There will be plenty of discussion in the ensuing days
regarding the passing of the committee report regarding the FV, NPP, etc., and
there are men far better qualified to speak to these matters than I (men still
in the PCA, no less). However, I am admittedly disappointed (though not
surprised) at yesterday’s outcome. I was able to listen to the debate
online, and believed the more compelling and logical arguments were made
against the report (and for adopting the substitute motion). However, the
debate seemed hardly relevant once the vote was cast against the substitute
motion, and then (what appeared to be) an overwhelming majority in support of the committee report. It made me wonder why the delegates even
spent their time speaking to the issues.
Perhaps a more efficient procedure would look something like this:
“Who has an opinion about this matter? Raise your card.”
If a majority raises their cards, then ask, “Whose opinion isn’t going to
change regardless of what is said over the next few minutes?”
If a majority raises their cards again, then it would save everyone a lot of
time to just go ahead and vote on the issue. On a practical level think
about what this would mean. It could potentially cut the overall length
of GA significantly by doing away with meaningless debate, thereby making it
more economical for the delegates in attendance and their churches.
Granted, this would probably violate parliamentary procedure on many levels,
but at least it would remove the guise that any serious debate
would really take place (perhaps this last gibe is unfair).
Now, I say the above somewhat jesting and somewhat seriously, but isn’t that
basically what took place? Even more, I
wonder if the thinking behind vote casting went along the lines of, “I wonder
how [fill in the blank with a prominent PCA figure] is voting, and I think I’ll
vote the same?” Granted, that may not be
an entirely incorrect way to vote, as there are men that we respect and trust
in such situations. Even more, why
wouldn’t the average delegate simply trust the members of the committee to have
done their job well, thereby presenting an accurate report? Another fair consideration, I think. But
if the above assessment is anywhere close to the truth, then where is the place
for any legitimate debate and discussion to take place? Apparently not in one of the places where it
should: General Assembly. Peter Leithart
(one of those PCA guys mentioned above) raises this same issue, and says it far
better: http://www.leithart.com/archives/003073.php