Having attended over 15 General Assemblies in a variety of roles, I’ve decided to use my time to help people understand some of the behind the scenes work that enables a General Assembly to function.
Since I’m attending this year as a member of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution, let me begin by commenting on “Advisory” and “Advocacy” groups.
Advisory groups are elected by the General Assembly through the denomination’s normal electoral process. All members are volunteers; equal numbers of minsters and elders; age and geographically diverse. The function of these groups is to “advise” the denomination–and especially commissioners to GA–regarding how specific overtures (motions for actions) will effect the particular area of interest of that group. Our own Ron Kernaghan serves on the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy which addresses the concerns of any proposed action involving these types of policies. There are also groups for Women’s Concerns, Racial-Ethnic Concerns, Committee on Representation, etc. In addition, the General Assembly Mission Council may offer its comments and advice. These groups are permitted to present to commissioners arguments for or against a particular action and recommendations on what action to take. Remember that these are not “General Assembly Staff” but elders and members from local congregations from all over the country.
The Advisory Committee on the Constitution is a slightly different animal. It is required by the Constitution to serve as a means of providing “expert” advice to commissioners on proposed actions that would effect the Book of Order. Its scope is thus narrowly defined to proposed actions that would change the Book of Order–or questions seeking interpretations of the existing Book of Order.
In the former case, the nine members of the ACC may comment solely from the perspective of the Constitutional appropriateness of the proposed action: is the proposed action consistent with existing wording? is the proposed wording consistent with the historical polity of the denomination? are there unintended consequences? if approved, would other sections of the Book of Order have to be changed? ACC recommendations may be one paragraph, or several pages. Occasionally, the ACC provides alternative wording that would accomplish the intent of the overture in more constitutionally appropriate language. If they recommend the action be not approved, the reason must be based solely on constitutional rationale. They rarely recommend “approval”–but often will comment that if that is what the GA/presbytery wants to do, the wording will accomplish that end. When they do recommend approval, it is solely because it corrects (or at least improves upon) existing wording.
The other work of the ACC is providing “Authoritative Interpretations” to specific constitutional questions from congregations and presbyteries to the Office of Constitutional Services. All of these questions grow out of actual situations in the life of the church where the correct constitutional interpretation is not readily apparent–and the staff of the OCS believes clarification is required or would be helpful. The ACC will discuss the matter in committee; assign one person to prepare a response; and then edit that response electronically and in person until it is ready to present to the full GA for action. Only if the full GA adopts the recommendation does it become an “Authoritative Interpretation” of that GA. While there has been much concern and controversy around a couple of recent AI’s–it is important to note that there are normally 7-12 AI’s to come out of every GA–the vast majority of which most members are unaware–but which are invaluable to Stated Clerks and Clerks of Session in terms of the day to day life of the presbytery and congregations.
Tomorrow I will comment on Advocacy Groups: those “special interest” groups of like-minded individuals who have a clearly defined purpose for which they advocate. Few have any denominational support; the vast majority are funded by members and other interested parties. They do not have direct access to commissioners in committee, but do influence debate and discussion. More tomorrow.
, and each other. In my committee, they even managed to insert a proposed constitutional amendment as new business–something that rarely happens. As a member of ACC, I was also pleased that GA sustained about 98% of ACC recommendations–with commendations for our information being helpful to commissioners in making their decisions. {Though I earned reputation as Mr. Negativity since all of my recommendations to my committee were to “disapprove”–which is what they did on all 6 of the ones ACC commented on.}
Posted by losranchos 
