By Brad Isbell
The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America is the true representation of the will of the denomination; it cannot be otherwise. Even for constitutional amendments that must be approved by 2/3 of presbyteries after initial GA majority approval, the GA has the right of final ratification. There is no plebiscite of all the elders in the PCA, nor is there any supercommittee or commission that can operate independently of the GA. Those who wish to have their voices heard—and, indeed, have the ultimate say in the PCA—must show up at or send qualified representatives to the GA.
Thus, the grousing1 heard about floor nominations before, during, and after the 52nd GA in Chattanooga last week is, well, interesting. The fact that a mere nine floor nominees prevailed (out of 65 total nominations) would seem unexceptional. Nine successful floor nominations may be more than usual, but may not even be the most floor nominees ever to have prevailed over committee nominees.
The committee in question is the Nominating Committee, which meets in person not long before the GA. Each presbytery is entitled to send one elder to the committee, though the full number of presbyteries is never represented (78 attended this year). It ought to be eponymously obvious that this body is a committee, not a commission. A committee recommends; a commission acts for.
We hear a lot about grassroots in the PCA—everyone seems to invoke grassroots (meaning bottom-up, not top-down governance) to support something or other. Well, if there are grassroots in the PCA, they grow from the concrete and carpet of the GA meeting hall floor. If grassroots exist, that’s where you’d find them.
So, for those who are troubled by the fact that mere presbyters (after being sent to the GA at great expense to themselves or their churches) decided contrary to a committee 9 out of 65 times, know this: limiting floor nominees has been tried before, and it failed. And it will fail if tried again.
In 2019, such an effort failed in the Overtures Committee and died for lack of a minority report. It sought to “restrict floor nominations at the General Assembly for the Assembly Committees and Agencies to those whose names were submitted to the Nominating Committee according to RAO 8-4.d and e, by adding a final sentence to RAO 8-4.i.” The sentence was, “No floor nomination will be received unless the nominee’s name was previously submitted to the Nominating Committee according to RAO 8-4.d and e, excepting circumstances where there is no nominee from the Nominating Committee.”
This unsuccessful effort would have taken away from the presbyters (who trouble themselves to attend and sit in the uncomfortable chairs of the GA hall) the right to select their representatives on the committees of agencies and boards and given it to a committee of around 80 men. Passing this Rules of Assembly Operations amendment would have been akin to an application of Ecclesial Round-Up. That such a thing was ever proposed, or is being mooted again, says more about the proposers’ and mooters’ understanding of grassroots than any off-hand GA speech ever could.
One perturbed presbyter posted to this effect: “We should trust the nominations committee. They are OUR representatives.”
I'm hoping not to take a side, here. I do wonder what criteria are taken into account from floor nominations, though. Much like our American legislative system, representation across our geography is important to me. Is this deliberated at NomCom? Is it helpful to see NomCom's list and then "amend" it by offering up alternative nominees? Doesn't a W-L record of 56-9 indicate that NomCom actually put forth a great slate on the whole?
To your main point here, if you are frustrated by the way it turned out, then maybe you need to be on NomCom in Louisville!
"They are OUR representatives". Kind of like that great representative body, the Politburo.