I do not see how we can approve of this report as it stands. I do not see how any man who voted “no” in the presbyteries could concur with a depiction of their decision process that makes reference to “cognitive dissonance,” a concept originally formulated to explain the irrational behavior of a UFO cult after the expected spaceships failed to appear (see Leon Festinger et al, When Prophecy Fails).

The Administrative Committee (AC) of the PCA recently released its annual report to the General Assembly (GA). The report contains some commentary regarding the possible reasons why the AC’s proposed funding plan was rejected which merits our closer examination (2011 handbook, 306-308).

If the objective of this commentary was to conciliate after an animated debate in which the AC sometimes appeared to be acting beyond its role of neutral facilitator, then the report is a failure. The tone of the commentary, which ranges from blank incredulity that anyone could possibly disagree with the plan to something bordering on condescension towards those who actually did, is likely to reopen old wounds for no apparent purpose.

Or, if the objective of the commentary was to show that the AC had learned from the debate and now desires to listen to the courts of the church rather than to send down items for rubber-stamp approval, it seems equally unsuccessful. While legitimate concerns are perfunctorily noted, the commentary suggests rather that the main lessons learned were about politics, publicity, and psychology. In any case, the bare minimum function of the report is simply to produce an accurate record of the matter. Yet the report contains elements which are far from incontestable in this regard.

Undoubtedly, the most significant issue the AC dealt with last year was the proposed funding plan, a debate recognized to be “one of the most controversial issues in the history of the PCA” (306). As noted in the report, there was unanimous support for this proposal among the “Coordinators, the CMC, and the AC” (307). It was then approved by the GA by a significantly divided, albeit majority, vote. Yet, in the course of the ensuing process at the presbytery level, the plan was decisively rejected; it fell short not only of the required 2/3rd majority, but also even of a simple majority. The further the plan went from headquarters, the worse it fared.

Naturally, the AC needed to wrestle with why it was that a plan they believed to be a good idea was rejected by the presbyteries. Coming to grips with failure is one of the most important things that any organization ever does. Perhaps these events might have been interpreted to alert the AC of a possible disconnect between perceptions at Lawrenceville and the denomination on the ground. Perhaps the defeat might have prompted questions about the very idea of centralized leadership formulating plans to send down to the courts rather than the other way around. We know that there was “…expert legal opinion” that the plan apparently did not “…jeopardize our legal status as a non-hierarchal church,” but what if the more important concern was not for legal technicalities but for upholding the reality of a non-hierarchical Presbyterian church (308)?

No doubt there are many possibilities we might learn from this situation, so I am not surprised to see some attempt to do this in the AC report. I am surprised, however, by what that commentary seems to say. While the report states up front that no one’s “sincerity” (306) is in question, it immediately engages in all manner of speculation as to possible explanations for the defeat other than well-considered dissent—“unchristian comments” on the web, de-prioritization, resistance to change, ungrounded speculation, and irrational emotionalism (306-308).

Now we might disagree strongly with the decision that was made (one does, incidentally, wonder how appropriate it is for a neutral entity to make this disagreement so obvious after the presbyteries have spoken), but I think that in the absence of good evidence to the contrary we should assume that the ordained eldership took their jobs seriously when they voted as they did. We have to at least assume that they gave due diligence to the issue and had some good, considered reasons for voting in the negative. Yet, far from making this assumption clear, the report reads as if rejection of the AC’s plan was so implausible as to demand some explanation other than well-considered, legitimate disagreement by elders acting rationally.

If this be the case, fathers and brethren, I do not see how we can approve of this report as it stands. I do not see how any man who voted “no” in the presbyteries could concur with a depiction of their decision process that makes reference to “cognitive dissonance” (308 n8), a concept originally formulated to explain the irrational behavior of a UFO cult after the expected spaceships failed to appear (see Leon Festinger et al, When Prophecy Fails).

Just as importantly, I do not see how anyone who might have disagreed with these men would want to characterize the decisions of their brethren in this way. Say that they were mistaken. Say that they were dead wrong for all sorts of biblical, theological, and constitutional reasons—indeed, we can use as much of this kind of rational argumentation as we can possibly get—but do not dishonor them by speculating that their decisions were attributable to such unworthy factors. Indeed, if this is the way the centralized leadership stands ready to characterize this particular decision, one wonders how any dissenting decision can escape a similar gloss.

In light of these things, I would ask whether this commentary regarding the decision process is something that we, as individual commissioners and as the General Assembly, wish to put our permanent stamp of approval on. If not, I would submit that the AC amend its report in order to construct some closer approximation of reality, or else be given some assistance in this regard when the vote is taken.
______________
William M. Schweitzer, PhD is a Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America and is a Church Planting Minister in Gateshead, England