Presbyterian beliefs could help ‘civilize’ government

by Jeff Paschal, Greensboro Presbyterian Pastor, Greensboro News-Record, December 1, 2013.

You can blame the Presbyterians. Well, they deserve part of the blame, and part of the credit.

The American Revolution was sometimes referred to as “the Presbyterian Rebellion,” because the British government believed Presbyterians and Congregationalists, with their anti-monarchical streak, were leading it. We weren’t alone: The Declaration of Independence was signed by folks whose scores on a theological orthodoxy test would vary wildly. But the only active clergyman to sign was Presbyterian John Witherspoon. Presbyterians have been troublemakers for a long time.

Where did we get our sense that government should be a representative democracy rather than a monarchy or dictatorship? From the Bible. As we read the Bible, we noticed that rather than placing too much authority in a single, fallible person, the early church elected persons with wisdom and deep faith — elders (Greek: presbyteros) — to govern the church. This notion influenced not only the American Revolution, but the U.S. Constitution, which designed a government (like the Presbyterian Church) as a representative democracy.

As you know, our government is not working as well as it should these days. So, at the risk of being immodest and naпve (probably both), I wonder if Presbyterians, who surely have our own conflicts and problems, might nonetheless offer some constructive suggestions.

In Presbyterian understanding, any good and honest work may be considered a vocation or a calling. But in another sense, our forebear John Calvin (a brilliant but deeply flawed man) considered “the office of the magistrate,” or service as an elected official, to be the highest calling of all.

Why? Because elected officials have great power to do good and to do evil with a large number of people.

We are all rightfully frustrated, maybe even angry, with the failures of our elected representatives these days, especially with devastating gridlock and government shutdowns. But, instead of lumping all elected officials together or calling them names, what if we recovered the sense that these imperfect people are called to sacred work? If we viewed their work as seeking “the common good” (another biblical concept), rather than merely clawing for political power or forcing a particular ideology, would we not hold them to higher governing standards, and would we not at the same time be more likely to attract better candidates to accept this holy vocation?

In addition to using parliamentary procedure in meetings, when we’re functioning well, Presbyterians also expect our leaders and members to be especially careful during conflict. Thus, our denomination has developed the following “Guidelines for Presbyterians During Times of Disagreement”:

“1. Treat each other respectfully so as to build trust, believing that we all desire to be faithful to Jesus the Christ; we will keep our conversations and communications open for candid and forthright exchange, we will not ask questions or make statements in a way which will intimidate or judge others.

“2. Learn about various positions on the topic of disagreement.

“3. State what we think we heard and ask for clarification before responding, in an effort to be sure we understand each other.

“4. Share our concerns directly with individuals or groups with whom we have disagreements in a spirit of love and respect in keeping with Jesus’ teachings.

“5. Focus on ideas and suggestions instead of questioning people’s motives, intelligence or integrity; we will not engage in name-calling or labeling of others prior to, during, or following the discussion.

“6. Share our personal experiences about the subject of disagreement so that others may more fully understand our concerns.

“7. Indicate where we agree with those of other viewpoints as well as where we disagree.

“8. Seek to stay in community with each other though the discussion may be vigorous and full of tension; we will be ready to forgive and be forgiven.

“9. Follow these additional guidelines when we meet in decision-making bodies: Urge persons of various points of view to speak and promise to listen to these positions seriously; seek conclusions informed by our points of agreement; be sensitive to the feelings and concerns of those who do not agree with the majority and respect their rights of conscience; abide by the decision of the majority, and if we disagree with it and wish to change it, work for that change in ways which are consistent with these Guidelines.

“10. Include our disagreement in our prayers, not praying for the triumph of our viewpoints, but seeking God’s grace to listen attentively, to speak clearly, and to remain open to the vision God holds for us all.”

Could similar, but nonsectarian and more concise guidelines, be developed and used by elected leaders?

Other quick thoughts: Ruling elders in the Presbyterian Church (USA) may serve two consecutive three-year terms. Then they must rotate off the governing council for at least a year. Thus, the governing council always contains experienced elders, as well as newcomers, but elders do not become entrenched. What if we required members of Congress to serve no more than two consecutive terms before rotating off for at least a term?

Of course, the greatest danger to our political system is the out-of-control power of big money in politics. I pray that elected representatives who see their calling as a sacred vocation will be at work to minimize the corrosive influence of money in our political process.

Elected representatives working together for the common good of our country — wouldn’t that make our country’s founders proud? Better yet, wouldn’t it please the One who loves us all and calls us to build a better world?