lined up against commissioners actually effecting reform.

Two other errors are predominant in the selection process: “fairness” and “random selection.” It is true that commissioners are not bound or instructed by their presbyteries—their consciences are free. However, it also is true that presbyteries choose how those commissioners are selected. Many presbyteries err badly in trying to be “fair” or “random” in their selection of commissioners.

• Blindness to views is an error. “…[T]he great touchstone of truth, its tendency to promote holiness, according to our Savior’s rule, ‘By their fruits ye shall know them.’ And that no opinion can be either more pernicious or more absurd than that which brings truth and falsehood upon a level, and represents it as of no consequence what a man’s opinions are.” (Preliminary Principles, Book of Order, G-1.0304). If we select commissioners without considering what the nominee’s opinions are, we act as if it is no consequence what they believe.
• Blindness to gifts and skill as a commissioner is an error. “While the ministry is one, specific forms of ministry may emphasize special tasks and skills.…” (Book of Order, G-6.0104). As with officers of the church, commissioners should be selected by a discernment of “the necessary gifts and abilities, natural and acquired…[they should be] persons of strong faith, dedicated discipleship, and love of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Their manner of life should be a demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and in the world.” (Book of Order, G-6.0106a) Choosing candidates without reference to a sense of calling, skills, or understanding of the business to be handled simply drops the ball on the kinds of mutual accountability and stewardship we are called to exercise.

Further, commissioner to General Assembly is the only position in our connectional life that I can think of where experience is considered a factor against a candidate.8 We do not send missionaries into the field without examining and commissioning. The community of faith looks at the candidate’s background, training, and preparation. In addition, the community of faith looks at the individual in order to help discern whether Christ has called him or her into this particular mission to this particular people group.

We do not rotate preachers in the pulpit each Sunday. We do not select preachers based upon the length of residency in a particular region. We do not select preachers based upon a point system at meetings. Instead, the community of faith does an evaluation of both the individual and the community in order to discern whether Christ has called the candidate to serve in that particular congregation.

We do rotate elders. We do so only—again, only—after a process by which they are examined and installed. The sole criteria is more than the length of residency in a particular region. It is based on more than a point system of meetings attended. The community of faith does an evaluation of both the individual and the community in order to discern whether Christ has called the candidate to serve in that particular office.

We also rotate deacons. We do so based upon the same process; that is, only after a process by which they are examined and installed. The community of faith does an evaluation of both the individual and the community in order to discern whether Christ has called the candidate to serve in that particular congregation.

Regaining Good Stewardship

The steps to regain control of this system are remarkably simple, though that does not indicate that they will be achieved without a struggle.

First, some widely held assumptions must be addressed. What follows will run contrary to the currently prevailing conventional wisdom:

1. It is good stewardship to send gifted commissioners to serve at the General Assembly. This includes recognizing that experienced commissioners may go frequently rather than rarely.
2. It is good stewardship to examine those who are nominated to be selected as commissioners to the General Assembly about their faith, their knowledge and support of the constitution, their gifts, their sense of call.
3. It is good stewardship to be intentional in selecting those who are nominated.
4. It is good stewardship to send candidates whose views are representative of the presbytery.

The converse is also true:

1. It is poor stewardship to continuously send inexperienced commissioners whose gifts are not consistent with service as a commissioner.
2. It is poor stewardship to blindly accept rotational systems, point systems, and seniority systems. It is poor stewardship and an incorrect assumption to believe that ordination as an officer automatically translates into a calling to be a commissioner. Service at the General Assembly level is a calling, not an honor or a vacation rewarded for long service.
3. It is poor stewardship to ignore the responsibility to participate in the selection of those who will represent the presbytery at the General Assembly level.
4. It is poor stewardship to send candidates whose views are not representative of the presbytery or to send a “balanced” slate of commissioners (that is, intentionally sending commissioners with contradictory views).

Then, it is important to engage in ordinary ecclesiastical discipline. Here, discipline is being used in the Scots’ Confession sense of “nourishing virtue.” The selection process is entirely within the control of the presbyteries doing the selecting. Again, it is true that commissioners are not sent with instructions; but the process by which they are chosen is something that is the responsibility of the presbytery. Continuing in the status quo of poor stewardship is a manifestation of the abandonment of the third note or mark of the true “Kirk.” Persisting in this fashion will guarantee further thrashing by the extremities and further disillusionment of the middle.

A life preserver for the drowning denomination is within grasp. It is time to recover the responsibility for being good stewards of the covenant we have entered with each other. That responsibility has substance; it requires discernment. Failing that, we will be full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. We are assured of continued flailing and thrashing. Accepting the responsibility holds the promise of reform, restoration, and—dare I say it—the reclaiming of the third note of the true Kirk.

This article first appeared in Theology Matters, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Jan/Feb 2004).