Commissioners and conscience ... indeed.

Check out other comments by attorney Doug Nave and elder Marcia Casais, each offering their own concerns with the Layman's notion of voting "in lockstep," as Justice calls it.

The Presbyterian Layman published an interesting editorial ("Scripture and conscience") on-line in January 2001. Their point appeared to be that some leadership person — Stated Clerk, pastor, or other elder — should get the discussion of Amendment 00-O on their Session dockets, so that all the ministers and lay commissioners from those churches would head off to their presbytery meetings with their minds made up for them in advance (or "anchored in Scripture," as the Layman would have us understand it) to vote for O. The Layman would also have us understand that this is "corporate leadership," properly exercised.

Jonathan Justice, "a long time MLP activist and gardener, now at home again in Indiana," offers these remarks as a partial response:

[3-8-01]


Perhaps Jerry Andrews should read this charming editorial as a critique of his remarks in the Outlook regarding A Moment To Decide. I have felt for some decades that the Layman's grasp of the particularities of Presbyterian practice was somewhat limited, but this silence about the difference between lay commissioners and ministers at presbytery meetings is remarkable.

As I understand it, while ministers usually serve particular churches, they do not, in attending Presbytery, represent them: that is more or less why there are lay commissioners. Ministers are members of the presbytery and thus responsible to bring their own best understanding to discussing and voting on the business that comes before presbytery. I would think that a church that attempted to compel a minister to vote in a particular way on an issue before its presbytery would be more than a little out of order.

Even lay commissioners are not simply mouthpieces for their Sessions. Already elected Elders by their own congregations, they too are charged to make up their own minds.

I would note here that in my own presbytery, this particular aspect of freedom of conscience was further protected by the practice of using a relatively confidential paper ballot to vote on this year's group of Amendments. (As I have noted elsewhere, this was a turnover presbytery, as in: for B but not for O.) 

All that said, I have to wonder whether the referenced correspondent's Session neglected discussing Amendment O, and the rest of them, out of having a great deal of other stuff to attend to, or out of an unwillingness to deal with the wrath of the correspondent and the correspondent's favorite 'renewal' organizations. Ordinarily, I would say that a bit of collegial consultation is in order, and suggest that a climate in which such consultation is inhibited is one in which Presbyterian democratic practice is itself imperiled.

If you like what you find here,
we hope you'll help us keep Voices for Justice going ... and growing!

Please consider making a special contribution -- large or small -- to help us continue and improve this service.

Click here to send a gift online, using your credit card, through PayPal.

Or send your check, made out to "Presbyterian Voices for Justice" and marked "web site," to our PVJ Treasurer:

PVJ's Facebook page

Mitch Trigger, PVJ's Secretary/Communicator, has created a Facebook page where Witherspoon members and others can gather to exchange news and views. Mitch and a few others have posted bits of news, both personal and organizational. But there’s room for more!

Voices of Sophia blog

Heather Reichgott, who has created this new blog for Voices of Sophia, introduces it:

John Harris’ Summit to Shore blogspot

John Shuck’s Shuck and Jive

Got more blogs to recommend?