the Outlook Blog

 

I’m writing from the back of General Assembly Committee 6, Church Orders and Ministry, which just completed a time of meeting in small discussion groups around circular tables. When I was a Youth Advisory Delegate back at the 2000 general assembly, I don’t recall many committees (if any) meeting in small groups. While every committee manages group process challenges differently, the challenges are great, in part, because of the number of people on each committee.

A congregation I served once in the Church of Scotland had a church session of over 100 elders. The session of the congregation I serve now consists of nine elders. The smaller session of nine is much easier with which to work, dare I say, much easier with which to discern the Spirit that with 100+ elders.

When the PC(USA) moved, a few years ago, from annual assemblies to biennial meetings, we increased the number of commissioners sent to each assembly. In turn, this has made committees larger and their work more challenging.

To address this concern, the number of committees has also increased over the years so that there might be fewer people on each committee. But, depending on your perspective, the committees still remain quite large. Numbers on each committee at this assembly differ slightly, but the lists I counted through had 53, 42, 52, and 55 members. That’s a lot of committee members.

It’s very difficult, in a committee of fifty people or more, to get to know one another, feel connected to one another, and work as close colleagues in the very tight time constraints of a general assembly. Even how the set up of the chairs in the room differs in important ways with a committee of fifty persons as compared to thirty. With a large committee, tables are set in multiple rows so that some members are sitting in front of others. That way, it’s difficult to see the faces and body language around the whole room.

Now I understand the argument for larger assemblies accompanied by larger committees – presbyteries send more commissioners than they would otherwise, and more people get to experience and participate in the national church. Attending GA can be a life-changing experience for many, and often those who attend are energized for good work in their presbyteries after the assembly adjourns.

But, on the other hand, my practical-group-process-teacher-side says that committees of fifty people are just too large to work effectively. I’m all for spreading the joy that is GA as widely as possible, but it’s painful to watch how larger committees get stuck in parliamentary process that might otherwise be avoided were the committee smaller and the members closer to one another.

Yesterday, the General Assembly Procedures Committee voted down Overture 03-04 from the Presbytery of San Diego by a 3 to 2 margin. The overture sought to decrease the number of commissioners sent to GA, citing financial implications as a leading rationale. Opponents of the overture pointed out that decreasing the number of commissioners would unduly increase the influence of advisory delegates.

I don’t quite disagree with the committee’s action, and I wasn’t present for the debate, but I wonder if they discussed how the overture would affect the size of committees at future assemblies. If so or if not, the size of that committee surely influenced the discussion.

So, what do you think? Are the committees at General Assembly too large, too small, or just right? In your experience, what ways of working prove most effective for committees of fifty or more?

 

 

-Adam J. Copeland, Outlook Blogger

-Photo by Erin Dunigan