Representation Redefined:

The concept of representation is of special importance in our understanding of government.  While I am particularly writing with the Presbyterian Church, (USA) in mind, this article should be of interest to anyone who is concerned about what is happening to the idea of representation in our society.  We seem to be losing sight of the true nature of representation.

 

Let's start at the beginning.  In the Presbyterian system of government, elders are elected by the members of the congregation to administer the affairs of the church.  These elders comprise what is called the Session.  The Session sends representatives to the presbytery.  The presbytery sends representatives, called commissioners, to meetings of the synod and General Assembly.  Our Book of Order says:  "Presbyters are not simply to reflect the will of the people, but rather to seek together to find and represent the will of Christ;...." (G1.0300d.)    This is true.  In fact, we could hope that any Christian in a position of public trust would seek to know and obey the will of Christ over against the will of humankind.

 

In G9.0100 of the Form of Government, we read this: "The Presbyterian Church, (USA), shall be governed by representative bodies composed of presbyters, both elders and ministers of the Word and Sacrament." Now, we run into a problem.  In what sense shall they be representative?  Of whom shall they be representative?

 

Obviously, these bodies are to be inclusive in terms of gender and race, as the chapter makes explicit.  Also, it is clear that these governing bodies are to be representative, in the sense that they represent the church, as has been stated in preliminary principles of our government.  Is this, however, the extent of representative government within the Presbyterian Church, (USA.?) The founders of Presbyterianism surely had something more in mind.

 

In almost all of our presbyteries today, commissioners to meetings of synods and the General Assembly are chosen by a nominating committee using various rotation formulae and criteria which have little to do with genuine representation.  These choices are based on things like geographic distribution within a presbytery, length of time since a church has been represented, length of service of a particular minister, balance of small churches and large churches, or other factors.  Nominations from the floor are usually strongly discouraged.  Awareness of a potential commissioner's thoughts on any of the likely issues is seen as irrelevant to the process.  This is not representative, in any meaningful sense, and it is not Presbyterian.

 

Before non-Presbyterian readers of this piece conclude that this has no significance for you, let me remind you of the increasing plea for "proportional representation" in many parts of our political ;process.  Political turf is increasingly being seen as the province of a certain race, gender, ethnic group, or even religious affinity.  And consider the controversy now building in Hawaii about what is called "native rule."

 

 It is certainly true that we should seek the will of God rather than simply represent the will of our fellows; but the assumption that somehow we cannot do this if our elected commissioners are freely chosen is strange, to say the least.  Most of us who are ministers or elders have convictions or at least strong opinions that have developed over years of being involved in the life of the church and seeking to follow Christ.  Am I suddenly going to go to General Assembly with a blank slate?  Hardly.  Yes, I may change my opinions about an issue--but not because I've never been listening to the Holy Spirit until the day I walk into  a meeting of General Assembly!  

 

Special interest groups from all across the theological spectrum will be at General Assembly meetings, seeking to inform and influence commissioners as to how to vote.  Hundreds of denominational officials from Louisville and across the nation will be there as observers or presenters, seeking to gain my support or build a consensus.  Am I to assume that these are the "voice of God?"  Clearly, the idea of choosing our commissioners to synod meetings and meetings of the General Assembly by what amounts to a glorified lottery system is unfounded.

 

I voice this concern, not so much because of the outcome of any one vote or any one General Assembly.  (I have been concerned about this ever since I entered the ministry 31 years ago.)  Still, if we look at just one issue--the recent adoption of the report by the Joint Task Force on the "Peace, Unity, and Purity" of the church, we can readily see the problem.  For the past ten years, our Book of Order has contained what is called the "fidelity and chastity" amendment, G6.0106b, which states: "Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church.  Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness."  In the last referendum of the presbyteries on this amendment, 73% of the presbyteries voted to retain this language in the Book of Order.  Yet, at this year's General Assembly, while still affirming this amendment by an overwhelming majority, also,    by a vote of 57%, adopted an authoritative interpretation which changes significantly the way our denomination will deal with fidelity and chastity issues in the years to come.  Is the will of God in conflict?  Do we simply change our views to eliminate hard choices?  How is this, in any sense, representative government?

 

The Session of First Presbyterian Church, in Jackson, Alabama, the church of which I am pastor, is very likely to submit an overture to our presbytery to devise a new system for the selection of presbytery commissioners to meetings of the synod and General Assembly.  I would hope that every Session and every presbytery would do the same thing.  The system can take into account legitimate concerns of gender and ethnicity, but needs to be more free and open, accounting for different viewpoints and perspectives, and giving presbyters a real voice in choosing their representatives to the higher governing bodies.

 

I do not believe we should instruct our representatives as to how to vote.  I believe we should always be seeking to know and obey the will of God, in every aspect of the Christian life.  I sometimes hear people defend the current system of choosing commissioners by affirming their trust in the decency and spiritual commitment of those they send to the higher governing bodies.  I do not doubt the sincerity of these people or the good will that is intended.  I do, however, have serious doubts about how a governing body can truly be representative or legitimate if it is chosen as a rubber stamp and only superficially reflective of the presbytery who sends it.  We must honor true Presbyterian principles of government.  The only way we can do that is to give voice to our principles of doctrine as they affect the decisions our governing bodies make.  Join me in making the Presbyterian Church, (USA), truly Presbyterian and representative again!--The Rev. Mr. Daniel Berry, First Presbyterian Church, Jackson, Alabama.