We're Meeting WHEN?

An interesting question generated good discussion on Facebook this week: should you come to presbytery for "The Big Vote" meeting if you haven't darkened the door of a presbytery meeting for over a year?

That in itself is a good question, going to the heart of what it means to be a presbyter. But the discussion then evolved into the scheduling of presbytery meetings -- specifically, about how evening and Saturday meetings are best for elders, but are anathema for pastors, especially those with children.

As I travel across the denomination, one issue I lift up at every opportunity is my belief that the parity between ruling elders and teaching elders (aka Ministers of Word and Sacrament) has been slowly but surely eroding over the past 20 or 30 years.

That parity -- reflecting our belief that both our governance and our spiritual leadership are enhanced by the perspectives of ordained leaders who work day by day in secular society -- is pivotal to who we are as Presbyterians.

That parity has been lost in part because we have all too often equated what it means to be a ruling elder with membership on a non-profit board of directors. By doing so, we chip away at the historic function of the ruling elder: the awesome, and awe-filled, task of measuring a community of faith's fidelity to the Word of God. How many ruling elders really believe that is what they're supposed to do?

That parity has also been eroded because ruling elders -- unless they're retired -- simply can't participate meaningfully in weekday presbytery meetings when they have to take vacation time to do so. And let's not even mention the fact that a ruling elder who has a job outside the home and who feels the call to serve as a commissioner to GA has to take a week of vacation to carry out that call.

Commenters to the Facebook discussion made the point that because teaching elders are expected to attend every presbytery meeting, while ruling elders can rotate attendance, meeting times should be geared towards accommodating the schedules of teaching, rather than ruling, elders. That's a point I hadn't thought of before, and, on the surface, it's a good one. On reflection, though, I think rotating presbytery attendance among ruling elders simply reinforces the loss of parity. A ruling elder who goes to only one or two presbytery meetings during her time on session will not have a chance to really understand what's going on, let alone establish relationships with folks who aren't from her congregation, and who don't think just like she does -- and building those kinds of relationships is one of the main strengths of a connectional church.

I'm convinced that this loss of parity is a critical issue, but I confess I lack answers to solving it. Maybe the answer lies partly in redefining what a presbytery is supposed to be and do -- something that our Middle Governing Body Commission is studying. But if part of the answer lies simply in WHEN we have presbytery meetings -- well, it's ironic that what seems to be on the surface a simple scheduling question is really very complex. I'm hoping someone out there has a workable solution.

Comments

[MaryAnn]

I agree with you that having elders who do more than just pop in every year or 18 months is desirable. The previous church I served had (has) designated elders to presbytery and they are able to build those relationships. They also, of course, are retired and have the time and life situation to be able to make 6+ meetings a year.

I agree that it's a really tough issue!

[Wendy]

I am a designated ruling elder and have found it very useful in my understanding and working within the church/

[Robert Austell]

One of the problems the moderator identifies with weekday meetings (not to mention presbytery committee meetings!) is that typically only retired elders participate. One consequence of this is that younger elders are not involved in the life of the presbytery. We have recently started alternating presbytery meetings between Tuesday (day) meetings and Saturday (day) meetings... that is a helpful compromise, I think. Committees are trying to do a better job with online communication and connection, but those still present a big challenge to involving working and younger elders.

[Sheldon Sorge]

At last week's Saturday meeting, which Moderator Bolbach attended (great to have her with us!), we did have a different mix - 37% ministers, 63% elders. Interestingly, we voted by exactly that percentage against nFOG.

[Leslianne]

I fall on the side of accommodating ruling elders, which would generally mean evening and Saturday meetings. (As much as I dislike the Saturday thing, myself.) I also think providing child care is crucial for folks to participate fully.